Israeli Academic Boycott / international disgrace

[Qfwfq]

I don't see all of that lexicon as being "outright manipulative demonisation". The differences are obvious and take a lot less than 5 seconds to see, but I fail to see as much bias as you do. What's wrong with calling torture torture?

 

Therefore memebers of the academic community should not be supporting exteme measures as if one side is 100% right even if they have strong sympathies with one side or the other.

This boycott is hardly the most extreme measure there has been, concerning the whole situation.

[sebbysteiny]

This boycott is hardly the most extreme measure there has been, concerning the whole situation.

That's right when compared to the actions of Hamas etc, but it is the most estreme measure that the academic community can take particularly since it is discriminory in nature. Remember, it's not about academic debate, since the boycott goes well beyond one particular field of political science.

 

What's wrong with calling torture torture?

There is nothing wrong with calling torture 'torture'. But that isn't what they do. They would call an Israeli soldier who, say, pushes a Palestinian who was being rude or something 'torture' and there is plenty wrong with that.

 

I particularly like the

"Collective punishment measures": vs. "security measures".

 

This effectively demonises any attempt to stop Palestinains from killing Israels. I'm particularly concerned with this propaganda technique being deliberately aimed at the subconcious where expressions of false reality that would never be accepted in reasoned debate can be accepted.

 

In essence, I have found that whilst Israeli advocates try to debate with reason, Palestinian advocates try to debate with language tricks aimed at sneaking past reason.

[sebbysteiny]

"Pro-occupation": vs. "Jewish", "pro-Israel", or "pro-Israeli".

 

This is another very dangerous one. It makes out that anything that might favour Israel is supporting what the palestinians call 'occupation'. However, I have yet to see a zionist who, when pressed, actually admits to liking the 'occupation'. Most Israelis simply believe it is the least worst of all the alternatives and would like nothing better than to move it's troops out of the West bank and gaza without having to bury their family and friends from the morning suicide bombers. It's insane to think that a policy, even an Israeli policy, that favours Israel cannot also benefit the Palestinians.

 

And that's totally ignoring the anti-semitic conitations of describing all Jewish groups as nothing more than a 'pro-occupation' group.

[α CMa]

ok i read a little bit and i need to understand a few things here.

 

1. if an academic promotes wrong or inhumane policies should we boycott them or not?

2. if an academic stays silent( remember silent means support) at the atrocities in the name of religion or an idealogy , should we boycott them or not?

3. promoting/supporting/influencing/lobying/making the inhumane policies soung natural or even necessary; what does that mean? if a person is involved in any such activity should he be bycotted or not?

[sebbysteiny]

I think I might try this at another angle.

 

What if the Zionists decided to use the same strategy.

“pro- Palestinian” = “pro terror”, or “islamofacist” or just “facist”

“Pro – Israel” = pro life or anti terror or just pro morality.

Etc.

 

 

Example 1 arguing normally.

Although I understand that you do not have to support one side or the other, it is not necessary to do so in this debate. All you need is to believe is that a group within the academic community should not use the means of an academic boycott from the other group with which they disagree.

 

Example 2 Arguing with language intenting to demonise.

 

Despite your pro terror views which constitute intellectual rape you do not have to support the view that contradicts basic morality here. You can still support this thread if you oppose the creation if an academic apartheid that ghettoises Israelis in that community even without compromising on your far left neo – Marxist support for Palestinian Islamofacism.

 

Note that in example two, the actual argument is actually TOTALLY IRRELEVANT compared to the values that it succeeds in installing by stealth. The argument itself is mearly a means of distracting the conscience mind so that much nastier values of hate can be installed directly into the subsconsience by stealth.

 

Now, I recommend that you go back to my second post in this thread and see the arguements put forward by Palestinian activists supporting the boycott which I put forward and notice similarities. These arguments were not specially chosen, I simply picked up the guardian and quoted all the Palestinian arguments I found in the article and in the letters to the editor.

[sebbysteiny]

ok i read a little bit and i need to understand a few things here.

 

1. if an academic promotes wrong or inhumane policies should we boycott them or not?

2. if an academic stays silent( remember silent means support) at the atrocities in the name of religion or an idealogy ' date=' should we boycott them or not?

3. promoting/supporting/influencing/lobying/making the inhumane policies soung natural or even necessary; what does that mean? if a person is involved in any such activity should he be bycotted or not?[/quote']

 

If you are going to take measures against 'inhuman' and 'wrong' policies, the first step is to make sure they are inhuman and wrong. I think, for example, that taxing the rich anything higher than 50% is inhuman and wrong, and I think that the French 'social model' is inhuman and wrong, but I wouldn't even think of trying to boot anybody with such thoughts from all of academia.

 

Who says the policies are inhuman or wrong? You? Your friend? A group of politically motivated people? Have you listened honestly to what that academic is saying, or have you already formed a view and couldn't care less what somebody with a different view has to say (everybody is guilty of that to some extent)? Perhaps they are right and you have the inhuman and wrong policies? These types of debates are best resloved by engagement not boycotts and especially not academic boycotts.

 

So question 1) what amounts to 'inhuman and wrong' rather than simply legitimate debate or differences of opinion?

 

But I take what I think is your point. If you decide that a policy is wrong, where do you draw the line between boycotting people? Does it have to be active, very active, or even just passive support for the policies or silence?

 

The boycott in question calls for boycotting of all Israelis not prepared to denounce their government, active, passive, the lot. Ie, anybody who does not ACTIVELY support THEM.