Search

Academic boycott of Israeli institutions has emerged as a highly contentious issue within scholarly discourse, eliciting diverse perspectives and impassioned debates. This article examines the complexities surrounding academic boycotts, focusing on the Israeli context, and explores the motivations, justifications, and implications put forth by advocates and critics. Drawing from a review of 23 articles published until May 2024, the article highlights the contrasting viewpoints on academic boycotts and their impact on academic freedom, dialogue, and international relations. It concludes by emphasising the importance of safeguarding academic integrity and objectivity amid debates that intersect with broader societal and political dynamics. Keeping politics out of academia is crucial to ensure that education remains a space for unbiased knowledge dissemination and critical thinking, free from external pressures and influences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One of the most important aims of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) is ensuring the free flow of goods and services across the world and reducing discrimination between foreign and domestic products through the adoption of national treatment and most favoured national principles. These rules facilitate cooperation between the WTO Member States and establish a common legal ground to promote multilateral relations and universal investment. However, these goals are impeded by international military conflicts and political violence, which negatively impact cooperation between members of the WTO. Economic boycotts at a government level as a response to military and political events are deeply rooted in history. In recent times, they have emerged as a response to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is considered central to the conflict in the Middle East. Economic boycotts of the Israeli trademark and products in a number of Arab countries by governments and consumers have significantly impacted economic cooperation in the Middle East. This article examines the impact of international disputes on economic cooperation between the members of the WTO through a case study of the Kuwaiti legal framework, specifically public policy and morality for boycotts of Israeli products. This article argues that the WTO Agreements do not take a strict position on economic boycotting between the members as the WTO allows them to invoke public policy and moral principles as legitimate reasons for refusing the registration or protection of trademarks from other Member States. However, economic boycotts remain a contentious subject that warrants further clarification from different perspectives as to whether they are in conflict with the aims of the WTO or constitute a breach of its obligations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 1952, the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company and Shell were clandestinely shipping Kuwaiti oil to the Haifa refinery (owned by the same companies) to meet Israel's growing energy needs. Later that year, aided by the advent of German reparations, the companies agreed to further supply Kuwaiti oil to the Israel Fuel Corporation for it to refine. By 1953, Kuwait became the leading source of crude oil to the Haifa refinery. That February, the Arab League publicly stated that it wanted the Gulf countries to join its economic boycott on Israel and, as a result, received a public assurance from the ruler of Kuwait that his country, still a British protectorate, would not be used as a 'bridge for trade with Israel'. From that moment onwards, and with the shipments under investigation by the Arab League, a monthslong debate emerged between the British government and the oil companies over whether to wait for an Arab League–inspired directive from the ruler forbidding these shipments, which would grant the organisation a moral victory at the expense of British interests, or to anticipate the event by ceasing of their own accord for maximum convenience at the expense of Israel. The Foreign Office, which forcefully pushed for cessation despite resistance from other government bodies and the oil companies, ultimately had its way and managed to pre-empt an Arab League hammer in the making that might have driven a wedge between the United Kingdom and what had become her most prized foreign asset, Kuwait. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this study is to examine the effect of religiosity and customer trust on brand loyalty among Generation Z (Muslim consumers in Indonesia), during a particular timeframe (post-Israeli-Palestinian conflict), thereby adding nuanced insights to consumer behavior research in a globalized context. The study is located in Cirebon, Indonesia, with research subjects namely consumers who buy products from McDonald's and people who follow the issue of boycotting Israeli products from the Palestinian conflict among FEB Management students of Universitas Swadaya Gunung Jati. The results of the fit model test show that religious values and consumer trust significantly impact McDonald's brand loyalty in the Z generation. Consumer trust has a positive and significant effect on Brand loyalty (Z), with the remaining (1 - 0.505) = 0.495 (49.5%), which is influenced by other variables not determined by the model. This research contributes by bridging the gap between religious values, consumer trust, and brand loyalty, in the post-israeli conflict Z generation (Generation Z, Muslims in Indonesia). The study suggests strengthening the involvement of consumers through social media and promotional events, while also considering the importance of religious beliefs in decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This document, titled "Scholarly engagements in times of catastrophe," discusses the ongoing conflict in Gaza, Palestine, and calls for scholars in the fields of Anthropology and Sociology to recognize their complicity in the situation. The document highlights the danger of misinformation and simplifications from media sources and emphasizes the need to address other conflicts, such as those in Congo, South Sudan, Yemen, and Kashmir. It also condemns the violence and destruction in Gaza, presenting evidence of genocidal intent on the side of the Israeli regime. The document concludes by endorsing the BDS campaign and calling for ethical action to halt catastrophe and genocide. [Extracted from the article]

The years 1954–1964 witnessed two phases of clandestine contacts pursued by Israeli and Sudanese representatives. During the first phase, 1954–1958, Israel developed secret ties with the Sudanese Umma party Israel in an attempt to establish the southern tier of the Periphery Alliance, with Ethiopia and Sudan against Nasser's Egypt but the attempt was sabotaged by the 1958 'Abboud coup. During the second phase, beginning in 1961, the Division for Politico-Economic Planning (DPEP) of Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs developed secret ties with certain Sudanese officials with the aim of helping Sudan compete with its primary competitor in the cotton market, Nasser's Egypt, in order to deal a blow to the Egyptian economy and the Arab boycott of Israel. Although at first the DPEP supplied the 'Abboud regime with anonymous information, over time the Sudanese partners recognized and approve the identity of their Israeli benefactor. This article reveals the extent of the secret ties between Israel and Sudan and the ingenious ways in which Israel fought against Egypt and the Arab Boycott. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article argues on the constitutional right of companies to boycott Israel for its alleged abuses of human rights in the midst of its conflict with Palestine. Topics include the current state of corporate activism on Israel-Palestine focusing on Ben & Jerry's decision to stop selling its products in the West Bank, the state of anti-boycott laws and the application of heightened scrutiny to these laws, and an argument to repeal anti-boycott laws and pass new law to addresses discrimination.

The controversy about the campaign to boycott Israel in general and Israeli sports in particular suffers from the absence of empirical data about the political character of the Israeli sports sphere, as well as the way Jewish Israelis see a possible boycott. Supporters of the boycott hope, among other things, that the campaign is registered among Israelis, and maybe even contribute to political change. Liberal opposition relies on the argument that sports is a beacon of inter-ethnic tolerance that should be cherished rather than targeted. Through a survey with a representative sample of internet users among the adult Jewish citizens of Israel (N = 600), this study provides the following related observations: (1) there is no evidence that Jewish Israeli sports fans are more likely to question the regime of Jewish supremacy than non-fans. (2) Among Jewish Israelis there is a small, but non-negligible minority who justifies the boycott of Israeli sports, and this minority is even larger among people who attend the soccer stadium and/or are politically active. (3) A significant majority of Jewish Israelis (69%) are concerned about a possible boycott of Israel in general, but this majority is less clear among men who are sports fans. The findings question the liberal expectation that Israeli sports serve as a model for inclusive citizenship and at the same time they indicate the potential of sports to amplify existing political tendencies among fans. These observations should be considered in future debates about sanctions and boycotts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The most revealing accounts of the permit regime emerge from Berda's own experiences wrestling with the Israeli judiciary on behalf of "two hundred Palestinian clients in their attempt to obtain various types of movement permits" (p. 9). Berda's and Erakat's books are essential reads, not just for those who wish to understand the central place of law in both Palestinian liberation and Israel's expansionist policies. B I Living Emergency: Israel's Permit Regime in the Occupied West Bank i b Yael Berda (Stanford: Stanford University Press, [1]) B I Justice for Some: Law and the Question of Palestine i b Noura Erakat (Stanford: Stanford University Press, [3]) Few subjects are as entangled with the law as the Palestinian question. [Extracted from the article]

The document is a statement of solidarity from the Editorial Collective of Women & Performance: a journal of feminist theory with the people of Palestine. The collective expresses support for the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) and demands a ceasefire and an end to the occupation of Palestine by Israel. They condemn the Israeli occupation as genocide and criticize the complicity of the United States and its political allies. The collective commits to feminist geopolitical solidarity and calls for global support for the liberation of Palestine. They also pledge to boycott Israeli cultural and academic institutions and reject normalization projects that maintain Israeli oppression of Palestinians. The collective emphasizes the importance of feminist, queer, and trans solidarity with Palestine for collective liberation from colonialism and state oppression. They highlight the visual economy of solidarity with Palestine, which includes symbols and stories that foreground Palestinian life. The collective commits to feminist publishing that is unwavering in the name of life. [Extracted from the article]

The article discusses the International Court of Justice's finding that Israel has a prima facie case for genocide in Gaza and the provisional measures issued to prevent acts of genocide. The article emphasizes the attacks on healthcare workers and hospitals in Gaza, which have left the healthcare system unable to cope with the number of injured patients. It suggests that healthcare workers have an ethical obligation to take action, drawing inspiration from South Africa's anti-Apartheid movement and the Palestinian BDS movement. The article provides suggestions for healthcare role players to exert pressure on Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, an Israeli company benefiting from the occupation of Palestinian lands. It also calls for an academic boycott of Israeli universities and emphasizes the importance of solidarity and health justice. [Extracted from the article]

Birzeit University (BZU)—established in 1924 by the Nasir family—was born out of struggle and developed as a microcosm of the Palestinian national movement against the Zionist settler colonial state of Israel. This article explores specific moments of solidarity with BZU and beyond. I map out a genealogy of three modes of solidarity with Palestine analyzed in light of the political thought and praxis of Amilcar Cabral, Albert Camus, and Hannah Arendt. BZU has been an important and contested site for individual, collective, and universal solidarity initiatives, as gestures of solidarity have been made since 1974 and have continued since then, including the establishment of the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel in 2004. In this article, I trace the shifting apathy, empathy, and sympathy expressed with the Palestinian struggle and BZU with a particular emphasis on initiatives by Jewish and Israeli intellectuals. Although this article is neither a chronology nor a moral taxonomy, it aims to produce an indigenous, de-orientalized, and de-colonized account of the meanings of solidarity with Palestine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article juxtaposes the principle of academic freedom with the call for an academic boycott of Israel to advance Palestinian human rights. It examines the controversy surrounding a conference that took place at Stellenbosch University in South Africa in 2018, where an Israeli delegation was disinvited from presenting a research symposium following calls for an academic boycott. The article is an analysis of the media responses of academic leaders, activists, and social commentators in Israel and South Africa to the cancellation of the Israeli symposium at the conference. The argument advanced is that scholarship is influenced, facilitated and restrained by political systems, and that the academy is more accurately viewed as a political space where some wield power while others do not. The case is made that universities and academic conferences function as a consequence of historical and political forces and reflect the challenges with which states constantly engage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper analyzes the scope of scholars' academic freedom and maintains that it is composed of two pillars. First, inclusion, which is subject to capacity, equality, and the provision of a pro-educational academic environment. Second, academic expression, which refers to teaching and research, freedom of opinion, political participation outside academia and freedom to receive academic materials. Scholars' academic freedom is limited by professional standards and is subject to the respect of the rights of fellow scholars. The paper argues that scholars' academic freedom is not confined to a scholar-state relation but is also relevant to scholarscholar relations. Hence, scholars' academic freedom can be breached by peers, for instance, by firing them on the basis of gender. The paper proposes three tests for balancing clashing scholars' academic freedoms. First, the closer in nature the activity is to academia, the greater its weight (the relevance test). Second, "seclusion v. exclusion" test. According to this test, a "seclusive" exercise of academic freedom, namely one that does not interfere with peers' rights, should override an "exclusionary" exercise of academic freedom, namely one that interferes with peers' rights. Third, within academia, activities promoting pluralistic notions should override contrary endeavors (the virtue test). Finally, the paper applies its conclusions to a test case--the Campaign against Israeli academia, also known as the academic boycott of Israel. It concludes that teaching and research activities, performed in a seclusive manner that does not advance discriminatory notions should take priority over non-academic political activities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The dividing line is both religious and political; the Evangelical right has been supportive of Israel (some would say because it fulfills "end of days" prophecies), while left-leaning churches have tended to be more critical of Israel. Nelson is Professor of English at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and Gizzi is Professor of Criminal Justice at Illinois State University. [Extracted from the article]

To the broader European public, it does not look good that two of Israel's best EU political pals are perceived by other EU states and the EU institutions as outliers, disrespecting the rights of their own citizens, undermining the rule of law and the role of the European Court, and intent on damaging the cohesiveness of the EU. The separate funding by the EU of NGOs critical of Israel, including some that Israel has determined are either fronts for or populated by operatives from terrorist organizations, is contributing on the political level to growing diplomatic rifts between Israel and some EU countries. A classic recent example of this occurred in December 2021 when diplomats, led by the UK, representing thirteen EU States, the EU, and the UK, embarked on a demarche at Israel's Foreign Ministry to complain about a range of Israel's actions. Israel-EU turnover in 2020 accounted for 29.3 percent of Israel's trade in goods; 34.4 percent of Israel's imports originated in the EU, and the EU was the destination for 21.9 percent of its exports. [Extracted from the article]

This article addresses media coverage of soft-power threats, which are typical in modern wars between state and non-state actors. In doing so, the authors depart from the vast literature on the 'rally 'round the flag' phenomenon coined in relation to conventional military threats. They base their case study on the interplay between Israel and the global Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) civil society movement that utilizes soft-power tactics with the aim of isolating Israel internationally. To assess the way the Israeli media relate to BDS, determine the absence or existence of a 'rally 'round the flag' phenomenon vis-à-vis BDS, and assess coverage characteristics, the authors conducted a qualitative and quantitative analysis of (N = 209) articles covering BDS in the Israeli media over the course of three years (2015−2018). Their findings suggest that coverage of the soft threat follows similar patterns to those coined on conventional military threats. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On 7 July 2005, a global call for Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) was declared against the state of Israel until it abides by international law and principles of human rights. Since that time, BDS has become a popular form of collective action for Palestine. Expanding on Charles Tilly's original conceptualization of contentious repertoires, this paper argues that BDS advances the issue of Palestine into broader progressive frameworks, such as global justice, through the ways the movement makes claims (repertoire) and the object of its claims (targets). In particular, there are intersections through frames of justice, corporate complicity, and human rights, tactics of boycott and divestment, and decentralized, horizontal, and networked organizational forms, along with similar targets. These parallel repertoires and targets create a bridge between groups, which allows BDS to build its movement and enables the movement to move forward the Palestinian cause into broader global justice contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Journal (MESJ) publishes the fourth dialogue of its series of dialogues regarding the Palestinian crisis and its prospects. It has exercised a deep dialogue published in this issue with Dr. Joseph Massad, Professor of Politics and the History of Modern Arab Thought at Columbia University in New York, US. This dialogue focuses on the historical dimension of the crisis. It looks for the chance to create a new dynamic to overcome the crisis, referring to the historical transformation of the Palestinian cause. Dr. Massad noted that the Palestinian crisis had begun at the political level after the Balfour promise (declaration) and strengthened during the British Mandate on Palestinian 1919-1948, leading to the Nakba in 1948. The Nakba included dispelling the Palestinian people out of their homes and lands and at the same time committing many massacres by the Israeli armed gangs. As for the current crisis, its roots went back to the first Palestinian Intifada in 1987. Massad emphasized that the dividing approach between the Palestinians was a British-Israeli policy dedicated to fighting the unity of the Palestinian people. Such policy worked insistently to separate the Palestinian people religiously. They used such division to claim their place as the third religion in Palestine to have a similar and third voice. Massad considered preserving the state's Jewishness as one of the most critical factors governing Israel's strategy and political policy. This factor developed considering the demographic concern that has frighteningly dominated the thinking of Israeli leaders. As a result, since 2007, they explicitly raised their demand for Arab countries, the PLO, and Western countries to recognize Israel as a "Jewish" state. Concerning some Arab normalization trends towards Israel, Massad noted that ties and relations with Israel are old and diverse. Their owners wrote many of these intimate relations in memoirs published after their death. As such, Massad considered the recent peace agreement today as nothing but a declaration of these old friendships. Massad emphasized that the "Sword of Jerusalem" between Palestinians and Israel revealed that Israel no longer has control over matters, as it can destroy the Arab world. However, it will be able to protect itself from destruction. He considers such development a new military equation that Israel was not accustomed to in the past. Massad also noted that the growing boycott of Israel in the academic, technical, and investment sectors of Europe, America, and Canada is an essential shift at the regional and global levels. He also assured the effect of denouncing Israel as an apartheid state in the 2017 United Nations report, and recently in 2021 by the Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the work of activists around the world, movements for social justice have turned the pandemic into an opportunity to intervene in hegemonic systems, including neoliberalism. One such movement is the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement for Palestinian rights. In this paper, I analyze the rhetoric of the BDS movement during the early stages of the pandemic to examine how the pandemic has shifted opportunities for rhetors who seek to resist neoliberal hegemony and promote intersectional justice. I find that BDS challenges the dominant frame of the pandemic as a crisis by reframing neoliberalism itself as a crisis. Within this frame, BDS combines multiple perspectives from marginalized groups around the world to enact collectivity as resistance to neoliberal ideology. My analysis suggests that these strategies of disruption are particularly effective against neoliberal ideology in the context of the pandemic. Ultimately, I argue that framing neoliberalism as a crisis offers activists opportunities to reject neoliberal policies and generate solidarity with other groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]