On the 30 May 2007, the University and College union [UCU] will be debating a motion calling for a boycott of Israeli academics at its first conference since it was formed last June by the merger of the two lecturers unions NATFHE and the AUT(see: http://www.ucu.org.uk/circ/html/ucu14.html ]. This will be the fourth time since 2003 that academics in the UK have been asked to institute a boycott. The boycotters were defeated at the AUT in 2003 and 2005 and although a boycott motion was passed in 2006 at the NATFHE conference, the motion lapsed with the merger.

It is also worthwhile remembering that the boycott campaign is one part of the eight point programme to delegitimise the state of Israel which was launched in 2001 at Durban at the UN conference on Racism. Its aim has been to create worldwide solidarity against Israel, what they call the last bastion of Apartheid. Not only does it seek to impose an academic boycott of Israel but also sports, telecommunications, scientific and military boycotts.

Their agenda called for bringing Israel to the International Criminal Court in the Hague which has already been achieved when it ruled against the security barrier. The programme also plans for the discrediting of the Law of Return, the foundation of Zionism and Israel, and replacing it with a Law of Return for all Palestinian refugees in order to create moral equivalence. Their goal is the eventual rupture of all diplomatic relationships with Israel and to suggest measures against any state that does not accept ostracism of Israel.

Britainis the centre of the boycott activity, as the recent weeks have shown. the National Union of Journalists [NUJ] passed a motion to boycott Israeli goods, see http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1176152792457 and there have also been calls for a medical boycott (http://www.palsolidarity.org/main/2007/04/24/pacbi-boycott/ ).

We have a ludicrous situation in Britain where less than 400 people in total at the NUJ, AUT and NATFHE conferences made the decision to boycott Israel on behalf of 150,000 union members. So far there have been very few recorded instances of Israeli academics actually being boycotted and the success of their boycott call can only be measured in the publicity such motions have gained for the Palestinian cause. In practice a boycott is a non-starter since Israeli academics are premier league and world academics, like everyone else in the world want to work with the best. From the latest figures that have been compiled by the International Advisory Board for Academic Freedom[IAB], Bar Ilan University, it appears that at least 60% of UK universities have either joint programmes or personal contacts with Israeli Universities.

Academics however need to be reminded that boycotting Israeli academics breaches UK legislation on equal opportunity and discrimination as well as similar UK university regulations and their contract of employment which could lead to legal proceedings and dismissals.

As we saw in 2005 during the AUT boycott, the passing of such boycott motions may have serious financial consequences for the Union itself and for some of our Universities.The large numbers of American students attending UK institutions would decline and many American donors to UK universities will curtail their contributions. Indeed UK-U.S. academic cooperation could also be threatened.

Last week a delegation representing Israeli Academia and Faculty Unions have visited the UK this week and met with UCU members at branches that are pro-boycott or undecided. The delegation organised by the IAB and the UK Fair Play Campaign Group [FPCG], had two purposes: to explain why the boycott should be opposed, and to show the diversity and calibre of Israeli academia. The delegation represents Israeli Academia (and unions) and included Dr. Jonathan Rynhold, Bar Ilan University; Prof. Miriam Shlesinger, Bar Ilan University; Prof. Zvi HaCohen, Ben Gurion University (Chairman of the coordinating committee of the Israeli Faculty Association); Prof. Daphna Erdinast-Vulcan, University of Haifa and Ofir Frankel, IAB Executive Director.

The delegation met with government officials and with UCU executives and delegates at the University of East London, University of Brighton, Manchester and University College, London. You can read the report of their meeting at Brighton with Tom Hickey who is one of the proposers of this years boycott motion at http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/860902.html .

Hickey, a dedicated Palestinian supporter who told me last year he had never been to Israel or Palestine, also proposed last years NATFHE motion. In 2005 NATFHE passed Hickey’s proposed motion in relation to the failed AUT boycott of Israeli Universities. Part of the original motion stated “that to criticise Israel policy or institutions is not anti-Semitic, and that anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism”. The phrase “anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism” was deleted before the debate on legal advice, which he was clearly unhappy about. There is little doubt that, had the phrase been allowed, the motion would have passed with overwhelming support.

A counter-boycott document has been prepared by Dr. Jonathan Rynhold of the IAB executive committee, intended to assist academics and others in arguing against the campaign to boycott the Israeli academia. The aim is to mobilise British and other academics to publicly oppose the boycott. The English document can be found at: http://www.biu.ac.il/academic_freedom/countering.htm

The Academic Friends of Israel along with the IAB and the Friends of the Israeli Universities will be hosting a stand at the UCU conference where Arab and Jewish Israeli students will tell delegates about the achievements of all seven Israeli universities and give details of Arab-Israel and UK-Israeli Academic cooperation.

Finally, to the question I am always being asked “will the boycott motion pass”.

I sincerely hope not, as all the groups involved AFI, IAB, FPCG, the Trade Union Friends of Israel, The Friends of all the Israeli Universities and Engage will certainly give it our best shot, but it is too close to call, this being the inaugural conference of the UCU.