This author clearly confuses criticism of those critique Israel's policies with antisemitism. The Shurat HaDin court case is not accusing Lynch of antisemitism. Rather, they are using the Human Rights Commissions standards for all people: All that they argue is that it is "unlawful for a person to do any act involving a distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, color, descent, national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of any human right or fundamental freedom in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life." Ciara - why do you label this claim as antisemitism?

By the way, a case for antisemitism could be argued, in that Lynch often focuses exclusively on Israel. Holding up the Jewish people to critiques and standards not demanded for others is consistent with antisemitism. But in this case, Human Rights standards are being quoted.

A concise summary of both the ethical and political issues involved, although the author seems to have taken a somewhat charitable view of the motives of the boycott's critics.

"Reactions to the announcement earlier this month that an Israeli civil rights group has launched legal action in the Australian Human Rights Commission against Professor Jake Lynch of the University of Sydney's Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies have revealed a gross misunderstanding as to the meaning of anti-Semitism, the nature of the boycott movement, or both"

Yes, however there is also a third possibility, that the pro-Israel critics of the boycott movement are using accusations of "anti-semitism" as a cynical means of silencing dissent, accusations of "Islamophobia" are used in much the same way.

I'd say that Desmond Tutu is a well qualified critic of oppressive regimes, many other South African politicians have also commented on the similarity between apartheid SA and contemporary Israel, some have judged the regime even more sinister. Accusations of anti-semitism are nothing more than attempts to divert the debate from the real issue.

It would be unfair to call it antisemitic if there were academic boycotts toward all countries that maintain oppressive systems. Indonesia with its oppression and occupation of Irian Jaya, Russia with its recent anti-gay legislation, Saudi Arabia with its lack of religious freedom and many other countries are oppressive, and none of them as far as I know with the exception of Israel are subjected to an academic boycott. I think it is impossible to have a state that is both Jewish and democratic. I think any country which has the paradigm of a favoured religion or ethnicity cannot be democratic. A democratic state must make no distinction among its citizens on the basis of religion, ideology, sexual orientation and ethnicity. However, to single out Israel, the only Jewish state, and to ignore Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Marxist or other states that also discriminate on the basis of religion, ideology, sexual orientation or ethnicity sure smells like Jew hatred to me.

Good article.
David f says "It would be unfair to call it antisemitic if there were academic boycotts toward all countries that maintain oppressive systems."
This is a pretty silly argument. It would be impossible for any one organisation to focus on all the serious issues faced in the world. If they were to do so they would lose all focus and impact.
Was the boycott of the apartheid South African regime racist because it did not also boycott all the other oppressive regimes in the world?
Many people are more concerned about Israel than about other oppressive regimes because Israel claims to be a "liberal democracy" and "the only democracy in the Middle East". They put themselves in the same group as Australia, New Zealand, Canada, UK etc. As such their behaviour reflects badly on ourselves.
We all know that Saudi Arabia is more repressive (though not actually occupying anyone elses land) but they never claimed to be a liberal democracy, and as such their behaviour has no reflection on us.

Dear Rhys Jones,

Of course you are right. Israel claims to be a liberal democracy and does not live up to the standards of a liberal democracy. One focuses on the wrongs of a particular government because it may make a difference. That is why the boycott of South Africa for its apartheid went on. The boycott of its products hurts a country's economy and apparently was a factor in getting rid of apartheid. However, attacking the areas which promote change will mitigate against change. In the case of Israel or any other country in which there is a degree of academic freedom boycotting academy will attack an area in which one finds much criticism of Israeli activity. Many of Israel's products such as weapons systems and surveillance technology are inimical to human justice and freedom. They will probably not be boycotted. However, a part of Israel that can product constructive change is boycotted. Makes no sense, and merely encourages Israel to draw the wagons together.

DavidF, Israel doesn't have wagons! It has F-16s and nukes, lots of them.

It also is driven by a deranged notion that some god or other has chosen its people to be his or her children.

Israel, along with the U.S., should be BDS-ed out of existence. If that happened, world tensions would decline by 50%!