Around the year 1320 BCE, the chief of the Egyptian army seized the throne and became Pharaoh Horemheb. The first order of the new regime was to remove all mention of the previous regimes. Names were systematically scraped off the walls, titles were chipped off of statues, and official monuments and temples were demolished. Those previous pharaohs represented the Armana period, and since the Armana period was offensive to Horemheb, its voice was chiseled out of history.
Could it be that an able defense of Israel is what the strident scholars most want to eliminate?

Totalitarian regimes are like that. They delete from the narrative any events they find distasteful and then deny the voices of those who would say otherwise. In closed societies like North Korea, Syria or Venezuela, one expects such censorship. It is surprising and disturbing that in an open society with a free press, such as Britain, there would be official efforts to deface the narrative of a venerable people and silence the voices of those who would speak for her.

Overlooking other countries, like Sudan, Cambodia, Kuwait or Zimbabwe, where the air of freedom is very thin indeed, certain stringent British physicians, architects, educators, clergy and journalists have instead persistently focused their wrath on Israel. Never mind that Israel, like Britain, has a free press, that Israel, like Britain, has a functioning parliamentary democracy, that Israel, like Britain, has a pluralistic society built on Judeo-Christian ideals, and that Israel, like Britain, has to deal with the reality of Islamic terrorists willing to wreak havoc amongst civilians. All that is somehow beside the point. These preoccupied activists would hijack their professional organizations into shunning Israel and Israelis, rather than engaging them.

The latest manifestation of this condition is a band within the Universities and Colleges Union (UCU) passing a resolution to proceed with a boycott of Israeli scholars. If enacted, a boycott would give clear conscience to British academics wishing to bar from their campus any scholars, speakers or students who happen to be Israeli.

That would be discrimination based on national origin, as Professor Dershowitz quickly pointed out.

Israelis, like every other nationality, are sometimes known to speak up for their country. Could it be that an able defense of Israel is what the strident scholars most want to eliminate?

Either way, this is not Western liberalism's ideal of a free and open exchange of ideas. A number of responsible British voices, including Prime Minister Tony Blair and Education Minister Bill Rammell have recognized the idea for what it is and have come out against it. I believe the majority of UCU members will reject the inherent discrimination in the boycott and vote against it.

However, the anti-Israel idea stubbornly occupies a long-held niche within certain segments of the population now living in the British Isles. I am not among those willing to smear an entire society, and I am further convinced that the greater number of British individuals are decent and fair-minded. Yet, the anti-Israel undercurrent remains, a weak and corrosive link in the chain of Western liberalism. Certainly, portions of the media, led by the BBC, reinforce this undercurrent by pumping out an incessant bass-line of bias. The Israeli perspective is either distorted beyond recognition or silenced altogether.

A percentage of "New Britons," beneficiaries of Britain's tradition of toleration, seem less than inclined to extend that toleration to others. They are struggling to transplant not only their lives, but their laws, their prejudices and their culture onto British soil. The result is an atmosphere where the Israeli perspective - the perspective of a free society experienced in dealing with many of the same issues Britain itself is having to deal with - is very often dismissed into an inconsequential silence.

Silencing the Israeli perspective might be momentarily gratifying; however, such an action will lead to a weakening of understanding, a lessening of dialogue and, inevitably, a silencing of other perspectives. Like the proposed UCU boycott, silencing the Israeli voice will certainly backfire. An example of what this brings can be seen in a recent British case.
Silencing the Israeli perspective might be momentarily gratifying.

A few months ago, in some schools, the Department of Education and Skills made the determination that the history of the Holocaust should not be taught. The idea was that teaching the Holocaust from the European point of view may contradict the official line taught in the local mosque or at home. Supposedly, such contradictions would engender anti-Semitic, anti-Israeli or even anti-Western attitudes in Britain's mushrooming population of school-age Muslims. It was decided that considering the circumstances, it would be best to avoid the subject. Thus, an historical event of continuing significance to Jewish and European culture was summarily deleted from the narrative. It should not be too surprising that, paired with objections to teaching the Holocaust were objections to teaching the Crusades, and for the same reason: it might contradict the official line taught in the mosque. Thus, deletions from the narrative would not only silence the Jews, but would also erase a formative chapter of British history. If one can be expunged, why not the other?

We see an ongoing battle for Western values and, as has happened more than once before, we find that the canary in the coal mine is again the Jew, this time dressed as an Israeli. In every field, the world is moving forward and growing more open. Yet, when it comes to Israel, there are those who would move backwards and become more narrow. Activists in professional organizations are attempting to ban Israelis from their fields simply because they are Israeli. They wish to silence the Israeli perspective on current events. Pleading 'cultural sensitivity,' others argue that history should remain silent concerning cardinal events in the recent and more distant past. None of this is in keeping with liberal Western values. In Western society, history cannot be wished away and cultural sensitivity does not grant anyone, be it a professor, a physician or a Pharaoh, the license to chisel unpopular events, current or past, out of the record.