There aren’t many progressive Jewish or Israeli voices finding favor with the British academic boycott vote last week. That’s why I was pleased to read Gideon Levy’s insightful Haaretz column, With a Little Help from the Outside. Levy notes the delicious irony of Israel, which is currently engaged in a boycott of the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian people, denouncing the academic boycott proposed by the British teachers union:
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.
Levy notes the awkwardness of endorsing a boycott of one’s own country but finds it necessary nonetheless:
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…
Levy similarly endorses the Presbyterian Church’s call for divestment from companies benefiting from the Occupation. Surprisingly, he calls for greater efforts to broaden the boycott believing that this may be just the bucket of cold water Israelis need splashed in their faces. This might help them realize that the rest of the world rejects the seemingly endless Israeli Occupation and intends for Israel to pay a price:
The world can help save Israel from itself…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.
One of the most useful aspects of Levy’s column is his list of particulars describing how Israeli academics and professionals either remain silent in the face of the Occupation’s evil; or even worse, benefit from it directly:
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.
There will be the usual cries against Levy that he is a traitor, etc., etc. But in reality, it is those Israelis who condone the Occupation by not fighting against it tooth and nail who are traitors to their nation’s best interest. They have something to answer for that Levy does not.
