Should MLA Boycott Israeli Academics? Part IV

Uncategorized

Should MLA Boycott Israeli Academics? Part IV

Published by

Clarissa

January 5, 2017

[Anthony Kwame Appiah is moderating and doing a very good job]

A Sikh gentleman said he’s very ambivalent.

A professor said he has many Hispanic students, so he’s in favor of the boycott.

A prof said he’s against Bibi and against settlements but it’s counterproductive to single out academics.

A young woman repeated I, I, I, me, me, me so many times that I don’t know what she thinks about the boycott.

A disabled gentleman showed great erudition gathered in his 53 years of MLA membership.

[Gayatri Spivak left and I’m following because I’m about to pass out. I’ve reported much of it bravely, though.]

Rate this:

12 responses to “Should MLA Boycott Israeli Academics? Part IV”

Anonymous

January 5, 2017

After reading all this, who can be surprised about the situation in Israel…

LikeLike

Reply
1. Clarissa
  
  January 5, 2017
  
  I’m against the occupation, I’m against the creeping settlements, I’m against this completely immoral practice where 3 settlers move to a village accompanied by a battalion of soldiers who “protect” them by turning everybody else’s life into hell. But this shouldn’t be an opportunity for smug American academics to preen, posture and feel good about themselves.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. Dreidel
    
    January 5, 2017
    
    The 49-year-old occupation has been necessary to give Israel defensible borders against Palestinian butchers whose only goal since 1948 has been to destroy the Jewish State.
    
    The unstated purpose of the continued settlements is obvious — to finally kill off, once and for all, the ridiculous fantasy of a “two-state solution” that would bring terrorist rockets within reach of Israel’s major cities.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. Stringer Bell
      
      January 5, 2017
      
      “The 49-year-old occupation has been necessary..”
      
      lol.
      
      I wonder what this motherfucker’s response to history’s other injustices were. Like what convoluted logic did he use to oppose desegregation, the civil rights movement, women’s rights, anti-apartheid movements?
      
      All of these happened in his lifetime. And you know this idiot reactionary was against them all. I am just curious about the language he used to justify his ‘principled’ stances.
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
      1. Dreidel
        
        January 5, 2017
        
        ‘motherfucker’ ‘idiot reactionary’ etc.”
        
        How long have you been out of middle school, you pathetic name-calling adolescent?
        
        I strongly recommend anger-management classes. 🙂
        
        LikeLike
        
        Reply
        
        Stringer Bell
        
        January 5, 2017
        
        Remember, in Dreidel’s world, using the f word is the the worst thing one can do.
        
        Using racial slurs, calling for murder and continuous subjugation of a people is fine, though. Just do it politely.
        
        LikeLike
        
        Reply
        
        Dreidel
        
        January 7, 2017
        
        LOL – smug hypocrtical antisemitic liberal haters-of-Israel are calling for murder whenever they advocate the policies of BDS, whose goals are directed specifically at creating a Judenrein Palestinian State from the Jordon River and the Dead Sea all the way to the western banks of the Mediterreanian Sea.
        
        Forget the middle-school vulgarities, and explan to me in adult language how the total unwillingness of the “Palestinians” to recognize the existence of Israel, after so many chances to accept its presence as a Jewish State in return for their own fully reccognized Palestinian State, is heading to anything but endless ongoing murder attempts by a thousand cuts — stabbing Jewish grandmothers in the back, bashing in the skulls of Jewsish infants in their settlers’ beds, shooting civilans on buses.
        
        If you support BDS in ANY form — if you cheer the terrorists on while they murder Jewish civilians while you simultaneously denounce legitimate Israeli attempts to defend the lives of their people — then you are an ANTISEMITIC RACIST HYPOCRITE supporting the extermination of the Jewish People.
        
        You can call me obscene middle-school names all you want, but you can’t deny this truth!
        
        LikeLike
    2. Clarissa
      
      January 5, 2017
      
      I thought the point of settlements is precisely to erase the possibility of a clear border. The border is always in flux. And the result is tension and hatred that have no end.
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
      1. cliff arroyo
        
        January 6, 2017
        
        The point of settlements is to make Israel’s borders as large as possible when they are finally drawn. I thought that was kind of…. clear.
        
        LikeLike
        
        Reply
        
        Clarissa
        
        January 6, 2017
        
        I’m doubting that it will ever come to that in practice. What will the Israeli government do without the convenient distraction of settlement drama?
        
        LikeLike
        
        Reply
el

January 6, 2017

\ What will the Israeli government do without the convenient distraction of settlement drama?

Uri’s latest column is about different kinds of settlers:

Yes, We Can
http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1483709579/

LikeLike

Reply
el

January 7, 2017

\ The point of settlements is to make Israel’s borders as large as possible when they are finally drawn.

Yes.

Btw, I have just discovered Dr. Dan Schueftan, the director of the National Security Studies Center at the University of Haifa and a consultant to Israeli decision makers. Saw his article on a Hebrew news site and began researching more about him.

The article (published 06.01.17) is here, if somebody wants to use GoogleTranslate:
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4903685,00.html

Regarding Palestinians, he says Israel is making a mistake by not going for … not a chance for peace / two states solution (since Palestinian leadership doesn’t want it), but rather going for the Separation Option, for which Israel needs the support of reliable American administration. His plan:

\ This is a gradual unilateral withdrawal from the Jewish settlements in the area beyond the security fence, leaving the IDF’s freedom of action in any area until IDF is replaced someday a responsible and dependable Arab army – Jordanian or Egyptian – which will suppress terrorism and prevent from the Palestinians to act against Israel.

Many Leftist Israeli Jews talk about cooperation between the two states – Israel and the future Palestinian one – as a way to promote good neighborly relations and give Palestinians help in building normal life (and also something to lose in case of terror waves). Schueftan, however, made an interesting point in “The Separation Option: An Alternative to the Peace Process?” (it is in English):

\ Economic cooperation. Contrary to conventional wisdom, economic cooperation between the two states should be kept to a minimum so as to avoid a worsening of the Israeli-Palestinian political conflict. In most cooperative ventures, Arabs provide the cheap labor and Jews bring financing, technology, and marketing. The economic result is that ninety-five cents of every dollar stays in Israel, which makes Palestinians feel like they do the work while Israelis make the profits. It also creates a deep class conflict on top of an already-existing national conflict which further undermines any hope of neighborly relations in the future.

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/the-separation-option-an-alternative-to-the-peace-process

LikeLike

Reply