> Reply from NC,
>
> Discussions about this have been going on privately for some time. I'm one
> of those who's been opposed to these boycotts, both on principled and
> tactical grounds. The issues of principle are complex, but I'll just
> mention a few points. One is that I think a rather strong burden of proof
> has to be met by boycotts altogether. There are no simple criteria, but
> one relevant one is the attitudes of the people who will endure the effects
> of the boycott. In South Africa, or Haiti under the generals, there was
> good reason to believe that the great majority of the population, which
> would suffer materially from any embargo or boycott, nevertheless favored
> it. That's not a necessary and sufficient condition, but a relevant
> consideration. It definitely isn't the case here. A second question is
> why we should be discussing boycott of Israeli research institutions but
> not American ones. The role of the US in escalating repression and
> violence, and barring a political settlement, is enormous and
> decisive. And of course US policies have a lot to answer for not only in
> this case. So why don't we call for a boycott of US research
> institutions? Unless there is a good answer to that question -- and if
> there is, I don't know it -- further questions arise about this
> case. Again, it's not a necessary and sufficient condition, but a
> significant one. And then there is the question why Israel? Why don't we
> call for a boycott of research institutions in US client states with far
> worse records than Israel?
>
> But it's enough, I think, to consider the much narrower tactical
> questions. A boycott is intended as a tactic to achieve some result. So
> we therefore ask, what are the effects likely to be in this case? I think
> that's very clear. It's a gift to extremist elements in Israel and their
> more fanatic supporters here. They love the idea of an academic boycott,
> because they can bring up all sorts of issues irrelevant to those at hand,
> and obscure what's at stake: Why only Israel? (Answer: inveterate
> anti-Semitism) What about academic freedom (a value the boycotters are
> trampling on), etc. That way the crucial issues are effaced, and since
> opponents of a boycott will utterly swamp those who advocate it, the net
> effect is to strengthen support for extremist elements. I think that was
> pretty clear in advance, and it has proven to be the case in practice. As
> an example, consider the Harvard-MIT petition that has caused a certain
> amount of clamor. It calls on the US to suspend arms transfers to Israel
> until Israel makes some progress towards meeting minimal conditions (like
> adhering to anti-torture conventions), and it calls on Harvard and MIT to
> divest from companies sending arms to Israel. Personally, I was in favor
> of both of those provisions. There is also a brief mention of divesting
> from Israel, which I thought was a mistake. For one thing, it's quite
> meaningless; for another, it is a gift to the most extreme supporters of
> Israeli violence and repression. They realized it, and seized on it. That
> has been the focus of a hysterical attack on the petition (and on me;
> fanatics find it useful to claim that divestment is my nefarious doing, and
> the fact that I was opposed to it is, of course, irrelevant). Every
> diatribe or counter-petition that I've seen evades the primary thrust of
> the actual petition, and for good reasons: those are serious demands, which
> would have an immediate and very powerful impact. Furthermore, they would
> probably receive majority support in the US if they were voiced publicly
> (so polls indicate). Furthermore, they don't single out Israel (the same
> demands are made for many other countries, including US clients with far
> worse records than Israel), and are standard demands of Human Rights
> Organizations, which point out, rightly, that US law requires that. And
> there are no side issues like academic freedom. It is also directed to the
> US, not Israel, as it should be. In every respect, that makes more sense,
> which, I suppose, is why it is consistently avoided by those who denounce
> these initiatives.
>
> These are some of the considerations, in my opinion.
>
> The connection to my own professional work is quite remote. I don't see
> any connection, in fact, apart from the fact that boycott of research
> institutions would presumably mean breaking professional contacts with
> colleagues and friends, quite a few of whom happen to be among the
> strongest opponents of the policies of both the Likud and Labor governments
> (but at least one of whom, maybe others, does favor a boycott -- something
> we've discussed privately for some years).
>
> Noam Chomsky
>