24 No. 74 JUSTICE It is common practice among universities that impose such boycotts to do so without engaging their Israeli counterparts beforehand. This constitutes a violation of fundamental principles of natural justice, which includes notifying those affected of the intention to impose sanctions and offering an opportunity to respond or engage in dialogue. The complete absence of such dialogue suggests that these boycotts amount to collective punishment based solely on national origin. Boycotts based solely on national origin are, in almost all cases, unjust. A potential exception may arise when a state is responsible for severe and systematic human rights violations, and there is little or no prospect for change through internal democratic means, such as elections, judicial review, or other institutional mechanisms. In situations where regimes suppress free speech, manipulate elections, lack judicial independence, or enjoy widespread public support for morally reprehensible policies, a boycott might be considered necessary. However, in a functioning democracy such as Israel, an indiscriminate academic boycott is both immoral and unlawful. Legal norms prohibit unjustified academic boycotts based on national origin. These norms are set in laws and institutional bylaws of universities and funding agencies. They include: (1) the right to academic freedom, which is violated when institutions interfere without justification in a researcher’s choice of collaborators; (2) the right to free speech, which protects the ability of faculty and students to engage with Israeli peers; (3) prohibitions on hate speech and incitement to racism, including antisemitism, as boycotts targeting individuals based on national origin are often expressions of hatred; and (4) anti-discrimination laws, which prohibit exclusion based on national origin among other protected categories. These legal protections apply to both public and private universities, either through specific statutes or constitutional principles. They also extend to activities supported by public funding, such as, in the United States, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the regulations of the National Science Foundation. While the threat of legal consequences, particularly the loss of public funding, acts to some extent as a deterrent against institutionally sanctioned boycotts, it has not eradicated the practice. Institutions often obscure the true motive behind decisions to sever ties with the Israeli academic community by targeting specific institutions and citing alleged complicity in human rights violations (e.g., offering academic programs for IDF soldiers). These accusations are frequently based on incorrect or misleading information, and the decisions are typically made without prior notice or invitation to dialogue. This circumvents proper scrutiny and complicates the enforcement of legal norms, as each case must be assessed individually. Beyond legal measures, informal discourse plays a key role in addressing boycott decisions. Such discussions aim to persuade decision-makers that if their goal is to promote compliance by the Israeli government with international law and values of peace and tolerance, cutting ties with Israeli academia is counterproductive. Israel’s democracy, though challenged, includes a vibrant liberal sector that plays a crucial role in checking governmental power. Undermining Israeli academia would weaken this liberal voice and erode democratic resilience. In Israel, as in other democracies, there is a strong correlation between higher education and support for liberal values, judicial independence, and a peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Higher education also serves as a vital mechanism of social mobility for Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel. Israeli academics are leading efforts to preserve democracy and uphold international law. Many have been central in opposing the 2023 judicial overhaul and are currently among those protesting government policy in the context of the war by calling for a ceasefire and for Prime Minister Netanyahu’s resignation. Marginalizing these individuals by pushing them out of Israel risks collapsing mechanisms of judicial oversight and strengthening extremist voices advocating “Jewish supremacy.” A robust Israeli academic sector is essential to guiding the country in a more just and democratic direction. This sector should thus be supported, not targeted. Moreover, Israeli universities are inherently diverse, with Jews and Arab-Palestinians studying and teaching together. These institutions, which maintain full autonomy, serve as safe spaces for open dialogue and critical examination of government policy. Weakening them would diminish opportunities for meaningful interaction across communities. An international academic boycott also deprives global scholars and students of the opportunity to engage with Israeli peers, which helps foster mutual understanding and intellectual growth. 3. Inward-Facing Responses to the Boycott The fact that calls for an academic boycott of Israel come not only from BDS supporters – who reject Israel’s right to exist – but also from individuals who genuinely seek peace, reflects, in part, a lack of knowledge about
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgzNzA=