The recent decision by the American Studies Association (ASA) to boycott Israeli Universities has set off the most recent round of debate about whether boycotts are an acceptable reaction to policies of the Israeli government that are perceived to be unjust. I think the ASA decision was itself misguided and embarrassing. Boycotts of Israel, like any other political and economic action, have to be evaluated based both on whether the goal they are seeking is a good one and whether the boycott is likely to advance that end. The boycott movement–particularly as it takes a scattershot approach reflected in the ASA decision–is unlikely to achieve whatever goals of ending the occupation or eliminating suffering at which they may aim. And yet the mainstream reactionary view about boycotts–that they are anti-Semitic actions aimed at delegitimating Israel–is itself counterproductive. In this longer blog posting I explain why I believe the reactionary response to boycotts is misguided, even if boycotts in this case are not particularly justifiable.
***
For many American Jews, the Israeli Government’s treatment of Palestinians in the West Bank is politically and morally objectionable. In response, they have joined various calls to boycott Israel, particularly products produced on the West Bank, to express their discontent with the continued occupation, and apply economic pressure in hopes of resolving the situation.
The response of many mainstream Jewish organizations to the threat of boycotts has been perhaps predictable: any boycott of Israel is an effort to undermine the legitimacy of the state and provide a cloak for anti-Semitism.
This mainstream reaction is in some ways, understandable. Many boycott supporters–particularly those formally associated with the Boycott, Divestment and Sanction (BDS) movement– oppose a Jewish state of any kind and use anti-Semitic language and rhetoric. Further, as many others have noted, the injustices of the occupied territories receive disproportionate attention compared to other far worse human rights abuses affecting vastly more human beings elsewhere in the world. This raises the very real question of motivation: taking nothing away from their concerns, why is Israel the focus of their attention if human rights are their main concern? Put together, these facts give credence to the view that boycotting Israel is not really an attempt to protest and change Israeli policies and actions. Rather, boycotts can appear to be simply an attempt to eliminate the state as a Jewish state of any kind.
The reactionary position to exclude the boycott conversation completely from the mainstream Jewish community nevertheless seems unwarranted and counterproductive itself. First off, despite the fears, Israel as a Jewish state is not likely to disappear; the delegitimization concern thus seem exaggerated. (It is also exceedingly difficult to pin down any plausible definition or way to measure “delegitimization” to check whether it is happening.) Second, the seemingly principled opposition to boycotts is hypocritical coming from the same groups that support economic sanctions to effect other kinds of political change. Boycotts and sanctions have long been used as a tool of protest against social justice; many of us who grew up in the 1970’s remember our parents refusing to buy Iceberg lettuce to support rights of migrant workers. The recognition that boycotts and sanctions make a difference is, after all, why many of us support sanctions against Iran. Third, any instinctive opposition to boycotts that protest the occupation can make us blind and callous to the very harms which Palestinian Arabs are in fact suffering.
By rejecting boycotts as ipso facto anti-Israel and anti-Semitic, we risk hardening our own hearts and excluding from the conversation a generation of American Jews who concerned with the situation of the Palestinian Arabs.
I am therefore not in principle opposed to boycotting as a means of organized political and economic action to effect Israeli policies, any more than I would be in principle opposed to any kind of organized political or economic action against injustice. The question, then is one of pragmatic effectiveness–if you think the occupation is unjust, is some kind of boycott likely to produce the results you want?
In this case, I oppose boycotts of Israel because I think they are counterproductive and do more harm than good. Their fellow travelers clearly are interested in more than changing the injustices of occupation, and tactically, it is extremely difficult to separate these two streams. Even worse is when groups express their purported support of the Arab cause with a blind attack on Israel, without bothering to ask whether that action would even advance their ends. The boycott does indeed become simply a tool to (try to) delegitimize Israel, rather than become a positive force for change.
Coming from an academic community, I have to object most strongly to the recent decision by the American Studies Association to boycott Israeli Universities. This one in particular gives credence to the reactionary response of the mainstream Jewish community that any boycott is simply an anti-Semitic, anti-Israel action, rather than one designed to bring about peace or justice. Rita Freedman, has written a good article against such academic boycotts. Freedman is the Acting Executive Director of the Jewish Labor Committee, a group well on the left of the political spectrum, so her opposition to this boycott is particularly noteworthy.
Whether or not boycotts to promote just Israeli policy are justified, we have to make room at the table for the concerns of the Next Gen about the condition of Arabs in Israel. Excluding boycotts from the discussion, or any other kind of criticism of the state, is in its own way counterproductive. By alienating a substantial portion of our community, we risk their continued disengagement undermining the very support of any Jewish state.
