I want to make one point in response to Ran Greenstein’s argument for boycotting Israeli academia.
Robert Fine challenged him: “Why single Israel out? You say that Western governments do not single Israel out, at least not negatively, and that Israeli war crimes and violations of human rights have gone unpunished. You are on the whole right, though in the European Union there are signs of an increasingly ‘tough’ official attitude toward Israel. As I see it, the first question is whether Israel is a major human rights abuser in relation to the inhabitants either of its own territory or of surrounding territories. The comparisons you raise are indeed pertinent: Iran, Iraq (under Saddam), Sudan, Serbia, North Korea, Burma and Zimbabwe.”
Ran Greenstein answered the point: “I agree that if we wished to construct a universal scale of human rights violations, that would indeed be the case. That may be a worthwhile project, but not one I have any interest in. As an Israeli citizen my concern with what ‘my’ government is doing. As a Jew, my concern is with what the state that claims to represent me is doing in my name.”
If this is one of the reasons that Ran thinks it is right to single out Israel for exclusion from the global academic, artistic, sporting, economic community, or for particularly harsh criticism (apartheid, nazism, fascism) then it is not a good reason.
He himself is free to consider Israel, and its crimes, to be particularly important to his own worldview “as a Jew”. If this discussion is about him, and what is done in Ran’s name, then he is free to single out Israel.
But there is a dangerous slippage when Jewish antizionists, for whom Israel is centrally important in the world, take that attitude out into non-Jewish civil society.
The University of Johannesburg is not a Jewish organisation and so ought to relate to human rights abuses round the world consistently. The fact that Ran Greenstein thinks “as a Jew” is neither here nor there.
The University and College Union in the UK is not a Jewish organisation and so ought to do solidarity around the world in a consistant way. The fact that some leading activists who want to put Israel at the very forefront of its worldview do so “as a Jew” should not alter the policy of the union.
What is required for our institutions is precisely what Ran says he has no interest in: the construction of “a universal scale of human rights violations”. The values of solidarity, human rights and the university require a universal and consistent approach.
Antisemitism has always constructed Jews as being central to all that is bad in the world.
Some people, “as a Jew” and “not in my name” put the human rights abuses of Israel at the very forefront of their own political consciousness. I can understand this, even if it does not reflect my own way of thinking. It seems to me to skew one’s own thinking towards the parochial rather than the cosmopolitan. I want to be concerned with what is important in the world, not to centre my worldview around myself.
But when institutions like unions and universities allow the Jewish antizionsit focus on Israeli human rights abuses to become their own focus too, then this poses a clear danger. The danger is that unions and universities begin to teach their young people that Israel, and the Jews who live there, are a central evil on the planet. It is easy to see how this kind of Jewish exceptionalism mirrors older antisemitic forms and how this kind of Jewish exceptionalism is likely to foster antisemitic ways of thinking.
We have seen how the boycott debate brings with it antisemitism into the South African Trade Union movement and also into the University and College Union in the UK. The situation in UCU is now so serious that there are no Jews left at its biggest decision making body who are willing or able to argue against the boycott because they have been pushed out, bullied or banned. In South Africa, Cosatu, the trade union federation which has such a proud history and which was an inspiration to us all at one time, is now led in its international solidarity work by Bongani Masuku, a man who has been found guilty of employing antisemitic hate speech on Ran Greenstein’s campus.
“Not in my name” thinking has a tendency to make ourselves the centre of the world and to focus our political consciousness inwards rather than outwards. The danger is that it is a politics of despair. This kind of thinking has a tendency to encourage us to give up trying to change the world out there which exists, and to fall back on the rather easier project of declaring that we ourselves are not responsible for the evil that is done out there in the world.
Ran, your own “asa Jew” and “not in my name” consciousness is important to you – fine. But you should not allow that kind of thinking to define the way big and important civil society organisations think. Because it is dangerous. This reason for singling out Israel – because you yourself are Jewish – is certainly not tenable.
David Hirsh
Goldsmiths, University of London
Engage 