While the gates of the Arab world are increasingly swinging open to Israel and as Israelis are becoming welcome guests in Arab countries, another American academic association has shut its gates to Israeli research institutes. This time it was the Middle East Studies Association, which decided, following a referendum among its members last month, to boycott Israel.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram
Similar to other academic associations before it, MESA's decision is intentionally worded in a deceptive and misleading manner. However, after digging a bit beneath the surface of the resolution's saccharine wording about freedom, equality, and human rights, you quickly arrive at the essence. The decision doesn't demand that Israel reconcile with the Palestinians, nor does it even ask for a withdrawal to the 1967 borders. It seems a peace agreement also wouldn't be enough. Instead, MESA says it will only lift its boycott if Israel accepts all United Nations resolutions pertaining to the conflict, chief among them the resolution to allow for the return of all Palestinian refugees who fled during the War of Independence in 1948. Anyone with an ounce of sense understands this would mean the end of Israel, but this is precisely what MESA wants.
Contrary to the past, MESA's decision didn't arouse attention in Israel or elsewhere. After all, this association, along with others like it, long ago stopped serving as a gateway for Israeli academics to the broader world. Israeli researchers can currently visit most Arab countries, and in some of them – specifically the United Arab Emirates – they are actually sought-after guests. The wider world is open to Israel, and prominent research institutes promote close cooperation with it, recognizing the country's academic excellence.
On the other hand, the professional associations calling for the boycott of Israel haven't excelled academically for a long time now. They are usually controlled by a cohort of politicos and activists who do as they please while exploiting the fact that the silent majority tends to be apathetic toward politicking and politics. It's also a fact that two-thirds of the association's members didn't even bother to participate in the vote, a clear expression of their lack of desire to mix academic research with politics. Many of them even canceled their membership with the association.
Among the leading activists calling for the boycott of Israel, most of who are on the fringes of the American Left, are Arab-American researchers who have made hatred of Israel – hatred, not criticism – the lowest common denominator that unites them and gives them an identity. None of these people can agree on anything pertaining to the Arab world – the conflicts between Sunnis and Shiites, between secularism and Islam, between dictatorships and democracy – hence Israel is the hatchet they use in search of their lost identity. Essentially, when they attack Israel what they mean is the United States, which they view as the source of all ills afflicting the Arab world. But because the American taxpayer funds their salaries, it's convenient for them to turn their arrows at Israel.
However, a counterweight to these politicos and activists and their boycotts are the dozens of scientific and academic cooperation agreements between Israeli and international institutions; not to mention the many countries across the globe and US states that have legislated or are in the process of legislating anti-boycott laws. Thus, although the dogs are barking, very few seem afraid of their bite.
Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!
