There's nothing quite like a boycott to test the limits of the
mainstream 'liberal' critique of Israel. This has been demonstrated
once again by the reaction to a motion at the recent UK National Union of Journalists (NUJ) conference that gave the union's support to the campaign to boycott Israeli goods.
An official statement described the successful vote as a "decision of
NUJ members as trade unionists and as citizens to try to help put
pressure on the Israeli government" to stop the "continued occupation",
as well as referencing the specific issues of Israel's withholding of
PA money, and the refusal to recognise internationally-accredited
Palestinian journalists.
A modest but important show of solidarity for a beleaguered people
occupied by a state supported by powerful Western governments? Or an
irrelevant and infantile gesture, that compromises journalistic
neutrality and smells of anti-Semitism? From the conservative The Daily Telegraph, to the liberal Guardian, there was only one interpretation in town.
Pundits and editorials have been employing different arguments, though
most of them can be grouped into three main accusations: irrelevancy,
bias unbecoming of a journalists' trade union, and exceptionalism (or
anti-Semitism). The first, irrelevancy, was seized upon by many critics
as the perfect opportunity to smear the motion on a point of order --
what was a journalists' union doing supporting a politicised boycott?
However, the idea that a trade union should ignore international issues
and stick with issues directly affecting the workforce it represents
surely flies in the face of decades of international union solidarity
for those struggling against injustice.
The fact that BBC journalist Alan Johnston was still missing, presumed
held by a Palestinian group, at the time of the conference, increased
the anti-boycotters' sense of incredulity. Witness Jonathan Freedland's
Guardian
column: "'So, besides holding a special session on Johnston, what is
the NUJ's response? To spring into action and boycott, er, Israel. Does
someone need to give those 66 NUJ activists who voted for a boycott (as
opposed to the 54 who voted against) a quick refresher course in the
Middle East conflict, so they can tell which side is which?'"
It was an odd argument, since it presumes the impossibility of
condemning the kidnapping of journalists at the same time as also
identifying Israel as a colonial occupier requiring global civil
society action. Curiously, Freedland was not alone in alleging an
apparent lack of concern for Johnston's fate. The Foreign Press
Association weighed in with its own condemnation of the resolution,
noting the omission of Johnston's disappearance from the text --
despite Johnston's kidnapping being specifically condemned by the NUJ
in a separate motion. Even The Independent's Donald Macintyre, speaking to The Jerusalem Post,
seemed to suggest that the NUJ's boycott motion was instead of, rather
than as well as a commitment to working for Johnston's release.
Enter the Guardian's editorial, which beside from bearing
a striking similarity to Freedland's anti-boycott column in the same
paper, drew together the cry of irrelevancy and the concern of 'bias'.
The motion, which the Guardian claimed strayed "beyond the
reasonable and traditional concerns of a journalists' union", also
apparently ran counter to the journalistic norm of "a spirit of
fairness and disinterested inquiry".
Thus even the Guardian, a newspaper berated by UK Zionists
as being a bastion of anti-Israeli propaganda, claims that media
'fairness' and objectivity is compromised by first, identifying Israel
as an illegal occupier (which is true) and two, commit oneself to
challenging this status quo (an entirely acceptable response to the
former). But this argument was, of course, disingenuous on an even more
fundamental level, as it presupposes a non-existent standard of
journalistic accuracy in Middle East reporting.
The hypocrisy of the 'bias' critique was unwittingly exposed by The Daily Telegraph's
USA editor, Toby Harnden, who, towards the conclusion of his blog
excoriating the NUJ vote, provided an insight into the perspective of
mainstream British journalists assigned to Israel/Palestine:
But most British journalists based in Jerusalem -- and I was one of them -- have a mix of sympathy for the terrible plight of ordinary Palestinians, a belief that there will be a two-state solution and even sneaking admiration for what Israel has achieved in terms of nation-building in its short history.First of all, note that the vast majority of reporters are based in West Jerusalem -- despite the occupation's centrality to the conflict, no one actually chooses to live under it. But secondly, observe the general viewpoint: humanitarian hand-wringing for the Palestinians, without any causal link between their "plight" and dispossession, as well as "admiration" for just how well Israel has managed to colonise Palestine.
Why is Israel singled out? I hesitate to raise the charge of anti-Semitism since it is used too often and too carelessly by defenders of Israel in order to try to quash criticism of the country. But though laying aside that explanation, I confess that I am unable to find another one.Over at The Washington Post, Richard Cohen wrote an ABC in boycott smear tactics. Begin with a confession of Israel's mistakes, for example, "the wrongful and counterproductive occupation". In contrast to Israel's "incompetence", however, move swiftly on to examples of sheer brutality: "Sudan kills by the score", Mugabe "beats his opponents to a pulp". With this disparity between Israel's 'mistakes' and other nations' crimes established, move on to the real motivation of the pro-boycott movement: "But some of it, surely, is anti-Semitism itself, a rage at the impudent, pushy Jew".