The arguments against the proposed boycott are by now well-rehearsed: that it unfairly singles out Israel, that it prevents the global free exchange of knowledge, that it will damage progressive academic voices in Israel.  But what worried me is that in the often bitter debates between pro and anti-boycotters in the UCU and other unions, both sides are neglecting to grapple with some difficult ethical questions.

Behind the boycott issue is a difficult question: how do we work for change in societies of which we are not members? The principle that what happens in other societies concerns us all is important ethnically and politically. I would not condemn those who wish to boycott Israel because they are concerned with what happens there. After all, even those who are implacably behind Israel are concerned about what happens in Iran for example. Indeed, probably the weakest argument that is ever made in Israel’s favour is that events in the country are ‘purely an internal matter’ and that ‘if we don’t live in the country we can’t criticise what happens there’. The fact is that very few people would be willing to follow this principle through to the end and concern themselves only with what happens in their ‘backyard’ so to speak. So in this respect the pro-boycotters are in principle on firm ground.

The political principle behind boycotts is also in principle a legitimate one - that by refusing to collaborate or engage with a particular state, one can pressure them to change their ways. In some cases boycotts can work, and those who propose a boycott of Israel are correct that the isolation of Apartheid South Africa was undoubtedly a contributory factor in leading the regime to end minority rule.