I do not understand the logic and reason for the boycott of Israeli universities. But, I do know Tzipi Livni deserves to be shot like her father, luckily for her Britain does not execute war criminals and her bastard of a father able to brake out of prison.
Do you think Churchill and Thatcher should have been shot too?
---
Anyway, this is not the question.
The fact is that for millenias, Jews have been defined as being born from a Jewish mother. That's all.
There were no discrimination, no racist or ideological project when this rule have been established. The reason simply was practical:
Mater secura est. It simply is a cultural tradition, and you should not confuse it with a modern political agenda, because then it would be a complete anachronism.
Catholics and Sunni Muslims often are the first to misinterpret the way a non-prozelyte religion works:
if you cannot convert to it, then it means there is something wrong within it. Misconceptions!
And later, Marxists took exactly the same stance, since they shared exactly the same Christian ethos:
society is always right against the individual.
Earliest forms of anti-Semitism started this way, because people refused to figure why one would never convert or, more curiously,
try to convert. The truth was that the Jewish people was extremely tolerant, and that it didn't understand why somebody would discard its identity for another one, or worse, force or influence somebody to do that. And the confusion grew even thicker when you know that for a Christian or a Muslim, the objective of religion was to control what people would think (=Ideology), while for a Jew, it simply was to define how they would have to behave in society. Judaism always emphasizes the right action, not the right belief. And in Judaism, you have no Hell, no Sin (at least the way Christians understand this word), no Redemption and no Paradise.
But Catholicism turned this remarkable quality into its opposite, and pretended that the intolerant ones were in fact the Jews. A very perverse trick, almost analogous to the "elected people" myth. For a Jew, being born a Jew is a burden, but you have no choice. While for a Catholic, if the Jew didn't want to convert, it was because he probably felt superior, or something like that.
This Jew probably had to hide something (a dark secret?), hence the beginning of paranoid conspiracy theories.
It all began that way, first as a simple misunderstanding, then later as a clash between radically dissimilar ethos. And with time, the mere existence of Jews became more and more unbearable, because it also questioned the Christian/Muslim/Collectivist ethos.
And hundred of years later, the consequence is you still have people over the Internet who nazify the Jew, and see their traditions as an offense to God/Collectivism/Ideology.
For them, Jews can only be the supreme racists, if not the inventors of racism itself. So they deserve to be treated the way they treat Goyim. The victims become the agressors, a classic tale of redemption!
What a cliché!
So Lark might wonder if I'm a psychic or something, but the fact is I've heard his tale at least a thousand times. Plus the fact he doesn't want to consider another point of view, that he seems intimately persuaded to be "morally superior".
Remember that Bush jr or Bin Laden also were intimately persuaded to be morally superior to any other contestant.
He doesn't like nation-states? Well fine! But once again, tell that to a Tibetan or a Kurd. I'm sure it's awfully racist or ethically flawed to think that
in practice, if ever a free Tibet or a free Kurdistan were allowed to exist, the fate of these people would be far better than what they endure now.
So once again, things are often more complex than they appear, and as they say: "hell is paved with good intentions".