With A Little Help From Outside

by Gideon Levy
June 12, 2006

The laugh of fate: The state waging a broad international campaign for a boycott is simultaneously waging a parallel campaign, no less determined, against a boycott. A boycott that seriously harms the lives of millions of people is legitimate in its eyes because it is directed against those defined as its enemies, while a boycott that is liable to hurt its academic ivory tower is illegitimate in its eyes only because it is aimed against itself. This is a moral double standard. Why is the boycott campaign against the Palestinian Authority, including blocking essential economic aid and boycotting leaders elected in democratic and legal elections, a permissible measure in Israel's eyes and the boycott of its universities is forbidden?

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 „Ÿ 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 „Ÿ 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.

It would have been preferable had the opponents of the occupation in Israel not needed the intervention of external groups to fight the occupation. It is not easy to call upon the world to boycott your own country. It would have been better had there been no need for Rachel Corrie, James Miller and Tom Hurndall, bold people of conscience who paid with their lives after standing in front of the destructive bulldozers in Rafah. These young foreigners did the dangerous and vital work that Israelis should have done.

The same is true for the few peace activists who still manage to roam the territories, to protest and offer assistance to the victims of the occupation in the framework of organizations like the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) which Israel fights „Ÿ preventing its members from entering its borders. It would be better if Israelis mobilized to fight instead of them. But except for a few modest groups, there is no protest in Israel and no real mobilization. Thus, it only remains to hope for the world's help.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=22&ItemID=10424

Especially here.

PB

Despite the hysteria and unfounded assertions of some of its detractors, ISM is not a "threat to the State" or the Israeli people.

It is the same refrain we heard from pro-war reactionaries during the Vietnam conflict, Central America or the anti-nuclear proliferation protests regarding peace activists:
"they are commies and hate America"

Now the refrain is "They hate America, and support Osama" is the accusation against those who oppose the war in Iraq.

Israel uses the same tactic.
They are keeping many people out. Even pacifists from the Christian Peacemaker Teams.

The question is,
What Does Israel Have to Hide?

when Israeli academics formally commited themselves to NATFHE's destruction....

against the Palestinian people, simply for voting "incorrectly". A sanction regime that is causing incalculable suffering, and has been condemned by humanitarian and human rights organizations almost unanimously.

It is an example of the greatest chutzpah to see people screaming against any sanctions, even the most mild, against Israel that has for nearly 40 years been in violation of international law in regard to its occupation of Palestinian land, an act it now seeks to codify and "normalize" with its "convergence" plan. This is so illogical it gives even "double-standards" a bad name.

The question is, how do we pressure Israel to follow international law? To end the occupation.