I was recently talking to a friend in Europe, where his government is debating boycotting Israeli universities. I then stumbled on the linked article, debating whether such a boycott is warranted and/or useful.
I recently had a collaboration with an academic from Israel. He does outstanding research, and the last time I met him in Korea, it was before the Hamas attack on the music festival. When discussing the politics of his country over dinner, he expressed his strong negative thoughts toward Netanyahu. Actually, many academics don't like his authoritarian style, he told me. That was before the attacks, but I imagine these events and the authoritarian response to them likely have strengthened his opposition towards his own government.
Putting aside my personal bias that I think Israel is perpetuating genocide at an unprecedented and unchecked level, I do wonder about the more general effectiveness of this kind of boycott.
The sanctions imposed by Europe on Russia only have a symbolic impact. Russian gas still gets used in Europe, just with more intermediaries to get it there. Russians still get to drink in fancy chalets in the Alps after the closing of the ski-slopes, etc. I'd say it's more the innocent citizens rather than the elite that end up suffering from sanctions.
I'm afraid this kind of academic boycott will have a similar impact. I don't want this collaborator, who clearly does not support Netanyahu, to have his academic career hampered by his government's actions. I don't think a boycott will push him more to oppose his government. He likely already does everything he can to express his discontent. This is not going to change anything.
What say you? Putting aside your personal convictions on a specific conflict, do you think boycotts, sanctions, etc are the way to go to achieve a behavior change? Do you have examples where this kind of things worked? Or examples where it backfired?
Here some relevant quotes from the linked article.
In favor of boycott:
Ilan Pappé: ‘Israeli universities are complicit’ The academic boycott of Israel is part of the Boycott, Divest and Sanction campaign that started in 2005. It does not target Israeli individuals, just institutions. Under the boycott, for example, Israeli scholars can participate in academic conferences. However, one is not permitted to attend events hosted by Israeli universities. The boycott is supported by an increasing number of academic communities, which is a trend that has accelerated in the wake of the brutal Israeli war against Gaza.
Academics and scholarly associations, which were reluctant in the past to join the campaign, are now fully behind it. Today the boycott affects every academic discipline in Israel: joint research proposals and projects are declined. While in the past, some of those initiating the boycott did not always fully share their reasons, now they openly explain why they are taking such actions; namely that Israeli academia is complicit directly or indirectly in the crimes of the state.
For the first time, Israeli universities are expressing alarm at the effect that this boycott will have on their capacity to conduct research at a high level (whereas in the past they dismissed the possible impact of the boycott).
Against the boycott:
Flora Cassen: ‘Boycotts reinforce ideological bubbles’ The war between Israel and Gaza needs to end. Scholars and academic institutions have a role to play in this, but boycotting Israeli universities and scholars will not achieve this goal. On the contrary, boycotts undermine the core mission of academia: to foster intellectual spaces where knowledge is produced and transmitted through research, teaching and the free exchange of ideas and perspectives.
Universities are not international criminal courts where judgments are rendered or the corridors of power where peace treaties are hammered out. They are establishments of higher learning where we study past and current wars, analyze their effects on people and politics and explore whether these conflicts ended or persisted and why. Our classes challenge students to think more deeply and creatively and apply past lessons to the present. Some of our students will be tomorrow’s leaders, diplomats or negotiators. As academic institutions, we serve them and society well by exposing them to the world’s complexity and the wide range of ideas and opinions they will encounter.
I'd like to invite @Cje95 to give his opinions too, as he seems to work inside the institutions that have the power to impose sanctions at state level. Of course, no pressure. This may be outside of your comfort zone.