Another frequently made anti-boycott argument is: ‘why is Israel being punished whilst many other oppressive states are not?’. Again, regardless of one’s views about the motivation of the boycotters, singling out one country is not necessarily illegitimate in principle. Pro-boycotters can argue that politics have to start somewhere and that just because a principle is not pursued in every case is not a reason not to pursue it in some cases. Indeed, this argument was sometimes made in defending the decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein – just because the US does and has supported other dictators does not necessarily make it wrong of them to overthrow another. Yet on the other hand, the weakness of the pro-boycott argument in this regard is that by making such a strong statement with regard to one country, there is always a danger that not boycotting another country can be interpreted as supporting it.

The problem with the boycott debate is precisely its narrow fixation with the boycott itself. By making boycotts the ‘gold standard’ of political campaigning against other countries, pro-boycotters neglect to consider the many other ways in which other forms of campaigning can, in some cases, be much more effective in producing change. Indeed, the question ‘will this produce change?’ is a question treated much too superficially by the boycotters.