My short answer is no. But if there is a clear aim to the boycott then OK, and as for how much, a normal boycott is a refusal to buy products originating from there, and not a Galloway-esque refusal to talk politely to its citizens. I mix with a lot of different stripes in the arts, and unless someone specifically proclaims views that offend me, I am not inclined to pre-censor or ignore anybody, and that is proper.

I say no because Israel is not fairly construed. Most Jews are considerably more sympathetic to the history of zionism than any who demonise Israel.

If you'll allow me to write a potted history from memory, the context was that over nearly two millenia in which the religion, the exiled tribe and the belief that Israel was holy had continued to flourish, Jews met with sometimes hostile politics from their Christian and Muslim hosts, resulting in bloody inquisitions and crusades, blood libels, pogroms, public denunciations and all manner of persecutions and attacks.

Jews were not given to seek converts and expand, and had not in two thousand years been given to seek territory either. Some things that changed this were the militarisation of some Russian Jews by an aristocrat who found them a useful army against Turks and Cossacks; their herding in and out of The Pale of Settlement; and their scapegoating and the extreme violence of pogroms at the hands of the Tzar.

Those Jews who fled into western Europe were sometimes lucky, such as those who made it to Britain, or met with a choice either to assimilate, which many did with great success, or to be considered according to the worst stereotypes of the time and made to suffer. Poor Jews flocked to Palestine (in what was under the Ottomans a province of Syria) as many always had, but in unprecedented numbers. Jews were then numerous across North Africa, the Middle East and Persia and there were already many Sephardic Jews in Jerusalem as well. When the pogroms became an emergency in the late 19th century a more organised movement began for the purchase of land and the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. There was some degree of welcome for those who brought industry with them, but also resentment, because it was not normal (and still isn't) for non-Muslims to purchase land and settle en-masse, displacing fairly hapless Bedouins. It was not seen as equivalent to today's waves of immigration from east to west. After WW1 everything changed.

Britain held the Palestine mandate, which included what is now Jordan, and eventually accepted Zionist supplications, deciding to call 2/3 of the mandate Transjordan and the area to the west of the river Jordan, Palestine.

At that point the Arab world mobilised, regelding the dome of the rock, and organising violent campaigns against the British and the Jews. At times these were successful, and the British imposed limits on Jewish immigration, even during WWII when boats of refugees arrived from Germany. The 1930s saw Jewish insurgencies emerge to fight back against Arab attacks and resist the British, and to my mind this is the first time in Zionist campaigning that immoral and violent means were a part of the struggle. By now there was politicking across the middle east by Hitler's allies, and Jews who formed a sizeable population of Arab cities began to experience persecutions.

The reason why I say all of this is to underline that Israel was not merely the sequestering of land by Jews following the Nazi holocaust, but evolved over a process that began justly and whose inevitable end would be the founding of a state. Since 1948 Israel has been the subject of constant hostilities, largely emanating from dictators whose interests did not extend to giving Palestinians a helping hand - in Jordan especially, and in all Arab states to the east of Israel, Palestinians have not been integrated and given a national status, as have those Jews in Israel who fled Baghdad, Iran and Yemen, but have been kept in penury as a battering ram against the Jewish state. So I do not see the travesties of war as a one-way onslaught, and my sympathies for the Palestinians are solely humanitarian and not nationalistic.

I do not see the case for Gaza on one side of Israel and the West Bank of the Jordan on the other becoming a state. I believe that after the war of 1967 Jordan should have extended citizenship and exerted its rights in the West Bank, and Egypt should have done the same in Gaza. Both rejected the option to do so because their plan was always to destroy Israel. Now Israel has a fairly robust peace with Jordan, though Jordan still is ruled by a Hashemite clan despite being largely Palestinian, and an ever shakier peace with Egypt, but across the Arab world and inherent to the Palestinian cause there remains this strategy of "refusing to normalise" relations with Israel, which is plainly doublespeak for seeking its dissolution. And that, to me, is inhumane to all parties and flatly precludes peace.

Having said which I see Israel's back against the wall and feel shame when Israeli tactics make ordinary Palestinians suffer, and for that reason I support a two-state settlement, being the only one with any traction in diplomatic circles. A better solution if Israel is ever truly to experience peace - not that I believe Arab states would allow it - is for the West Bank to be a province of Jordan and Gaza a province of Egypt.

So on what grounds could a boycott of Israel ever achieve its aims and be put to bed?

Joie de Vivre wrote:

 my sympathies for the Palestinians are solely humanitarian and not nationalistic.

What do you mean? Why would they be nationalistic?

TPOS wrote:

Joie de Vivre wrote:

 my sympathies for the Palestinians are solely humanitarian and not nationalistic.

 

What do you mean? Why would they be nationalistic?

 

As in, I want them not to suffer, but I find the campaign to displace Israel not in their interests. By all means call whatever state they become Palestine, although as I mentioned there's not much case for excluding Jordan (ie Transjordan, most of what was Palestine) from any peace settlement.

I suspect that most of those who dominate the Palestinian cause are more motivated by Israel being an easy totem around which to rally Muslims, while seeking their own national interests, than by the humanitarian issues. Notwithstanding this means bombarding anyone who will listen with Palestinian case studies over and above significant tragedies elsewhere across Arab and African lands. And that is fundamental to what I wrote because the main effect is to overlook all those other wrongs and the real context of Israel's coming into being; but to generate outright hostility prolonging the hostilities between Israel and the Palestinians until the day when either key American and European interests can be shifted away from any support for Israel or, in Iran's case, when they are able to advance their geopolitical designs by other means.

If I had to vote; I'd vote no.

you don't deal with a problem by ignoring it or pretending it doesn't exist. 

Apathy is death.

Looking To See wrote:

Israel doesnt look like they want a two state solution. what does Israel want anyway?

They do if it is sustainable and properly accounts for all key players - states and various groups that are funded by different states. As long as Israel comes under attack its short term goal is victory over the groups that attack it. In a peace settlement Israel wants recognition and an end to attacks. Charters that vow never to give up the fight against Israel don't make that easier, but the countless negotiations that Israel has participated in were all serious and fall down on the specific demands of each side. Israel is smarting ever since withdrawing from Gaza resulted in Hamas ramping up activities against Israel and destroying the resources left there, but perhaps from the chaos some order will emerge and a peace negotiation can begin again.

It's the Palestinians that are constantly being attacked and oppressed so the retaliation is expected. Don't get me wrong, I'm not condoning violence against any innocent person.

The reason for Israeli attacks and embargoes is that groups like Hamas exist solely to attack Israel. Their charters are founded on the basis that Israel must be vanquished. Why did you think Israel fights?