An academic boycott of two Israeli colleges agreed by the Association of University Teachers suffered a setback on May 26 when a special AUT conference overturned the boycott decision.
The reversal was the product of a frenzied, internationally orchestrated, backlash, assisted by a compliant media that misreported the debate. In particular the movers were presented as anti-Semites attacking academic freedom and the main chance of "peace" - dialogue.
These slurs were based on false equations between opposition to the Israeli state and anti-Semitism, an indefensible elevation of "academic freedom" above other basic rights (for instance the right to live) and ignored the demonstrable failure of dialogue.
Despite this set-back, the overall struggle has been a step forward. It put the issue of the Israeli occupation of Palestine back on the map in a significant way. Despite all the distortions, few voices were raised in support of the occupation or against the need for defence of Palestinian rights - rather the argument was on how to get there.
But the other side are organising as well. The Israeli state, in the form of Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is setting up a "task force" to run an international campaign involving public figures and academics to pre-empt further boycott initiatives.
A range of strategic questions have been thrown up. Most importantly, how can supporters of Palestianian self-determination continue to seek ways of linking the Palestinian struggle against oppression with the domestic struggles of the western working class?
In the course of the AUT debate, those who defended the boycott rightly pointed to parallels with the movement against apartheid South Africa: the racially discriminatory legal basis for the state and it's definition of citizenship; heavy controls on freedom of "democracy" that bans parties suggesting a denial of the right of the state to exist; the systematic control and carving up of the land on a racist basis; rights, privileges and benefits accorded by ethnic status.
Yet to succeed, any boycott movement will have to develop sophisticated understanding of the differences as well. For example, there is little doubt that apartheid only survived because of the tacit support of western reactionaries like Thatcher and multinational corporations and arms companies anxious for their super-profits.
But the EU and USA are united their explicit defence of the Israeli state and Zionism as a matter of principle, even while they favour its reform. They back this by official arms sales, trade and enormous financial subventions (particularly from the
Not only does this present a much bigger obstacle to isolating the Israeli state, but at a political level it ensures that anti-Zionism is marginalised and weakened in a way that was never the case with the anti-apartheid movement.
It will not be enough, or institutional boycotts. Any political movement must also target the state and its role. Further, there is no way round tackling the question of Zionism and what it means.
The broadest possible movement must be built around slogans such as: end the occupation and all collaboration with it; for the Palestinian right to return; free the prisoners; freedom of movement, pull down the apartheid wall.
The best chance of success is a strategy that infuses these issues with support for Palestinian self-determination and opposition to Zionism. The ultimate goal must be unitary secular democratic state. While the strategic goals may not be a basis for mass support as yet, the political arguments involved must still inform the campaigns.
One way of doing this is to build direct links between British organisations, particularly unions, and their Palestinian counterparts. During the anti-apartheid struggle workers boycotts -like the Liverpool dockers refusing to handle uranium from occupied Namibia were exceptional.
This is not to argue they should not be a priority now. But their success is more likely in the context of broader movements that can more readily mobilise larger forces.
The period since the AUT resolution and reversal has, in this sense, been one of hope. For instance a variety of church bodies have taken divestment decisions of one sort or another. of the USA, the New England Methodist annual conference, the UK Methodist conference, the Anglican Consultative Council and the World Council of Churches all moved in this direction over the course of May and June. Although largely symbolic their stance raises the credibility and acceptability of the arguments in a broader audience.
Another lesson of the AUT campaign was the successful use of targeting. The focus was on two colleges demonstrably involved in the occupation: Bar-Illan directly linked with a college in an illegally occupied settler outpost and Haifa with a history of promoting academic backing for the occupation and related issues.
Not only did this have a greater chance of success, from which progress could be made to boycotting other institutions.
It also avoided being discredited in the manner of the Anti-Apartheid Movement's "cultural boycott", which clamped down on all artistic and intellectual contact -even with black anti-racists -if they were not officially sanctioned by the liberation movement leadership.
This is significant given the central role that must be played in highlighting the opposition from within Israeli society itself - not just by intellectuals, but particularly refusnik soldiers many of whom are in prison and urgently need higher profile solidarity. • For more campaign information: www.palestinecampaign.org