Thursday, January 29, 2009

US Academic Boycotters for Terror

Ha'aretz yesterday wrote that a new US group was formed to advocate an academic boycott of Israel.

Ha'aretz had some fun at the expense of this group, called the "U.S. Campaign for the Academic & Cultural Boycott of Israel", asking them if they would accept support from Hamas (they would) as well as this:
Lloyd wrote that to the best of his knowledge, all supporters of the anti-Israel boycott were also opposed to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Asked if logic wouldn't dictate that he and his colleagues boycott themselves, he responded, "Self-boycott is a difficult concept to realize. But speaking for myself, I would have supported and honored such a boycott had it been proposed by my colleagues overseas."

As is usual in these sorts of groups, their publicity is way out of proportion to their influence or size. They didn't even bother to get their own Internet domain; their website is a Wordpress blog.

Half of their "founding members" are Arab and all from California, except for one who is inexplicably from An Najah National University.

Rather than go through the tedious and pointless exercise of showing how stupid their position is (for example, they have no problem accusing Israel of "ethnic cleansing,") I'd like to concentrate on one part of their FAQ that proves their total hypocrisy concerning peace and their tacit support of terrorism:
[Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions] is opposed by many Israelis who support the Palestinian struggle. By calling for BDS, aren’t we alienating these Israeli supporters?

Although the views of Israeli supporters regarding methods of struggle should be taken into consideration, Palestinians have the ultimate right to decide on the best method for attaining freedom from an illegal occupation and systematically oppressive regime. Supporters of the Palestinian struggle within the international community and within Israel itself have to stop attempting to dictate the terms of the struggle but support the Palestinian right to resist an illegal occupation, especially when the form of resistance is non-violent, as is the case with calls for BDS.
So while they are saying that they prefer non-violent means of protest, Palestinian Arabs have every right to attack innocent Israeli civilians via rockets, suicide attacks and bus bombings, if they think that is the "best method for attaining freedom."

Taking this one step further, if Palestinian Arabs should decide, as they did a few decades ago, that the best way for them to attain their freedom was by blowing up airplanes, attacking the Olympics and other terror attacks against the world, these idiotic academics will support them wholeheartedly, because to do otherwise would somehow infringe on Arab freedoms to choose to murder anyone they feel like by whichever method they deem the best.

The pure immorality of this position is breathtaking. And the fact that they end that same paragraph by calling themselves "morally consistent individuals supporting genuine peace" is far beyond ironic.

Hilariously, not only are these "academics" immoral, but they don't even know basic English grammar. From another FAQ:
Does Academic Boycott Infringe on Academic Freedom?

It may; but who’s Academic Freedom is being referred to within this context?
Perhaps they need to spend a bit more time actually studying things rather than pretending they already know it all. That way, they can avoid using their prestigious positions to make asses of themselves.