Letter from Jerusalem, Nov. 1

His academic freedom or mine?

Some months ago a colleague and I began to write an article that we entitled, "The Politics of Urban Planning: Jerusalem." It shows that urban planning is affected by political interests of numerous sorts. Jerusalem's special character as a place of religious and national conflict adds to the brew. The article is not "political" in the sense of staking a position on sensitive issues. We hoped the world's interest in Jerusalem would add to our chances of the piece being accepted by a prominent journal.

My colleague is a political geographer. At his initiative, we sent the manuscript to a journal called Political Georgraphy.

In my long career I have had my share of articles published and rejected. I have also participated in the process as a referee for other people's manuscripts. I know the business, and can recognize an unusual response from an editor.

The editor said that he could not send the article to referees for review because it lacked sufficient footnotes and a "conceptual framework." "Conceptual framework" is academic jargon taught in graduate school, responsible for making a lot of writing unintelligible. I sensed a larger problem with the editor, and wrote to him saying that in my view the article was linked to important issues in urban planning. I had never heard of the editor (David Slater) or his university (Loughborough), but his location in Britain led me to include the following paragraph in my letter:

Let me raise an even more sensitive topic. We're Israelis, writing about an Israeli topic. We know that a number of academics, especially in Britain, are not inclined to accept our submissions. If this is a problem with you or others who would be reading our paper, please have the courage to let us know.

A day later I received a response that seemed to me evasive. So I started Googling the editor. On his university web page I found a paper he entitled, "POLITICS OF MEMORY/ STATES OF TERROR."

The first part of the paper is about the United States.

Not only can we point to a certain disregard for international jurisdiction but more seriously to acts of international terror. The bombing of Libya in 1986, the shooting down of an Iranian passenger plane in 1988, the joint US/UK bombing of Iraq after the Gulf War and the bombing of Sudan and Afghanistan in 1998 are examples of the unlawful acts of the world's most powerful rogue state.

The paper begins a section on Israel and the Palestinians with a quote from Arnold J. Toynbee, known for referring to Jews as "a fossilized relic of an old Syriac civilization". The Toynbee quote here is:

The tragedy in Palestine is not just a local one; it is a tragedy for the world, because it is an injustice that is a menace to the world's peace'

Among Slater's own passages are the following:

. . . the creation of the State of Israel was preceded by a wave of terror against the Palestinian Arab population. . . .

The territorial expansionism of the Israeli state has been reflected in the 1967 war, the invasion of South Lebanon in 1982 with an estimated 17,000 civilian deaths and the continuing establishment of new and illegal Jewish settlements in occupied Palestinian land. . . .

Resistance to Israeli occupation in the first and second intifadas has been met by Israeli state violence.

Not a word about Palestinian violence against Israelis.

I sent this piece to a couple of geographers, and asked them if it was reasonable to believe that my co-author and I were victims of a boycott. From their responses, it seems that when wandering into someone else's profession, I had gotten into an old story. From one geographer I received:

Political Geography has done that before.

From another:

Here I am at home in London on a grey Sunday morning. I am somewhat alarmed at the email but not at all surprised. I will read Slater's piece at another time of my choosing. I certainly have no intention of starting the day with higher blood pressure than is necessary. . . .

I am in constant email contact . . . over Slaterisms and other journal-related issues . . . . I have no faith in anything Slater does or writes, especially on Israel-oriented

I don't question Professor Slater's rights to write what he wants as part of his academic freedom. If he demonstrates his limitations, that's part of the risks. But I do worry about my own academic freedom when the gates to publish are guarded by a person who writes like he does.

Subsequent correspondence revealed that he was one of the original signers of a boycott of Israeii academics that circulated among British university faculty members; and as editor of Political Georgraphy he turned back without opening the envelop a submission from an Israeli scholar who was collaborating with an Arab scholar.

We have known for a long time that a lot of academic writing is less than exciting or even illuminating. Now we know that at least some of it has to pass the test of not coming from Israel.

Posted by Ira Sharkansky at November 01, 2004 12:24 AM