---

Address in Reply to Her Majesty’s Most Gracious Speech

My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lord Hunt on his return to the Front Benches—he has been sorely missed—and my noble friend Lord Warner on his new position. Most of all, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Adonis on his wide-ranging maiden speech and on his appointment as Minister for Schools. The press have had a field day over his appointment, but he has borne the criticism with good grace and humour. The academy schools project has been championed by my noble friend for many years. When the history books are written, academy schools will feature as one of the key new Labour initiatives that changed secondary education in this country for ever and for the better. For that, my noble friend will deserve every credit. Mossbourne Community Academy in Hackney is one such school. It is sponsored by a good friend of mine, Sir Clive Bourne, who himself is no slouch in getting things done, and I have seen the creation of something visionary and inspirational in an area where vision and inspiration have been in short supply. The building is stunning; the layout is well designed; and, for a high-tech person such as myself, it is a joy to see state-of-the-art equipment being used by all the children throughout the school. School lunches are not only edible but tasty—I have sampled them myself—and, in the school, the children eat fruit and vegetables. It is obvious to even the most casual observer that the children are disciplined and enthusiastic; the teachers are motivated; but, most of all, the parents now have hope where once there was only despair. Of course, there are doubters; there always are. But consider this gem from the streets of Hackney: the local estate agents now take pride when they have a house for sale located in the Mossbourne catchment area. They know a good thing when they see one. That academy, and those like it, are a positive force for good. I concentrate my words today on a disturbing trend that is becoming increasingly present on some of our university campuses. In raising this matter in your Lordships’ House, I am conscious of how easy it is to exaggerate, so I choose my words carefully. I am talking about a growing trend of anti-Jewish outbursts. I am Jewish, but I am generally slow to rise to the bait of prejudice. Such things can so often be misjudged by oversensitive souls, but the signs are worrying. On an anecdotal basis, friends tell me that their sons and daughters at university are subject to hostility because they support Jewish causes and, in particular, when they express their support for Israel. Of course, that has increased since 9/11. The issue was addressed in the impressive report of the Home Affairs Select Committee prepared in another place on terrorism and community relations. Having received evidence from a number of sources, including representatives of both the Jewish and Muslim communities, it expressed its concern about the level of anti-Semitism on campuses. It urged the university authorities to act swiftly when such problems were brought to their attention and reminded them of their duties under the Race Relations Act 1976 and its applicability to student unions. Perhaps the Minister will add his voice to those calls in his wind-up speech. Now there is another development, which again indicates that our campuses are becoming uncomfortable for Jews. In the past few weeks, the Association of University Teachers has taken the decision to boycott two Israeli universities—Haifa and Bar-Ilan—with further threats to ban two others, including the Weizmann Institute. Here I must declare an interest: I am chair of Weizmann UK, and I serve on the executive council of that institute in Israel. Whatever Israel may or may not be, it is not a monolithic state. Everyone is opinionated on every subject under the sun. As the old adage goes, every time you get two Israelis together, they have three opinions. That certainly holds true. If you want vibrant democracy, that is the place to go. Nowhere is intellectual debate and rigorous discussion more intense than on the Israeli campuses. Nowhere is the pursuit of peace and the necessity of a two-state solution more forcefully articulated than in the gardens and canteens of those universities. That is where the Israeli peace movement is most active, so for the AUT to single out those institutions for boycott is totally misguided. It has implied that Israeli universities are no-go areas for Arab students. That simply is not true. Haifa University has 20   per cent Arab students, and many Arabs are on the faculty. The Weizmann Institute has an eminent Arab professor and many Arab research students—both Israeli Arab and Palestinian. The institute, like so many other Israeli universities, is right at the forefront in working closely with other universities in Arab countries, with the specific aim of improving the region for all. For example, there is a joint Egyptian-American-Israeli project designed to combat parasitic weeds that devastate agriculture. Also in the area of plant research, there is a joint study with Egypt and Jordan within the framework of the National Plant Genome Centre. The goal is to accelerate the breeding of crops adapted to regional conditions. I could also cite the Ben-Gurion University, the Hebrew University and Haifa itself to show how Israelis and Arabs are co-operating and getting on with the business of making life better for all. They do that in medicine, genetics, agriculture and even archaeology. Last week, at the Royal Society in London, an important joint declaration was made. It stated:"““Cognizant of the moral leadership universities should provide, especially in already turbulent political contexts, we, the President of Al-Quds University and the President of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, have agreed to insist on continuing to work together in the pursuit of knowledge, for the benefit of our peoples and the promotion of peace and justice in the Middle East.""““Our position is based upon the belief that it is through cooperation based on mutual respect, rather than through boycotts and discrimination, that our common goals can be achieved.""““Our disaffection with, and condemnation of acts of academic boycotts and discrimination against scholars and institutions, is predicated on the principles of academic freedom, human rights, and equality between nations and among individuals””." It would seem to me that the AUT has seriously misjudged its target. I also believe that it has misjudged its timing. Hesitantly, but with determination, the peace process in the Middle East moves forward. Against domestic resistance that we often underestimate, Prime Minister Sharon is set on a course to evacuate Gaza in the next few months. Similarly, in the face of constant internal hostility, President Abbas is trying to bring order to his fractious community. For those two men and their respective communities, the going is tough. Both leaders face civil strife, and both are under threat for their lives. But the mood, while fragile, is also cautiously optimistic. One thing is certain: the participants need all the help that we can give. Equally certain is the fact that misconstrued boycotts hinder rather than help. I have listened to what the AUT has to say, but I am still left with one nagging question: why is the boycott solely directed at Israel? Why is it not directed at universities in China, when that country still occupies Tibet and persecutes its students; or why not at Russia for its continuing butchery in Muslim Chechnya; or why not Iran, or Saudi Arabia, or Syria, which allow no student dissent whatever? When the AUT executive is handing out its boycott notices, why are not those, and a hundred other totalitarian countries like them, also included? Why does it pick on the only democracy in the region? Is it not just one more example of the pervasive double standard—blame Israel for everything and turn a blind eye to everywhere else? What can we do to help? Tomorrow morning, the AUT will reconsider its motion. I fervently hope that the delegates will think again and vote against the boycott. I call on them to heed the 20 Nobel laureates and more than 45,000 members of the public who have signed an Internet petition urging that the boycott motion be defeated. I call on the university authorities, the chancellors, the vice-chancellors and the administrators to start speaking out loudly against that type of prejudice. Some have been to the forefront in condemnation, but too many others have been mealy-mouthed. Finally, I call on our Government. I would like them to seize this moment and introduce a bold initiative that could bring hope to all. Many of our universities lead the world, particularly in science and technology. As part of our country’s contribution to the Middle East peace process, why do we not launch a British-sponsored international science and technology initiative? There could be a programme designed to encourage our universities to collaborate in joint regional projects with Israeli, Palestinian and other Arab academic centres. Studies could be conducted based on water technology, water-borne diseases, desert agriculture and environmental issues; and why not even archaeology? It would benefit the Arabs and the Israelis, and it is something that our universities could do so well. But it cannot happen without a Government initiative. What better and more practical way could there be to make a positive and lasting contribution towards peace and understanding in this deeply divided area than for us to take such a bold and positive step?