Over at Engage Shalom Lappin argues that 'it is futile to attempt to persuade bigots that they are mistaken'. He's talking about the people who want to boycott Israeli academics and who have failed to meet the arguments put to them repeatedly and in detail as to why such a boycott - in fact, blacklist - is discriminatory, based as it is on the arbitrary singling out of the academics of one country and one country only. Instead of 'pursuing a debate with the boycotters when they do not accept the basic principles of non-discrimination', Shalom favours a stratagy of taking action, including legal action, against 'individuals and institutions that engage in acts of discrimination'.
He is right on at least two counts: one shouldn't concentrate one's energies on trying to persuade bigots; and the arguments against the boycott of Israeli academics - as set out for example in the debate last year over the AUT's policy - have never been adequately answered by the boycott's supporters. At the same time, even though one may not want to waste further time arguing with these supporters, it isn't possible to stop arguing against them. As Shalom himself says:
There are, of course, people of good will who may have been misled by the boycotters' propaganda... It is important to engage these people in constructive dialogue.The argument, in other words (and as always), is to persuade people who are open to persuasion, and one doesn't always know in advance who they are. This in no way negates the strategic focus which Shalom suggests, but it does mean we'll need to keep on making the arguments.