After the American Century

Should Nordic Universities Boycott Israeli Universities?

Neither the Hamas regime nor the Israeli government can be described as innocents. Both have been wronged. Both can be accused of unreasonable violence. Both have committed unlawful acts. Both might be accused before the World Court of war crimes committed during their current conflict. 

Some demand that we take sides, as if this would help resolve the crisis. In particular, some are calling for Nordic universities to boycott Israeli universities. This idea is hardly new, as it has also been advocated by supporters of Palestine in the United States. Such proposals attack the foundation of universities, as institutions that promote freedom of speech, dialogue, and cultural diplomacy. During the Cold War there were still exchanges between universities on either side of the Iron Curtain, notably those of the Fulbright Program. Russian and eastern European professors went to the United States, and Americans went the other way. For half a century all sorts of cultural exchanges, including orchestras, choirs, writers, engineers, farmers, and many more, helped maintain a dialogue between the two sides. When the Cold War ended, the Berlin Wall came down with scarcely a shot being fired. Decades of cultural exchange played a role in achieving that result. In the current conflict, the Nordic countries are not at war with either side, and the best role they can play is that of honest brokers. This is not a new role. Remember the Oslo Accords of the 1990s?

If you join a boycott in order to support the Palestinians, you are siding with Hamas and with Iran, which is fighting proxy wars and supporting terrorism in the Middle East. If you support the Israelis, then you are joining hands with an extreme right-wing government, whose prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been undermining democratic institutions in Israel, as well as treating the Palestinians unjustly. Boycotting Israel's universities will not bother that government very much, and it will likely please the rightwing extremists who support Prime Minister Netanyahu. Universities are places where moderates can work toward a different and more democratic future than what either Hamas or the right-wing Israeli government are fighting for. The former chair of the American Association of University Professors, Cary Nelson has written, "there is more academic freedom in Israel than in other nations in the Middle East. It is hypocritical and a fundamental betrayal of our mission as academics to advocate boycotting universities not because of their fundamental character but because of the policies of the nation in which they are located."

Yet Michelle Pace's essay in Politiken (29.11.23) calls for a boycott of all Israeli universities. She does not compare them to universities in Syria, Iran, or other Middle Eastern nations that are dictatorships. Only Israel's universities are guilty by geographical association. Her proposal would isolate moderate Israelis, many of whom are professors and students. The actual situation is not fairly described in her essay, which depicts Israeli academic research as being almost identical with government plans and policies. In fact, opposition to the Netanyahu government has been notable in the universities, and they teach not only Jews but also Arabs, Christians, Druze, and agnostics. There are about 320,000 students, including more than 40,000 Arabs, whose numbers were increasing rapidly before the current crisis. A boycott would prevent them from taking a term abroad in Denmark. Is that sensible? Is it defensible to prevent Israeli academics from attending conferences in the Nordic countries, regardless of their point of view? Is a boycott to be extended to their books, journals, or articles, regardless of subject matter? Are medical laboratories to break off cooperative research that has nothing to do with the war? Should Jewish writers, regardless of nationality, to be banned as well? 

Universities struggle to maintain academic freedom, and boycotts are threats to that freedom. The American Association of University Professors has long opposed the use of university boycotts. Of course there are professors in every nation's universities who support their government's actions, but that hardly justifies boycotting an entire university system. 

Boycotting Israeli universities would punish 350,000 students and faculty indiscriminately. By isolating moderates who seek conflict resolution and by taking sides with Hamas, who seek to eradicate Israel, a boycott would be like throwing kerosene on a fire. The university is the wrong target, and a boycott is the wrong weapon. In times of polarization it is crucial to maintain dialogue and free speech so that a resolution can become possible. The goal is not to proclaim virtuous outrage, take sides, and demand a boycott. The goal is to support moderates on both sides and help them to find peace.

During the Vietnam War, protests occurred at universities in both the United States and around the world. The protests were primarily calls for peace. I participated in many of them from 1966 until the end of that war in 1975, and the crowds were singing, "All we are saying, is give peace a chance." I suggest that Michelle Pace and others who are attracted to a boycott might reconsider their tactics. A boycott is a negation, a refusal to engage in dialogue, and a claim of superior virtue that will anger one side and encourage the other, helping to sustain a conflict. What we need are large, non-violent protests that include not only Palestinians and refugees now living in Denmark but also a broader coalition calling for peace and asking politicians to take an active role as arbitrators. 

Can Tillerson still be Secretary of State after Trading with the Enemy?

After the American Century

The Newsletter 538 noted the following about an article that appeared in USA Today.

"Between 2003 and 2005, the oil and gas company Infineum reported $53.2 million in sales to Iran. During that time, Exxon Mobil had a 50 percent stake in Infineum. Also during that time, the U.S. had sanctions on Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism. Rex Tillerson, a top Exxon executive at the time of the deal and later its CEO, is now President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee to run the State Department."

So the nominee for Secretary of State broke the US sanction on Iran during George Bush's presidency. (Exxon Mobile also did business with Sudan through the same proxy company, but it was a much smaller transaction.) Iran was then well-known to sponsor terrorist and dissident groups in various parts of the Middle East, hence the sanctions, so there it is not possible for Tillerson to claim he didn't know. 

After this revelation, here are the problems with making Rex Tillerson Secretary of State:

1. He has broken the law in order to make a profit. The claim made in defense is that Infineum is based in Europe, and that no Americans were employed in making these transactions. To avoid violating US law, under this Secretary of State it would seem, it is just fine so long as you do it through a proxy. 
2. He has taken sides in the Middle East, trading with Iran during the time of sanctions.
3. He will not be trusted by an important American ally, Israel, which fears the Iranian atomic program.
4. He will not be trusted by Saudi Arabia, a second important ally, who is constantly in conflict with Iran over a great many issues.
5. He will be regarded with suspicion by a third ally, Turkey.
6. The worst suspicions of US critics, that its foreign policy is concerned not with principles but profits, specfically oil profits, will be confirmed.

That is rather a large amount of baggage to be carrying into confirmation hearings. Can his fellow Republicans stomach all that?

It seems the Republicans cannot stay away from making deals with the Iranians. That was their problem during the Reagan years, too. The original Irangate was also about trading with the enemy.  Is that the credential needed to be Trump's Secretary of State?

Might Japan Be the Broker to Negotiate Peace Between Israel and Palestine?

After the American Century

The Middle East has been the burying ground for American diplomatic missions for decades. Each new president and each new Secretary of State thinks peace is finally going to be attainable. Each is disappointed in different ways. Sometimes peace seems to have been achieved, with treaties signed and handshakes all around. That was Jimmy Carter's experience. Relations were better for a while, particularly between Egypt and Israel, but real peace did not emerge. It is too tedious to go through all the other administrations before or since then, but no one who has followed it all can help but be a bit depressed.

Not only is Israel seemingly no closer to peace with its neighbors than in the 1960s, but the entire neighborhood is in a worse uproar that usual. Syria is in a civil war, with millions of refugees, and none of the three (or is it four or five?) sides is a particularly attractive option.  Iraq is falling apart, along religious and ethnic lines, even in the face of the rise of ISIS, a new factor in teh region, which seeks to create an Islamic state. The Egyptians have gone back to military rule, after a brief experiment with democracy brought the conservative Muslim Brotherhood to power. Lebanon is struggling to remain out of the violence in Syria. The Palestinians are split into two factions. The one in Gaza continues to launch largely ineffective rockets at Israel, to show that they can do it. In return they are pulverized, and gain some sympathy outside the region. But the Hamas is bankrupt, economically speaking, part of the fallout from the Syrian civil war.  For decades Hamas has built complex systems of tunnels underground, which have now been destroyed. The other Palestinians are a bit less militant, but also unable to come to an agreement with Israel.

But perhaps because things are so bad, a negotiated settlement might be attainable. However, this requires a neutral broker to do the job. Who could that be?  When American diplomats attempt to negotiate peace, they are usually perceived to be Israel's allies, and it is hard to convince Arabs that Washington can be an honest broker. Yet Americans are even-handed, the Israeli government typically becomes upset and stirs up problems in the US, through its conservative allies. In short, the Americans are in many respects not well-positioned to broker a deal. Perhaps it is time for the US to step back from its direct diplomatic efforts and instead to encourage another nation to take the lead.

But if not the Americans, who? The EU would seem the obvious choice, but the EU does not have a shared foreign policy. Each member state has a somewhat different policy, and it cannot function effectively in such a negotiating situation. (Indeed, the EU is not good at handling international crises.)  Russia has strongly sided with Syria, where it has a major base, which makes it unacceptable to Israelis. What has long been needed is an honest broker whom both sides have no reason to distrust. The lone superpower manifestly cannot impose a settlement, or it would done so by now. Instead, a country like Japan, Brazil or South Africa might be able to do broker successful negotiations, though none of these three seems to have any inclination to do so. 

My own preference would be Japan, precisely because they are so far from the Middle East and have no obvious axe to grind. The Japanese are also patient negotiators, who take for granted that before a meaningful agreement is possible it is necessary to spend some time face to face. Wouldn't it be worth a try? Imagine Palestinian and Israeli representatives in a pleasant, remote Japanese hotel, with a view of the sea. Taken away from their familiar surroundings, immersed in the fascincating cultural world of Japan, they might gradually find some common ground.

What might be in it for the Japanese? Three things. (1) International praise for succeeding where all others have failed, with a very real chance to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. (2) National pride as Japan shows its importance on the world stage, pushing its economic stagnation and nuclear woes into the background. (3) Recognition as a force for peaceful coexistence, in contrast to Chinese muscle flexing in their own region.

As the US heads into another presidential election, it seems particularly unlikely that it can negotiate peace between Israel and Palestine. It is time to admit the obvious facts. The US is too entangled with its ally Israel to do the job, and it has so many complex and often conflicting interests in the Middle East that it will have trouble focusing on this single problem.  But will any other nation take up the challenge?