Israel and the Disparity Between Academia and Commerce. By David Bergstein. The Algemeiner, December 20, 2013.
Bergstein:
Members
of the American Studies Association announced Monday that they had voted by a
margin of 2:1 in favor of boycotting Israeli academic institutions to protest
Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. According to the ASA’s website, their
rationale for said boycott stems from, “Israel’s violations of international
law and U.N. resolutions.”
Such
academic boycotts against Israel have occurred for years in Britain — the most
infamous example taking place in 2002, when two academic journals fired Israeli
professors from their boards on account of their nationality. The ASA’s vote
marks the second such occurrence in the US, with the Association for Asian
American Studies being the first to do so in April. However, additional
academic boycotts may be on the horizon, as the New York Times reported that the Modern Language Association is set
to debate “a resolution calling on the State Department to criticize Israel for
barring American professors from going to Gaza and the West Bank when invited
by Palestinian universities.”
By
stark contrast, Israel is receiving unprecedented support from the business
world, with American companies in particular demonstrating interest in
establishing partnerships with Israeli companies and investing in Israel.
Warren
Buffett has touted Israel as the “most promising investment hub” outside the
US, and in May his own Berkshire Hathaway invested $2 billion for a 20 percent
stock ownership of Israeli toolmaker, Iscar (he previously owned the other
80%). As reported by Forbes magazine in
2012, “of its (Iscar’s) 3,000 Israeli employees, roughly half are Jewish and
half Arab.”
In
November, Apple Inc. acquired Tel Aviv-based PrimeSense for a reported $350
million. The move marked the second
acquisition of an Israeli company by Apple, having purchased flash storage chip
maker Anobit in 2012.
In
July, Israeli navigation company, Waze, was acquired by Google for a reported
$1 billion. Eric Schmidt, executive chairman of Google, has said that
“investing in Israel was one of Google’s best decisions.” In the last three
years, Apple, Google and Facebook have acquired 10 Israeli companies.
So why
the disparity between the worlds of commerce and academia?
I
submit that academics have the luxury of operating in theory, while those in
business have the burden of applying theory to real world problems. In other
words, idealism as opposed to realism. When I conferred with some of my
business associates as to why Israel is consistently denigrated on campuses but
lauded on Wall Street, they concurred. In short, they felt that academia is not
accountable, in the succeed versus fail sense of the word, while commerce most
definitely is.
Academics
can point to Israeli policies in the West Bank and immediately declare them
unjust. But without considering critical details — not the least of which being
that Israel faces continuous imminent threats to its own existence by numerous
enemies sworn to annihilate the Jewish state — or submitting anything
resembling a viable alternative, those type of assertions are idealistic and
impractical.
A
theory that does not work in practice is, by its very definition, a flawed
theory. This is something that separates those who succeed in the world of
business from those who fail. The same cannot be said for academia.
Academics
can posit theory upon theory, all of which may have broad appeal on the surface
and seem quite enticing. Yet, rarely do we see whether or not a theory succeeds
when applied in the real world. The academic boycott is a perfect example.
Though considered largely symbolic by academia, the boycott can be interpreted
as a signal to those without a comprehensive understanding of the complexity of
Israel and its policies that such actions from Israel’s strongest ally are
acceptable. The potential domino effect from one or two small academic boycotts
could eventually threaten Israel’s security, its economic development, and its
existence.
What
will be said of the academic boycott, should such a worst-case scenario unfold?
Will the academic boycott be viewed as the impetus for such a calamity? Most
likely, the academics who endorsed the boycott will continue operating in their
ivory towers, unfettered and without regard for whether future theories will be
presented despite their flaws.
The
state of Israel must remain vigilant and proactive, otherwise it will cease to
exist. The same is true in the business world. Israel and American commerce
have formed a mutually beneficial partnership. When will the same be said for
Israel and American academia?
An Arab & A Jew On: ASA’s Academic Boycott. Hosted by Ahmed Shihab-Eldin and Mike Sacks. Guests: Chemi Shalev and Yousef Munayyer. HuffPost Live, December 19, 2013.
“An Arab & A Jew” debate BDS and the future of Israel/Palestine. By Annie Robbins. Mondoweiss, December 21, 2013.
