The Jewish population of the world is less than 0.6 percent of the world's general population, but the Jewish people who won the Nobel prize are 22 percent of all the Nobel winners.

The Jews, although persecuted throughout history, have given the world some of the greatest minds in science and literature and they continue to contribute. Six Israeli Jews won the Nobel prize and many more contribute to science and to almost every other field.

The windows software, for example, was programmed almost entirely in Israel. The first anti-virus was developed in Israel. Israeli scientists created new ways to fight cancer and increased the efficiency of medicines.

One of the greatest achievements of 2006: the research made by Israeli scientist Shulamit Levenberg got us one step closer to creating new organs for transplant.

Israel does not need these anti-semitic UK academic.

Glauca, London, UK

I took part in the United Farm Workers grape boycott in the late sixties.It was not immoral nor illegal and it was done with the intention of getting the grape growers to recognise the humanity of the farm workers (mainly Mexican American people)and sign contracts to recognise their union.Boycotts can be very effective tools for the dispossessed to have a voice with the support of fair minded people.

Andrew G O'Donnell, Sacramento, CA .USA

"Palestinian lands" is another Arab confidence trick. "Palestine" was, most recently, a British mandate occupied by Jews since time immemorial and by Arabs, most of whom emigrated from Syria and Egypt during the 19th century. The UN, recognizing the implacable nature of Arab hostility toward Jews, resulting in repeated massacres long before it was seized of the issue, divided Palestine into a Jewish and Arab state.

The årabs promptly named their cause "Palestine" and by this confidence trick pretended that all of Palestine ("Palestinian lands") was theirs. It is simple historical nonsense.

Next the Arabs made repeated war against Israel and lost. When one loses a war, one often loses territory. Israel took control of the territory it gained, and then established boundaries which were more secure than those proven insecure by the UN resolution and subsequent Arab attacks.

At this point any "Palestinian lands" are those agreed to in peace negotiations between the parties.

David Sternlight, Ph.D LSE, Los Angeles, California

In reply to David's ignorant claim " Israel had its chance to make a decent settlement with the Palestinians, but it was too trickey and devious"

Some might argue that it was the Palestinans who had the chance to make peace with Israel, but because that meant accepting Israel's right to exist, Arafat deliberately broke off and started the murderous Intidada. The war between Hamas and Fatash shows that extremism when nurtured will turn in on itself - and that's exactly what happened in Gaza and will happen in the West Bank.

Criticising Israel is one thing - boycotting people purely for being Israeli is something else. It's notable that most academics opposing the boycott are scientists, whilst those in favour are, er, 'social scientists' (clearly very important).

But why only Israel? After all, the Uk is 'occupying' Iraq and more Muslims were killed by British actions than Israeli. Why don't pro-boycott people call for boycotting the UK?

Too close for home? aka hypocrasy

Nick, London, UK

Those that take exception with the argument of anti-Semitism vis-à-vis anti-Israel rhetoric, continually misstate the argument itself. Prof. Dershowitz and others do not make the claim that criticism of Israeli policy is in and of itself anti-Semitic. They point out the greatly inordinate concern--obssession really--with the Jewish state. One would think that the state of Israel might perhaps be 5th or 13th on any social agenda, when it is in fact commonly the only issue. And, the state of human rights of hundreds of millions of Islamic women, as an obvious example, would be closer to the top of the list. In so much as every world ill translates back to Israel, this issue is instead relegated to mere cultural diversity. The attitude in question is anti-Semitic because its proponents exclusively direct their indignation toward the Jewish state and in a proportion vastly outweighing its relative importance on the world stage, while seemingly oblivious to any other concern.

Isaac Citrom, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

The tenor of a large number of the above comments demonstrates why it is so necessary to be on one's guard against anti-semitism.

The two lawyers, Anthony Julius and Alan Dershowitz, have carefully defined what anti-semitism is. As a lecturer in Jewish history, I totally concur with their definition.

It is not up to the ignorant to define what anti-semitism is. Academic lawyers who have made a study of the subject, and historians of the calibre of Sir Martin Gilbert (recently interviewed on Israeli TV) know more about the subject than the people who have responded negatively to the precise words of Julius and Dershowitz.

It appears to me that if we are not careful, England will become the pariah of the world - not a fate I would wish for it at all.

Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA, Haifa, Israel

@ the person claiming to be a professor

"That's interesting: well, THE leading Jewish Holocaust scholar, Raoul Hilberg, says Finkelsein's scholarship is impeccable. The highly respected Jewish scholar, Avi Shlaim, Professor at Oxford University, says the same. Both hold Finkelstein's scholarship to be of the highest standard. Noam Chomsky, world famous linguist, and according to surveys, the most quoted intellectual alive -- also holds Finkelstein's scholarship in the highest regard. "

I find it highly interesting that you steadfastly avoid the factual charges leveled against Fink and instead commit the fallacy of appeal to authority. Are the specific factual claims true, or not? Can you even answer on factual grounds?

And while I'm at it, Chomsky may be an expert in linguistics, but to hold him up as an expert on Israel and qualified to speak ex cathedra on Fink is, well, rather odd to say the least. It'd be like citing a mathematician on modern dance... with a straight face.

Daniel Schalit, Ithaca, New York,

Let them boycott. As far as I can see, the losers are the British. More new advances inscience, medicine, etc. have come from Israeli universities in 60 years than have come from British universities in a century.

Saul Eisenstat, Los Altos, CA/USA

After having read all these comments I have to say, "If you all are a fair representation of British thinking these days, what the hell has happened to you?"
I lived in England for a long time , my wife was from London originally.
During my time there I found the British to kind, intelligent people with a lot of courage.
That all seems to be gone and replaced with fear.
I never thought that I would be hated in England just for being a Jew.

Mike Melcher, highland park, IL. USA

Jay understates the silliness of the argument that Arabs are also Semites. The term anti-Semitism has not existed since time immemorial. It was invented by an anti-Jewish, German writer, Wilhelm Marr, in the late nineteenth century and was intended to sound scientific. It never had any connotation of hostility to Arabs.

I almost failed to spot the irony of Paula Argeriz's statement that anti-Semitism is confined to the extreme right. In fact , it has always been there on the Left. Don't forget that the Nazis grew out of the German Workers Party shortly after World War 1.

Dave, London, UK

It seems from the comments, the professors have set off a wave of ad hominim attacks laced with a good dose of projection and denial.

TheGrandMufti, Grenoble,

Katie wrote -- //The reasons ( for Finkelstein's rejection from De Paul University) relate to concerns over the accuracy of some of the evidence he uses in his scholarship and doubts over the cogency of his arguments.//
That's interesting: well, THE leading Jewish Holocaust scholar, Raoul Hilberg, says Finkelsein's scholarship is impeccable. The highly respected Jewish scholar, Avi Shlaim, Professor at Oxford University, says the same. Both hold Finkelstein's scholarship to be of the highest standard. Noam Chomsky, world famous linguist, and according to surveys, the most quoted intellectual alive -- also holds Finkelstein's scholarship in the highest regard.
Now , let's look at Dershowitz' academic record on Israel -- Can I advise you to watch Finkelstein's debate with him on Democracy Now? Viewers of the online video of the debate between Finkelstein and Dershowitz can make up their own minds on who the scholar with the most integrity is.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/24/1730205

Prof Barnabas, Seoul, South Korea

I'm a little amazed. The antisemitism slur is leveled not even as an allegation, but an a priori statement of fact. The possibility that belief in a one state solution might bespeak a belief in pluralist secularism is completely ignored in favour of the laughable suggestion that it's about admitting that the Palestinians are incapable of governing themselves.

One always hears about Dersh's profound intelligence, but it's rather hard to credit. Or maybe he doesn't really even want to win the argument. Hey maybe he's a secret anti-semite himself.

digit, London, England

I think it is time to boycott Alan Dershowitz..
He doesn't have an unbiased bone in his body,and his contumely polemical attitude toward any group or person that questions Israeli actions is embarrassing. We seem to constantly get his opinion whether we need it or not.
If the Alan Dershowitz's of this world would mind their own business for once, perhaps the parties involved could reach an amicable situation before it is exploded onto the world stage by these egotistical lawyers.
Perhaps Shakespeare was correct after all.

David Clark, Nanaimo, Canada

The authors say, of Jewish boycotters: "Their Jewish conscience requires them, they believe, to side with Israel’s enemies. Second, they give cover to non-Jewish boycotters accused of anti-Semitism. An anti-Semitic position, they believe, ceases to be anti-Semitic when adopted by a Jew."

"They" don't believe any such things and view the world through a wholly different framework. I think they believe, with much justice, they are being PHILOsemitic, rescuing (my word) the good name of Jews and Judaism from follies done in our name.

The biggest weakness in articles like this is minimising or denying the wrongs done by Israel, and by wrongs I mean those actions of the Israeli government and the IDF that are not necessary for the security of the state and the safety of its people - checkpoint humiliations, settlement encroachment &c. If I hadn't already thought the academic boycott wrong, this article would not have persuaded me, and it might just have swayed me the other way.

Dr Brian Robinson, Milton Keynes UK, UK

The claim that 'the boycott is an act of violence'. Is either astounding hyperbole or a misprint. If this were the case Bernard Matthews could have every vegan in the country arrested for assault, and my local labour MP could do the same to me because I did not vote for her. A boycott and an act of violence are two entirely different things. Other than that, good article.

Nick Stone, London, England

If I were to argue against the policies of the USA in Iraq or its domestic policy towards the black people in america does that make me anti-white or anti-christian? No.

If the aparteid government in South Africa was jewish would it have been anti-semitic of me to be morally opposed to their policies towards the black South Africans? No.

J. Roberts, Manchester, UK

If I disagree with the actions of the civilian Israeli government and decide to protest against it in any way, why am I branded as an anti-Semite?

The government of Israel had its chance to make a decent settlement with the Palestinians and it was too tricky and devious. That lack of settlement means that Gaza is now a fundamentalist enclave. They still won't move out of the occupied West Bank and make a sensible settlement over Jerusalem as a capital of both states.

I think it is not only time that these sort of boycotts are implemented, but that the EU should institute progressively aggressive trade and travel bans with Israel. Of course this won't happen because the governments of the EU and particularly the big three are spineless when it comes to dealing with the bully-boy Israel.

David, Dubai, UAE

In response to Prof Barnabas's claim that Norman Finkelstein was denied tenure at DePaul University, Chicago on the grounds that he criticised Israel, please see letter dated 8 June 2007 sent to Dr Finkelstein from Rev Dennis Holtschneider, the President of DePaul University, in which the reasons for denying Dr Finkelstein tenure are explained:
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Education/documents/2007/06/12/Finkelsteinletter.pdf

The reasons relate to concerns over the accuracy of some of the evidence he uses in his scholarship and doubts over the cogency of his arguments. Further, it was noted that Dr F's service at departmental level was limited, with no service at college or university level. Serious concerns were raised concerning Dr F's "ad hominem attacks on scholars with whom [he] disagree[d]... as such [the reviewers] believe [his] work... fails to meet the most basic standards governing scholarly discourse..."
For these reasons, Dr Finkelstein was denied tenure.

Kate, London, UK

Those who continue the slanging match here and elsewhere are all guilty of the same absolutism that perpetuates this and other conflicts.
There is much anti-semitism masquerading as 'criticism of Israel', and there is much legitimate criticism which is gets branded as anti-semitism. Unfortunately, rather than identifying which is which, it seems far more convenient for people to adopt absolute positions. It is the exact same mind set that says 'all XXXX are bad' (please insert your personal object of projection).

Sim, London, UK

This article is spot on and nothing said by the 'anti' posters on here has actually undermined one sentence of this well reasoned piece. All they can do is criticise and sneer at the authors personally. No valid counter argument is put or indeed frankly is possible.

This boycott is supported only by those who would wish to see the destruction of Israel. It is thankfully failing amongst most intelligent academics (no this is not an oxymoron - being a lecturer in a sixth form college does not make you necessarily intelligent though it may make you an 'academic') When left and right come together there is always the same scapegoat. . Why should the Jewish state meekly vote for its own destruction? Why should it not defend itself. And yes IT IS an anti semitic boycott. The pedant who claims that arabs are also semitic should grow up and realise that the term has from time immemorial taken on a particular meaning of anti Jewish.

Jay, London,

So Israel must be condemned more than Saudi Arabia because the former is a working democracy? Surely that's an argument for it to be condemned far less?

Never mind - the boycotters seem to be tripping over themselves to find excuses to pick on Israel and not other, far more ominous, regimes.

Alexander, Winchester,

Has anyone noticed that before WWII, Europeans were candid and honest about their antisemitism - which ranged from mild to strong? After WWII, it seems that antisemitism is confined to the far-right, and even them, nowadays, no longer strongly deny being antisemitic (not even David Irving, n'est-ce pas?). One must conclude that the great news of this day and age, or should I say miracle, is that antisemitism has been totally eradicated in Europe. There are noble critics of Israel, but no antisemites. What absolutely excellent and astouding news. It so happens that I believe that every word written by Anthony Julius and Alan Dershowitz is right. As for the last 2000 years, there are antisemites in Europe, but with a difference: they are hypocrites too.

Paula Argeriz, Paris,

Prof Barnabas, Seoul, South Korea, absolutely nails the case against Mr. Dershowitz. Another nail in that same coffin was the scathing attack by Dershowitz against former President Jimmy Carter's recent book, "Peace, Not Apartheid" with the same bleating, mewing, and bawling accusations of anti-semitism because of Carter's documentation of decades of savage and illegal oppression in Palestine. My theory is that the Zionists know full well that Israel has totally failed to secure Israel by such policies, but cannot bring themselves to embrace the only peace possible, being a full acceptance of SC 242 and an evacuation of all illegally occupied Palestinian lands including east Jerusalem. Yet only thereby can Israel ever achieve acceptance and security in the region. The anti-semitism rag is all they have left, and indeed, it won't wash.

tarquinis, Seattle, USA

Mankind's biggest social defect is the heritage of tribal hatred, or in today's language, being anti-something. He who anti-something loses the ability to communicate constructively with the object of despise. Almost inevitably this leads to violence and misery. What is so outrageous about the boycott is that it declares being anti-Israel socially and culturally obligatory. Like little Milosevices and Hitlers, these boycotters wish to thrive on the mechanisms of tribal hatred that are buried inside all of us.

Klaus Becher, London, UK

Julius and Dershowitz reinforce and adhere to the conflation of criticism of the policies of the State of Israel with Anti-semitism. It is no such thing. But it is in the interests of the State of Israel to extend that myth.
The academic boycott is a crude response. There is no benefit silencing dialogue with people who live and work within a State with whose policies you disagree. If your field is one where your skills might enhance the power of that State to exercise unconscionable policies it is a matter of conscience which governs choice.
One might note that those who speak out publicly in criticism of that State and its near-recidivist approach to those who speak or act in opposition to its reach will be classed as the enemies of Israel - and as anti-semitic. An academic should be free to receive and offer criticism. Without fear of retribution through boycott or from crude accusations of anti-semitism.
It is the State, not the Faith, which is the object of scorn.

David Rose, Colne, UK

Dershowitz has been trying to equate anti semitism with anti zionism for too long. It won't wash -- especially since many extremely orthodox Rabbis are rabidly anti Zionist themselves.(See :Jewish Neturei Karta movement, which has been anti Israel and anti Zionist for decades. Dershowitz is on a mission to make everyone feel that if they question Israel's policies towards the Palestinians , they are anti Semitic and potential Nazis. Being anti Israel's current behaviour does NOT make one an anti Semite. It is a tired, tired argument by now, which anyone with any indepedent faculties can see through. And this is now resulting in a witch hunt of Macarthyist proportions -- just this week, renowned Jewish holocaust scholar Norman Finkelstein ( supported unreservedly by other high ranking Jewish academics such as holocaust expert Raoul Hilberg and Oxford scholar, Avi Shlaim ) was turned away from his University post -- his crime? He questioned Israel. Even Jews are not allowed to do that.

Prof Barnabas, Seoul, South Korea

The strongest part of the argument was the general case against academic boycotts, their defence of the State of Israel overstated the case, but the arguments are familiar. Where the article took a nose dive was the gratuitous and unsupported smears of anti-semitism. These ad hominem attacks detract from what is otherwise a strong argument. It's also hard to take seriously a plea for academic freedom from a man who appears to have now successfully destroyed the career of a fellow academic who incurred his displeasure.

Jimmy Sands, Provo, BWI

As a non-Jew, I have long been baffled why some people hate Jews so much. Of all the many irrational ideas around, from a belief in UFOs to a faith in horoscopes and a trust in herbal remedies, this is the most puzzling and the most pernicious. Let us not forget that it was the illusion that Jews were uniquely unacceptable in society that led a majority of ordinary men and women to connive in, and a minority of ordinary men and women to actively carry out, the worst genocide in human history. (See, inter alia, Eric Conan's account of the deportation of Jewish children, amidst almost universal indifference, from France to Auschwitz in the 1940s.) Will we never learn?

J. Fletcher, Canterbury, UK

Gavin, a lecture in liguistics is not the point. Of all semitic races, the only one subjected to thoudands years of organized hatred and opression are the Jews so Anisemitism and Anti-Jews is practically the same. If that makes you feel better, replace ani-semite with anti-jew and read the article again. You will see that its validity remains.

As an Israeli I myself have critisism for many things in my country. I don't think that any critisizm of Israel is anti-semitic by default but the opposite is not true either: just because you have critisizm of Israel it doesn't mean that you are NOT antisemitic. This can be understood from analyzing the nature and origins of the specific critisizm as done in this article.

Zvi, Haifa, Israel

The Semitic grouping of races and languages covers Arabs/Arabic and Hebrews/Hebrew. Therefore, how is it anti-Semitic if it is in favour of one of the members of this group and against the other? When is Israel going to grow up, start accepting responsibility for its actions, obey international law and stop claiming that any critics are anti-Semitic?

Gavin Le Boutillier, Hull, East Yorkshire

On balance, I think such boycotts are a bad thing. But while the authors here claim the boycotters' arguments resonate with the 'texts and tropes' of centuries of anti-semitism, their own arguments resonate with the tired and offensive mantras of 'enemies of Israel' and 'defamation of the Jews' and the spectre of a slippery slope to another holocaust.
Those of us who are confident in our own good will, who know that we are not anti anybody on the basis of their ethnicity or religion, are not persuaded that criticism of Israel is Jew-hatred.

jgreene, adelaide, australia

Excellent article. I have worked in "academia" for 20 years. Prior to this I worked and lived in the real world. Some of the so called academics who work in our universities are pathetic and jump on any left wing liberal bandwagon they can find. Would you believe they are now talking about protesting about Trident again!! 20 Years too late but it sounds good doesn't it?

Brian, Bangor,