Yourish.com

When even the Economist thinks there’s something that smells funny about the attempted academic boycott of Israel, well, there is.

But in Israel many academics, on both left and right, are as mystified as they are enraged. Israel at present has a centre-left government that proposes a two-state solution for the Palestine conflict. The Palestinians have voted into office an Islamist government under the Hamas movement that says it aims to end the existence of the Jewish state by a policy of armed struggle. By general consent, moreover, Israel’s universities enjoy far greater academic freedom than any in the Middle East. Why, in these circumstances, should Israeli academics be shunned while those from the other side are welcomed?

Because the vote is perceived as a generalised attack on all Israeli academia, it has also created some embarrassment for Israeli scholars on the political left. Gary Sussman, a social scientist at Tel Aviv University, said that in the new climate created by the vote, charges that the Israeli peace movement is a “fifth column” would have greater credibility. Among supporters of a boycott, there were probably some who wanted to change Israeli policy, and end the occupation of the West Bank, while others were simply against the existence of a Jewish state, Mr Sussman says. The British vote had lent credibility to those who put all external critics of Israel in the second camp.

That is almost certainly true. The Anti-Defamation League, a movement which fights anti-Semitism, has placed some dramatic newspaper advertisements to underline its case that the singling out of Israel by British academia—at a time of terrible misdeeds in Darfur, Zimbabwe and Iran—can only reflect prejudice. Menachem Klein, a political scientist and veteran of Israeli-Palestinian peace initiatives, says academic boycotts are not always wrong—but Israel’s misdeeds had not merited such a harsh response. The more venerable parts of the British academic establishment seem to agree: there have been condemnations of the UCU vote from the Royal Society, the Academy of Medical Sciences, and Universities UK, which groups all universities’ vice-chancellors.

British supporters of a boycott cannot claim that they did not expect the swiftness of the reaction. In April Britain’s National Union of Journalists voted in favour of a boycott of Israeli goods, by 66 to 54—as part of a protest against last year’s war in Lebanon. Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate at the University of Texas, instantly dropped plans to visit London’s Imperial College in July, saying it was “hard to find any explanation other than anti-Semitism” for the union’s move.

The Economist is no fan of Israel. This article speaks volumes about the lack of merit of the case for boycotting Israel, and only Israel.

I’m starting to see the words “at its worst level since 1936” in stories about European anti-Semitism. This is both frightening and depressing. The world just does not like the Jews.

A Jewish peer has warned that anti-Semitism is at its worst level in Britain since he fled here from Germany in 1936.

Lord Moser said he was particularly concerned about anti-Jewish feeling in Britain’s universities.

Addressing a House of Lords debate on anti-Semitism on university campuses, the crossbench peer said: “It is just over 70 years since I came to this country and I have to say that I’ve never been more concerned about the rising tide of anti-Semitism throughout Europe, including this country.

“This is evident in many ways and among my greatest worries is what is happening on university campuses where there have been many examples of anti-Semitic outbursts and discrimination.

“Leadership of the universities and the Government need to speak out in the strongest terms against such interference.”

The world does not like the Jews.

Apparently, Lord Moser wasn’t alone in his fears.

Student unions must be brought within the Race Relations Amendment Act to protect Jewish students and university leaders must crack down on anti-semitism on campus, Lady Deech, the independent adjudicator for higher education, urged last night.

She told the House of Lords that increasing anti-semitism posed a threat in British universities and strongly condemned the proposed academic boycott of Israel by members of the University and College Union.

[…] It should be a condition of funding and research grants that universities should explicitly oppose all discrimination and political sanctions against scholars on the ground of religion or ethnicity or nationality, she said.

“‘Zionist’ has become a word of opprobrium – all Jews are so labelled – and attacks on Jews rose with the occurrence of the Lebanon war – attacks on Jews in this country and elsewhere, not attacks on Israeli buildings,” Lady Deech told peers.

She added: “Once the equation is made between Zionism and Jews, anti-semites then feel free to attack all Jewish students without distinction. Protests start as attacks on Israel and conclude with threats to all Jews.”

Much has been written on the fact that the British academic boycott is being over-harshly reacted to by Israel and Jews. But that isn’t true. Every step forward for the boycott movement is a step they never go back. Every move against Israel is another tiny chink in the armor protecting the Jewish State from being delegitimized by the haters. And these movements are run by the Jew-haters, make no mistake about it. The point isn’t that the boycotters are going to fail, because they are in the minority. The point is that the boycotters have moved the goalposts again. The boycotters may have some people who honestly believe they are only acting in the interests of the “oppressed” Palestinians, but they are devised by, and run by, those who hate Israel, and Jews, with every breath they take. The true purpose of these boycotts is not to boycott, but to eventually utterly destroy the nation state of Israel—and replace it with a “binational” state called “Palestine.”

However, I have to say, on this one, Dershowitz needs to STFU. He’s over the top. I think the point can be made without threatening to “devastate and bankrupt” the boycotters. Way to shoot the ball into the wrong goal, Dersh.