Please give me a logical explanation as to why Israel, above all countries, is being singled out for a boycott, especially when you consider the world is full of repressive dictatorships and gross violators of human rights? How about boycotting Sudan, China, Iran, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, I could go on and on.

Laura,

Replace the word “Israel” with “Iraq” and the word “boycott” with “invasion.”

President Bush singled out Iraq for offenses that plenty of other countries are guilty of. Does that means he’s “anti-Iraqi”?

Sometimes, hypocrisy is simply that. There’s no reason to assume that it implies hatred of a certain group of people.

But I think it is proper to call the academic boycott efforts I have heard of both in the U.S. and in Britain “prejudiced” and even “bigoted” because they make a general condemnation of persons based on no information other than nationality.

Yes, but prejudiced against whom?
The policy is biased against Israel and, by extension, some Israelis.
Using the ‘anti-semitic’ tag implies it’s prejudiced against all Israelis and, even further, against all Jews.
In addition, it leads to the attitude that if someone does not agree with this assessment, that person, too, is anti-semitic.

As a result, those who feel they are unjustly accused feel resentment, resentment against the accusers. The situation becomes ripe for a backlash effect,

I hold the view that people are more likely to be convinced by reason than by the strong-arm tactics of emotional and broad accusations ot “anti-semitism’. Once convinced, not bullied, into agreeing/disagreeing with a policy, such convictions are more likely to stand the test of time, IMO, and are far more valuable assets to seek out.

I am also concerned about the recent rhetoric on this formerly moderate site. Don’t like Hebrew National hotdogs? Then you’re an anti-semite. The true implication of the label has been diluted to the point of absurdity.

If Friedman is using the same rhetoric then he is going at the subject in an extremist way rhetorically as well, but atleast he’s Jewish so I’d understand that to degree. Disagree with him, and shake my head at his wrong application of the term I would.

Friendman doesn’t have much credibility in my book anyways (see The Friedman unit for my reason).

It is true that boycotts generally do not necessarily mean bias is at work, but I think we should distinguish against economic boycotts and boycotts against persons.

South Africa was an economic boycott, designed as you said to bring economic pressure to bear.

The proposed British boycott is against academic relationships — in short, against Israeli persons. It does not include a significant economic component designed to bring about pressure against state policy. It is instead just an assumption that any person who is Israeli must be shunned.

I think its fair to criticize a policy based on such an assumption as being intrinsically prejudiced. It is no different from someone suggesting that all Zimbabweans be rejected in their applications to U.S. schools because we don’t like Mugabe’s repressive policies.

I’m really tired of the personal barbs here. if through political or economic pressure the Israelis and Palestinians can be made to see that it’s in their best interest to come seriously to the negotiating table, that’s a good thing. It doesn’t mean I’m “for” or “against” either in Israelis or Palestinians. It just means that I want any peaceful pressure possible brought to bear to seek out a peaceful solution to this conflict.

LMAO

Meanwhile Israel continues to take, on average, 93 gallons of water/person/day for the settlers from the West Bank aquifers while only allowing 19 gallons/person/day for Palestinians. Hmm – that sure is fair.

Do you have any caomments on these points?

Calling the boycott an act of anti-semitism has the exact same negative result. Now we are no longer talking about the boycott but about who is anti-semitic and who is not.

The trouble is, that since Israel has an intrinsic Jewish identity, the exact demarcation line beween anti-Israel feelings and anti-semitism in a particular case, event or individual may turn out to be illusory.
Does anti-semitism give rise to criticism of Israel?
Does disapprobal of Israel’s actions give rise to anti-semitism?
These are not either/or questions. Both can be true, one can be more true than the other in a specific case, etc. The possibilities and combinations are many, many.

It’s crucial that the boycott be discussed, criticized
and opposed in every wary. The facile ‘anti-semitism’ tag, diverts attention into tangental areas, and dilutes rather than strengthens opposition.

As a high ranking blogger here at TMV (emphasis on Moderate btw) you should know better than to post things that are from the extreme edges of political spectrum, and blatantly designed to provoke extreme feelings. I’d expect trash like that from LGF, FreeRepublic, or Democratic Underground not TMV.

It seems you go into some kind of alternate personality when it comes to your pet subject (Israel) eventho you have absoloutely nothing invested in it. I take it much less serious and I have a large branch of my family that happens to be Jewish as is my girlfriend. So mellow out, and try to be more thoughtful, because when you are you post good stuff.

There has been little to no concilliatory gestures from the Israelis towards the Palestinians. When they withdrew from Gaza, they took even more valuable land in the West Bank.

The net result for the Palestinians has been a worsening of conditions. You somehow think that’s going to breed moderation?

And yet, instead of focusing on the things we can do to make the Palestinians our friends, you want to “starve Gaza”, give weapons to Fatah and now root out anti-Semitism in British academia. What’s next? Maybe there are some Australian teachers unions you can go after.

No Chris, it’s not. It has to do with real concern for a very real problem, alive and well in extreme left circles.

I thought it was obvious I was being facetious in a sort of “how long have you beaten your wife” kinda way.

Davebo, I know that was the case, which is why I only posted a “reminder” rather than editing or deleting anything or even calling it a “warning”. Anyway, it is probably best to avoid the “you are a ___________” formulation in any context.

However, I would ask you to refrain from being deliberately provacative. You knew when you wrote this that the word anti-semetism would raise howls of protest. You hide behind the fact that you do not call any specific individual anti-semetic but the casualness with which you use the term implies it’s attachment to any criticism of Israel.

If you look at the US and much of the world, hatred of Muslims for being who they are is a MUCH more prevelent problem than anti-semetism. If you read blogs here in the US you see an incredible amount of vile statements about muslims that would make your stomach turn. I don’t see any statements quite so vile about Jews. Laura criticises people who are critical of Israel more than China, etc. as hypocrites. Are you a hypocrite for criticising anti-semetism when anti-muslim rantings are at least equally bad?

It would be nice to read a post by Michael that tackles those on the right who spew forth hatred of the Palestinian people so foul it would make your soul curl up. Ben Shapiro, for example:

The problem runs deeper than a few figureheads. The Palestinian Arab population is rotten to the core.

But in the end, the blame must lie with the Palestinian Arabs themselves. They have accepted their role with relish. They are as responsible for their government’s longstanding evil as the Germans were for the Nazis’.

Double standards indeed, Laura.

Michael, instead of calling everyone who disagrees with your position on Israel an anti-Semite, how about you start defending the well documented atrocities commited by the IDF and various over-zealous Israeli settlers.