Divestment campaigns are back in
the news once again after a short lull. Their objective is to terminate
university investments in Israel in order to impede the country’s economic
growth and development. By using “economic warfare,” they want
“to destroy Israel's economy,” according to Fred Taub, president of
Divestment Watch. As part of this campaign, attempts are made to prevent
Israeli academic and political leaders from speaking on university campuses.
Another goal is to eliminate Israeli academic research funds since Israeli
academics are viewed as key elements and “collaborators” of the
Jewish state.
An association of dozens of
Palestinian charities, unions and non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
organizes these divestment campaigns according Gerald Steinberg, professor of
political studies at Bar Ilan University. Why do “politicized
churches” and academics demand divestment from Israel, he asks, but not
from Syria, Saudi Arabia and Egypt? A number of the groups and individuals are
ideologically opposed to Jewish sovereignty and to the existence of a Jewish
state. Others have simply been duped by the media that all too often reports
Arab propaganda as fact.
Irish academics are
particularly adamant in boycotting Israeli academic institutions. In a letter
to the Irish Times on September 12, 2006, 61 Irish professors urged academic
institutions throughout the world to boycott Israeli institutions of higher
education.
The Jerusalem Post reported that when
Professor James Bowen of the Department of Computer Science at University
College Cork was questioned about Hamas's charter and inflammatory language,
(which openly calls for the extermination of Jews in Israel), and was asked
whether those who signed the petition would consider boycotting Palestinian
academic institutions as a result, Bowen replied, "the accusation of genocide
against Hamas is libelous. The responsibility for ending the conflict lies with
the aggressor. Israel is the aggressor."
The Irish
embassy in Israel condemned the petition as “counterproductive,” yet
the Irish government has helped foster this enmity because of its own negative
attitudes towards Israel. By examining the government’s views toward the
Jewish State, we can see how Irish academics reflect their own
government’s attitude toward Israel, and why they are so tenacious in
advocating this boycott.
In Ireland and the
Palestine Question 1948-2004, professor Rory Miller explains that the Irish
believe they possess a unique insight into the Arab/Israeli conflict because of
their neutrality and their distinct “moral” position in the
international arena. This endows them with the right and obligation to seek
peaceful solutions in international interaction.
Ireland granted Israel de facto recognition in 1949,but did not grant it de
jure recognition until May 1963. Part of the reason was Ireland’s aversion
toward partition, which was a result of its own fight for independence from
Britain. The Irish saw partition as a cruel means of solving territorial
disputes that would not bring peace.
An even more
fundamental reason for Irish opposition to granting Israel recognition Miller
suggests, was that from the late 1940’s, the Irish clergy, political
parties, the general public and the media have had a special interest in the
Holy Land because of their concern about the Christian Holy Places, especially
in Jerusalem. The Vatican had supported the internationalization of the city
and the holy sites, and the Irish were greatly influenced by the “Vatican
factor,” and adamant that the rights of Catholics be maintained. When the
Irish granted de jure recognition, this did mean any inherent or overt
acceptance of Israel’s sovereignty over Jerusalem.
Oil is an additional factor why the Irish side with
the Arabs. Miller quotes the Irish Times in mid-1963 that “if it comes to
a matter of competition for the friendship of Israel or the Arab League, nobody
can doubt what the outcome will be: the oil- rich Arab states possess an
attraction denied to Israel.”
The rights of
Arab refugees are another ongoing concern as was Israel’s refusal to
withdraw from the Golan Heights and the “occupied territories.”
Failure to resolve the refugee issue is viewed as the “greatest single
obstacle,” to peace in the region. The Irish did not have the political
and diplomatic clout to compel Israel to compensate the Arabs and allow some of
the refugees to return to Israel. Instead, they donated funds to United Nations
Relief and Works Agency (UNWRA).
A further area of
contention occurred after the Irish provided troops to serve first as UN
observers and later as members of the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL).
Whenever there was a conflict between the Christian militias and Irish
soldiers, the Irish blamed Israel.
This led Israeli
Ambassador Shlomo Argov, Israeli Ambassador to Britain and Ireland, to wonder
how people in Dublin could sit around “smugly” and “pass
judgment” about events in another part of the world. He found it
particularly difficult to understand how the Irish could be so
“insensitive to the Christian minority in Lebanon,” and later charged
Ireland “of leading the pack in [the] constant flagellation of
Israel.”
Miller sees PLO Chairman Yasser
Arafat’s visit to Ireland in mid December 1993 as recognition of
Ireland’s ongoing effort to advance the position of the Arab refugees and
support of the PLO. The visit also demonstrated the extensive backing the PLO
enjoyed among the Irish people.
When Israel
instituted roadblocks to protect its citizens against terrorist attacks, Irish
politicians attacked Israel. This demonstrated a callous disregard for the
suffering of Israel at the hands of Arab terrorists, and a failure to recognize
that a major provision of the Oslo Accords was that the Palestinians were now
responsible for the security of the Israel. The Irish Times reported that
between 1994-1997, 131 Israelis had been killed and 446 wounded by Arab
terrorists.
The Irish government condemned the
escalation of violence against the Israelis between 2000 –2004, but
criticized Israel for its policies and actions that exacerbated or prolonged
the need for Arabs to use violence. They even had the temerity to stand behind
Yasser Arafat even when there was evidence of his corruption and duplicity.
Given the Irish government’s rationalizations for Arab terrorism and
intransigence, it is not surprising that Irish academics would be among those
who want to harm the Israeli economy and its schools of higher education.
Americans should actively oppose the Irish and any
other academic groups that engage in this unjustified and morally reprehensible
activity, because as Fred Taub points out, divestment campaigns are an attack
on the U.S. “Foreign governments,” he urges, “should not be
allowed to dictate US foreign policy,” and they must not be permitted to
promote the destruction of the economy of another democracy.
Israel's economy, Taub concludes, “has a direct
impact on the US economy because Israel is a key developer of new technologies,
including in medicine, computers and even space exploration; not to mention
that it is the democracy and free-market economy example for the
Middle-East…. The Arab boycott of Israel is the single biggest impediment
to peace, as peace can not be sustained without economic cooperation.”
An historian, Dr. Grobman’s most recent book is Battling for
Souls: The Vaad Hatzala Rescue Committee in Post War Europe. He is also
co-author of Denying History: Who Says The Holocaust Never Happened? His newest
book is Nations United: How the UN is Undermining Israel and the West.
|
| |
|
|
| Advertisement: |
 |
|
|
