Boycotts are just so wonderful, aren’t they?

Of course, every consumer should actually boycott stuff. Because that’s consumer preference and that’s what controls the producers. And you can and should boycott over whatever issue enters your pretty little head: it’s your money, your consumption, you go for it.

However, it might be worth a little thought over what one boycotts and why. For example, say there’s an “illegal” factory in Israeli occupied Palestine should you boycott the production of that factory on the grounds that doing so will make the Palestinians better off?

Hundreds of Palestinian workers are now unemployed after the factory where they worked in a West Bank settlement was targeted by an international boycott movement and forced to move to Israel, the company’s chief executive said Monday.
Daniel Birnbaum said the last 74 Palestinian workers left on Monday after being denied permits to work inside Israel at the new factory.

Hmm, maybe not, eh?

35 thoughts on “Boycotts are just so wonderful, aren’t they?”

  1. A delegation of the unemployed should travel to London to meet and thank the boycott organisers for saving them from oppression.

  2. Sanctions against South Africa negatively affected blacks disproportionally. Seen as collateral damage in the war to destroy apartheid by the activists.

  3. I always seek out Israeli produce in the supermarket and buy that in preference to similar stuff from other countries.

    The boycott is bollocks. It just hurts ordinary Israelis and Palestinians and makes peace that little bit less likely.

  4. The important thing is that the people calling for the boycott and succeeding in closing down the factory will have a nice warm feeling about it, the same as the feeling they have when their urethral sphincter releases at night and covers them with a stream of their own piss.

  5. The aim of the BDS campaign is to prolong the conflict, what with them being primarily antisemitic, but also none-too-fond of Palestinians (in reality, rather than sanitised for their protection). They have found precisely the right way to go about achieving their aim.

  6. So Much For Subtlety

    We have been throwing Iranians out of work. We are throwing Russians and North Koreans out of work. I am somewhat less than thrilled with sanctions but the alternative is usually invasion. Almost always a better option but beyond us when it comes to Russia, North Korea and Iran.

    So we throw workers out of work.

    Some people might think that Israel’s on-going refusal to acknowledge any rights for Palestinians or even come close to a peace deal requires a response. Some people might think the Palestinians are a bunch of murderers who deserve a big helping of nothing every morning. Some people might think both.

    But if you think that peace requires pressure on Israel and encouraging the annexation of Palestinian land is not a good thing, then a boycott seems a reasonable and proportionate response.

  7. Matthew L – Good stuff there.

    I didn’t know Dave Cameron slapped down local authorities trying to use their purchasing power for political ends. He should do more of that sort of thing.

  8. Bloke in North Dorset

    “Sanctions against South Africa negatively affected blacks disproportionally. Seen as collateral damage in the war to destroy apartheid by the activists.”

    I worked for a number of MK members bidding for mobile phone license and we discussed this issue a number of times and they were adamant that the sanctions worked and that and suffering caused to ordinary blacks was all part of the war.

  9. Philip Scott Thomas

    And you can and should boycott over whatever issue enters your pretty little head: it’s your money, your consumption, you go for it.

    Except that there are some boycotts we’re simply not allowed to do anymore. Let’s say, just for example, that there’s a shop the owners of which would prefer not to serve gays. Gays would be perfectly justified in boycotting that shop instead of handing over their hard-earned to enrich the owners who disapprove of them so.

    The shop owners, however, cannot exercise their right of (non-)assocation and refuse to serve gays. And, crucially, that bit of market information, which shop owners are happy to serve gays and which would prefer not to, is now missing, meaning gays who like to boycott the bigots can no longer tell who to boycott.

    Who wins? The SJWs, who get to feel warm and fuzzy because they have made their blow for tolerance.

  10. SMFS – have sanctions ever worked?

    They didn’t overthrow Saddam. They didn’t overthrow Castro. They didn’t get rid of Kim Jong Il. I’m doubtful that they got rid of apartheid either – I think that was more to do with a collective failure of nerve on the part of white South Effrikans.

    Sanctions are just war by other means, with less bloody but more widespread collateral damage to the lives of ordinary people with no power.

    Let’s give capitalism a chance.

  11. So Much For Subtlety

    Steve – “have sanctions ever worked?”

    Ummm, Suez? They worked on Iran before Obama folded like a cheap suit after a day in the sun.

    “I’m doubtful that they got rid of apartheid either – I think that was more to do with a collective failure of nerve on the part of white South Effrikans.”

    I think that the evidence is pretty good they worked on the South Africans. Once the US and UK adding banks to the list.

    “Sanctions are just war by other means, with less bloody but more widespread collateral damage to the lives of ordinary people with no power.”

    Sure. After Iraq people are getting smarter about them. We are trying targeted sanctions against Russia. But what else should people who care about Palestine do? I would prefer war but it is not an option here.

  12. “they didn’t overthrow Saddam”: never mind, they killed lots of Iraqi children, and Mrs Albright assured us that that was a price worth paying. Not that we paid it, of course.

    Slick Willy’s policy on Iraq seemed to me nearly as daft as W’s: why the hell bother with Iraq? Once they’d been expelled from Kuwait, why were they enemies?

  13. “a collective failure of nerve on the part of white South Effrikans”: that’s what I thought. After the endless bragging about what hard men they were, they surrendered rather than lose their cheap servants.

  14. So Much For Subtlety

    dearieme – “After the endless bragging about what hard men they were, they surrendered rather than lose their cheap servants.”

    The world hated them and treated them like they were lepers. They surrendered rather than have the entire economy destroyed. That is not unreasonable.

    What was unreasonable was the West betraying them and forcing them to hand over a functioning country to a bunch of unreconstructed Stalinist kleptocrats.

    The c*nts who called for that immediately fled of course. Coetzee preached living with Blacks but then fled to Australia where they had the good sense to keep Asian cheap labour out. Speaking of which, where was Rusty born again?

  15. BiND
    “I worked for a number of MK members bidding for mobile phone license and we discussed this issue a number of times and they were adamant that the sanctions worked and that and suffering caused to ordinary blacks was all part of the war.”
    That’s because MK members were usually swanning about in Western capitals. They weren’t particularly good at waging war. It was economic, not military pressure that brought the Nats to the negotiating table. And the MK members took to crony capitalism like ducks to water.

  16. The sanctions against South Africa caused much more misery and pain to black South Africans than the whites as it was the black South African labour force that were first to lose their jobs when companies such as Fiat pulled out.

    Mining, not so much as most of the labour was migrant labour from Mozambique, Lesotho and and the rural areas.

    Even Anglo American saw the writing on the wall long before sanctions started to bite and started buying up coal mines in Eastern Europe and Australia.

  17. Once they’d been expelled from Kuwait, why were they enemies?

    Because there was every chance they’d come back into Kuwait: don’t take my word for it, just look at Kuwait’s actions post-Iraq War. Plus there was a real danger Iraq would invade Saudi as soon as America was engaged somewhere else. Again, don’t take my word for it: look to the Saudi insistence the US army remained in-country (they moved to Qatar after the Iraq War).

  18. What tipped me towards buying one is precisely that it would help industrialise the area. Pity really.

    And I have a simple view on ‘occupation’: it’s People’s Front of Judea stuff. “What have Israel ever done for us”? Given a choice between a modern, industrial liberal country invading and imposing their rules, you’d take that over a bunch of native fascists ruling you.

    I mean, isn’t getting rid of various -phobia what the lefties want? And isn’t it much easier being gay, trans, athei in Israel? So, why wouldn’t you let them get on with it?

  19. Tim N: so the US lets is foreign policy be dictated by a bunch of hysterical Arabs? What was to stop the ruddy Saudis and Kuwaitis defending themselves?

  20. Witchsmeller Pursuivant

    As SMFS says, the boycott is a reasonable and proportionate response to military occupation. And more importantly, it’s the most powerful non-violent method of resistance available to the Palestinians.

    Anyone who doubts it incremental efficacy should ponder why the Israelis view it as strategic threat

    And to address Tim’s original point that it’s an a SJW tactic which harms ordinary Palestinians, the original call for international solidarity was made by the Palestinians themselves in 2005. The call for help, and its signatories, can be found here.

  21. Witchsmeller Pursuivant

    Dearieme: so the US lets is foreign policy be dictated by a bunch of hysterical Arabs?

    I suppose it makes a change from having their foreign policy dictated by hysterical Jews. Hi Dave ~ waves.

  22. @Steve,
    “I’m doubtful that they got rid of apartheid either – I think that was more to do with a collective failure of nerve on the part of white South Effrikans.”

    With the imminent collapse of the USSR, South Africa was no longer needed by the US / West and support was pulled.
    It is not a coincidence that the “End of History” happened when it did.

  23. Tim N: so the US lets is foreign policy be dictated by a bunch of hysterical Arabs? What was to stop the ruddy Saudis and Kuwaitis defending themselves?

    The entire world is dependent on their oil. If that weren’t the case, nobody would care.

  24. Bloke in Costa Rica

    The anti-settlement campaign is bolstering the narrative of the Islamic supremacists that the Middle East should be Jew-free. Against some fairly stiff competition, the Palestinians have managed to create the most bestial polity in the world today. They have been given concession after concession, but like all terrorists have simply pocketed them without yielding an inch. Both Hamas and Fatah have as their end goal the destruction of Israel and the genocide of its inhabitants. This is one example where even the more lurid of Dave’s antisemites-under-the-bed fantasies start to look reasonable. I really wish that the Israelis would finally say fuck it and crush their aggressors.

  25. So Much For Subtlety

    Bloke in Costa Rica – “The anti-settlement campaign is bolstering the narrative of the Islamic supremacists that the Middle East should be Jew-free. …. I really wish that the Israelis would finally say fuck it and crush their aggressors.”

    In the end the Palestinians are not going anywhere. Whatever Israel does, they are going to be there tomorrow. And the day after. Now it is easy for Israel to make sure that the Palestinians are represented by vile people who do vile things. It is a vile neighbourhood. But in the end, the Palestinians are still going to be there. They need to be offered some sort of peace deal they might accept. Israel shows no signs of doing so.

    Which is fine. As if I could care less.

    But the boycott movement is an attempt by the Palestinians and their friends to do something peaceful that does not result in anyone dying. That is an improvement for all concerned. I have no intention of paying it the slightest attention, but it is about the best thing the Palestinians could do right now. After all, if we tell the Palestinians we do not negotiate with terrorist, and then when they give up terrorism we do not negotiate with them, what is the alternative? Tomorrow the Palestinians will still be there.

  26. “Tomorrow the Palestinians will still be there” and so will their aim to sweep the Jews into the sea. What are the Israelis supposed to do?

    But it is changing; the Arabs are moving on – https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/30364/ – “quoted Saudi officials as saying during the meetings that they are not interested in solving the Palestinian cause because they want Israel to stand by Saudi Arabia against Iran”
    (Incidentally the photo in that article is misleading it is from the Munich Security Confererence but the Israeli Defence Minister is shaking hands with a Saudi.)

    The Arabs (GCC) need Israel and its weapons technology and so, it appears, does the US – http://www.israeldefense.co.il/en/content/us-army-testing-israeli-trophy-system – whose tanks are defenceless against missiles.

  27. the boycott movement is an attempt by the Palestinians and their friends to do something peaceful that does not result in anyone dying.

    The Israeli security barrier was also a very successful attempt to do something peaceful that prevented people from dying. Cue howls of outrage from the usual suspects, including the BDS twats.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *