The Irish Senates Boycott Israel Debate | Jewish …

Pro-Palestinian protesters near the Irish parliament in Dublin at a rally against Israeli air strikes in Gaza in 2009. Photo: William Murphy / Flickr. Reading thetranscriptof the debate that took place in the Irish Senate on July 11 before that body voted 25-20 to criminalize commercial relations with Jewish communities in the West Bank, I was struck by how the arguments fell neatly into one of two categories.

Category one: Those who believe that a boycott of Israel is a necessary moral undertaking and seek to introduce such a policy through legislation. Category two: Those who believe that a boycott of Israel is a necessary moral undertaking, but do not agree that enshrining such a policy through legislation is the right way to go about it.

Here are some illustrations of those arguments. Speaking in favor of category one, Senator Niall Donnghaileof the nationalist Sinn Fein party invoked no less a figure than Nelson Mandelawho, incidentally, never once described Israel as an apartheid stateas he urged his colleagues to consider what is happening in Palestine, and to look at the will of the House and the majority of Irish people, who want to see us take this mode of solidarity.

Something approaching a counter-argument was offered by Senator Terry Leyden of the opposition Fianna Fil party on behalf of category two. I would certainly boycott products coming from occupied territories sold by the Israelis on the international market, but it is a different thing for a state to involve itself directly in this area, said Leyden. I advise caution.

July 20, 2018 12:04 pm

Leyden elaborated on his advice with several sensible, practical reasons, including one so grave that you have to wonder why no other Irish politician is apparently worried about it at a time when the potential impact of Brexit is already casting a dark shadow over Irelands economy. In 2017 we exported $868 million worth of goods to Israel, from where we imported $63 million worth of goods, Leyden explained, in a bid to persuade his colleagues that many hundreds of jobs in Ireland are at stake.

Boycotts are serious, Leyden continued, before adding, I do not recall a Bill being introduced here when South Africa had apartheid. When it came to addressing the rank hypocrisy that underpins the boycott of Israel, that final observation was about as far as the debate was willing to go.

Indeed, opponents of the bill were so nervous about being seen as defending Israel that they resorted to every other argument available, including opening themselves up to caricature and lampoonery in the media. I have spent hours trying to build relationships with people who will be involved in decision-making that can bring about peacePalestinians, Americans, Israelis, and others in Jordan, Egypt, Cyprus, and many other neighbouring countries, pleaded Irish Foreign Minister Simon Coveney of the ruling Fine Gael party as he made the case for a no vote. I have spent a substantial amount of taxpayers money funding my travel in these endeavors.

These endeavors, said Coveney, were aimed at rectifying the deep injustice that has been imposed upon the Palestinians for decades. And it was crystal-clear from the wider debate, whether the speaker spokefor or against the legislation, that Irelands Senate was in near universal agreement that this injustice had been imposed by Israel alone.

It is this notion of Israel as conceived in original sin, with the Palestinians cast as the Christ-like victim, that binds this soft version of the BDS campaign, which ostensibly targets only Jewish communities in the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem, with the more familiar hard version that targets everything and everyone Israeli or linked to Israel in some positive way, as most Diaspora Jews are. It is the consequence of a worldview that dismisses the Jewish nation in Israel as a foreign interloperlike the English settlers who reaped the rewards of Oliver Cromwells brutal conquest of Ireland in the 17th century or the Boers in South Africa who placed the yoke of apartheid on the black majority during the 20th.

That the realization of Jewish sovereignty in Israel should be associated with these earlier outrages is nothing new. For nearly a century, the struggle for the autonomy and independence of the Middle Easts non-Arab or non-Muslim minoritiesJews, Kurds, and Copts among themhas been ignored by Westerners in thrall to the myth that satisfying Palestinian demands against Israel will bring peace and prosperity to the region in general.

From there, it is but a short step to the embrace of some form of boycott, along with an unquestioning acceptance of the anti-Zionist ideology that underpins such a campaign. And as Ireland shows us, those who argue against a boycott can still share the same prejudiced assumptions as those in favor of it.

As it stands, the country that will be most damaged by an Irish boycott of Israel will be Ireland itself. Read the debate for yourselves and see how many Irish politicians are willing to sacrifice the jobs and livelihoods of Irish citizens for the gesture politics of boycotting Israel.

Common sense may yet prevail. If it does, none of us should be surprised when Irish politicians explain their retreat as the consequence of Zionist pressure and American bullying. After all, what other explanation could there be?

Ben Cohen writes a weekly column for JNS on Jewish affairs and Middle Eastern politics. His writings have been published in Commentary, The New York Post, Haaretz, The Wall Street Journal, and many other publications.

Read more:

The Irish Senates Boycott Israel Debate | Jewish …

Related Post

July 21, 2018  Tags:   Posted in: Boycott Israel |

Fair Use Disclaimer

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Under the 'fair use' rule of copyright law, an author may make limited use of another author's work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner's exclusive rights.

Fair use as described at 17 U.S.C. Section 107:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phono-records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

  • (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for or nonprofit educational purposes,
  • (2) the nature of the copyrighted work,
  • (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and
  • (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."