Unilever and Ben & Jerry’s just reminded him and the world that antisemitism is indeed unique. There are countless territorial conflicts in the world, and yet boycotts are only launched against Israel, the Jewish state. The Ben & Jerry’s boycott is just a symptom of this problem, which should be setting off “red alerts” for Jews everywhere.
In recent years the world has watched with outrage as Russia took over the Crimean islands and the Abkhazia region and waged battles in the Donetsk region. There are similar conflicts that arise from time to time in the South China Sea, Western Sahara, the struggle for independence in Catalonia and the conflict in the Kashmir region. With so many conflicts raging, surely there should be a host of boycotts against several countries.
It should be noted that a significant percentage of the Crimean population did not seek Russian control. They retain Ukrainian citizenship in the Republic of Crimea, yet Russia’s Unity Party recently won more than 70% of the vote in local elections. The Catalans, who suffered severe repression under Franco’s fascist rule, have their own language, culture, heritage and local parliament and have often voted for their independence. And just this week, Turkey announced that they will be creating a new city in Turkish-occupied Cyprus. Ben & Jerry’s has not yet announced whether it will refuse to sell ice cream to Russia, Spain or Turkey.
Viewed through this lens, the Unilever/Ben & Jerry’s announcement is a complete refutation of the Lapid attempt to redefine antisemitism. Fortunately, the Foreign Ministry that he now runs had been anticipating the threat of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. In concert with the American pro-Israel community, they had the foresight to pass anti-BDS legislation in more than 30 US states – sort of a legislative “Iron Dome” designed to shoot down “BDS missiles.” Like Hamas’s missiles aimed at civilians, their immediate target are the families who would lose their jobs and the consumers who would lose access to their favorite ice cream. But the real objective is to create fear and instability while encouraging other corporations to follow in their footsteps.
Former South Carolina State rep. Alan Clemmons not only helped devise this legislative system, which will now be tested in many of the states that have passed the “anti-BDS” legislation, but by having the legislation introduced and debated in state legislatures throughout the US, he and his allies prepared the state lawmakers for what was to come. As a result, state lawmakers are in a much better position to view the Unilever/Ben & Jerry’s policy for the misguided, harmful and discriminatory practice that it is.
Lapid must also learn his lesson. Redefining antisemitism to appeal to the current popular morés. His remarks concerning the effects and consequences were on point – this kind of persecution hurts and kills, just like racism. But the Ben & Jerry’s boycott provided a lesson on the difference between racism and antisemitism. In a world full of conflicts over land, natural resources, honor and rulership, only the conflict in the Jewish state is worthy of a boycott.
The 19th century German journalist Wilhelm Marr originally adopted the concept of antisemitism from an English thinker and turned it into a popular term. He explained that antisemitism is not a religious hatred but a secular racism. Since then, there has always been a draw to use antisemitism to describe unreasonable hatred.
This hatred is evident now. There is no shortage of conflicts, there are numerous examples of minority abuse. Thank God the Israeli-Palestinian conflict does not resemble such atrocities from around the world.
Why, then, do they choose to boycott Israel, the Jewish state?
The author is mayor of Efrat.