Everyone is probably aware that some British academic organization (who actually cares which one) has announced a boycott of Israeli academia and research. There of course is the Arab boycott of Israeli products, and then there is Olmert’s inspiration to label products from Israel by city so the Europeans can know what products to boycott.

But what’s the great idea behind the boycott?

After all, it also hurts and limits the boycotters (and makes them hypocrites when they secretly buy the products they are boycotting) as much as it hurts the boycotted.

The general idea is that it is supposed to isolate Israel from the rest of the world community. It is supposed to hurt Israeli financially until we want to leave Israel. It is supposed to dry up our markets, resources, and connections. It is supposed to make us aware of the financial advantages and incentives of simply abandoning Israel.

Basically it is to make living in Israel so financially uncomfortable and unviable we will leave on our own to the point where the last supermarket won’t have enough clients in the country to support it.


Now consider Brig. General (Retired) Eival Giladi, the architect and coordinator of the Gaza Strip disengagement and his plan to ‘dry up’ the settlements.

Notice the similarity?


(For another Israel boycott story read this Naomi Ragen article).