Norway's second-largest university to vote on Israel boycott

[Elfdart]

As a thought exercise, ask yourself how many western democracies were able to avoid doing just those things in their pasts.

Most of those countries practiced slavery in their pasts. Would that excuse Israel or anyone else for instituting slavery if they chose to do so?

Israel and the Third World, which are essentially the infants of the international system, get the short end of the stick here. As Mohammed Ayoob observed, we expect them to "telescope" centuries of social, economic, and political development into a few decades; tell them they cannot use violence (even though we resorted to it regularly ourselves); and hand out loans of sovereignty without demanding first to see any kind of credit (i.e., achievement).

Third World countries don't mind taking full advantage of luxuries and technology from Europe, North America and East Asia, but it's too fussy to expect them to refrain from mass murder? Please! Being an "infant" country doesn't entitle a modern state to behave in such a barbarous and savage manner.

Having an effective lobby like AIPAC does.

[hongi]

And will this new-found academic ethical sensibility be applied to any country other than Israel? Yeah, I didn't think so. And that is why there is room for accusations of subtle anti-Semitic bias to be made, even if the failure in consistency is attributable to other causes.

Name one other western democracy that is as blatantly racist as Israel, has a history of acting on this racism, and is actively occupying/settling more or less foreign land in order to expand their borders?

Why does it have to be a Western democracy? This Norwegian university must have contacts with non-Western countries. I expect them to boycott all countries which have serious human rights violations, like China for one.

[Axis Kast]

Most of those countries practiced slavery in their pasts. Would that excuse Israel or anyone else for instituting slavery if they chose to do so?

It isn't saying, "Let's all make nice and dandy." Sharing a thought about what it means to be a developing nation in which ideas of statehood run out ahead of ideas of nationhood isn't synonymous with saying, "Hey -- I think we shouldn't care at all what happens anywhere else in the world."

Third World countries don't mind taking full advantage of luxuries and technology from Europe, North America and East Asia, but it's too fussy to expect them to refrain from mass murder? Please! Being an "infant" country doesn't entitle a modern state to behave in such a barbarous and savage manner.

It's stupid to expect that they won't experience the same kind of dislocation that we do. Equally stupid is addressing symptoms rather than problems.

[Guardsman Bass]

Third World countries don't mind taking full advantage of luxuries and technology from Europe, North America and East Asia, but it's too fussy to expect them to refrain from mass murder? Please! Being an "infant" country doesn't entitle a modern state to behave in such a barbarous and savage manner.

You're missing his point, which was that many of the "Developed Nations" basically expect third-world countries to act like modern nation-states, developing all the necessary stuff therein, after only a matter of years to decades - when it was usually a process of centuries for most of Western Europe, for example, and frequently involved significant amounts of violence. He's saying that it's unrealistic.

That said, I don't see how his point really applies to Israel. Israel is relatively recent in the scheme of things at 60 years old, but the nationalism amongst the majority of its population is relatively consolidated (along with the state), it's highly economically developed and advanced, and so forth.

[Lusankya]

Why does it have to be a Western democracy? This Norwegian university must have contacts with non-Western countries. I expect them to boycott all countries which have serious human rights violations, like China for one.

Because such actions may be more affective when levelled against a democracy? The academics in Israel are presumably voters, and have relatively effective channels with which to address their grievances, whereas the academics in China are there for the purpose of furthering China's economic development. Now, if such a boycott was levelled against China, and the government viewed it as an insurmountable impediment to China's development, then the government might do something about it*, but they won't do such a thing just because some academics are annoyed. China is also large enough that there is a high chance of it being able to support its own scientific community independently of Western countries, while Israel would be much more affected.

*hide things better

[Coyote]

I think Kast is arguing that it is anachronistic to expect a brand-new country to have modern institutions in the span of a human lifetime. Israel is just over 60 years old. It would be like going to East Timor and demanding to know why they don't have a metro system built yet.

However, that said, I'd remind Kast that Israel is, for all intents and purposes, a 1st world nation. Many parts of Tel Aviv are almost indistinguishable from Los Angeles except for the storefront lettering. In some areas of technology and research, they are among the world leaders.

About half the population is made up from people who did, historically, go through all that painful European adolescence, and there are still to this day very learned people immigrating to Israel. I met Americans, Canadians, Russians and other Europeans over there, who are quite aware of democracy's birthing pains. Bibi Netanyahu himself was educated in America, he has no real excuse apart from wanting to be a warlord in a suit.

Now you can argue that "Americans, Russians, Europeans and Canadians engaged in wars and even ethnic cleansing in the past, what right do we have to lecture them?" --But we can lecture them because, having done these things, and learning they are wrong, we don't do them any more. No one is asking Israel to roll over and let Hamas kill them. They're welcome to defend themselves when attacked, like anyone else would. But the Settlements are not necessary, they are provocative, and one of the causes for the attacks in the first place.

[D.Turtle]

Well, I will first note that neither Axis Kast nor MarshalPurnell nor hongi has denied my claim that Israel is blatantly racist, has a history of acting on this racism, and is actively occupying/settling more or less foreign land in order to expand their borders.

Secondly, I will note that none of them has been able to name another western democracy engaging in the same.

In fact, the only thing they HAVE done is try making excuses.

First excuse: Israel is so fucking new!
My response: I mean, how can a country barely 60 years old be held up to the standards of other countries like Germany who are less than 60 years old. Especially when that country was the very definition of a nationalist racist system, acted on that racism and actively invaded foreign lands in order to expand its borders. It is simply unfair!

Second excuse: Israel is still better than some dictatorships!
My response: So fucking what? If you want to be treated as a proper democracy, then act like one. Hell, I'll even relax my standards: Name one Democracy that is as blatantly racist as Israel, has a history of acting on that racism like Israel does, and is actively occupying/settling more or less foreign land in order to expand its borders like Israel is doing.

Third excuse: If they boycott Israel, they should boycott everyone who doesn't keep up with their standards.
My response: Lusankya already answered part of it: Not every action you can take is effective in every system. Especially in third-world countries, it is more effective to raise the living standards than to demand immediate and complete compliance with western first-world standards. Israel is more or less a first-world nation, it can and should be held up to the same standards. And actions that can be effective with third-world countries might not be effective in Israel and vice-versa.

You guys really surprised me, I was expecting knee-jerk defenses of Israel, not some pathetic excuses. But hey, I guess even you guys can no longer deny that Israel is in the wrong.

[EDIT]If this breaks the IvP Moratorium, I'll drop this topic.[/EDIT]

[Eleas]

Yes, perhaps it is wrong to "single out" Israel in such a fashion. Instead, if you would criticise bad behaviour, you must of course post blanket condemnation of anyone, be it past, present or future, who ever participated in such an act. Because that won't attenuate the message at all.

[eyl]

I know what you mean, Purnell, but face it-- Israel is in the news every day. There was something I heard once about the number of UN Resolutions passed against Israel-- something like Israel has as many resolutions filed against it as North Korea, Sudan, Apartheid era South Africa, and Libya all combined. Don't know if it's true, too lazy to look it up right now.

But the Palestinians are good about keeping their issue in public eye, and the Israelis are very bad about keeping their issue in the public eye . It has a few other things that make it stick out-- all those other countries are not US-supported, they're not 1st world democracies (which, in what may be some chauvinism, we regard as "more enlightened", even if in some ways that chauvinism may be earned) and they never really made any bones about being paragons of virtue (although many have said that they, too, are eternal victims of one imperialist aggression or another at times).

While the "public eye" argument has some merit to it, it isn't sufficient. Consider just this conflict. The proposals for academic boycotts against Israel are often justified by the claim that the Israeli universities support the occupation (for example, by running study programs for military personnel). Yet I could make the case that the Palestinian universities are at least as complicit in supporting terrorism (more so, probably) yet you don't see any attempt to organize a boycott against them.

Yes, perhaps it is wrong to "single out" Israel in such a fashion. Instead, if you would criticise bad behaviour, you must of course post blanket condemnation of anyone, be it past, present or future, who ever participated in such an act. Because that won't attenuate the message at all.

You don't see a problem with relentlessly criticizing one country's action, while ignoring the others' misdeeds? Purely from a practical POV, that's a major reason why a boycott or (other such measures) is more likely to encourage Israeli defiance, ratehr than compliance. The average Israeli sees the international system as one which will - at best - preach endlessly about how we have the right to self-defence but will immediately condemn us if we excersize that right, while meeting actions against us with silence.

And frankly, I can't say that view is totally wrong. Coyote mentioned the fact that Israel has numerous UN resolutions condmening it (or its actions, rather, since UN resolutions don't condemn countries directly). Try reading some of those sometime, and of the events which led to them. There's a pattern where Israel is attacked, retaliates, and then the UN issues a resolution condmening Israel's actions but not the original attackers. At best, there's a mealy-mouthed gesture where the resolution expresses "concern" at the volence, or else condemns "actions against civilians" or some such in very general terms without naming who carried out those actions (the phrasing is such that it could cover both the attacker's and Israel's actions).

*And, of course, you have the added contempt of international condemnation given that often the countries issuing the condemnation don't exactly ahve clean hands. For instance, its rather ironic that the British seem to be the most proliferous proponents of boycotts against Israel, given their presence in Iraq. Not to mention that I damn near choked when Putin described Israel as "brutal" - given how Russia handled Chechnya.

[Coyote]

eyl, I understand your frustration in this, but bear in mind we are not talking about "who is more guilty". It gets into the shadowy area of justification.

For example, in my mind (and folks may disagree with me), nothing justifies Hamas standards like claiming to wipe the Jews off the map; firing rockets into civilian neighborhoods; using suicide bombers; openly espousing ethnic hate on their children's show. But calling out Israel on the Settlements does not automatically imply a blanket pass on Palestinian actions. How much would an academic boycott accomplish against Bir Zeit University?

One problem with the IvP conflict is that it seems to me that Israel holds all the strength and none of the initiative; while the Palestinians hold all the initiative and none of the strength. The Palestinians and Israelis both were accused of war crimes in the recent Gaza fight, but the media is only really making hay out of the Israeli part of it because Israel is supposed to hold a higher standard, and they are receiving help from the outside.

Israel has a lot of things going for it-- an educated public, a largely democratic government, certainly more democratic than most neighboring countries but still deeply flawed in many cases.

[hongi]

You guys really surprised me, I was expecting knee-jerk defenses of Israel, not some pathetic excuses. But hey, I guess even you guys can no longer deny that Israel is in the wrong.

So how's life like as a smug prick?

Because such actions may be more affective when levelled against a democracy? The academics in Israel are presumably voters, and have relatively effective channels with which to address their grievances, whereas the academics in China are there for the purpose of furthering China's economic development. Now, if such a boycott was levelled against China, and the government viewed it as an insurmountable impediment to China's development, then the government might do something about it*, but they won't do such a thing just because some academics are annoyed. China is also large enough that there is a high chance of it being able to support its own scientific community independently of Western countries, while Israel would be much more affected.

*hide things better

So they're boycotting Israel because it will work on Israel, whereas it won't work on other countries. Fine, I'll accept that explanation. I'm personally not an Israel fan myself.

But I want people who are concerned about human rights violations, to make a statement at least decrying the crimes of other countries. It doesn't have to be a boycott, just simply an acknowledgement that China's prison systems are fucked up, or that Saudi Arabia is a backassward hole because it squelches the rights of women and apparently has never heard of the concept of freedom of religion.

[Coyote]

People criticze Israel for the same reason people criticize America.

America likes to get up and say "We're free, we're a democracy, we're all about liberty and respect and stuff. We're the greatest in the world!" But then that leaves us open to criticism about Guantanamo, rendition, questionable wars for profit motives, etc.

On the other hand, what do you expect from a place like Zimbabwe or any other brutal dictatorship?:
"You're a brutal dictatorship that jails and tortures political dissidents and ethnic minorities!"
"Yeah, so?"

Israel has a lot going for it, but again, that doesn't excuse the Settlements. Nothing can.

[eyl]

eyl, I understand your frustration in this, but bear in mind we are not talking about "who is more guilty". It gets into the shadowy area of justification.

For example, in my mind (and folks may disagree with me), nothing justifies Hamas standards like claiming to wipe the Jews off the map; firing rockets into civilian neighborhoods; using suicide bombers; openly espousing ethnic hate on their children's show...How much would an academic boycott accomplish against Bir Zeit University?

I wasn't really referring to "who is more guilty" per se (though I will admit to the frustration)- rather, it was intended as an example how even in the same conflict Israel and its opponents are not treated equally in this regard and therefore media attention is not a sufficient explanation.

As for how effective a boycott would be against Bir Zeit, probably not more effective than against Israel - but if (as someone suggested above) the intent is primarily symbolic, the effectiveness doesn't matter as much.

But calling out Israel on the Settlements does not automatically imply a blanket pass on Palestinian actions.

I agree, believe it or not. But what I'm trying to describe is that the degree of one-sidedness (even when it's justified, let alone when it's based on distortions or outright falsehoodsd) in international reactions - whatever the explanation for it - has pretty much caused international criticism to have very limited credibility with the Israeli public, making it a relatively ineffective tool.

[D.Turtle]

So how's life like as a smug prick?

So they're boycotting Israel because it will work on Israel, whereas it won't work on other countries. Fine, I'll accept that explanation. I'm personally not an Israel fan myself.

But I want people who are concerned about human rights violations, to make a statement at least decrying the crimes of other countries. It doesn't have to be a boycott, just simply an acknowledgement that China's prison systems are fucked up, or that Saudi Arabia is a backassward hole because it squelches the rights of women and apparently has never heard of the concept of freedom of religion.

I'll take you ignoring the rest of my post as a concession on those parts.

As for your point about other countries:

Were you asleep during the run-up to the Olympic games? Just as an example, the Japanese Royal Family didn't go to the Olympic games, because of the chinese crackdown in Tibet. There was widespread discussion about boycotting the games or not. Just recently there was massive critique of China because of their antics at the Frankfurter Book Fair, etc. As for Saudi Arabia, of course there is criticism there: For example from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.

But hey, I guess not mentioning other countries that fail in Human rights in an article aimed at criticizing Israel makes the article irrelevant.

[Eleas]

You don't see a problem with relentlessly criticizing one country's action, while ignoring the others' misdeeds?

Of course such a thing would be reprehensible. Fortunately, that was your strawman of my argument, and an insultingly flimsy one at that.

First, "relentlessly criticizing" would imply that said institution had been, in fact, relentless, i.e. persistent and uncompromising in its denouncement. I see no such theatrics, just a point being made, just as points were made against South Africa during the Apartheid times. I suppose that was "ignoring others' misdeeds" as well, yes? Or perhaps it is entirely different this time.

Secondly, I do see a problem with the above statement, because I subscribe to actual ethics. Misdeeds should always be addressed, particularly if the country happens to be your own. As far as I'm concerned, a refusal to do so is functionally identical to tacit support.

Purely from a practical POV, that's a major reason why a boycott or (other such measures) is more likely to encourage Israeli defiance, ratehr than compliance. The average Israeli sees the international system as one which will - at best - preach endlessly about how we have the right to self-defence but will immediately condemn us if we excersize that right, while meeting actions against us with silence.

On reading this, three words in your statement immediately jumped out at me. "Defiance." "Compliance." "Us." You could hardly be more obvious in your implicit exceptionalism if you were frothing about the mouth. While part of me would thank you for how easily you make my point for me, most of me is left shaking my head in bewilderment.

The Israel-Palestina moratorium will be breached if I go into details; may in fact have already been, and if so, I'll bow out. Suffice to say the following:

• Russian actions have been abominable in Chechnya, in Georgia, and likely also Dagestan and Ingushetia, and they are generally criticised for it.
• China is just abominable across the board, and again, is criticised for it.
• Iran is abominable, no surprise there; it's not taken seriously as a state in which ethics are considered.
• North Korea needs no further introduction.
• Hamas has been criticised - and again, is not being taken seriously as anything other than a band of murderous thugs and religious zealots.
• The US has been roundly criticised, for obvious and lengthy reasons.
• Israel is... criticised, which must by now shock you. Because, while claiming the moral high ground, its actions have not been shown as substantially different from those of their enemies in terms of applied racism and religious bigotry. The kindest thing you can say is that they are less murderous than their frankly genocidal opponents. Other than the overt racism, its attitude is really just that of the US, on steroids - shriller, louder, and more self-righteous.
• Italy, Turkey, Greece, Myanmar... the list is long and boringly similar.
• The UN has indeed been treating Israel like shit. This has also netted it criticism, although I dearly wish it would garner more international attention.

You seem to have a bee in your bonnet because of there being an embargo against Israel by a virtual nonentity. What remains is a signal, which, yes, should be made to other equally deserving villains. And there are others that do send such signals. Which means my earlier point remains: criticism of one crime is not vitiated by a failure to criticise every similar crime. Sometimes, mere dissent is enough, particularly against a country that preaches virtue while embracing nationalism and religiously motivated segregation.

Of course, it's not polite to say such things out loud.

[Eleas]

I agree, believe it or not. But what I'm trying to describe is that the degree of one-sidedness (even when it's justified, let alone when it's based on distortions or outright falsehoodsd) in international reactions - whatever the explanation for it - has pretty much caused international criticism to have very limited credibility with the Israeli public, making it a relatively ineffective tool.

Yes, there is a one-sidedness. I don't think it can really be dismissed or excused, and nor should it. The practical reasons for it can easily be traced back to racism and resultant friction with power blocks; ethically it's reprehensible. It may in fact be the most obvious reason for why the UN doesn't work.

However, another reason why international criticism has little credibility with the Israeli public is exceptionalism, which clearly is entrenched and openly supported. That's something that also has to be taken into account; an "us versus them" mentality will not lend itself well to cooperation with outsiders.

[Elfdart]

People criticze Israel for the same reason people criticize America.

No, because both countries invade other states and kill the inhabitants in order to steal from them. Israel craves real estate while America craves cheap oil (in the Middle East) and cheap bananas (in Central America).

The academic boycott is really just the opening coin toss. The real goal is to pressure universities into divesting from companies that do business with Israel, then to pressure other bodies to do likewise and finally sanctions. In other words, the same game plan used to stick it to South Africa during the Apartheid era. The only difference is, "liberal" Democrats wouldn't be caught dead whoring themselves out for South Africa the way they do for Israel. Apparently, we only have thirty-six members of the House who are willing to go on record as not being special pleaders for the Gaza Massacre.

[Eleas]

Pardon the multiple posts. I seem to have overlooked the embarrassing fact that Norway is notedly pro-Hamas. Given how badly that camp has behaved in this conflict, directing criticism solely against Israel seems awfully hypocritical, all things considered.

[eyl]

Purely from a practical POV, that's a major reason why a boycott or (other such measures) is more likely to encourage Israeli defiance, ratehr than compliance. The average Israeli sees the international system as one which will - at best - preach endlessly about how we have the right to self-defence but will immediately condemn us if we excersize that right, while meeting actions against us with silence.

On reading this, three words in your statement immediately jumped out at me. "Defiance." "Compliance." "Us." You could hardly be more obvious in your implicit exceptionalism if you were frothing about the mouth. While part of me would thank you for how easily you make my point for me, most of me is left shaking my head in bewilderment.

Since the point obviously missed you, I'll repeat - I'm trying to explain how international criticism is seen from an Israeli perspective, and why the surfeit of it has made it less effective than you might think.

The Israel-Palestina moratorium will be breached if I go into details; may in fact have already been, and if so, I'll bow out. Suffice to say the following:

• Russian actions have been abominable in Chechnya, in Georgia, and likely also Dagestan and Ingushetia, and they are generally criticised for it.
• China is just abominable across the board, and again, is criticised for it.
• Iran is abominable, no surprise there; it's not taken seriously as a state in which ethics are considered.
• North Korea needs no further introduction.
• Hamas has been criticised - and again, is not being taken seriously as anything other than a band of murderous thugs and religious zealots.
• The US has been roundly criticised, for obvious and lengthy reasons.
• Israel is... criticised, which must by now shock you. Because, while claiming the moral high ground, its actions have not been shown as substantially different from those of their enemies in terms of applied racism and religious bigotry. The kindest thing you can say is that they are less murderous than their frankly genocidal opponents. Other than the overt racism, its attitude is really just that of the US, on steroids - shriller, louder, and more self-righteous.
• Italy, Turkey, Greece, Myanmar... the list is long and boringly similar.
• The UN has indeed been treating Israel like shit. This has also netted it criticism, although I dearly wish it would garner more international attention.

Again, how much formal criticism (such as UNGA/UNSC resolutions) has been leveled at any of those cases besides Israel?

You seem to have a bee in your bonnet because of there being an embargo against Israel by a virtual nonentity. What remains is a signal, which, yes, should be made to other equally deserving villains. And there are others that do send such signals. Which means my earlier point remains: criticism of one crime is not vitiated by a failure to criticise every similar crime. Sometimes, mere dissent is enough, particularly against a country that preaches virtue while embracing nationalism and religiously motivated segregation.

Of course, it's not polite to say such things out loud.

Forget every other crime - it would be nice if the international organs would take the opportunity to criticize more than a handful of other offenders.

[Eleas]

Since the point obviously missed you, I'll repeat - I'm trying to explain how international criticism is seen from an Israeli perspective, and why the surfeit of it has made it less effective than you might think.

No, I fully understand your point. On its own, it's cogent; it's just that by pretending to address my point and instead attacking something I never said, it only succeeded in distorting my argument. However, it seemed like an oversight on your part rather than deliberate error, and I shouldn't have been so vitriolic.

Forget every other crime - it would be nice if the international organs would take the opportunity to criticize more than a handful of other offenders.

I disagree on this Norwegian university (which was what we were talking about, lest you forget) being a very noteworthy international organ in its own right. I also do not share your view on other countries offensive behaviour being ignored on this matter, as I stated plainly enough in the same post you answered.

--

EDIT: I missed your response on that part, so I'll add it now.

Again, how much formal criticism (such as UNGA/UNSC resolutions) has been leveled at any of those cases besides Israel?

This is a pretty poor argument to make, given that it addresses only one community, one that has been shown to be largely opposed to Israel in the first place. In fact, coming right on the heel of my clear statement on the possible illegitimacy of the UN due to those same actions, it looks downright bizarre. The UN dislikes Israel, therefore it is a universal view of Israel - just look at these UN resolutions for proof!

--

However, will certainly agree that there's a lot of double standards held, and that decidedly powerful opinions are arrayed against Israel, just as the reverse is true (lest we forget America's stance on the matter). Again, this does not even things out. Two wrongs do not make one right.

[TheLostVikings]

Pardon the multiple posts. I seem to have overlooked the embarrassing fact that Norway is notedly pro-Hamas. Given how badly that camp has behaved in this conflict, directing criticism solely against Israel seems awfully hypocritical, all things considered.

It's worth noting that Noways was the first country to officially acknowledge the state of Israel as a sovereign state, and used to be a strong supporter Israel in general. Of course all that permanently changed on July 21, 1973.

Mossad assassins walking up to a guy in broad daylight and shooting him to death in front of his pregnant wife. For obvious reasons that didn't exactly go over all too well with the general Norwegian population. So from that day on being pro-Palestine pretty much became the norm. Sooo... yeah, Hamas has yet to assassinate innocent Norwegian citizens. And while that is obviously completely irrelevant to the current situation people tend to have long memories in these kinds of things.

[Eleas]

It's worth noting that Noways was the first country to officially acknowledge the state of Israel as a sovereign state, and used to be a strong supporter Israel in general. Of course all that permanently changed on July 21, 1973.

Mossad assassins walking up to a guy in broad daylight and shooting him to death in front of his pregnant wife. For obvious reasons that didn't exactly go over all too well with the general Norwegian population. So from that day on being pro-Palestine pretty much became the norm. Sooo... yeah, Hamas has yet to assassinate innocent Norwegian citizens. And while that is obviously completely irrelevant to the current situation people tend to have long memories in these kinds of things.

I had forgotten about Lillehammer. The motives may be clearer; however, it's still academically dishonest to pull something as one-sided as this, IMHO.

[TheKwas]

Wait... talking to and recognizing Hamas as democratically elected government officials makes them 'notably pro-Hamas'? I'm sure that Norway also meets with the Israel government, which must also make them 'pro-Israel'.

By the same logic and using the same source, Israel could be 'pro-hamas' since " 64% of Israelis favour their government holding direct talks with Hamas in Gaza about a cease-fire and the release of captives."


Also, judging a University's position as biased because of a stance their government took is more than a bit dishonest.

[Axis Kast]

Israel may be a developed nation, but they are also one of the few to hold territory by conquest since the end of the Second World War. To put it another way, there's Israel, and then there's Israel. Comparison to South Africa is imperfect, but comes easily for a reason.

Either Israel is going to wall the Palestinians in, keeping them at gunpoint, or it is going to engage in an occupation. There is no incentive to attempt integration or unification -- especially because the Palestinians lack a single spokesman who can make good on promises, and in light of the constant, and credible, threat of spoilage which no Israeli politician could credibly ignore over the long term.

[Eleas]

Wait... talking to and recognizing Hamas as democratically elected government officials makes them 'notably pro-Hamas'? I'm sure that Norway also meets with the Israel government, which must also make them 'pro-Israel'.

Not alone, no. I should have been clearer, but it does appear to be the case that the general sentiment in Norway is indeed quite pro-Hamas. The link I gave was not intended as comprehensive evidence or source, for fuck's sake - it's Wikipedia. I had overlooked what I perceive to be a more or less overt support for the Palestinian side of the conflict among the Norwegian public (which wouldn't surprise me one bit), and I simply felt that pointing out that Norway was the first to recognise that government -- something that you conveniently forgot -- was a valid datapoint. How does that make it the only one?

By the same logic and using the same source, Israel could be 'pro-hamas' since " 64% of Israelis favour their government holding direct talks with Hamas in Gaza about a cease-fire and the release of captives."

Of course. Nobody's saying it should count as the only source, or indeed a proper source at all, of course... save yourself.

Also, judging a University's position as biased because of a stance their government took is more than a bit dishonest.

That might be. Of course, judging as I did that same position as being based on views popular among the populace is a different matter. A brief Googling does not exactly paint a rosy picture of present-day Israel-Norwegian relations either.