Last month the EUSA annual general meeting voted to ban all Israeli products in EUSA shops and to lobby the University to take part in the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel. The motion passed by a 9-to-1 margin. Fortunately, because the meeting lacked a quorum, the vote was non-binding and the EUSA executive is not bound to take any action. Unfortunately, the overwhelming support for the motion shows an alarming degree of anti-Israeli bias on campus. The motion, which could be proposed again at next year’s AGM, is objectionable on seven grounds:

1) It is anti-Israeli, not pro-Palestinian: The motion is only nominally linked to Palestinian welfare. It includes condemnation of Israel’s occupation and colonization of the Golan Heights, which is a bilateral matter between Israel and Syria, not involving the Palestinians. Meanwhile the motion is silent on the deplorable conditions of Palestinians in other Arab countries.

2) It requires Israel’s unconditional surrender: The BDS campaign would have Israel surrender control of its borders and territory, without recognizing Israel’s right to exist within its 1967 borders. The intended reach of the BDS therefore must include Israel’s core territory, which would be its end as an independent nation-state.

3) It misunderstands the purpose of boycotts: Successful boycotts in the United States, South Africa and India have been linked to the cause of civil rights, not the condemnation of an entire nation’s right to exist.

4) It is indiscriminate: The motion would boycott all goods carrying an Israeli bar code. This includes Palestinian products from the West Bank exported through Israel. It would also harm Israeli Arab and Israeli Jewish producers not involved in the occupation, and would impede open academic exchanges with Israeli universities.

5) It is insensitive to individual rights: An unimpeded right to return would violate the individual rights of Israelis. If all Palestinian refugees, and their numerous descendants, returned to Israel, they would necessarily displace the current occupants, the vast majority of whom had no role in the original 1947 diaspora. The demand for a right of return elevates the welfare of a national group’s historical grievance above that of individuals living in the present day – exactly the charge made against the Israeli colonization of Arab land in the West Bank.

6) It discourages negotiation: The absolutist terms of the BDS motion preclude any effort at negotiation because they do not leave any room for Israel to have a right to exist. It adopts a stance closer to the position of Hamas than to the Palestine Liberation Organization.

7) It foments misunderstanding and hatred: The biased language of the resolution, its disregard for individual rights and its call for a boycott against all Israelis blurs the line between political action and national identity. It creates a climate in which criticism of Israeli policies has turned into indiscriminate anti-Israeli venom, which may in turn evolve into full anti-Semitism. The demagogic nature of the “debate” at the EUSA general meeting, during which some members of the audience complained of intimidation against opponents of the measure, further indicates the danger of this irresponsible approach.

There is plenty of room for criticism of Israel but a boycott must uphold the values that it claims to stand for. This means that it must recognize Israel’s right to exist, and that its provisions must discriminate between oppressors and innocent bystanders. Furthermore, it should be aimed specifically at improving the civil rights of Palestinians, not eliminating an independent Israel. Finally, the organizers of such a boycott must condemn the demagogues within their movement and combat the anti-Israeli bigotry on display at the AGM.

At present, the BDS campaign on campus does none of these things. The non-binding passage of the BDS motion is an embarrassment. Were it to pass a quorum and become EUSA policy it would reflect discreditably upon EUSA and the University and impede their operations. Organizers of the BDS on campus should think twice before offering such a resolution at next year’s AGM, and representatives should oppose it if introduced in the EUSA Student Council.