I reproduce in full here a communication sent by Eve Garrard to AUT colleagues of hers at Keele University.
Dear [Colleagues],I know that some of you, and maybe all three of you, are considering giving your support to the AUT motion calling for a boycott of Israeli academics. I'd like to lay before you some arguments against doing so. These arguments fall into three groups: 1) concerns about discrimination; 2) the effects in Israel; 3) the effects on UK Jews, including Jewish academics.
1) The proposed boycott would be seriously discriminatory. As you know, Israel's misdeeds receive a huge amount of attention from the world's media, and from the UN, compared to those of other polities. And as you also know, the harm done to Muslims by way of oppression and killing by Israel is very much less than the harm done by countries such as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, Libya, and Sudan. However the AUT is not considering any boycotts of academics (or anyone else) in those countries, nor of the other countries whose murderous activities outweigh by orders of magnitude anything done by Israel at any time, countries such as North Korea or Zimbabwe. To propose to punish the lesser offences of Israel, while ignoring the greater offences of other countries, is at least prima facie discriminatory. I'm sure you would think that any proposal to punish the lesser offences of, say, black criminals in this country more than the greater offences of white criminals would amount to serious discrimination, particularly given the long history of discrimination against blacks. The case of Israel is analogous to this example. Unless some significant justification can be provided for this selective hostility, I do not think you, or the AUT in general, should get involved in such discriminatory behaviour.
2) The effect on Israeli academics selected for boycott is unlikely to be what the proposers of the motion are presumably aiming at. Israeli academics are on the whole further to the left, and more critical of their current government, than the general population. Those who have not spoken in public against Israel's presence in Gaza and the West Bank will often have quite complex reasons for this, and being singled out for adverse treatment by foreign academics is not likely to increase their hostility to their own government, but rather the reverse. European academics are not regarded as a source of moral authority in Israel; and such partial and discriminatory moves, particularly when the current government is preparing to move out of one of the Territories, will not increase the respect in which their views are held. In particular, the attempt to divide Israeli academics into good Jews who denounce their own state and are thus to be tolerated, and bad Jews who refuse to do so and are thus to be punished, is likely to be highly counter-productive.
3) The effect on Jews in this country of this discriminatory measure will be to increase the alarm and distress currently being felt about the rise of anti-Semitism throughout Europe, including the UK. Jewish academics who are Zionists (i.e. who support the existence of the State of Israel) will feel particularly threatened by their own trade union displaying partial and discriminatory behaviour towards Jewish nationalism, particularly at a time when Jewish members of the NUS executive feel forced to resign because of anti-Semitism. Some, including myself, will feel morally unable to remain part of an organization which discriminates against the Jewish state in this way, while remaining untroubled by other and far more repressive and racist states. This means that I will effectively lose the support and protection of the union to which I have paid my dues all my university working life, because of my political views. The AUT should be protecting freedom of thought and diversity, rather than forcing out members of an ethnic minority whose political views do not at the moment command wide popularity in academic circles.
Thanks for reading this.
Eve [Garrard]