discussion of this article

jimp said…

Dave fails to make the case for a boycott. He implies that only pro-zionist forces are against a boycott, which is unconvincing and not the way to have an open and democratic debate. Israel is, of course, a bourgeois democracy and this is the way bourgeois democracies behave - look at what Britain's doing in Iraq.

Wed 01, August 2007 @ 10:47

Wladek Flakin said…

South Africa was a bourgeois democracy too - at least for the privileged minority - but I never heard leftists use this argument to oppose a boycott of Apartheid.

Wed 01, August 2007 @ 16:25

Bill J said…

Dave doesn't say whether the opponents of the boycott are Zionists or not, Jim rather presumes it. And he's probably right, as I dare say they are. The case for a boycott rests on Israel appalling abuse of the Palestinians as Dave makes clear - simply saying that's how bourgeois democracies behave - with the implication we just have to put up with it, is no more convincing when applied to Israel in Palestine as it is for the UK in Iraq.

Wed 01, August 2007 @ 17:35

RC said…

While I accept the description of Israel presented here, and agree that this debate is a good opportunity to take discussion of the repression faced by Palestinians across campuses, I am sceptical about the suggestion that the ‘chief’ argument made by anti-boycott members is that Israel is democratic. My experience of discussion with anti-boycott UCU activists and members is that many are somewhat or even very much opposed to the actions of the Israeli state. Their rationale for opposition is therefore not based on Zionism, but is either technical or libertarian. The technical arguments that I have heard have four parts – first is simply that a boycott won’t work; academic contacts generate relatively little cash or publicity and those directly with the UK less still, therefore the boycott will be ineffective. Secondly, while the motion calls for an ‘institutional’ (rather than an individual) boycott, there has been little specification of what this would mean – for example with regard to talking to individual (anti-zionist) academics employed at Israeli universities. Thirdly, several people have argued that academia is one of the few spaces where oppositional voices are heard within Israel, moreover, since oppositional (pro-Palestinian) academics will face state opposition they are the most dependent on overseas support/collaboration. Fourthly, some people are just worried about the health of the (not very healthy) UCU; worried that another divisive debate will further weaken a union that, as last year’s strike showed, is already pretty weak at a time when academia in this country is increasingly turning to models from business. The libertarian argument is simply pro-free speech (and/or academic freedoms). And for these people the comparison with South African boycotts is irrelevant since banks or oranges are not human beings. For some free speech is an absolute (and this includes universal access to ‘refereed journals’/’conferences’). For others free speech may not be quite an absolute but any motion that seeks to systematically constrain the voice of a group of people on the grounds of their place of work is unacceptable. I am not suggesting that there are no good arguments that can be made to counter the above. However as long as pro-boycott forces focus solely on the evils of Israel and demonise anti-boycott academics as Zionists, the most common arguments made by those who could be won over are not being addressed and the vote (if or when) it occurs will be lost, not because people believe Israel to be a nice democratic place but to these technical and libertarian arguments. Note: I do not deny that the majority of anti-boycott funding and organisation comes from Zionists, but even they cleverly focus on academic freedom issues (rather than the Israeli state) in their publicity because they know that these are the issues they might win with.

Wed 01, August 2007 @ 18:38

TWP said…

I have a problem with the idea of an "academic boycott" for a number of reasons but first and fooremost because it lumps all academics into one group where in reality opinion within Israeli academia is varied. It assumes that all Israeli academics, by virtue of being Israeli rather than their individual views, are worthy of being boycotted. While I understand that the Palestinian case is being held up as a particularly bad case, does it not seem hypocritical for British Academics whose country daily participates in the destruction of Iraq to be singling out Israel? Surely British Academics would be opposed to being boycotted by Iraqi universities en masse due to the British government's actions? Why not solidarity between British academics and Israeli academics against the Israeli state's treatment of the Palestinians instead? The problem with the boycott is that it is far too simplistic and doesn't account for differences of opinion within the Israeli state. It lumps all Israeli academics in with right-wing Zionists. There must be a better way of protesting the abhorrent treatment of the Palestinians than treating all Israeli academics like pariahs simply due to their citizenship.

Tue 07, August 2007 @ 10:32

jimp said…

Dave Esterson says, " There is no doubt that any trade unions that decide to back a boycott will face enormous pressure both from the US and British states along with pro-Zionist forces." This is clearly meant to imply there are no socialist arguments against falling in behind union bureaucrats' call to "boycott Israel". What's been suggested in the unions are not workers' sanctions, for example direct action to block the shipment of arms to the Iraeli state - which we would support 100% - rather, it's in the framework of the PLO's 'two-states' strategy - a reformist utopia. In the words of the UNISON resolution, "Ending the occupation demands concerted and sustained pressure upon Israel". The discussion on boycott has to be looked at in the context of our perspectives for social revolution, which I'd argue should be based around the fight for a bi-national workers' state.

Tue 07, August 2007 @ 15:40

Bill J said…

Well I don't see that at all, it's just a statement of fact isn't it? Trade unionists who support the boycott have faced massive pressure off Zionists. Dave doesn't say that only pro-Zionists oppose the boycott, you rather imputed that from his article, something which is revealing I think. And just saying this is an initiative the trade union bureaucracy is a bit much, a) because it's not really true, the the leadership of the UCU were against it I gather b) and so what anyway, the question is not whether it was an initiative of the bureaucracy but whether it was a good initiative. You could argue it was a lot closer to workers sanctions than any sanctions implemented against apartheid, for the obvious reason that the bourgeoisie supports Israel, who is going to do it apart from workers in trade unions? I think it has been successful in raising the issue of the appalling treatment dished out to the Palestinians by the Israeli state, which I think means it has basically been a success, although I take on board the comments of RC and TWP. But my view is that given that the boycott is what the pro-Palestinian solidarity movement has decided to go with, then it is worth getting behind, whatever the tactical issues about its merit at the outset.

Tue 07, August 2007 @ 17:05

SteveR said…

wether or not we support an academic boycott should depend on wether or not, or to what degree, this would assist the battles against the zionist state. This should be our key criteria. No-one denies that the israeli zionist state is a racist abomination that oppresses Palestinians, but it IS surely a 'bourgeois democracy' - as is the british state that oppresses the irish people as well as people the world over; the US state that oppresses people the world over, and plenty of other states that carry out oppression, repression and subjugation as a matter of course. What is the long-term aim of revolutionaries vis-a-vis the Israeli-Palestine conflict? To defend those primarily affected, ie the palestinian masses that have suffered and continue to suffer, but also to assist those Israelis that are opposed to zionism and the actions of the state. Among those Jews in Israel that are amongst the latter include plenty of workers in the academic institutions that are proposed to be subject to boycott:- how will this help them, and how will a boycott (which is NOT necessarily a WORKERS' boycott)assist the struggle for socialist revolution? We should use the opportunity of debate and discussion to highlight the rotten actions of the zionist state, and as for a boycott we should argue that the only effective boycott would be one carried out directly by producers, eg workers in industries supplying the israeli state. Any boycott must be highly political, linking with all those in Israel that are opposd to the zionist state. This talk of Israel being a 'democracy' (which it is) is something of a red herring, and because the pro-Palestine solidarity movement is in favour of boycott - i think this shows the lack of realistic perspective there (the PSC, i believe, are still in favour of "two states", which is a reactionary position)

Wed 08, August 2007 @ 00:58

SteveR said…

what's all this confusion about bourgeois democracy? Israel's being a bourgeois democracy doesn't make it democratic - you must be familiar with the idea that bourgeois democracy is a veil for the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie..... a red herring, as i said previously. Bill's comments are most revealing here - why doesn't he support 2 states, as the dominant pro-Palestinian solidarity group in uk do? This is definitely a useful, clarifying debate

Wed 08, August 2007 @ 13:07

jimp said…

The question we need to ask is how would boycotting Israeli society as a whole affect the class struggle? How would it help break Israeli workers from zionism? I have stated already that Israel is a bourgeois democracy. Bill seems to think this implies, "we just have to put up with it". No, it means we have to overturn capitalism. There is no solution to the oppresion of the Palestinians within the framework of capitalism. Wladek makes a comparison with South Africa. It's often said that the boycott of South Africa brought down the Apartheid regime. In actual fact it was the rising levels of struggle by the Black masses that brought South Africa to the brink of revolution in the 1980s. It was only averted by the deal the Nation Party made with the ANC/SACP. Capitalism was saved and the results are there for all to see. Millions of people are HIV positive and 30% of the population are unemployed. The gap between rich and poor is greater now than it was under apartheid. If the idea that a capitalist state would bring prosperity in South Africa was a reformist utopia, what can one say about the PLO's perspective of "two capitalist states"? A number of British trade unions have now passed resolutions on the question of the possible boycott of Israel, they fail to differentiate between rulers and ruled in the state of Israel. Israeli society is not just one big reactionary bloc. It's capitalist society composed of capitalists and workers. The Israeli working class should not be held responsible for the crimes of capitalism. Trade Unions should agree resolutions and actions clearly aimed at the zionist ruling class. We should fight for the trade unions to lead a workers' boycott of the shipment of arms to and from Israel. Transport and dockers' unions of all countries should be called on to systematically implement such a boycott.

Thu 09, August 2007 @ 18:15

Jason said…

Certainly we would agree that capitalism needs to be overthrown in Palestine/Israel and the key to this is the Arab working class and those sections of the Jewish and other working class communties who can be drawn into the anti-imperialist struggle against the Israeli capitalist ruling class. If the mass organisations of Palestine are calling for a boycott then British trade unionists should support them in this. jimp is right that it was the struggle of the Black masses that had revolutionary potential in the 80s and that the international boycott was not the main player, as some commentators seem to suggest. However, the boycott did play a role which is why the Black masses called for and supported such a boycott. It would be interesting to hear some of the Palestinian/Israeli voices on here on these issues.

Thu 09, August 2007 @ 20:28

steveR said…

what is required is INTERNATIONAL organisation for our class, in order to carry out the socialist revolution: and of course we want the israeli working class to be part of that. I don't really see how boycotting israeli academic institutions is going to help. it is totally right that we should support the boycotting by workers of arms to israel; and that the focus of any boycott campaign should be the organised labour movement which mass organisations in palestine are calling for a boycott? i don't think that because they are calling for something we have to back this call and call for it ourselves . what about 2 states? don't mass palestinian organisations call for 2 states in israel and palestine?....which is a wrong, reactoinary demand, and would be even if given a "socialist" content as some leftists do.

Thu 09, August 2007 @ 23:16

steveR said…

problem in backing anything that the "palestinian" organisations demand, as revolutionaries are for the power of the international working class, whereas the leadership of various "palestinian" organisations is clearly not but has a petit-bourgeois nationalist strategy, or worse. the main group is the PLO, in uk the PSC. in backing what they demand, because they demand it, revolutionaries give up the independence that they favour for the working class and so may as well not bother - or disssolve into whichever group it is

Fri 10, August 2007 @ 12:31

bill j said…

I think it's quite simple, the boycott raises consciousness of the oppression of palestinians and is a progressive thing. Therefore I think socialists should support it. All of the other stuff about having to overthrow capitalism or bourgeois democracy or having to agree with all of what a group says because you agree with part of it are beside the point.

Fri 10, August 2007 @ 19:46

Alison H said…

I think Jason's forumlation is useful when he talks of 'those sections of the Jewish and other working class communties who can be drawn into the anti-imperialist struggle against the Israeli capitalist ruling class,' because unfortunatley, the Israeli working class is for the most part complicit in the oppression of the Palestinians. They and the Palestininan working class are the victims of classic divide and rule tactics by the bourgeoisie - as we all know, in these circumstances, as in Northern Ireland, South Africa etc. there are those that are nationally or racially oppressed and those that gain some (in the grand scheme of things minor) privileges as a result of this national divide. This means the old SWP slogan 'unite and fight' is inadequate. The Israeli working class have to recognise the oppression of the Palestinians - workers in other countries expressing condemnation of the situation through a boycott is one way of trying to achieve this.

Fri 10, August 2007 @ 20:13

steveR said…

the matter of Israel being a bourgeois democracy IS relevant, i guess, because it points to some problems with a boycott - why is the US not boycotted, as it is clearly the US that backs the israeli zionist state that we all agree is the enemy in this context, and the US state is engaged in actions in a long line of places around the world that are at least as bad as what the israeli state is doing. The matter of supporting something 'because it is called for by mass organisations in Palestine' is also left unanswered, comrades, so why not support either "2 states" or one big islamic state ("PLO" or "Hamas")? it's definitely been said plenty that the Hamas position: of driving the Jews into the sea, is thoroughly reactionary; but so is 2 states, which involves recognotion of a zionist state and offers no solution for the refugees, nor the land question... in fact 2 states is a totally utopian position but is DEFINITELY WHAT MASS ORGANISATIONS ARE CALLING FOR. this could have resolved the debates PR were having over the elections in Venezuela, as clearly the mass organisations were calling for a vote for Chavez:- problem solved! in fact, why would revolutionaries really have to think very much at all in the future!?

Sun 12, August 2007 @ 11:55

bill j said…

It seems to me that Steve R simply wants to do nothing to highlight the issue of Palestinian oppression by the Israelis. What alternative action does he propose to highlight this issue or to support the Palestinians? Nothing from what I can tell. In practice, all of his objections amount to excuses why we should not act. But as only actions will show to the Palestinians that socialists are serious about supporting their cause, in effect he robs us of any means of influencing the liberation struggle. That is not to exaggerate the effect an academic boycott will have, but it is the only thing on the table at the moment as far as I can tell, and as it is a perfectly principalled tactic I don't see why socialists shouldn't support it. It is also an unserious method of argument to attribute positions to people that they do not hold. I think it is relevent what actions the Palestinian solidarity organisations propose that socialists and others take in support of the Palestinians, there are not too many supporters of the Palestinians in Britain and if we are to have any effect whatsoever we obviously need to co-ordinate our struggles. But it is I bit of joke to suggest this means that one is required to agree with all the other points of their programme, if it were then any united front would always be ruled out. If that's in fact what Steve wants then can he say so and we can stop these straw man arguments - if he has a better suggestion of what we should do then I'm sure that any suppporter of the Palestinian struggle would be pleased to hear them. As for Chavez - what are you on about?

Sun 12, August 2007 @ 17:17

steveR said…

very little of what Bill puts out as fact in his comment is actually true - comrades can read for themselves. straw men? Bill says, "It is an unserious method of argument to attribute positions to people that they do not hold" - right! it looks like this is a rather pathetic attempt to curtail debate:- it's ok to disagree with PR, but not from the left!?!

Mon 13, August 2007 @ 22:15

Bill J said…

But it would be nice if you could answer the question. What action do you propose socialists take to support the Palestinians?

Tue 14, August 2007 @ 18:13

steveR said…

you lot are quite easily shaken! a boycott is a tactical question (eg see my support for a LM-based boycott of arms), but (for revolutionaries) to back non- or anti-revolutionary demands is something much more important - this is a point that you seem to have missed, and perhaps here there is a problem of understanding one another but it looks to me like this debate has illustrated PR's failure to consistently fight for a revolutionary line of march.... when i see the Bham PSC (or whatever they call themselves, eg "BIG campaign") picketting M&S there is barely-concealed anti-semitism: this is the kind of nonsense i think of when "boycott israel" is mentioned. the idea that this is the only way that leftists in the West can raise the issue of Palestine (an issue we all agree on, generally) means that comrades forget what has been done in the past, or even that the methods (ie raising a boycott in the LM) can't be used to raise the issue in other ways. a big part of the problem is the collapse of the PLO (entirely predictable according to the long-standing classification of them by the Left as "petit-bourgeois nationalists" - unreliable in terms of progressive politics) and the undoubted political flux in Palestine making it unclear just WHO it is there we should be backing (so it's not just as simple as raising resolutions calling for aid to whatever group or party) but finally, it's not actually for ME to answer ANY questions at your website!

Wed 15, August 2007 @ 00:55

steveR said…

I mean, if we can raise the matter of a BOYCOTT in the LM, why can't we just raise the question of the oppression of the Palestinians and the nature of the israeli state? if a boycott means asking shoppers to check wether their capsicums are exported israeli or spanish water, then i really doubt the value of it. am i allowed to write that in a web debate on the matter of a boycott of israel?

Wed 15, August 2007 @ 01:02

bill j said…

So nothing then. What's so left wing about that?

Wed 15, August 2007 @ 18:12

steveR said…

oh Bill, how petty! i know you don't like it when it's pointed out that you've given up on offering a revolutionary line by tail-ending what the reformists or worse 'on the ground' are saying, but that's the way it is. if it makes you feel better to try and knock me then the situation is probably even sadder than one might have thought at first sight! what is probably required next is a fuller investigation of the outcomes (or lack of!) for 'revolutionaries' that give it up, tho this has all been done before many times and i don't know if i am qualified....

Wed 15, August 2007 @ 22:20

Wladek Flakin said…

@SteveR: pardon me, I haven't been following this debate post by post, but I'm unable to figure out your precise objection to the academic boycott. one of your earlier posts says "We should use the opportunity of debate and discussion to highlight the rotten actions of the zionist state". But surely it's the campaign for an academic boycott which creates the opportunity of debate and discussion?!? I doubt anyone would disagree that a boycott by workers at an F16 plant would be more effective (by the way, we should remember that Israel is one of the biggest exporters of weapons in the world, so a boycott by workers' in the arms industry in imperialist countries wouldn't solve all our problems here either!), but is a workers' boycot counterposed to an academic boycot? Is opposing an academic boycot a serious contributions towards the fight for a workers' boycott? One again, I doubt anyone would disagree that it is important to link with the antizionist Israeli Jews. So surely you're aware that many antizionist academics support the boycot? And you're aware that is is primarily directed towards academic institutions in settlements, where very few antizionists work? It occurs to me that trolling on the PR boards is even less effective than an academic boycot in fighting the Israeli occupation.

Sat 18, August 2007 @ 03:32

steveR said…

Wladek, whoever you are, are you saying that the "PR boards" are ineffective? You don't understand that i think it wouldn't be helpful to alienate precisely those workers that need to be won? ok, so that's not hard to understand, is it? This is a place for debate isn't it? the main objection i have is that PR, or Bill anyway, is in favour of tail-ending reformist forces that are or may be in Palestine, rather than putting forward a revolutionary line. what a "revolutionary line" is is one of the things that i used to think this site was about trying to work out and debate in a comradely manner, but i most certainly could be wrong. If i am right, it seems to me that the implications are quite important for PR and those that might have had illusions in them since the split/expulsions of last year... Now that this page is not immediately easy to access, fewer people will read it so perhaps we can be more honest and say that anyone still interested in PR just shouldn't bother, as Socialist Action (the british one that is, which under John Ross was once a section of the USFI) are bigger, deeper implanted and better organised and eg the matter of wether or not to call for a vote for Chavez isn't controversial at all (Bill, i doubt very much that you REALLY don't know what i am on about here)

Mon 20, August 2007 @ 01:04