Because according to Jacob Weisberg, Newsweek columnist, “The very idea is repellent.”
Really? Let’s listen to some of what he has to say:
If you follow the news closely enough, you might have caught a small item recently noting that Meg Ryan had canceled a scheduled appearance at a film festival in Jerusalem to protest Israeli policy. This was significant not because anyone should care what the nose-crinkling movie star thinks about the Mideast but precisely because no one does. Ryan, a conventional Hollywood Democrat, is a barometer of celebrity politics. Her sort of sheeplike, liberal opinion once reflexively favored Israel. Now it’s dabbling in the repellent idea of shunning the entire country.
Support for the Israeli cultural boycott has been growing in surprising places lately. After the Gaza flotilla incident in June, rock bands including the Pixies canceled performances at a music festival in Tel Aviv. Elvis Costello announced in May that he was canceling two upcoming performances to protest the treatment of Palestinians. Unlike Ryan, Costello is a thoughtful person whose views are worthy of respect. So why, exactly, do I think he’s wrong, too? Why is a private embargo–which includes an academic boycott and the push for divestment on the anti-apartheid model–an unacceptable way for outsiders to protest Israeli treatment of Palestinians?
One argument is that academic boycotts are intrinsically unacceptable because they violate the principles of free expression and the universality of science and learning. A parallel objection applies to cultural boycotts, which directly target the most forward-thinking members of a society. In the case of Israel, shunning writers like Amos Oz and David Grossman, who serve as national consciences, seems not only intrinsically vile but actively counterproductive. On the other hand, it would be hard to justify a blanket rule that cultural and academic sectors are always off-limits. In authoritarian societies, cultural institutions do tend to become ideological proxies–think of the National Ballet in Cuba, or the East German gymnastics team.
It won’t work? So why is the Israeli Kenesset passing legislation that would criminalize boycott efforts inside of Israel and the West Bank?
Let’s see. Did Weisberg even begin to mention the reasons why boycotting Israel is justified, like the 43 year long military occupation of the Palestinians, whose sole purpose it is to colonize—well, let’s be frank about it—steal their lands, which continues today? And what about the atrocities perpetuated by Israel against the Palestinians, like the massacre of 1,400 mostly civilians in Gaza recently, including over 300 innocent children? Let’s not even mention the past 60 years. And what about the suppression of non-violent protests, including the deaths of protesters as well as the arrest of its leadership, the so-called Gandhis of Palestine, who are are jailed interminably. Not a word.
Instead, what we get from Weisberg is a repetition of Israeli propaganda talking points (could have been out of GIYUS or even StandWithUs): that “supporters of this boycott seldom focus on China or Syria or Zimbabwe–or other genuinely illegitimate regimes that systematically violate human rights,” and “because Israel is a refuge for Jews persecuted everywhere else, this kind of existential challenge is hard to disassociate from anti-Semitism.”
It’s those old defenses: why us and criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic!
Even though we finally get an admission from Weisberg that cultural and sports boycotts against South African Apartheid were effective, somehow Israel is not South Africa. It is a democracy. Well so was South Africa, and so was America when it supported slavery and then Jim Crow segregation for a hundred years.
Weisberg is just not convincing.
.
I understand last week’s ruling on the independence of Kosovo by the International Court of Justice in The Hague was welcomed by the West and dispaired by Russia and China because of precedent action … this may open a just call for independence for a Palestinian state.
THE HAGUE — On 22 July the International Court of Justice handed down a decision that is likely to have significant consequences for the unilateral declarations of independence for people seeking to form an independent State.
The main legal finding of the Court is that the unilateral declaration of independence by the Kosovo Assembly was legal because international law does not prohibit declarations of independence.
… such International Law pronouncements do have an element of farce within them and I look forward to our liberal friends recognising that the suppression of the Confederacy was an illegal act by Abraham Lincoln, as Jefferson Davis contended. Can you just see the Labour and Lib Dem Conferences awash with buttonholes announcing “The South will rise again.”
ICJ ruling has great significance to separatist movements around the world
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."I really don’t know why the Palestinians are hesitating, given that the outlook is bleak. Netanyahu already indicated that there will be no Palestinian state; if anything, a group of bantustans, the only thing that could exist under his proclimations re. the Jordan Valley, the Jordanian border, East Jerusalem, and the many Israeli only cities and towns that exist in the West Bank.
Lieberman, the racist Israeli FM, has warned the Palestinians not to proceed with such an action. That is also Netanyahu’s stance. It would seem to me that doing the opposite is the way to go. And in the process, the Palestinians should demarcate their own borders, and those borders, per international law, should be declared.
Anything else is a waste of time including negotiating with the Israelis.
Weisberg is just not convincing.
You’re being way to kind, shergald. Weisberg is driveling. A tool for the Israeli authorities who are now proposing legislation that will criminalize advocacy of BDS. The thought police is coming, and it will also justify the harassment of peace activists that has become so prevalent in Israeli society.
But BDS is working, otherwise there would not have been so many desperate acts as we are seeing lately.
Guilty.
Take a look at Booman’s frontpage story on Netanyahu, and it may make up for my relative reticience or kindness.
Mr. Weisberg is an equal-opportunity offender. He uses the sheeplike, thoughtless Meg Ryan as a substitute target for those he doesn’t dare attack, like the brilliant and admirable Elvis Costello who made the same decision as Meg did.
I imagine Ms. Ryan could teach Weisberg a little about the devastating effects of economic shunning. She suffered it herself after becoming a famous sinner.
Maybe he’s just not talented and a bit resentful.
I would be if that premise were my assignment.
So I’ll take it that Weissberg doesnt support sanctions against Iran or anyone else for that matter.
Wasnt thirties Germany also a democracy?
Maybe countries should be judged by how they act rather than how they select their leaders.
Isnt Iran a democracy too? And one at that which hasnt attacked any of its own neighbours or tried starving any of them either. Still we dont expect evenhandedness when discussion involve Israel.