Weekend Argus (Saturday Edition)
Cutting ties will not change country’s policies
Paranoid notion of anti-Israel activism
THE proposed academic boycott of Israeli academic institutions by UCT is neither ethically nor educationally sustainable.
The much-predicted boycott of Israel is often compared with the ANC-promoted academic boycott under apartheid, with the goal of using this strategy to exert international pressure.
The South African case is frequently invoked as a model for recent efforts to organise an academic boycott of Israel.
These two campaigns cannot be conflated and compared. The proposed academic boycott of Israel is based on a misconception that the reasons are the same as the academic boycott of South Africa and therefore is ethically justified.
The reality under apartheid is different in the case of Israel where a government policy of discrimination on the basis of colour, ethnicity and religion does not exist.
How is this boycott expected to ensure the outcome of resolving the Israeli/ Palestinian conflict?
Cutting ties with Israel will not end or change policies and will not influence the status quo. Too many influential and powerful countries, such as the US, will not co-operate with such a boycott, and have taken a decision to punish those that do.
The idea of a UCT boycott of Israel is aimed at a particular state or ethnic group of people and not at a political system, which makes it unjust and discriminatory, contrary to academic freedom and the constitution.
Such a boycott is not an effective nor appropriate form of sanction, it is not ethically nor educationally justified, it is a violation of academic freedom, it is anti-Semitic and as such is driven by hate. If it is to survive as an institution of excellence, UCT should have nothing to do with it. AMONG the many examples of the shameful degradation of values in academia, few are more intellectually grotesque than academic boycotts.
And these boycotts, in their present form, are almost exclusively targeted at Israeli scholars and institutions. UCT should not allow itself to be drawn into this hypocrisy.
What is being revealed in the UCT boycott debate is the absurdly paranoid notion that any antiIsrael activism should be supported regardless of facts and the truth.
What terrifies these intellectual hypocrites is the possibility that if they don’t publicly announce their enmity for Israel, Zionism and Jewish rights on campus, they will be pilloried by the Palestinian camp, who should be named for what they are: anti-Israel activists whose ideology can, and should, be made transparent, exposed and understood.
Let’s hope for the sake of the future UCT does not make the wrong choice. If they do, history will hold them accountable for their toxic views.