I'd like to reply to some comments made by Eve Garrard and Norman Geras on an article of mine in Red Pepper, 'Singling out Israel'.
Garrard writes:
Kuper's first and principal justification for singling out Israel for hostile attention is that it singles itself out by claiming the high moral ground of commitment to the values of liberty, justice and peace. It invites evaluation in terms of Western values, since it claims to be committed to them. But it does seem to follow from Kuper's criticism that if Israel dropped that claim, then for him there would be much less reason to single it out for further attention, and he would be able, no doubt with a sigh of relief, to turn his hostile attentions elsewhere.
Well, yes and no. It is precisely because Israel invites evaluation in terms of Western values that it matters so much to us, for we are complicit if we fail to say 'No, Not in Our Name' (and that, incidentally, is why it matters so much to Jews in the West for whom Israel in effect speaks twice). If Israel were to drop its claim to occupy the high moral ground I would, at one level, heave a sigh of relief, in that the moral waters were no longer being muddied by Israeli double-speak (contrast the words to the reality of ongoing occupation and settlement, collective punishments, administrative detentions, land, water and olive tree thefts, targeted killings, daily humiliations of Palestinians, torture, uninvestigated killings of civilians, house demolitions and the rest). I'd have no reason not to want to continue to support the just demands of the Palestinians, and Garrard's confident assumption that I would ('with a sigh of relief') turn my attentions elsewhere is misplaced - and cheap.
Her second point relates to my comment about Israel being supported by America - turned by her into 'the principle... that a country which is a friend of America's should be judged by a much harsher standard'. That's her construction not mine. What I actually wrote was the following:
The extent to which the US has singled out Israel as its most loyal ally in the region is indeed extraordinary. Insofar as one believes that the US plays a dominant role in the international system, its choice of countries to support is of legitimate concern.I didn't myself draw any conclusion from this but I would stand by my assertion that the US's support for 'Israel as its most loyal ally in the region is indeed remarkable'. Israel is de facto singled out by the US, not by me. Does Garrard think this is of no interest whatsoever?
Norm is altogether more generous in tone. I'm in entire agreement with his first, long paragraph about individuals' rights to single out the causes they choose to support. But it is different, he says, where large aggregates of individual are concerned: 'It doesn't just happen that a whole lot of individuals converge on one cause. There have to be reasons.' Of course. Norm's argument seems to be that there are no 'good reasons'. I think people are concerned with Israel for the reasons I listed in my article and I regard these as good enough: Israel singles itself out as special in relation to the 'precepts of liberty, justice and peace taught by the Hebrew prophets'; it controls religious sites whose fate is of special significance to three world religions; it is regarded as very special by the United States; and it does, in a very deep moral sense, claim to be speaking for Jews everywhere. You could add that the Middle East is a tinderbox and Israeli policies contribute to making it more unstable. What happens there can have terrible repercussions for us all. I thus have no problem in seeing why this conjunction of reasons draws multitudes of people together in caring about the situation in Israel-Palestine and demanding some solution.
The question is where to go with all this concern. My article was not an attempt to close down discussion, but to open it up. I'm in favour of a boycott of occupation goods and of military supplies to Israel (including Caterpillar); but I understand why so many feel this response is simply inadequate given the steadily deteriorating situation in Israel-Palestine. I see the call for an academic and cultural boycott by so many Palestinian NGOs as a howl of outrage at being left to rot by Western governments, and a desperate plea for help. But I do not myself support it - not because such a boycott is in principle unacceptable (it isn't), but because I can't see how it is supposed to bring about the desirable outcome its supporters (and indeed so many of its opponents) say they want: a just and peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. (Richard Kuper)