The call — made recently by John Berger and others — for an academic
and cultural boycott of Israel amounts to a mere show of sentimentality
and ignorance. It is intended to help Palestinians under Israeli
occupation, but it tends to view them as a hopelessly passive society.
Similarly, it tends to reduce the Israeli state and community into a
homogeneous entity whose policies are collectively willed and carried out.
As for the idea that what has been taking place in Palestine/Israel is a
simple matter of victimised Palestinians struggling to free themselves
from Israeli victimisers, this is a preposterously reductionist view that
could never help promote peace and justice.
Since the Oslo Accords, both societies have been marked by contradictions
and divisions. From the assassination of former Prime Minster Yitzhak
Rabin to the recent scandalous factions fighting in Gaza, each side has
experienced internal strife — over many issues, but particularly over
the proper agenda for dealing with the other side. On both sides, powerful
constituencies believe that there is no other option but the continuation
of war and violence; but there are others, albeit with varying degrees of
sincerity and commitment, who have been working towards a peaceful
settlement.
Many Israeli writers, artists and scholars have, in various ways,
supported negotiations and peace. Some have bravely embraced the
Palestinian right of self-determination and statehood — and been branded
“bleeding hearts” and “Arab lovers”.
To boycott such individuals would certainly not force the Israeli
government to loosen its grip on the Palestinians. The Israeli government
is not in the habit of listening to “bleeding hearts” and “Arab
lovers”. Nor would it help Palestinians to face up to the reality of
their internal conflicts. If anything, it would only weaken a constituency
which, more than any other in Israel, has been committed to the cause of
peaceful co-existence.
Instead of childish shows of solidarity with the Palestinians, those
calling for a boycott should put their energies into positive actions.
They should spare no opportunity of bringing Palestinians and Israelis
together, at least for the purpose of arriving at an honest understanding
of why the agenda for peace has failed to produce.
Writers and artists are not decision-makers, nor do they have direct
influence on their official representatives, but they can do what no
politician can effectively do. Through open-hearted dialogues and
intellectual collaboration, they can understand the anxieties and
ambitions of the other side and convey them to their respective
communities.
After all, when things go up in flames, which they often do in our blessed
corner of the world, meetings between writers and scholars of the two
communities might be the only line of communication — and hope. Let us
not forget that it was two Israeli scholars who initiated what became
known as the Oslo Accords. Let us, therefore, reject any call to kill that
communication and hope.
