In his latest reply to me, Martin Shaw gives a pretty clear indication that he's had his fill of this debate (which may be followed in the sequence 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). I have no wish to prolong it myself. But as, in my previous contribution (4), I said that Martin had responded to none of the points I'd put to him, and he has now (5) tried to do just that, I feel I owe him the courtesy of acknowledging that he has.
On the basis of what Martin says in responding, it looks like the debate between the two of us has nowhere left to go. He accedes now - see his (a) - to the sociological truth that racism is not only a matter of overt expressions of hostility, but can also inhere in symbols, discourses and practices of discrimination. Still, in the same paragraph Martin insists on being presented with evidence of attitudinal anti-Semitism among the boycotters. He thereby undoes his apparent acceptance of the point.
Again, Martin confesses - his (b) - to not knowing why the boycotters should pick out Israeli academics, and Israeli academics only, for unfavourable treatment. Previously (2), I gave the hypothetical example of a university that closed certain positions to women, and argued that this would constitute sexist discrimination whatever the attitudes of those supporting it. Martin offered no answer to that. Yet he remains confident that a boycott policy targeted solely on academics of the Jewish state, and who are therefore mostly Jews, has nothing of anti-Semitism about it. Feebly he suggests the following: 'perhaps [the reason for the boycotters' focus is] because Israeli academics are (unlike academics from many other oppressive states) significant players in global English-speaking academia'. This is a reason of the kind he earlier mooted (see 1) - the fact that Israel claims to be a democracy. Just like that proposal, it fails to explain (see 2) why boycotter opponents of the Iraq war have not thought about boycotting American, or indeed British, academics.
So I, too, am content to leave the debate where it is. I believe my original claim (2) that Martin's position is vitiated by a grave logical weakness at its heart is vindicated by the content of his replies.
A word on evidence. Martin wants some, beyond the practical fact of a boycott with an exclusive focus and for which not even he can give a good reason. In my first reply to him I alluded to anti-Semitic tropes that sometimes turn up amongst boycott activists. He thinks perhaps I have sucked these out of my thumb. What, then, does he make of the fact that those who campaign for the blacklisting of Israeli academics refer to the opposition to the boycott as being 'well-funded'? Of course, as anybody can see, this doesn't explicitly mention wealthy or powerful Jews. But if Martin does really know - as he does - that there are traditions of prejudicial language, then he ought to be able to recognize a certain lineage here. What does he make of the fact that on the UCU activists' list Israeli actions in Gaza are compared to those of the Nazis in the Warsaw ghetto? I won't insult the state of Martin's historical knowledge by giving details of the conditions of life in the Warsaw ghetto or of the fate of its population.
One last thing. Martin asks me directly whether, having been part of the left for four decades, I have any personal experience of anti-Semitism. I'm glad of the long historical perspective he defines. For it allows me to say that in the whole of my 20th-century experience of that milieu I can remember only one serious episode, affecting me personally, of anti-Jewish attitudes; and in the seven years since 2001, several.