[Troll]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

That cartoon perfectly illustrates the problem with addressing apartheid in Israel. If I burnt a Spanish flag would you call me anti-Catholic? When activists burnt old South African flags, were they labelled anti-Dutch Reform Christianity? Israel is a country not a religion. People of many religions live in Israel. When I call Israel an apartheid state, I'm labelling the government of Israel and the people of Israel racists, irrespective of their religion.

As for the debate about whether it is or isn't apartheid, there are two points. First, does Israel practise apartheid in the occupied territories. Look at what happens to a Palestianian accused of a crime in the occupied territories and what happens to an Israeli settler accused of a crime in the occupied territories. Compare each group's access to justice, right to a fair trial, rights to land, rights to water, right to vote, freedom of expression, freedom of movement. Look at the Fourth Geneva Convention and the scores of UN resolutions against Israel (more than were ever passed against Iraq). Israel clearly discrimnates in the OT on the basis of ethnicity/race.

I worked on Water Law for a while and worked with Israelis on drafting so I know a bit about the water situation in Israel. Daily per capita water use in Israel is 5 times higher than that in the OT. The average Palestinian uses 70 liters per day which is 30 litres less than the minimum basic consumption standard set by the WHO and USAID. Over 25% of Palestinian households have a resident who suffers from diarrhoea. 215,000 Palestinians in the West Bank have no piped water at all. Over 80% of the withdrawals from the Mountain Aquifer, which lies underneath the West Bank, go to Israel or Israeli settlements. Over 85% of the total groundwater resources in the West Bank are used by Israel. Israel appointed itself the governor of Palestinian water resources and restricts Palestinians from drilling new wells (in 2002, Israel imposed an outright ban on Palestinians drilling wells). Israel imposes water quotas often whilst simultaneously increasing the flow of water from the territories to Israel. Mekorot charges higher rates for water to Palestinians than it does to Israeli settlers. Israel's wall has so far put more than 30 groundwater wells on the wrong side thereby cutting Palestinians off from the water they used to access. 35,000 meters of pipes have been destroyed in preparation for construction of the wall thereby cutting off many piped water sources for Palestinians. These communitites are blocked from sinking new wells, therefore they have to truck water in. Aside from the fact that this water costs more than 4 times more, trucking traffic has to go through Israeli checkpoints which are often closed or delayed.

Second, does Israel practise apartheid within Israel itself. There is a two class citizen structure based on ethnicity/race/religion in Israel. People who think Israel is a real democracy need to read The Law of Return, The Citizenship Law, The Law of Acquisition of Absentee Property or The Emergency Articles for the Exploitation of Uncultivated Lands. Israeli law draws an artificial distinction between citizenship (ezrahut) and nationality (le'um) that no other country in the world draws. That tied in with the Status law means Arabs can never attain the same status as non-Arabs. A Palestinian who becomes Israeli and converts to Judaism will never have the same rights as a Russian Jew who does the same for example. Israeli Arabs aren't happy with the situation and it was one of the reasons why 80% of them boycotted the elections in 1999.

Frankly I have less of a problem with apartheid being practised in Israel because the only way to create a state for Jews (which is something I believe to be necessary) is to discriminate against non-Jews within that State. I see the whole process as a kind of affirmative action. There is a point where affirmative action becomes racism and for me 50 years of Palestinian oppression crosses the line. Jewish people should have a home in the world, but that home shouldn't be at the expense of creating another disenfranchised, abused, diaspora in the form of Palestinians.

As someone who grew up in an apartheid state, I have a message for Israelis and Israel's supporters - Israel is a pariah state. Israel's treatment of Palestinians and its failure to respect human rights are an embarrassment to mankind and Israel is getting the grief in the UN and other organisations that it deserves. It is blatantly violating international law and refusing to comply with UN resolutions. As we learned in South Africa, you can do that for a certain amount of time and the US and others will continue to support you and sell you guns and teach at your universities and play soccer against you. Eventually though, everyone gets tired of your behaviour and you become ostracised and eventually things fall apart.

There are two roads here for Israelis. Keep supporting a government that places the blame and the onus to make peace on the "Palestinians" (to the extent that they are organised enough to refer to as a collective) or take responsibility for the situation and do something about it. I believe that Israelis not only have a greater responsibility for the situation than Palestinians do but greater power to change the situation than Palestinians do. They vote, they pay taxes, they can change their government's policies in the same way whites in South Africa ultimately forced their government to change. The road Israelis have chosen so far is full of blood and violence but it ends in precisely the same place the other one does. Ultimately both sides are going to have to get along.

This discussion was had in this thread and many of the arguments have already been presented there. I'm outta here.

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...ater+apartheid

[vmarks]

In response to the apartheid nonsense and back on topic to academics pushing boycotts:

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...id#post2204376

Was South Africa the only country that received international attention, singled out?
Apartheid in South Africa began in 1917 and ended in 1994. "White Australia" or "Australia for Australians" began in the 1890s and lasted through the 1950s.

The comparison is false. Israel has no such policy.

As citizens of the only democracy in the Middle East, Israeli Arabs enjoy equal rights to Israeli Jews, including, proportional representation within the Israeli Parliament.

Under South African apartheid, the black South Africans were not considered citizens of the country in which they represented the vast majority of the population. Conversely, Israeli Arabs, while the minority, are citizens with an equal political voice. While no nation is perfect, Israeli Arabs, especially women, enjoy more freedom in Israel than do most other Arabs in the Middle East. Therefore, it is absurd to attempt to draw analogies between South Africa and Israel proper.

itai95: The divestment campaigns started on university campuses by Chomsky are basically fraudulent: Chomsky himself has said so: He told a Harvard audience that although he had signed- indeed spearheaded- the anti-Israel divestment petition, that he was actually opposed to divestment from Israel. Chomsky said, "I am opposed and have been opposed for many years, in fact, I've probably been the leading opponent for years of the campaign for divestment from Israel and of the campaign about academic boycotts." When asked why he signed the petition in view of his principled opposition to divestment, he explained, "No one who signs a petition is expected to approve of every word, even of large parts, if the main thrust is appropriate and sufficiently important."

The university divestment campaigns demanded that Israel comply with all of resolution 242, that it end the use of "legal torture", and that it offer Palestinians the option to "return to their former homes or be compensated." Never mind that Israel has complied with 242 (returning land to Egypt and making peace with Jordan, offering the Golan for peace with Syria (thus far turned down) and offering 94-96% of disputed West Bank and Gaza lands for peace (also thus far turned down). Never mind that Israel outlawed physical pressure in eliciting information from terrorists two years before the university divestiture petition circulated. Never mind that Israel offered Palestinians the opportunity to be compensated for losses at both Taba and Camp David, both offers turned down.

[Shaddim]

As someone who grew up in an apartheid state, I have a message for Iranians and Iran's supporters - Iran is a pariah state. Iran's treatment of Christians and Jews and its failure to respect human rights are an embarrassment to mankind and Iran is getting the grief in the UN and other organisations that it deserves. It is blatantly violating international law and refusing to comply with UN resolutions. As we learned in South Africa, you can do that for a certain amount of time and France and others will continue to support you and sell you guns and teach at your universities and play soccer against you. Eventually though, everyone gets tired of your behaviour and you become ostracised and eventually things fall apart.

There are two roads here for Iranians. Keep supporting a government that places the blame and the onus to make peace with the Christians and Jews (to the extent that they are organised enough to refer to as a collective) or take responsibility for the situation and do something about it. I believe that Iranian Muslims not only have a greater responsibility for the situation than Christians and Jews do but greater power to change the situation than they do. They don't vote, they pay taxes, they can change their government's policies in the same way whites in South Africa ultimately forced their government to change. The road Iranians have chosen so far is full of blood and violence but it ends in precisely the same place the other one does. Ultimately both sides are going to have to get along.

Fixinated�.

[von Wrangell]

And still no one has answered the questions......

[Shaddim]

No one answers ours either. Bummer.

[SimeyTheLimey]

I'm glad to see that academics in peer organizations have condemned this boycott.

American Association of University Professors

Washington, D.C. - The American Association of University Professors issued the following statement:

Academic Boycott


. . . These resolutions have been met with strong condemnation and calls for repeal within the United Kingdom and elsewhere. The American Association of University Professors joins in condemning these resolutions and in calling for their repeal. Since its founding in 1915, the AAUP has been committed to preserving and advancing the free exchange of ideas among academics irrespective of governmental policies and however unpalatable those policies may be viewed. We reject proposals that curtail the freedom of teachers and researchers to engage in work with academic colleagues, and we reaffirm the paramount importance of the freest possible international movement of scholars and ideas. The AAUP urges the AUT to support the right of all in the academic community to communicate freely with other academics on matters of professional interest.

The American Association of University Professors is a nonprofit charitable and educational organization that promotes academic freedom by supporting tenure, academic due process, and standards of quality in higher education. The AAUP has 45,000 members at colleges and universities throughout the United States.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

No one answers ours either. Bummer.

What questions would that be?

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

I'm glad to see that academics in peer organizations have condemned this boycott.

American Association of University Professors

Do they work much with Cuban and Iranian scientists?

[Troll]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Do they work much with Cuban and Iranian scientists?

Excellent question. Do people who believe that these academic sanctions are wrong have a general problem with academic sanctions or are they making a judgement as to the extent of Israel's human rights abuses?

I personally don't believe that you can say that there should never ever be academic sanctions. I think they are sometimes necessary to prevent the repressive regime from finding new and interesting methods of oppression and I think they are an effective message to the oppressors. I think that the sporting and cultural sanctions on South Africa had far more of an impact in making change happen than economic sanctions ever did. Economic sanctions affect the people who are suffering more than the ones imposing the suffering.

So, if you accept that in certain situations, academic sanctions have a role to play, then you can only oppose these sanctions on the grounds that Israel's human rights abuses are not that bad. I personally think it's high-time we had sanctions against Israel. That is what you get when you fail to comply with UN resolutions, right? I would like to see total economic, cultural and academic sanctions being applied.

The point I tried to make earlier though is that it's a downhill slide for a country in a position like Israel's. Private individuals start applying mild sanctions, then it spreads to communities, then countries. I personally refuse to buy any Israeli products or services or to travel to Israel. I have imposed my own sanctions and I know a lot of people who have done the same. I think someone needs to send Israelis the message that we won't tolerate Palestinian oppression anymore. 50 years is enough. I don't support it because of what it does to Palestinians (which is the same reason I support the existence of an Israeli state) and I don't support it because it is causing terrorism all over the world. If you can't sort your own problem out in 50 years, and it starts to become our problem, then we are going to have to put some pressure on you to sort it out. And if sanctions don't work, then we should go in there and sort the problem out for them by kicking Israel out of the OTs.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Troll

I personally refuse to buy any Israeli products or services or to travel to Israel. I have imposed my own sanctions and I know a lot of people who have done the same.

I presume you have removed the Tadiran battery from any Macintoshes you may own, and that you do not use any Intel or Microsoft products.

Originally Posted by troll

I think someone needs to send Israelis the message that we won't tolerate Palestinian oppression anymore. 50 years is enough. I don't support it because of what it does to Palestinians (which is the same reason I support the existence of an Israeli state) and I don't support it because it is causing terrorism all over the world. If you can't sort your own problem out in 50 years, and it starts to become our problem, then we are going to have to put some pressure on you to sort it out. And if sanctions don't work, then we should go in there and sort the problem out for them by kicking Israel out of the OTs.

What, pray tell, is your answer to the vast number of Palestinians who ascribe to the belief that they won't settle for anything less than the whole Palestine (that is, including where Israel currently sits?) - What do you have to say to the PA who believes in the 'phased plan' (temporary state today, use it to attack and take the whole land tommorrow) or the Hamas/HizbAllah/Islamic Jihad/PFLP/DFLP folks who ascribe to the belief that taking a phased plan route is a poor answer, and that they'll simply keep attacking until they take the whole land at once? Those that see Gaza disengagement as proof that their violent attacks are the solution?

And it seems odd to me, your contention that Israel is somehow responsible for those who commit terrorism in Malaysia, Pakistan, Spain, and so forth- are the people committing these acts and their supporters in the Mosques around the world completely absent of any responsibility?

I think someone needs to send the message that we won't tolerate Palestinian terror anymore. 50 years is enough.

But it appears as if I'm the only one thinking that, because you're willing to tolerate it and excuse it and other acts of terror around the world by ascribing responsibility for them to Israel, as if the terrorists bear no responsibility for their own actions.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Troll

Excellent question. Do people who believe that these academic sanctions are wrong have a general problem with academic sanctions or are they making a judgement as to the extent of Israel's human rights abuses?

In my case, it is the fact that academic sanctions are exactly equivalent to bookburning: forbidding the transfer or accumulation of knowledge based on its origins. This is never excusable.

I personally don't believe that you can say that there should never ever be academic sanctions. I think they are sometimes necessary to prevent the repressive regime from finding new and interesting methods of oppression...

Irrelevant. Knowledge, as with anything else, is only a tool. The same "methods of oppression" you mention have other uses, and that they find themselves used as tools of oppression is nothing more than a function of the creativity of wicked people, not the knowledge itself.

...and I think they are an effective message to the oppressors. I think that the sporting and cultural sanctions on South Africa had far more of an impact in making change happen than economic sanctions ever did.

I disagree with you, but your example isn't valid, as academic sanctions were never practiced. Apples to oranges.

So, if you accept that in certain situations, academic sanctions have a role to play...

...which, incidentally, I do not. It is one of the few areas where I am truly absolutist. Bookburning is never acceptable.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by vmarks

And it seems odd to me, your contention that Israel is somehow responsible for those who commit terrorism in Malaysia, Pakistan, Spain, and so forth- are the people committing these acts and their supporters in the Mosques around the world completely absent of any responsibility?

Actually, the Islamist attacks in Spain were a bit of an oddity. Although they do experience terrorism, most of it comes from Basque separatists.

That said, I find the whole idea of 'indirect responsibility' to be nothing more than shifting of blame from where it belongs. It is not only easy but trivial to choose to not attack noncombatants. Of the six billion people of this planet, almost all of them make this choice every day of their lives, even people who are part of insurgency and resistance movements. The blame for these attacks -for any attacks of this kind, regardless of ideology- lies with the perpetrators, and the perpetrators alone. It is outright dishonest to put the blame at anyone else. Israel has many crimes to answer for, but concerning the attacks made against it, it is utterly blameless.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Israel has many crimes to answer for, but concerning the attacks made against it, it is utterly blameless.

Complete and utter BS. Resistance(and terrorism) just doesn't appear out of nothing.

Just like Israels continued occupation(and terrorism) against the Palestinians doesn't appear out of nothing.

Both sides are to blame for the continued slaughter of innocents in the area.

There are three steps both sides could take to make peace tomorrow.

Israel:

1. Stop building the Wall on the occupied land and instead build it on their own land.
2. Stop expanding the colonies.
3. Stop occupying foreign lands.

Palestine:
1. Request international help in closing the borders to Israel to prevent attacks on Israel.
2. Stop the rhetoric of hate not later than today.
3. Punish everyone who violates the ceasefire.

If both would do this and realise that there will be people on both sides that will try to torpedo the peace we would have peace tomorrow.

And if neither side can follow these simple steps towards peace it's time for the international community to block them both out. Be it academic, economical, cultural or sports.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Complete and utter BS. Resistance(and terrorism) just doesn't appear out of nothing.

Indeed, it doesn't appear out of nothing, but they cannot occur unless people choose violence.

Both sides are to blame for the continued slaughter of innocents in the area.

Indeed they are, each for its own actions. But it is pointless to blame one for the actions of the other; that twisted logic is what fuels the cycle of hate.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Indeed, it doesn't appear out of nothing, but they cannot occur unless people choose violence.

Of course not. But there are always people who will choose that route. And because we know that we must do what we can to stop giving them a new excuse every day to continue the slaughter. That is something both sides have failed at in this conflict.

Indeed they are, each for its own actions. But it is pointless to blame one for the actions of the other; that twisted logic is what fuels the cycle of hate.

Actually it's very useful to do that. Because until they both realise they are to blame they cannot change their ways. Just look at Israelis continuing building the wall or expanding settlements while the Palestinians still teach hate.

Until both sides accept that they are to blame for the actions of the other there won't be peace. They've had 50 years now to realise that and they still haven't. Time for us to block them out of the international community until they do.

For a fight you need two parties(unless you are in a mental institution), if the other party stops hitting back the other loses his willingness to fight.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Millennium

In my case, it is the fact that academic sanctions are exactly equivalent to bookburning: forbidding the transfer or accumulation of knowledge based on its origins. This is never excusable.

You don't say why it isn't acceptable to deny a country access to knowledge but it is acceptable to deny them access to weapons or culture or the global economy. Do you not believe in sanctions generally? There are different kinds of sanctions of course and banning academic transfer is a necessary component of all of them:

1) Military Sanctions. We all know what these are designed to do and how. Knowledge is a weapon. That's why we don't like terrorist training camps! I certainly would want to prevent my scientists from teaching North Koreans about nuclear physics. I don't want my country selling tanks to Israel that we know it is going to use to commit human rights abuses in the Occupied Territories. Nor do I want my scientists going to Israel to teach them how to build those tanks.

2) Economic sanctions designed to retard economic development causing people to lose their jobs, have financial difficulties, starve perhaps and ultimately revolt agains the government. Knowledge is money. I wouldn't want academics going to South Africa during apartheid to teach them how to better manage their economy or make their own cars now that they can't buy them elsewhere. That defeats the whole point of economic sanctions!

3) Isolation sanctions for want of a better term. Cultural, tourism, sporting and academic sanctions designed to cut a country off from the rest of the world just for the sake of isolating them. In SA, many sporstmen and artists (like Queen) got into a lot of trouble for breaking the cultural sanctions and performing in SA. Same applies to academics who were excluded from universities on their return from a stint at certain South African universities. These sanctions are designed as a snub and I think they worked better than any other sanctions in SA. South Africa built it's own weapons. The armoured vehicle they developed to patrol the townships during apartheid is now the vehicle of choice of American soldiers in Iraq. They built nuclear weapons, attack helicopters that are better than anything else in the world, artillery that shoots further and more accurately than any other. They dodged economic sanctions or developed local industries for goods they couldn't get elsewhere. What they couldn't ever replicate was playing rugby against international teams or watching great bands perform live. What they couldn't replicate was seeing their academics getting international recognition for their achievements. All the really clever academics left. Zola Budd became British!!

If you say academic sanctions are unacceptable, how do you justify cultural sanctions ... or economic sanctions or military sanctions? Academic sanctions do everything sanctions are designed to do. They slow military development, retard economic development and isolate. To my mind, they're one of the most effective and necessary forms of sanction.

Originally Posted by Millennium

I disagree with you, but your example isn't valid, as academic sanctions were never practiced. Apples to oranges.

Academic sanctions were indeed practiced in South Africa. Many states and acedemic institutions passed rules banning academics from teaching at SA institutions or barring them from local instutions if they did.

Art. 9 of UNGA Resolution 40/64 of 10 Dec 1985:

9. Requests all States that have not yet done so, pending action by the
Security Council, to adopt legislative and/or other comparable measures to
ensure the following:
...

(g) Observance of sports, cultural, academic, consumer, tourism and
other boycotts of South Africa;

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Troll

You don't say why it isn't acceptable to deny a country access to knowledge but it is acceptable to deny them access to weapons or culture or the global economy. Do you not believe in sanctions generally?

That's not the case. I don't believe sanctions of most kinds have any real teeth -corrupt leaders have ways of getting what they want anyway- but I do not oppose them. I oppose academic sanctions because I believe that to restrict the flow of knowledge is to betray what it means to be human, and is at least as bad as (if not worse than) anything that the sanctioned nation may be doing.

There are different kinds of sanctions of course and banning academic transfer is a necessary component of all of them:

No, it is not a necessary component. Knowledge is not power, nor weaponry, nor money, nor anything else. Knowledge is humanity.

If you say academic sanctions are unacceptable, how do you justify cultural sanctions ... or economic sanctions or military sanctions?

I only said that I do not oppose them. In fact, I find them pointless. Yes, I suppose academic sanctions would make them more effective, but so what? Torture makes interrogation more effective, and yet we do not consider the ends to justify the means. Why here, then?

Academic sanctions were indeed practiced in South Africa. Many states and acedemic institutions passed rules banning academics from teaching at SA institutions or barring them from local instutions if they did.

Very well. It was wrong to do them then, and it is wrong to do them now. The ends do not justify the means.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Knowledge is not power, nor weaponry, nor money, nor anything else. Knowledge is humanity.

We're talking about sharing knowledge here. Come on, we're living in the information age and you're denying that knowledge is power? People that have access to the collective knowledge of the world aren't more powerful than those who can rely only on themselves? I think soft sanctions in the form of cultural, sporting and academic sanctions are increasingly potent in the global village.

There is of course a difference between saying that you support sanctions and saying you don't oppose them. Nevertheless, you clearly oppose academic sanctions and don't oppose economic or military sanctions. How come denying people access to knowledge through academic sanctions is worse than economic sanctions which lead to people losing their jobs, their homes or starving? You think the average Zimbabwean squatter cares more that he can't get maize on the local market or that Stephen Hawking has cancelled his lecture in Harare?

I agree that people find ways around sanctions but it's far easier for people in power to shortcut economic and military sanctions than it is to shortcut cultural, sporting and academic sanctions. I honestly believe that your average Afrikaner cared more about the fact that his rugby team couldn't play against other teams than he ever did about the economic sanctions that made the poor poorer and hardly affected him. This might be difficult to understand in America where you don't play sport against other countries much and where you have enough of your own cultural icons not to care if no one else came to you, but for countries like Zimbabwe or Israel, this is a bigger thing. A lot of the music they listen, the sports stars they worship and the academic achievements they admite are foreign and to have those heroes say, "I don't like you because you abuse human rights," is a more blatant slap in the face than turning up at the supermarket and finding no toilet paper.

I'd like to see us try a cocktail of military combined with academic, cultural and sporting sanctions against rogue states like Israel and Zimbabwe and only mild economic sanctions. I think that would be more effective than either sanctions we've had in the past or the military intervention option.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Troll

We're talking about sharing knowledge here.

Knowledge which is not shared has no meaning. This is a fact which has been used and abused throughout history.

Come on, we're living in the information age and you're denying that knowledge is power?

Correct. The power is in control over the flow and application of knowledge, not the knowledge itself. Wars and fortunes are won and lost over it. Relationships are made and destroyed over it. In the end, though, it was not the knowledge which did any damage, but the act of sharing and propagating it. To restrict its flow is dehumanizing on a scale matched by few other atrocities.

People that have access to the collective knowledge of the world aren't more powerful than those who can rely only on themselves?

Certainly they are more powerful, but it is the access to the knowledge which makes them more powerful, not the knowledge itself.

How come denying people access to knowledge through academic sanctions is worse than economic sanctions which lead to people losing their jobs, their homes or starving?

Because knowledge is what enables people to act. You can take away people's homes, and they can rise up against you. Take away their knowledge, however, and they are helpless. If the point of sanctions are to effect change, then academic sanctions take away the one tool which is absolutely necessary for that to occur. How is that a good thing?

You think the average Zimbabwean squatter cares more that he can't get maize on the local market or that Stephen Hawking has cancelled his lecture in Harare?

What do you think will drive the Zimbabwean squatter to act? In rich and poor nations alike, it is often the intelligentsia who drive change. Take away the intelligentsia, and all you do is ensure that the situation will stay exactly as it is. I'm sure there are more monstrous things one could do, but not many.

[bstone]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Boycotting universities seems antithetical to the free and open exchange of ideas underlying modern academia. I am not going to accuse these academics of antisemitism. I am, however, going to accuse them of outright hypocrisy, not because they would boycott Israeli universities but because they would boycott any universities at all. This boycott is political in nature, but it's a betrayal of something far more basic than mere politics: it's a betrayal of knowledge itself.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Because knowledge is what enables people to act. You can take away people's homes, and they can rise up against you. Take away their knowledge, however, and they are helpless. If the point of sanctions are to effect change, then academic sanctions take away the one tool which is absolutely necessary for that to occur. How is that a good thing?

You're not taking away their knowledge! You're merely curbing one of the sources for obtaining knowledge - academic interaction with the outside world. Being able to access foreign academics is not "the one tool which is absolutely necessary for [change] to occur." South Africans didn't need foreign academics to motivate them to revolt. They weren't waiting for foreign academics to give them the key to change things. They knew their situation was unjust because they felt it. They didn't need a high-level of knowledge to change the system either and certainly the knowledge they did need to provoke change would more likely come from foreign terrorists than from visiting academics.

Academic sanctions really worked on the other end of the population - the privileged people who need to get the message that the world doesn't approve.

When you impose cultural sanctions, you don't take the country's music away. When you impose military sanctions, you take the country's guns away; you merely take away the ability to obtain music and guns from other countries. Same with academics. Most universities only have a handful of visiting lecturers who would disappear. All you do by imposing sanctions is make the knowledge development process more difficult. The country is constantly having to reinvent the wheel and invent their own solutions without any foreign assistance. So their development of knowledge is slowed in relation to other countries. Slowed, not reversed.

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by Troll

So their development of knowledge is slowed in relation to other countries. Slowed, not reversed.

So you would like to slow down the development of knowledge in Israel in relation to other countries ? Is Israel too smart for their neighbors ? Do the jews get too many nobel prizes ?




ARAB / ISLAMIC NOBEL WINNERS
From a pool of 1.4 BILLION Muslims
20% of World's Population
(2 out of every 10 people)

Literature
1988 - Najib Mahfooz *

Peace
1978 - Anwar El-Sadat
1994 - Yasser Arafat... A Joke!!! **
2003 - Shirin Ebadi

Chemistry
1999 - Ahmed Zewail

Physics
Abdus Salam

JEWISH NOBEL WINNERS
From a pool of 12 million Jews
0.2% of the World's Population
(2 out of every 1,000 people)

Literature

1910 - Paul Heyse
1927 - Henri Bergson
1958 - Boris Pasternak
1966 - Shmuel Yosef Agnon
1966 - Nelly Sachs
1976 - Saul Bellow
1978 - Isaac Bashevis Singer
1981 - Elias Canetti
1987 - Joseph Brodsky
1991 - Nadine Gordimer
2002 - Imre Kertesz

World Peace

1911 - Alfred Fried
1911 - Tobias Asser
1968 - Rene Cassin
1973 - Henry Kissinger
1978 - Menachem Begin
1986 - Elie Wiesel
1994 - Shimon Peres
1994 - Yitzhak Rabin
1995 - Joseph Rotblat

Chemistry

1905 - Adolph Von Baeyer
1906 - Henri Moissan
1910 - Otto Wallach
1915 - Richard Willstaetter
1918 - Fritz Haber
1943 - George Charles de Hevesy
1961 - Melvin Calvin
1962 - Max Ferdinand Perutz
1972 - William Howard Stein
1972 - C.B. Anfinsen
1977 - Ilya Prigogine
1979 - Herbert Charles Brown
1980 - Paul Berg
1980 - Walter Gilbert
1981 - Ronald Hoffmann
1982 - Aaron Klug
1985 - Herbert A. Hauptman
1985 - Jerome Karle
1986 - Dudley R. Herschbach
1988 - Robert Huber
1989 - Sidney Altman
1992 - Rudolph Marcus
1998 - Walter Kohn
2000 - Alan J. Heeger
2004 - Irwin Rose
2004 - Avram Hershko
2004 - Aaron Ciechanover

Economics

1970 - Paul Anthony Samuelson
1971 - Simon Kuznets
1972 - Kenneth Joseph Arrow
1973 - Wassily Leontief
1975 - Leonid Kantorovich
1976 - Milton Friedman
1978 - Herbert A. Simon
1980 - Lawrence Robert Klein
1985 - Franco Modigliani
1987 - Robert M. Solow
1990 - Harry Markowitz
1990 - Merton Miller
1992 - Gary Becker
1993 Rober Fogel
1994 - John Harsanyi
1994 - Reinhard Selten
1997 - Robert Merton
1997 - Myron Scholes
2001 - George Akerlof
2001 - Joseph Stiglitz
2002 - Daniel Kahneman

Medicine

1908 - Elie Metchnikoff
1908 - Paul Erlich
1914 - Robert Barany
1922 - Otto Meyerhof
1930 - Karl Landsteiner
1931 - Otto Warburg
1936 - Otto Loewi
1944 - Joseph Erlanger
1944 - Herbert Spencer Gasser
1945 - Ernst Boris Chain
1946 - Hermann Joseph Muller
1950 - Tadeus Reichstein
1952 - Selman Abraham Waksman
1953 - Hans Krebs
1953 - Fritz Albert Lipmann
1958 - Joshua Lederberg
1959 - Arthur Kornberg
1964 - Konrad Bloch
1965 - Francois Jacob
1965 - Andre Lwoff
1967 - George Wald
1968 - Marshall W. Nirenberg
1969 - Salvador Luria
1970 - Julius Axelrod
1970 - Sir Bernard Katz
1972 - Gerald Maurice Edelman
1975 - David Baltimore
1975 - Howard Martin Temin
1976 - Baruch S. Blumberg
1977 - Rosalyn Sussman Yalow
1977 - Andrew V. Schally
1978 - Daniel Nathans
1980 - Baruj Benacerraf
1984 - Cesar Milstein
1985 - Michael Stuart Brown
1985 - Joseph L. Goldstein
1986 - Stanley Cohen [& Rita Levi-Montalcini]
1988 - Gertrude Elion
1989 - Harold Varmus
1991 - Erwin Neher
1991 - Bert Sakmann
1993 - Richard J. Roberts
1993 - Phillip Sharp
1994 - Alfred Gilman
1994 - Martin Rodbell
1995 - Edward B. Lewis
1997 - Stanley B. Prusiner
1998 - Robert F. Furchgott
2000 - Eric R. Kandel
2002 - Sydney Brenner
2002 - Robert H. Horvitz

Physics

1907 - Albert Abraham Michelson
1908 - Gabriel Lippmann
1921 - Albert Einstein
1922 - Niels Bohr
1925 - James Franck
1925 - Gustav Hertz
1943 - Gustav Stern
1944 - Isidor Issac Rabi
1945 - Wolfgang Pauli
1952 - Felix Bloch
1954 - Max Born
1958 - Igor Tamm
1958 - Il'ja Mikhailovich
1958 - Igor Yevgenyevich
1959 - Emilio Segre
1960 - Donald A. Glaser
1961 - Robert Hofstadter
1962 - Lev Davidovich Landau
1963 - Eugene P. Wigner
1965 - Richard Phillips Feynman
1965 - Julian Schwinger
1967 - Hans Albrecht Bethe
1969 - Murray Gell-Mann
1971 - Dennis Gabor
1972 - Leon N. Cooper
1973 - Brian David Josephson
1975 - Benjamin Mottleson
1976 - Burton Richter
1978 - Arno Allan Penzias
1978 - Peter L Kapitza
1979 - Stephen Weinberg
1979 - Sheldon Glashow
1988 - Leon Lederman
1988 - Melvin Schwartz
1988 - Jack Steinberger
1990 - Jerome Friedman
1992 - Georges Charpak
1995 - Martin Perl
1995 - Frederick Reines
1996 - David M. Lee
1996 - Douglas D. Osheroff
1997 - Claude Cohen-Tannoudji
2000 - Zhores I. Alferov
2003 - Vitaly Ginsburg
2003 - Alexei Abrikosov

No wonder why certain people want to limit or slowdown knowledge amongst the joooos.

[Shaddim]

damn Joooo slackers!

[dave a]

Just one quickie... Israel is giving land to the PLO.

Well, a little more. The "Palestinians" are not just the Arabs who left Israel in order to fight rather than peacefully coexist (as many Arabs did - and they benefited). They are also terrorists, refugees, and criminals from Jordan and Lebanon. the original group has changed somewhat.

The wall is a temporary measure to stop the deaths of Israelis while the unliteral peace plan goes into effect.

if you lived in Israel, would you give away Jerusalem, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip - knowing that those areas were also used as launching pads for terrorism and military attacks?

The settlements are slowly being dismantled. Does any anti-Israeli acknowledge that?

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by dave a

Just one quickie... Israel is giving land to the PLO.

Wrong, they are releasing land back to the Palestinians.

Well, a little more. The "Palestinians" are not just the Arabs who left Israel in order to fight rather than peacefully coexist (as many Arabs did - and they benefited). They are also terrorists, refugees, and criminals from Jordan and Lebanon. the original group has changed somewhat.

Ignoring your " " yes, that's true. But they are also mothers, fathers, sons and daughters who have been internally displaced by wars they had nothing to do with and have lost all their belongings and at the moment live in refugee camps the size of small cities.

The wall is a temporary measure to stop the deaths of Israelis while the unliteral peace plan goes into effect.

What unilateral plan? And why not build the wall on your own land instead of someone else's?

if you lived in Israel, would you give away Jerusalem, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip - knowing that those areas were also used as launching pads for terrorism and military attacks?

Half of Jerusalem. No need to lie. And yes, if it would bring peace to my people. Especially since they aren't a part of Israel. Time to decide if Israel wants to continue being an apartheid state or if they want to join the rest of the civilised world

The settlements are slowly being dismantled. Does any anti-Israeli acknowledge that?

They are being dismantled so slowly that they are actually growing. That is some achievement.

[von Wrangell]

Pachead and MacNStein: Jews I= Israel. I don't have time at the moment but I somehow guess that if you'd filter out those who aren't in that list it wouldn't be as impressive.

Oh, and comparing free people to a people under constant occupation was rich as well.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by PacHead

Is Israel too smart for their neighbors ? Do the jews get too many nobel prizes ?

Why don't you just scroll back to the top of the page and see my comments on Zimphire's cartoon? Israel is a country. Judaism is a religion. Which part didn't you understand?

The point of slowing Israel's development has nothing to do with its neighbours and nothing to do with religion. It has to do with promoting civilisation on the planet. It has to do with eliminating governments that fail to respect basic human rights through sanctions stretching from not inviting rogues to parties, through economic sanctions to all out war. And for many of us, after 50 years of Israeli oppression, the time has come for sanctions against Israel.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by dave a

Just one quickie... Israel is giving land to the PLO.

Really? So Israel owns this land they are "giving away" and they are giving it to a political party (the PLO)? Interesting.

Originally Posted by dave a

The wall is a temporary measure to stop the deaths of Israelis while the unliteral peace plan goes into effect.

If I want to build a wall to protect me against my neighbours, I have to build it on my own land. How come the same principles don't apply to Israel?

Originally Posted by dave a

if you lived in Israel, would you give away Jerusalem, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip - knowing that those areas were also used as launching pads for terrorism and military attacks?

Yes I would. If you believe walls and guns are going to keep Israelis safe, how do you explain the fact that after 50 years of walls and guns, Israelis are today less safe than ever before? Guns and walls are clearly not going to keep Israelis safe. Never have and never will.

There is only one thing that will keep Israelis safe; a viable Palestinian state. It's not just about land anymore. Palestinians need self-determination, freedom and rights to resources like land and water but those are just ethereals. To stop the attacks, you need to make concrete changes; you need to give Palestinians something to lose. Israel needs to make massive investments in the OT to bring the standard of living of Palestinians up. Once that has happened, Palestinians will have no reason to launch attacks from anywhere and too much to lose. Granted, there will probably always be extremists that want to see the end of the Israeli state, but that's a given that every state has to deal with and can normally deal with effectively without repression and human rights abuses, without tons of guns and miles of walls.

Of course, it takes far more guts to put down your guard and extend the hand of friendship. Given the relationship Israel has had with Palestinians for 50 years, you'd expect it to get smacked in the face a few times. What Israel hasn't learned is to ignore that; to turn the other cheek. Israel will have to accept that there will be a cost to making peace and it has to resist the cowardly impulse to hit back every time it is hit.

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by Troll

It has to do with promoting civilisation on the planet.

If you'd like to promote civilization on the planet, then I suggest a boycott of practically all islamic countries in the entire world. Those regimes, which practice barbaric laws (sharia) do not match the definition of civilized.

[dave a]

No lying. PLO demands ALL of Jerusalem. One or more of the accords suggested dividing it.

The PLo would be more credible if Yassir Arafat had not lived like a king while his people starved - and of course he blamed Israel for their problems.

Perhaps money spent on food rather than explosives factories would help.

The point of anti-Zionism is simple distraction. Think of this from an Arab leader perspective. Give your people someone to hate and they won't blame YOU for their abject poverty while you live like a king and trade Maybachs with your friends while flying from Paris to Monte Carlo. That's one reason Lebanon had to be destroyed: a successful democracy where Muslims and Christians lived in peace and prosperity made every other country in the region look bad. By saying that Israel is an arm of the USA and the Great International Jewish Conspiracy To Keep Arabs/Muslims/Christians/You-Name-It down in the dirt, you get a free pass!