Gideon Levy

"With a little help from the outside," By Gideon Levy
Haaretz - 4 June 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 ? 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.

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 --
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.

The world can help save Israel from itself in limited
ways. In a situation in which the governments of the West
effectively support the continuation of the occupation,
even if they declare their opposition to it, this role
moves to civil organizations. When a group of American
attorneys, including Jews, calls for a boycott of the
Caterpillar company, whose bulldozers razed complete
neighborhoods in Khan Yunis and Rafah, it should be
thanked for this. The same applies to the boycott of the
universities: When an association of British university
lecturers boycotts Israeli colleagues who are not prepared
to at least declare their opposition to the occupation, we
should appreciate it. Each group in its field, and perhaps
this will someday also include tourism officials, business
people, artists and athletes. If all these boycott Israel,
perhaps Israelis will begin to understand, albeit the hard
way, that there is a price to pay for the occupation ? a
price in their pockets and in their status.

The occupation is not just the domain of the government,
army and security organizations. Everything is tainted:
institutions of justice and law, the physicians who remain
silent while medical treatment is prevented in the
territories, the teachers who do not protest against the
closing of educational institutions and the prevention of
free movement of their peers, the journalists who do not
report, the writers and artists who remain mum, the
architects and engineers who lend a hand to the
occupation's enterprises -- the settlements and the fence,
the barriers and bypass roads and also the university
lecturers, who do nothing for their imprisoned colleagues
in the territories, but conduct special study programs for
the security forces. If all these boycotted the
occupation, there would be no need for an international
boycott.

The world sees a great and ongoing injustice. Should it
remain silent? It is not, of course, the only injustice in
the world. Nor is it the most terrible. But does this make
it any less necessary to act against it?

It is easy to exempt ourselves from our moral
responsibility and attribute, as usual, any criticism to
anti-Semitism. There may indeed be some elements of
anti-Semitism among those calling for the boycott. But
also among them are groups and individuals, including
quite a few Jews, for whom Israel is close to their
hearts. They want a just Israel. They see an Israel that
occupies and is clearly unjust, and they believe they
should do something. We should thank them for this from
the bottom of our hearts.