Adam Boxer@adamboxer1
This morning, it was my deep honour to present at the Delta conference. I spoke about how my teaching has changed over the years and the figures who have been influential in effecting that change.
You probably haven’t heard of the Delta conference, but you have probably heard of its original name: researchEd Israel.
The idea for a researchEd in Israel was floated many years ago, to complement their other international events in countries like Scandinavia, America, China, Canada and the UAE.
A few months ago, a number of British educators found out that researchEd was due to put on an event in Israel, sparking an intense online backlash. Not only did commentors say that researchEd should not be putting on an event in Israel, but also that they would be pulling out as speakers and contributors at domestic researchEd events until the Israel event was cancelled. Journalists were tagged in, headteachers were contacted, a counter-event was even proposed, and the internet was broadly unanimous in its positioning. Inevitably, less charitable voices joined the fray, and much of the commentary became quite personal and upsetting to read.
Logically, this opposition rested, in my opinion, on shaky ground.
First, there are hundreds of countries that operate in Israel that we don’t seem to boycott. Do these British teachers use Google? Amazon? IKEA? Twitter? McDonald’s? All these companies work in Israel and – though I can’t be sure – probably have stronger ties to the Israeli government than a tiny UK-based education organisation that just put its label to an event in a foreign country.
Second, it’s not clear that “putting on an event” in a particular country equates to “supporting the genocidal policies of that country’s government.” Did putting on researchEd in China indicate support for President Xi? Did putting on researchEd in Dubai indicate support for Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan? Ironically, one of the most prominent anti-researchEd voices seems to visit the UAE once a month to do keynotes, despite the country having a terrible human rights record and being part of a coalition that has killed and wounded thousands of Yemeni civilians.
Of course, one could argue that we should boycott all of these companies and countries too, and genuinely I’m fine with that. I’m ok with arguing for a carte blanche boycott of all the countries with terrible human rights records (including Israel) provided we at least attempt to be consistent. One could also argue that we should only boycott the events that we might have an impact on, and whilst I have some sympathy with this, it doesn’t feel particularly robust as a rejoinder (after all: why? If it’s wrong, it’s wrong, regardless of the outcome.)
Anyway, even without these points above, I think there is a far stronger defence of the event, one that won’t have occurred to most.
ResearchEd Israel was being primarily organised by a teacher-training group called The Mofet Institute. Mofet and their local partners work extensively within the Arab-Israeli community and with underprivileged Israeli youth (or, better, the teachers who serve those communities). Today, there were Arab-Israeli delegates attending the event, and Arab-Israeli speakers at the event (Arab-Israeli = indigenous Palestinians/Arabs who are citizens of Israel). It is this group that were boycotted by UK teachers thousands of miles away. If an Arab-Israeli sees fit to attend and be platformed at an event, it does not seem right to me that people not in the conflict can condemn their choices. It’s feels paternalistic to think we know better than these people, and that their decisions shouldn’t be respected.
The same is true of the disadvantaged youth. This is an extremely at-risk group for radicalisation, and if we know anything it's that a good education is what can combat and mitigate this radicalisation risk (as an interesting historical note, Netanyahu's right wing Likud party grew to prominence in the 1980s by courting the vote of those struggling economically and “left behind” by a burgeoning middle class).
So here we are, robbing the teachers of that at-risk community of the opportunity to upskill and reduce the chance of future conflict.
Finally, many of the workers at Mofet are amongst those putting their lives at risk every week by joining the anti-war and anti-government marches in Tel Aviv. Are these really the people we want to isolate and cut off from global attempts to bring peace?
I suppose some could say “we didn’t mind if the event goes ahead, we just didn’t want it called researchEd.” I think firstly that’s a pretty ahistorical piece of revisionism given the rhetoric at the time, but also why not? Why would we not want to be associated with the people who are actually bringing about peace? Why would we not want to be associated with an organisation platforming marginalised, ostracised and persecuted members of Israeli society, who have stronger ties to those suffering in Gaza than we will ever have?
Over the long term, Israel will only be "solved" by education and collaboration (without diminishing the short term need for an immediate cease fire, return of hostages and rapid bringing-to-justice of all parties). ResearchEd Israel couldn't have "solved" that problem itself, obviously. But it could have helped. The steady work of good people on the ground, building bridges, platforming the oppressed and preventing radicalisation is the only bulwark against the insanity of the last 80 years. It is, therefore, a tragic shame that those people would have looked at their phones and seen that the international event they were looking forward to had been boycotted.
Knowing all the above, I was pretty distraught at the time. I believe in peace and I believe in doing the work, but I also believe in situational knowledge and understanding, and can’t help but think that despite the justifiable strength and intensity of emotion around all things Israel, a little more knowledge might have resulted in a different outcome and a better and more useful conversation. A little more light, and a little less heat.
So yes, it was my honour to present at the conference today. Hopefully the talk in and of itself was useful, as was the message of international solidarity aimed at collaboration, communication, and the long hard yards involved in bringing about peace.
