When writing
about Israel, I think it’s important to show some awareness of the controversy that surrounds the country, even
when the blog focus is not political (if that’s even possible when it comes to
Israel.)
Various entities have sought to
boycott Israel in protest of their policies toward the Palestinians. While I do
not support all of Israel’s actions, and I “get” the opposition (former Al-Jazeera employee here) I developed a distaste for
the boycott movements. They often seemed to be a one sided push
for a cause-du-jour, without an accompanying appreciation for the full scope of
the situation.
There's a chance I'm biased due to my Israeli partner in life. All I know is that I've heard endless amounts of arguments from both sides, and each make sense in their own way. Here I shall take on the role of
boycott supporter:
I am calling for
a blanket boycott of Israel. By that I mean popular musical acts should not
perform there, and super markets should not sell products that are manufactured
in Israel. This would also include an academic boycott of Israeli universities,
scholars, and cultural institutions.
Israeli policies in the
occupied West Bank and towards the Gaza Strip harm Palestinians, whose
movements and access to the outside world are limited. Disproportionate use of
force by the Israelis against their neighbors is not acceptable, nor is the
continued expansion of Jewish settlements on occupied land. The “Separation
Wall” is offensive and racist and should be torn down. Until Israel shows a real
commitment towards respecting the Palestinians and honoring their right to an
independent state, I call for this boycott.
Many young Israelis are
offended when the likes of Elvis Costello and Roger Waters boycott their
country. They cite Israel’s contributions to the larger world in the form of
scientific and technical innovation and discovery, and their expert medical aid
in areas of natural disaster. My response is that all of this educated
intelligence and goodwill should first be put towards addressing the injustices
perpetrated by their own government. So many rights don’t correct a big wrong.
Israelis will protest that they have been wronged, that they are
continually under siege despite efforts for peace (the treaty with Egypt,
returning the Gaza Strip to Palestinian control). But the fact is that they
still have the upper hand and they still control the West Bank. Only when they
are on equal ground (figuratively and literally!) with the Palestinians should
the boycott be lifted.
This boycott will also remind
Israel that they are not immune to international law. The International Court
of Justice ruled in 2004 that the Separation Wall was illegal. Israelis defend the wall with
statistics that show suicide bombings have all but disappeared in their country
since it was erected. However, changes in policy that addressed the root problem could have been just as
effective and much less harmful to those on the other side.
Some say it is hypocritical to
single out tiny Israel for boycotts and abuse while other governments in the
region commit atrocious human rights offenses against their own citizens.
Israel claims to be the only democracy in the Middle East, and a bastion of
Western values.
First, Israel may be tiny, but
it has a tremendous effect on other countries’ foreign policy. As an American,
I know that our nation has attracted the ire of many Arab countries for our one
sided support of Israel. America also spends a disproportionate amount of
foreign aid on little Israel. With such security and financial investments, I
think we have a right to an opinion and a say in how Israel conducts itself.
The fact that Israel is a
democracy only adds to the argument for a boycott. The citizens actually have a
say in the policies of the government. A boycott is a non-violent way of pressuring
the people to pressure their officials. As far as Western values, it is time
for Israel to show a genuine commitment to those
values and to lead the region by example. In the meantime, we shall boycott.
An interesting attempt at looking from the other side, but I feel that you should have embraced it more, and used more forceful language. "I say" is stronger than "My response", "The Israelis" is stronger than "Many young Israelis." If you want to sound passionate about it, use harsh words. Make it hurt.
ReplyDeleteYour first chance of hurting is in the second sentence where you define your boycott. It's too specific, and weaker than it can be. First of all, money is always more sensitive - "stop the selling and buying of all products manufactured in Israel or the occupied territories," then culture - "performers should declare they are unwilling ..." Could be nice to have a way to get the academic side in the same flow, it's not a completely different thing.
After that you stated the general problem pretty well ("offensive and racist" nice and harsh, "Disproportionate use of force" sounds feeble. "Unwarranted" maybe?) then you break down the claims and why they are not enough. You break the pattern in the last three paragraphs, and I think you can keep it with different organization.
You can start by stating "I don't think it is hypocritical to single out Israel for boycotts and abuse while other governments... While I, of course, don't support their actions as well."
The claims about being tiny, democratic and western can come with your explanations, with an addition of countering the other countries. For example: "Israel is smaller than the other countries in the region, but it has ..." "Israel claims to be a bastion of Western values, if that is so, it's time to show..."
This change might not work to make the argument fiercer, I haven't tried a full edit to see what it's like - but it might.
Good job tackling such a difficult assignment. I'm sorry if my comments don't make sense - it's late.
[And if you want my opinion, the Israelis should get the hell out of the occupied territories and start dealing with their many internal problems.]
My reaction to your post made me realize a bias that I didn't think I had, one that many Americans hold. I felt an instinctive rejection while reading this. How curious, considering that Israel wasn't really on my radar.
ReplyDeleteNigel has a good point, that your words are not forceful enough. It almost felt as if you were treading lightly. Yes, it's controversial - but, in for a penny, in for a pound.
I wonder if you wrote this as a Palestinian, your words might be stronger. "We are under seige; we are having our rights violated with every brick in the wall" ... etc. It's this third-party voice that is a bit weaker.
Very interesting topic!
Thanks for the feedback, guys. I probably could/should have been more fierce in order to be more convincing.
ReplyDeleteI've found when I'm talking about these issues with other people, I usually end up being in the middle and trying to acknowledge different points of view b/c I understand they both have grievances. To me, people would actually be more persuasive if they took a gentler, more encompassing & thoughtful tone, which is maybe why I sounded the way I did.
Nigel, I appreciate the breakdown. It does make sense :) And yeah I see I needed to address the writer's feeling on the other countries offenses that I mentioned, which will also make it more convincing.
Amaia, I wrote this from the perspective of an American b/c its usually Americans or Europeans that organize the boycotts; although they can be pretty fiery, certainly writing from the perspective of someone IN the conflict would probably be more hard line. I actually think it would be a healthy exercise for a lot of people!