That boycott is a success of the recent PACBI campaign based upon a spurious similarity between Israel and apartheid-South Africa. I wouldn't support such a boycott in this case.

The apartheid analogy, like the Nazi analogy, comes up a bit too often and too easily. Yesterday I read an interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the woman mentioned as the next victim on the breast of the Dutch filmmaker murdered by an islamist. She said that "the idea of multiculturalism that is the concept to treat all cultures as equal is a well meant form of apartheid" (her reasoning: (1) because it supports the segregation of men and women in the Muslim society and (2) because it supports the segregation of different subcultures in Europe).

Should we now boycott all Muslim countries as well as long as they do not give up the literalist interpretation of the Koran?

Such boycotts are usually stupid unless (1) the dislike of a regime is close to universal and (2) it is an economic boycott being able to force down a regime effectively (and not only to give some academics a good feeling).

Academic boycotts (and sport boycotts as well) are inherently silly and fly into the face of what one basic idea of science is. Should I for instance disregard a mathematical proof from an Egyptian colleague and write that the theorem...has not been proven yet? Should I disregard a warning about fatal side effects of a vaccination for it has been found by a colleague from Israel? Bullshit.

Wolfgang