No help from the outside

[Behind the Aegis]

Gideon Levy thinks that opponents of the occupation should thank the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education in Britain and the Canadian Union of Public Employees in Ontario "from the bottom of our hearts" for deciding to boycott Israel, "despite their flawed double standards," as he wrote in a Haaretz op-ed Sunday ("With a little help from the outside").

The "moral double standard" of the boycotters is expressed, he said, in the fact that they did not use the boycott weapon "to protest their own countries' war crimes and occupations" in Afghanistan and Iraq. Levy is also prepared to assume that "there may indeed be some elements of anti-Semitism among those calling for the boycott," but says there are also those "for whom Israel is close to their hearts," and who "want a just Israel." In any event, he says we should welcome the boycott, because Israeli opponents of the occupation do not have the power to bring it down; "thus, it only remains to hope for the world's help."

Let's leave aside the "elements of anti-Semitism" and focus on those "for whom Israel is close to their hearts," and who want a "just Israel." The question still remains: Why is only Israel close to their hearts (to the point of a boycott)? Why are their countries, Britain and Canada, not close to their hearts? Are a just Britain and a just Canada less important than a just Israel? And above all, is not the most important objective a just America?

After all, according to the groups supporting a boycott of Israel, over the last few decades, the United States has been the primary source of all types of evil in the world - including, of course, Israel's occupation of the territories. There is no universal criterion capable of describing the boycotters' decision to target Israel rather than the United States.


more...

[iverglas]

1. a little knowledge goes such a long way.

First:
http://www.cupe.ca/humanrights/CUPE_National_statem

CUPE did not vote to support a boycott of Israel. The Ontario Division of CUPE did.

Second: search that site for "Afghanistan" and "Iraq". You will find that CUPE opposed the bombing of Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq. There have been CUPE contingents at every demonstration against the invasion and occupation of Iraq that I have attended.

Third: Canada has not committed war crimes in Afghanistan. FUCK YOU. Many Canadians oppose Canada's involvement in Afghanistan, for varying reasons, but it is NOT an invasion and it is NOT an occupation and NO WAR CRIMES HAVE BEEN COMMITTED BY CANADIANS. A serious issue Canadian forces are having to deal with, that has arisen very recently, is what to do with people who have been apprehended whom they are required to turn over to Afghan forces, when it is apparent that the Afghan troops present plan to kill them. Canadians have held onto prisoners and refused transfer until they can do it in a way that they determine to be safe. Hey. COMPARE THAT TO SABRA AND SHATILA, eh? I would also note that it is really quite incorrect to refer to Canada's presence in Afghanistan as an "occupation". Really.

Fourth: how the fuck does a Cdn trade union boycott Canadian goods? Outsource lunch? Has any political pressure group ever successfully boycotted its own country's goods? What idiocy is this supposed to be?

People exert pressure on their own governments through their own political process, and through various methods of appealing to and attempting to influence public opinion. Boycotts are a tool used to attempt to influence governments (or other entities) over which someone has NO control.

There is no universal criterion capable of describing the boycotters' decision to target Israel rather than the United States.

Hey, bub. You may not have noticed, but there is no universal criterion capable of "describing" anyone's decision to do anything at all. Assuming that he means a criterion by which someone's decision to do something may be made or judged, he might want to recall that people have been trying to come up with such criteria for as long as there have been people, and no one has succeeded. Categorical imperative ...

But heck. I suppose that if someone gets some comfort out of comparing himself favourably to the US when it comes to who has slaughtered and made homeless and impoverished how many without justification, I won't begrudge him his small pleasures.

[Behind the Aegis]

2. Send to Ha'aretz

They do a "talkback" section....it is at the bottom of the page.

BTW...the author did make the distinction that it was Ontario...it's in the first sentence.