If there's a more contentious conflict in international affairs than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, then I don't want to know about it. It's too depressing to think about.
From an outside perspective, it's easy enough to understand at least some of the issues and motivations of both sides, but most vocal people on the matter tend to divide one way or another, and one of the casualties is careful thought.
For example, the dubious conflation of criticism of Israel with anti-semitism. That's a convenient way to sway the debate away from the real problem, which is perhaps so complicated by this time that there's no good solution possible, no matter how many American Presidents want to add such a solution to their legacies.
The political statements of librarians have entered the conflict now, because several of them have signed a document calling for a boycott of Israeli institutions. The document is by Middle East Studies scholars and librarians, but mostly not librarians.
They did that months ago, but I found out about it from this recent criticism in Commentary Magazine. I guess they had more important things to do in the last four months than respond to that petition.
Commentary isn't happy with the boycott, divest, sanction (BDS) movement, of which the petition is a part, but they might be a little biased about the matter. It wouldn't do to ever admit that your opponents might have some justification for their actions. If everyone did that, how would we ever go on?
The weird thing is that of the 100+ signatures, only about half a dozen are from librarians, but Commentary subtitles their commentary "When Librarians Burn Books." That's supposed to get our attention, and it got mine.
Then I read the actual article, and thought, hmmm.
For one thing, there are only six librarians signing that I could find, two British, two Canadian, one Iranian, and one American. If this is a book burning, it's not exactly a very widespread one. I'm pretty sure plenty of Israeli books will still be available in the U.S., the U.K. and Canada at least.
But the article talks a good game. It hits the sort of notes librarians would normally agree with.
A university librarian's purpose is to accumulate books, journals, and archival materials ranging the gambit of the field irrespective of their own personal politics, or the popular political directives of the day.
Ignoring the odd belief that one can range a gambit, generally that captures the spirit of intellectual freedom most librarians profess to believe. Librarians can buy stuff without agreeing with it.
Supposedly, librarians signing the petition are guilty of being unprofessional.
And yet, with this statement released by Middle Eastern Studies scholars and librarians endorsing the BDS call and seeking the boycott of Israeli academic institutions, librarians at some major universities are effectively embracing the notion that they will filter acquisitions according to their own political predilections.
Notice the phrase "effectively embracing," because that's a lot different than actually embracing.
It gets worse. Finally, we get to the book burning promised in the title!
That may not literally be burning books, but how shameful it is for university librarians to do the figurative equivalent, filtering knowledge by whether or not they agree with the author or, as BDS demands, whether or not they like his or her nationality or that of the scholar's publishing company.
Oh, I see. They're not burning books. It's the "figurative equivalent." Uh huh. Okay.
Before we see if librarians are "effectively embracing" the "figurative equivalent" of anything, let's take a look at what the petition actually asks for. I know, I know, reading what people actually signed instead of what you want them to have signed is "actually embracing" a non-figurative equivalent, but I'll take that chance.
Here's the call of Middle East Studies scholars and librarians want, at least until their demands are met:
we call on our colleagues in Middle East Studies to boycott Israeli academic institutions, and we pledge not to collaborate on projects and events involving Israeli academic institutions, not to teach at or to attend conferences and other events at such institutions, and not to publish in academic journals based in Israel.
Commentary claims that the librarians "are effectively saying…that they will not consider acquiring, cataloguing, or making available titles published by such Israeli scholarly presses such as Tel Aviv University Press."
But is that what they're saying? The only phrase that could possibly be interpreted that way is to "boycott Israeli academic institutions." I suppose a boycott could include librarians not buying books from Israeli university presses.
First, are university presses academic institutions? When we use the phrase "institutions of higher education," for example, would academic presses be included in that? They could be, I suppose, but that's not normally what the phrase means.
Thus, would any librarians, including the ones who signed the petition, interpret it that way?
The additional language of the call for action doesn't support that interpretation. Not collaborating on projects, not attending conferences, not publishing in journals: these are the examples given, and presumably the librarians who signed the document will refrain from those things.
Here's where it gets tricky, and Commentary isn't helping their case any by possibly misunderstanding librarians.
See, while the work of scholars should be judged on their scholarship, librarians are just there to buy books, so the librarians who signed the document can't possibly be scholars. Those two categories are mutually exclusive, according to Commentary.
This tripe doesn't help:
How ironic it is that librarians—those who should dedicate their professional life to protecting access to knowledge—have read so few of the history books they supposedly guard, for if they did, they might not be comfortable with past parallels to their present actions.
How ironic that a writer who is trying to criticize librarians knows so little about them. I'd bet those librarians who signed the petition have read plenty of history books. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they had PhDs and everything.
And how ironic that someone who supposedly values objectivity in librarians ignores every justification the scholars and librarians give for their decision to focus on a half dozen librarians in the entire world who signed this and to try to create a problem out of it.
Way to evade the real conflict and focus on trivialities, Commentary.
Also, if the scholars aren't considered to be speaking for their institutions, why are the librarians considered to be doing so?
Much like conflating criticism of Israel with anti-semitism, Commentary seems to be conflating the personal actions of Middle East Studies librarians with their professional actions as librarians, but without much justification for doing so.
For example, does anything in that statement imply that MES scholars won't ever teach or write about Israel? That would be a "no." And if they wanted to teach or write about Israel, wouldn't they need some books and journals from Israel, even if they wouldn't publish their work in them? That would be a "yes."
Unless the librarian signatories publicly say, "we won't buy materials published in Israel," I doubt the Commentary interpretation has any validity. But maybe I'm wrong. It wouldn't be the first time.
The little tempest in a teapot that Commentary is trying to stir up is a non-debate, with librarians just the latest pawns to be sacrificed. It's just a way to avoid dealing with the serious issue of Israeli and Palestinian actions and the justification of those actions, because that's a big mess that perhaps no one can truly understand and where everyone seems to talk past each other anyway.
It's a lot easier to ignore the 100+ scholars, ignore the entire actual debate, and pick on the librarians. It's not like any of them would be able to read carefully and pick apart that kind of BS, now is it.