AAA Boycott of Israel Denied

Over the past few months, members of the American Anthropological Association (AAA) have debated the merits of a resolution to boycott Israeli academic institutions in protest of what many feel are Israel's systematic violations of Palestinian rights.
This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.
Israel and palestinian flags face to face, symbol for the relationship between the two countries.
Israel and palestinian flags face to face, symbol for the relationship between the two countries.

Over the past few months, members of the American Anthropological Association (AAA) have debated the merits of a resolution to boycott Israeli academic institutions in protest of what many feel are Israel's systematic violations of Palestinian rights. Fifty-one percent of AAA's eligible members voted, which was the largest turnout in AAA history. 2,423 members opposed the resolution, which was pushed heavily by the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel, while 2,384 voted to support it.

Defeat of the resolution is good for the AAA, but more importantly it's good for academic freedom. While Israel obviously has a debatable record when it comes to the Palestinians, the boycott would have done little other than restrict academic freedom and exchange, shut down opportunities for open debate and discussion among scholars on both sides of the issue, and create an environment in which a scholarly association generates and is complicit in discriminatory behavior.

Clearly, the vote shows that the membership of the AAA is evenly split on the issue, so this is likely to continue to be debated, and supporters of the resolution have already stated they will press on. Debate is essential, but it should focus on issues, not on resolutions designed to disenfranchise a significant group of academics from the general discourse. This is hypocritical and damaging to the basic value of academic freedom.

In response to the negative vote, the Executive Board of the AAA decided to take a series of measures targeted at Israel. These include issuing a statement censuring the Israeli government and a letter to US government offices identifying ways that US resources and policies related to Israel and Palestine violate academic freedom and disenfranchise Palestinians. One is left wondering if US policies contribute to the problem, why is the AAA not censuring the US government or proposing a boycott of American academic institutions.

Rather than censuring and targeting specific countries, groups, or organizations that the leadership of AAA happens to dislike or disapprove of, those responsible for running the association should focus on educating the public and government officials, particularly in the US, about the need to support academic freedom in all societies as a means of strengthening democratic ideals and encouraging knowledgeable participation of the populace in government.

Perhaps most troubling in the AAA boycott proposal was the fact that it identified a basic hypocrisy among many in the association evident in a resolution aimed at punishing academics and academic institutions in Israel for government behaviors made possible in part by a long history of political, military, and economic support from the US. At the same time, those anthropologists chose to ignore human rights abuses by governments of Syria, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and many others instead preferring to target a single country the pro-Palestinian BDS movement dislikes. In other words, a group of American academics decided to discriminately pass judgment on others while ignoring problems in their own and other societies and the complicity of their own society in the problems they see in Israel's behavior.

This is hypocritical, arrogant, and counterproductive. But there are alternatives that can be productive. In its response to the vote, supporters of the boycott argued that it opens spaces for critical discussion of the US role in Israeli human rights abuses. While this is true, the goal should be to open spaces for critical discussion of the US role in supporting governments that abuse human rights in general. There is no need to single out Israel or any other country on this point--the problem is much more widespread.

An academic boycott is an inappropriate and ineffective response to violations of human rights by governments, but there is little question that anthropologists need to find ways to bring their knowledge and expertise in the history of colonialism and study of culture to bear on the issue of human rights abuse. One would hope that the leadership of the AAA will look for productive and reasonable approaches to generating awareness about human rights abuses and the long history of the American government in supporting countries that have poor records of protecting human rights. Rather than targeting Israel, or any other country outside of the US, it would be better for the AAA to a look out the front door.

Popular in the Community

Close

What's Hot