While the Zionists work relentlessly to single out nations that ought to be divested from, companies that ought to be boycotted and individuals that ought to be blacklisted, they fight on legal grounds the idea that Israel can be singled out for anything punitive. They fight so that the dark side of Israel’s activities be hidden from the public as the Jewish state continues to savagely oppress the people of Palestine. There is here some hypocrisy and also the need for a critical look at the issues involved.
An example of this came up when under pressure from the Zionist Lobby, the University and College Union (UCU) in Britain rejected the call for the academic boycott of Israel on the ground that the proposed boycott is discriminatory because it singles out Israel. Then the Union went further and said that to discuss the ban may itself constitute an illegal act according to a legal opinion handed down by some authority.
Let us leave out the issue of hypocrisy at this time because it is futile to discuss the mental state of a group of people who believe they were chosen by God to receive everything they wish for – no questions asked – solely upon the expression of their wish.
Focusing on the issue of fairness from the legal angle, we must distinguish between two things. There is the making of the law and there is the application of the law. We do not make laws that single out someone because of race, color of skin and such considerations because this would be discriminatory and beyond the pale of civilized conduct. There is no need for further elaboration here.
But when it comes to the application of the law, this is another matter. I begin with an example to illustrate the point. The police catch one of two criminals who may or may not have committed a crime together, this last part is beside the point. The main point is that the police will prosecute the criminal they caught and not wait until they catch the criminal who got away on the ground that it would be discriminatory and unfair to prosecute the one they caught.
Consequently to say, as did the UCU that Israel should be immune from prosecution in the court of public opinion because this would single her out is to turn the logic upside down even if we assume there were accomplices to what Israel has done. More than that, to refrain from discussing the issue is to single out Israel as being above everyone else which would amount to taking a stand that goes beyond the pale of civilized conduct.
And then to go on and say that this is a legal opinion expressed by someone in a position to know British law is to cast a shadow on the laws of that country. It is to say that the system in Britain is not a system of laws or one of men but is the system of a supremacist race residing in Israel, which system is being imposed on Britain. This says that it is illegal to violate the premise of the new system, illegal to question it and illegal to discuss it especially among those who are affected by it.
Well, well, look at that ! This stuff is right out of the new Bible which is adhered to by the Christian Zionists in the American South. Witness Pastor John Hagee as he rewrites the laws of Britain in the same way that he and his cohorts rewrote the Christian Bible to give it a more Zionist flavor.
Wow, who would have thought this can happen in Britain! Listen people, there is only one way to deal with this outrage. It is fittingly a well known American way and it goes like this: NUTS. That opinion is not worth the toilet paper it is written on. The right thing to do is to flush the idea down the nearest hole and go from there.
But where to go from here? Well, you begin by making those points clear to the members on whose behalf the UCU says it is speaking. You get as many of the members as you can to ignore the edict, especially that it sounds too much like a Hagee edict. You call for a gathering which you hold in a very public fashion and you discuss what the Union leadership has banned.
At the same time as you do that, you work to replace those at the Union who were responsible for the decision. And then, to make sure that such thing never happens again, you investigate to determine if someone received a bribe. If yes, you throw the book of criminal code at them and make sure they get their just reward. Otherwise have their mental state checked and if found to have been contaminated by the Hageeist cult, publicize their plight so that the public know to whose drumbeat these characters are marching.
This said, I now begin to debate what the Union says may be illegal to do in Britain. Of course I have the advantage of being neither a member of the Union nor a resident of Britain. However, you may consider this to be beside the point given what I have to say.
I begin with two of my long held convictions which are that collective punishment is unjust and that it is wiser to reach out to the good individuals in the camp you seek to change than to punish the good individuals along with the bad ones in that camp.
I have no doubt in my mind that there are professors in the colleges and the universities of Israel who are sympathetic to the cause of the Palestinian people and who would be prepared to help the good cause. I also believe there are professors who may be sitting on the fence now but who could be swayed to come to the side of the Palestinians.
To punish these two groups with a general boycott of the colleges and the universities would be counterproductive. A better way would be to invite everyone into the tent and seek out the individuals in each group who would be willing to work for the good cause. Enlist these individuals to help you in what you want to achieve and, at the minimum do not antagonize those who will not come to your side right away. You never know what their circumstances are and you never know what tomorrow will bring; people do change with time.
By all means boycott those individuals who are rabid anti-Palestine if that is your wish although I would have preferred to debate these people and beat them at their own game. But do not place every Israeli professor on the same list because to do so will give them all a collective cause to fight for, one that seeks to defeat the boycott. You will force the good, the bad and the worst among these people to develop a common bond that is not there now. This will not only work to defeat your plan but will work against the further development of a peace movement in Israel which is badly needed at this time.
In any case, I look forward to seeing the expression of other points of view. The debate being at an early stage, I am certain there is more to the issues than what is now obvious. I shall be eager to learn from what someone else has to say as the debate progresses. And like it happens all the time, I may want to alter my stand after I have been exposed to the other views. This is how democracy works. It is our system. It is the body of laws we never knowingly violate.
And it is under this very system that those who advocate the boycott of Israel have every right to do so. And it is under this very system that those who oppose the idea of the boycott of Israel have the right to do so. Neither camp is breaking any law at this point.
But what is dictatorial and therefore criminal under the constitution of every free nation is to call illegal the right to engage in activities that are protected by the constitution. The UCU is standing on very shaky grounds on this point and must be taken to task, especially that the UCU has coercive powers over the members. This is a serious matter and should be dealt with firmly.