Judea Pearl is professor of Computer Science at UCLA and writes frequently on the Middle East and East-West relations. http://www.danielpearl.org/news_and_press/articles/index.html

In the wake of British academics decision to rescind their boycott of Israel as discriminatory and unlawful, questions were raised relative the role of the Middle East Studies Association of North America (MESA) in the boycott campaign. MESA comprises 2,600 academics worldwide who teach and conduct research on the Middle East and North Africa and is committed, according to its official charter “to ensuring respect for the principles of academic freedom and freedom of expression in the region and in connection with the study of the Middle East and North Africa.”

Critiques of MESA have noted that, while the association as a whole took a strong and unequivocal position against the boycott, it nevertheless featured a “debate” at its annual conference over whether such boycott should be imposed. MESA’s defenders, on the other hand, argue that the panel was balanced, with speakers both pro and con, and Amy Newhall, MESA’s Executive Director, further noted that the purpose of the panel was to have “a civil and constructive discussion of this important and timely issue.”

This discussion is indicative of a dangerous phenomenon whereby academic “debates”, once the hallmark of free academic exchange, are used as ploys for blatant political propaganda.

How it works?

Entitled “Academic Freedom and Academic Boycotts,” the 2006 MESA panel description read: “The question of whether or not boycotts of scholars and academic institutions violate the principles of academic freedom has aroused a great deal of controversy in recent years, especially in light of the ongoing campaign launched by a broad array of Palestinian organizations to promote a boycott of Israeli academic institutions. This panel brings together a distinguished group of scholars and activists who hold conflicting opinions on whether such boycotts infringe academic freedom for a civil and constructive discussion of this important and timely issue.”

This description creates the impression that, while the issue became timely in light of a specific Palestinian campaign, the discussion itself will focus on questions of general academic principles, detached from the specifics of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

This was not the case in the MESA panel conducted in Boston on November 16. Israeli academicians were the only ones accused of boycott-deserving misbehavior. Moreover, the overriding premise was that Israel’s guilt was an established fact and that the only question needing “discussion” was her punishment. As a result, the panel became an instrument of anti-Israel propaganda, blessed, choreographed and executed by MESA, cunningly disguised as a “civil and constructive discussion.”

To understand the danger behind this tactics, we need to understand what the UK boycott debate was all about. According to informed UK colleagues, the boycott debate was never about boycott but about debate. The handful of pro-boycott activists knew all along that their colleagues would never pass a resolution calling for academic boycott of Israel — the majority of UK academicians, despite their tarnished image, are guided by a solid tradition of decency and commonsense. Instead, what these activists pushed for was a resolution to mandate public DEBATE about boycott.

What does it mean?

It means to mandate a union-paid anti-coexistence campaign on UK campuses, a campaign in which Israel would appear as an accused criminal, Palestinians as saintly victims, and teams of professional Israel-bashers would be flown over, at union expense, from the West Bank to speak on UK campuses with full media fanfare.

It was a brilliant scheme that almost succeeded (some of my colleagues were invited already to attend these staged trials) but, as we know, it was called off at the last minute. The Brits did not fall for it, except for the British Medical Journal which ran a “debate” on the merits of boycott, and was strongly criticized for it. Merely posing the issue for debate, readers argued, implied that British academicians think that a boycott may be a legitimate option to consider — an unthinkable proposition.

In contrast, MESA did fall for it, and further demonstrated great linguistic skills at concealing its real purpose: To present Israel as a pre-condemned criminal and debate the appropriateness of her punishment in the name of concerns for academic freedom. The fact that, simultaneously with unleashing this debate, MESA also urged the UK Union to rescind the boycott further helped to shield MESA from charges of collaborating with the latter.

I, for one, can think of at least half a dozen moral arguments why Palestinian academics, having been complicit with, if not active promoters of certain unacceptable practices and policies should be considered candidates for boycott if boycott were an acceptable whip in academia. Yet, remarkably, no one from MESA’s leadership has ever suggested to include this option in their “civil and constructive discussion.”

“We will not be silenced” declares Amjad Barham (Guardian, October 2, 2007) the leader of the West-Bank speaking team whose trip was cancelled by the UCU decision, “the boycott campaign will not only continue, but is likely to gain public support among western academics in particular”. I believe Barham is right; we will be seeing a proliferation of similar “debating” tactics on college campuses. Attempts will be made to establish Israel’s guilt by “debating” her punishment, and excuses will be produced in the name of the undebatable virtues of academic debates.

Early this month, for example, a “Women Film Festival” in San Diego decided to have a “panel” on “the merits and weaknesses of the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel.” http://sandiegowomensff.bside.com/?_view=3D_filmdetails&filmId=3D36069543

Following the example of MESA, the event description was well disguised in symmetrical vocabulary, with the exception of the title which read: “Boycott of Israel,” not “Boycott in Areas of Conflict”.

My advice to peace-minded colleagues: watch out for the next “civil and constructive discussion” offered on your campus, especially if it is associated with MESA or MESA’s affiliates. The only defense mechanism I can suggest is to organize a counter “civil and constructive” discussion to debate the motives of the debaters or — trying the patience of absurdity — assume their guilt and debate their punishment.