...The terms of the various boycott resolutions that have been proposed at the AUT and NATFHE conferences make it clear that their object is not an end to Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory and the establishment of a just two-state solution based upon Israel’s withdrawal to the 1967 borders (or their full equivalent), mutual recognition, and reconciliation between the Israeli and the Palestinian peoples. The leaders of the boycott campaign have made it clear in their public statements that they regard Israel as an “illegitimate state”. The purpose of their proposed boycott is, then, not to end the occupation but to delegitimise Israel as a country and to stigmitize its people as a collectivity. Given this view, it is obvious why they refuse to propose sanctions of a similar kind against academics in countries committing human rights abuses on a far greater scale. They do not question the right of these countries to exist, but reserve this distinction for Israel alone among nations. The academic boycott is, then, nothing more than a contemporary version of the traditional Arab League boycott from the 1950’s and 1960’s, and it should be treated as such.

As in the case of the creationists, there is little point in pursuing a debate with the boycotters when they do not accept the basic principles of non-discrimination and universal access to academic institutions which form the basis of our opposition to their campaign. There are, of course, people of good will who may have been misled by the boycotters’ propaganda, particularly by the false and misleading comparison between their movement and the boycott of apartheid South Africa. It is important to engage these people in constructive dialogue. However there is no point in expending valuable resources in an enervating ritual that leaves us permanently on the defensive in a debate controlled by our adversaries. It is futile to attempt to persuade bigots that they are mistaken. One’s main concern should be simply to prevent them from implementing their ideas in a manner which disadvantages innocent people.

There are, I think, two elements worth pursuing in a more efficient strategy for dealing with the boycott. First, individuals and institutions that engage in acts of discrimination against Israeli (or other) academics on grounds of nationality or location should be exposed and vigorous legal action taken against them using current anti-discrimination legislation. If these actions are successful, they will set important precedents that will deter boycotters in the future...

...The argument...is to persuade people who are open to persuasion, and one doesn't always know in advance who they are. This in no way negates the strategic focus which Shalom suggests, but it does mean we'll need to keep on making the arguments.