Dangerous dichotomization

Would you feel better if Israel would organize palamiltary organizations that would do this??? Because that is exactly what other countries are doing...

I agree with the spirit of this article very much. The fact that Israel is an occupier is not denied here, as some commentators have interperted it. It is not a pro-Israeli article as it is quite balanced, but an article against the boycott, listing the reasons why such boycott is not productive. Well done and write more.

ALthough I have a less idealistic apporach to the conflict. I appaud the writer for expressing her opinons and presenting the facts clearly and openly. Everything is true, her analysisi is excellent. I am just afraid that it will all fall on deaf ears both here & abroad.

It seems to me that Israel has no problem boycotting Palestinians as far as education goes. Where is the outrage? "The High Court of Justice this week upheld a ban on students from the Gaza Strip studying at universities in Israel. The ruling was in response to a petition filed by the nonprofit organization Gisha on behalf of Gaza resident Wisam Madhoon, who would like to enroll in a Ph.D. program in environmental science at Tel Aviv University. It essentially accepted the state's position that Gaza residents have no inherent right to study in Israel, and that there are good diplomatic and security reasons for barring them." Read the rest here: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/868459.html

As you have been rejected by the British electorate and even by the Tory Party, I do not think that your statement is representative of the British public.

true engouh that the Israeli settlers are the 'bone in the throat' of the nation. surprisingly, the majority of Israelis oppose them. It is a small minority of people supported by Israeli governments and jewish diaspora. I say: leave them where they are and move out, let them stay in the future Palestine.

Settlers are to be blamed for everything that happens in the occupied territories, and Israeli citizens, being associated to them, are indirect victims of the settlers policies. Too easy... Settlers are where they are because the state of Israel, has created settlements, set the favorable conditions to their growth at a rate 3 times higher than that of Israel inland, and is using them to create what the Zionist congress had concluded at the beginning of the last century: those territories wee necessary for Israel to be self-sufficient. The state of Israel is in the hands of the Israelis. Not the settlers. If settlers exist, it is because the Israeli majority wants them. And as much as my Israeli friends lament the condition of the Palestinians in the territories, it is more of a lip service to morale than a true worry about the condition of the Pals. They can blame it on human nature, but hardly claim to be a victim of the settlers.

Things are obviously not black and white. But Sharon uses a classical technique of self incrimination to advance the standard arguments in the defense of Israel's behavior. What Sharon fails to point out, is that Israel is the *only* state in blatant violation of so many UN resolutions, and the *only* state enjoying unconditional support from a UN SC veto holder for its crimes of occupation, cleansing, and violations of International Law. This paralysis of the UN by the US to the benefit of Israel, as well as its double-standard when it comes to the resolution of the conflict, is what makes people raise against Israeli policies, and justifies the boycott. May it grow to the point where it will make those vetoes irrelevant and the recourse to violence useless.

I come to Israel 40 years ago from South Africa, and watched the slow decline of apartheid. Apartheid (which in no way resembled the Israeli situation)collapsed when whites and blacks stopped believing that whites actions represented western values. This happened when western countries disowned them. Sharon and I have both unsuccessfully opposed Israeli settlements across the pre 67 boundary.The complexity she correctly sees does not include the settlers, but Israel has developed into a country where we all fund and protect the settlers, and commit atrocities in their name. Only a disowning of Israeli actions (and Israelis)by those enlightened people whom we regard as "ours" throughout the world can drive home to us the idea that we are distancing ourselves from those whom we admire. I was once ashamed to say that I was a South African. I am becoming ashamed to be an Israeli.

I dont think looking at this in terms of right and wrong helps either. But as long as Israel is occupying Palestine, it leaves the world with no other way of looking at it. It is a power-relations conflict in which one obuses the other.

why dishonest? we hear all day about the occupation and the poor palestinians. But every sensible person, without being knowledgable to the details of this conflict, knows that it takes two people to Tango. So Israel is the one stepping on your foot, Khalid, sort of speak. solution seems simple to me: change your dancing partner. Start leading, instead of repeating your 'ouch, it hurts' mantra.

Israel controls america? that's an interesting concept... Israel does not want the palestinians as much as the palestinians dont want israel. Dont make it sound as if it was up to palestinians - the two countries would be side by side living in peace and prosperity. Or do you need a reminder of how Palestinians never miss an oppurtunity to miss oppurtunities?!

It amazes me that whenever Zionists lose a battle of ideas, they change the rules! It has always be argued that it is about wrong and wrong in Pal as well as everywhere. Look anyone who can trace their blood roots to Palestine should be granted a right. Anyone else is trespassing, and should be sent back to where they came from. We well know that for instance a blue eyed never lived and does not have roots in Palestine. Pal refugees must come back, intruders should be go back to Europe/eleswhere or ask for amnesty granted by original peoples only.

After having discreetly suggested he might also have studied for a PhD(albeit he was so hardly strapped he wouldn't have a time for a little essay) he babbles about "Israeli thugs in uniforms" shown on his telly. Well,Yoyne Lintwit ,Brit thugs in uniforms ,acquitted by a Brit court of torturing to death Iraqi civilians were also shown on the Swedish telly. Along with a trumphant comment from their CO,a colonel " Soldiers must do their duty without an overzealous officialdom looking over their shoulders !!" Here Yoyne are the real thugs,Brit thugs.Go after them,go Yoyne for it!

This article expresses a lot of what some of us in Israel feel. some of us do act. some of us do protest. some of us do want to end the occupation. many of us do want our sons to live normal lives and not have to serve the army. some of us do want to be able to visit our neighbour states. But those of us who do want all these things are in minority. sadly, we are not the majority of Israelis. sadly, our government is commiting horrible crimes to others, on our behalf. help us to become the majority, not by boycotting us and our academics - this will only further silence us! it gives power to the mainstream, not only the extremists! that's the point of this article - I salut the writer!

wj congress should press on ue about this boycott

The writer is trying to create some kind of symmetry between the rapist and his victim, the thief and his victim, the murderer and his victim. Israel is simply murderer, thief and liar. And the Palestinians are victims of murder, theft and mendacity. Israel is a nuclear power which control America and much of the Western World, whereaas the helpless, defenseless Palestinains are treated as virtual slaves. They are starved, hounded, encircled, killed, humiliated and savaged on a daily basis. The problem is not really security or terror or what have you. The problem is that Israel doesn't want the Palestinaians. Period. This is why peace is impossible.

Look You shouldn't really worry about the way British academics regard Israel. Your biggest worry is that Israel now in the Middleast is Like Nazi Germany in Europe. They are both built on racism, extremism, Aprtheid and oppression. No matter how many fake victories the Israelis score, justice will prevail. Nazi Germany has scored superb victories but at the end it fell down on its knees. The situation with Israel is different, Israel has managed to plant hatred in everyone's heart. Anyone who is concerned about humantiy hates Israel. I expect the end of Israel to be a horrible end far worse than the end of Germany, it will be more like the bloodshed of the french revolution, which I think is a well deserved end to such Apartheid and oppression. That's why I believe Israel has to wake up to the fact that by being so oppressive and inhumane it is actually planting its own horribble end. That's what you really should be worried about. Justice will prevail

you are a hypocrit. from the other side of the world to sound so self-rightous is really outrageous. you would attack any israeli for merely being israeli, and any opinion coming from israelis, to you, will be 'pathetic'. the use of offensive language is always counter-productive. same as the use of dicotomies in relation to the world, becuase it doesnt leave room for anything in between - you are either on one side, or the other, which leaves you with little room to manuver. on the victim's side - you will never resume responsibilities blaming your opressor - and only him - in your misfortunes. on the occupier side - you will never let down your guards or defences. you sound angry. divert your anger to positive channels like coming up with productive suggestions. we have plenty of time to do that here in peaceful montreal.

Dear Sharon, Thank you for expressing my feelings better than I could have myself. Unfortunately, I feel that only with international pressure, can we withdraw to something very close to the 67 borders. But by international pressure, I don't mean an academic boycott, which I feel would be heavily counterproductive. I certainly agree with those that suggest that it should be published in the British media.

how can thoughts fuel the conflict? actions can fuel the conflict, or the lack thereof. this boycott is about putting pressure on the israeli public to act against the government. who ever thinks this goal will be acheived is wrong. israelis are defensive, they feel constantly attacked. this is why such boycott would not work. boycott products from settlements - that makes sense, but not individuals.

promises...promises.. please do the world a favor. Keep the "academics" you call Israeli. Let's see what happens. We might all be in for a surprise.

I still havent heard even one compelling argument for keeping this boycott. Im neutral, or so I think, I take no side here, and understand well what kind of crimes israel is committing. but how can boycotting the only people in this country who oppose this help? please, if someone can enlighten me here I'll appreciate it.

for some commentators here (israeli patriots)- the writer is a 'leftie idiot', while for others (israeli 'opposers') - she is as good as a government employee. well - she cant be both, can she? show some decency even if you so disagree with the article.

the boycott in south africa is one out of many factors that acted at that time, and its impossible to say that the boycott ITSELF stoppred south-africa apartheid. Israel is guilty of many of the above accusations, but not in apartheid. you cant argue at the same time that segragation is taking place while asking for an independent state - the two simply contradict. The solution needed here is different than the one that was needed in SA. but of course, for those who know little about history and politics, it is a convinient analogy to draw.

What saddens me more than your pathetic article is the fact that your thoughts are fueling the permanent expansion of the settlements and the impossibility of a two state solution. The only way, Mr. Shochat to stop the occupation is by external forces like the boycott (remember South Africa? without the external boycott we would still have today the aparheit regime in place). Your article and your inactions is what fuels the conflict. This is what is perpetuating the injustice committed by your people against the Palestinian people. Mr. Shochat, you are very wrong: This conflict is, -indeed! - about wrong and right; it is about victims and victimizers; it is about justice and injustice; it is about occupiers and people under occupation (for more than 40 years); it is about the dehumanization of a whole people; it is about legitimization of the Palestinians; it is about the silence of an entire people (including yourself) about the total destruction of another people.

Sir,its incredible how you are all right, the world must read this, thank you very much

This article is not nearly as 'heartfelt' as your bias against Israel. You obviously just shrugged it off....not realizing the complicit nature of BOTH sides in the conflict: Pal suffering has as much to do with the Pals as it does with the Israelis. Until you and your kind can accept that, there won't be peace. But I suppose, many on the 'left' really do not want peace anyways....just the destruction of Israel.

Occupying other people's land and houses is wrong; building a culture and society where some people are second-class is wrong; participating in and supporting such a society is wrong. Sorry, Sharon, there is a huge power/moral differential between occupier and occupied, and all your words can't change that fact. In all this debate about boycotts, a simple solution is never discussed: end the occupation and the engine that produces terror, hatred, boycotts will end.

I think the point about dichotomies is very interesting and makes us think of things a bit differently. Language narrows down everything. think of this, for example: after the recent was with Lebanon - everyone was preoccupied with one question, including Israel and Hisbolluh: who won? when on both sides (and mainly the lebanese) hundreds of people died. a victory is crucial for keeping high spirits... indeed it feeds also into the national myths, pumped through the education... who in israel will belive that israel actually lost the 48 war (some consider 1% loss of population as loosing)?

there are more palestinians than israelis in the london school of economics. also, phd students dont 'sit in class-rooms', they actually teach in those class rooms. thirdly, you seem to equate 'education' and 'occupation' ('get educated and go back to israel to continue the occupation') when the correlation is usually negative between the two (as demonstrated by this writer): the more educated, the less likely you are to stand for occupation. perhaps you should consider paying a visit to uni yourself one day.

people here seem to have missed the point. this is an anti-Israeli government voice, one that manages to bring into account all factors involved in this boycott dillema, and quite convincingly so, as it calls israelis to act. By not turning her back to Israel/ Israelis, she draws their attention to the point she's trying to make. If israel has to change from the inside - what kind of success does the UCU hopes to acheive enforcing its decisions?

interesting to see what kind of emotional responses this article invokes... or anything else to the with israel-palestine. if only the genocide in darfur would get the same amount of attention.

please remind the persons who are boycotting to refrain from eating or drinking any citrus fruits.

The actual situation is most likely a little bit more complex than you're depicting it. It's very easy to judge, sitting here in our quiet and safe little place (which has its own questionable past). You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

dear andreas, errrr... not sure where you get your info from, but a. palestinian students visit israeli universities, b.many young israelis I believe you when you say visit..especially when IDF decides to close the borders, or sticks some prick little 18 yr old at a check point or you throw a curfew party for the Palestinains. Im sure those "Visits" you brag about are few and very far between.

Too bad it only just seems that way. You know its wrong but yet you don't feel there should be any repurcussions. If you feel so bad about things then you should be supporting anyone thats against it and even doing things to create a change from within yourself, not sitting in the UK taking up a seat ina classroom so you can return back to Israel educated and continue the Occupation while Palestinians are forced to live in crap. Dont just be a Poster Child for Israeli hasbara

such a shame that educated Israelis these days are anyehere but in Israel... these opinions are needed here, to balance not only extremists but also the vast main-stream israeli public who thinks precisely in those terms of 'right' and 'wrong'.

Yes, the world cannot do without Israel. But, as in the relationship between teenagers and their parents, the temptation is growing to find out how it would be. (Don't worry, we will all be crawling on our knees soon and beg for forgiveness).

If British Academics were boycotting Iran because they might, or might not be, making Nuclear weapons. I wonder if this particular lady who despite an academic boycott is studying in the UK would find the time in her second year (which I find amazing I didn't have any) to write a small essay about the injustice of boycotting Iran. Last night on British Telly we were again shown Israeli thugs disguised as soldiers why can't the British people show their isgust against a people that allows this to happen?

dear andreas, errrr... not sure where you get your info from, but a. palestinian students visit israeli universities, b.many young israelis these days refuse to serve the army, c. you have some serious attitude problem there dicrediting 'building bridges' as blabla. why do you think you're in a position to judge, and what are you doing yourself other than posting meaningless comments?

As I British national, I am ashamed of the UK academics who are calling for the boycott of Israeli accademics. As Ms. Shochat implies, the depth of the hypocrisy evident in their behaviour is breathtaking

I dont really get it: what will this boycott mean in practice? Other than the noise they made with their statement - will it have any real power in cutting relations between academics? I seriously doubt that!

the whole boycott idea started (even though debated for 5 years now) when Ilan Pappa from Haifa university was chraged with some accusations regarding his unethical behaviour (being more palestinian than palestinians). 'noble' brits came to his defence, which is slightly ridiculous, when I think of it, as he's part of Israeli academy whether he likes it or not. Is he boycotted too, I wonder?

who cares about their silly boycott? Israel is leading in every aspect of academic life, from bio and nano technology to medicine and agriculture. let them boycott us, and by all means - when needing urgent medical care, let them ignore the names of pills and equipment they're treated with, which will be no doubt Israeli!

clearly, this writer is pro-israeli. but in a very sophisticated way she tries to convince us that she's also capable of criticising Israel. so? Im not convinced. boycott is the only tool by other to exert pressure on the Israeli public to end the military occupation over palestine.

well-written article, why the hell not hear some balanced views, I had enough with one-sided sarcasm .

That Sharon, in a beautifully written, well-intended op-ed, needs to constantly remind us that she does indeed bash herself as Israeli, that she doesn't want to be left alone, outsode the enlightened consensus that has already judged Israel as the sole wrong-doer. She defends herself, instead of just stating her opinion. And that is the underlying problem. The veredict, just like in antisemitism, is already set. 42 years after Vatican II, more poeple in Europe -20 %- believe that Jews killed Jesus, than those who actually believe in him !

sexy words. reconciliation...conflict resolution. I'd like to meet the writer and begin the peace process one-on-one.

funny how academics think that if they use big words they understand the world better or convince others to act. this conflict will continue to thrive with or without academic exchange, as politicians are more keen on staying in power than looking after their people's interests.

that's all very nice but unfortunately neither the israeli government nor the palestinian one is for 'dialouge' or 'enhancing communication'. this boycott is indeed idiotic, but mainly because its a provocation which will have no effect on governments - the only ones with the power to change.

well done haaretz. for a while it looked like you were giving in to Israeli nationalism with the recent changes in the newspaper and its online edition. I would like to hear more such voices - opinions, clearly educated but with a personal touch to it. beautiful.

Im amazed at some of the responses here... this article goes out against one-sidedness. that is the core argument here. israelis, palestinians - should all try to see the point of view of the other. dealing with what brought them to this point in time and blaming each other does not do good to anyone. with all the emotional and sensitivities this article evokes, perhaps we should try for once to keep responses to the spirit it was written in?

Whoever dreams of a future viable palestinian state for sure dreams of the destruction of already existing and very viable and striving state of Israel. Even president Bush is babelling using these terms "a viable(territorially contigious palestinian state". Durson, no force in the world ever will be able to achiave that genocidal goal, never... Jews sufered for 2,000 years, and you stupid believe for one second that after all these sacrifices and after having with what to defend themselves, israelis just will surrender? Keep dreaming moron, the whole world might just be destroyed and yet there will never be a "viable(on the moon maybe)palestinian state". Better spend your time in figuring out haw to bring 22 artoficially created arab states to 2 or 3 and how to create a long overdue Kurdish state.

The one-state solution is quite unrealistic. Right now, the UN is overseeing the independence of Kossovo from Serbia, because one people cannot stand the other. Maybe, in the future, when the level of hatreds in former Yugoslavia cools down, the splinter states issued from it will rebuild a cooperation. In the case of Israel and Palestine, there should be two states, with secure and recognized boundaries and a peace treaty, enforced if necessary by a presence of UN soldiers, or NATO forces. Let the conflict cool down, let both sides learn to deal with their disappointments, and let both defeats with respect to unattainable goals give way to a common victory over mourning, hate and destruction. And shabbat shalom y'all! PS. Beautiful article, Sharon! I hope it gets a large audience.

1) the UN partition plan was drafted by 11 neutral countries who understood that Israel will serve as a homeland for the Jewish people. That is, when they divided the land as they did they took in consideration incoming Jewish immigrants, many of whom were debarred from arriving to Israel by the British and deported back to Europe or put in camps. 2) You specifically do not mention how much land the Arabs owned, since there are no clear figures about it. Some claim that most of the land not owned by Jews was British and not Arab at all. 3) in your post it appears that suddenly Israel decided to expel 450000 Arabs from their home: this is not genuine since you might have heard that the Arabs waged a war on the Jewish settlement and that at least *some* of them ran away. 4) Are you sure that when the day comes and a binational state will be established here that it will be democratic? All and all, first get your facts right before you engage in morality. Regards.

The situation between Israel and the Palestinians is not that of conflict but that of occupier and occupied, oppressor and oppressed, and this has been so for 59 years. In 1947 when the UN proposed dividing historic Palestine, Jews were 1/3 of the population, owned but 6% of the land, and whereas 70% of Muslims lived off the land, only 20% of Jews did. Yet the UN gave Jews 55% of historical Palesine. Then while the world stood by, Israel forcefully expelled 450,000 Palestinians in 1947-49, destroyed their more than 500 villages, and distributed their lands to Jews. The result of this long occupation has been disastrous not only for Palestinians but also for Jews, making Israel the least safe place in the world for Jews to live in since WWII. Enough! Let us have a single democratic state where all can live in peace.

There is a "two-state" solution on the ground from 1923 on...Everything West of the Jordan River,is called ISRAEL...Everything East of the River is called Jordan...Should be called "palestine"...It was chopped up by the brits,from the territories bestowed to the Jewish People,by the BALFOUR DECLARATION !!!!!! THE JORDANIAN POPULATION IS ALMOST ALL PALESTINIAN...The "pals are the ones that want no 2 state solution...The want only ONE STATE,UNDER MOSLEM RULE...IF YOU WANT TO LIVE UNDER THE sharia,and be treated like a dog,go ahead...cross the Allenby bridge,and desinfect the State !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Miss Shochat proves again that Selman Waksman was very right...He used to say-:"whoever is not a leftist in his youth,has no heart.Who ever is still a leftist when he grows up,has no brains...".It's is true all around... For somebody to grow up in Israel,and not understand the situation,or she is blind and deaf,or a raging idiot !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In response to Joe, indeed the Palestinians refused to the partition of Palestine prior to 1948, and some of them still do. But Israel, on its part, have been promoting this state of affairs (cutting Gaza from the West Bank, military control, settlements...) and it is, therefore, denying them national self-determination. It is clear to everyone that the two-state solution is the only way forward, and Israel should allow this to happen, the sooner the better.

I long the day where a Palestinian criticise its own (democratic!) government the same way Israelis are free and capable of criticising their's. with all due respect to their appauling standards of living.

the point made here is beyond this specific boycott - it calls for the reconsideration of our ways of relating to this or any conflict, and shows how language can assist in promoting conflict. very interesting!

Whether you agree with the writer or not, this article is balanced and it is good to see that such objective opinions are possible from Israelis. Israel is to blame for many of the Palestinian's misfortunes, but so are they. What will be good to see is similar self-criticism on the side of Palestinians, and them taking some responsibility for their life conditions, rather than putting it all in the hands of their incompetent governments.

I hope that the author of this article, as well as Ha'aretz, will make every effort to have it re-published in prominent UK newspapers as well. Shochat makes a cogent and intelligent argument that should be heard by her target audience, and not just readers who are already on her side.

First of all the author isnt even in Israel at the moment-this is her way, and the only way to fight for her cause-to repeal the boycott. Secondly in England Palistineans are not boycotted-in fact two British universities are twinned with Palistinean ones. Your comments were irrelevant to the article, and also it is not true that Israelis sit back and do nothing-there are so many stands and protests in Israel that almost every day a roadblock appears.

The 1967 borders were an accident of the 1948 armistice. The borders are not logical from a geographic, topographic, defensive (for Israel) or in 1948 demographic point of view. They only served as an attraction for attack by countries that never accepted the legitimacy of the State of Israel, regardless of the borders. While two of the neighbors now recognize Israel, a substantial proportion of their populations do not. On the other hand, continued occupation of all that land since 1967 was Arafat's trap. He clearly saw the consequences of occupying a resentful people with a higher birthrate and was honest enough to say so. The Israeli leadership, excepting Yigal Allon, was arrogant enough to ignore the warnings and demographic statistics. The social leadership seems to think that Israel can live in an M.C. Escher paradise where Jews and Arabs live in the same place in parallel universes with staircases that ascend in different perspectives - never meeting though they cross.

An interesting article. However, regarding self-determination, the Pals were offered a state in 1937 and again in 1948. Israel did not deny them their self-determination --they rejected that option in favour of fightng to destroy us. Even earlier Britain created the kingdom of Jordan in 75% of British Palestine. When Barak was prepared to give Arafat more than he could realistically dream of getting, Arafat rejected it and demanded that millions of Pals be allowed to move into Israel, mnaking Jews a minority in their own country. Israel has endured a one-sided negotiation, including the departure from Lebanon and Gaza.

An interesting article. However, regarding self-determination, the Pals were offered a state in 1937 and again in 1948. Israel did not deny them their self-determination --they rejected that option in favour of fightng to destroy us. Even earlier Britain created the kingdom of Jordan in 75% of British Palestine. When Barak was prepared to give Arafat more than he could realistically dream of getting, Arafat rejected it and demanded that millions of Pals be allowed to move into Israel, mnaking Jews a minority in their own country. Israel has endured a one-sided negotiation, including the departure from Lebanon and Gaza.

There is a shorcut which can be applied to seemingly complicated problems that allows the nocive to outguess the "expert" and always come up with the right answer. In police and legal circles there is a phrase, "qui bono?" which means, "who benefits?" In the case of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, the answer to that question is clearly Israel benefits as long as there is no final peace. This is because Israel has always continued to expand in the west bank. This "low profile" expansion is offset by a few "high profile" PR evacuations, to make it appear as if Israel is drawing down in the west bank, as agreed with the American government. Actually, the Israeli population on the west bank is always increasing and the settlements expanding. A peace agreement would change this. Israel doesn't want a peace agreement until they control every inch on the west bank. Peace will have to be forced upon Israel, who will kick and scream all the way.

Young Israelis, who declare themselves do be part of a democracy, have become very comfortable with the status quo. They lean back, say something about some not changeable circumstances, building bridges, all needs time blablabla. And they are never responsible for anything (quite in contrary to the citizens of dictatorships who have to suffer the consequences of the decisions made by their dictators). So for these hypocrites it's quite natural that Palestinian students are in fact completely boycotted, while they think, having completed army service in the Occupation Forces, the whole world should accept them with open arms. No. Do something yourself or stay at home.