Dette er jaggu meg godt organisert og hurtig eksekvert. Jeg har i
dag 3. november 2009, som underskriver av NTNU-oppropet for Israel- boikott, mottatt et
"personlig brev". Legg merke til hvordan det er skreddersydd for meg i
den forstand at avsender sier ting som plasserer ham som "fredsdue" i
det israelske politiske spektret.
Smart tenkt.
Trond Andresen
**************
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:26:19 +0200
From: edlyd@inter.net.il
Subject: Letter to Prof. Iversen, The Weizmann Institute of Science
To: trond.andresen@itk.ntnu.no
To: Professor Trond Andresen, Department of Engineering and Cybernetics, NTNU
Dear Professor Andresen,
I am writing to you from The Weizmann Institute of Science (Israel),
where I chair Yad Chaim Weizmann (The Chaim Weizmann National Memorial)
and serve as a trustee of YEDA Research and Development (the
Knowledge-Transfer branch of the institute).
Two days ago I wrote a letter to Professor Tore Iversen of the NTNU,
with the research of whom I am somehow familiar (as a historical
hobby...). The background of this letter is inevitably the "boycott"
initiative, and I wanted to share some thoughts with an intellectual
whom I appreciate.
Since Professor Iversen has not (yet) answered me, I decided to address
you (just by chance, since your name is appears first amongst those who
signed the boycott petition...). I wanted to make sure that my words
haven't offended Professor Iversen, and if for some reason they did
then I shall naturally apologize). I believe that he hasn't answered me
because of trivial matters and a busy schedule, but the topic tends to
raise emotions and I'd like to be on the safe side.
Please be kind enough as to check this matter (if you do not find it
inappropriate and provided that you are available). I'll be grateful...
And you may naturally also take a look at the letter to Professor
Iversen, which you should probably find interesting (even if not
convincing).
Sincelely,
Edly Dollar
Chairman, Yad Chaim Weizmann
The Weizmann Institute of Sceince
*************
Honorable Professor Tore Iversen,
I am writing to you from Rehovot, Israel. Amongst my activities, at The
Weizmann Institute of Science and elsewhere, I chair the Yad Chaim
Weizmann (The Chaim Weizmann National Memorial), the body which is
entitled to document, study and commemorate the legacy of the first
president of the State of Israel, founder of many educational and
scientific endeavors, both as a prominent scientist and as a public
activist.
I have decided to address you because I was surprised to see your name
amongst those who signed a petition to the board of the NTNU, calling
for an academic boycott on Israel. I was familiar with your work on
Medieval Slavery in Europe (unfortunately, I could read only that which
has been published in English and not in Norwegian), and I hold
enormous esteem both to your intellectual seriousness and to your
academic integrity.
I have no intention to argue with you about the criticism towards
Israel expressed in the open letter of which you are one of the
writers. Many Israelis may share many elements of this critical
outlook, and in spite of the fact that I find the petition itself quite
superficial, I believe that it is, generally speaking, motivated by
good will and noble intentions. I know that it is often believed that
Israelis tend to counter-attack their intellectual opponents by
accusing them, directly or indirectly, of conscious or unconscious
antisemitism. It may be the case (that Israelis too often revert to
such reactions), and it is also not impossible that there might
sometimes be a kernel of truth in such allegations (about
antisemitism). Yet, I mention all this namely because this is very far
from my point of view, particularly with regard to this specific
petition. And at any rate, I find it deplorable to make ad hominem
arguments when one can simply try to dialogue.
Israeli academia is one of the leading vectors inside Israel of
activity against the occupation and civil right violations perpetuated
by the State of Israel toward the Palestinians. It is true that one can
say that this is not enough. It is obvious that there are also other
voices within the academic community (and this is inevitable in a
democratic environment). But it is a fact that the anti-democratic
fundamental currents within the Israeli society, which exist and thrive
in significant circles of the local extreme-right wing of the political
scene, seek to weaken and suppress the Israeli academia because they
regard it as factor that stands for democratic and humanistic values
that undermine religious and nationalist fanaticism. Incredibly they
find support amongst good-willing Europeans whose intentions are
completely different. As a matter of fact, Israeli academia suffers now
both from extremists (local right wing) who seek to cut its budget in
order to hush those leading voices in Israel who stand for civil
rights, and simultaneously from those adherents of "academic boycott"
who make it more and more difficult for Israeli researchers, including
those above mentioned voices, to circulate their ideas and to address
both the local and the international community.
Further, the whole notion of "academic boycott" seems to be self
contradictory, oxymoronic. In your petition you suggest that "foreign
pressure" is the last recourse to persuade Israelis to change the
reality for which they are responsible. Not only do I think that it
will only corroborate more extremism (and push many moderate
Israelis,including Arabs, to leave their country and seek academic jobs
elsewhere), I can also think of better ways to help Israelis and
Palestinians to achieve peace (yes, I think it is possible). But in
addition to all this, I fail to see how academic boycott can be
legitimized, academically speaking. Academic activity transcends the
national realm. It deals with, thoughts, ideas, scientific exploration
and methodological research. A good article is valuable regardless of
the national identity of its author. Ideally I could even suggest that
readers must try to make a judgment under "a veil of ignorance", being
unaware, of the biographical background of the writers whose texts they
read. And if this is practically impossible, we must at least try to
evaluate intellectual endeavors regardless of the
gender-nationality-religio
us
affiliation-age-hobbies and other categories that might define the
people who stand behind them. Imagine that for more or less seemingly
justifiable reasons there was an academic boycott, universally accepted
by every university and research institute in the world, against the UK
some sixteen years ago. It could have meant that Andrew Wiles would not
have beet able to publish his Fermat's Last Theorem proof on any
internationally recognized stage. In such circumstances the proof would
not have been recognized as valid, and other mathematicians would have
continued to struggle for its discovery whereas the solution had been
already at hand. This is exactly what academic life should not look
like. Think of Ada Yonath who recieved the Nobel Prize in Chemistry
this year. Under the reality of an academic boycott similar to the one
for which you advocate, it is most likely that she would have been
unable to carry her research as she did. The structure of the Ribosome
would still have to wait for its discovery, current research on medical
applications which may result from this discovery could not yet be
explored, and the spirit of academic life would suffer from censorship
led by well intending moralists. You could try to argue that the
restrictions imposed by the boycott would have an impact both on
Professor Yonath and on the Israeli public, in a manner that would
promote more peace and freedom in the Middle East. After all, to some
degree this is implied in the text which bears your signature. But the
truth is quite the opposite. Ada Yonath needs no stimuli from the
outside to foster her humanistic vision, regarding the world in general
and the Palestinian (and Israeli) situation in particular. In fact, she
has held and expressed such views from her very youth. For the Israeli
public it was completely unknown, because very few (in every society)
might be interested in the political position of a
bio-crystallographer. The Israeli public became aware (and maybe even
somehow influenced) by her humanistic positions just after the news
about her becoming a Nobel Prize laureate (and I prefer to refrain from
an analysis of the importance of her being a woman, which is meaningful
in every society, let alone in the Middle East). In a much quoted radio
interview last month she expressed unpopular opinions, calling for the
liberation from Israeli prisons of all those Palestinians whom Israel
qualifies as "terrorists". It is undoubtedly the international
recognition (exactly what the Academic boycott tries to prevent!) that
gave her an opportunity to pronounce, and influentially so, radical
positions to the astonished Israeli public. A boycott could have both
prevented her from achieving her scientific breakthrough and from being
in a position which allows her to be heard clearly about burning issues
inside Israel. I imagine that you would not desire neither to impede
her from attaining her scientific achievements nor from gaining
influence within the Israeli society. But this is exactly the potential
effect of an efficient boycott. Well, luckily for her, Ada Yonath
herself has probably reached an international status that may spare her
from the silence that a boycott might impose, but for promising young
Israelis the boycott might just mean a detachment from their field of
research, maybe even a halt to their academic career, and the lost of
any potential influence, usually as a moderating force, inside their
own society.
In your open letter your friends and you are cautious enough to state
that the boycott must be applied for every member of the Israeli
academic life, regardless of religion, gender, position or political
conviction. It sounds correct, but it is hypocritical. From the
experience already gained from "quasi boycott" (non official)
situations which Israelis have been facing in the course of the last
seven years (especially in the UK), we see, for example, that many of
those who try to publish papers in academic journals must find indirect
channels to the editors in order to ensure that their political views
are "acceptable". In other words, in order not to ban Ada Yonath or her
likes from publishing, authors must prove not only academic merit, but
also the "correct" political vision, i.e. a sufficient degree of
aversion from the deeds of the Israeli government. This is maybe
understandable if we deal with a social club, not with academia. There
is a certain inherent level of McCarthyism here, and even a slight
Stalinist element of thought control which needs a mechanism of secret
police of ideas. We saw it implemented throughout history. You may say
that this is very far from your agenda, and I believe that it is indeed
very far from your intentions, but the boycott is not just a
declaration that attests for the morality of those who join it, it is
also a practical act that must be somehow implemented, especially as it
succeeds in gaining ground. In a discussion with British advocates of
academic boycott against Israel held in London in 2006 I was bluntly
told by one of the participants that although it is stated that every
member of the Israeli academic community is supposed to be equally
subject to the boycott, there isn't, "practically speaking", any
intention of preventing Arab Israelis from working together with
British academic institutions since "they must not be victimized twice,
once as Palestinians in Israel and then again as Israelis in the UK".
As a matter of fact I could have sympathized with her frankness, but I
found myself obliged to say that here again one must naturally wonder
how the question of "Arabness" can be determined. Are scientists who
submit papers to academic journals supposed to add in parenthesis that
they are "Arabs"? And should anyone check it? And are only Muslims and
Christians entitled to be legitimate candidates for this "privileged"
category, or also Jews? Again, the fear of a secret academic police
troubles me.
You may try to appease my fears by stressing the declarative importance
of your petition, which is not a tool for efficient practical measures.
I have heard it before. But this is the least Kantian approach that one
can imagine; I believe that in taking positions we must never ignore
the issue of what the world would look like should everyone adopt
similar views. This has guided me in opposing the very notion of
academic boycott and the idea of implementing it not only when Israel
is concerned but also when other countries are dealt with (and the
potential list is long).
Professor Iversen, your desire to make things better is admirable, but
the act for which you advocate can only help those whom you terribly
oppose. There are other venues, and they require a dialogue, not a
boycott. I invite you to create one with me, and hopefully not with me
alone.
I hope that you are not offended by my words, and I promise to be
always ready to hear whatever you have to say, academically or
publicly, regardless of what your country might ever do (we do not know
much about the future, let's admit...).
Respectfully yours,
Edly Dollar
Chairman, Yad Chaim Weizmann
The Weizmann Institute of Science