boicottare chi?

chi si permette di criticare Israele per la sua politica viene accusato di antisemitismo: intellettuali, accademici, filosofi, registi (Eyal Sivan -autore di Route 181, Noam Chomsky, Tony Kushner -che ha scritto la sceneggiatura di Munich, Tony Judt -storico, Tony Lerman -direttore dell' Institute for Jewish Policy Research), chiunque cerchi di analizzare la questione israeliano-palestinese con un'ottica critica viene accusato di antisemitismo, come se volesse negare l'Olocausto. Da molte parti si levano voci di protesta e di accusa e azioni popolari di boicottaggio contro Israele. Ma c'è un altro boicottaggio, che produce molte più vittime: quello del cosiddetto Quartetto che da gennaio 2006 ha bloccato i finanziamenti al governo palestinese.
Quale boicottaggio preferite?
qua di seguito alcuni stralci dell'articolo del regista e accademico israeliano Haim Bresheeth.

Over the last few months a campaign of vile propaganda has been waged, not for the first time, against liberal Jewish intellectuals who have angered the dominant Jewish communities of the main Western countries.
The charge? Anti-Semitism, no less. In different communities, an accusatory finger is pointed at those Jewish thinkers and artists who have dared to criticise Israel and its illogical, barbaric and counter- productive policies and actions. Anyone who strays from the simple line of full support for whatever Israel chooses to do, however infuriating, is tarred with the brush of anti-Semitism, used as a magical incantation against heretics outside the Zionist faith. (...)
While it may be permissible for intellectuals in some countries to criticise their governments, and it might even be enshrined within the democratic rights of self-expression and public speech, such a right apparently does not exist when discussing Israel. (...)
The cynical use and abuse of the events of the Holocaust seems to be the secret weapon of Israel and its Jewish (and non- Jewish) uncritical supporters. (...)
In many communities, Jews have realised that it is time to stand up and be counted, exactly because of the abuse of the Holocaust and its use in defending that that is indefensible. Many have joined the growing boycott of Israel -- the trade, academic and cultural boycotts -- as non-aggressive options for public and international action against Israel and its continued aggression against Palestine and other Arab countries. That is the real source of worry for organised Zionist institutions; this growing snowball is starting to move, at last, collecting force and momentum along the way and swaying public opinion in a number of countries against Israel and its uncritical protection by Western powers.
The results of such protest actions can be foreseen. We witnessed the growth of the anti-apartheid movement from a small group of radicals and activists to worldwide action that swept away the South African regime and its injustices. This is what Israel and its allies in crime fear most -- a genuine popular movement that will force international involvement in finding a peaceful and just solution to the conflict after all Western-led attempts have failed miserably due to their total commitment to the Israeli cause and their implicit support for the continued occupation and its iniquities.
While this popular boycott is gathering pace, and being attacked as anti-Semitic, another boycott has been very successfully applied for a whole year. Since January 2006, when democratically-run Palestinian elections produced large popular backing for Hamas, Israel and its Western allies -- the so-called "Quartet" -- have illegally boycotted Palestine and its government in every way possible. (...)
The Quartet boycott, which includes the UN, is illegal, like the preceding Afghanistan and Iraq fiascos, and as likely to produce the opposite results of those projected by its participants. It is also a boycott that is destructive, divisive, and which exposes the population of Palestine to shortages of food, medicine and funds to run their basic services, neither was it discussed nor voted upon by parliaments anywhere, or even publicly debated in a serious manner.

Which boycott do you prefer? Which is more likely to cause harm, and which is the one that may contribute to a future just solution and peaceful coexistence? Remembering South Africa is useful and spurious accusations of anti-Semitism should not prohibit rational and much-needed debate.

(qua l'articolo completo pubblicato su Al-Ahram Whose boycott is it anyway).