TO: The Committee
Edinburgh University Student Association
May I be permitted
to say a few words to members of the EUSA? I am an
Edinburgh graduate (MA 1975) who studied Persian,
Arabic and Islamic History in Buccleuch Place under William Montgomery Watt and Laurence Elwell Sutton,
wo ofBritain's great Middle East experts
in their day. I later went on to do a PhD at Cambridge and to teach Arabic and Islamic Studies at Newcastle
University. Naturally, I
am the author of several books and hundreds of articles
in this field.
I say all that
to show that I am well informed in Middle Eastern affairs and
that, for that
reason, I am shocked and disheartened by the EUSA motion and
vote. I am shocked
for a simple reason: there is not and has never been a
system of apartheid
in Israel. That is not my opinion, that
is fact that can
be tested against
reality by any Edinburgh student, should he or she choose
to visit Israel to see for themselves.
Let me spell this
out, since I have the impression that those members of
EUSA who voted
for this motion are absolutely clueless in matters concerning
Israel, and that they are, in all likelihood,
the victims of extremely
biased propaganda
coming from the anti-Israel lobby. Being anti-Israel is
not in itself
objectionable. But I'm not talking about ordinary criticism of
Israel. I'm speaking of a hatred that
permits itself no boundaries in the
lies and myths
it pours out. Thus, Israel is repeatedly
referred to as a
"Nazi" state.
In what sense is this true, even as a metaphor? Where are the
Israeli concentration
camps? The einzatsgruppen? The SS? The Nuremberg Laws?
The Final Solution?
None of these things nor anything remotely resembling
them exists in
Israel, precisely because the Jews, more
than anyone on
earth, understand
what Nazism stood for. It is claimed that there has been
an Israeli Holocaust
in Gaza (or elsewhere). Where? When? No honest
historian would
treat that claim with anything but the contempt it
deserves. But calling Jews Nazis and saying they have committed a Holocaust is as basic a way to subvert historical fact as anything I can
think of.
Likewise apartheid.
For apartheid to exist, there would have to be a
situation that
closely resembled how things were in South Africa
under the
apartheid regime.
Unfortunately for those who believe this, a weekend in any
part of Israel would be enough to show how ridiculous the claim is.
That a
body of university
students actually fell for this and voted on it is a sad
comment on the
state of modern education. The most obvious focus for
apartheid would
be the country's 20% Arab population. Under Israeli law,
Arab Israelis
have exactly the same rights as Jews or anyone else; Muslims
have the same
rights as Jews or Christians; Baha'is, severely persecuted in
Iran, flourish in Israel,
where they have their world centre; Ahmadi
Muslims, severely
persecuted in Pakistan and elsewhere,
are kept safe by
Israel; the holy places of all religions
are protected under a specific
Israeli law. Arabs
form 20% of the university population (an exact echo of
their percentage
in the general population). In Iran, the
Bahai's (the
largest religious
minority) are forbidden to study in any university or to
run their own
universities: why aren't your members boycotting Iran?
Arabs in Israel can go anywhere they want, unlike blacks in apartheid
South
Africa. They use public transport, they eat in restaurants, they go to
swimming pools,
they use libraries, they go to cinemas alongside Jews -
something no blacks
were able to do in South Africa. Israeli
hospitals not
only treat Jews
and Arabs, they also treat Palestinians from Gaza or the
West Bank. On the same wards, in the same operating theatres.
In Israel, women have the same rights as men: there is no gender
apartheid.
Gay men and women
face no restrictions, and Palestinian gays often escape
into Israel, knowing they may be killed at home. It seems bizarre
to me that
LGBT groups call
for a boycott of Israel and say nothing
about countries
like Iran, where gay men are hanged or stoned to death. That illustrates
a
mindset that beggars
belief. Intelligent students thinking it's better to be
silent about regimes
that kill gay people, but good to condemn the only
country in the
Middle East that rescues and protects gay people. Is that
supposed to be
a sick joke?
University is
supposed to be about learning to use your brain, to think
rationally, to
examine evidence, to reach conclusions based on solid
evidence, to compare
sources, to weigh up one view against one or more
others. If the
best Edinburgh can now produce are students who have no idea
how to do any
of these things, then the future is bleak. I do not object to
well-documented
criticism of Israel. I do object when
supposedly intelligent
people single
the Jewish state out above states that are horrific in their
treatment of their
populations. We are going through the biggest upheaval in
the Middle East since the 7th and 8th centuries, and it's clear that Arabs
and Iranians are
rebelling against terrifying regimes that fight back by
killing their
own citizens. Israeli citizens, Jews and Arabs alike, do not
rebel (though
they are free to protest). Yet Edinburgh students mount no
demonstrations
and call for no boycotts against Libya, Bahrain, Saudi
Arabia, Yemen, and Iran. They prefer to make false accusations against one
of the world's
freest countries, the only country in the Middle East that
has taken in Darfur
refugees, the only country in the Middle East that gives
refuge to gay
men and women, the only country in the Middle East that
protects the Bahai's....
Need I go on? The imbalance is perceptible, and it
sheds no credit
on anyone who voted for this boycott.
I ask you to show
some common sense. Get information from the Israeli
embassy. Ask for
some speakers. Listen to more than one side. Do not make
your minds up
until you have given a fair hearing to both parties. You have
a duty to your
students, and that is to protect them from one-sided
argument. They
are not at university to be propagandized. And they are
certainly not
there to be tricked into anti-Semitism by punishing one
country among
all the countries of the world, which happens to be the only
Jewish state.
If there had been a single Jewish state in the 1930s (which,
sadly, there was
not), don't you think Adolf Hitler would have decided to
boycott it? Of
course he would, and he would not have stopped there. Your
generation has
a duty to ensure that the perennial racism of anti-Semitism
never sets down
roots among you. Today, however, there are clear signs that
it has done so
and is putting down more. You have a chance to avert a very
great evil, simply
by using reason and a sense of fair play. Please tell me
that this makes
sense. I have given you some of the evidence.
It's up to you
to find out more.
Yours sincerely,
Denis MacEoin
