The larger question for me is whether boycotts are a justified political tool in the abstract. A boycott of this kind is nothing more than open discrimination, and there is a tension in discriminating against people for something they don’t control, in this case nationality, to advance some aim compatible with justice, in this case stopping a war. At the very least, well-meaning liberals are confused on this topic. Why was it considered self-evidently justified to not employ someone simply because they were white South African, but not to do the same to someone today because they are Israeli? Why is it wrong to refuse to do business with someone because their gay but not to refuse to do business on the basis of nationality?
The larger question for me is whether boycotts are a justified political tool in the abstract. A boycott of this kind is nothing more than open discrimination, and there is a tension in discriminating against people for something they don’t control, in this case nationality, to advance some aim compatible with justice, in this case stopping a war. At the very least, well-meaning liberals are confused on this topic. Why was it considered self-evidently justified to not employ someone simply because they were white South African, but not to do the same to someone today because they are Israeli? Why is it wrong to refuse to do business with someone because their gay but not to refuse to do business on the basis of nationality?
Great column.