Some commentators argue that boycotting is an ineffective means of voicing your discontent; that it does little to effect real change. However, this view does little to understand the real spirit of a boycott. Usually, in the political arena, a group of people undertake a boycott in order to express their dissatisfaction regarding the actions made by a state or company. The initial stages of a boycott are always slow-moving and small-scale. Take the academic boycott of Israel, for example. Has education been failing in Israel following the boycott carried out by about 30 British universities earlier this year? Doubtful. In addition to this, a large number of Israeli academics support the boycott, as well as Palestinians, of course. The first stages of a boycott are purely symbolic. They are a gesture to those who are suffering that the world is taking notice of their plight. It is a peaceful protest when other mediums are futile. When two million Brits marched in London against the Iraq war, then Prime Minister Tony Blair gave his citizens the proverbial finger and went to war anyway. Needless to say, this is not the only example of a government ignoring the wishes of its people. The point is that initially, a boycott hardly injures the economy of its target country and once it is large enough to actually effect change and has a direct impact; this ultimately ends in the countries' involved in actually getting off their arses to improve the situation. This is what we learned from South Africa. In the case of Israel, once the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) campaign is powerful enough, those in charge – in Israel, Palestine and the boycotting countries – will be forced to take action. It is in everybody’s interest to end the conflict in that area – Israelis included, as it would end both the attacks by Palestinians and the parasitic economic situation perpetuated by the Occupation. Of course dialogue should be attempted first, but when a country ignores calls made by supporters and the international community and continues in whatever horror it is committing – the example of apartheid South Africa being obvious – then something must be done. Surely we should commend the individuals who feel that humanity compels them to take action? Unfortunately, those with power seldom do anything of substance to end the atrocities that a boycott opposes – the most recent invasion of Gaza, for example. In a consumerist society, civilians need to hit the leaders where it hurts the most. This is why we boycott. When millions of dollars are being paid to an oppressive regime, it’s bad enough. But when those dollars are being paid by your country, in your name – surely you take a stand? If your milkman was holding your neighbor hostage, would you continue to buy milk from him, or would you seek an alternative? In the case of Israel, as internationals, the only weapon we have is the BDS campaign. At least the only one that is accessible to everyone, anywhere. After decades of double standards by the international community towards Israel, where it can commit whatever horrors it pleases without repercussions, we must treat it like any other country. Until it admits its crimes and commits to its promises and responsibilities, we must individually and collectively withdraw our support for the Israeli state. If we do not, then we actively incite the oppressed to take up arms. If alienated communities see no solidarity from the outside world in seeking peace and justice through non-violent mediums, then we are hypocrites to condemn them for their use of weapons. Boycott your heart out. **Samarai is a pro-Palestinian activist who has taken part in action in the West Bank. The alias is used here in order to protect the identity of someone who could become a target in Palestine. BM
