The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Boycotting the Academy > Comments

Boycotting the Academy : Comments

By Binoy Kampmark, published 2/7/2007

One of Britain’s largest academic bodies has recently backed a motion condemning 'the complicity of Israeli academia in the occupation' of Palestinian land.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
The freedom of academia to express displeasure in relation to Israel must be protected. However, if that action draws a reaction it is pure comedy to express surprise.
Posted by Sage, Monday, 2 July 2007 9:37:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is not academia expressing displeasure against Israel and to describe it as such is disingenuous. It is punishing Jews who may or may not support the Israeli policies and therefore goes beyond academic displeasure or valid criticism of Israel.
Posted by Plaza-Toro, Monday, 2 July 2007 9:45:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I can't see how any of this follows frankly.

How is it an occupation now but not before 1967 when Gaza was part of Egypt and the West Bank was part of Jordan.

I don't remember hearing of any Palestinians blowing themselves up or even any notion by Palestinians that it was an occupation.

That land was never Palestinian land, it was Jordanian and Egyptian. So what changed?

The infidel took possession of it, through conquest? No, they were attacked by impotent Arab armies in the typical gang mentality style we see reproduced as a microcosm of this on western Sydney streets - when they hang out in gangs assaulting those with different skin colour.

Why no boycott of Jordan and Egypt then?

More to the racist point, why not boycott nations that have apartheid, like Iran or Saudi Arabia?

It is you people who are the racists. You can't acknowledge that non-westerners have agency, so you never see them do wrong.

It's like being at a dinner party where a guest spills a drink - who is going to say anything? You eternally cover for them, even when their racist, genocidal agendas are clear as day.

For shame.
Posted by Benjamin, Monday, 2 July 2007 9:51:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Benjamin, I am unfamiliar with the dinner parties you attend, but I would have thought the normal thing to do when someone spills a drink is help them clean up. I have spilt a few myself over the years. It is a bit embarrassing, but it is also one of those priceless moments when you get to see who your true friends are.
Posted by Tom Clark, Monday, 2 July 2007 11:31:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Benjamin

The reason for the boycott was to protest the complicity of Israeli academics in supporting the ongoing occupation of Palestinian land.

You'd be the only person I know who overlooks the Partition of Palestine by the British included the proposition of the formation of both the Israeli State and a Palestinian state.

The point of much of the more general criticism of Israel is not because it is an apartheid state or carries out policies similar to Saudia Arabia and Iran but because it pretends to be similar to the Western Liberal Democracies. Iran and saudui Arabia don't. The Western Liberal democracies do not indulge in the practices of occupation, land stealing and suppression. When they do they are heavily criticised as we see in the case in Iraq at present. On a parallel is the recent Israeli invasion of Lebanon. The world heavily criticised and forced the withdrawal of the Israeli aggressors. Nothing to do with racism or anti-semitism but much to do with decency.

As for Saudi Arabia and Iran tell me what countries are they currently occupying? I think you will find when an Arab country invades another country the western Liberal Democracies act with greater ferocity than mere criticism. What a recent example? Try Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. See what you have done is not compared like with like but made generalisations about unequal treatment without acknowledging differences in the way Israel, Iran and Saudi Arab present themselvews to the world or acknowledging the Western Liberal democracies treat all transgressors of the basic tenets of the Liberal Democracies roughly equally.

This criticism of yours that doesn't address the arguments in the article but introduces irrelevant and incongruous comparisons and racist abuse is the sort of stuff 'a chip on the shoulder' is made of. Fairly typical really and the opening quote is entirely apt.

'[The frightened man] believes himself to be, much more than the rest of his kind, the target of hostile events.
E. M. Cioran, A Short History of Decay (1990).'
Posted by keith, Monday, 2 July 2007 11:50:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keith,
"You'd be the only person I know who overlooks the Partition of Palestine by the British included the proposition of the formation of both the Israeli State and a Palestinian state."
You'd be one among the many anti-Israel shrills who overlooks the fact that this was achieved with the separation in Transjordan. There is already a two-state solution in place, whereby the "Arabs"/"Palestinians" got 80% of the mandated land in the Palestinian Mandate in 1922.

Judea/Samaria and Gaza are further grabs, in fact a three-state solution.

Under the Mandate, which is still the only legal document on this former Turkish land after the defeat of the Turks et all in WW1, Transjordan was 'legal' (article 25 I think). This third is not.

We are in this position because of the British appeasing to terrorism from the Arabs that started in the 1920s, for example, Hebron 1929; an appeasement that has spurred the "Palestinians" to continue and inch by inch take more of the land mandated for the Jewish homeland.

When I think of Judea/Samaria - Galilee, Bethlehem, Nazareth, for example - I don't think of Islam and Arabs, defintely not "Palestinians" : I think of Jesus Christ, a Jewish preacher whose teachings started one of the greatest religious movements peacefully on earth. (For the pedantic, pre-Constantine).
Posted by chrisse, Tuesday, 3 July 2007 5:17:11 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Chrissie

I assume you may be Christian. As such you'd reject like Christ many of the teachings and practises of the Hebrews and the 'Old Testament', as shown particularly in Christ's Sermon on the Mount. That teaching highlights the basic differences and similarities between the beliefs of the Hebrews and Christianity.

The Holy Land at that time was occupied and effectively 'owned' by the Romans. Should we clamour to restore their occupation and 'ownership' because that was the situation at that point in history? No I think not. It would be silly and wouldn't take into account modern realities.

No I don't subscribe to any former proposed land partitions, including the British one of '47. Most partitions and borders were artificial and imposed by the British. We all understand Israel, at that point in history, was carved off from Arab owned land. The Jewish people don't clamour for the implementation of you cited legal partition nor do the Arabs clamour for the later British partition. The Arabs offer peace and security at '67 Borders. I agree with that as it takes account of all the modern realities. It's a compromise, I know but a realistic one.

I do recall a British character, Lawerence, who gave the Arabs undertakings regarding independence in exchange for their assistance in WW1. That helped the British defeat and oust the Turks...from the Holy Land.
Should we clamour for Lawerence's promised independence or the Turk partition or the British Partition because they were they situation at those points in history? I think not. That would be silly and none take into account modern realities.

I assume you are pro-Israeli. If you are do you support the Israeli land-stealing from, and the occupation and suppression of many of the Holy Land's Arabs? I think you wouldn't.

I as a Western Liberal Democrat cannot. I am forthright, honest and outspoken in my opposition to those Israeli activities. If that makes me anti-Israeli, in your estimation...well then... you're intelligent you work it out.

Now what about you?
Posted by keith, Tuesday, 3 July 2007 9:34:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keith,

Where are you even coming from?

You made no attempt to answer my questions about why Palestinians only started to have land after Israel took it in 1967 from Egypt and Jordan, after they both, along with other cowardly yet typically impotent Arab states, invaded Israel?

I already explained about how Muslims care nothing for the land, it's about who occupies it. This is why Palestinians cared little about being subjugated by Egypt in the west bank before Israel took it.

Are they even people to you? Muslims I mean? Don't they deserve to be asked the same questions you would ask of say, the British?

Regarding Iran and Saudi Arabia, Iran does occupy nations. It funds Hezbollah & Hamas, and fought Israel last year throught it's proxy Hezbollah.

As for Saudi Arabia, basically every radical mosque built on earth is funded by their black oil money. This form of imperialism, Islamic imperialism, is the only sort left in the world.

Ask yourself why it is that the Jewish people, who everyone agrees are actually from that part of the world, had to go back?

Do you not know how Islamic societies regard infidels, particularly Jews? They drove them out because they were intolerant. You should read more about Dhimmitude - the status non-Muslims are given under Islam.

Haven't you ever wondered why there was so much anger at Cronulla, as when Muslims would show up at the rockpools, angry bearded racists would force everyone out of the pool so their burqa clad wives could swim without being contaminated by lowly infidels?

You should read more.

How is Israel an apartheid state? Arabs are treated better there than anywhere else in the region!

When the wall was built, Arabs begged to be allowed to live on the Israeli side of the wall, and when the recent fighting between the barbarians broke out, where did Palestinians fleeing want to go?

Not to Egypt, or Jordan, but, you guessed it, Israel!

THIS SAYS EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE SITUATION.
Posted by Benjamin, Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:05:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Benjamin

Let me quote you

'As for Saudi Arabia, basically every radical mosque built on earth is funded by their black oil money. This form of imperialism, Islamic imperialism, is the only sort left in the world.'

I don't think that is imperialism. I think it is an expression of religious choice and evangelism. The content of that choice is the business of those who make the choice.

As for anything radical well that's fine in my book and our Western Democracies have laws that defend peoples rights to express their religion. Don't you understand that? We also have laws and forces that react to outlawed behaviour. As we've seen recently.

Your comment wasn't directed at Christian churches or missions or Jewish synagogues or Christian Outreach centres or Mormon Temples or Seventh Day Adventists or other radical christian groups or pagans or Devil worshippers who all try to spread their particular brand of belief. You make an unsubstianted claim that many mosques are focused on radical imperialism rather than the spread of their religious belief. Unless you can present proof of this and can show other groups don't try to spread their beliefs then you stand condemned as a bigot and racist. And a in my book fool.

'Ask yourself why it is that the Jewish people, who everyone agrees are actually from that part of the world, had to go back?'

Two things you overlook the Russian Jews who have no blood links to Palestine and not everybody agrees with your opinions. Millions of people from the mid east disagree with your opinion.

'Iran does occupy nations.' Really which nations has it physically occupied? I think your definition of occupation a bit sus and merely self-serving.

'How is Israel an apartheid state?' I never said it was.

'THIS SAYS EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE SITUATION.'

Yep, I'm not allowed to see things in any other way than what you want me to see them. Right?

Now that's a perfectly reasonable proposition for a rascist bigot.
Posted by keith, Tuesday, 3 July 2007 2:10:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I recently downloaded a free book called Samson Blinded. It is a book I'd recommend everyone read, though it will utterly disgust many.

"Samson Blinded: A Machiavellian Perspective on the Middle East Conflict, by Obadiah Shoher, abandons moralizing and ideological hubris to view Israeli-Muslim struggle in terms of raw realpolitik."

http://samsonblinded.org/blog/shohers-book/

The moralising of a few spoilt British academics is to be expected, but enormously pathetic. An outcome of the feminisation of society which manifests itself most strongly in the fantasy land of academia.
Posted by jimhaz, Tuesday, 3 July 2007 3:10:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Benjamin. Sadly, Israel is an Apartheid state. " You are for us, or against us!".Now who said that?

Shalom!
Posted by Kipp, Tuesday, 3 July 2007 5:32:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keith,

You mabye shouldn't read this, as the logic in my arguments is so inescapable it may make your head explode.

Seriously, proceed with care.

Churches spreading their words? Where, in the mid-east? They're all being blown up or smashed down, are you really that ignorant?

In Saudi Arabia, Qatar, but many others, churches are ILLEGAL. Do you understand?

Where are the protests by Muslims in Australia about this apartheid? Like how we protested when RSA had it?

You are so ignorant, you know nothing of Saudi Islam either. Every mosque they build is 'wahabi', which means TERRORISM.

Even leftists, and even many Muslims, acknowledge this! How old are you?

Serious, you need to go and read.

Yeah, play the race card you coward. Can't argue my point so call me a bigot. That don't work no more, people are awakening to the insanity of that fear mongering tactic.

You ask what nation Iran 'physically occupies'.

That is so cheap, you know as well as I that they run Hezbollah. They therefore have a proxy army. Syria isn't in Lebanon either but they still have much power....
Posted by Benjamin, Wednesday, 4 July 2007 8:25:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
...Do you not understand the geo-political realities?

It's almost a waste of time speaking to you, although alas, even if one person sees the light, it's worth it.

See how selfless those who think like me are?

If you don't think Saudi mosque money is imperialism, perhaps you ought to talk to non-Arab Muslims. The influence of Arabs - they are told to bow there 5 times a day you know, take an Arab name, recite the koran in Arabic.

In your ignorance you can't see ISLAM = Arab Imperialism.

Wouldn't you be the first to laugh if Christians were told to bow to the Vatican? You'd call it slavery.

Israel an apartheid state? Why do Palestinians want to get in to Israeli hospitals then? Why do Arabs have better living standards in Israel than in the racist hole that is the Arab world?

How come Arabs have tripled their population in Israel?

Apartheid is Iran, Saudi Arabia, and other Muslim nations that have restrictions on non-muslims and women.

It's those like you, ignoring this truth (you know it is deep down, that's why you can't argue against it!) who are keeping them all down.

One or two pop their heads up to look at the superior west, and they say 'I want my country to have freedom too' yet scum like you say 'no, your culture is just as good, if not better than mine'.

YOU are the racist, and what is so disgusting about it all is that you can't even see it your so ignorant.

To not see what they do because they aren't white, is appalling. It's the same reason the Aboriginal situation got so bad while you leftists were in charge, because you see non-whites as animals.

They are human, you bigot.
Posted by Benjamin, Wednesday, 4 July 2007 8:27:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Benjamin

I am a liberal. I've never been leftist in my life. Obviously you're one of those rightwing rednecks and anyone who expresses an opinion to the left of your bigotry and racism is a leftist...eh?

Scum? Lovely, says a lot about your level of intellect and more importantly about your inability to assess people and their right to express an opinion different to yours. Obviously racists are blind to their racism. Your expectation of other cultures to express themselves in exactly the way you think they should is typical racist stupidity and is beyond reason.
I don't support or excuse the excesses and injustices of other peoples, their cultures, their beliefs or their systems of governments however I detest even more countries who make a pretense at being similar to western liberal democracies but who engage in activities fundamentally opposite to the basic tenets of our whole way of life.

If that makes me racist in your book well then your book must be a simple comic book.
Posted by keith, Wednesday, 4 July 2007 10:24:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
keith

As you know I will not accuse you of racism as I know you are not.

But you are aware that there was a large scale purchase of land from its owners in Palestine by Jews. There was also a large exchange of people, Muslims from Palestine, Jews from Morocco, Egypt, Iraq etc etc etc. There also was a serious attack on Israel from Arab lands leading to an occupation of the lands used as a base of attack. The leaders of these lands still swear to the annihilation of Israel.

Regarding the academics this will fail because Israeli academics contribute so much to the world. Also the proposed British boycott has been opposed by huge numbers of academics including over 24 Nobel Prize winners! And they cannot be all Jewish.

Universities who try to implement such a boycott would be destroying their standing in the world. Do you think Vice Chancellors would agree to such a boycott as proposed by second raters? And how many people would die if the Israeli contribution to medicine was not shared?
Posted by logic, Saturday, 14 July 2007 5:28:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy