In wake of the Gaza War, tension has escalated considerably on our campus regarding Israel. Part of the problem is that advocates of one side or the other ““ supporters of Palestine and supporters of Israel ““ often desire that their view, and only their view, be heard. But it is essential to the health of this university that diverse viewpoints be voiced and exchanged, and in civil and respectful fashion. Indeed, the free and open exchange of ideas ““ as distinct from mere “preaching to the choir” ““ is the lifeblood of this and any fair-minded institution.
It is for that reason that I oppose the boycott of Israeli academic and cultural institutions to which some colleagues have signed on (“UCLA professor helps launch boycott of Israel,” Feb. 23). A boycott is misguided, unfair and counterproductive for two main reasons.
First, the boycott will have a chilling effect on precisely those Israelis in a position to generate new ideas to escape the current stalemate in the Middle East. Rather than being encouraged or emboldened to think “outside the box,” Israeli academics will retreat from their critical perch to a position of defense of their institutions and country. To boycott them is to deprive us all of some of the most fertile, humane and critical minds. Over the past 80 years, Israeli scholars from Martin Buber and Ernst Simon to Yeshayahu Leibowitz and Jacob Talmon to Amnon Raz-Krakotzkin have been moral beacons in their country. For these academics, the prospect of leaving Israel to engage with colleagues abroad, often in the context of institutional exchanges, affords them the opportunity to breath, be recharged, and return home with new vigor. What benefit can come from punishing them?
Similarly, the proposed boycott would target Israeli cultural institutions such as the Batsheva Dance Company, which visited UCLA this past weekend at Royce Hall. Batsheva, under the inspired leadership of Ohad Naharin, is a world-class company which consciously seeks to transcend political, cultural and ethnic boundaries. It speaks the universal language of art. To single out Batsheva, as some did in demonstrating on Saturday night, is to strike at the liberating force of culture in pushing beyond ignorance and fear.
Secondly, along with its tendency to punish academics, I oppose the boycott of Israel because of its selectivity of focus. It should be clear that I do not adhere to an instinctive defense of Israel at every turn. On the contrary, I am a strong critic of Israel’s occupation, militaristic ethos and actions in the recent Gaza War. But singling out Israel for a boycott strikes me as patently unfair. Could it be that only it ““ and its academics ““ are worthy of censure in our brutal and cruel world? To highlight the deeds of one country, and a particularly enlightened group of its citizens at that, and ignore all the others bespeaks a moral blindness.
Opposing the boycott does not mean that one can or should abstain from fighting injustice in Israel ““ or anywhere else (including Palestine). Here at UCLA we must learn to do so in open and fair-minded fashion, mindful of the legitimate claims of both Israelis and Palestinians. By being attentive to the claims of both sides, not one to the exclusion of the other, we can create the kind of respectful marketplace of ideas that our university strives to be.
David N. Myers is professor of history and director of the UCLA Center for Jewish Studies.