What's The Problem With Boycotting Settlements?

Key Findings:

Michael Koplow outlines reasons why he does not support Ben & Jerry's decision to stop selling ice cream in the West Bank, but recognizes it as distinct from broader BDS efforts. 

Double Standards and Targeting Israel Uniquely

Settlement boycotts, including Ben & Jerry’s, focus solely on Israeli settlements in the West Bank while ignoring other disputed territories like Tibet or Crimea. While people may care more about one issue over others, a boycott that singles out Israel without a global policy appears inconsistent and raises concerns of applying a double standard.

Policy Inconsistency in the West Bank

Boycotting Israelis in the West Bank while continuing business with Palestinians there creates an imbalance. While Israel’s occupation imposes inequities on Palestinians, any boycott should address the entire disputed territory to remain consistent. Koplow prefers advocating for better treatment of Palestinians under Israeli control over punitive actions against settlers.

Punishing Civilians Instead of Governments

The settlements are the result of Israeli government policies incentivizing migration to the West Bank. Penalizing settlers who moved there following government encouragement unfairly targets individuals rather than addressing state actions. This is likened to the counterproductive effects of broad sanctions that harm populations rather than governments.

Nuanced Differences Among Settlements

Not all settlements are the same. Large settlement blocs near the Green Line likely to be incorporated into Israel in any negotiated peace deal differ from ideologically-driven settlements deep in the West Bank. A blanket boycott ignores these distinctions, leading to flawed policy.

Historical Sensitivity to Boycotts Against Jews

Given the historical context of anti-Jewish boycotts, Michael Koplow is reluctant to support such measures.