The academic boycott
Ronnie Fraser is the Head of the Academic Friends of Israel (AFI), a British group that was founded in part to counter anti-Israel academic boycott movements in Britain. He spoke yesterday at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA).
Although he acknowledged that the decision by the British University and College Union (UCU) in September not to pursue an academic boycott against Israeli academics and institutions was in a sense a victory, he said that it was not exactly our victory. The decision was arrived at supposedly after the UCU took legal advice that according to reports told them that such a boycott would be prejudicial and illegal under exisiting legislation, and therefore could not be legally pursued or implemented. However, since they have refused to publish the legal opinion itself, it is impossible to know the actual details of the opinion. Notably, the Union paid for that advice (ca. $400,000) and decided to drop the boycott action as well as the planned meetings of UCU groups around the country to discuss and decide on the issue. The organizers of the boycott movement were particularly looking forward to these meetings as an opportunity to lambast Israel on most campuses throughout Britain (there are 100 universities and 600 colleges in Britain).
However, it seems that the UCU President and the Union itself were not swayed either by activities against the boycott itself or by various activities undertaken by international and Jewish groups. Particularly the campaign of the Jewish Board of Deputies in favor of inter-communal relations had no impact. One must remember that the UCU is a generally a left-wing organization, and its leadership bends over backwards not to be seen as caving into "Zionist" pressure.
It is possible that pressure from the British Government against an anti-Israel academic boycott may have had some influence, although this cannot be proven. But, Ronnie had heard rumors of the decision several months before it was published, and it is quite likely that the Union leadership had made their decision not to pursue the boycott and were looking for a suitable basis for that decision not based on the huge opposition that it had generated.
In fact, the boycott was not dropped because the UCU membership does not in principle support the idea of such a boycott. In that respect they are still committed to an anti-Israel boycott if they could find the means to carry it out legally and avoid legal costs. A poll conducted throughout Britain found that 20-25% support boycotts of Israel in one form or another (trade as well as academic), and there is no reason to believe that the UCU membership would be less supportive than this. Also, the hard-core few percent of anti-Israel activists, who oppose the existence of the State of Israel in principle, are no doubt now plotting their next move to get around this set-back. These activists are pushing for the release of the legal decision to help them get around it, and so Ronnie thought that we should not likewise push for its publication.
That does not mean that all the anti-boycott movements and activities were for nought. The anti-boycott movement had two positive results, it showed that many organizations, Jewish and non-Jewish, Israeli and British, could work together towards a common goal. Also, it has prepared us for the next attempt to boycott Israel. Although it is likely that the general Union movement (the Trade Unions Council) does not want to get involved in issues such as this that are complex and potentially dangerous for them, the academic unions are likely to try again. We must be prepared! In the long run the only defense against this continuing threat is education. We must try to better inform the British public and academics that Israel is a liberal democracy!
For further background see: "The Academic Boycott: Why Britain?" by Ronnie Fraser, JCPA publication, viewed at www.jcpa.org/phas.htm
Although he acknowledged that the decision by the British University and College Union (UCU) in September not to pursue an academic boycott against Israeli academics and institutions was in a sense a victory, he said that it was not exactly our victory. The decision was arrived at supposedly after the UCU took legal advice that according to reports told them that such a boycott would be prejudicial and illegal under exisiting legislation, and therefore could not be legally pursued or implemented. However, since they have refused to publish the legal opinion itself, it is impossible to know the actual details of the opinion. Notably, the Union paid for that advice (ca. $400,000) and decided to drop the boycott action as well as the planned meetings of UCU groups around the country to discuss and decide on the issue. The organizers of the boycott movement were particularly looking forward to these meetings as an opportunity to lambast Israel on most campuses throughout Britain (there are 100 universities and 600 colleges in Britain).
However, it seems that the UCU President and the Union itself were not swayed either by activities against the boycott itself or by various activities undertaken by international and Jewish groups. Particularly the campaign of the Jewish Board of Deputies in favor of inter-communal relations had no impact. One must remember that the UCU is a generally a left-wing organization, and its leadership bends over backwards not to be seen as caving into "Zionist" pressure.
It is possible that pressure from the British Government against an anti-Israel academic boycott may have had some influence, although this cannot be proven. But, Ronnie had heard rumors of the decision several months before it was published, and it is quite likely that the Union leadership had made their decision not to pursue the boycott and were looking for a suitable basis for that decision not based on the huge opposition that it had generated.
In fact, the boycott was not dropped because the UCU membership does not in principle support the idea of such a boycott. In that respect they are still committed to an anti-Israel boycott if they could find the means to carry it out legally and avoid legal costs. A poll conducted throughout Britain found that 20-25% support boycotts of Israel in one form or another (trade as well as academic), and there is no reason to believe that the UCU membership would be less supportive than this. Also, the hard-core few percent of anti-Israel activists, who oppose the existence of the State of Israel in principle, are no doubt now plotting their next move to get around this set-back. These activists are pushing for the release of the legal decision to help them get around it, and so Ronnie thought that we should not likewise push for its publication.
That does not mean that all the anti-boycott movements and activities were for nought. The anti-boycott movement had two positive results, it showed that many organizations, Jewish and non-Jewish, Israeli and British, could work together towards a common goal. Also, it has prepared us for the next attempt to boycott Israel. Although it is likely that the general Union movement (the Trade Unions Council) does not want to get involved in issues such as this that are complex and potentially dangerous for them, the academic unions are likely to try again. We must be prepared! In the long run the only defense against this continuing threat is education. We must try to better inform the British public and academics that Israel is a liberal democracy!
For further background see: "The Academic Boycott: Why Britain?" by Ronnie Fraser, JCPA publication, viewed at www.jcpa.org/phas.htm
posted by Jack Cohen at 1:37 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home