Monday, December 10, 2018
Elder of Ziyon
During a decade and a half of helping fight the BDS
“movement,” I’ve been asked many times if I have ever personally boycotted any
person, institution or product for political reasons. Looking back, I can’t think of a single
instance when I practiced or participated in any boycott of any kind.
Previous to my battles with anti-Israel boycotters, it actually
never occurred to me to make boycotting part of my political life. But once I saw how the boycott weapon was
being misused as a bludgeon to attack Israel, it definitely became a personal decision
to avoid using that weapon myself, despite many understandable requests to do
so in hope of taking the fight to Israel’s foes.
The choice not to fight fire with my own boycotts directed
at Israel’s enemies is definitely a personal one, and not the only reasonable option. For example, many years ago a commenter left
a story about his decision to boycott Arab shops in Jerusalem as a statement
against BDS targeting Israel. And while
he and I (or he and anyone else) are free to agree or disagree with that decision,
it must be pointed out that his decision was personal and thus profoundly
different than the choices BDS is asking others to make.
That’s because this person chose to deprive himself of the goods he might have
bought at the prices he might have received.
He also chose to announce clearly that he made the economic decision he
did for political reasons. Finally, he was
willing to accept the consequences of the choice he’s made. Those consequences might be good (word
getting out that boycotts go both ways) or bad (increased hostility between
Israeli Arabs and Jews). They can also
be internal (from feelings of satisfaction to discomfort regarding the targets
he chose for his boycott action). But
they are consequences that he was prepared to bear.
Contrast that with the BDS “movement” that is all about
getting other people to choose boycott
and divestment and (although rarely mentioned by BDS advocates) bear the
consequences.
Think about it. If a
college’s branch of Students for Justice in Palestine sent out a press release
saying that their members were divesting from Israel, that announcement would,
at best, lead to a blog entry asking what they were divestment beyond their
allowances. But if they can claim their
school has joined some perceived divestment bandwagon, well now that’s
news. Which is why they’ve worked so
hard to get the school to do so and, when failing to succeed, worked even
harder to get others to join them in pretending that it did.
In terms of consequences, BDS leaves that to others as
well. If their activity rubs ethnic and
religious tension raw or puts intuitions in legal jeopardy, what do they
care? All they want is the “brand” of a well-known
organizations associated with their squalid little political program. And if a community is turned into a war zone
or a company or other organization gets sued over the position the boycotters manipulated
or bullied them to take, it’s the institution (not the BDSers) who have to deal
with the wreckage.
Considering the pose the divestment cru routinely strikes
with regard to their supposed courage and boldness, just once I’d like to see
them put anything of their own on the line.
I recall a film where a father blasted some young people for playing at
Third World radicalism with the statement “poverty is fine if you’ve got a
return-trip ticket.” But if I were to
craft a similar message for BDS it would be “boycotting is easy, so long as
it’s others that pay the price.”
