Recently, and finally, there is some energy behind the idea of freezing certain types of collaboration projects of the EU with Israel. These have been attacked, mostly by americans, labeled as `boycotts'. To call these initiatives boycotts, is gross propaganda. Americans have the habit of intervening where they understand little. Real boycotts, are done either by the Arab League or by the USA. When the US floods the world with boycotts (from Cuba, to Iraq, to Serbia), rarely any of the american liberty champions involved here raises his voice.

I strongly support the insistence of any agency on the clauses of the agreements it signs with the receiving party. All EU association agreements contain explicit clauses of respect of human rights and international conventions: Article 2 of the Agreement states that "Relations between the Parties, as well as all the provisions of the Agreement itself, shall be based on respect for human rights and democratic principles, which guides their internal and international policy and constitutes an essential element of this Agreement".

Such association agreements exist in several fields, from economical, to technical, to cultural, to academic etc. They involve, basically, economic advantages for Israel. Yet, Israel has been violating every possible convention and every possible human right under the sun in the last 35 years. And the present tragic situation is a direct consequence of this fact.

Freezing agreements with Israel, on the basis of violations of human rights, is not a boycott. Freezing agreements, whose terms are violated, is not an extreme measure. If agreements are not respected, and they are blatantly not for 35 years, then acting to enforce the signed agreement cannot reasonably be called a boycott. Therefore I am in favor of such agencies confronting Israel with its legal and juridical responsibilities. It is an old (Marian, Jewish) biblical tradition to put the seriously ill in quarantine. Nothing more than that.

In fact: The suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement by the EU would be an implementation of the customary norm of general international law "inadimplenti non est adimplendum", codified by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, in response to Israel's material breaches of the Agreement, as well as an implementation of the obligation of EU Member States to ensure respect for the Fourth Geneva Convention in all circumstances.

There are precedents that have not raised a murmur: A precedent of EU sanction on a third country according to art. 301 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, occurred on 18 February 2002, when the EU imposed sanctions on Zimbabwe, arguing that this country fails to respect democratic principles.

If some scientists, agricultural producers or exporters feel the pressure, perhaps they will get their act together and start thinking where the criminal policies of their government are leading them, irrespective of what the other (Palestinian) side does or thinks. It is quite obvious that internal energies in Israel to balance the collective madness, or the imbalance of military force, are too limited. So one should hope that some external pressure would help. One thing is sure, if some external pressure does not convince Israel to obey international law, violence will never stop.

Such sanctions are in no way against free study or investigation, as some put it. This is a false presentation of the issue. They are for the respect of legality. Israel, as a state, is violating, in its activity beyond the 1967 lines, the letter of its association agreements with the EU, and scientific association agreements are just a part of an entire set of such agreements. There is no reason why academic institutions should not be equal before the law. Unfortunately, there is much too little, or nothing at all, to distinguish our (academic) community from any other.

Some consider such a sanctioning reaction, collective punishment. Not that collective punishment goes against the grain of what in the last 35 years has become common israeli practice in the territories administered by Israel. Yet the sanctions, in response to violations of a collective legal commitment, are a much more benign and acceptable practice. When a collective undertakes (collectively) obligations, the non-respect of the obligations is a breach of contract and one of the parties is exposed to sanction. The fact that under the collective accord individuals benefit, be they agricultural producers in the settlements or scientific investigators, their loss is not due to EU stand, but rather due their government's lawlessness.

It is a matter of unfortunate fact that the EU, while having seen fit to introduce such clauses in the association contracts, has not instituted monitoring processes. Following recent events, monitoring has become superfluous and the natural sanction is the freezing of he agreements. This is now being urged upon the European Commission by intellectuals who see value in the moral dimension of the community.

The EU has several times reiterated its concern that Israel complies with the territorial scope of the Agreement and with its humanitarian legal obligations in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (see the EU declaration at the meeting of the Association Council EU-Israel, Brussels, 20 November 2001, and the Notice to the importers published by the European Community in the Official Journal of the European Communities on 23.11.01). Therefore, a failure to take measures against Israel's violations of the Association Agreement would undermine the whole body of international law, international humanitarian law and European law.

Daniel Amit is a Professor of Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and at the University of Rome