Letters: Pro and con on the Israel boycott

Re “A repugnant boycott,” Opinion, Dec. 23

In criticizing the American Studies Assn.’s academic boycott of Israel, Michael S. Roth asks: Why start with Israel?

We have to start somewhere, so why not with the largest recipient of U.S. aid?

Roth’s question fails to address the extent to which U.S. aid supports Israel’s violation of Palestinian rights and international law. It also fails to address the discriminatory treatment of Palestinians in Israeli educational systems, and the extent of collaboration between Israeli academic institutions and the state in the occupation.

It is ironic that in the name of academic freedom, a university president like Roth could so easily overlook the educational rights of Palestinians.

Apologists for apartheid once asked: Why start with South Africa? History has proved them wrong. Someday, boycotts against Israeli academic institutions will be viewed the same way.

Curtis Marez

San Diego

The writer is president of the American Studies Assn.

The boycott resolution by the American Studies Assn. focusing on Israeli academic institutions is indeed repugnant, as Roth says.

I am an academic and am familiar, as a result of family history, with Nazi laws targeting Jews and Jewish institutions. I want to voice a very strong objection to this irresponsible attack on academic freedom that has anti-Semitic overtones.

A proposal that limits academic freedom to cooperate with colleagues and fellow researchers is unacceptable in any academic setting.

I agree with Roth: It is wrong in principle, intellectually dishonest and morally obtuse.

Miriam F. Tasini

Los Angeles

If it weren’t so sad, the American Studies Assn.’s boycott of Israeli academic institutions would be another reminder that we live in a truly comical world.

The person singularly responsible for the worldwide efforts to boycott Israel (academically, artistically, socially and economically) is Omar Barghouti, a Qatari Muslim who is a graduate student at Tel Aviv University — in Israel!

FOR THE RECORD:
Israeli education: A Dec. 26 letter to the editor said Omar Barghouti is a graduate student at Tel Aviv University. Barghouti graduated with his master’s degree in 2010.

Would Syria, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq or any other Muslim-majority country allow a Jew to study in its university while leading a worldwide boycott against the host country?

The question is as laughable as the answer is obvious. But the better question is why this association is not boycotting those countries, where personal freedom is little more than an idea.

Jack Saltzberg

Los Angeles

Roth’s main argument against an academic boycott of Israel is based on an absolutist position in defense of academic freedom. He refuses to allow even the slightest weakening of academic freedom, even for a greater cause like the liberation of the Palestinian people from oppression.

Those in favor of the academic boycott respond that Israel deprives Palestinian scholars and students of academic freedom and opportunity — tacitly assuming that two wrongs make a right.

Neither of these arguments is convincing.

A better argument for the boycott is that diplomacy has failed to end the 45-plus-year occupation, and a boycott is a legitimate form of protest for U.S. citizens to tell their government to stop its unconditional support of Israel because that support enables and perpetuates the occupation.

The academic boycott is merely symbolic, but it opens space for actions by government officials that can be more authoritative.

Jeff Warner

Los Angeles

ALSO:

Letters: A silent lesson on Autism

Letters: Transgender students’ rights

Letters: What economic growth costs us