Agenda for the 2014 Delegate Assembly Meeting

There are 2 points that Professor Lieberman makes that I wish to touch on briefly: (1) That Israel is but one of many countries that in one way or another trample on academic freedoms. This misses the point of the boycott. The Palestinian call for the boycott of Israeli academic institutions (which I support, as do a number of Israeli academics) is because these institutions are complicit in the occupation. They engage in research for the military, some actively support the military and the IDF and in other ways support Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and its treatment of Gaza. This is the main reason for the boycott call. It does not cover individuals, merely the institutions themselves.
(2) You speak of Palestinian rejectionism. I recommend that you read a slim book on the subject of Israeli rejectionism: ‘Israeli Rejectionism: A Hidden Agenda in the Middle East Peace Process,’ by Zalman Amit and Daphna Levit. Also, it is worth remembering that when the Arab League in 2002 offered Israel recognition by all its members and normalization of relations on the grounds that it return to the 1949 armistice line (also called the “green line”), Israel’s leaders did not so much as bother to respond, even though the offer was made without demanding the Right of Return for Palestinians who had become refugees as a result of the Nakba. Israel repeated its silence when the offer was made again in 2007, and a third time this past year.
The purpose of the boycott is to pressure Israel’s leaders to agree to finding a just solution to ending Israel’s colonization, expansion, and occupation.
Sincerely,
Dorothy Naor

I, too, endorse Professor Lieberman’s opposition to the resolution and urge those voting to reject it.
Mark Webber

Professor Liberman’s statement is excellent. He wisey refrains what to some of us is all too apparent, given the facts that Professor Lieberman recounts for us: that is, the opposition to Israel is yet another veiled form of anti-Semitism. If th USA is not to go the way of Nazi Germany, it must keep open ALL forms of academic feedom. The current resolution, like the ASA action, is a worrying step on that cursed road, alas.

I have, of course been reading of the ASA resolution to boycott Israeli scholars, and the possible upcoming debate on this issue at the MLA. I am horrified by these ASA, MLA turns of events, and I am sickened, not only because of their ramifications, but by the gross unfairness, even slander, of these allegations and accusations. I live in Israel and go to malls, hospitals, clinics, and there are as many Arabs as Jews shopping, receiving the same – and as prompt – attention in medical facilities. We have been treated by Arab doctors and nurses. Not to mention that during our snow/electricity crisis, Israel sent humanitarian aid and supplies to GAZA – the place from which rockets fly into Israel regularly! I don’t want to go into history, but I could. Isn’t it unbelievable that of all the countries in our “neighborhood” Israel is thought to be the worst? By whom? And where do they get their information? We all know from which segments of world society our greatest threats have come, yet it’s Israel that’s being boycotted. This is insane! The USA isn’t Europe – Europe has become a frightening place in recent years. Surely it is no coincidence that in the last few years I’ve been hearing French being spoken all over Israel. (Just recently, I had a conversation with a young girl who had recently moved to Israel from France. And when I asked what she liked about Israel, she responded without hesitation: ‘here I can be Jewish openly and freely without fear.”) But as an AMERICAN I’m frightened by the corrupt and sinister manipulation that is behind this boycott movement, as huge sums of money are being poured into efforts to delegitimize Israel at every juncture. Words and concepts such as human rights, freedom and democracy have been cheapened and rendered almost meaningless, as they are manipulated to accuse Israel of the worst abuses of human rights even as Israel’s accusers in the Middle East are guilty of the most heinous abuses of the values that any democracy holds dear. And yet, there are Americans who are buying into this polemic. I am appalled that such ugliness is surfacing in my America! I cannot fathom it. I’m as devastated by this as an American as I am as a Jew.

But what is at stake for us all is the undermining of what we in Academia are all about – including our larger goals for our students: the search for truth, and the requisite openness to voices other than our own. Looked at through this lens, academic boycotts represent the very opposite of academic freedom. The fact is that all citizens of Israel, regardless of race or religion, enjoy unprecedented academic freedom, unlike any other university in the Middle East and unlike most universities in the world; that Arabs, both Christian and Muslim, are students at all of Israel’s universities, with special prominence at Ariel University, Hebrew University, Haifa University and Ben Gurion University. Ironically, it was Israel who established five Arab colleges in Judea and Samaria (AKA the West Bank) shortly after Israel liberated the area in 1967. (In 1968, when I visited Israel, Arab children no older than ten were peddling carved wood camels – “Art, lady! Art, lady” – and girls of the same age were carrying babies. All had running sores. My reaction at the time: WHY aren’t these children in school? The exceptions were in the Christian areas) Now, thanks to Israeli initiatives more than 4 decades ago, before there was ever a Palestinian Authority, they are all in school. Although, I must add that since the PA took over control of all schools in this area, we could shudder at the curriculum.

I hope I can count on the majority of our voices speaking out and voting against this travesty of justice and academic freedom.

Judith Oster
Professor Emerita of English
Case Western Reserve University

Thank you Russell Berman for your thoughtful comments. I too am surprised this resolution was approved by the DAOC. It does not meet two of the DAOC’s submission requirements (detailed on http://www.mla.org/prep_resdelegateassembly):

1. For approval, resolutions must be accompanied by “material that provides evidence in support of the resolution[‘s] claims” (MLA constitution, art. 11.C.3.b). The appended material includes no evidence of denial of entry to Gaza. All individuals quoted in the report, and all the case studies appended to it, refer to institutions on the West Bank.

2. Because no evidence is provided in support of the resolution’s claims, the reference to Gaza in the resolution proper is erroneous. Consequently the resolution does not meet the requirement that resolutions “may not contain erroneous, tortious, or possibly libelous statements.”

With regards to these issues in context, a colleague who is not an MLA member has written to suggest that I take note of a recent Op-Ed by the distinguished humanities scholar, Edward Alexander, and furthermore asks me to post it to this list–as the Emeritus Professor of English’s spirited critique of both academia and anti-semitism might be tonic for those of us who value argument, http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/tireless-enemies-israel-america-s-academic-boycotters_771650.html

I fully endorse Professor Lieberman’s opposition to the MLA Anti-Israel Resolution and urge other MLA members to do the same. Julia R Lieberman, Professor of Spanish and Jewish Studies (I have no relation to Professor Victor Lieberman)

I’d like to share Cary Nelson’s essay, published yesterday in the Wall Street Journal:

Another Anti-Israel Vote Comes to Academia
One scholar says being denied access to the West Bank violates her ‘rights as an American citizen.’ Huh?

Save for some college students refusing to buy Israeli hummus, the “boycott, divestment and sanctions” movement against the Jewish state has had very few successes over the past decade. That changed last month when the American Studies Association voted to boycott Israeli academic institutions. Now the Modern Language Association (MLA), a far more prominent group, is poised to condemn Israel at its annual meeting in Chicago. Anyone interested in academic freedom should pay attention.

Scholars at academic conferences are expected to offer original research and analysis in their presentations. That certainly can’t be said of one MLA session this Thursday, called “Academic Boycotts: A Conversation about Israel and Palestine.”

All the scheduled panelists are outspoken supporters of the boycott Israel movement: University of California, Riverside Prof. David Lloyd, Wesleyan Prof. Richard Ohmann, University of Texas Prof. Barbara Harlow, and Omar Barghouti, who has compared Israeli policies to those of Nazi Germany. Even the moderator, University of Texas Prof. Samer Ali, is a boycott supporter. In essays and public statements I have read, their message was clear: Israel, the worst human-rights violator on the planet, deserves to be made a pariah among nations.

On Saturday MLA members will also get to vote on a resolution by Wesleyan’s Mr. Ohmann and Columbia University Prof. Bruce Robbins that “urges the U.S. Department of State to contest Israel’s arbitrary denials of entry to Gaza and the West Bank by U.S. academics who have been invited to teach, confer, or do research at Palestinian universities.”

One scholar, Rima Merriman, who is quoted in the supporting document for the resolution, declared in 2009 that it was a violation of her “rights as an American citizen” to be denied access to the West Bank. Whether anyone explained to her that the U.S. does not control another nation’s visa rules I cannot say. Apparently some MLA members consider themselves qualified to judge whether a visitor presents a security risk.

There’s a lot at stake for the MLA here. The humanities—increasingly politicized and unserious—are in danger, as seen by plummeting enrollments in majors like English and history. To remain relevant, the MLA needs to be a big tent in which scholars can pursue research without being subjected to political litmus tests. Instead, by only featuring anti-Israel professors, the group seems to be taking a stance on the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Meanwhile, the MLA denied press credentials to two reporters from conservative-leaning outlets, the Daily Caller and the Jewish News Service, who wanted to cover the conference. This shows that the organization, which claims a principled devotion to academic freedom, needs a lesson in press freedom.

Academic freedom certainly isn’t the priority for supporters of the boycott Israel movement. If it were, they would not be so keen on breaking relations with the very Israeli institutions—its universities—that provide a home to many of the sharpest internal critics of Israeli government policy. Despite the claims of boycott advocates that they are all about promoting freedom, an academic boycott will inevitably inhibit interaction between American and Israeli professors. As more than 100 university presidents have argued in rejecting the American Studies Association boycott resolution, academic freedom can only survive if international exchanges are promoted, not curtailed.

Struggling to justify an agenda with no imaginable benefit to the Palestinian people, boycott advocates claim they can move Israeli universities to protest their government’s practices. A less likely outcome could hardly be imagined. If Israel and the Palestinians ever negotiate an agreement, it will not be because American faculty members have indulged their hatred of the Israeli state. By castigating Israel, the boycott movement instead will produce bitterly polarized constituencies here and abroad.

A truer indication of the real goal is the boycott movement’s success at increasing intolerance on American campuses. Junior faculty members sympathetic to Israel fear for their jobs if they make their views known. Established faculty who grasp the complexity of Middle East politics hold their tongues for fear of harassment by those who are more interested in offering lessons in contemporary demonology than in sound history. The politically correct stance in many academic departments is that Palestinians are victims and Israelis are oppressors. Period.

The fundamental goal of the boycott movement is not the peaceful coexistence of two states, one Jewish and one Palestinian, but rather the elimination of Israel. One nation called Palestine would rule from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. Those Jews not exiled or killed in the transition to an Arab-dominated nation would live as second-class citizens without fundamental rights.

There is no political route toward a one-state solution. But some American professors are too blinded by hatred of Israel—or too naive—to see that they are inadvertently advocating for armed conflict.

Mr. Nelson is an English professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He was president of the American Association of University Professors from 2006-12.