For the past decade, Palestinian civil society groups have been calling for people around the world to boycott Israeli institutions and corporations, including Israeli universities and other academic institutions. The academic boycott is part of a larger movement called BDS, which stands for Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions. Israeli cultural and academic institutions, according to the BDS website, “directly contribute to maintaining, defending or whitewashing the oppression of Palestinians.”
This movement reached Grounds recently, when University anthropology professor Richard Handler joined over 650 other anthropologists in the International Anthropologist Boycott of Israeli Academic Institutions.
Palestinian civil society groups draw a direct link between Israeli academic institutions and Israeli military and political policies. They also point to the restriction of the academic freedom of Palestinians under Israeli occupation as justification of the boycott. However, due to the threat these boycotts pose to academic freedom, they are not a just or effective way to bring about political change, especially within a democracy.
To boycott Israeli academic institutions is to generalize. Many Israeli scholars support the views championed by boycotters. By boycotting all Israeli academic institutions, we don’t hear the opinions of those who otherwise might be voices of reason within this conflict. In addition, the boycott does not address the root cause of the issues cited by Palestinian civil society. Those issues are results of government and military policies, over which the vast majority of academics have little or no control.
In her essay, “Against Academic Boycotts,” Martha Nussbaum, a philosopher and professor at the University of Chicago, draws the distinction between direct liability and implication. The academics in question should not be held directly liable for human rights violations in Palestine. Thus, boycotting them is a slanted way to get at the root of the problem: government policy.
A superior approach would be to focus on lobbying efforts, both within Israel as well as the United States. Rather than simply refusing to engage with any Israeli academics, American academics would do better to use their positions of influence to lobby for change within American policies towards Israel. The American government is vulnerable to changes in public opinion, and public opinion can be influenced by convincing arguments from academics.
According to Daniel Lefkowitz, a professor in the University’s Jewish Studies Department who has chosen not to take part in the boycott, “the kinds of Israeli actions that boycotters disapprove of exist largely because of support from the American government.”
Lefkowitz also emphasized the difference between boycotts in fields such as anthropology versus technology and scientific fields. Since scientific and technological fields are much more entwined with economic prosperity, they are far more likely to influence policy in Israel.
The academic boycotts are a purely symbolic gesture. If there is any effect at all, it will be isolating academics that have the most power to influence public opinion within Israel. Instead of closing lines of communication between American and Israeli academics, the focus should remain on increasing the number of scholars willing to confront the difficult questions of this conflict.
While I do not believe academic boycotts are an effective or just method of political change, I recognize the validity of these efforts. Palestinian civil society groups have sought solutions for decades to little avail. It is hard to condemn any nonviolent efforts when considering the futility of past movements. It would also be naive to say that Israeli academic institutions are completely devoid of responsibility, especially since academic institutions are public in Israel, and some work closely with the government.
The United States’ ties with Israel are not strictly political. “It’s almost like a family betrayal,” said Manuel Trajtenberg, an economics professor at Tel Aviv University in response to the American Studies Association’s endorsement of the academic boycott. While the academic boycott will likely be futile, as many other efforts to influence this conflict have been, it signifies that Americans are more willing to question their conception of Israel and the United States’ role in the conflict.
As the conflict in the region continues, the depth and significance of the existing divisions become increasingly evident. As the international community looks for solutions, it is vital that communication lines to Israeli academics remain open. We should look to academics and experts on the conflict, both in Israel and Palestine and around the world, for solutions.
That being said, encouraging individuals to participate in economic rather than symbolic boycotts of Israel may have tangible results. Within democracies such as Israel and the United States, emphasis on individuality promotes a sense of ownership of topical issues.
Mary Russo is an Opinion Columnist for The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at m.russo@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | 13 hours agoInstead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
EDITORIAL: Celebrating and reflecting on The Cavalier Daily’s independence
By Editorial Board | 6 days agoOur independence grants us the ability to ask the hard questions and to say what University representatives cannot.
ARRAS: U.Va. must revise the Sexual Assault Prevention Training module
By Aoife Arras | April 17, 2024In addition to its failures in interactivity, the module lacks details specific to the University and discusses key concepts in universal terms.
