The Academic Boycott of Israel: A Policy of the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies
TRANSCEND MEMBERS, 20 Oct 2014
Satoshi Ashikaga – TRANSCEND Media Service
Thinking about a Better Conflict Resolution for the Palestine/Israel Conflict in relation to the Centre of Peace and Conflict Studies of the University of Sydney.
This piece is a supplement to my article, “On the ‘Academic Boycott of Israel’ Claimed by University of Sydney’s Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies”, appeared on the TMS website week of 13 Oct.- 19 Oct.2014. At the same time, this piece intends to be a response in the brief manner to Prof. Lynch’s comments response to my article mentioned above, especially in PART ONE below. For Prof. Lynch’s response, see https://www.transcend.org/tms/2014/10/on-the-academic-boycott-of-israel-claimed-by-university-of-sydneys-centre-for-peace-and-conflict-studies/#comments .
Despite some possible differences, if any, in views of Prof. Lynch and those of mine, I believe that both he and I share the same goal: a peaceful conflict resolution of the Palestine/Israel conflict – a situation in which both Palestinians and Israelis will become friendly neighbors sharing peace and prosperity, even though the achievement of this vision seems to be an almost impossible and far distant dream. If Martin Luther King Jr. was in Palestine, he could have said as he made his famous speech in the United States, “I have a dream that one day…..”
PART ONE:
Regarding Prof. Lynch’s reply to my inquiry, he says in its first sentence, “There is no boycott at the Centre, nor is there any call for one….” (For the convenience of the discussion here, the paragraph that contains the above sentence, “There is no boycott ….” is considered as the first paragraph in his response. Therefore, the next paragraph is considered as the second paragraph and so on.)
Now, let us examine the paragraphs after the statement, “There is no boycott ….”, as follows:
- He explains how the boycott policy is carefully focused, by telling, “CPACS’ boycott policy is carefully focused on two funded Fellowship schemes…..” (The second paragraph)
- He explains why Israel is the target of the boycott policy, by telling the reason why: “Israel is singled out for boycott because of its unparalleled record of militarism and lawlessness.” (The fourth paragraph)
- He explains the aim of the boycott, by telling, “The strategic aim of the boycott is to enable meaningful negotiations on a lasting peace, not to replace them.” (The fifth paragraph)
- He concludes his argument/explanation about the academic boycott, by telling, “The academic boycott is part of that.” (The ninth paragraph = the final paragraph)
All his arguments and explanations, as mentioned above, indicate that the academic boycott actually exists at his Centre (CPACS). If the boycott does not exist, how is it possible for the boycott (that does not exist) to focus on something? If the boycott does not exist, how is it possible to tell the reason why Israel is the target of the boycott? If the boycott does not exist, how is it possible to tell the strategic aim of the boycott? If the boycott does not exist, how is it possible to tell like this: “The academic boycott is part of it”?
Nevertheless, Prof. Lynch states, “There is no boycott at the Centre, nor is there any call for one….” His statement as such shows that his statement is one of the following three: (1) a contradiction of his argument, (2) a rhetorical technique, or (3) something else. In any case, his statement, “There is no boycott at the Centre, nor is there any call for one….”, and the rest of his arguments/explanations are incompatible.
PART TWO:
A boycott[1] can be understood as a community level or an individual level of sanctions.
Sanctions may be necessary to be imposed upon the Israeli government because of their decades-long, cruel, unfair, aggressive policy against Palestine.
However, sanctions should be carefully planned and carefully implemented, as Prof. Lynch states, “CPACS’ boycott policy is carefully focused on ……”[2]
In sanctions, the humanitarian sector and the education sector are apt to be excluded. In military attacks, hospitals and civilian residential areas are excluded.
It can be understood that the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies is included in the education sector.
Compare:
- The military attacks aiming at hospitals and civilian school areas (and other education facilities).
- The sanctions aiming at the humanitarian sector and the education sector.
PART THREE:
One of the essential functions of the hospital is to transform the people of poor/ill-health (= patients) into the people of good health. Therefore, the people of poor/ill-health (= the patients) are admitted to the hospital.
One of the essential functions of the peace education institute is to transform the students of poor/ill-sense of peace into the students of healthy/good sense of peace. Therefore, the students of poor/ill-sense of peace are admitted to the peace education institute.
If Israeli students are of poor/ill health, they need to be admitted to a hospital. If they are of poor/ill-sense of peace, they need to be admitted to a peace education institute.
Compare:
- A hospital that refuses the admittance of the people of poor/ill-health (=patients).
- A peace education institute that refuses the admittance of the students of poor/ill-sense of peace.
PART FOUR:
The value of the hospital may be measured by its capability to help the patients of serious diseases/health problems to regain heath.
The value of the peace education institute may be measured by its capability to help the students of seriously poor/ill-sense of peace to gain the healthy/good sense of peace.
PART FIVE:
- If the Centre boycotts Israeli students, what possible “positive” outcome, if any, will be expected from that boycott?
- If the Centre accepts Israeli students, what possible “positive” outcome, if any, will be expected from that acceptance?
PART SIX:
If the Centre’s boycott of Israeli students in relation to the Palestine/Israel conflict is legitimate, it may also be possible to legitimize the boycott of American students in relation to the US government’s support of the Israeli government for decades; this boycott might be called, “the academic boycott of the United States”, for instance.
- It may also be possible to legitimize the boycott of Syrian students in relation to the Syrian conflict; this boycott might be called, “the academic boycott of Syria”.
- It may also be possible to legitimize the boycott of Russian students in relation to the Ukraine conflict; this boycott might be called, “the academic boycott of Russia”.
- It may also be possible to legitimize the boycott of Myanmar students in relation to the Rohingyan genocide and discrimination; this boycott might be called, “the academic boycott of Myanmar”.
- It may also be possible to legitimize the boycott of Futu students from Rwanda in relation to the Rwandan genocide in 1994; this boycott might be called, “the academic boycott of Futu”. Note that only a handful of the perpetrators were arrested but others are still at large.
- It may also be possible to legitimize the boycott of Bosnian Serb students in relation to the Srebrenica and other genocide cases during the War in Bosnia; this boycott might be called, “the academic boycott of Bosnian Serbs”.
- It may also be possible to legitimize the boycott of Turkish students in relation to the Armenian genocide and to the fact that the Turkish government has still denied their involvement with the genocide; this boycott might be called, “the academic boycott of Turkey”.
And so on and so forth; it may be possible to practice what might be called, the formula of the academic boycott of X, as far as this type of academic boycott is legitimized, in accordance with the constantly changing contemporary international situations and/or with historical events that have still affected the contemporary international and/or domestic situations.
Accordingly, it is no wonder even if the above-mentioned so-called formula of the academic boycott of X might lead to the legitimization of the boycott of Australian students in relation to, for instance, the exploitation of the indigenous people in the Australian Continent and its neighboring islands, including some 500 groups of the Australian Aborigine, and various kinds of discriminations against and atrocities to these people, committed by the immigrants (mostly from Europe) to Australia; this boycott might be called, “the academic boycott of Australia”.
Even some might argue that if to practice the academic boycott of Israel is legitimate, not to practice the academic boycott of other countries (as mentioned above, for example) might constitute a double standard of the academic boycott. In fact, Prof. Lynch states, “The parallel with Israel is of becoming attached to the rewards of funding and support from the USA, which is, in effect, unconditional, whatever Israel’s violence against Palestinian civilians and regular seizures of Palestinian land.” (See the seventh paragraph in his response.) Then, why not practice the academic boycott of the United States as well? Why the academic boycott only of Israel? (This question was already mentioned in the beginning of this PART SIX.)
What if the United States, one of the strongest powers in the world, directly commits atrocities in Palestine and invaded there? The similar thing has happened to Tibet over the decades in relation to China. However, if China, also one of the strongest powers in the world today, used one of the neighboring countries to invade Tibet, the Tibetan situation could have been the same as that of Palestine today. Let us recall Prof. Lynch’s words here again: “The parallel with Israel is of becoming attached to the rewards of funding and support from the USA, which is, in effect, unconditional, whatever Israel’s violence against Palestinian civilians and regular seizures of Palestinian land.” Almost the same thing could have happened to Tibet then if China used one of the neighboring countries. If that was the case, would the Centre practice the academic boycott of the neighboring country that invaded Tibet?
Think the other way around as mentioned above: If the United States directly invaded Palestine as China has done to Tibet, would the Centre practice the academic boycott of the United States?
What is “justice” of the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies of the University of Sydney if that would be the case? Injustice and the atrocities stemmed from injustice are not only in Palestine, but also in many parts of the world. Justice is necessary not only in Palestine, but also in any parts of the world, as far as untold sorrows of injustice exist. What kind of “justice” does the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies teach to the students in relation to the academic boycott?
PART SEVEN:
Which, below, is more appropriate, as a policy of the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, in pursuit of an effective conflict resolution of the Palestine/Israel conflict in the long run?
Compare:
- We, at the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, oppose the Israeli government’s policy on Palestine. Therefore, we boycott Israeli students.
- We, at the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, oppose the Israeli government’s policy on Palestine. Therefore, we welcome students who oppose the Israeli government’s policy.
PART EIGHT:
There are many Israelis who opposed their government’s policy on Palestine. There are many Israelis who want to establish friendly relationships with Palestinians.[3] [4]
Every day is a new day; young generations of students, including young generations of Israeli students, are willing to join a new peacemaking in the Middle East. The Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies of the University of Sydney has the capability to provide these young generations of people with all the necessary academic equipment for their peacemaking. For these young generations, there is no reason to stick to the old days of hatred. Every day comes, and every day is a new day to start all over the peacemaking in the Middle East. New and young generations of students are here and now. They are knocking on the door of the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies.
“What kind of world do you want to live in? Demand that your teachers teach you what you need to know to build it.” – Peter Kropotkin
NOTES:
[1] The word “boycott” means to “withdraw from commercial or social relations with (someone) as a punishment or protest.” (Source: Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 12th edition, revised, Oxford, UK, 2011.) It can be understood that the boycott carried out by the Centre of Peace and Conflict Studies of the University of Sydney is not just the withdrawal. The essential nature of the Centre’s “boycott” may be considered as a kind of sanction or punishment to the Israeli students, that is, the denial of their opportunity to study peace and conflict studies at the Centre. Therefore, the word “boycott” in the case of the Centre’s academic “boycott” may be understood as “sanctions” by an individual or a certain organizational level (= the Center’s level).
[2] This phrase of Prof. Lynch’s, “CPACS’ boycott policy is carefully focused on …..”, also indicates that there exists the policy of the academic boycott of Israel at his Centre, which is contradicted to his earlier statement, “There is no boycott at the Centre, nor is there any call for one…..”
[3] At a certain master’s program of peace studies, a Palestinian student and an Israeli student studied together. They became good friends. At other education institute for the master’s course program, I met a lovely couple, a Serbian female student and a Kosovar Albanian male student. They shared completely different political opinions but they loved deeply. These were good examples that the education institutes did not block students from conflicting countries to study together. That a peace education offers an opportunity to students from various political, cultural or religious backgrounds to study together may promote world peace in the long run. It is said that the effect of such education will appear on the surface twenty or thirty years later.
The Bosnian Serb Army General, Ratko Maldić had a daughter, Ana. Allegedly, she had a fiancé, a Bosnian Muslim boy. Unfortunately, it was reported that Mladić did not allow his daughter to marry the Muslim boy. The couple suffered, and, then, Ana committed suicide. This was a tragic example that young people’s opportunity for the unification – love and mutual understanding between a Bosnian Serb and a Bosnian Muslim – was denied.
Few people seem to be aware that the Centre’s policy to block Israeli students might foster the seed of such potential tragedy. Who knows what will happen in the future? But the seed is already there. In this context, it may be imperative to recall as follows: (1) What is (are) the main objective(s) of peace education? (2) What is (are) the main role(s) of a peace education institute for that?
[4] What if those non-Israeli students who support the Israeli government and/or the United States’ political and military support to Israel are accepted by the Centre at the price of the Centre’s refusal of Israeli students who oppose to their government? Then, one of the possible outcomes may be that their strategy to the Centre might become like this: “Send the Centre more of the non-Israeli students who support the Israeli government and/or the United States’ political and military support to the Israeli government.”
************
My highest admiration for Prof. Jake Lynch remains firmly.
With peace and respect.
________________________________
Satoshi Ashikaga is a member of the TRANSCEND Network for Peace, Development and Environment, originally from Japan.
This article originally appeared on Transcend Media Service (TMS) on 20 Oct 2014.
Anticopyright: Editorials and articles originated on TMS may be freely reprinted, disseminated, translated and used as background material, provided an acknowledgement and link to the source, TMS: The Academic Boycott of Israel: A Policy of the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, is included. Thank you.
If you enjoyed this article, please donate to TMS to join the growing list of TMS Supporters.
This work is licensed under a CC BY-NC 4.0 License.
You have hold of completely the wrong end of the stick. You have either not read my response to your original article with sufficient care, or you have – in the quotes you use from it, for this article – deliberately removed from it the essential contextualising information, which is a disreputable practice.
To repeat, then, the opening paragraph of my response:
There is no boycott at the Centre, nor is there any call for one, of students or potential staff members from Israel, who wish to apply to join us. They would, in such cases, be acting as individuals, representing only themselves, and – as the original PACBI call, issued by Palestinian civil society, points out – would not therefore be targeted for boycott. We have welcomed Israeli students to our Masters program, and Israeli speakers to our public advocacy and outreach program, despite our boycott policy.
CPACS’ boycott policy is carefully focused on two funded Fellowship schemes that pay for staff at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and the Technion University of Haifa, respectively, to visit the University of Sydney (and Sydney staff to visit them).
The distinction I am making is, or should be, clear from this. The boycott is not aimed at individuals, representing themselves (such as applicants from Israel for jobs or places on academic courses) but at institutional links with Israeli Higher Education. The claim of a ‘contradiction’, which is the basis for this, your current article, is unfounded.
This distinction, between individual and institutional links, is extremely well-known in the context of the PACBI call, and is emphasised in many statements of boycott policy, from many sources. You would be well advised to inform yourself much more carefully about an issue before venturing into public debate in this way.
Jake Lynch
Three points as follows:
First:
You wrote, in your article, posted on the TMS week of 6 October 2014, “I am writing to ask you, who stood with us over our support for the Academic Boycott of Israel, to now write to the University of Sydney to help save the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies in its present form.” Then, in your reply to my inquiry last week (TMS: 13 Oct. 2014), you said, “There is no boycott at the Centre, ….” Then, you stated, “CPACS’ boycott policy is carefully focused on …..” You also said, “The boycott is not aimed at …..but at institutional links with Israeli High Education”. What do all of these mean by that actually?
So, let us reexamine what you wrote. Allow me to pick up some of them relating to the questions I asked you so far.
– You wrote, “This distinction, between individual and institutional links, is extremely well-known in the context of the PACBI call, and is emphasised in many statements of boycott policy, from many sources.”
However, it is highly likely that it is only a theory. That can hardly be distinguished between these differences in practice, especially when these officials intend to join the program of the Centre as the individual capacity. Any institution is composed by individuals whatever the official titles of these individual officers. What if these same officials apply for the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies as the individual capacity? Each applicant may claim that they are representing themselves, not their institution. What if Israeli Higher Education officers, paying their tuition from their own pocket money, apply for the Centre? Then, they will surely claim that they are representing themselves. The point is that the same person has different hats. That is, they can act in the official capacity, while they can also act in the individual capacity, according to their necessity and convenience. The same person, rejected through the institutional links of the Israeli Higher Education, will be able to apply for the Centre in the individual capacity. You are aware of that.
– As to the reason why of the boycott, you wrote, “Israel is singled out for boycott because of its unparalleled record of militarism and lawlessness.”
Israel has become as it is now but not only by itself. Israel has become as it is now, largely because of the United States. If Israel is a trailer, the United States is a locomotive, pushing the trailer from its rear. The question here: Why is the United States excluded from the Centre’s academic boycott?
– In addition, you wrote, “The strategic aim of the boycott is to enable meaningful negotiations on a lasting peace, not to replace them.”
If the boycott is carefully focused on the institutional links with Israeli Higher Education, and if the boycott will be carried out as such, will this boycott enable to bring about “meaningful negotiations on lasting peace”? Israel has already been boycotted in many ways by the international community. Nonetheless, this country, surviving all the boycotting, has continued its militaristic policy against Palestinians by taking their land. The question here: How is it possible to achieve the goal, “to enable meaningful negotiations on a lasting peace” (in the Palestine/Israel relation), by implementing the boycott of “the institutional links with Israeli Higher Education”? Even if someone from the two Fellowship schemes of Israel will not be able to visit the Centre, it is almost obvious that it does not affect anything about meaningful negotiations on lasting peace. The question here: Given that situation, what is the point or any effectiveness of this academic boycott?
– Finally, you wrote, “Reluctant governments must be brought to respond to the issue by calls from civil society, through the movement for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. The academic boycott is part of that.”
The same question here again: Why is the United States excluded from the Centre’s academic boycott? I asked about it in the paragraph 4 (TMS: 13 Oct. 2014) and also in PART SIX (TMS: 20 Oct. 2014). You are silent about it.
Second:
The question here (that I already asked you previously) is why CPACS targets Israel. You said, “Israel is singled out for boycott because of its unparalleled record of militarism and lawlessness. Other countries violate human rights; discriminate systematically against minorities; illegally occupy territory recognised as not their own; stockpile nuclear weapons outside the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and carry out disproportionate and indiscriminate military actions that kill and harm large numbers of civilians. But only Israel does all five of these things.”
In the world, there are different kinds of injustices and/or illegitimacies, which are also unacceptable. Israel has its own “five things”. However, some of other countries in the world have also “other/different kinds of five things”. Ask any human rights or peace related organizations and they will tell you. You argue about Israel’s injustice and/or illegitimacy but how about “other/different kinds of five things” in the world? I asked you about that, but you have not answered to that question this time and last time. There are many different kinds of grave and urgent injustices and/or illegitimacies in the world, which you/CPACS might need to tackle for peace. If you say that Israel is deserved to be boycotted through “the institutional links with Israel’s Higher Education”, some of other countries might also be deserved to be boycotted through “the institutional links with their countries’ Higher Education”. As mentioned, these countries have their own “five things”.
Each set of “five things” in the world contains its own tremendous tragedies and injustice. What and how would you deal with “these different kinds of five things” in the world, Prof. Lynch? This issue might also raise a question of a double standard of the academic boycott. Why is it that the academic boycott is implemented only to Israel when there are many other kinds of many other quality of untold atrocities are being done in the world? I asked you about it in the paragraphs 5 and 6 (TMS: 13 Oct. 2014) and also in PART SIX (TMS: 20 Oct. 2014). You are silent about it.
Third:
You say to me, “You would be well advised to inform yourself much more carefully about an issue before venturing into public debate in this way.” However, this is not a debate; this opportunity is for you to clarify your policy on “the academic boycott”, the term you used in your article on 6 October 2014, posted on the TMS. That is why I wrote, “Regarding Prof. Jake Lynch’s article, “Please Help Us Save the University of Sydney’s Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies,” posted on TMS on 6 Oct 2014, allow me to raise some questions.” To ask some questions about your policy or whatever itself does not necessarily constitute a debate.
I am simply asking you, not even a debate. A debate must have a proposition on a certain subject, for and against. Even if questions may constitute a part of debate, questions themselves are not a debate. Water contains oxygen but oxygen itself is not water.
“Satya” (the truth) is pursued through questioning. Mohandas Gandhi’s nonviolence movement began with questioning about the status quo of India at that time. He asked and asked. Then, the colonial authorities of India started suppressing Gandhi’s questioning that was eventually appeared as a peace movement. The rest is history.
You are an educator, Prof. Lynch. You receive questions during your classes from your students. They ask you some questions and you answer to them. Such questions and answers are not necessarily a debate itself. When your students ask you some questions, and you answer to them, but sometimes they may not be convinced by your answers. And then, they ask you again. Then, do you say to them in the class room, even in front of many students, “You would be well advised to inform yourself much more carefully about an issue before venturing into public debate in this way”?
From the ancient Greece (the West) to the ancient India (the East), the questions-and-answers session was considered as a way of searching the truth. In Greece, Socrates’s friends and students asked and he answered. In India, disciples asked and their teacher such (as a swami) answered. For example, Buddha’s teaching is a record of questioning and debates/discussions between Buddha and his disciples. Even at the last moment of his life, he was still willingly to accept any question from his disciples, “I am going to die soon, but before that, do you have any question about my teaching or about anything else?” Through questions, one could search for the truth to learn things.
Sometimes, the questions-and-answers session could be developed into becoming a debate/discussion session. Even when someone started a debate with Socrates in the street, he did not say, “You are venturing into public debate.” Even when someone started a debate with the Buddha in front of many disciples, he did not say, “You are venturing into public debate.” Both Socrates and the Buddha were essentially educators. By reading your answers to my questions, many TMS website readers are able to learn from you, Prof. Lynch. How beneficial for them! If you are an educator, you are an educator all the time, not only when you are at school. Being an educator is a 24 hours seven days job.
Fortunately, this TMS website is designed not only for providing information but also for questioning and exchanging of views among the authors and among the readers. This website is democratic in that sense (and more). Questioning about social or public issues is very difficult (or impossible) in many less democratic countries. An open society is the society in which the people are freely question about the relevant issue and/or debate/discuss it. I appreciate this TMS website because it is an open society in the online form.
There are some people, because of their current or previous stressful or traumatic experiences or something like that, who tend to be hostile to those who contact them. I sometimes see them. But I hope you are not one of such people. It is not necessarily that all people who contact you are your enemies. In fact, most people are not your enemies.
Although it depends on you how you evaluate yourself and how you define yourself, from many people’s view-points you are one of the most well-known world peacemaker-educators. Therefore, the world is looking forward to hearing and/or reading your words for peace, Prof. Lynch. As mentioned above, they learn your views expressed on this website, for instance.
Thank you very much for taking time out of your demanding time to respond to my inquiries until this moment, Prof. Lynch. (You do not need to respond to this message by spending minutes and seconds out of your precious time, although it is your free will to decide.) Once again, thank you very much.
With peace and respect,
Satoshi Ashikaga