“This House Believes in an Academic Boycott of Israel” LSE Thurday 13 Jan

For:  Dr. John Chalcraft

Arguing in favour of the motion will be Dr. Chalcraft, who having studied at Cambridge, Harvard and Oxford, gained a doctorate with distinction in the modern history of the Middle East in 2001. He is currently a reader in the History and Politics of Empire/Imperialism in the Department of Government at the LSE.

Against: Prof. Daniel Hochhauser

Arguing against the motion will be Professor Hochhauser, who is Kathleen Ferrier Professor of Medical Oncology at UCL. He is a consultant medical oncologist at UCLH specialising in the treatment of gastrointestinal cancer.

For tickets email Su.Soc.Israel@lse.ac.uk by 6pm tomorrow (12th January)

Do go along and give Daniel, and the anti-boycotters at LSE some support.

A joint event hosted by the LSESU Israel Society and LSESU Palestine

6 pm – 7.30 pm
Thursday 13th January 2011
Old building, Old Theatre, LSE

debate poster

7 Responses to ““This House Believes in an Academic Boycott of Israel” LSE Thurday 13 Jan”

  1. 4 Years on, Still Obsessed With Boycotting Israelis. | ModernityBlog Says:

    […] covers another staged debate on the boycotting of Israelis, to be held at the LSE, on Thursday 13th January […]

  2. Bill Says:

    Arguing against the motion will be Professor Hochhauser, who is Kathleen Ferrier Professor of Medical Oncology at UCL

    Will this gent come to the floor with the counter proposal to boycott Israeli technology and medical knowledge, as many of us here have pined for? It WOULD be nice for such a thing to be forwarded in one of these debates just to show how superficial the boycoteers are as they try to wiggle and make special cases for those technologies and advances from Israel that they’ll permit through their vanity boycott.

  3. Sarah AB Says:

    I was glad to hear that the motion was defeated and wondered if anyone knew whether a vote was taken before as well as after the debates?

  4. Sarah AB Says:

    Just seen that someone answered my question on HP – there *wasn’t* a vote before the debate. I asked because I sense the final vote in such debates may be largely predetermined because they tend to be attended by those with very strong views. But I also thought/hoped there might have been at least a slight shift over to Prof Hochhauser because I think the arguments against a boycott of Israel are much stronger than those in support of one, and that people would be swayed by, say, the observation that boycotters seem to target Israel in a disproportionate way.

    In a sense this is rather a redundant observation because if you are against the boycott it stands to reason that you think the arguments against are stronger. But I started to wonder what proportion of those on each side sincerely think their case is stronger and welcome open debates in order to advance their cause. I’m sure there are some pro-boycotters who are sincere, who think they have the better case and welcome an opportunity to debate, and who also think a boycott may help bring about peace, justice etc. But I suspect that others are less confident, as demonstrated by the reluctance I sense on their side to have fairly organised and balanced (and neutrally recorded) debates – like this one seems to have been.

  5. conchovor Says:

    Here’s another account by someone who was present:

    http://spme.net/cgi-bin/articles.cgi?ID=7574


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: