Lynch and the BDS and Dan Avnon
The Federal Government has asked questions of Sydney University following the refusal by Associate Professor Jake Lynch on the basis that he supports BDS to accept an offer by an Israeli academic to visit the university and work with him on a civics program.
Senator Chris Evans, the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research and leader of the House in the Senate, told J-Wire:
Senator Chris Evans
“Last week, a story about the University of Sydney’s Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies was reported in the media.
In my role as Minister for Tertiary Education, I asked my office to contact the university to confirm its position on the Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign.
The Australian Government has repeatedly made clear that we strongly and unequivocally oppose the Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign.
This is on the public record and reflects my own position.
The university confirmed that it does not support the anti-Israeli BDS movement.
It advised the Centre’s director Associate Professor Jake Lynch was speaking on his own behalf and his views were not those of the centre, the faculty or the university.
Further, the university advised that Associate Professor Lynch does not have the authority to make any decisions about who is invited to the university and in this case he has not prevented Associate Professor Dan Avnon from coming.
I understand that other University of Sydney faculties and schools have made offers to Associate Professor Dan Avnon and I hope he will seriously consider them.”
Any one thats knows anything about Mid East Politics in Australia is aware that Lynch just like his comrade
Leunig is a very committed Arabist.
Burdy
The University of Sydney’s Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies is clearly committing an act of discrimination here. Is this not illegal? I have seen people and organisations sued for less. At the very least, funding to this clearly anti-semitic organsiation should be cut immediately.
Critics of the BDS never point out that Israel’s illegal occupation is established legal fact. On topics such as Israel-Palestine, which for a number of reasons often come across as so emotive, it is important to be clear on some basic, established facts. There must be a foundation of fact for useful discussion of these topics.
Israel’s illegal occupation is established legal fact: the world highest authority on international law, the International Court of Justice (otherwise known as the World Court) ruled in July 2004 (http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory) that Israel is illegally occupying this territory in violation of international law.These violations are numerous: articles of the 4th Geneva Convention; the 4th Hague Convention 1907; UN Security Council Resolutions 446, 452 & 465; and articles of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child ( for details see pages 189, 191-192, and 183, paragraphs 120, 132, and 134 of the legal opinion).
Israel has fully ratified all of these international standards (except for the Fourth Hague Convention which the ICJ has ruled is legally binding customary law). This means Israel has committed (along with most other countries) and is legally bound to fully respect these international standards. Any discussion of this emotive topic which ignores these clearly established legal facts risks shedding more heat than light.