This is a cross-post from falsedichotomies.com
The climax of Doctor Who, Series Three (video here): The Doctor has just pulled a messianic trick to prevent the Master from taking over the universe. His nemesis is at his mercy. Enraged humans stand around, recalling how the Master forced them to watch as he destroyed whole countries with nuclear weapons (a timey-wimey trick will reverse these atrocities). They demand the ultimate sanction, but the Doctor resists. The Master may be evil incarnate, but he is also a Timelord, just like the Doctor. It is not for humans to mete out vigilante justice: if necessary the Doctor will travel for eternity with the Master locked up in a specially-designed Tardis prison, but he will not permit his execution. The Master is the Doctor’s responsibility.
Believe it or not, I was reminded of this scene by the following comment from ‘Fabian ben Israel’ at Harry’s Place: “Who will cover your back in a war, Alex, Avi from Maale Adumim or Abu from Ramallah? Who are your brothers are who are your enemies? I cannot justify boycotting my brothers.” Rhetoric of brotherhood and unity can be very alluring, but these are ideals no less unobtainable than post-nationalist notions of ‘shared humanity’ and ‘common universal values’. To be human is to be divided, even within the confines of a national group. A nation shares a common history and culture and language and hopefully certain common goals that will prevent national disintegration, but this does not mean unity and brotherhood should be deployed as emotional blackmail to stifle dissent.
Yes, I understand that someone from Maaleh Adumim will defend me in a war and someone from Ramallah won’t, and I am grateful for this. I also think that the ability of Israeli society to stand firm when the external threat is at its gravest (a fact usually missed by Israel’s enemies) is laudable. But this does not mean that I forgo my right to use the means available to me, as a citizen of a democratic country, to try and counter what I see as political wrongs.
One of these means is a boycott. Choosing not to buy wine produced in a settlement does not mean that I am dividing Israeli society into good Jews and bad Jews, as another reader has suggested. I make no personal claims about the settlers. It simply means that I believe a vast majority of settlements to be a strategic liability, one that receives disproportionate economic support from the government while the periphery continues to suffer (surely there are connections to be drawn between the current housing protests and the cheap apartments that were at least until recently available over the Green Line?), and that it is my right as a citizen to try and do something about it. It is wrong to think that the only weapon at my disposal should be my vote. Democracy does not mean that those who lose out in elections should keep quiet for four years; advocating a boycott involves no compulsion, and a successful boycott campaign can be as revealing of the public will as winning on an anti-settlement ticket at the ballot-box.
Of course, the anti-settlement boycott has not been particularly successful in Israel, although it has achieved some successes. But it is disingenuous for the opponents to lump it in with the BDS campaign, when the differences are clear (one seeks the destruction of Israel, the other seeks to secure an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank.) Unlike the Master, the settlements do not represent evil, but they are detrimental to Israel’s security, and they are our responsibility. And the longer we fail to act on them, the greater the likelihood that outsiders will. Nor do they become more justifiable because an opinion poll finds the Palestinians adopting more reprehensible political positions.
Furthermore, where is the brotherhood for those on the Left who suddenly find themselves liable for views held by a significant number of Israelis? For Meretz, who already face the threat of criminal action? Would the advocates of brotherhood and unity also keep silent if the target were those who decided to boycott Strauss’ cottage-cheese? And where is the brotherhood for the NGOS who may now be singled out for special inquiries? There is none, of course. I disagree with the raft of Knesset legislation (most of which, thankfully, will fail) against the Left, but I do not share in the hysteria that it represents Israel’s descent into fascism. Nor do I think there is something innately undemocratic about it. But for those on the right to support these moves while accusing me of a lack of brotherhood by defending those who boycott settlements smacks of hypocrisy.
No matter – unity is not to be idealised. There will always be arguments to be had. Despite the awful pressure Israel faces from the outside, our responsibility to one another is to fight fairly, and without violence. Most of the time this isn’t difficult. But to oppose the politics of our fellow citizens is not disloyal. Sadly, the Doctor is unable to prevent somebody assassinating the Master. His grief at this loss, despite the terrible things the Master had done to him, has an epic tinge to it. Do not think that Israelis opposing the settlement movement are somehow separating themselves from those living over the Green Line. On the contrary – as the Talmud puts it, all Israel is responsible for one another: how much more so when we believe our brothers are taking the wrong path.
