Everyone knows it is a non-enforceable boycott. Hence it is an act of
symbolic solidarity. Can we stick arguing about the symbolism of the matter
and not some fantasy. What irks me is that they could have had the same
symbolic effect without calling for a meaningless boycott.
>
>
> [WS:] I do not get it. If the boycott is successful it will vastly reduce
> the visibility of those of oppose the current Israeli policies in the
> academia, since it is them who are most likely to do the boycott. This
will
> give more prominence to those who support those policies and thus will not
> boycott Israeli institutions. So if "Israeli academia" supports the
boycott
> - it must be its right wing, since they stand to benefit from it. It is
> usually the right-wingers and supporters of authoritarian governments who
> want to limit international academic exchanges - as the critical thinkers
> and the challengers of the status quo generally benefit from it.
>
> Academic boycott is equivalent to book burning - a meaningless gesture to
> appease the anti-intellectual impulses of the uneducated riff-raff.
>
> Wojtek
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk