Opponents of the boycott have mounted some surprisingly weak objections, when there are more serious questions to be asked.

The pro-Palestinian boycott by artists of the recent Sydney Festival was a vibrant example of engaged citizens taking foreign policy into their own hands.

The boycott was remarkably successful compared to previous efforts in Australia and overseas, including in the US where 33 states have anti-boycott laws.

Perhaps 35 per cent of the Festivals participants withdrew, objecting to Israels

$20,000 sponsorship of an Israeli dance ensemble. Over 1000 artists also signed

a letter supporting the boycott.

The heat on Israel follows alleged war crimes in last years Gaza war, accusations of apartheid by Human Rights Watch, evictions and home demolitions in East Jerusalem, and the ever-expanding colonial settlements in the West Bank.

The boycott caused uproar. The conservative federal, and New South Wales state, arts ministers condemned it, as did a conservative former Australian ambassador to Israel, conservative Australian Jewish groups, and some artists. Israel was apoplectic.

Caught like a deer in headlights, the festival organisers belatedly acknowledged the moral objections of artists by pledging to review their policy on donations by foreign governments, but refused to return Israels money. The Israeli dancers still danced, to rapturous reviews.

Opponents of the boycott have mounted some surprisingly weak objections, when there are more serious questions to be asked.

They say it censors art for political reasons. This ignores that artists themselves

chose not to perform, persuaded, in the free marketplace of ideas, by boycott campaigners. Artists who still wished to perform were free to do so, and audiences were free to attend. There were no union-style pickets. This was a relatively smart boycott. As the European Court of Human Rights, ruling over 47 European countries, found in 2020, advocacy of boycotting Israel is protected free speech the opposite of censorship. Democracies only function if citizens are free to voice their opinions, hoping to convince others.

It is absurd for government ministers to condemn such advocacy as censorship.

It also patronises artists as unqualified to make up their own minds. Opponents also say it politicises art. Yet political critique has long been a function of art and artists, from Shakespeare to Atwoods The Handmaids Tale. Art is not just elevator music.

The same arguments are often made not to politicise sport. Yet Australia is willing to diplomatically boycott the Beijing Winter Olympics, but dismisses a citizen boycott of Israel.

Critics further argue that Israel is anti-Semitically singled out for a boycott when other states have worse human rights records. But it is not the responsibility of campaigners for Palestine to crusade for victims in every other bad country.

It is to their credit that they have mobilised an effective boycott, which campaigners elsewhere might learn from.

It is not anti-Semitic to criticise Israel for violating international

law or to take peaceful action to urge it to stop.

Opponents claim that Israel is a democracy, as if that self-evidently defeats the call for a boycott. Yet democracies violate rights too and should not be immune from sanctions. In any case, Israel is not a democracy for 5 million Palestinians living under Israeli military control. They have not been allowed to vote in Israeli elections for over 50 years. For them, Israel is a military dictatorship and, through its settlements, a coloniser.

Opponents warn that Hamas has endorsed the boycott, as if invoking the spectre of terrorism automatically discredits it. Hamas supports Covid vaccines too, which hardly makes them a bad thing. Smearing boycotters by association with Hamas is pitifully cheap.

Critics also claim that struggling artists need to perform because their incomes plummeted during Covid. Again, the artists themselves chose to boycott. They know better than arts ministers whether they are willing to forgo income to stand up for human rights.

There are three genuine questions that should be asked of any boycott. Are the offenders violations serious enough to justify it? Is the collateral damage to innocents, if any, proportionate? Could the boycott potentially improve the wrongdoers behaviour? First, Israeli violations of international law have been exhaustively documented. It denies Palestinians their rights to self-determination and statehood, has committed war crimes and human rights violations, and denies justice to victims.

Its sponsorship of illegal Israeli settlements proves its agenda is to

colonise Palestine, not free it or bring it peace. It has constantly defied the international community, including the Security Council and the International Court. Palestinian violations do not excuse Israels violations.

That other countries may be worse does not diminish the case of a boycott of Israel, but draws attention to the need to boycott others as well.

Second, the boycott has caused limited collateral damage. It certainly targeted Israeli support for blameless Israeli dancers, and inconvenienced audiences. The calculus of the boycott is that these are small sacrifices if stigmatising co-operation with Israel may pressure it to change.

Sanctions imposed by governments and the UN routinely inflict far greater harm, as the dire humanitarian situation in Afghanistan currently shows.

Third, a boycott inflicts pointless vengeance if it has no prospect of success. Critics cry that shunning a tiny amount of Israeli money for a harmless dance troupe in faraway Sydney will hardly bring peace to the Middle East, when decades of violence and diplomacy have not.

Yet, Israel is hyper sensitive about its perception by Western allies, particularly those such as Australia, which often shields Israel from legitimate criticism in the UN votes. The spread of sympathy to the Palestinian cause among the Australian community has rattled Israels cage, and increases its international isolation.

Citizen boycotts are growing precisely because Western governments such as Australia and the US have so spectacularly failed to hold Israel to account for systematic violations over half a century. We should not only apply our new Magnitsky Act human rights sanctions to security adversaries such as Russia or China, but also to our friends when they badly misbehave.

We know that China will not stop its repression of Uyghurs just because Australia doesnt send officials to watch the Olympics, but we boycott anyway, to stigmatise terrible behaviour. Who knows what might happen when the butterfly of citizen boycotts flaps its wings in the desert of Middle Eastern politics? There is so little left to lose, and so much to gain.

Australians must exercise their own conscience about different types of boycotts. But the case for boycotts is plausible and should be taken seriously not sledged by specious or misleading criticisms.