A tale of two boycotts

Why did this take so long to appear in the press? Gideon Levy in Ha'aretz points out the sheer hypocrisy of those who condemn boycotts of Israel whilst ignoring, or worse, supporting boycotts for or by Israel.

Israel cannot claim the boycott weapon is illegitimate. It makes extensive use of this weapon itself, and its victims are suffering under severe conditions of deprivation, from Rafah to Jenin. In the past, Israel called upon the world to boycott Yasser Arafat, and now it is calling for a boycott of the Hamas government - and via this government, all of the Palestinians in the territories. And Israel does not regard this as an ethical problem. Tens of thousands have not received their salaries for four months due to the boycott, but when there is a call to boycott Israeli universities, the boycott suddenly becomes an illegitimate weapon.

Those calling for a boycott of Israel are also tainted with a moral double standard. The National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education (NATFHE) in Britain and the Canadian Union of Public Employees in Ontario, which have both decided to boycott Israel, did not act similarly to protest their own countries' war crimes and occupations - the British army in Iraq and the Canadian army in Afghanistan. Nonetheless, the handful of human rights advocates and opponents of the occupation in Israel should thank these two organizations for the step they have taken, despite their flawed double standards.

That latter point about Britain and Canada's war criminality in Afghanistan and/or Iraq is worth considering. My view is that the UK and Canada have a legitimacy that Israel lacks and that the boycott movement serves to underline that. But the boycott motions are not expressed as anti-zionist motions. For example, the NATFHE motion notes Israel's "apartheid policies" but not its apartheid or colonial settler structure. If boycott motions are proposed and supported by anti-zionists then they are lacking in candour. If they are simply disapproving of Israel's behaviour then there is an inconsistency between their approach to Israel's bad behaviour and their approach to the bad behaviour of other states.