No, BDS does not unfairly 'single out' Israel

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

http://972mag.com/no-bds-does-not-unfairly-single-out-israel/108825/

Ironically, the boycott movement actually expresses some level of faith in Israeli democracy by assuming a little pressure might motivate it to change.

In 1965, Britain placed sanctions on Rhodesia; then in 1966, the UN Security Council for the first time in its history authorized international sanctions against the white minority government, for the next 14 years, until Rhodesia created a fairer government and became Zimbabwe. (Israel, incidentally, was one of the countries that did not respect the sanctions – displaying at least moral and political consistency.)

The UN imposed sanctions against Iraq (1990, for its treatment of Kuwaitis during the invasion) and against Yugoslavia in the early 1990s, for its treatment of ethnic minorities. In those cases, sanctions preceded international military intervention, something that has never remotely been on the table in the West’s treatment of Israel.

Numerous other countries perpetrating egregious human rights violations, such as Sudan, Somalia and Sierra Leone have been placed under international sanction regimes. Including, yes, Syria. The charge of “singling out” Israel is dead wrong.

[oberliner]

1. Interesting that the argument is that Israel should be held to a higher standard than those others

"But precisely because Israel has a democratic ethos, because it is part of the West and in dialogue with it, activists reasonably believe gains can be made."

It is fascinating how some activists believe if you are not "part of the West" then there is no sense in trying to fight against your human rights violations.

From the article:

"Second, it’s attractive to work for a cause where there’s a possibility you can actually make a change. North Korea is an impenetrable fortress that scoffs at arguments of democracy and human rights, if it notices them at all."

North Korea will never change so why bother standing up for human rights there?

[Scootaloo]

3. Well, it also CLAIMS a higher standard than those nations do, Oberliner

And most of those nations labor under some pretty stiff sanctions.

You can't have it both ways. You can't proclaim Israel to be a first-world western democracy, a shining beacon on the hill, the light unto nations... and then demand standards set by of Tajikistan and Eritrea.

Do you want to tell me that you feel Israel simply incapable of meeting the standards of western first-world Democracies? or is it more that Israel should not be held to any standards at all?

[oberliner]

4. Agreed

I find it to be a really interesting argument. Namely, that because Israel has greater potential to change its behavior that is a reason to target it, as opposed to other countries that have limited to no potential to change their behavior. In theory, the people living in those other low-standard countries are often times in a lot greater need of assistance. They are facing a hopeless situation made even more hopeless when human rights advocates around the world don't bother helping them because they doubt they can actually change their circumstances. That seems really unfortunate for them.

[Scootaloo]

5. No, you're not agreeing. You're just rephrasing your prior bad argument.

[oberliner]

7. I am not attempting to make any argument

I am suggesting that the argument made in the OP is an interesting one - specifically those quotations I cited which indicate two of the reasons why the author feels it makes more sense to target Israel than North Korea in the manner described. I find those arguments to have potentially troubling consequences for people living under countries that do not aspire to be democracies.

I do agree with you in terms of what you wrote in your subject line (namely that Israel claims a higher standard than those nations). That's what the "agreed" was in reference to.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

9. Pssst. North Korea is under sanctions so has it been targeted.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

8. What's even more interesting is how you cherrypick: taking it out of context.

First, celebrities probably wish to support what they perceive as the underdog, the party in need of attention, which they can bring. For most of the decades under occupation, Israel’s narrative reigned in the West. Palestinian people were essentially ignored, written off wholesale as terrorists, and their claims and experiences of life under occupation misunderstood, if noticed at all. The last decade of attention to Palestinian reality is essentially a pendulum swing in their direction.

Celebrities may not feel the global attention they command is needed on behalf of ISIS victims. We all agree that being drowned, beheaded, pushed off a building or burned with acid is evil.

Second, it’s attractive to work for a cause where there’s a possibility you can actually make a change. North Korea is an impenetrable fortress that scoffs at arguments of democracy and human rights, if it notices them at all.

But precisely because Israel has a democratic ethos, because it is part of the West and in dialogue with it, activists reasonably believe gains can be made. They’re right. If Israel wants to be more democratic toward all the people it controls, it surely has the political culture in place to do so. The claim to democracy also makes the nearly 50-year occupation so much more offensive.

[FlatBaroque]

2. Support BDS. n/t

[Igel]

6. Cyprus and Turkey.

That way you get to punish for the Armenian genocide and the less known Greek and older Kurdish ones, while disrespecting the Turks' overweening hypocrisy wrt Israel, and deal with occupation and discrimination. There's none of this terrorism on the part of those who are occupied, no question that the territory was part of a government, no question that the military action to occupy the territory was or wasn't part of a larger struggle that pitted aggressors against defenders.

It's a bigger target, after EU membership, has putative links to the IS, and is a member of NATO.

However, it's Muslim and a BDSesque campaign won't find a large activist Greek Cypriot community, 3rd generation "refugees," and it's not a Western colonial fairly prosperous immigrant imposition on an "indigenous" population, with wide support from numerous countries who preach that even the stones will cry out if a Jew hides behind them--and it's not like there's the occasional lop-sided renewal of hostilities to really get bent out of shape over.

No, Israel's a much more satisfying target for those who like coercion and compulsion. And nobody wants to alienate Turkey since, well, they're one of those "numerous countries."