My regular readers may recall one of my more controversial columns, wherein I
made the
case against boycotting Israel: my argument was essentially that a boycott
in this case would be unjust, since many Israelis disagree with the
state-enforced racist policies of the current government and it would be unfair
to make them suffer for the actions of a state gone rogue.
The basis of my argument was that boycotts of this nature are essentially
inimical to libertarianism, which
places the individual, and not collective entities like states, at the center of
its worldview. Furthermore, this view was bolstered by my stance in favor of
Israeli statehood: the Israeli people, I argued, have a right to national
self-determination, just like all other peoples. Why single them out, I averred,
in a world where states routinely violate rights?
Yet what happens when a state singles itself out by engaging in
behavior so egregiously oppressive, so repulsive to the civilized world, that
dealing with it in any shape, form, or manner is morally problematic? Israel has
reached that point – a tipping point, as Chemi Shalev puts it –
as increasing numbers of people the world over reach that conclusion
I changed my mind about the BDS (boycott, divest, and sanction) movement
aimed at Israel when I read Max Blumenthal’s Goliath:
Life and Loathing in Greater Israel, a book that tears the veil of
hasbara off the Jewish state and reveals the crude racism that energizes
its policies, both foreign and domestic. The idea that state funds are being
used to build "Jews only" housing, roads, and entire communities – and that this
is accepted as normal, even beneficial, by Israel’s ostensible "liberals" – is
an international outrage. That it is being done with US taxpayer dollars and
diplomatic support is unspeakable.
So why not just call for ending US government "aid"? After all, if these
exclusivist policies were being pursued with private funding, libertarians – who
uphold the right of individuals to associate with whom they please – could have
no principled objection to it. Right?
Read the entire article
