Hi everyone, I can see that many people find this conversation very unpleasant, and wish for it to stop. Or for us to declare a metaphorical ceasefire (while not actually calling for a real one). Or perhaps to have the conversation elsewhere so that no one has to look at it. I remind you that it is possible to set up a mail filter (for example, sending all emails with the header words "The difficult conversation" or even all emails from my address) to a separate folder, or even for immediate deletion. It is certainly very unpleasant to confront the fact that we have deep disagreements within our membership. I will, as many people have suggested, certainly get in touch off-list with those who are in favour of taking some action so that we can continue the discussion (please be patient with me, that may take a week or so). I particularly understand that for those who want us to act in solidarity with Palestinians, many of the messages here must be gruelling to read. Perhaps it would be better if we had never had this conversation. Perhaps it would be better to let the lovely words on our website and in our calls for proposals and so on, about a commitment to academic freedom and supporting marginalised scholars, about inclusivity and diversity, sit unexamined. I admit that when I brought up this conversation I was not expecting everyone to agree. I expected some people to say that it's not our place to make political statements. I expected some people to argue for a watered-down "we generally deplore violence by everyone everywhere" statement while others wanted something firmer and more meaningful. I expected a few people to call me antisemitic or get annoyed with me. Perhaps even for someone to try to get me fired. (And for those offering words of personal support, I appreciate it but please don't worry about me.) What I did not actually expect was that some AoIR members would very publicly and openly speak about the justice and necessity and inevitability of the mass killing and punishment of civilians (as long as they are Palestinian). My previous email singled out some of Ayelet's statements. It was, as I hope I made clear, a forwarded and hopefully de-identified message from a Palestinian colleague. I debated removing Ayelet's name and trying to make the email more general, but given that our Palestinian colleagues already face significant censorship and don't feel safe posting directly to the list, I did not want to further water down the message. So I will take responsibility for the claim that this is "harassment" ("here in Israel, we do not believe in the harassment of individuals during academic discussions" - We have certainly seen on this list how committed Israeli academics are to professional behaviour and avoiding personal remarks during discussions.) Personally, I do not think that pointing out the consequences and meaning of someone's public statements, or asking them whether they are sure that the principles they argue for are internally consistent and reasonable, is harassment. If you say it is necessary to stop all fuel to Gaza even when that fuel is used to power incubators for premature babies who will therefore die, and that you can imagine no other solution and no alternatives to the current actions of the Israeli government...it is reasonable for someone to reply that this argument demonstrates that change is unlikely to come from within Israeli society. I hope that we have also colleagues in Israel who oppose the actions of their government, even if they do not feel safe saying so publicly in the current context. I am not a European - although I have European ancestry none of my ancestors were born in Europe since my great-grandparents left Greece. I don't know what that makes me, however, I do acknowledge that I am living on stolen Aboriginal land. I like to think that I work actively to recognise it and take material action in response, much as that often seems inadequate. (We might also point to the horrific indefinite detention of asylum seekers in Australia, or Australia's involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, all of which I have protested.) We can also recognise that the Australian government has joined the US, UK, and other in providing direct support for the bombing of Yemen <https://greens.org.au/news/media-release/australian-support-us-and-uk-strikes-yemen-dangerous-escalation-time-peace>. If for that reason those calling for an academic boycott of Israeli institutions feel at some point that it should extend to Australian academic institutions, I will be in support. On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 at 9:55 pm, Ayelet Baram-Tsabari <ayelet@technion.ac.il> wrote:
Hello Sky, While I appreciate your contribution to the discussion, here in Israel, we do not believe in the harassment of individuals during academic discussions. I view this discussion as important, but if you are unable to communicate in a professional manner, might I suggest that you have someone else review your emails before you send them? I also ask those involved in the discussion to look up the definition of ‘genocide’ before they use the term and to review the actions of their own governments to previous terror attacks. Finally, I suggest that Europeans who live in glass houses on Aboriginal land would be a little less enthusiastic about throwing stones. Best, Prof. Ayelet Baram-Tsabari