THE BIG CON (ference)
The organisers have issued a statement on the conference (17/03 – see image – webshot 17/03)
included is this part:-
“The conference organizers accept that the granting of permission for this event does not imply support or endorsement by the University of any of the opinions to be expressed at the conference.”
Which I suppose indicates the University are at least now aware the conference is likely to be a disgusting, pre-written, anti-Semitic diatribe, that they really do not want to be associated with. Well, if you are clearly now aware it is a vile and unforgivable piece of work – cancel the horrible thing. Trying to distance yourselves from something you should never have given permission to either indicates you were either conned into thinking it was something it is not or are simply regretting your decision. Your statement is weak because this is happening on your turf, with your logo and using assets that you only possess because of public funding.
But the most interesting part of this fascinating statement is the hypocritical con contained within, where the organisers attempt to explain away the one-sided vicious anti-Israeli stance they have taken by blaming it on the ‘abstainers’, the Israelis who despite the organisers best efforts and even ‘face to face’ meetings, chose not to come.
DO NOT BE FOOLED BY THE CON!
The academic boycott of Israel states that whilst it is institutional in nature, it is designed that way to allow through only “the very few courageous Israeli academics that have come out in support of Palestinian rights”, or in other words those that have not come out in favour of these Palestinian rights are UNDER BOYCOTT.
And from the same boycott declaration: –
“While opponents of the academic boycott of Israel’s institutions often complain that it infringes on open dialogue, in reality it is clear that such referendums open up space for debate on a topic often side-lined and silenced on university campuses:” The boycott targets specifically the very “image of normality” that having Israeli participation would bring.
Or in other words, if they were to allow Israeli academics onto these panels it would be a direct and flagrant breach of the BOYCOTT that well over half of the panellists have signed up to. The academic boycott is designed specifically to punish the institutions and silence the pro-Israeli voice. Read the statement, understand its meaning – there is no dispute on this. Over half these academics cannot and will not conduct any academic research with an Israeli who is not adamantly opposed to Israeli policy. Period. We know because they’ve told us so. Often.
And let’s be brutally honest, the last Israeli academic to turn up to speak at the University of Southampton wasted his time and possibly his airfare. The BOYCOTT worked and the plans were changed to accommodate the boycott. If Ben Dor is now implying he could convince the pro-boycotters who conducted that successful boycott to keep away *this time*, he perhaps needs to explain to his employers, the University of Southampton, why he didn’t use that influence last time the university invited an Israeli academic to speak. If he is unable to provide such a guarantee or apply such pressure, then we have additional evidence of the hypocrisy. Given one Israeli turned up at the University of Southampton and was boycotted, how can Ben Dor possibly suggest the reason Israelis are not coming is down to them and not his university and the anti-Semitic road they have chosen to walk. How can he guarantee they’d get in? Simply farcical.
So when the organisers are trying to convince us or the University of Southampton they ‘did their best’ to make it fair, WHO ARE THEY TRYING TO KID. Even if a pro-Israeli academic was actually asked (which would breach the boycott that both Ben Dor and Bisharat have signed up to) – look at the list below – why on earth would they come? How do they know they’d get in? Which panel would they sit on if they did? Which one of those panellists below is Ben Dor claiming would break the boycott they have signed up to by giving a chance for a distinct pro-Israeli point of view to be aired, which is one of the core reasons the boycott EXISTS.
Ben Dor and his goons made this conference to be a one sided diatribe against the Jewish state. Out of over 190 states that have been created through war, occupation, revolution or colonial map making, he chose the Jewish one to legally challenge. This event is anti-Semitic and it is a bit late to be squirming and pretending it was ever meant to be anything else, if only those Israeli academics they are all boycotting hadn’t stayed away. How transparently two faced can you get?
PANEL 1 :
Prof. Gabi Piterberg: BOYCOTT
Professor Nur Masalha: BOYCOTT
Professor. Ilan Pappe: BOYCOTT
Dr. Victor Kattan: BOYCOTT
Professor Nadim N. Rouhana: UNSURE
Professor Richard Falk: BOYCOTT
PANEL 2:
Professor Yosefa Loshitzky: BOYCOTT
Professor Brad Roth: BOYCOTT
Dr. Sylvie Delacroix: would probably talk to Israeli academics
Dr. Ronit Lentin: BOYCOTT
PANEL 3:
Dr. John Reynolds: BOYCOTT
Dr. Anthony Löwstedt: UNSURE
Professor George Bisharat: UNSURE
Professor Oren Ben-Dor: BOYCOTT
PANEL 4:
Professor John Strawson: UNSURE
Dr. Ghada Karmi: BOYCOTT
Dr. Blake Alcott: BOYCOTT
Ntina Tzouvala: might talk to Israeli academics
PANEL 5:
Lea Tsemel: might talk to Israeli academics
Sawsan Zaher: UNSURE
Dr. Valentina Azarov: BOYCOTT
Dr. Mazen Masri: BOYCOTT
PANEL 6:
Dr. Jeff Handmaker: UNSURE
Yoella Har-Sheffi: might talk to Israeli academics
Ofra Yeshua-Lyth: BOYCOTT
Noura Erakat: BOYCOTT
PANEL 7
Dr Uri Davis: BOYCOTT
Mia Tamarin: UNSURE
Dr. Haitam Suleiman: UNSURE
Claris Harbon: might talk to Israeli academics
PANEL 8
Dr. Monika Halkot: might talk to Israeli academics
Dr. Marcelo Svirsky: BOYCOTT
Dr. Michael Kearney: UNSURE
Professor Ugo Mattei: UNSURE
PANEL 9:
Dr. Regina Rauxloh: probably would love talk to Israeli academics if Ben Dor wasn’t looking
Professor Kevin Jon Heller: would probably talk to Israeli academics
Prof. Nadera Shalhoub-Kevorkian:, might talk to Israeli academics
Salma Karmi Ayyub: probably wouldn’t talk to Israeli academics
PANEL 10:
Dr. Salman Abu-Sitta: BOYCOTT
Dr. Ruba Salih: BOYCOTT
Dr. Catriona Drew: might talk to Israeli academics
Dr. Mutaz Qafisheh: might talk to Israeli academics.
PANEL 11:
Dr. Hatem Bazian: BOYCOTT
Professor Yakov Rabkin: would probably talk to Israeli academics
Professor Haim Bresheeth: BOYCOTT
Professor Gil Anidjar: BOYCOTT
PANEL 12
Professor Joel Kovel: BOYCOTT
Eitan Bronstein Aparicio: BOYCOTT
Mr. Walaa Sbeit: UNSURE
Professor Virginia Tilley: BOYCOTT
The only good thing is that this conference is a sort of anti-Israel rally, every Israel-hater you ever heard of is there including some who must be well past retirement age, such as Uri Davis, and anyone who associates themselves with this conference has “outed” themselves as Jew-haters, even those that are Jewish.
The organisers are still asking for funding. Maybe the Israel Embassy should call the lovely Professor – 023 8059 3282 – and offer to help?
Great minds and intellects are what one would assume to be possessed by university lecturers, professors, academics etc.
Coming to this ‘debate’ are university lecturers, professors, academics etc .who have narrow minds, limited intellect, coupled with a blind faith in a questionable ideology bordering on blatant anti semitism.
They are not up to a standard as required by the Sale of Goods Act and are not fit for purpose
The conclusions of this debate have been published at: http://www.jewishwitchhunt.com
Universities are supposed to be open to discussion, to advance alternative views and ideas. They are not places of hate, prejudice and closed opinion which refuses to recognise truth and critique.