IU's response to the ASA boycott

The American Studies Association’s planned boycott of all things Israel has not done much but to stigmatize academia as woefully out of touch with prevailing sentiment in the United States.
Fortunately, President McRobbie has done the right thing by withdrawing from this boycott and holding true to the axiom that Israel’s actions do not warrant an academic embargo.
Similar to the climate divestment resolution that IUSA continues to debate, this academic boycott comes from the belief that this strategy was successful in ending apartheid in South Africa.
The supposition that Israel is an apartheid state is the justification for the academic boycott in the first place.
The ASA and others claim that Israel’s actions have justified a boycott with the occupation of Gaza, the late Ariel Sharon’s security wall and the increased scrutiny of the Palestinians.
We would argue that Israel’s actions are perfectly reasonable given the climate and the long history of distrust between the two sides of the struggle.
Of course, it is fallacious and short-sighted to say these admittedly invidious security measures set upon the Palestinians are there because all Palestinians are terrorists and seek to kill
Israelis.
This dilemma is a problem that cannot be easily solved with a simple solution, but when the security of its citizens is at stake, we cannot blame Israel for doing what it deems
necessary.
The Afrikaner justification for apartheid was one based on race, not national security. The Sauer Commission sought to deal with complaints from the whites in the city, even though “coloured” people had not demonstrated a threat.
Israel, on the other hand, faces a hostile set of neighbors and was fighting for its very right to exist. Considering the neighborhood, we do not believe Israel’s actions are
unwarranted.
Before Israel will consider actions such as knocking down the settlement wall and officially ordering the settlements to move, there must be actions taken by the Palestinians to act in good faith.
Constant invective against “Zionist oppressors” and the flourishing of groups such as Hamas do not do anything to calm the mood in an admittedly tense neighborhood.
History does not bode well for Israel.
The late Ariel Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount, while provocative, should not have sparked the Second Intifada and widespread unrest.
The simmering continues to this day, with Israel increasingly tense and fearful of Iranian proxies within Palestine or with Syria seeking to further aggravate tensions.
All of this brings us back to Bloomington, where President McRobbie is facing problems for withdrawing from the boycott.
But we believe the boycott is ill-advised in the first place, as there is no legitimate basis for it in the first place.

­— IUGOP@indiana.edu