The Nineteenth Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was held from 5 to 14 October 1952. It was the first  party congress since before World War II and the last under Joseph Stalin's leadership. It was attended by many dignitaries from foreign Communist parties, including Liu Shaoqi from China. At this Congress, Stalin gave the last public speech of his life. The 19th Central Committee was elected at the congress.

Changes
The All-Union Communist Party (Bolshevik) was renamed the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.
Stalin's request to be relieved of his duties in the party secretariat due to his age was rejected by the plenum of the  Central Committee held immediately after the congress, as members were unsure about Stalin's intentions.

The Politburo of the Central Committee became the Presidium of the Central Committee and was greatly expanded to 15 members. The Secretariat and Central Committee were doubled in size (to ten and 133 members, respectively). The Orgburo was abolished, and its duties were transferred to the Secretariat.
Full members (voting) elected to the 19th Presidium:Vasily Andrianov; Averky Aristov; Lavrentiy Beria; Nikolai Bulganin; Kliment Voroshilov; Semyon Ignatyev; Lazar Kaganovich; Demyan Korotchenko; Vasily Kuznetsov; Otto Kuusinen; Georgy Malenkov; Vyacheslav Malyshev; Leonid G. Melnikov; Anastas Mikoyan; Nikolai Mikhaylov; Vyacheslav Molotov; Mikhail Pervukhin; Panteleimon Ponomarenko; Maksim Saburov; Joseph Stalin; Mikhail Suslov; Nikita Khrushchev; Dmitry Chesnokov; Nikolay Shvernik; Matvei Shkiryatov
Candidate (non-voting) members elected to the Presidium:Leonid Brezhnev; Andrei Vyshinsky; Arseni Zverev; Nikolai Ignatov; Ivan Kabanov; Alexei Kosygin; Nikolai Patolichev; Nikolai Pegov; Alexander Puzanov; Ivan Tevosian; Pavel Yudin

An unofficial "inner circle" of Stalin's closest associates included Lavrentiy Beria, Nikolai Bulganin, Kliment Voroshilov, Lazar Kaganovich, Georgy Malenkov, Mikhail Pervukhin, Maksim Saburov, and Nikita Khrushchev.

See also
6th Congress of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, held from 2 to 7 November 1952.

References

External links
Report to the Nineteenth Party Congress on the Work of the Central Committee of the C.P.S.U.(B.), delivered by Malenkov
Report on the Directives of the XIX Party Congress Relating to the Fifth Five-Year Plan for the Development of the U.S.S.R. in 1951-1955, delivered by Saburov
On Changes in the Rules of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, delivered by Khrushchev
Speech at the Nineteenth Party Congress by Stalin
Rules of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union adopted by the 19th Congress
Nineteenth Congress of the CPSU in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 3rd Edition (1970-1979).

19th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union


title: Orgburo

text:
The Orgburo (), also known as the Organisational Bureau (), of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union existed from 1919 to 1952, when it was abolished at the 19th Congress of the Communist Party and its functions were transferred to the enlarged Secretariat.

Role
The Orgburo was established during Lenin's reign to make important decisions about organisational work in the Soviet Union. It oversaw the work of local Party committees and had the power to select and place Communist Party members in positions as it saw fit. The functions of the Orgburo and the Politburo were often interconnected, but the latter was ultimately the final decision-maker. While the Politburo mostly focused on strategic planning and monitoring of the people and status of the country, the Orgburo was tasked with overseeing the Party cadre and its assignment to various positions and duties, presumably in furtherance of the Party's strategic agenda.

Election and chronology
In the same manner as the Politburo and the Secretariat, the Orgburo was elected at plenary sessions of the Central Committee. One of the Central Committee secretaries supervised the work of the Orgburo. The first Orgburo of three members (Vladimirsky, Krestinsky and Sverdlov) was elected on 16 January 1919, at the Central Committee meeting.
The 8th Party Congress (8 March 1919 – 23 March 1919) amended the party charter and set up provisions for election of the Politburo, the Orgburo and the Secretariat. The Central Committee plenum elected the new Orgburo of five members and of one candidate member on 25 March 1919. Some key Communist politicians (such as Joseph Stalin, Vyacheslav Molotov, Lazar Kaganovich and others) served as members both of the Orgburo and of the Politburo, but most of the Orgburo members were less important figures than those elected to the Politburo and the Secretariat.

See also
 Bibliography of the Russian Revolution and Civil War
 Bibliography of Stalinism and the Soviet Union
 Comintern
 Uchraspred
 Organization Department of the Chinese Communist Party
 Central Organization Commission of the Communist Party of Vietnam

References

Human resource management
Bodies of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union
1919 establishments in Russia
1952 disestablishments in the Soviet Union


title: Trotsky: A Biography

text:
Trotsky: A Biography is a biography of the Marxist theorist and revolutionary Leon Trotsky (1879–1940) written by the English historian Robert Service, then a professor in Russian history at the University of Oxford. It was first published by Macmillan in 2009 and later republished in other languages.

Having converted to the Marxist revolutionary movement in early life, Trotsky had been a member of the Bolshevik Party and a significant figure in the October Revolution of 1917 which brought the Bolsheviks to power in the Russian Empire. Following the death of Vladimir Lenin, Trotsky's rival Joseph Stalin ascended to the Soviet leadership, with Trotsky fleeing into exile, where he was murdered in Mexico. Following his death, various biographers produced works studying Trotsky; Service's differs from many of these in its emphasis. He argues that Trotsky has been romanticized by western leftists for decades, instead claiming that Trotsky laid the groundwork for the Stalinist totalitarian state in the Soviet Union and that had he become Soviet leader rather than Stalin, the end result would have been very similar.

The book received a mixed reception upon publication. The mainstream British and American press was overwhelmingly positive. Conversely, reviews in peer-reviewed, academic journals were more critical, highlighting factual errors throughout the text and viewed his work as an attempt to discredit Trotsky as a historical figure.

In 2010, a rebuttal to his historical interpretation was written by American political theorist and Trotskyist David North in his work, “In Defense of Leon Trotsky”.

Background
Prior to the publication of Trotsky: A Biography, Service had written a number of historical studies and biographies of Russia in the period of revolution: The Bolshevik Party in Revolution 1917-23: A Study in Organizational Change (1979), A History of Twentieth-Century Russia (1997), The Russian Revolution, 1900-27 (1999), A History of Modern Russia, from Nicholas II to Putin (1998, Second edition in 2003), Lenin: A Biography (2000), Russia: Experiment with a People (2002), Stalin: A Biography (2004) and Comrades: A World History of Communism (2007).

Service is of the opinion, controversial among Trotskyists and anti-Stalinist Leninists, that politically the difference between Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin was only marginal and that excessive antidemocratic attitudes and use of terror as a mean of politics, was an embedded attitude with all three men and a significant portions of the Bolshevik leadership from the earliest days. The excesses of Stalin was mainly a matter of personality and background such as ruthlessness, jealousy, a deep feeling of anger emanating from being continually overlooked and disregarded, a level of personal paranoia, and never failing memory regarding hurt and perceived enemies and a deep lust for vengeance on a personal level.

Lenin favoured Stalin until, too late, their fallout in 1923 really opened Lenin's eyes to the danger of a future with Stalin in power. Trotsky failed to form alliances and was socially inept and never fully accepted in the Bolshevik party leadership, which he had joined late. However, Stalin, contrary to his opponent, was a brilliant politician and political tactician, who was among the few who genuinely understood the consequences and means of political maneuvering in an environment in which appeals to the masses (where the other leaders were strong) had been systematically cut out of the equation by the means of the red-terror and prohibition of most means and vehicles of opposition that they had themselves promoted and embraced.

The ability to think theoretically, appeal in writing or speech to the public had rapidly diminished in political value by 1924 and was steadily declining in political value, and  only alliances counted, which was Stalin's strength. Trotsky had himself aided the cutting off the only branch which might have supported him.

Critical reception

Academic reviews
His biography of Trotsky was positively reviewed in the British and American press on its publication, but two years later was strongly criticized by Service's Hoover Institution colleague Bertrand Patenaude in a review for The American Historical Review. Patenaude, reviewing Service's book alongside a rebuttal by the Trotskyist David North (In Defence of Leon Trotsky), charged Service with making dozens of factual errors, misrepresenting evidence, and "fail[ing] to examine in a serious way Trotsky's political ideas". He also described Service as seeking to “discredit Trotsky as a historical figure and a human being”. He concluded with the statement that his work “fails to meet basic standards of historical scholarship”.

Service responded that the book's factual errors were minor and that Patenaude's own book on Trotsky presented him as a "noble martyr". In July 2009, prior to the publication of his own book, Robert Service had written a review of Partenaude's publication Stalin's Nemesis: The Exile and Murder of Leon Trotsky which he applauded for being "vividly told" but also criticised for neglecting Trotsky's crimes while sharing power in the USSR.

The book has also been harshly criticized by the German historian of communism Hermann Weber who led a campaign to prevent Suhrkamp Verlag from publishing it in Germany. Fourteen historians and sociologists signed a letter to the publishing house. The letter cited "a host of factual errors", the "repugnant connotations" of the passages in which Service deals with Trotsky's Jewish origins, and Service's recourse to "formulas associated with Stalinist propaganda" for the purpose of discrediting Trotsky. Suhrkamp published the German translation in July 2012.

Historian Paul Le Blanc regarded his work as a “second assassination” and highlighted a number of issues with the contents of his work. This included several inaccuracies, omissions, a negative characterization of Trotsky’s personality and the limited engagement with his Marxist theories. Le Blanc also drew attention to his political associations with the Hoover Institution which has a “conservative orientation”  and decried the “central point of this biography, repeated over and over again, was that Trotsky’s orientation does not represent any meaningful alternative to Stalinism”. Le Banc argued that this proposition contradicted the actual evidence. He also referenced the views of contemporary Trotskyists and non-Trotskyists from the period such as Winston Churchill who emphasised the clear differences between Stalin and Trotsky.

Press reviews
Reviews in the mainstream British press were predominantly positive. In The Daily Telegraph, the popular historian Simon Sebag Montefiore described Trotsky as "an outstanding, fascinating biography of this dazzling titan." Believing that it offered a much-needed "scholarly revision" of the revolutionary's "historical reputation", he praised the way that it explored "the ugly egotism and unpleasant, overweening arrogance, the belief in and enthusiastic practice of killing on a colossal scale, the political ineptitude [and] the limit of ambition [of Trotsky]." Writing for the Literary Review, the political philosopher John N. Gray claimed that "the full extent of Trotsky's role in building Soviet totalitarianism has not been detailed – until now". Considering the book to be "[r]igorously researched," he notes that Service "surpasses himself", painting a portrait of Trotsky that is "genuinely revelatory" and "very different from the one celebrated by bien pensants." Although focusing his review on a discussion of what he interprets as the negative side to Trotsky's personality, Gray claims that Service's work is "scrupulously balanced". Summing up his review, Gray proclaims that Service has authored the "best biography of Trotsky to date, and there seems little reason why anyone should write another."

In contrast, Tariq Ali, socialist activist and a former Trotskyist still appreciating Trotsky, produced a negative review of Service's book for The Guardian. Describing the work as "stodgy", Ali claims that the work is highly politically motivated by Service's anti-communist views, believing that Service's view "can be summarised in a sentence: Trotsky was a ruthless and cold-blooded murderer and deserves to be exposed as such." He relates that this "counter-factual approach is nothing new", having been the "stock-in-trade" for both anti-communist and Stalinist critics of Trotsky for decades.

See also
 Criticism of Marxism
 David North - American political theorist that produced a rebuttal to Service with his work, “In Defense of Leon Trotsky”.
 Hoover Institution
 Isaac Deutscher - Polish historian that produced a three-volume biography of Trotsky.
 Lenin: A Biography
 Stalin: A Biography
 The Stalinist Legacy

References

Footnotes

Bibliography

External links

Q&A interview with Service on Trotsky: A Biography, July 18, 2010, C-SPAN

2009 non-fiction books
Robert Service (historian)


title: Sean Christie

text:
Sean Christie (born April 21, 1974) is the Chief Executive Officer of Carver Road Capital.  Previously, Christie served as the President of Events and Nightlife for MGM Resorts International,  as well as the Executive Vice President of Business Development for Wynn Resorts and the Chief Operating Officer and the Vice President of Operations at Wynn Las Vegas.  Before that he served as the founder and owner of Las Vegas Nightlife Group and managing partner of Encore Las Vegas Beach Club, Surrender Night Club, and Andrea’s Restaurant at the Wynn Las Vegas.

Personal life
Christie was born in Boston, MA, and began helping at the family restaurant in Boston at age seven. He attended Northeastern University and currently resides in Las Vegas, NV with his daughter. He regularly donates time and capital to Keep Memory Alive, supporting the Cleveland Clinic, a non-profit academic medical center.

Christie cites his parents as his greatest influence.

Career

Boston years
Sean Christie began his career in nightlife and hospitality in 1993 working for the Lyons Group in Boston. There he managed and promoted Karma Club, Bill’s Bar and Lounge, and Avalon.

Las Vegas entrepreneur
In 2000, Christie relocated to Las Vegas, Nevada, to assist in the opening and management of The House of Blues at Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino. From 2001 to 2006, he also worked as managing partner of The Light Group, a hospitality development and management company with Las Vegas entertainment venues Jet and Light, lounges Mist and Caramel, and restaurants Stack and Fix.

In 2006, Sean Christie launched Las Vegas Nightlife Group, a Las Vegas entertainment consulting firm. One of the firm's key clients has been CityCenter Las Vegas, for which the company promoted Mandarin Oriental, Las Vegas, Vdara Hotel and Spa, and Veer Towers. The firm has also assisted in the opening of Bare Pool Lounge at The Mirage Hotel and Casino and the DayDream Las Vegas Pool Club, serving as Christie’s first day-club concept for the M Resort.

Sean Christie was hired by Wynn Las Vegas in 2007 as a managing partner to create the first “boutique” nightclub in Las Vegas, Blush Boutique Nightclub, focusing on “service, ambiance and upscale cool oversize and flash." For the venue, Christie brought in popular DJs including DJ Kaskade, and Blush was noted as successful until its close in 2011. Wynn then commissioned Christie in 2008 to partner with Chef Kim Canteenwalla and Elizabeth Blau to create Society Café at Encore Las Vegas.

His next project at Wynn Las Vegas was collaborating on the concept and opening of Encore Beach Club and Surrender Nightclub in the five-diamond resort Encore at Wynn Las Vegas in 2010. Christie brought in popular DJs such as Tiësto, Skrillex, Deadmau5, and Avicii to both venues. Also, as a result, the Encore Beach Club has been voted "Dayclub of the Year" and "Best Las Vegas Adult Pool Party".

Christie debuted Andrea’s in December 2012 with executive chef Joseph Elevado. Andrea's is an Asian restaurant concept in Encore Las Vegas which is adjacent to the expansive Encore Beach Club complex.

Christie was named one of “Dance Music’s Most Influential Executives” in 2012 by Billboard magazine, which cited that he “commands one of the most powerful and lucrative platforms for DJs in the country."

Christie also spearheaded a Wynn Las Vegas filming initiative, for which he assembled a team in 2013 to source and acquire film, television, and publishing opportunities for the resort. As a result, the Wynn was prominently featured in Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2, Frank and Lola  and The House starring Will Ferrell and Amy Poehler.

In January 2018, Sean Christie joined MGM Resorts International as President of Events and Nightlife, where he oversaw all owned and leased day and nightlife venues and provided strategic direction around special events programming. During his tenure at MGM, Christie spearheaded Juniper Cocktail Lounge, Roy Choi’s restaurant concept Best Friend, On The Record Speakeasy and Club, and Mama Rabbit Mezcal + Tequila Bar at Park MGM.  Christie also led the opening of the Mayfair Supper Club, a 10,000-square-foot old-school supper club-style concept located at the Bellagio in the space formally occupied by the lounge Hyde. The concept of the Mayfair stems from shifting tastes and Las Vegas guests searching for new nightlife experiences, and features exemplary cuisine and live performances including the Mayfair Jazz Trio.

Carver Road Hospitality

Recently, Christie has partnered with real estate and marketing executive Nelson Famadas to launch Carver Road Capital. The venture will invest in, develop, and operate lifestyle hotels, restaurants, lounges, and other hospitality concepts, both domestically and internationally.

In July 2021, Carver Road announced plans to open a multi-concept venue Flanker Kitchen + Sporting Club in Salt Lake City, opening in December 2021. The 17,500-square-foot multi-concept complex features a restaurant, three bars, 400 square feet of LED screens, private karaoke and golf simulator rooms, a central sporting club/nightclub, and a cocktail lounge. Located across from Vivant Arena at The Gateway, the venue was designed by award-winning international design studio DesignAgency and a menu by culinary director Jeannine Glass.

On December 30, 2021, Carver Road opens Carversteak, its highly-anticipated luxury steakhouse at Resorts World Las Vegas. The 14,500-square-foot Carversteak is the first Las Vegas dining concept conceived and developed by Carver Road Hospitality, with a menu designed by acclaimed Chef Daniel Ontiveros and a cocktail program created by  Carver Road Hospitality's Vice President of Beverage & Hospitality Culture, Francesco Lafranconi. Designed by award-winning international design studio DesignAgency, Carversteak features a mid-century modern aesthetic with a rich palette inspired by the landscape of Las Vegas.

References

1974 births
Living people
People from the Las Vegas Valley
Businesspeople from Boston


Current Opinion in Colloid & Interface Science is a bimonthly peer-reviewed scientific journal published by Elsevier. It covers the field of physical chemistry, especially research on colloids and interfaces. The journal was established in 1996 and the editors-in-chiefs are Dganit Danino and Marie Pierre Krafft. According to the Journal Citation Reports, the journal has a 2021 impact factor of 8.209.

See also
 Advances in Colloid and Interface Science
 Current Opinion (Elsevier)
 Journal of Colloid and Interface Science

References

External links

Elsevier academic journals
Bimonthly journals
Physical chemistry journals
Academic journals established in 1996
English-language journals


title: Boycotts of Israel

text:
Boycotts of Israel are the refusal and calls to refusal of having commercial or social dealings with Israel in order to influence Israel's practices and policies by means of using economic pressure. The specific objective of Israel boycotts varies; the BDS movement calls for boycotts of Israel "until it meets its obligations under international law", and the purpose of the Arab League's boycott of Israel was to prevent Arab states and others to contribute to Israel's economy. Israel believes that boycotts against it are antisemitic.

Boycotts of Jewish-owned businesses in Mandatory Palestine
Boycotts of Jewish-owned businesses in Mandatory Palestine were organised by Arab leaders starting in 1922 in an attempt to damage the Jewish population of Palestine economically, especially during periods of communal strife between Jews and Arabs. The original boycott forswore with any Jewish-owned business operating in Mandatory Palestine. Palestinian Arabs "who were found to have broken the boycott ... were physically attacked by their brethren and their merchandise damaged" when Palestinian Arabs rioted in Jerusalem in 1929. Another, stricter boycott was imposed on Jewish businesses in following the riots that called on all of the Arabs in the region to abide by its terms. The Arab Executive Committee of the Syrian-Palestinian Congress called for a boycott of Jewish businesses in 1933 and in 1934, the Arab Labor Federation conducted a boycott as well as an organized picketing of Jewish businesses. In 1936, the Palestinian Arab leadership called on another boycott and threatened those who did not respect the boycott with violence, however, this boycott was unsuccessful as Jewish lawyers, physicians, and hospitals were too heavily integrated into Palestinian society.

Arab League boycott of Israel

Economic
The Arab League organised a boycott of pre-establishment Israel in December 1945, shortly after its formation, before the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, and continued and intensified it afterwards. The Arab League boycott is an effort by its member states to isolate Israel economically to prevent Arab states and discourage non-Arabs from providing support to Israel and adding to Israel's economic and military strength.

As part of the Arab boycott, for example, existing road and rail links with neighboring Arab countries were severed, all direct air flights were not permitted, overflights over Arab airspace by Israeli aircraft and of third country airlines that fly into Israel was refused, and even airlines that flew to Israel were refused entry to Arab countries. Originally, the Arab boycott had a moderate negative impact on Israel's economy and development. Inevitably the economies of participating Arab nations also suffered as the result of a deterioration in the foreign direct investment climate in the Arab world, and reduction in the volume of trade. Whether or not the Arab nations in question were aware of the potential risks to their own economies is still unknown. There is still debate as to whether they, in unison, viewed the economic sanctions as a necessary sacrifice to slow the development of the newly declared Israeli state.

The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) urges its members to join in the Arab League boycott of Israel. Ten members of OIC (in addition to those that are also members of the Arab League) have joined the diplomatic boycott: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Brunei, Chad, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Mali, Niger, and Pakistan. The call was renewed on 22 May 2018, when the OIC recommended to its 57 members a selective ban on some Israeli goods because of the events in Gaza and the opening of the United States embassy in Jerusalem.

Egypt (1979), the Palestinian Authority (1993), and Jordan (1994) signed peace treaties or agreements that ended their participation in the boycott of Israel. Mauritania, which never applied the boycott, established diplomatic relations with Israel in 1999. Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia do not enforce the boycott.

In 1994, following the Oslo Peace Accords, the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC) states, ended their participation in the Arab boycott against Israel, and stated that total elimination of the boycott is a necessary step for peace and economic development in the region. In present days, the Arab boycott is rarely applied. The move prompted a surge of investment in Israel, and resulted in the initiation of joint cooperation projects between Israel and Arab countries.

Today, most Arab states, Syria being the exception, no longer attempt to enforce the secondary or tertiary boycotts. Syria, Lebanon, and Iran (though not an Arab state) are the only states which actively enforce the primary boycott. The Arab League's Central Boycott Office has become obsolete. With the vast majority of Arab states benefiting from trade with Israel, any "boycott" has become symbolic in nature, limited to bureaucratic slights such as diplomatic ostracism and passport restrictions.

There are still residual laws banning relations with Israel. For example, Sudan has since 1958 had a law that forbids establishing relations with Israel, and outlaws business with citizens of Israel as well as business relationships with Israeli companies or companies with Israeli interests. The law also forbids the direct or indirect import of any Israeli goods.

Diplomatic

Member states of the United Nations were formed into Regional Groups in 1961 to act as voting blocs and negotiation forums. On a purely geographic basis, Israel should be a member of the Asia-Pacific Group but Arab and Muslim nations have blocked Israel from joining. Israel was blocked from the regional group system for 39 years, which besides other consequences prevented it from participating on any UN body. In 2000, to by-pass the ban, Israel was admitted as a temporary member of Western European and Others Group, subject to annual renewal, but only in WEOG's headquarters in the US, which enabled it to put forward candidates for election to various UN General Assembly bodies. In 2004, Israel's membership of the WEOG became permanent, but only in WEOG's headquarters in New York, while remaining an observer at the other UN offices. Only in December 2013 was Israel granted full membership of the WEOG in Geneva, entitling Israel to participate in Geneva-based U.N. bodies, such as the UN Human Rights Council.

Other countries which do not recognise Israel are  Cuba and North Korea.

When Egypt entered into a peace treaty with Israel in 1979, its membership of the Arab League was suspended until 1989.  In 2002, the Arab League offered recognition of Israel by Arab countries as part of the resolution of the Palestinian–Israeli conflict in the Arab Peace Initiative.

Sixteen Arab and OIC countries do not accept Israeli passports.  These are Algeria, Bangladesh, Brunei, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Oman, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, United Arab Emirates and Yemen. Eight of these also do not accept passports of other countries whose holder has an Israeli visa endorsed in it.

The bans may also apply to state-owned enterprises, such as airlines. Twenty-two countries ban direct flights and overflights to and from Israel. These are Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brunei, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, UAE, Yemen. There was an exception in May 2020 when a flight brought Covid medical supplies for the Palestinians. However, the Palestinian Authority controversially rejected the supplies.

Sports

In October 2017, when an Israeli won gold in an international judo championship in Abu Dhabi, the United Arab Emirates, officials refused to fly the Israeli flag and play the Israeli national anthem, instead playing the official music of the International Judo Federation (IJF) and flying the IJF's logo, while the gold winner, Tal Flicker, sang the "Hatikvah", Israel's national anthem. The UAE also banned Israeli athletes from wearing their country's symbols on uniforms, having to wear IJF uniforms. Other contestants received similar treatment. In December 2017, seven Israelis were denied visas by Saudi Arabia to compete in an international chess tournament. On 24 May 2018, a team of international jurists, including Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz, announced a plan to petition the international Court of Arbitration for Sport against the exclusion of Israel's flag and anthem at sporting events in Arab countries. In July 2018, the International Judo Federation cancelled two grand slam judo events in Tunis and Abu Dhabi because Israeli flags were not allowed to be raised. Also in July 2018, the World Chess Federation said it will ban Tunisia from hosting the international chess competition in 2019 if it does not grant a visa to Israeli contestants, including a seven-year-old Israeli girl champion.

In addition, sports teams from various Arab states continue to boycott Israeli athletes at international matches. When they are drawn against an Israeli team, some teams choose instead to forfeit the match.

Arms embargoes
Just before the outbreak of the Six-Day War in 1967, France – then Israel's main arms supplier, especially of aircraft – imposed an arms embargo on Israel, including on spare parts for its aircraft.

In 2014, during the Gaza war, Spain froze arms and military technology exports to Israel. The embargo also applied to dual-use materiel. Also at the same time, British government ministers said no new arms export licenses would be granted for sales to Israel until a formal peace is agreed. In case hostilities are to flare up, exports under existing licenses would reportedly be discontinued.

On 23 March 2018, the United Nations Human Rights Council called on the international community to halt arms sales to Israel. Amnesty International has repeatedly called for an arms embargo on Israel, most recently on 29 April 2018 following clashes between the IDF and protesters at the Gaza Strip security fence as part of the "Great March of Return" protests.

Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign

In 2005 over 170 Palestinian civil society organizations launched the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. The goal of BDS is to subject Israel to boycott, divestment and sanctions until it withdraws from the occupied territories, removes the separation barrier in the West Bank, ensures full equality for Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel, and grants the right of return of Palestinian refugees. BDS is modeled after the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa. Its proponents compare the plight of the Palestinians with that of the black South Africans.

A large number of activist groups around the world have heeded BDS' call and are advocating for boycotts of Israel.

In July 2021, the Palestinian Authority arrested a singer who performed in a settlement in the West Bank, though the performance was for Palestinian workers only.

Academic and cultural boycotts

A campaign for an academic boycott of Israel was launched in April 2004 by a group of Palestinian academics and intellectuals in Ramallah, in the West Bank, that formed the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) as part of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign. The campaign calls for BDS activities against Israel to put international pressure on Israel, in this case against Israeli academic institutions, all of which are said by PACBI to be implicated in the perpetuation of Israeli occupation, in order to achieve BDS goals. Since then, proposals for academic boycotts of particular Israeli universities and academics have been made by academics and organizations in the Palestinian territories, the United States, the United Kingdom, and other countries. The goal of the proposed academic boycotts is to isolate Israel in order to force a change in Israel's policies towards the Palestinians, which proponents argue are discriminatory and oppressive, including oppressing the academic freedom of Palestinians.

In 2006, two of Britain's lecturers' unions, the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education and the Association of University Teachers (AUT), voted to support an academic boycott against Israel. The AUT ban was overturned by members at an Emergency General Meeting a few weeks later, while the NATFHE boycott expired when a merger with AUT to form the University and College Union came into effect. In May 2007, the UCU congress passed Motion 30, which called on the members to circulate information and consider a boycott request by Palestinian trade unions (it quickly reversed its position once the UCU received legal advice that the boycott was illegal because it was racial discrimination).  That same year, nearly 300 university presidents across the United States signed a join statement denouncing the boycott movement. Following Operation Cast Lead in 2010, a group of 15 American university professors launched a campaign calling for an academic and cultural boycott of Israel. In 2010 the US Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (USACBI) announced it had collected 500 endorsements from US academics for an academic and cultural boycott of Israel. The endorsements were seen as a sign of changing US attitudes toward Israel in the wake of an Israeli raid on a humanitarian aid flotilla in the Mediterranean.

In 2009, Spanish organizers of an international solar power design competition excluded a team from the Israeli Ariel University Center. The stated reason was that the Ariel university is located in the West Bank, a Spanish official was quoted saying, "Spain acted in line with European Union policy of opposing Israel's occupation of Palestinian land." On that year, the Norwegian University of Science and Technology rejected the academic boycott of Israel, stating that being able to cooperate with Israeli academics, and hearing their views on the conflict, is critical for studying of the causes of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians and how it can be resolved.

In 2011 the University of Johannesburg decided to suspend ties with Israeli Ben-Gurion University, citing the university's support for the Israeli military. The decision was seen to affect projects in biotechnology and water purification. However, two days later, Ihron Rensburg, vice chancellor and principal of the university issued a statement saying that "UJ is not part of an academic boycott of Israel... It has never been UJ's intention to sever all ties with BGU, although it may have been the intention of some UJ staff members."

University of Pennsylvania President Amy Gutmann said in January 2012 that the university "has clearly stated on numerous occasions that it does not support sanctions or boycotts against Israel". She said that the school was not a sponsor of a BDS conference taking place on campus in February 2012.

In May 2013, in what was seen as a major development, Stephen Hawking joined the academic boycott of Israel by reversing his decision to participate in the Jerusalem-based Israeli Presidential Conference hosted by Israeli president Shimon Peres. Hawking approved a published statement from the British Committee for the Universities of Palestine that described his decision as independent, "based upon his knowledge of Palestine, and on the unanimous advice of his own academic contacts there". Reactions to Hawking's boycott were mixed; some praised his boycott as a "peaceful protest", while others condemned his decision and accused him of anti-semitism.

On 4 December 2013, the American Studies Association (ASA) endorsed a boycott of Israeli academic institutions in a resolution that stated "there is no effective or substantive academic freedom for Palestinian students and scholars under conditions of Israeli occupation, and Israeli institutions of higher learning are a party to Israeli state policies that violate human rights and negatively impact the working conditions of Palestinian scholars and students." The election attracted the largest number of voters in the association history with 66.05% for, 30.5% against and 3.43% abstaining. Over 92 universities rejected the boycott and some of them withdrew their membership in the ASA in protest of the boycott decision.

In October 2014, 500 Middle East studies scholars and librarians issued a call for an academic boycott of Israel. According to the signatories, "world governments and mainstream media do not hold Israel accountable for its violations of international law. We, however, as a community of scholars engaged with the Middle East, have a moral responsibility to do so." Also in October 2014, 500 anthropologists endorsed an academic boycott of Israeli institutions seen as complicit in violations of Palestinians' rights. The signatories of the statement said, "as a community of scholars who study problems of power, oppression, and cultural hegemony, we have a moral responsibility to speak out and demand accountability from Israel and our own governments."

In January 2016, 168 Italian academics and researchers published a call to boycott Israeli academic institutions. Israel's Institute of Technology, Technion, was singled out as a boycott target. "The Institute carries out research in a wide range of technologies and weapons used to oppress and attack Palestinians", said the call.

Reception

Support

In 2003, Archbishop Desmond Tutu called on the international community to treat Israel as it treated apartheid South Africa and supports the disinvestment campaign against Israel.

In February 2004 following a six-month inquiry a select committee presented a report to the British parliament calling for the suspension of the European Union's preferential trade agreement with Israel "until it (Israel) lifts the movement restrictions which it has placed on Palestinian trade". Between 2002 and 2004 the EU exported £30.1 billion worth of goods to Israel while the value of goods imported was £21.1 billion Whilst the European Union has expressed opposition to boycotting Israel, it maintains that it is legal for Europeans to do so.

A joint open letter by 322 UK academics was published in The Guardian on 16 January 2009. The letter called on the British government and the British people to take all feasible steps to oblige Israel to stop its "military aggression and colonial occupation" of the Palestinian land and its "criminal use of force", suggesting to start with a programme of boycott, divestment and sanctions.

In 2008 British Member of Parliament Sir Gerald Kaufman claimed, "It is time for our government to make clear to the Israeli government that its conduct and policies are unacceptable and to impose a total arms ban on Israel."

In November 2012 a group of 51 people, including Nobel peace laureates, prominent artists and activists published a letter calling for a military embargo on Israel. The letter accused several countries of providing assistance to Israel that facilitated Israel's 2012 military operation in the Gaza Strip. Nobel peace laureate Mairead Maguire was among the group signing the letter.

Opposition
The Anti-Defamation League, whose mission is to stop the defamation of Jews, has claimed that singling out Israel is "outrageous and biased" as well as "deplorable and offensive", and heads of several major U.S. Jewish organizations have referred to them as "lop-sided" and "unbalanced".

Boycott calls have also been called "profoundly unjust" and relying on a "false" analogy with the previous apartheid regime of South Africa. One critical statement has alleged that the boycotters apply "different standards" to Israel than other countries, that the boycott is "counterproductive and retrograde" yet has no comparability to Nazi boycotts of Jewish shops in the 1930s.

The Economist contends that the boycott is "flimsy" and ineffective, that "blaming Israel alone for the impasse in the occupied territories will continue to strike many outsiders as unfair," and points out that the Palestinian leadership does not support the boycott.

In an op-ed published in The Jerusalem Post in November 2010, Gerald Steinberg and Jason Edelstein contend that while "the need to refute their [BDS organizations] allegations is clear, students and community groups must also adopt a proactive strategy to undermine the credibility and influence of these groups. This strategy will marginalize many of the BDS movement's central actors, and expose the lie that BDS is a grassroots protest against Israeli policy. Exposing their abuses and funding sources, and forcing their campaign leaders and participants to respond to us will change the dynamic in this battle." In an effort to combat BDS, in March 2011, NGO Monitor produced "the BDS Sewer System" intended to provide detailed information about boycott campaigns against Israel.

Artists, actors, and writers

In 2008, former Beatles singer Paul McCartney decided to perform in Israel for the country's 60th anniversary despite a death threat from militant Islamic activist Omar Bakri Muhammad, who said, "If he values his life Mr McCartney must not come to Israel. He will not be safe there. The sacrifice operatives will be waiting for him." Omar Barghouti, one of the founders of the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel, described the threat as "deplorable". McCartney said "I do what I think and I have many friends who support Israel."

In October 2010, the Cape Town Opera (CTO) declined an appeal by Desmond Tutu to cancel a tour of Israel. The CTO stated that the company was "reluctant to adopt the essentially political position of disengagement from cultural ties with Israel or with Palestine, and that they had been in negotiations for four years and would respect the contract.

Madonna's The MDNA Tour began in May 2012 in Tel Aviv, Israel. She said that the concert in Tel Aviv was a "peace concert", and offered about 600 tickets to the show to various Israeli and Palestinian groups, but this offer was rejected by Anarchists Against the Wall and the Sheikh Jarrah Solidarity group.  The offer was accepted by the Palestinian-Israeli Peace NGO Forum. Madonna's performance was criticized by Omar Barghouti.

In January 2014, Scarlett Johansson started to promote SodaStream, an Israeli company operating in Ma'ale Adumim, a West Bank settlement, which sparked criticism from Oxfam. In response, Johansson severed ties with Oxfam after eight years, saying she supports trade and "social interaction between a democratic Israel and Palestine" and she has "a fundamental difference of opinion with Oxfam in regards to the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement." Two years later, Oxfam CEO Mark Goldring lamented that losing Johansson over BDS was “something of a PR disaster” that had cost Oxfam “literally thousands” of donors.

In October 2015, J.K. Rowling was one of the 150 people from the British arts world who signed a letter against the call for a boycott of Israel that was made in February. The signatories of the letter said "cultural boycotts singling out Israel are divisive and discriminatory, and will not further peace. Open dialogue and interaction promote greater understanding and mutual acceptance, and it is through such understanding and acceptance that movement can be made towards a resolution of the conflict." Some of the signatories were closely aligned with Israel, for example via the Conservative Friends of Israel and Labour Friends of Israel.

Other artists who have voiced opposition to the campaign include writers Umberto Eco and film makers Joel and Ethan Coen. Novelist Ian McEwan, upon being awarded the Jerusalem Prize, was urged to turn it down, but said that "If I only went to countries that I approve of, I probably would never get out of bed.... It's not great if everyone stops talking." Many musicians such as Elton John, Leonard Cohen, Lady Gaga, Rihanna, Radiohead, Metallica, Editors, Placebo, LCD Soundsystem, MGMT, Justin Bieber, Ziggy Marley, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Mark Ronson, Depeche Mode, Gilberto Gil, Daniela Mercury, Rolling Stones, Alicia Keys, Tom Jones, Riverdance, PiL, Eric Burdon, and Bon Jovi have chosen to perform in Israel in recent years.

In October 2021, over 200 celebrities, including Mila Kunis, Billy Porter, Neil Patrick Harris, Helen Mirren, Lance Bass and Jeremy Piven, signed an open letter repudiating calls for a boycott of the Tel Aviv International LGBT Film Festival.

Public figures
In February 2012, Norman Finkelstein "launched a blistering attack" of the BDS movement during an interview, saying it was a "hypocritical, dishonest cult" that tries to cleverly pose as human rights activists while in reality their goal is to destroy Israel. In addition, he said: "I'm getting a little bit exasperated with what I think is a whole lot of nonsense. I'm not going to tolerate silliness, childishness and a lot of leftist posturing. I loathe the disingenuousness. We will never hear the solidarity movement [back a] two-state solution." Furthermore, Finkelstein stated that the BDS movement has had very few successes, and that just like a cult, the leaders pretend that they are hugely successful when in reality the general public rejects their extreme views. He does mention though that he supports the idea of a non-violent BDS movement.

Though Israeli chocolate company Max Brenner is targeted by some Australian Palestinian activists, the Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs and former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said, "I don't think in 21st-century Australia there is a place for the attempted boycott of a Jewish business."

Senior figures in the Australian Labor Party linked action against the Australian Greens at a state conference, where the Greens were denied automatic preferences, to the Greens' previous support for the BDS movement. Former New South Wales treasurer and Australian Labor Party general secretary Eric Roozendaal and fellow Legislative Councillor Walt Secord, stated, "The Greens will carry forever the stain of their support for the BDS campaign and their attempts to delegitimise Israel and the Jewish community—and this is one of the reasons why we must stand strong against the Greens."

In April 2013, Prime Minister Julia Gillard said that the "campaign does not serve the cause of peace and diplomacy for agreement on a two-state solution between Israel and Palestine", and added that Australia has always had firm opposition to the BDS movement. Representing the Coalition prior to the 2013 federal election, Liberal Party deputy leader Julie Bishop reaffirmed Gillard's stance by promising to cut off federal grants for individuals and institutions who support the BDS campaign. On 29 May 2013, Jewish Australian academics Andrew Benjamin, Michele Grossman and David Goodman condemned the Coalition's election promise as "an anti-democratic gesture par excellence".

In February 2014, Israeli Ambassador to the UK Daniel Taub said in a CNN interview that proponents of a boycott on Israeli goods are making a "mistake" and sending a "problematic" message to Palestinian negotiators: "If they genuinely want to advance peace, what they're really doing is they're sending a double message ... They're sending a message to the Palestinian that [they] don't need to be sitting at the negotiating table."

Ed Husain, writing in The New York Times, says that the boycott of Israel should end, since it is hurting the Palestinians more than helping them. Husain believes that the "voice of the Palestinian imams who want to see an end to the boycott needs to be amplified", as well as those "religious leaders" in Egypt and in Saudi Arabia who "advocate peace".

Official and legal responses

See also

 Buycott
 Constructive engagement
 Criticism of Israel
 Israeli passport

References

Sources

External links

Legislative Agenda Opposing Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions , American Israel Public Affairs Committee
BDS Movement, Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions

Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions

Zionism
Human rights in Israel
Human rights in the State of Palestine


title: Micraegialia

text:
Micraegialia is a genus of beetle in family Scarabaeidae. It belongs to subfamily Aegialiinae. The genus contains only one known species, Micraegialia pusilla.

References

Scarabaeidae genera
Monotypic beetle genera


title: Arotrophora hongsona

text:
Arotrophora hongsona is a species of moth of the family Tortricidae. It is found in Thailand.

The wingspan is about 14 mm. The ground colour of the basal part of the forewings is cream, suffused with brownish and grey. The posterior part of the wing is grey with dark grey reticulation (a net-like pattern) and strigulation (fine streaks), a whitish-grey spot on the costa. The hindwings are pale brownish grey.

Etymology
The species name refers to Mae Hong Son, Pai District, the type locality.

References

Moths described in 2009
Arotrophora
Moths of Asia


title: Academic boycott of Israel

text:
The current campaign for an academic boycott of Israel was launched in April 2004 by the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) as part of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign. The campaign calls for BDS activities against Israel to put international pressure on Israel, in this case against Israeli academic institutions, all of which are said by PACBI to be implicated in the perpetuation of Israeli occupation, in order to achieve BDS goals. Since then, proposals for academic boycotts of particular Israeli universities and academics have been made by academics and organisations in Palestine, the United States, the United Kingdom, and other countries. The goal of the proposed academic boycotts is to isolate Israel in order to force a change in Israel's policies towards the Palestinians, which proponents argue are discriminatory and oppressive, including oppressing the academic freedom of Palestinians.

The campaigns for academic boycott of Israel have led to fierce debate. Opponents argue that boycott advocates apply different standards to Israel than other countries, that the boycott is counterproductive, a collective punishment of Israeli academia, a tactic to threaten the existence of the State of Israel, and also that the campaign is antisemitic. Despite this debate, academic boycott measures have been undertaken around the world, with some support among academic associations and unions, but with little institutional success.

United Kingdom
In reaction to the National Executive Council of the National Union of Students' BDS resolution on 2 June 2015, Prof. Leslie Wagner argued, "In reality, co-operation between Israeli and British universities and their academics has grown in recent years under the energetic leadership of outgoing UK ambassador to Israel, Matthew Gould."

The Guardian open letter, 2002
The idea of an academic boycott against Israel first emerged publicly in England on 6 April 2002 in an open letter to The Guardian initiated by Steven and Hilary Rose, professors in biology at the Open University and social policy at the University of Bradford respectively, who called for a moratorium on all cultural and research links with Israel. It read:

By July 2002, the open letter had gained over 700 signatories, including those of ten Israeli academics.

In response to the open letter, Leonid Ryzhik, a senior professor in mathematics at the University of Chicago, led a rival web-based petition that condemned the original's "unjustly righteous tone" and warned that the boycott has a "broader risk of very disruptive repercussions for a wide range of international scientific and cultural contacts." The counter petition had gathered almost 1,000 signatories.

Mona Baker, Miriam Shlesinger and Gideon Toury

In early June 2002, Mona Baker, a professor of translation studies at the University of Manchester in England and a signatory of the 2002 open letter, removed two Israeli academics – Dr. Miriam Shlesinger of Bar-Ilan University which at the time had a regional branch in the Ariel settlement, a former chair of Amnesty International, Israel; and Professor Gideon Toury of Tel Aviv University – from the editorial boards of the journals Translator and Translation Studies Abstracts. Subsequently, Baker said that Translator will no longer publish any research by Israeli scholars and will refuse to sell books and journals to Israeli libraries.

Association of University Teachers
On 22 April 2005, the Council of Association of University Teachers (AUT) voted to boycott two Israeli universities: University of Haifa and Bar-Ilan University. The motions to AUT Council were prompted by the call for a boycott from nearly 60 Palestinian academics and others. The AUT Council voted to boycott Bar-Ilan because it runs courses at colleges in the West Bank (referring to Ariel College) and "is thus directly involved with the occupation of Palestinian territories contrary to United Nations resolutions". It boycotted Haifa because it was alleged that the university had wrongly disciplined Ilan Pappé for supporting a student who wrote about attacks on Palestinians during the founding of the state of Israel. The University denied having disciplined the lecturer. Union members claimed that staff and students [of Israeli universities] who seek to research Israel's history in full are often "victimised".

Condemnation and backlash
The AUT's decision was immediately condemned by Jewish groups and many members of the AUT. Critics of the boycott within and outside the AUT noted that at the meeting at which the boycott motion was passed the leadership cut short the debate citing a lack of time. Specifically, the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Union of Jewish Students accused the AUT of purposely holding the vote during Passover, when many Jewish members could not be present.

The presidents of Jerusalem-based al-Quds University and Hebrew University of Jerusalem issued a joint statement condemning the boycott effort as unproductive towards ending the "shared tragedy" but rather could prolong it:

One of the university presidents, Sari Nusseibeh of al-Quds University, continued: "If we are to look at Israeli society, it is within the academic community that we've had the most progressive pro-peace views and views that have come out in favor of seeing us as equals [...] If you want to punish any sector, this is the last one to approach." He acknowledges, however, that his view is a minority one among Palestinian academics.

Zvi Ravner, Israel's deputy ambassador in London, noted, "[t]he last time that Jews were boycotted in universities was in 1930s Germany."

The British National Postgraduate Committee also voted to oppose the boycott. Project officer Andre Oboler said that the boycott "runs contrary to our objective, which is to advance in the public interest the education of postgraduate students within the UK".

Cancellation of boycott
After the backlash and condemnation – both internal and external – members of the AUT, headed by Open University lecturer and Engage founder Jon Pike – gathered enough signatures to call a special meeting on the subject.  Pro-boycott demonstrators called for the AUT to maintain its course against what they described as "unbelievable pressure", while anti-boycott demonstrators suggested that the decision had been influenced by antisemitism, and argued that the AUT's integrity was being threatened by a group of "leftwing extremists". At the meeting on 26 May 2005, the AUT membership decided to cancel the boycott of both Israeli universities. Reasons cited for the decision were: the damage to academic freedom, the hampering of dialogue and peace effort between Israelis and Palestinians, and that boycotting Israel alone could not be justified.

National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education
In May 2006, on the last day of its final conference, National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education (NATFHE) passed motion 198C, a call to boycott Israeli academics who did not vocally speak out against their government: "The conference invites members to consider their own responsibility for ensuring equity and non-discrimination in contacts with Israeli educational institutions or individuals, and to consider the appropriateness of a boycott of those that do not publicly dissociate themselves from such policies." The resolution was dismissed by the AUT, the union into which the NATFHE was merging. Overall, four attempts were made to pass pro-boycott motions at the annual conferences of the AUT, especially following its reorganization as the University and College Union in 2008. Threatened by legal action on the one hand, and opposed by all University heads on the other, these never went beyond the declarative stage.

Criticism of the NATFHE
A group of eight Nobel laureates denounced the policy before it was passed, suggesting that it would limit academic freedom.

Brian Klug made this criticism of the NATFHE motion:
[E]ven if the policy and rationale were clear and unambiguous, there is a deeper problem with motions of this sort that prevents them from attracting a broad base of support: they rely on the false (or limited) analogy implied by the word "apartheid". This is not to say that there are no points of comparison, for there are – just as there are in a host of other countries where minority ethnic and national groups are oppressed. Nor is it even to say that the suffering experienced by Palestinians is less than that endured by "non-whites" in South Africa: it may or may not be (although I am not sure how to do the sums). But as I have argued elsewhere: "The validity of the analogy does not depend on a catalogue of atrocities, however appalling."

The Association of Jewish Sixthformers (AJ6) issued a press release expressing dismay and concern "about the affects  of any boycott on Jewish and Israeli Sixthformers".  Specifically, AJ6 pointed to "partnerships and exchange visits with Israeli schools and colleges may be under threat", and "Jewish students who study in Israel during their Gap Years are worried that teachers may refuse to provide them with references for these programmes."

The Anti-Defamation League issued a statement which condemned the motion explaining:
It is profoundly unjust for academics in the only democratic country in the Middle East – the only country where scholarship and debate are permitted to freely flourish – to be held to an ideological test and the threat of being blacklisted because of their views. No one would expect a British or American professor to have to withstand such scrutiny of their political views. Yet, when it comes to Israel a different standard applies.

The British government, through Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister Lord Triesman, issued a statement that the motion was "counterproductive and retrograde" although the British Government recognized "the independence of the NATFHE".

Response to criticism
Paul Mackney, the general secretary of NATFHE and who opposed the motion as passed, is quoted after the fact by The Guardian:
The ironic thing, is if we had put this to delegates a couple of weeks ago, before the international pro-Israeli lobby started this massive campaign emailing delegates and trying to deny us our democratic right to discuss whatever we like, it probably wouldn't have passed. People feel bullied, and what we have seen is a hardening of attitudes. All they achieved was making the delegates determined to debate and pass the motion.

Tamara Traubmann and Benjamin Joffe-Walt, reporting for The Guardian, conducted an analysis of "whether the campaigns against such boycotts are actually motivated by concerns for academic freedom, or whether they are using the universalist ideal to stifle critical discussion of Israel". They describe their findings this way:
Through discussions with anti-boycott campaigners and a trace of the most common emails (not necessarily abusive) sent to the union and handed over by Natfhe, we found the vast majority of the tens of thousands of emails originated not with groups fighting for academic freedom, but with lobby groups and thinktanks that regularly work to delegitimise criticisms of Israel.

University and College Union

Since 2007, the UCU has been controversially involved in the academic boycotts of Israel and for rejecting the previously accepted definition of "anti-Semitism". Some members resigned following claims of an underlying institutional anti-Semitism. In 2010, the UCU passed a boycott motion that invoked a "call from the Palestinian Boycott National Committee" for "an isolation of Israel while it continues to act in breach of international law" and calls to "campaign actively" against Israel's trade agreement with the European Union. Dr John Chalcraft, of the London School of Economics, said: "A boycott will be effective because Israel considers itself part of the West: when Western civil society finally says 'enough is enough', Israelis, not to mention Western governments, will take notice. A non-violent international boycott, like that of South Africa, may well play a historic role in bringing down the Israeli system of apartheid."

Susan Fuhrman, President of Teachers College, Columbia University said: "As the president of an academic institution dedicated in large part to the preparation of teachers, I believe that universities and all centers of learning must be allowed to function as safe havens for freedom of discussion, debate and intellectual inquiry, standing apart from national and international politics and partisan strife. Only thus can they continue to produce scholarship that informs the policies and laws of democratic societies and stand as islands of hope in a frequently polarized world.... Teachers College welcomes dialogue with Israeli scholars and universities and stands with Columbia University President Lee Bollinger in expressing solidarity with them by inviting UCU to boycott us, as well."

In 2011, Ronnie Fraser unsuccessfully sued the UCU for violation of the Equality Act 2010, alleging repeated antisemitic harassment by fellow UCU members.  Under cross-examination, UCU general secretary Sally Hunt admitted that Fraser "would be entitled to infer ... that the union was not taking antisemitism seriously." The UCU later ceased to promote anti-Israel boycotts.

France

During the Second Intifada
In April 2002, during the Al-Aqsa Intifada, around the time of the publication of the open letter in The Guardian, the Coordination des Scientifiques pour une Paix Juste au Proche-Orient, a group of French academics, published a call for a boycott of Israeli scientific institutions on the web. The statement was published in French and English and stressed that only "official Israeli institutions, including universities" were targeted, and that signatories "will continue to collaborate with, and host, Israeli scientific colleagues on an individual basis." The pledge was signed by several hundred academics from 30 countries. During the subsequent months it was the subject of discussion in the French press and in scientific journals.

In December of the same year, a motion put forward at the Administrative Council of the Université Paris 6 called for the suspension of the EU-Israel association agreement, referring to discrimination against Palestinian colleagues and to Article of this agreement, which states that "[r]elations between the Parties, as well as all the provisions of the Agreement itself, shall be based on respect for human rights and democratic principles, which guides their internal and international policy and constitutes an essential element of this Agreement." Far from calling for a boycott, the motion called on the President of the university to establish contact with Israeli and Palestinian university authorities in order to work for peace.  The motion was adopted on December 16, 2002 by 22 in favor, 4 opposed, and 6 abstentions.

An opposing motion was proposed and adopted on January 27, 2003 by members of the Council. It stated that it "recognized the emotions stirred up by the motion adopted on December 16, 2002, and by the way it was interpreted" and affirmed "its opposition to any moratorium or boycott in the relations between universities and university faculty; asked that, in the context of the preparation of the EU's Sixth Framework Program, the association agreement between the EU and Israel be renegotiated to include the Palestinians … and called on the EU to ensure compliance by all parties with all clauses of the agreement (…)".

Following Operation Cast Lead
In March 2009, shortly after the Gaza War, a call for an academic boycott in France was published on the web with over 50 signatures, including Daniel Bensaïd, Gérard Toulouse of the Académie des sciences, coauthor in 2003 of Les scientifiques et les droits de l'homme with Lydie Koch-Miramond who had also signed and defended the boycott of Israel in 2002, Mireille Fanon-Mendès-France, and Roland Lombard, President of the Collectif Interuniversitaire pour la Coopération avec les Universités Palestiniennes. They called "in the first place to impose a program of boycott, divestment, and sanctions," following the creation of the French organization BDS France.

In the spring of 2009, the Association of Academics for the Respect of International Law in Palestine (AURDIP) was created by the group of academics who had initiated the 2002 call, in alliance with the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel PACBI and with the British organization British Committee for the Universities of Palestine . AURDIP was created with two primary missions:  (1) To promote the application of international law in Israel and Palestine ; specifically to oppose Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories and Israel’s settlement policy, which fly in the face of international conventions on human rights, United Nations resolutions, and decisions of the International Court of Justice; (2) To defend Palestinians’ right to education and to support students and staff of Palestinian universities in the defense of this right.

United States

Boycott campaign
Haaretz reported in 2009 that a group of American professors had joined the boycott call in the wake of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict:
While Israeli academics have grown used to such news from Great Britain, where anti-Israel groups several times attempted to establish academic boycotts, the formation of the United States movement marks the first time that a national academic boycott movement has come out of America.

The group's name is "U.S. Campaign for the Academic & Cultural Boycott of Israel". (USACBI)

Support and successes

Associations
In April 2013, the Association for Asian American Studies (AAAS) voted to boycott Israeli universities and academic institutions. It was joined in December by the American Studies Association (ASA). In a vote in which 1,252 of its 5,000 members participated, 66% voted in favour of a boycott. The reasons given were "Israel's violation of international law and UN resolutions; the documented impact of the Israeli occupation on Palestinian scholars and students; [and] the extent to which Israeli institutions of higher education are a party to state policies that violate human rights," and thus "negatively impact the working conditions of Palestinian scholars and students". Many proponents of the ASA's boycott, including Yale professor and past president of the ASA Matthew Frye Jacobson, argue that the action can be seen as "symbolic", as it is such defined by the ASA council statement. In response to the resolution, a number of organizations and politicians accused the ASA of applying a double standard towards Israel. Opponents of the boycott called the resolution antisemitic and anti-Israel.

Israel is the only nation ever boycotted by the ASA in the 52 years of the organization's existence. The New York Times reported that ASA's president Curtis Marez argued that America has "a particular responsibility to answer the call for boycott because it is the largest supplier of military aid to the state of Israel". Marez acknowledged that the United States has previously, and is currently, the largest supplier of military aid to many governments, including some with poor human rights records, but explained that Israel is the only country in which "civil society groups" had specifically asked the ASA to launch a boycott. Further responding to accusations that the ASA was singling out Israel while ignoring many other nations that have comparable or even worse human rights records that Israel (including many of Israel's neighbors), Marez replied: "One has to start somewhere."

Over 700 new members joined the organisation between the December vote to boycott Israeli academic institutions and April 2014. The ASA subsequently released a statement that said it had "collected more membership revenue in the past three months than in any other three-month period over the past quarter-century" and that their organization is "thriving".

In December 2013, the council of the Native American and Indigenous Studies Association voted unanimously in favor of the academic boycott of Israel, becoming the third American academic association to participate in PACBI's Call to action. NAISA made an official declaration of its support for the academic boycott of Israel, choosing to create an original document of declaration in order to protest, "the infringement of the academic freedom of Indigenous Palestinian academics and intellectuals in the Occupied Territories and Israel who are denied fundamental freedoms of movement, expression, and assembly, which [it] uphold[s]." The declaration "encourages NAISA members to boycott Israeli academic institutions because they are imbricated with the Israeli state".

In November 2015, the annual business meeting of the American Anthropological Association voted to join the academic boycott campaign, by a margin of 1,040 to 136. In 2016 the resolution was put up for vote by all the members of the Association and was rejected. In July 2023, the American Anthropological Association again voted on the resolution and it passed.

Academics
In a speech given at Brooklyn College in 2013 with BDS founding member Omar Barghouti, prominent American academic Judith Butler commented on the reasons behind her support of the academic boycott campaign of the BDS movement stating:
Others may interpret the boycott differently, but I have no problem collaborating with Israeli scholars and artists as long as we do not participate in any Israeli institution or have Israeli state monies support our collaborative work. The reason, of course, is that the academic and cultural boycott seeks to put pressure on all those cultural institutions that have failed to oppose the occupation and struggle for equal rights and the rights of the dispossessed, all those cultural institutions that think it is not their place to criticize their government for these practices, all of them that understand themselves to be above or beyond this intractable political condition.

Hamid Dabashi, a professor of Iranian studies at Columbia University, is on the advisory board of the U.S. Campaign for the Academic & Cultural Boycott of Israel. Dabashi supports boycott efforts targeting both Israeli individuals and institutions:
The divestment campaign that has been far more successful in Western Europe needs to be reinvigorated in North America – as must the boycotting of the Israeli cultural and academic institutions ... Naming names and denouncing individually every prominent Israeli intellectual who has publicly endorsed their elected officials' wide-eyed barbarism, and then categorically boycotting their universities and colleges, film festivals and cultural institutions, is the single most important act of solidarity that their counterparts can do around the world.

Other American academics that have advocated for boycotts against Israel include Andrew Ross and Simona Sawhney.

Other groups
The Columbia Palestine Forum (CPF), which was formed at Columbia University in March 2009, maintains that Israel is an apartheid state and advocates boycott and divestment efforts against Israel. The group has called for increased disclosure of university finances to establish that Columbia funds are not being used towards "maintenance of the Israeli occupation and human rights abuses in Gaza and the West Bank", and advocates divestment of university funds from any companies that profit from what it describes as the "continued occupation of Palestinian lands, the maintenance of illegal Israeli settlements and the walls being built around Gaza, the West Bank and Jerusalem".

CPF outlined its demands to a university representative during a demonstration on 5 March 2009. On the previous day, it held a panel discussion featuring multiple Columbia faculty members who have been supportive of the group. Gil Anidjar, a religion professor, advocated boycott as an appropriate "exercise of freedom", while anthropology professor Brinkley Messick indicated that Columbia President Lee Bollinger had agreed to meet with the faculty to discuss the demands for divestment. One CPF member described the group's goals in a 3 March article for Columbia's newspaper, stating, "by divesting from companies that do business with the occupation, we can put global pressure on the Israeli government to end it."

Opposition and criticism of academic boycotts within the U.S.

University of Pennsylvania President Amy Gutmann said in January 2012 that the university "has clearly stated on numerous occasions that it does not support sanctions or boycotts against Israel". She said that the school was not a sponsor of a BDS conference taking place on campus in February 2012.

In March 2009, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) reiterated its opposition to any academic boycott of Israel (or any other country) but added that discussion of the Israel-Palestinian conflict should be encouraged. AFT President Randi Weingarten stated that:
We believe academic boycotts were a bad idea in 2002 and are a bad idea now. Academic boycotts are inconsistent with the democratic values of academic freedom and free expression... We want to make clear that this position does not in any way discourage an open discussion and debate of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or of ways to resolve it. However, we expect that such a discussion would not be one-sided and would consider the behavior of all the relevant actors. An academic boycott of Israel, or of any country, for that matter, would effectively suppress free speech without helping to resolve the conflict.

The Forward published, in January 2012, an article about Jewish presidents of universities, saying, "many college presidents" see BDS as a "red line" and "presidents who were previously disinclined to speak out against anti-Israel activity on campus in the name of preserving open dialogue found themselves publicly opposing the movement."

After fierce debate, the American Anthropological Association (AAA) chose not to endorse any academic boycott of Israel in 2016.  Anthropologist David M. Rosen studied the effects of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement on the association.  Rosen's conclusion was: "Had the association joined the BDS boycott, it would have established ... an ideological litmus test for participation in the academy.  Endorsing a political test for speech is a step on a dangerous path for American anthropologists.  As University of Chicago president Robert Zimmer put it, boycotts are an 'assault on the fundamental principles of open discourse ... and free argumentation, principles that lie at the very foundation of the academy and its missions of discovery ... and education.' ... [A]n academic boycott opens the door to the general political suppression of speech in the academy.  ... [I]f academics no longer uphold the principle of free speech in the university, neither will anyone else."

Criticism of the ASA

Until April 2013, no American school had ever divested from or imposed an academic boycott on Israel despite strong boycott campaigns. Former President of Harvard University Larry Summers has called Israel-boycott efforts "anti-Semitic in their effect if not their intent". In 2007, nearly 300 university presidents across the United States signed a joint statement denouncing the boycott movement. In 2010, a group of 15 American university professors launched a campaign calling for an academic and cultural boycott of Israel.

Many universities and prominent scholars criticized the ASA's support of the boycott. Brandeis University, Pennsylvania State University, Indiana University and Kenyon College decided to withdraw from the ASA. The American Council on Education, an umbrella organisation of 1,800 institutions, the American Association of Universities which represents 62 schools across the US and Canada, and the American Association of University Professors all condemned the boycott.

Ninety-two university presidents including of Harvard, Brown, Yale, Princeton, Johns Hopkins, Cornell, Duke, Stanford, Boston, Columbia, Chicago, New York University, Dartmouth College, Wesleyan, Florida, University of Miami, Western Kentucky University, University of Connecticut and University of Washington, condemned the boycott and distanced themselves from the ASA.

Harvard president Drew Gilpin Faust said, "academic boycotts subvert the academic freedoms and values necessary to the free flow of ideas," and that a boycott was "a direct threat to these ideals". Former Harvard president Lawrence H. Summers stated that Israel was being unfairly singled out when other countries' human rights records were far worse. The president of Kenyon College dismissed it as a "geopolitical tool", endorsing the decision of its American Studies program to secede as an institutional member of the ASA. The president of Wesleyan University deplored this "politically retrograde resolution", describing it as an irresponsible attack under the guise of phony progressivism.

Ronald S. Lauder, president of the World Jewish Congress, argued that the boycott demonstrated "the Orwellian antisemitism and moral bankruptcy of the ASA" while the ADL described the boycott as "shameful, morally bankrupt and intellectually dishonest attack on academic freedom".

In January 2014, 134 members of Congress (69 Democrats, 65 Republicans) signed a letter to ASA president Curtis Marez and president-elect Lisa Duggan, which accused the ASA of engaging in a "morally dishonest double standard". The letter stated that: "Like all democracies, Israel is not perfect. But to single out Israel, while leaving relationships with universities in autocratic and repressive countries intact, suggests thinly-veiled bigotry and bias."

Official government responses and legislation
In February 2014 a bill called the "Protect Academic Freedom Act" was introduced into the U.S. Congress. The legislation "seeks to bar federal funds from going to academic institutions that back the BDS movement". Supporters of the legislation claim that its purpose to oppose "discriminatory boycotts which impede rather than advance the peace process and that seek to deny Israelis the right to free speech on American campuses". Those opposing the bill claim that it would fiercely violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and many doubt its efficacy as a response to the ASA's boycott movement.

On 30 May 2014, Representative Alan Grayson introduced H.R. 4776, a bill "to prohibit an institution of higher education that participates in a boycott of the Israeli government, economy, or academia from receiving funds from the U.S. federal government".

Canada

In January 2009, the Ontario branch of the Canadian Union of Public Employees brought forward a proposal to ban Israeli academics from teaching at Ontario Universities. CUPE-Ontario leader Sid Ryan stated, "we are ready to say Israeli academics should not be on our campuses unless they explicitly condemn the university bombing and the assault on Gaza in general." Ryan subsequently said, "Academic freedom goes both ways. What we are saying is if they want to remain silent and be complicit in these kinds of actions, why should they enjoy the freedom to come and teach in other countries like Canada?" CUPE's national president, Paul Moist, issued a statement declaring his opposition to the motion and saying, "I will be using my influence in any debates on such a resolution to oppose its adoption."

Shortly after its original statement, CUPE removed its call to boycott individual academics from its website and replaced it with statement that called instead for a boycott "aimed at academic institutions and the institutional connections that exist between universities here and those in Israel". Tyler Shipley, spokesperson for CUPE local 3903 at York University, told the Toronto Star that his group will begin to advocate for York to sever financial ties to Israel.

Some observers have questioned what practical effect any CUPE resolution will have since the 20,000 university workers represented by CUPE Ontario include campus staff but almost no full-time faculty.

Australia

The University of Western Sydney's Student Association (UWSSA) formally affiliated to the "Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel" in February 2009, following a request from PACBI. The President of the UWSSA, Jacob Carswell-Doherty, later stated, "We have no interest in hearing the Israeli viewpoint. Our agenda is to persuade the university administration to implement the terms of the boycott."

In 2013, the issue of Academic Boycotts and the BDS campaign received significant press treatment when a suit was filed against professor Jake Lynch, the director of the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Sydney, by Shurat HaDin, a pro-Israel legal lobby organization. The 30 page suit focusses on Lynch's denying a sabbatical appointment to professor Dan Avnon of Hebrew University because of his center's pro-BDS policy not to support Israeli academics. Andrew Hamilton of Shurat HaDin stated "Our strategic aim in this case is to address the unlawful racial discrimination of the BDS movement generally and the academic boycott in particular, rather than to narrowly focus on the discrimination against Prof. Avnon." The case has been described as a "landmark legal suit" and "a major test of the legality of the boycott, divestments and sanctions (BDS) campaign".

In July 2014, Shurat HaDin-the Israel Law Center announced that it was withdrawing its Lawsuit against Lynch. Lynch stated that this decision "gives the green light for many more Australians to take their own action in solidarity with the Palestinian struggle for rights and freedoms we are lucky enough to be able to take for granted".

Italy

In January 2016, 168 Italian academics and researchers published a call to boycott Israeli academic institutions. Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, was singled out as a boycott target. "The Institute carries out research in a wide range of technologies and weapons used to oppress and attack Palestinians," said the call.

Ireland
In April 2013 the Teachers Union of Ireland (TUI) passed a motion calling for an academic boycott of Israel.

Following a referendum among NUI Galway students in March 2014, the NUI Galway Students' Union officially began supporting the campaign of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against Israel.

In December 2022 the Union of Students in Ireland unanimously passed a motion to support BDS and "denounce the apartheid that Israel is committing in Palestine". The motion also called on the European Students Union (ESU) "to re-evaluate the membership of Israel and support any Palestinian efforts to engage with ESU”.

South Africa

Campaign to boycott Ben-Gurion University

On 5 September 2010, a nationwide academic petition was initiated by academics supporting a termination of a partnership agreement between the University of Johannesburg (UJ) and Ben-Gurion University (BGU); a long-standing partnership dating back to apartheid era relations between the two institutions. Well-known academics such as Professors Breyten Breytenbach, John Dugard, Mahmood Mamdani, Antjie Krog and Achille Mbembe are signatories to the academic petition, which is also backed by Vice-Chancellors from four universities in South Africa.

Amid widespread public attention, both within South Africa and internationally, the campaign to boycott BGU quickly gained momentum and within a few days more than 250 academics had signed the petition, stating: "The Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories has had disastrous effects on access to education for Palestinians. While Palestinians are not able to access universities and schools, Israeli universities produce the research, technology, arguments and leaders for maintaining the occupation. BGU is no exception, by maintaining links to both the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) and the arms industry BGU structurally supports and facilitates the Israeli occupation."

On 26 September 2010 Archbishop Desmond Tutu released a letter through The Sunday Times, under the heading "Israeli ties: a chance to do the right thing", supporting the academics. The Nobel Laureate's position in favour of the boycott was accompanied by an appeal that: "The University of Johannesburg has a chance to do the right thing, at a time when it is unsexy."

Former South African cabinet minister and ANC leader Ronnie Kasrils also came out in support of the boycott call and wrote in The Guardian: "Israeli universities are not being targeted for boycott because of their ethnic or religious identity, but because of their complicity in the Israeli system of apartheid" and "The principled position of academics in South Africa to distance themselves from institutions that support the occupation is a reflection of the advances already made in exposing that the Israeli regime is guilty of an illegal and immoral colonial project."

Against the backdrop of the publicly supported campaign, UJ's highest academic body (Senate) voted on Wednesday, 29 September 2010 "not to continue a long-standing relationship with Ben-Gurion University in Israel in its present form" and conditionally terminate its Apartheid-era relationship with BGU.

A fact-finding investigation conducted by the University confirmed BGU's links with the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) and complicity in the Israeli occupation. Accepting the recommendations of the report, the University committed itself to end any research or teaching relationship with Ben-Gurion University that has direct or indirect military links; or in instances where human rights abuses are identified. The University has stated that if BGU violates any of the conditions agreed on by Senate or UJ's stated principles, which include "solidarity with any oppressed population", the relationship will be terminated completely after 6 months.

More SA universities check Israeli links

Within hours of the University of Johannesburg's decision to conditionally terminate its links with Ben-Gurion University, major South African universities began looking into their own ties with Israeli universities.

Wits University vice-chancellor Loyiso Nongxa told journalists that he was not aware of "any formal links – a memorandum of understanding [MoU] – between Wits and Israeli universities". Three hours later, Wits university's spokesperson confirmed that it "has no formal ties with any Israeli university, according to our database".

The University of Cape Town followed suit shortly afterwards, stating, "There are no institution-level partnerships with Israeli universities." The University of Pretoria, University of KwaZulu-Natal and Stellenbosch University have since confirmed that they have no formal partnerships with institutions in Israel.

Wits SRC adopts academic boycott of Israel
On 27 July 2012 Wits University Students' Representative Council (Wits SRC) adopted a declaration of academic and cultural boycott of Israel.

The Wits SRC academic boycott has not been renewed since it was passed in 2012 and is de facto no longer operable at the institution. A number of Wits SRC and former Wits SRC members have visited the country and talked about their experiences. They have said they are against boycotts and that calling Israel an apartheid state is an insult to black South Africans. Israeli writers and the Israeli director of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs have also visited the campus.

Criticism

A prominent Palestinian academic, president of Al-Quds University, Sari Nusseibeh, has argued against academic boycotts of Israel, telling Associated Press "If we are to look at Israeli society, it is within the academic community that we've had the most progressive pro-peace views and views that have come out in favor of seeing us as equals.... If you want to punish any sector, this is the last one to approach." He acknowledges, however, that his view is a minority one among Palestinian academics.

Comparisons to academic boycotts of South Africa

The academic boycott of South Africa is frequently invoked as a model for more recent efforts to organize academic boycotts of Israel.

Some invoke the comparison to claim that an academic boycott of Israel should not be controversial based on a misconception that the academic boycott of South Africa was uncontroversial and straightforward. The reality, at the time, was very different. The effort was the subject of significant criticism and contentious debate from diverse segments. Andy Beckett wrote in The Guardian on this frequent mistaken comparison: "In truth, boycotts are blunt weapons. Even the most apparently straightforward and justified ones, on closer inspection, have their controversies and injustices."

Others, such as Hillary and Stephen Rose in Nature (2002), make the comparison and argue for an academic boycott of Israel based on a belief that the academic boycott of South Africa was effective in ending apartheid. George Fink responds (Nature 2002) that asserting that the boycott of South Africa by the world's academic communities 'was instrumental in ending apartheid in South Africa' is a deception and was actually terminated by two pivotal and interrelated political events: strict economic sanctions on South Africa imposed by the United States Congress in 1986 and measures by South Africa president F. W. de Klerk in 1989 and 1990.

In 2010, the Senate of the University of Johannesburg recommended cutting off all links with Ben-Gurion University in Israel because of the country's policies. The scientific agreement, which focused on cooperation in water research, had only been signed in the previous year. Prior to making a final decision, the university sent a senior delegation of its faculty on a fact finding tour to Israel in January 2011.

Accusations of antisemitism
Anthony Julius and Alan Dershowitz argue that boycotts against Israel are antisemitic, using their anti-Zionism as a cover for "Jew hatred". They compare the boycotts to the 1222 Canterbury Council, specifically the council's implementation of sharply limiting Christian contact with Jews, and Nazi boycotts of Jewish shops in the 1930s, as well as Arab League attempts to economically isolate Israel and refrain from purchasing "anything Jewish".

Harvard President Larry Summers "blasted" the boycotts as "antisemitic":

[T]here is much that should be, indeed that must be, debated regarding Israeli policy.... But the academic boycott resolution passed by the British professors union in the way that it singles out Israel is in my judgment anti-Semitic in both effect and in intent.

Summers had previously argued that a proposed boycott was antisemitic "in effect, if not intent". This position was criticized by Judith Butler, in an article titled "No, it's not anti-semitic". Butler argues the distinction of effective antisemitism, and intentional antisemitism is at best controversial.
If we think that to criticise Israeli violence, or to call for economic pressure to be put on the Israeli state to change its policies, is to be "effectively anti-semitic", we will fail to voice our opposition for fear of being named as part of an anti-semitic enterprise. No label could be worse for a Jew, who knows that, ethically and politically, the position with which it would be unbearable to identify is that of the anti-semite.

According to Martin Kramer, a hidden reason behind the academic boycott is to isolate Jewish academics so as to push them out of disciplines where Jews have been perceived to be "over-represented", and that this is done by inserting litmus tests for Jews who wish to advance in their careers as academics, demanding that they demonstrate virulent hostility to Israel or else be stigmatized. Kramer argues that this is a primary reason why the boycott has found a significant number of supporters from fields which have little to do with the Middle East.

See also
 Boycotts of Israel#Academic and cultural boycotts
 Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions
 Disinvestment from Israel
 Boycotts of Israel
 New antisemitism
 Reactions to Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions

References

External links
 The Ethics of Academic Boycott, University of Chicago Press
 Israel and the Campus, American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise

Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions
Boycotts of Israel
Foreign relations of Israel
Scientific controversies
Education controversies
Education scandals
Academic freedom


title: My Lovely Girl

text:
My Lovely Girl () is a 2014 South Korean television series starring Rain, Krystal Jung, Kim Myung-soo, and Cha Ye-ryun. Having the K-pop industry as the backdrop, the drama tells the story of two pained individuals who find healing through music. It aired on SBS from September 17 to November 6, 2014 on Wednesdays and Thursdays at 21:55 for 16 episodes.

Synopsis
Lee Hyun-wook (Rain) is the CEO of a talent agency that scouts and trains idols. Hyun-wook lives in great difficulty as he is unable to let go of his ex-girlfriend who died in an accident 3 years ago, which he witnessed first hand. His ex-girlfriend's sister, Yoon Se-na (Krystal), moves to Seoul in order to pursue her music-composing career and meets Hyun-wook who helps her achieve it. As Hyun-wook replaces his father (Park Yeong-gyu) as the president of ANA Entertainment, he faces challenges in his career. In the midst of healing each other through music, Hyun-wook and Se-na fall in love.

Cast

Main
Rain as Lee Hyun-wook
A successful singer, songwriter and producer. He appears cold and indifferent on the outside but is sensitive and kind-hearted. After So-eun's death, he left the music industry as he couldn't write songs any more. When he received a call from Se-na, he looks for her and eventually brought her into his company, ANA Entertainment. As he falls in love with Se-na, he is able to write songs again.

Krystal Jung as Yoon Se-na
An aspiring singer and songwriter, and sister of Yoon So-eun. She becomes acquainted with Hyun-wook while trying to find her sister, whom she later develops feelings for. She has a bickering relationship with Shi-woo, and is continuously wavered by his advances.

Kim Myung-soo as Shi-woo/Yong-bok
A member of boyband Infinite Power under ANA Entertainment. He is seemingly arrogant but he turns kinder to Yoon Se-na whom he develops feelings for. He is at constant conflicts over Lee Hyun-wook, who chastise him for his irresponsible actions, as well as due to their rivalry for Se-na's love.

Cha Ye-ryun as Shin Hae-yoon
One of the directors in ANA Entertainment. She has a long-term crush for Lee Hyun-wook, and constantly disrupts his relationships, with both Se-na and So-eun.

Supporting

People in AnA Entertainment
Alex Chu as Bae Sung-jin
Kim Jin-woo as Seo Jae-young
Kim Ki-bang as Yoo Sang-bong
Lee Soo-ji as An Da-jung
Jo Hee-bong as Kang Tae-min
Na Hae-ryung as Yoo Ra-eum
Shi-woo's ex-girlfriend and Rae-hoon's current girlfriend.
Hoya as Kang Rae-hoon
Leader of fictional idol group Infinite Power.
Lee Dae-yeol as San-ah
Member of fictional idol group Infinite Power.
Choi Sung-yoon as Jun-jun
Member of fictional idol group Infinite Power.
Gong Seung-yeon as Seo Yoon-ji
Fiestar as Fiestar
Choi Hyo-eun as Mi-sung

Others
Park Young-gyu as Lee Jong-ho
Hyun-wook's father.
Kim Hye-eun as Oh Hee-seon
Kim Dani as Lee Min-ah
Lee Cho-hee as Joo-hong
Park Doo-shik as Cha Gong-chul
Lee Shi-ah as Yoon So-eun (cameo)
Lee Soo-min as the young Yoon So-eun (cameo)
Hyun-wook's ex-girlfriend who died in a car accident.

Production
This drama is Director Park Hyung-ki and Writer Noh Ji-seol's third collaboration after Scent of a Woman and Dr. Champ.  The first read-through was held in August 2014 at an SBS studio in Ilsan. A press conference was held on September 15, 2014.

Original soundtrack

Ratings

References

External links

2014 South Korean television series debuts
2014 South Korean television series endings
Seoul Broadcasting System television dramas
K-pop television series
Korean-language television shows
South Korean romantic comedy television series
South Korean musical television series
Television series by AStory