Document.no is the place to be if you want to read up on what Akersgata leaves out. It does require that you read Norwegian though, most of the time. Every now and then they post in English. Here is an excerpt from an article on the Palestine-lobby at NTNU. It is revealing, funny and deeply tragical all at once.
The decent, silent majority of researchers and professors in Trondheim who are more concerned with doing their jobs than with politics, probably share my embarassment, but many are afraid to speak out for fear of being branded by the ideological zealots. It is therefore encouraging to see that a group of professors in Trondheim who oppose the shameful idea of boycotting Israel, has asked the board to turn the proposal down and started a petition against it.
Considering the Nobel prize winners who have reacted to this campaign by standing up for Israel, and spurred by curiosity as to the scientific merits of the anti-Israel and pro-Israel groups of professors in Trondheim, both consisting of 30-40 persons, I did a little investigation: Having identified the most frequently cited work of each researcher, I calculated the average number of citations. As it turned out, the average figure of the anti-Israel group was 25, the pro-Israel group 158. Of course, this method has its limitations, but having observed such a big difference, one can safely assume that any other method of evaluation would lead to the same qualitative result with a significative margin.
The author of the article, an NTNU alumnus, prefers to remain anonymous (although he is known to Hans Rustadon, the editor of Document.no). Same as Sophie and me here at NIJ. Beutiful, eh?
What is so beautiful about the “they are stupid”-argument, if I may ask? One does not have to be very bright to see that many of the subscribers of the boycott list are professors from the faculties of the humanities and the social sciences, whereas many subscribers of the anti anti boycott list are natural scientists. Natural scientists publish more than scholars do (in numbers). The anti boycott subscribers may or may not be more successful academics than the others, but are they right because of this? There were many bright scientists in Nazi Germany too who were dedicated nazis. It didn’t make their cause any better. I am against a boycott my self, but I think this anti campaign of yours is out of proportions. I agree with you that the debate in Norway is often one sided, but it doesn’t get any better by accusing critics for being anti-semites when they are not. Try arguments instead, and try to understand the background of the critics. Most people I know who are critical towards Israel’s policy towards the Palestinians support the state of Israel as such. The complexity and tragedy of this case is, as Cecilie Hellestveit (one of the invited lecturer’s of the NTNU seminar) said, that this is a conflict where both parts are right. It is easy to understand Arabs and Palestinians who felt that their land was stolen from them. On the other hand, Holocaust made the need for a Jewish homeland necessary. For Europeans today it is impossible to go back on this now, 60 years after the state was established. But there are many very interesting and touchy aspects to discuss that are – at least in Norway – never discussed at all, because the debate seems to be formed by two parts, one criticising Israel’s discrimination of the Palestinians, the occupation and the settlements (in particular), and one who supports Israel on the basis of their threatened situation in an area with only hostile neighbors and numerous bomb attacks.
I read the dissertation of Vågstøl that you Kristian linked to. It was very interesting indeed. Amongst other thing i noticed that an early stance of the pro-palestinians were that they want a state of Israel that is not primarily Jewish, but one that equals all religions, just like South Africa. In one way that is of course an appalling thought, also because the very idea of a state for people belonging to one religion is quite anachronistic in a time where most Western countries are striving towards secularism. On the other hand there are strong arguments to keep it a Jewish state (I hold this stance myself, I will not argue further for this here). If you keep the principle of a Jewish state, some discrimination of the Palestinians must necessarily happen. That is not good, but it might be necessary. It is better to be open about this and argue fairly, rather than calling all critics of Israel anti-semites because they are not criticizing Ahmadinejad as much. Israel i s a very particular conflict that concerns us all, symbolically as well as politically. To stick to the Gerstenfeld-tactique in the long run, I am sure, will only make more ennemies, not less.
Best regards,
Nils Lund
Dear Nils F. Lund
Thanks, will get back to you.
Kristian T