#5 Via Melanie Phillips:
Dr Sari Nusseibeh, president of Al Quds university in Jerusalem and Dr. Menachem Magidor, President of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, have signed a joint declaration against academic boycotts on the basis that 'co-operation based on mutual respect' is 'a far better means of achieving common goals in the Middle East'. This admirable joint effort in defence of academic freedom of speech, which is being threatened by the AUT's proposed boycott of selected Israeli universities, conceals the fact that Dr Nusseibeh -- who deserves credit for the moderate stance he has taken towards Israel -- nevertheless does not object to the boycott on the grounds that its premise is a disgusting and racist libel against Israel but merely that it is bad tactics, since he would wish to use his contacts with Israeli academics to encourage even more of them to undermine the Israel government's attempts to defend the Jewish state from the annihilation promised in the Palestine National Covenant and in demented anti-Jewish rants by PA-controlled preachers (see earlier post below). Whether the Hebrew University really regards this as 'achieving common goals in the Middle East' is open to question.
On BBC Radio Four's Today programme this morning (0749), there was a 'debate' on the AUT boycott between Dr Nusseibeh and Sue Blackwell, its originator. Here was actually the true example of 'achieving common goals in the Middle East'. Both of them agreed that the basic problem was the Israeli occupation, and that the Israeli government had to be prevented from oppressing the Palestinians. The only difference between them was over the tactics to be used. Blackwell wanted to punish Israeli academics to engineer a change in Israel's behaviour; Nusseibeh wanted to 'reward' them if they supported the Palestinian cause.
The Today presenter, Jim Naughtie, sat back during this love-in, attempting to intervene only when Blackwell started ranting about a 'racist' conference at Haifa university. There wasn't a peep of protest when Blackwell asserted that 'people have to make a stand against oppression which has gone on for centuries'. Excuse me? Israel was founded in 1948, yet Blackwell appears to think the Jews have been oppressing the Palestinians 'for centuries'. (So much for her claim that the boycott is to redress the wrongs of the 'occupation' which started, er, in 1967. Of course, there was indeed oppression in this land for centuries -- oppression of the Jews, who were ethnically cleansed from their own country and then persecuted and massacred in the region until they regained their homeland.)
Blackwell was not challenged on this preposterous assertion because the premise of the item was that Israel was the bad guy. This was a given for the two participants and their BBC hosts. The BBC shares the view common to the two 'debaters', that Israel is the problem and the only issue is over the tactics to deal with it.
That's why this line-up undoubtedly corresponded to the BBC's idea of balance -- two people on opposing sides of a question. The problem is the BBC asked the wrong question. Instead of debating the question 'Is the AUT boycott fair and just?' it debated instead the question 'Is the boycott the best way of hitting Israel?' |
A Palestinian teachers union has called for the dismissal of Al-Quds University President Sari Nusseibah for "normalising ties with Israel" and "serving Israeli propaganda interests". A statement by the Palestinian Union of University Teachers and Employees (PUUTE), published on the front page of the Ram Allah-based daily Al-Ayyam, on Monday accused Nusseibah of "normalising relations with the Sharon government" despite the Israeli prime minister's policy of "bullying the Palestinians and stealing their land".