{"id":48867,"date":"2014-10-20T13:07:13","date_gmt":"2014-10-20T12:07:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=48867"},"modified":"2015-05-05T21:29:37","modified_gmt":"2015-05-05T20:29:37","slug":"the-academic-boycott-of-israel-a-policy-of-the-centre-for-peace-and-conflict-studies","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2014\/10\/the-academic-boycott-of-israel-a-policy-of-the-centre-for-peace-and-conflict-studies\/","title":{"rendered":"The Academic Boycott of Israel: A Policy of the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies"},"content":{"rendered":"

Thinking about a Better Conflict Resolution for the Palestine\/Israel Conflict in relation to the Centre of Peace and Conflict Studies of the University of Sydney.<\/em><\/p>\n

This piece is a supplement to my article, \u201cOn the \u2018Academic Boycott of Israel\u2019 Claimed by University of Sydney\u2019s Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies\u201d, appeared on the TMS website week of 13 Oct.- 19 Oct.2014. At the same time, this piece intends to be a response in the brief manner to Prof. Lynch\u2019s comments response to my article mentioned above, especially in PART ONE below. For Prof. Lynch\u2019s response, see https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2014\/10\/on-the-academic-boycott-of-israel-claimed-by-university-of-sydneys-centre-for-peace-and-conflict-studies\/#comments<\/a> .<\/p>\n

Despite some possible differences, if any, in views of Prof. Lynch and those of mine, I believe that both he and I share the same goal: a peaceful conflict resolution of the Palestine\/Israel conflict \u2013 a situation in which both Palestinians and Israelis will become friendly neighbors sharing peace and prosperity, even though the achievement of this vision seems to be an almost impossible and far distant dream. If Martin Luther King Jr. was in Palestine, he could have said as he made his famous speech in the United States, \u201cI have a dream that one day\u2026..\u201d<\/p>\n

PART ONE:<\/strong><\/p>\n

Regarding Prof. Lynch\u2019s reply to my inquiry, he says in its first sentence, \u201cThere is no boycott at the Centre, nor is there any call for one\u2026.<\/em>\u201d (For the convenience of the discussion here, the paragraph that contains the above sentence, \u201cThere is no boycott \u2026.<\/em>\u201d is considered as the first<\/em> paragraph in his response. Therefore, the next paragraph is considered as the second<\/em> paragraph and so on.)<\/p>\n

Now, let us examine the paragraphs after the statement, \u201cThere is no boycott \u2026.<\/em>\u201d, as follows:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. He explains how the boycott policy is carefully focused, by telling, \u201cCPACS\u2019 boycott policy is carefully focused on two funded Fellowship schemes\u2026..<\/em>\u201d (The second paragraph)<\/li>\n
  2. He explains why Israel is the target of the boycott policy, by telling the reason why: \u201cIsrael is singled out for boycott because of its unparalleled record of militarism and lawlessness.\u201d<\/em> (The fourth paragraph)<\/li>\n
  3. He explains the aim of the boycott, by telling, \u201cThe strategic aim of the boycott is to enable meaningful negotiations on a lasting peace, not to replace them.<\/em>\u201d (The fifth paragraph)<\/li>\n
  4. He concludes his argument\/explanation about the academic boycott, by telling, \u201cThe academic boycott is part of that.<\/em>\u201d (The ninth paragraph = the final paragraph)<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    All his arguments and explanations, as mentioned above, indicate that the academic boycott actually exists at his Centre (CPACS). If the boycott does not exist, how is it possible for the boycott (that does not exist) to focus on something? If the boycott does not exist, how is it possible to tell the reason why Israel is the target of the boycott? If the boycott does not exist, how is it possible to tell the strategic aim of the boycott? If the boycott does not exist, how is it possible to tell like this: \u201cThe academic boycott is part of it<\/em>\u201d?<\/p>\n

    Nevertheless, Prof. Lynch states, \u201cThere is no boycott at the Centre, nor is there any call for one\u2026.<\/em>\u201d His statement as such shows that his statement is one of the following three: (1) a contradiction of his argument, (2) a rhetorical technique, or (3) something else. In any case, his statement, \u201cThere is no boycott at the Centre, nor is there any call for one\u2026.<\/em>\u201d, and the rest of his arguments\/explanations are incompatible.<\/p>\n

    PART TWO:<\/strong><\/p>\n

    A boycott[1]<\/a> can be understood as a community level or an individual level of sanctions.<\/p>\n

    Sanctions may be necessary to be imposed upon the Israeli government because of their decades-long, cruel, unfair, aggressive policy against Palestine.<\/p>\n

    However, sanctions should be carefully planned and carefully implemented, as Prof. Lynch states, \u201cCPACS\u2019 boycott policy is carefully focused on \u2026\u2026\u201d[2]<\/a><\/p>\n

    In sanctions, the humanitarian sector and the education sector are apt to be excluded. In military attacks, hospitals and civilian residential areas are excluded.<\/p>\n

    It can be understood that the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies is included in the education sector.<\/p>\n

    Compare:<\/p>\n