Double Standard: In a Good Way!

Let me say at the outset that despite my various criticisms of Israeli policy and of US policy toward Israel, I think efforts by professional associations to organize boycotts of comparable Israeli professional associations or products are essentially wrongheaded and counterproductive. That said, I've been very uncomfortable with some of the Anti-Defamation League's advertising on this point, especially one ad that's run on this site and says "400,000 murdered in DARFUR and British journalists are boycotting ISRAEL?" Now I see via Brian Beutler that Thomas Friedman's on the same kick:

So to single out Israeli universities alone for a punitive boycott is rank anti-Semitism. Let’s see, Syria is being investigated by the United Nations for murdering Lebanon’s former prime minister, Rafik Hariri. Syrian agents are suspected of killing the finest freedom-loving Lebanese journalists, Gibran Tueni and Samir Kassir. But none of that moves the far left to call for a boycott of Syrian universities. Why? Sudan is engaged in genocide in Darfur. Why no boycott of Sudan? Why?

Brian points out that many of these countries already are sanctioned, but I see a much larger kind of problem here. One issue is that it's really sad to see American Jews' longstanding interest in human rights issues turned here into a crude tool to deflect away criticism from Israel. The American Jewish World Service Darfur campaign is about trying to help people in Darfur. ADL's interest in the atrocities there seems limited to the argument that as long as conditions in the Palestinian territories don't devolve to that level, then things must all be on the up-and-up.

More broadly, though, people complaining about double-standards seem to me to be straightforwardly misreading a kind of compliment as a sign of anti-semitism. To me it's reasonably clear that you get this sort of agitation about Israeli actions precisely because people believe the Israeli government and electorate may be amenable to efforts at moral and political suasion. That Ehud Olmert is no Bashar Asad or Kim Jong Il is precisely the point.

Comments

If you think American support of Israel is dependent on our ability to see us in them, then the double standards make even more sense. Does Friedman think Israel would prefer a relationship with the US that is guided by the same principles that guide our relationship with Syria and Sudan?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 18, 2007 9:14 AM

You have this one exactly right. An academic boycott is a bad idea. But there is nothing either arbitrary or discriminatory in singling out Israel in this case.

In a dictatorship like the ones that the ads are using as contrast, a boycott would be a favor to the dictators. It would help in setting up the us against the world dynamic which helps dictators while weakening, to the degree it weakens anyone, a power base adversarial to the dictator.

By contrast, Israelis place great stock in the fact that they are an advanced society. Democracy and top universities go hand in hand as part of its self-image. So a boycott of its universities, while it would still feed into the us vs them banding together, also attacks Israel where it does care. Although it does so in a week way that is likely to do more bad than good.

In general, the idea that sanctions shows a country we mean business is a kind of simple mindedness we see too much of. Sanctions have particular effects and whether they show we mean business depends on what those effects are. In a country like Cuba sanctions are simply a gift to the government. In a country with healthy power balances to the government, sanctions can be effective in turning targeted groups against the government. Although it is hard to see this working with a University boycott.

Posted by Lon | June 18, 2007 9:21 AM

1) I criticize billionaire patrons of the Israel Lobby and their whores in Congress, but I hold Israel herself largely blameless.

Even though I thought Ariel Sharon deserved to be kicked in the nuts on a few occasions, he was doing what he thought best for his country -- a country under much greater threat than the US. I can appreciate his patriotism -- I wish more of my own leaders possessed it.

If our politicians whore for wealthy supporters of the Israel's right wing, then the fault lies in we Americans who tolerate such disloyalty, not in Israel.

2) Ironically enought, while I complain about Israeli billionaire Haim Saban and S Daniel Abraham exerting a malign effect on US politics and news media via their wealth and donations,

my fellow progressives in Israel complain about AMERICAN billionaires Haim Saban and S Daniel Abrahma exerting a malign effect on ISRAELI politics and news media via their wealth and donations.

3) The Israeli news media has covered Saban's questionable donations to the campaign of Peres -- and have linked it to Saban's attempt to take control of an Isreali communications company.
Plus donations into Israeli politics by American S Daniel Abraham.

See, e.g.,http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3300107,00.html . An excerpt:
********
"Attorney General Menachem Mazuz announced Tuesday that he believed there was no room to launch a criminal investigation against Knesset Speaker Dalia Itzik, following a complaint filed by the Ometz association.

The Ometz non-profit organizations turned to Mazuz last week, claiming that according to findings it possessed Itzik received a donation of USD 120,000 from businessman Haim Saban while serving as head of Shimon Peres' election headquarters during the Labor Party primaries.

Saban is now one of the owners of the Bezeq communications company.

The association also claimed that after the primary elections, in which Peres was defeated by Amir Peretz, while Itzik served as communications minister, Saban acquired Bezeq's shares through his investment group.

Simultaneously, several months ago it was reported that the state comptroller was looking into a USD 320,000 donation received from

the billionaires Haim Saban, Daniel Abrams and Bruce Rappaport during the Labor Party primaries. "

Posted by Don Williams | June 18, 2007 9:23 AM

The American Jewish World Service Darfur campaign is about trying to help people in Darfur. ADL's interest in the atrocities there seems limited to the argument that as long as conditions in the Palestinian territories don't devolve to that level, then things must all be on the up-and-up.

Don't be a hack. ADL's Darfur page looks almost exactly the same as that AJWS page you linked to, and it took me about 5 seconds to find on the ADL site.

Now, I agree that the "why aren't you boycotting everyone else, you anti-Semites!" argument is a pretty weak one to be making on Israel's behalf. I'm no fan of that ADL ad. But to say that "ADL's interest in Darfur is only about deflecting criticism from Israel" is no less hackish than right-wingers criticizing HRW, Amnesty International, etc. for not caring about Iranian women, not criticizing Saddam, etc.

Posted by Haggai | June 18, 2007 9:28 AM

Freidman and the ADL seem to be engaging in an international version of Defining Deviency Down. If they think Israel's actions are morally justified, they should just say so.

The "Not as Bad as Darfur" argument is an embarrassing defense.

Posted by AJ | June 18, 2007 9:35 AM

We give the Israeli's billions of dollars a year, we have every right to hold them to a higher standard. That's not just AID, those are non-conditional grants of money with no strings attached. We don't do that for Darfur, or Palestine, or Egypt. We give them money, but we tell them what they can and can't spend it one. We obviously treat Israel as special, mostly because it's a nation of white europeans. That gives us every right to crack the whip harder on them. It's called leverage.

As for boycotts, that's any groups right. Saying that someone has no right to boycott is the same thing, exactly the same thing, as saying that they have no right to protest. If you think that, you're a scumbag and there's no way around it. Now, you might not want to admit to yourself that you're a scumbag, scumbags rarely do, but you are one none the less. Thousands of people died to carve that right our out from a monarchist world. Millions more died preventing that right from dying in WW2. nothing that's been done to any ethnic group ever, in the history of the planet, makes them immune from criticism. Nor should it be, when people believe themselves to be above reproach, that's when they do the worst things any of us are capable of.

Posted by soullite | June 18, 2007 9:49 AM

One issue is that it's really sad to see American Jews' longstanding interest in human rights issues turned here into a crude tool to deflect away criticism from Israel.

American Jews with a longstanding interest in human rights issues are not particularly amenable to many of the ADL's arguments that seek to absolve Israel from many of the same criticisms they have of other regimes. I think that people realize that the ADL is an interest group, and the fervency with which its leadership approaches its particular agenda has been well documented across a range of media. The grains of salt, so to speak, have been duly positioned.

All that said, I remember being in Seattle last summer (I was volunteering at Hillel during the time of the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle shootings). The ADL immediately made its presence felt--by turns, assertive externally and commiserative internally. I think examples like that, coupled with the fundamental anxiety many Jews feel, goes a long way towards explaining why even though many Jews disagree with its positions, we are glad to have an organization like the ADL around.

Posted by VasyaDC | June 18, 2007 9:58 AM

soullite:

Nobody here has said that groups don't have a right to boycott, much less that Isreal (or anyone else) is immune from criticism. People here are saying that the proposed boycotts of Isreali professional organizations, universities, etc., are misguided.

There isn't any inconsistency in saying that groups have a right to boycott and criticize, while also saying that some boycotts are bad ideas and some criticisms off target.

Posted by Tim O'Keefe | June 18, 2007 10:02 AM

"...you get this sort of agitation about Israeli actions precisely because people believe the Israeli government and electorate may be amenable to efforts at moral and political suasion."

It's a comforting thought.
But do you have any evidence which supports such an assertion?
That is not the tone I hear from the anti-Israel left. Quite the contrary.

Posted by dms | June 18, 2007 10:05 AM

Sorry, Matt, but I'm going to have to side with Friedman on this one...

Although you're probably right, and British academics probably do think Israel is more open to moral suasion than a dictatorship would be, the academics must realize that their boycott has precisely zero chance of changing Israel's Palestine policies. Therefore, the boycott must be aimed at third parties.

As I see it, the basic purpose of the boycott is to say "See, Arabs? We don't like Israel either! Please don't attack us!" The idea is to distance Britain from Bush's foreign policy and avoid more attacks like the London bus bombings - not to actually change Israeli policy.

Posted by Mr. Noah | June 18, 2007 10:10 AM

Matt,

You're missing the point, as is the moron Friedman, but that's expected from him, of course.

The difference between Sudan, Syria, North Korea on the one hand and Israel on the other is that, let's be honest, the regimes, economies and institutions of the first three countries are really not reliant or dependent in any meaningful ways on cooperation with their international (mainly western counterparts).

What on earth would it mean for Sudanese universities to be boycott by their British counterparts? Nothing. It doesn't matter to them, since there is hardly any little cooperation.

Israel, on the other hand, benefits from these cooperations enormously, and yet at the same time gets away with egrigious abuses of human rights against Palestinians. British professors can not influence Sudan by not giving lectures in Khartoum Tech, but they can certainly influence Israel a lot if they told their Israeli counterparts that they would not deal with them unless they stopped supporting the occupation.

Which brings me to the other key point: Israeli universities are themselves entirely complicit and active participants in the human rights abuses in Palestine. They provide the technical know-how for the army that allows it to do all the despicable things it does, and they try out their weapons and technology against the Palestinian population before selling it on the global market. Besides, some universities even have campuses on illegal settlements.

All of this could be influenced immensely if British, American, and other professors said: we're not dealing with you until you establish an acceptable moral standard for your operations.

The same was done with South Africa, and it worked wonders, because, again, South Africa's regime and institutions were heavily dependent on interaction with the west. I wonder where Friedman and the ADL were when there were sanctions on South African universities? Why didn't they give us the "why single out Israel?" bullsh!t then?

Posted by saifedean | June 18, 2007 10:16 AM

In the last line I meant to say:

the "why single out South Africa?" bullsh!t then?

Posted by saifedean | June 18, 2007 10:18 AM

I think it's logical, maybe even necessary, to assume that an electorate bears some responsibility for the actions of those it puts into power (though the extend of the responsibility is very difficult to pin down). Nonetheless, this doesn't, and shouldn't, extend to non-political institutions, organizations, and behavior. One train I could never get aboard is the one that assigns collective blame--whether on Israeli professors for the IDF's actions, on Palestinian children for Hamas bombings, or simply on Starbucks consumers for not buying fair trade coffee.

Posted by VasyaDC | June 18, 2007 10:31 AM

Re saifedean's "The same was done with South Africa, and it worked wonders, because, again, South Africa's regime and institutions were heavily dependent on interaction with the west. I wonder where Friedman and the ADL were when there were sanctions on South African universities? Why didn't they give us the "why single out South Africa?" bullsh!t then?
----------
Er.. Israel worked covertly with the apartheid regime of South Africa on weapons development.
The South African regime was able to develop several atomic bombs.

See http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/safrica/autopsy.html

"South African officials say they never conducted a full-fledged nuclear test. But Soviet satellites detected preparations for a test site in the Kalahari Desert in 1977. Washington and Moscow pressured Pretoria to shut it down.

In September 1979, however, an American satellite detected a distinctive double flash off the southern coast of Africa. The satellite data offered strong evidence that the flash had been caused by a low-yield nuclear explosion.

In June 1980, the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) reported to the National Security Council that the >>>>>>>
2-3 kiloton nuclear test had probably involved Israel and South Africa.

U.S. intelligence had tracked frequent visits to South Africa by Israeli nuclear scientists, technicians and defense officials in the years preceding the incident and concluded that "clandestine arrangements between South Africa and Israel for joint nuclear testing operations might have been negotiable."

Such speculation was fueled in 1986 when Israeli nuclear technician Mordechai Vanunu was interviewed by the London Sunday Times. Vanunu said that it was common knowledge at Dimona that South African metallurgists, technicians, and scientists were there on exchange programs.

...
Israel and South Africa have a long record of military cooperation, though neither admits to working together on nuclear weapons or long-range missiles. But strong evidence of missile cooperation surfaced in 1989, when a powerful rocket took off from South Africa's Overberg Test Range and flew nearly 1,500 kilometers. It turned out to be a South African version of Israel's Jericho-II missile. U.S. officials confirmed later that the CIA had evidence of a full-scale partnership between the Israel and South Africa to develop, test and produce long-range missiles and rockets. A U.S. official who tracks missile proliferation tells the Risk Report that South Africa's space launcher, the RSA-4, was built around the same engines that power Israel's Jericho-II missile and its "Shavit" space launcher. In 1990, Washington penalized Armscor for its missile activities by banning trade for two years, but President Bush declined to punish Israel. "

Posted by Don Williams | June 18, 2007 10:33 AM

Anyone who defends Ariel Sharon is a apologeticist for a monster. Seriously, do you even know what he did in Lebanon? I guess rape and murder are okay in your book, as long as it's done for what someone believes to be "the best for his country.".

He didn't deserve a kick in the nuts, he deserved to gutted and left out to die slowly as rats at at his entrails.

And yes, in a democracy the public bears responsibility for the actions of it's leaders. They are not innocent in this any more than we're innocent in Iraq.

Posted by soullite | June 18, 2007 10:35 AM

Tim I didn't accuse anyone here of saying that. Why are you being so defensive? I said that anyone who says it is as I described.

And no, no targets are beyond criticism. If you think that's true then you are indeed saying there is no right to protest. If you decide that any group should be exempt from protest you are not advocating a right to protest, you're advocating a privilege to protest people whom you think it's okay to protest. You can say "I don't want to protest such and such" you can not say "Such and such is beyond the limits of protest". Not if you want to say that you believe that right.

Posted by soullite | June 18, 2007 10:38 AM

Ah, come on, soulite. Don't be coy --let us know what you really think.

Posted by Don Williams | June 18, 2007 10:41 AM

don, okay, you're probably not an apologeticist. I'm not sure what you were getting at, but I'm going to assume you don't know the depth's of Sharon's crimes, particularly those he committed as a general. I'd suggest you look into what he and his lebonese christian allies did though, before you start showing him sympathy.

Posted by soullite | June 18, 2007 10:43 AM

also Tom, you're lying. It is illegal for US firms to boycott Israel. So stop lying and claiming nobody says you can't boycott Israel. People like you decided that it was so important to prevent such things from happening that you destroyed the right to protest over it.

http://www.bis.doc.gov/news/2002/umustcomply11_4_02.htm

A government website that indicates that i'm not lying, because whenever I state this to people like you to immediately pretend that I'm making shit up. It is certainly illegal and the fact that it is is a disgusting violation of the innate rights of Americans. Perhaps you should care more about the deterioration of such rights here than what some british people are doing in their own fucking country.

Posted by soullite | June 18, 2007 10:50 AM

1)Actually, I was thinking of Sharon in the period from 2000 on. When he had mellowed and satisfied himself with using US-supplied F16s to bomb Gaza apartment buildings in the middle of the night --an act which killed several children.

2) Sharon excused the bombing by saying he thought the apartment building was empty except for a Hamas leader in hiding.

3) A lie that was truly sublime -- in its confidence that the American people and press would be too stupid to realize that Gaza is among the most densely populated places on earth.

Posted by Don Williams | June 18, 2007 11:04 AM

Matt:

When Tom Friedman was a whippersnapper like yourself, he was more critical of Israel. His harsh criticism (particularly of the war in Lebanon in the early '80's), earned him bona fides that facilitated his reporting around the region. Do you suppose there is a trend for American Jewish pundits to become more favorable to Israel as they get older?

Soullite:

"We obviously treat Israel as special, mostly because it's a nation of white europeans."

Descendants of European immigrants are a minority in Israel.

Also, there is no such word in English as "apologeticist". You may have meant to write "apologist".

Posted by Fred | June 18, 2007 11:07 AM

The idea is to distance Britain from Bush's foreign policy and avoid more attacks like the London bus bombings

Oh sweet jeebus. It's just possible that they're given to pointless displays of morality. What's the goal of the law schools' ban on military recruiters? A hope that the Scary Ay-rabs won't attack them, either? Because it doesn't seem to have changed the military's position on gay soldiers.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 18, 2007 11:38 AM

SomeCallMeTim:

"What's the goal of the law schools' ban on military recruiters? A hope that the Scary Ay-rabs won't attack them, either? Because it doesn't seem to have changed the military's position on gay soldiers."

This is an awful analogy for at least two reasons. First, no one in American academia is worried that they risk death from the U.S. military by blocking military recruiters; on the other hand, British academics (and other British civilians) face a plausible (if statistically small) possibility of being targeted by Islamist terrorists. This possibility increases for British academics who do research work in Islamic countries.

Second, "the military's position" on gay soldiers is determined by our federal government, not by the military. The current policy was enacted by President Clinton. I suppose university faculties here could affect a principled opposition to this and eschew all federal grants until this policy changed, but that doesn't seem likely.

Posted by Fred | June 18, 2007 11:59 AM

I wonder where Friedman and the ADL were when there were sanctions on South African universities? Why didn't they give us the "why single out Israel?" bullsh!t then?

Spying on South African activists, going through Nancy Pelosi's garbage and distributing anti-semitic propaganda at anti-apartheid events. Apartheid South Africa was an ally of Israel and needed defense. That should give you an idea what the priorities of the ADL are and have been for a long time, it's a disgraceful degeneration of what was once a great institution.

Posted by Ed Marshall | June 18, 2007 12:06 PM

So boycotting Israel is now getting the "drunk-under-the-lamppost" justification? Ha, ha, good one, Matt!

Posted by Giles | June 18, 2007 12:37 PM

Thanks Ed for that,

I had always known, of course, that Israel was best buddies with apartheid, but I never knew just how much the trash that makes up Israel supporters in America have worked against apartheid, which is what you mention.

Could you provide me with some sources where I can find out more about this?

Thanks

P.S. You might want to check out Chris McGreal's devastating 2-piece account of South Africa's relationship with Israel on The Guardian's website. I don't think I can link to it here, but if you search for "Chris McGreal", "South Africa", Israel and "Brothers in Arms" it will turn up.

Posted by saifedean | June 18, 2007 12:39 PM

The US doesn't give billions of dollars in foreign and military aid, and inumerable other methods of support, to Syria (or North Korea or Cuba or any other of the usual comparisons.) Without the United States, Israel would not be able to exist in it's present circumstances. That creates a responsibility for the United States that doesn't exist towards those other places.

Posted by Freddie | June 18, 2007 12:42 PM

http://www.counterpunch.org/adlspying2.html

Posted by Ed Marshall | June 18, 2007 12:45 PM

MY's case transferred to the NBA--Kobe is better than almost all other players and, thus, the refs should call more fouls on him.

Posted by mal | June 18, 2007 12:48 PM

Israel is not dependent on the US. No matter how often the claim is shot down, its "truthiness" seems to keep it alive..

Here's Jonathan Edelstein's recent debunking:

Israel’s total PPP-adjusted GDP is about USD 160 to 180 billion, with a growth rate of 4.8 percent in 2006 and expected growth of about 4 percent in 2007. American aid in 2006 totaled $2.5 billion. In other words, not only does American money account for less than 2 percent of the Israeli economy, but if discontinued tomorrow, it would be absorbed into current-year growth. Israel is no more economically dependent than any other country that receives American military aid, and probably less so than most.

http://crookedtimber.org/2007/06/05/academic-boycott-of-israel-redux/#comment-199104

Not to mention that...

About 75 percent of American aid to Israel is earmarked to be spent in the United States, and the goods to be purchased – military hardware – tend to sit around until used rather than providing economic benefit to Israel.

http://crookedtimber.org/2007/06/05/academic-boycott-of-israel-redux/#comment-199125

Posted by Giles | June 18, 2007 1:12 PM

Giles,

That's pretty nonsense you have there.

First of all, Israel has been recieving aid for decades, without it, it wouldn't be where it is today, on a pure economic basis.

Second, and most importantly, this aid comes along with loan guarantees, low-interest rates, and incredibly favourable conditions that help Israel in numerous ways and give it an enormous advantage over everyone in the world.

Third, the military aid can not be measured by its pure monetary value. America gives Israel the best weapons around, without which Israel's vaunted military superiority would not be so pronounced, and that is priceless.

Fourth, and perhaps more importantly, the diplomatic and internatinoal support that the US gives to America is even more priceless. Without it, Israel would've been subjected to international sanctions and boycotts and had to comply with Security Council resolutions for decades. This would've forced Israel to behave like a non-criminal country. Thanks to the carte blanche of support it gets from the US, it can gnore all of this, do all it wants and get no punishment whatsoever.

Posted by saifedean | June 18, 2007 1:20 PM

Sorry, Saifedean, but the nonsense is mostly yours. Israel gets arms from Europe and the US but way less than what e.g. Saudi Arabia does. And the bulk of Israel's arms are, in fact, home manufactured. Israel's arms industry is probably more self-sufficient than all but a very few countries in the world (indeed it is one of the world's premier arms exporters -- $4.2 billion in 2006).

As for political and financial support, how many Arab and/or Muslim regimes would collapse without US aid?

Posted by Giles | June 18, 2007 1:47 PM

Re "Israel's arms industry is probably more self-sufficient than all but a very few countries in the world"
---------
Horseshit. Israel's Air Force is largely made up of aircraft given to her by the USA. Huge numbers of advanced F16s, for example.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Air_Force#Fixed-Wing_Aircraft , --scroll down to CURRENT AIRCRAFT INVENTORY

We stop giving Israel spare parts,etc --that fleet becomes a static display.

So when Israel bombs Gaza apartment buildings in the middle of the night --and kills children -- the Islamic world knows who to blame. As I've noted before, Bin LAden cited USA sales of advanced weapons to Israel --and Israel's use of those weapons to kill Palestinians -- as justification for the Sept 11 attack.

Something the New York Times refused to explain to American citizens in the months after Sept 11.

Posted by Don Williams | June 18, 2007 2:02 PM

Let's see the current status of the fighter jets that Israel has built:
a) Kfir: "During the second half of the 1990s, the Kfirs were finally relieved from active duty in the IAF, after almost twenty years of continuous service....

Since the J79 turbojet engine as well as much of the technology inside the Kfir are produced in Israel under U.S. license, all export sales of the Kfir are subject to prior approval from the U.S. State Department, a fact that has limited the sale of the Kfir to foreign nations.

As of 2006, the IAI Kfir has been exported to Colombia, Ecuador, and Sri Lanka."

b) Neshers -- mostly built by the French, terminated 1978

c) Lavi: "a combat aircraft developed in Israel in the 1980s. It was a multi-billion dollar fighter aircraft project that was disbanded when the U.S. Government put pressure on the Israeli government to cancel a fighter that would compete with American exports. Only two of the Lavi prototypes remain — one is on display at the Israeli Air Force (IAF) museum and the other (the Lavi TD, technology demonstrator) can still be found at the IAI facilities at the Ben Gurion airport."

----------
ha ha ha ha. "All your planes belong to us"

Posted by Don Williams | June 18, 2007 2:12 PM

Ok, Don, why don't you compile a handy list of "Bin Laden's Complaints Against Jews and Crusaders" that we can all pin up in our kitchens next to the "Home Sweet Home" sign?

Posted by Giles | June 18, 2007 2:13 PM

If Bin Laden is hiding in a building full of civilians, B-52s will be launched to flatten the entire neighborhood.

Posted by David | June 18, 2007 2:19 PM

How about a list of complaints the Israelis have against the Likud? From http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,975538,00.html

"It is question rarely asked by Israel's Jews, and almost never in public. But yesterday one member of the Israeli parliament, Roman Bronfman, cautiously wondered if the prime minister, Ariel Sharon, did not have Jewish blood on his hands.
In carefully couched terms, he raised the question after the militant Islamic movement Hamas responded with its favourite weapon - the suicide bombing of civilians - to Israel's botched attempt to kill its political leader.

"It is necessary to examine government policy which may not have been helpful in progressing the "road map" and seems to have taken us back to death, pain and sorrow," Mr Bronfman said
In the 24 hours between the failed assassination bid on Abdel-Aziz al-Rantissi and the killing of 16 people on a bus in central Jerusalem, there was fevered speculation about the timing of Mr Sharon's order to kill Dr Rantissi.

There was uncommon agreement ranging from the Israeli far right to the Palestinian leadership that the assassination bid was bound up with the politics of Mr Sharon's reluctant embrace of the US-led road map to peace. There was also a consensus that Israel would pay in blood.
....

The assassination attempt also brought stinging criticism from generally less hostile quarters. A group of 25 retired generals, who had planned to publish a newspaper advertisement today in support of Mr Sharon's commitment to the creation of a viable Palestinian state at last week's summit with President George Bush, cancelled the notice after the failed assassination. "

Posted by Don Williams | June 18, 2007 2:21 PM

From http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,329867,00.html
"For Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, the most important fact was that Israel's midnight air in Gaza killed an alleged terror mastermind — the resultant civilian casualties were a regrettable side issue. For the Palestinians, throughout the Arab world and even in the West the focus was on the thirteen bystanders killed (nine of them children) and 140 wounded in the strike. Those divergent responses suggest that despite U.S. and allied efforts to forge a new path toward peace, a new upsurge of violence may be inevitable."
---------
From the Likud's viewpoint, sabotaging the peace process is not a bug, it's a desirable feature.

See also http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/07/23/mideast/index.html

The question for real Americans is: "How are such acts in the AMERICAN national interest?"

Posted by Don Williams | June 18, 2007 2:28 PM

The question for real Americans is...

Thanks for warning us, Don. We'll keep a sharp eye out for the imposters. Maybe you ought to warn the children.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/images/Holocaust/prop7a.jpg

Posted by Giles | June 18, 2007 2:43 PM

Y'know what? Perhaps its wrong-headed, but I think it's acceptable to focus your zeal on Israel's faults, while ignoring the atrocities of Darfur. Israel is more amenable to change, and the ole carrot/stick paradigm is more likely to affect change in a more pragmatic society.

Posted by EpicureanQuaker | June 18, 2007 2:47 PM

"To me it's reasonably clear that you get this sort of agitation about Israeli actions precisely because people believe the Israeli government and electorate may be amenable to efforts at moral and political suasion."

I can only speak with surety for myself, of course, but I think I'm not alone as a supporter of boycott, divestment, and sanctions against Israel in disagreeing with this. The reason I "single out" Israel - to some degree - is that the US provides billions in aid to Israel every year. The people who Israel kills with that money are my responsibility, as a US citizen, in a way that the victims of some more murderous regimes elsewhere are not.

Posted by Kalkin | June 18, 2007 3:04 PM

Actually, according to the Jewish Chronicle, the majority of people promoting the academic boycott of Israel are Jewish and/or Israeli.

See here

The main reason that the boycott policy should be scrapped is that it won't work and is likely to actually damage those it is intended to help - ie the Palestinians. The screwed up Palestinian economy is nonetheless largely held up by Israeli purchasing. Unless more people are prepared to go the extra mile to buy Palestinian products for themselves, boycotting Israel is very likely to be to boycott Palestinian.

Posted by joe | June 18, 2007 3:21 PM

I swear before all ten of you I will never, under any circumstance, take courses from a Sudanese or Syrian university. So don't even bother agitating for a boycott.

Posted by Jalmari | June 18, 2007 3:31 PM

Sudan is engaged in genocide in Darfur. Why no boycott of Sudan? Why?

For one thing, our contact with Sudan is so limited that a boycott would be meaningless.

For another, unlike Israel, Sudan is not the recipient of billions in foreign aid.

Posted by Duncan Kinder | June 18, 2007 4:25 PM

I swear before all ten of you I will never, under any circumstance, take courses from a Sudanese or Syrian university.

I thought about buying some Syrian beer after the Syrian Accountability Act passed just as an exercise in showing how ridiculous it was, but never got around to it.

Posted by Ed Marshall | June 18, 2007 4:33 PM

"How are such acts in the AMERICAN national interest?"

The simple answer is that they're not. They're also not in the Israeli national interest. I don't think that answer satisfies the considerations that motivated the asking of the question in the first place though. It's a more complicated issue than simply withdrawing support for Israel when they carry out policies we disagree with--I think a similar argument holds for critics of the US--and, if the goal is doing everything we possibly can to prevent similar tragedies in the future, how exactly would cutting off aid help? That strikes me as not a solution but a way to absolve ourselves of guilt because, hey, at least we're not the ones providing the weapons.

Posted by VasyaDC | June 18, 2007 5:55 PM

"To me it's reasonably clear that you get this sort of agitation about Israeli actions precisely because people believe the Israeli government and electorate may be amenable to efforts at moral and political suasion."

You are assuming that the boycotters are acting in good faith. You shouldn't assume this. After all, if they were acting in good faith they would be demonstrating an astonishing degree of naivete. The Israelis booted the British out of Palestine almost 60 years ago. The British wanted the Arabs to defeat the Jews then, and they want the Arabs to defeat the Jews now. That at any rate is how most Israelis will see this, and any Briton who doesn't understand it is displaying the sort of arrogance that comes only from ignorance.

But if you view the boycott as being undertaken in bad faith, then it makes sense. The target of the boycott is not the Israeli government and electorate. It is the British government and electorate. The point is to de-legitimize Israel in the eyes of British voters and office-holders. The sponsors of the boycott are not trying to foster a peaceful two-state solution. They support the replacement of Israel by a single state. Although they may tell you that they support the peaceful creation of a bi-national democratic and secular state of Palestine, that's like saying they hope someday to import green cheese from the moon. As the only way to get from the current situation to a single state (which cannot be either secular or democratic) is protracted war, the boycotters are preparing for war and trying to assure that Britain will either be neutral or will support the Palestinians in that war.

Posted by Bloix | June 18, 2007 6:05 PM

don and vasya and kalkin:

Actually, there is no reason what so ever
you can't personally start boycotting Israeli
firms immediately.

A very small, paritial list of companies to
avoid follows:

Intel
Microsoft
Motorola
Nokia
Container Store
Design Within Reach
Radio Shack
Victoria's Secret
Walgreens
CVS

They all either buy products directly from
Israeli companies; or have design centers
in Israel; or share interlocking technological
patents with Israeli based companies.

You also had best think twice about using
PHP/Zend as it is an Israeli based technology.
It might be difficult to boycott web sites
using that technology but no doubt they are
only pro-Zionist ones you don't visit anyway.

Gosh, you can't even buy a new Macintosh as
they have Intel processors. Oh yeah, they
used Motorola chips before that so even old
ones are verbotten.

Be careful which Linux magazines you buy.
Most of them have Israeli-based columnists
and you wouldn't want to dirty your hands
reading technical advice from baby killers
or rapists.

I think you will have a problem, though,
trying to determine which companies use
ZIM shipping lines. A large number of
European, American and Asian firms do so.

Usually that sort of information is
closely held. But I'm sure you could write
to the Public Relations offices of, say,
the Fortune 1000. Ask them if they
use Israeli products or services because
you wish to boycott them if they do.

I'm sure they will recoil in horror from
their support of a racist, oppressive regime
and immediately decide not to buy any
more materials or technology from Israel.

Nor sell anything to them either. Well,
maybe not, a shekel is a shekel after all.

So. then, I'm wondering if you will also
boycott Caterpiller Tractor? They really
don't BUY much from Israel.

But their large tractors are used by the
IDF to demolish both Palestinian homes and
American ISM members.

You are, no doubt, aware that after the
USA the country with most companies listed
on NASDAQ is Israel. That would be a good
place for you guys to start.

Let us all know if you have any free time
after determining what companies to boycott
and how to make sure you don't accidently
buy any goods that might inadvertently
help to economically support the "Zionist
Entity".

Good luck!

But, honoestly, it is much easier for a
card carrying Zionist (ZOA) like me
to boycott Palestinian goods as I'm not
in the market for funny headgear or
suicide vests.

Posted by LordActon | June 19, 2007 12:50 AM

British ethics philosopher Eve Garrard asks:

Can we make special demands on another country just because it's a democracy?

Her well-argued answer might be of interest to fair-minded and intelligent interlocutors (which may rule out most of the usual suspects above, I'm afraid)...

http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2007/06/the_uses_of_dem.html

Posted by Giles | June 19, 2007 10:27 AM

What's so blackly funny here is that, contrary all the hackneyed blather about 'anti-semitism' and 'picking on Israel', in the real world no one has actually voted to boycott any Israeli universities.

All that's happened is that a British academic's union has voted to have a full and open debate on whether or not they SHOULD boycott some or all Israeli universities in protest at their role in supporting the Occupation.

In other words, all we're seeing here is pre-emptive hyperbole, designed to smear a bunch of academics as Jew-hating terrorist-lovers and scare them into keeping their mouths shut. But would you get that from the reportage in the Media? Nah.

Which is why the debate should go ahead, and, if they really believe what their saying, then the people who make a living by claiming that any questioning of Israel's actions is tantamount to wanting to commit genocide against Jews can get up on that stage and make their argument in front of some of Britain's top academics.

In fact, you'd think they'd welcome the opportunity to make the case against boycotting Israel in such a setting, with a voting audience trained to filter out the BS and make their critiques based on evidence.

If they really believed what they were saying, of course. Which they don't.

Posted by Tony J | June 19, 2007 1:02 PM

Tony J,

Ha, ha, some "debate"! Sorry, that's like inviting legitimate historians to a "conference" on Holocaust denial in Tehran.

Or, as Prof. Lappin puts it -- a bit more diplomatically -- in his resignation letter to the UCU:

Many thanks for your note, which I very much appreciate. In fact, the "debate" which you describe will be a UCU sponsored PACBI campaign throughout local branches to encourage backing for PACBI's boycott call. No comparable campaign by opponents of the boycott will be organized to provide any balance. This is, at best, a farcical notion of an open discussion, and I have no intention of contributing membership dues to support it. There have now been four boycott motions brought before the UCU and its predecessors, the AUT and NATFHE, in the past four years. Each time such a motion is defeated, overturned, or effectively cancelled by union policy, the boycott lobby re-introduces a variant of the proposal the following year. The result is an annual boycott pogrom that distracts attention from the pressing concerns of people working in the British university system...

http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2007/06/why_ive_resigne.html

Posted by Giles | June 19, 2007 1:14 PM