|
May 11, 2005
An Open letter to Professor Tanya Reinhart
From Maurice Ostroff
Dear Professor Tanya Reinhart,
I was saddened but not surprised to read in the May 6, issue of Metro,
that you advocate extending the AUT boycott to all Israeli universities,
including your own Tel Aviv University.
I am saddened because your expertise as a professor of theoretical
linguistics obviously does not extend to the use of language to convey an
objective picture of the situation you are describing. For example, last
year the Palestinian universities of Al-Quds, Bethlehem and Hebron as well
as the Palestine Polytechnic Institute and several Israeli universities
including your own TAU and the boycotted Haifa U signed a "Declaration of
Principles of Palestinian-Israeli Cooperation in Scientific and Academic
Affairs". In the light of this agreement, it is truly sad that a
professor who teaches the scientific study of language, advocates
boycotting all Israeli universities because "no Israeli academic
institution assists Bir Zeit University" creating the completely false
impression that Bir Zeit is the only Palestinian academic institution,
ergo, no Israeli academic institutions assist or cooperate with any
Palestinian institutions.
Omitting mention of the fact that it is Bir Zeit which refuses to
cooperate with Israeli institutions not vice versa, adds to the erroneous
impression created.
On the assumption that your sincere motivation is to achieve a peaceful
solution to the Israel-Arab conflict it is sad too, that you choose the
path of belligerent confrontation rather than the positive approach of
intellectuals, including the rector of University of Rome, presidents of
Israeli and Palestinian universities and representatives of UNESCO who
signed the agreement calling on all academic and scientific institutions
to create conditions where NO ACADEMIC INSTITUTION , SCIENTIST OR STUDENT
WILL BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST.
So much for my sadness. My lack of surprise is due to your long history of
imbalance and inaccuracies in accusing Israel of unforgivable misdeeds
while whitewashing Israel's openly hostile enemies. For example, in 2002
at the University of Amsterdam, you stated "Israel defines its military
action as a necessary defense against terrorism. But in fact, the first
Palestinian terrorist attack on Israeli civilians inside Israel occurred
on November 2, 2000." Even Israel's most ardent detractors must concede
that this ridiculous statement is plainly untrue. The indisputable fact is
that Israeli civilians have suffered continuous terror attacks long before
there existed the excuse of the 1967 occupation and in fact ever since the
birth of the state.
Not only did your linguistic talent permit you to interpret Yitzchak
Rabin's entry into the Oslo accords as an insincere act with a hidden
agenda, you described Ehud Barak's Camp David negotiations as "mastery
deception" without any attempt at substantiation of these serious
allegations; allegations you used to bolster an appeal to your Dutch
audience to deprive Israel of free access to Schiphol airport for transit
of goods.
You advocate "the path that follows UN resolution 242. Israel should
withdraw immediately from the territories occupied in 1967, as it did in
Lebanon. It is amazing how simple and feasible it would still be to
achieve that". Simple indeed! I believe even Kofi Anan would consider the
word "simple" in this context as naïve.
Since you rely on resolution 242 as the basis for your claims, and as an
academic I assume you rely on authoritative sources, I suggest you cannot
do better than refer to then British Ambassador to the UN, Lord Caradon,
American Ambassador, Arthur Goldberg and US Undersecretary of State for
Political Affairs , Eugene W. Rostow, all of whom were involved in
drafting the resolution. All three have stated categorically that they
deliberately omitted a call for Israel to return to the pre-1967 borders.
In an interview in the Beirut Daily Star on June 12, 1974 Lord Caradon
said:
"It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions
of June 4, 1967 because these positions were undesirable and artificial.
After all, they were just the places where the soldiers on each side
happened to be on the day the fighting stopped in 1948. They were just
armistice lines. That's why we didn't demand that the Israelis return to
them, and I think we were right not to."
In an article "Historical Approach to the Issue of Legality of Jewish
Settlement Activity"published in The New Republic on April 23, 1990,
Rostow wrote:
"...the Armistice Agreements specifically provide, except in the case
of Lebanon, that the demarcation lines can be changed by agreement when
the parties move from armistice to peace. Resolution 242 is based on that
provision of the Armistice Agreements and states certain criteria that
would justify changes in the demarcation lines when the parties make
peace."
One of the 20th century's leading authorities on the Law of Nations, the
late Prof. Julius Stone wrote:
"...Israel's presence in all these areas (West bank and Gaza) pending
negotiations of new borders is entirely lawful, since Israel entered them
lawfully in self-defence. " "Israel's presence" he said, "in all these
areas (West bank and Gaza) pending negotiations of new borders is entirely
lawful, since Israel entered them lawfully in self-defence. "
"..in the case of Israel's self-defence in 1967, the entry on the
territory (West Bank, Gaza and Golan) was lawful. The effect of a
prohibition (of entry by a defender, to an aggressor's territory MO.)
would be to guarantee to all potential aggressors that, even if their
aggression failed, all territory lost in the attempt would be
automatically returned to them. Such a rule would be absurd to the point
of lunacy. There is no such rule......."
I will most certainly be prepared to consider your views about the
proposed academic boycott, if you would support them with factual and more
credible arguments. Your considered reply would be appreciated.
|
