Apparently, they’ve tried, with a little success, but Hamas have recently pushed many of the changes made back. Can we safely assume that the views expressed previously, before pressure was applied to change them, are ones Hamish would endorse being taught to any child? British children too?

Hamish Q: Blazes new frontiers of falsehoods with his statement that is important to expose and challenge “the brutal oppression that goes on in the EDUCATIONAL world of Israel and the Occupied Territories.” Yep, that’s right Israeli educators are involved in not only educating young Israelis, but going over to the Palestinian Territories, persumerbly in their spare time, and oppressing Palestinian youngsters. Or perhaps Israeli educators take young Israelis on field trips to the Gaza Strip and the West Bank so they can beat up on poor defenseless Palestinian kids. Believe this says all we need to know about the thought processes, if they can be called that, of Hamish Q.

Reader, you would be wrong. Actions taken that have a discriminatory effect on one ethnic group are indirect discrimination and in Great Britain since 1976 they have been illegal.

“I wanted to be clear about what you are arguing. Is your view that unions might legitimately adopt a boycott tactic but it is illegitimate to focus it on one country ie picking on Israel, while other perpetrators of oppression/occupation go unpunished? Or are you saying that this kind of tactic is illegitimate and always likely to be discriminatory?”

intrinsically, I am not arguing eitherm at the moment, I’m trying to elicit the criteria for the choice of Israel at the objective of this venom

is it rational, objective or just because the country starts with the letter I and ends in L?

I have been asking this question for years and yet despite the fact that the pro boycott campaign is full of professional philosophers I have yet to receive a logical and cogent answer, it seems to me that there are a lot of hidden assumptions with this issue and I’d prefer that people put their cards on the table, that’s all

as for the words, you know as well as I do you could word a motion that is discriminatory, but uses euphemisms without expressly stating the object of the prejudice or the consequences of that discrimination?

need I spell it out?

of course, I appreciate that you are not a crazed boycotter but in my view on this obsessive attitude at UCU achieves very little (makes a few politicos have a warm feeling), brings trade unions into disrepute and is discriminatory

that’s aside from the fact that UCU members are leaving as a consequence and many ex-members feel that UCU is not a friendly environment for Jews to be in

I think that should ring alarm bells among trade unionists, don’t you?

I wanted to be clear about what you are arguing. Is your view that unions might legitimately adopt a boycott tactic but it is illegitimate to focus it on one country ie picking on Israel, while other perpetrators of oppression/occupation go unpunished? Or are you saying that this kind of tactic is illegitimate and always likely to be discriminatory?

From all the posts I have looked at here and on Engage it would seem that Israel was the only case discussed but checking back on the UCU website I note that they debated motions on Darfur, Zimbabwe and Burma too.

I think you know that I’m not enormously struck on the academic boycott idea as a way of exposing and challenging the brutal oppression that goes on in the educational world of Israel and the Occupied Territories but I do think this is a more sophisticated motion and approach than previous ones and if it does prove to have merit then it ought to be applied to other places where similar oppression occurs.

My general worries about boycott tactics is that if they can end up dividing progressive forces while uniting reactionary forces. But I don’t see that as inevitable and certainly in the South African case apart form some very fringe element the progressive forces were united and strengthened and the reactionary elements that had been clinging on to support for South Africa were divided and weakened.

when you have a moment, between optician’s appointments I’d be grateful if you could address the points in my post of 30 May 2008, 4:32 pm

The real thing: I am being boycotted for being a Jew living in my homeland. Not for anything else I have done.

Save your words, weasel Hamish, you know as well as I do that nothing short of the destruction of Israel will satisfy the boycotters.