Consensus Wisdom: The Boycott Of Israel Is Working

[Purveyor]

From reading my digital mail, I see that a lot of people who say they oppose the occupation also oppose the boycott against Israel, and not only on moral grounds, but for practical reasons as well. It won’t work, they say, it won’t convince anyone, it’ll have a boomerang effect by making Israel even more intransigent. I’ve made my arguments against the moral objections to the boycott (here, here and here), but now I want to yield the floor to much more prominent speakers – all of whom oppose the occupation and, explicitly or presumably, the boycott too – who have been warning lately that the world is gradually turning its back on Israel, and the only way it can avoid eventual isolation is by freeing the Palestinians. In other words, they’re saying the boycott is having an impact, and it’s growing. The catalyst for this wave of concern was Stephen Hawking’s decision in early May to boycott last week’s Presidential Conference in Jerusalem.

The New York Times‘ Thomas Friedman, probably the best-known foreign affairs columnist in the world, wrote on June 4 that the BDS movement “is creating a powerful surge of international opinion, particularly in Europe and on college campuses, that Israel is a pariah state because of its West Bank occupation.” The No. 1 reason why Israel must end the occupation, Friedman wrote, was “to reverse the trend of international delegitimization closing in on Israel.”

On Friday, Yedioth Ahronoth’s Nahum Barnea, the most influential print journalist in this country, wrote that the Magen David Adom ambulance service, the national branch of the Red Cross, is under pressure from the U.S., British, French, Dutch and Norwegian branches to stay out of the West Bank, where it handles the Jewish settlements. (And this was before an MDA spokesman tweeted a particularly ugly anti-Arab joke.) They want MDA to give the whole territory to Palestinian Red Crescent ambulances, which handle the Palestinian areas. Ze’ev Elkin, the far-right deputy foreign minister, says he won’t comply and doesn’t care if the Red Cross kicks MDA out of its ranks. Barnea writes:

Elkin is living in la-la-land. … He chooses not to see the growing movement to boycott Israel in academia, the cancellation by Stephen Hawking of his appearance at the Presidential Conference because of pressure from boycotters of Israel, the factories that are pulling out of the West Bank because they’re unable to export from there.

MORE...

http://972mag.com/consensus-wisdom-the-boycott-of-israel-is-working/74297/

[Fozzledick]

1. The consensus at 972mag that is.

In the real world, not so much.

[Purveyor]

3. But of course as israel is held in such 'high esteem' throughout the world. Bawahahaha! eom

[Scootaloo]

2. The point, so often missed by Israel's apologists and naysayers...

Is that boycott is not "action." That is, it is not something undertaken because the boycott itself has impact. To be fair a lot of people make this sort of mistake, thinking that by not buying something, or closing an account, or what have you, that you are depriving a business or entity of your patronage and thus hurting them financially.

It really doesn't work that way. The buses and theaters of Alabama still did plenty of business during the boycotts of them - in fact the Montgomery buses did better business, because anti-black activists rallied whites to use the buses more frequently, meaning the lack of black riders became a boon for the transit business, in a purely financial sense. Same in Israel, no matter who avoids a showing, no matter who decides to not purchase what... plenty of performances will happen in Israel and plenty of goods will be exchanged - and like the White citizens councils of Alabama, Zionist activists will rally their fellows to do even more business with Israel to "spite" the boycott.

But the point of boycott is not to strip away finances or business (that would be the "D" part of BDS.) The point of boycott is a demonstration of protest. Thus boycotting in silence is pointless, making you just another of the billions of people who aren't buying the product, visiting the country, doing whatever. A boycott, essentially, is bad publicity. And despite what Hollywood wags say, any publicity is not good publicity. And the pressure of bad public image does begin to weigh down even if the finances are still golden; Montgomery buses integrated because of the men and women making them look like douchebags in the street, not because of lack of business.

[azurnoir]

4. well you see quite a bit of denial concerning the boycott movement here

not to mention of histrionic reaction to labeling settlement goods as such rather than as being made in Israel

however it reminds me of this quote at least in figurative sense

Tywin Lannester to Joffrey "Any man who must say, "I am the king" is no true king."

and the constant denial about the boycott IMO indicates it is making headway