(edited highlights from my post to a GPEW discussion list. I thought it was worth republishing as I put more thought/effort than normal into it. If some of the points seem like non-sequiturs, it’s because I was responding to another email.)
It’s odd how people fail to understand ideas of a nation of people, and the States that those nations form. Most States are formed as quirks of geography. The citizens are connected to that State through their connection to that State’s soil. In my case, I was allowed to live in the UK, because my father’s grandfather was from Yorkshire. Arbitrary, no?
In general, and aspirationally I am in favour of global equality and open borders, on the basis that in general (again), people like to live where they have grown up, and in a place they have a connection to, and should not be forced out of those places through economic necessity. Equally, if you are in the minority, like me, of people who were born in one country, grew up in another, and found you had more in common with your new home than your old one, you should be allowed to remain there.
However it is the presently the case, in terms of international law that we recognise States’ rights to control of their borders. Many of us are against military invasion/occupation of States that were constructed arbitrarily, because we feel we should accept their territorial sovereignty (perhaps spuriously). So we have States discriminating on who is allowed to live there within their borders, based on people’s connection to geography, or through recent heredity. But the nation of the British, is not the same as the Jewish nation who have been diasporic and and are connected primarily through ethnicity and religion. And this is not at all trying to rationalise use of force, by Israel (or Palestine), but we are engaging in hypocrisy if we call Israel’s border policies racist, but we don’t call any other State’s policies xenophobic…
The situation of having two nations of people with a claim to the same land is far from ideal. But it is a reality. There is no more chance of every Jew being kicked out of Israel than there is of every Palestinian being kicked out Palestine (or the indigenous people of Canada rising up and sending white Europeans back where they came from).
So, striving towards peace, what is served by calling Israel illegal, deciding that one set of ethnic histories is less valid than another, or demanding that people in Israel somehow disconnect themselves from their subjective experiences, emigrate and end all conflict by themselves? Why do we not hold ourselves to the same standards of objectivity?
What is the end goal of BDS, and how can it be achieved diplomatically rather than antagonistically?
What has BDS done to save one Palestinian’s life?
Was boycott against the US acceptable during the invasion of Iraq? Should we have been buying British produce?
How is the character of a State summed up by the government that a minority of its people elect?
What’s the difference between saying “I’m not racist, but…” and “did you know some Jews are anti-zionist…?”
Why have I got so many question, and so few answers…?
