More than 500 anthropologists join academic boycott of Israel

[Jefferson23]

Academics say they oppose Israel's `violations of Palestinian rights' and are boycotting `Israeli academic institutions that are complicit.'

By Haaretz | Oct. 5, 2014 | 9:32 PM

More than 500 anthropologists, including some from top U.S. universities, have publicly joined an academic boycott of Israel, with another 77 joining anonymously.

The Washington Post reported that the individuals joined a boycott announced in February by the American Studies Association, the oldest and largest group devoted to the interdisciplinary study of American culture and history.

The people signed on to the boycott as individuals, the Post reported, adding that the American Anthropological Association is to debate a boycott resolution in December.

The statement says that the signatories oppose "the ongoing Israeli violations of Palestinian rights, including the Israeli military occupation of the Gaza Strip, West Bank, and East Jerusalem," and are boycotting "Israeli academic institutions that are complicit in these violations."

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.619314

[still_one]

1. typical

[BillZBubb]

3. I hope this really does become typical.

[still_one]

5. of course you would

[BillZBubb]

16. Who that stands for human rights wouldn't?

[BillZBubb]

2. Hopefully the movement continues to grow. End Israeli Apartheit!

[King_David]

4. "another 77 joining anonymously."

What's the point?

What they embarrassed about?

[Jefferson23]

7. Perhaps apprehensive of being targeted. n/t

[BillZBubb]

17. The all too familiar retaliation from pro-Israeli fanatics.

[King_David]

18. Your a spokesman for them? nt

[still_one]

6. Is anthropology a real science?

[Jefferson23]

8. The Science of Anthropology

Wednesday, May 18th, 2011

BU anthropologists on whether the field is a science
By Rich Barlow

The decision by the American Anthropological Association last fall to delete three references to “science” from its long-range plan drew volcanic eruptions from some outraged anthropologists. According to a New York Times report, the plan, which had said the AAA aspired “to advance anthropology as the science that studies humankind in all its aspects,” now says its goal is “to advance public understanding of humankind in all its aspects.”

Critics of the change charge that cultural anthropologists—who study such topics as race, ethnicity, and gender—disdain science and favor political advocacy for human rights and indigenous peoples. (Anthropological fields rooted in science include archaeology, the study of nonhuman primates, the study of fossils, and some cultural anthropology.) The AAA board issued a statement saying the Times and other media have “blown out of proportion” the wording change. It simultaneously released a document, “What is Anthropology?” to clarify its position. That document says anthropology draws on “the social and biological sciences as well as the humanities and physical sciences.”

BU Today sat down with two University anthropologists to parse the debate. Robert Weller chairs the College of Arts & Sciences anthropology department and falls into the cultural anthropology camp, specializing in the study of Chinese and Taiwanese religion and religious authority. Biological anthropologist Matt Cartmill, a CAS professor and director of graduate studies, hails from the science-rooted camp, studying human evolution. The two agree that their department hasn’t been torn by war between science-based and cultural anthropologists, as has happened elsewhere.

http://www.bu.edu/anthrop/2011/05/18/the-science-of-anthropology/

[Mosby]

9. physical yes, cultural not really.

I signed up for a cultural anthro course in college, the first day the professor said "I'm going to explain why men are pigs". Dropped the course the next day.

[Scootaloo]

11. Of course the professor did.

And naturally this anecdote from one day in a class categorizes the entire field.

[Mosby]

12. jefferson's link goes into the issues

Cultural anthropologists want to be advocates for minority/indigenous populations, that's politics not science.

Moreover science is about explaining, predicting and describing events, cultural anthro only does the describing part, and relies on evo psych for that which is mostly bullshit.

[Scootaloo]

13. Well, thank goodness your half-day of class informed you so well!

What didyou trade up for? Economic science?

[Mosby]

14. I did take micro and macro econ in college

And recognized that much of the foundations were dubious at best, especially micro.

My degree is in psychology, a social science that actually cares about the scientific method and empiricism.

[Scootaloo]

15. Thus the chuckle

I see economics as astrology for math nerds, and not much else.

[Scootaloo]

10. Are you serious?

[King_David]

21. Scientology is not a science either

Despite it's name.

You know this, right?

[DanTex]

30. That's a great point! Because anthropology and scientology are very similar!

LOL. Only in I/P.

[King_David]

37. My point exactly ,

You knew that ?

LOL

[azurnoir]

38. anthropology and scientology are similar? do you apply that standard to the work of Moshe Shokeid?

[King_David]

39. I never said they similar

They both not sciences .

Despite Scientology being called that.

[azurnoir]

40. so you're delegitimizing the work of Moshe Shokeid?

[King_David]

41. Huh ? What's this new bizzarrio accusation now?

LOL

[azurnoir]

42. you seem confused it was a question not an accusation or statement n/t

[oberliner]

19. Do you support this move?

Would you generally look favorably on those who follow suit?

[Jefferson23]

20. Support for BDS comes with reservations for me, but in the bigger picture, yes I support the

attention to the occupation which these actions bring. I doubt they will be a success on
their own, and find the threat over estimated. I do appreciate the distinction, for example,
the largest Presbyterian church made in their statements..I fully support that move.


On Supporting Middle East Peacemaking—From the Presbytery of New Covenant.
http://pc-biz.org/PC-Biz.WebApp_deploy/%28S%28nq0refkwl1augzlrwyhwtacv%29%29/IOBView.aspx?m=ro&id=4595

One needs to keep an eye on what Israel's intentions are and not forget their politically
powerful allies who don't have enough invested to ensure a viable state for the Palestinians.

The Palestinians should receive what is rightfully their land under international law, a viable
state of their own.

[oberliner]

23. Where do the reservations come in?

Boycotting contact with Israeli universities doesn't fall under that category?

There are not universities located within settlements - these are universities inside of Israel.

[Jefferson23]

24. They don't see it that way:

“The total ban on students from Gaza pursuing higher education in the West Bank cannot be considered a proportionate security measure, particularly since the Gaza Strip and the West Bank are considered to be one territory under the Oslo Accords and international humanitarian law.”

http://imeu.org/article/israeli-violations-of-palestinian-academic-freedom-access-to-education

My reservations are irrelevant.

[oberliner]

29. Your reservations are relevant

In that I am asking your opinion and trying to gauge what you would and would not support.

Are the Oslo Accords still operational in light of the lack of elections in Gaza since the Hamas takeover there?

[Jefferson23]

31. BDS is composed of a less than forth coming end result, and if they wish to be for one state

they have that right..but it is best to be clear and not ambiguous. Thus my full support
for the Presbyterian challenge.they make a clear distinction.

It is not up to me to decide what the Palestinians want, I see Bibi making two states
near impossible. I have already expressed why I see the need for the international
courts to be involved and massive civil disobedience, combined, to fight for a viable
state. Two states is only realistic to a point, a bantustan and living under a Marshall
Plan would be obscene and likely result in more violent conflicts. Much hinges on the
powers that be and they do not have the confidence of the people that I can see,
thus far...with good reason.

The Oslo Accords, sucked, period.

[Jim Lane]

22. Are they following generally applicable moral standards or joining a trendy movement?

We could start by asking which of them are boycotting China -- currently in the news for its repression in Hong Kong, but let's not forget the continuing decades-long occupation of Tibet, after an outright invasion and conquest.

After they boycott China we can ask them to articulate the general principles that determine "eligibility" for BDS (a general principle being something other than "I don't like what Israel is doing&quot , and then apply those principles to other countries, impartially.

[Jefferson23]

25. If you're asking me if they boycott China, I have no idea.

I think it's safe to say groups, institutions of learning etc, have the freedom to boycott whoever
they feel is oppressing people without beginning with China.

[Jim Lane]

27. Yes, they have the freedom to boycott whomever, and I have the freedom to criticize them.

I see a definite double standard here. Some ascribe it to anti-Semitism, but, as suggested in my previous post, I think trendiness is probably a more important factor.

While we're on the subject of freedoms, I also have the freedom to believe and to say that their criticism loses a lot of its moral force if it's not based on generally applicable standards.

[DanTex]

28. The double standard I see is that nobody makes this argument about people who take a stand

against other human rights abusers. If someone were to boycott China over Tibet (another very trendy cause, I'd add), would you criticize them for not also boycotting Israel?

[Jefferson23]

32. Exactly. n/t

[DanTex]

33. In a way, I was wrong. Apologists for South African apartheid also used to make this argument.

South Africa Shouldn't be Singled Out

WHILE the violation of human rights is the norm rather than the exception in most of Africa's 42 black-ruled states, the spotlight remains on South Africa. The images of racism, white supremacy, Nazism, etc. are a most effective part of a campaign to play on white guilt and to condition hatred for South Africa. While it is true that there are many things wrong in South Africa, the facts are sensationalized and distorted. A cheap political campaign to get black and also well-meaning (though not as well-informed) white liberal votes, is being run by using the white ``racist regime'' in Pretoria as a unifying issue.

http://www.csmonitor.com/1989/1012/ekri.html

[Jefferson23]

35. Yikes, people can justify anything, can't they. ugh. n/t

[Jim Lane]

34. If you see Tibet as a trendy cause, you move in different circles from mine.

I don't recall seeing calls for boycotts of China over Tibet with anywhere near the frequency and intensity of attacks on Israel over the Palestine issue.

My standard is that I'm pretty dubious about the effect of any of these symbolic sanctions. The major effect is probably to make some Americans feel good about themselves.

One criterion that could be generally applied would be to accord some deference to the views of our allies within the country we supposedly hope to influence. Will a particular type of sanction (refusal to purchase or, as here, an academic boycott) give our local allies leverage, or make them look like tools of unpopular foreigners? I don't know what the division of opinion in Israel is, but nothing I've seen from the BDS people gives me any confidence that they've considered broader issues.

[DanTex]

36. I guess so. I must have missed the Brad Pitt movie about Palestine.

Still, you didn't answer my question. If some group of academics decided to boycott China due to their policy towards Tibet, would you criticize their "double standard" for not also boycotting Israel? If the answer is "no", and I suspect it is, then the double standard here is yours.

My standard is that I'm pretty dubious about the effect of any of these symbolic sanctions. The major effect is probably to make some Americans feel good about themselves.

That's a different argument than you were making before. You were saying that the boycotters were motivated more by trendiness than by genuine concern for human rights, and you called it a "double standard". You're right that boycotts and sanctions aren't always effective, but that's not the same accusation. And it's not just limited to Israel, but also to people who, say, boycott Chick-fil-a over their anti-gay policies, or Hobby Lobby, or people who choose to avoid certain banks, etc. Are you as quick to dismiss the concerns of these other boycotts? How about boycotts and sanctions against previous apartheid in South Africa? See above, people made the same argument about those sanctions that you have made about Israel.

It's true, maybe refusing to eat at a restaurant chain that is openly anti-gay won't actually change their policies, but if it makes people feel better to not support that kind of corporation, is that really a bad thing? I mean, your vote probably won't individually change any election result, does that mean that voting is just a "feel good" activity?

[Jim Lane]

43. About double standards

First, I don't think Brad Pitt's 1997 movie generated any significant boycott buzz. I just Googled "Seven Years in Tibet" +boycott and the only relevant hit on the first page was this article about a boycott by China against the filmmakers.

I haven't heard of any organized academic boycott of China, but, if there were such a thing, and it weren't part of an overall perspective on human rights or international law or some such, then, yes, I'd consider that to be evidence of a double standard. If the target were the PRC, the obvious suspicion would be, not trendiness or anti-Semitism or Brad Pitt fandom, but anti-Communism, from right-wingers still eager to fight the Cold War. If people like that tried to whip up a fervor about "godless Reds" and their horrible crimes, while having a record of not caring about similar actions taken by staunchly anti-Communist regimes that the US government supported, then it would certainly look like their real motivation was something other than concern about the people of Tibet or Hong Kong.

As for boycotts of private businesses, there are some significant issues there that you touch on. I think it's different from an academic boycott of an entire country because, if I were to buy a meal at Chik-Fil-A (which I never have), my money would be going directly to the company. I have in the past eaten at Papa John's, but would not do so now, given that I'd be supporting a business that exploits its workers. To my mind, a purely commercial transaction isn't the same as academic engagement that might involve money but only incidentally.

Even a business boycott, however, does raise the issue of double standards. The last pizza I bought was from a small, locally owned shop, but I haven't researched that owner's politics or practices. And what if you do research alternatives and find that, if you want to stop patronizing a business with bad labor practices and multiple NLRA violations, the only realistic alternative is one that has a bad environmental record? I vaguely recall something of the sort arising during the South Africa boycott you mention -- I think a company that continued to do business in South Africa was the leader in its industry in providing equal opportunity to women in the workplace, including promotions to executive positions.

I agree with you that my "boycott" of Chik-Fil-A won't change company policies. I've never eaten there and wouldn't know where to find one without doing a search. There is a Papa John's near me but they're probably also not lying awake nights wondering if they should clean up their act to get me back. There's probably no noticeable effect except that I feel good about myself. An academic boycott, however, seems more fundamental, as disadvantaging students and scholars in both countries and inhibiting the free exchange of ideas and information. It does do some real-world harm. Therefore, it's reasonable for the proponents to be scrutinized more closely about their program.

[DanTex]

44. Some fair points.

I still disagree that Tibet isn't a trendy issue. Plenty of celebrities (Richard Gere, for example) are involved. If you walk around a college campus, I'd bet you see many more "free Tibet" t-shirts than "free Palestine" t-shirts.

I also disagree with your general suspicion of people taking action for certain causes. People pick specific causes for whatever reason, and as long as the cause is just, I don't see the problem. Maybe distributing one's efforts among all worthy causes, in proportion to the amount of injustice of each, would be ideal, but still, picking one or two good causes for whatever reason is still a good thing. If someone first becomes aware of Tibet because of Richard Gere, but then educates themselves, and decides to take a stand, I don't see why that's bad.

The one major difference I see between Palestine and other places like Tibet is that there isn't any real opposition, at least not outside of China, to advocating for Tibetan independence. I take you at your word that if someone had posted in GD about a group boycotting China over Tibet, you would also take them to task over their intentions and double standards. But this would make you the exception.

[Jim Lane]

45. Tibet and Palestine

You write, "The one major difference I see between Palestine and other places like Tibet is that there isn't any real opposition, at least not outside of China, to advocating for Tibetan independence."

I'd say the reason for that is that the issues are much clearer. No one was using Tibet as a staging area for violent attacks on China. China launched a war of aggression in which its troops crossed an internationally recognized boundary and conquered and occupied the country.

The situation in the Middle East is more complicated. (That should be one sentence about the Middle East that meets widespread agreement.) Israel's occupation of West Bank territories outside its original borders came about through wars instigated by its foes, and Israel does have legitimate security concerns that had no parallel in China. (Well, the concerns are legitimate if you assume that Israel has a right to exist, a premise not universally accepted in the Middle East.) Of course, the Palestinians also have legitimate concerns -- that's why the situation is complicated.

DU has this Group devoted to the issue because there are so many nuances and so many points on which reasonable people can differ. There's no corresponding need for a China/Tibet Group.

[Jefferson23]

26. The full statement and signatory list can also be found at http://anthroboycott.wordpress.com

We, the undersigned anthropologists, are circulating this petition to voice our opposition to the ongoing Israeli violations of Palestinian rights, including the Israeli military occupation of the Gaza Strip, West Bank, and East Jerusalem, and to boycott Israeli academic institutions that are complicit in these violations.

The recent military assault on the Gaza Strip by Israel is only the latest reminder that the world’s governments and mainstream media do not hold Israel accountable for its violations of international law. As a community of scholars who study problems of power, oppression, and cultural hegemony, we have a moral responsibility to speak out and demand accountability from Israel and our own governments. Acting in solidarity with Palestinian civil society continues a disciplinary tradition of support for anticolonial and human rights struggles, itself an important departure from anthropology’s historical complicity with colonialism. As laid out in the American Anthropological Association (AAA)’s 1999 Declaration on Anthropology and Human Rights, “Anthropology as a profession is committed to the promotion and protection of the right of people and peoples everywhere to the full realization of their humanity…When any culture or society denies or permits the denial of such opportunity to any of its own members or others, the AAA has an ethical responsibility to protest and oppose such deprivation.”

Israel has maintained an illegal siege on the Gaza Strip for seven years, severely restricting the movement of people and goods in and out of the territory. Palestinians are also being dispossessed of their lands and livelihoods throughout the West Bank, where Israel’s separation barrier curtails Palestinian freedom of movement and education. These and other ongoing violations will continue unless people around the world act where their governments have failed.

As employees in institutions of higher learning, we have a particular responsibility to oppose Israel’s widespread and systematic violations of the right to higher education of Palestinians on both sides of the Green Line. In recent months, Israeli forces have raided Al Quds University in Jerusalem, the Arab American University in Jenin, and Birzeit University near Ramallah. In this summer’s assault, Israeli aerial bombardment destroyed much of the Islamic University of Gaza. More generally, the Israeli state discriminates against Palestinian students in Israeli universities and it isolates Palestinian academia by, among other tactics, preventing foreign academics from visiting Palestinian institutions in Gaza and the West Bank. We are also alarmed by the long history of confiscations of Palestinian archives and the destruction of libraries and research centers.

Israeli academic institutions are complicit with the occupation and oppression of Palestinians. Tel Aviv University, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Bar Ilan University, Haifa University, Technion, and Ben Gurion University have publicly declared their unconditional support for the Israeli military. Furthermore, there are intimate connections between Israeli academic institutions and the military, security, and political establishments in Israel. To take but one example: Tel Aviv University is directly implicated, through its Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), in developing the Dahiya Doctrine, adopted by the Israeli military in its assaults on Lebanon in 2006 and on Gaza this summer. The Dahiya Doctrine advocates the extensive destruction of civilian infrastructure and “intense suffering” among the civilian population as an “effective” means to subdue any resistance.

As anthropologists, we feel compelled to join academics around the world who support the Palestinian call to boycott Israeli academic institutions. This call is part of a long-standing appeal by Palestinian civil society organizations for the comprehensive implementation of boycotts, divestments, and sanctions (BDS) of Israel, and is supported by the Palestinian Federation of Unions of University Professors and Employees (PFUUPE).

In responding to the Palestinian call, we seek to practice what the AAA calls an “engaged anthropology” that is “committed to supporting social change efforts that arise from the interaction between community goals and anthropological research.” Anthropological research has illuminated the destructive effects of the Israeli occupation on Palestinian society. And the Palestinian community has called for an academic boycott of Israel as a necessary step to ensuring Palestinian rights, including the right to education.

In accordance with these stated principles in support of rights and justice, anthropologists both independently and through the AAA have taken strong stances on a number of issues: apartheid in South Africa, Namibia, and Burundi; violence against civilians in the former Yugoslavia and Pakistan; violence against indigenous and minority populations in Chile, Brazil, and Bulgaria; the use of torture; the Pinochet coup in Chile; and the misuse of anthropological knowledge in the U.S. Army’s Human Terrain System. As an organization, the AAA has also participated in boycotts on several occasions: of the Fulbright-Chile program in 1975; of the State of Illinois in 1999; of the Hilton hotel chain in 2004; of Coca-Cola in 2006; and of the State of Arizona in 2010.

Boycotting Israeli academic institutions is very much in concert with these previous actions. Our decision now to sign on as individuals to the academic boycott represents a concrete and consequential assertion of our commitment as anthropologists to the struggle of the Palestinian people.

Following in the footsteps of the growing number of US academic associations that have endorsed boycott resolutions, we call on our anthropologist colleagues to boycott Israeli academic institutions. Given that decades of interaction, cooperation and collaboration with Israeli institutions have not produced mutual understanding or stopped the military occupation and its violations, we believe that this boycott is the only non-violent form of pressure that could persuade Israelis to call for – and act for – meaningful change that could lead to a just peace. Palestinians must be free to attend universities, in Palestine and internationally, in security. They must have a flourishing, inclusive, well-rounded educational experience. They must be free to meet and learn from scholars from all over the world.

We pledge not to collaborate on projects and events involving Israeli academic institutions, not to teach at or to attend conferences and other events at such institutions, and not to publish in academic journals based in Israel. We call for doing so until such time as these institutions end their complicity in violating Palestinian rights as stipulated in international law, and respect the full rights of Palestinians by calling on Israel to:

End its siege of Gaza, its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands occupied in June 1967, and dismantle the settlements and the walls;
Recognize the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel and the stateless Negev Bedouins to full equality; and
Respect, protect, and promote the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194.