Baker, a professor at the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology, defends her decision by emphasizing that she did not take the action lightly. But Baker can't see a way to divorce her intention to boycott Israeli institutions from its direct effect on individuals. "The two Israeli academics in question have been personal friends for many years (and I am most definitely not anti-semitic, anti-Jewish or even anti-Israeli as such). In other words, I am boycotting Israeli institutions through their representatives, rather than Israelis as nationals. I don't know how else you can boycott an institution (in the abstract)," Baker wrote in a statement she sent via e-mail.

Baker emphasizes that Israeli academic institutions have the potential to influence their state's policies, but they have chosen not to. "Institutions, anywhere, are part of the state in which they are located. But academic institutions are different in that they can work to promote or question their country's policies, and to reach out or ignore their colleagues in academic institutions under occupation and oppression," Baker wrote. "Although Britain and the States are heavily implicated in the atrocities being committed against Palestinians, the American and British academic communities have a long history of fighting oppression, both in Palestine and elsewhere. Israeli academia, by its own admission, has no record of even condemning acts of violence and oppression committed against their fellow academics in Palestinian institutions over the past 35 years."

Despite the perception of institutional silence, there are many counterexamples of Israeli academics criticizing Israeli policy both in Lebanon and the occupied territories. For example, Avashi Margalit, a professor of philosophy at Hebrew University, has written that in applying "repressive measures" against the Palestinians, "Israel systematically violates a great many human rights."

And Shlesinger responded to the criticism of institutional silence by pointing out that while Israeli academics are not a politically homogenous group, "the activities of hundreds of prominent academics in Israel against the occupation and oppression of Palestinian people are a matter of record. In fact, faculty members of all seven Israeli universities (as well as various colleges etc.) have consistently been the most stubborn and persistent segment within the Israeli population that effectively acted against the occupation. You may find our names on thousands of op-ed articles (in the British press too), on petitions and in descriptions of demonstrations against the occupation. Most of the peace movements -- such 'Peace Now' ... and others -- were founded and sustained mainly by Israeli academics." Shlesinger cites as an example of the critical activism of many Israeli academics a petition drive to convince the Israeli government to remove the Surda roadblock, which prevents academic activities at the Birzeit University in Ramallah in the West Bank.

I asked Shlesinger about the potential long-term effect of this boycott effort. First, she said, Israeli scholars in the translation field will be less likely to contribute to the journals once the boycott ends. In the meantime, running the journal without its usual substantial Israeli contributions will make it a lesser journal immediately and could jeopardize the careers of some younger Israeli scholars. Most importantly, Shlesinger worries that the whole affair has injured the sense of camaraderie, harmony, openness and trust within the profession. And that could have serious long-term effects on the discipline. These are also the first victims of any political conflict that degrades into actions that go beyond dialogue and argument. The battle over these academic journals only mirrors the miscommunications, mistrust and misperceptions that have stifled progress in the Middle East at large for decades.

Some have argued naively that scholars should assume a disinterested pursuit of "truth" and ignore the more mundane concerns of real humans who battle for scarce resources and live according to their prejudices. Others assert that no form of inquiry is immune from political influence, so why not engage in battle on all fronts, higher concerns be damned? While neither of these positions offers a usable vision of the special role of intellectuals in a tumultuous world, it's reasonable to assert that despite our rarified working environments, intellectuals are still citizens of specific states, believers in certain faiths, and are all too fallible and foolish when it comes to the passions of a moment.

It's understandable that a collection of concerned academics is deeply offended by the violent expansionist policies of the Sharon government. And we should expect academics to do what academics do -- write and talk about their issues. But sometimes writing and talking gets frustrating when the other side (or anyone, for that matter) appears not to be listening. So academics occasionally engage in more direct action. And a boycott seems like the sort of thing one can do from a distance, with minimal effort and sacrifice. And that's just why boycotts such as this are irresponsible. The boycotter gets to exercise self-righteousness without risk. And those innocents who have to live under very different conditions -- unimaginable to those not in Israel or Palestine -- endure all the costs.

Recent Stories