Numerous facts have been ignored regarding the one-sided European boycott of “West Bank” exports. But first, two important terminological issues should be mentioned.
First, there is no such thing as the “West Bank.” It has been common parlance for a long time, but the term is incorrect. The proper appellation for this neck of the woods is “Judea and Samaria.” Second, Jewish people living in Judea and Samaria are residents, not “settlers,” even though most pundits write as if this were true. In their understanding, “settlers” are people who “settle” and stake claims on land belonging to others.
But Jews occupied and homesteaded these disputed areas some 3,500 years ago. The Arabs are the interlopers. They are the Johnnies-come-lately, who arrived a scant few centuries ago.
Why is this important? First, the BDS movement in England and elsewhere wishes to boycott exports from Judea and Samaria because the Jewish occupants have supposedly been brutalizing their Palestinian neighbors.
Two things are wrong with this. First, the boycotters have it backwards. It is not the Jewish occupants who have been brutalizing their Palestinian neighbors. It is exactly the other way around.
What’s the evidence for this claim?
Political scientist and writer Bob Goldberg provides it. He notes, “Some or all of the incidents of settler violence were responses to provocation, or acts of retaliation.” That is, in virtually all of the cases involved, it was the Arabs who started the fighting, and the Jews who were defensively reacting to these provocations.
He continues, “When Israelis are killed, Israeli lethal responses rise. Palestinian killings of Israelis were not similarly predicted by prior Israeli killings of Palestinians. Palestinian violence, in other words, drives the cycle; Israeli violence responds to it.”
But suppose, for the sake of argument, that we could successfully quarrel with the statistical analysis underlying these claims. After all, it is difficult, not to say impossible, to say which came first: the chicken or the egg. Assume, then, that the boycotters got it right. The direction of causation was exactly the opposite of what we say: The Jews were guilty of initiating the hostilities, and the Palestinians merely responded.
Can the actions of the Israeli “settlers” still be defended? According to philosopher John Locke, they are the rightful owners of the disputed property if we consider that legitimate ownership arises from homesteading. Jews cultivated the land long before the Palestinians arrived. The Al-Aqsa mosque is situated above the Jewish Second Temple. Archeological evidence supports this pattern throughout the Middle East.
News of British and European boycotts of products made or grown by Jewish settlers in the “West Bank” would at first seem to be mere feel-good virtue signaling. But it is worse than that. Why is only one group of “West Bank” inhabitants singled out for exclusion? What objective body decides “whoever lives here is bad” (Jew) and “whoever lives there is good” (Arab)?
Violence between these two groups has been endemic for decades. As the facts demonstrate, this violence is not a one-sided history of aggression by Jews. Rather, facts show that Jewish violence is usually (if not always) in retaliation for Arab attacks upon Jews. Why are Palestinian attackers given a free pass?
Don’t Palestinians located in Judea and Samaria have export products that can be similarly “boycotted”? A one-sided boycott appears to be based on emotional media accusations, not fair judgments based on “facts on the ground.” Some might say that violence and counter-violence are both bad. But if violence is being punished by European boycotts, then everyone involved should be included. If not, then neither side should be punished.
This situation resembles the one-sided narratives about the war in Gaza. Ignoring the terrorist actions of Hamas makes the conflict appear one-sided. However, if you consider the initial Hamas invasion of Israel, the IDF’s efforts to rescue citizens and hold war criminals accountable are clearly justified by ethics and international law.
What is driving this unprecedented boycott of exports produced solely by Jews? Is it the troubling influence of Israel Derangement Syndrome? It is particularly concerning that this action is being taken by ruling left-wing political parties, rather than the often-criticized “right-wing” elements. When did leftists begin leading the charge for antisemitic and anti-Israel movements? Will Jewish “West Bank” products have to be labeled with the Star of David?
The real insult is not just one-sided reporting and legally biased boycotts, but the smug attitude of the British and European political establishment, which believes we are too naive to see through its actions. Not this time. Not by a long shot.
