Jeg sender noen artikler og leserbrev fra The Guardian om
Israel-boikotten, i anledning debatten som blusset opp da professor
Mona Baker i Manchester strøk to israelske akademikere fra
oversetter-tidsskriftet sitt.
Ethics and academic boycotts
Thursday July 11 2002
The Guardian
Your leader (July 9) is right to point out that cultural and economic
boycotts can work, but also that it is difficult to steer between
contact and isolation. When Steven Rose and I drafted the call for a
moratorium on collaboration with Israeli institutions, we were aware
of two things.
First that institutions are composed of people; and second that
signatories are likely to give different expressions to their ethical
commitments. Every signatory does not automatically sing off the same
hymn sheet and institutions are not abstractions.
Most worryingly, by focusing on the actions of one signatory (and
without my going into the pros and cons of the particular case) you
appear to argue the rejection or acceptance of a boycott on the basis
of a sample of one. This means that you erase the ethical actions of
all the others. Some of these mostly "hurt" the signatory, such as
declining to address an EC conference because of the participation of
a formal Israeli delegation, or declining to join a research
collaboration with long- valued Israeli colleagues. Others, such as
declining to serve as a referee or as an external examiner, mostly
"hurt" an Israeli colleague or student. Yes, and sometimes that
individual Israeli will be a sturdy advocate of peace and that is
painful too. Some, like anti-apartheid South Africans before them,
welcome the boycott, even where it hurts them. Perhaps, in this
situation we should ask ourselves why only the cases of individual
Israeli academics being "hurt" have come to such high media
visibility.
Putting pressure on a state which stubbornly refuses to enter serious
peace negotiations remains the objective. But anyone who thinks that
is it easy to act ethically and in such a way as to command universal
consensus in a cultural boycott is surely naive.
Prof Hilary Rose City University
One of Israel's most prominent modern historians, Dr Ilan Pappé;, is
facing possible expulsion from the University of Haifa. His "crime"?
Supporting a student whose MA was struck out because his thesis
uncovered evidence of a massacre of Palestinians at Tantura in
1948. It seems Israel is already boycotting its own academics
(Boycott the boycotters, July 10).
Richard Bartholomew
London
That two Israeli academics were dismissed from the Journal of
Translational Studies is depressing enough, but in occupied east
Jerusalem, rightwing Israeli minister Uzi Landau recently ordered Al
Quds university to be closed - all of its computers and records were
seized and the institution was shut. This is another example of the
utter disregard which the current Israeli regime has for freedom of
speech.
Cathal Rabbitte
Giza, Egypt
Jon Baldwin, secretary of Umist, effectively confirms (Letter, July
10) that Professor Mona Baker will not be disciplined for her
appalling dismissal of two Israeli academics from the Journal of
Translational Studies on the ground that they are Israelis. Surely the
government should now withhold all financial backing from the
institute, which appears to have no understanding of academic freedom
or of multiculturalism.
John Torode London
This disgusting sacking, which has rightly been widely condemned, is
part of the continuing war against any Jewish student's ability to be
a proud Jew or Zionist on campus. The UK prides itself on drawing
international academics. If we start with Israelis with whom will this
kind of action stop? Furthermore, what message will this send to
Israeli peace activists among whom these particular individuals were
active? While Israel continues to seek peace, why does she want to
return a message of hatred?
Danny Stone
Nottingham University Jewish Society
The National Union of Students has never entertained a debate on
justice for the Palestinian people. All sorts of measures have been
taken to stifle debate. What the NUS fails to understand (Students
attack Israel boycott, July 9) is the distinction between Jewish
people and the Israeli state, and the distinction between Israelis who
support state policies and those oppose them. Anti-zionism is not
anti-semitism. In a question of oppression, moral agents always side
with the oppressed and condemn the oppressor. They simply seek
justice.
Omar Waraich
SOAS students' union,
University of London
The boycott of Israeli academic institutions should not be extended to
Israelis on an individual basis. But, the dismissal of two Israeli
academics concerns me less than the fate of the two young Palestinian
men in the photograph with your report (Israeli boycott divides
academics, July 8). Stripped to their underpants, blindfolded, their
hands tied behind their backs, forced to kneel in the sun while a
armed Israeli soldier leers down at them - a shocking image of a
brutal occupation. How odd that your academic letter writers didn't
seem to notice them.
Leon Rosselson
London
There is no boycott against Palestine. Apparently these
conscience-stricken professors are happy to exchange ideas with an
organisation which relies on children armed with rocks and teenagers
brainwashed for suicide.
Uri Geller
Sonning-on-Thames, Berks
Political gesture that led to hate mail
Decision to 'unappoint' Israeli academics was not personal, publisher claims
Will Woodward, education editor
Saturday July 13 2002
The Guardian
A green Manchester suburb, a tree-lined street, where historic
hostilities amount to City v United and not much else; a gabled,
semi-detached home announcing solid comfort; a hall, a living room, a
fitted kitchen, and to the right, a single storey annex that houses
the most reviled little publishing company in the world.
It has been more than a month since the angry emails started to come
in, although the stream turned into a flood this week. The decision by
Mona Baker, a professor of translation studies at the University of
Manchester Institute of Science and Technology, to "unappoint" two
academics from journals owned by her company, because they work at
Israeli universities, has thrust her company, St Jerome, into the kind
of notoriety it never imagined.
Since the Sunday Telegraph reported that Stephen Greenblatt, Harvard
professor and president of the Modern Languages Association of
America, had sent Prof Baker an open letter condemning her decision,
not a day has gone past without vigorous criticism from the National
Union of Students, the Conservatives, the education secretary, Estelle
Morris, and from her own university, which hardened up its initial
"this is nothing to do with Umist" response to outright criticism.
In a statement, Umist said it would be "holding an internal inquiry
into this matter which will cover all relevant issues", though it
would not say if that included disciplinary action against Prof
Baker. "We strongly believe that discrimination is unacceptable, that
the Israeli academics should not have been removed, and that this
decision was wrong. If the academics had been working on Umist
journals, rather than independent and privately owned journals, they
would never have been removed."
Prof Baker's decision has also been condemned by newspapers across the
political spectrum, including in the leader columns of the
Guardian. Even some of the fellow boycotters have been lukewarm. "I
neither want to justify it nor not justify it," said Hilary Rose on
Newsnight. "What we have called for is a modest institutional boycott,
and what is happening is people are taking it that much further and
are actually moving against individuals."
Last Sunday, when the Telegraph published its article, Prof Baker and
her husband, Ken, received 15,000 emails in 24 hours. Many were
supportive; many were abusive and obscene. Prof Baker declined to
speak about the matter to the Guardian. Mr Baker, however, insists the
couple have never been especially political. "For a lot of years we've
cursed and sworn when we've seen things going on the TV. You do. I
cried when I was watching what was going on in Ethiopia and Rwanda and
all these places, and still do." They had strong views on the Middle
East, but Prof Baker was not a campaigner.
Most of all they worked. They had met in Cairo and married there in
1977. When they set up St Jerome in 1995, named after the first
translator of the Bible, she was doing well at Umist and he ran a
Rover dealership in Stockport. "We decided that there was a definite
niche there and something we could work on and maybe have a small
publishing company or something to produce a few books for our
retirement. We'll never stop working but you get to a point where
employers don't want you any more," said Mr Baker.
World-class
Prof Baker launched The Translator, a twice-yearly journal with an
expert, world-class board from the UK, Belgium, Germany, Spain, Israel
and the US, selling a few hundred a go. In 1998, they started
Translation Studies Abstracts, edited by another Umist academic, which
gives one paragraph summaries of current research in their fields. The
entire print run is 90 copies.
But St Jerome started publishing books as well, 12 to 15 a year, and
acting as a distributor for other translation studies books by other
companies. Mr Baker runs the business full-time and they turn over
about £100,000 a year, enough to keep it viable if not to leave a
lot spare.
"There is nothing political about any of our books. I'm one of these
people who won't allow business to get involved in politics," said Mr
Baker. As the Israel/Palestine dispute began to spiral, they went to
London for a Palestine Solidarity Campaign rally. And then, when Prof
Baker saw the petition began by Steven Rose of the Open University and
Hilary Rose from City University calling for a boycott of Israeli
academic institutions, she decided to join that too.
Though the petition said signatories "will continue to collaborate
with, and host, Israeli scientific colleagues on an individual basis,"
Prof Baker said to the academics, Gideon Toury and Miriam Shlesinger,
that her interpretation meant that she could not collaborate with any
representative of an Israeli university.
One phrase in her email to Gideon Toury - "I do not wish to continue
an official association with any Israeli under the present
circumstances" - has since infuriated a lot of people - people
otherwise supportive to the Palestinian cause, even some sympathetic
to the boycott. It sounds like a boycott on the grounds of
nationality. The Bakers do not deny the email but insist the boycott
has always been about the institution, and was always understood to be
so.
Earlier this week, Prof Baker told the Guardian: "An Israeli academic
working abroad and using, say, an American university or a British
university as their institution would not be subject to boycott
whereas an American or British or French or whatever working in Israel
and using and Israeli institution as their affiliation would be
subject to boycott.
"I don't know how else you can boycott institutions if you don't
boycott their university, if you go on printing their names on
journals and giving them credit through their representatives. I
founded the journals, I am the main editor, and I appointed the
Israelis in the first place. If there was any element of anti-semitism
or anti-Jews of whatever or hatred for Israelis, I wouldn't have
appointed them."
Wounded
Both Toury and Shlesinger, who was once the Israeli chair of Amnesty
international, are liberal academics, though in Prof Baker's eyes "not
liberal enough to sign the boycott".
Mr Baker said: "One of the things that's bugging me now is how so much
can be written about this one small subject. Yet what's actually going
on in the country receives no airtime at all - that's really what you
guys should be writing about."
More than the emails, he has been wounded by press comment, and takes
issue virtually line by line with a Guardian comment piece by Jonathan
Freedland.
"Miriam Shlesinger did a lot of work for us for the journal. I like
her a lot actually. She's a really warm, nice lady - honest to God,
that's true. She's stayed with us on a number of occasions. I don't
really want to talk about it. I'm sad, truly sad. I like Gideon Toury
a lot. We celebrated his birthday in Calgary a few years ago ... it's
not a hate situation.
"This is a situation that's actually been very difficult, particularly
for Mona because they were very close friends of hers. But a statement
had to be made. Mona really hoped that they would understand.
"Maybe that was naive but she really hoped that they would understand,
something had to be done.
"This is no hardship to them financially. It's made a statement as far
as we're concerned to the Israeli institutions. When we did it, we
just thought Well, you know, we've made our statement, the fact that
we're just a tiny piffling little business is going to have no effect
on anybody, nobody's going to take any interest ... it would actually
have no effect whatsoever, its a token gesture."
Franz Pochhaker, from the University of Vienna, has left the advisory
board of The Translator in protest, but the Bakers believe the rest of
the boards are solid.
Copyright Guardian Newspapers Limited
Israel boycott revisited
Saturday July 13 2002
The Guardian
We are grateful for the Guardian's acknowledgement (Clarifications,
July 11) that it wrongly associated our names with a petition calling
for individual sanctions against Israeli academic institutions
(Israeli boycott divides academics, July 8). The letter to the
Guardian that we did sign (April 6), together with hundreds of other
academics, including some from Israel, was milder in tone and simply
urged European governments to consider temporarily excluding Israel
from European funding schemes.
We both regret it did not explicitly condemn Palestinian terrorism as
well as Israeli aggression. And we both have misgivings about
sanctions that might have no effect on the Israeli government, while
penalising individual academics. We signed reluctantly, out of
desperation, at a time when Israel was ignoring pleas from the entire
world, including even its usual sponsors, the US.
The flood of more or less vituperative correspondence we have received
suggests that the call for academic sanctions has hit home. Many
correspondents from Israel and the US have accused us of
anti-semitism, even of holocaust denial. Ludicrously, many have
appealed to biblical dogma or to the historic persecution of Jews, as
if these could somehow justify current oppression of Arabs.
Even Jonathan Freedland (Boycott the boycotters, July 8) sees the call
for academic sanctions against Israel as a "painful echo" of "the
Nazis' first steps towards the Final Solution". This is nonsense. One
of the reasons Hitler was able to develop such abhorrent policies was
the failure of the rest of the world to protest against them.
One of us (CB) has worked and published with Israeli scientists and
has been a member of an academic study group that works to strengthen
links with Israel. We are both sensitive to the argument that even the
modest academic sanctions that we supported might hurt liberal
academics opposed to their government's actions. For this reason One
of us (RD) has stated publicly (Daily Telegraph, May 16) that he now
regrets signing the original letter.
But exactly the same arguments were adduced against the South African
sanctions, which certainly affected many innocent victims. Those
sanctions potently signalled the disapprobation of the civilised world
and contributed greatly to the defeat of apartheid. No wonder, then,
that Archbishop Tutu was one of the first supporters of the call for
academic sanctions against Israel.
Prof Colin Blakemore, Prof Richard Dawkins
University of Oxford
In dismissing Israeli members of her editorial boards, Mona Baker,
professor of translation studies at Umist, contradicts, perhaps
unintentionally, the ideals of intellectual freedom embodied in the
practice of translation. It is certainly true that Palestinians have
been violated daily by the military policies of the Sharon
government. But it is our firm conviction that injustice and
domination cannot be redressed without dialogue, especially with the
internal critics of oppressive or aggressive regimes.
Translation is about communication among peoples and cultures. Like
all forms of communication, it can be distorted and abused. But the
most fundamental way to abuse it is to block the exchange of ideas in
the global community of intellectuals. The two Israeli members of
Professor Baker's editorial board are not responsible for the actions
of the Israeli government and it makes no moral or political sense to
dismiss them. There is a word for it in German: Sippenhaftung. It can
be translated here as the boycotting of some members of a society for
the crimes of some other members.
Dr Jean Boase-Beier
School of linguistics and translation studies, University of East Anglia
Copyright Guardian Newspapers Limited
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 15-07-02 MEST