Before You Boycott Israel, Ask What It Contributes
The West wants to boycott Israel. It should first consider how much it already depends on it.
The West has developed a predictable habit when it comes to Israel.
Israel is condemned at almost every opportunity. Its actions are scrutinized more intensely than almost any other country, while politicians and activists seem determined to find another reason to criticize it.
And whenever the opportunity arises, one word is never far away:
Boycott.
Britain increasingly plays this game. So does Australia.
Penny Wong has repeatedly criticized Israel, while across the Western world, antizionists campaign for boycotts, divestment and sanctions against the Jewish state.
But before politicians and activists demand that the West boycott Israel, perhaps we should ask a simple question:
What exactly does Israel contribute to the countries being asked to boycott it?
The answer may make the boycott campaign considerably less attractive.
Take Britain.
Israel is not simply a country Britain happens to disagree with. It is an important economic, technological, medical and security partner.
Consider this statistic: Israel supplies one in seven medicines used by the NHS, saving the taxpayer billions of dollars, according to the UK Government.
When politicians talk about boycotting Israel, they are distancing themselves from a country that contributes directly to Britain’s national health system.
Then there is technology.
Israel has become one of the world’s great technology and innovation hubs. More than 400 multinational companies operate R&D centres in Israel, including Google, Apple, Intel, Microsoft and NVIDIA.
So the next time someone sits down at their computer and types “Boycott Israel”, perhaps they should pause.
What exactly are they typing on?
Their laptop may contain an Intel processor developed with Israeli R&D. Their phone may incorporate Israeli-developed technology. The software they use may have been developed, improved or secured by Israeli engineers.
Israeli innovation contributes to cybersecurity, artificial intelligence, autonomous vehicles, medical devices, agriculture and communications.
The irony is difficult to miss.
The person demanding that the world boycott Israel may be relying on Israeli innovation to communicate the demand.
You might want to boycott the very thing you are benefiting from.
And the contribution goes beyond technology.
Israel’s expertise in intelligence and counterterrorism has also benefited Western countries.
Australia provides a remarkable example.
In 2017, Israeli intelligence provided information that helped Australian authorities uncover an Islamic State-linked plot to bomb an Etihad flight departing Sydney for Abu Dhabi. Australian authorities subsequently acknowledged Israeli assistance.
The bomb was concealed inside a meat grinder and was intended to destroy the aircraft.
Had the plot succeeded, hundreds of passengers could have been murdered.
Yet this is rarely part of the conversation when Australian politicians criticise Israel.
It should be.
Because sometimes Israeli intelligence doesn’t simply protect Israelis.
It helps protect Australians.
Britain also benefits from the broader economic relationship.
Israeli companies have invested in Britain, created British jobs and established themselves across the British technology sector. Israeli companies and researchers collaborate with British universities, hospitals and businesses.
British-Israeli trade is worth billions of pounds.
These aren’t ideological arguments. They are tangible benefits: jobs, investment, medicines, technology, research and security.
Yet when Israel is discussed in Western political circles, these contributions often disappear from the conversation. Instead, Israel becomes a convenient target.
That brings us to Judea and Samaria, more commonly referred to in the West as the West Bank.
My previous article argued that describing Israel as an “occupier” of Judea and Samaria as though the historical and legal questions have no basis. The Jewish connection to the land predates the modern State of Israel by thousands of years. Archaeology doesn’t lie but these same British leaders wish to rewrite history, even their own.
That does not mean every Israeli government policy is beyond criticism. It means slogans should not substitute for serious discussion of history, law and competing claims.
But the response from the anti-Israel movement is predictable:
Boycott Israel.
Don’t buy Israeli products.
Don’t cooperate with Israeli companies.
Don’t invest in Israel.
Don’t do business with Israelis or Zionists.
Don’t let them into the country.
Fine, but apply that principle consistently.
If you want to boycott Israeli technology, start by checking what technology is in your pocket.
If you want to boycott Israeli medical innovation, ask whether you are prepared to reject technologies that could improve healthcare or even save your own life. Perhaps boycott any hospital that benefits from Jewish philanthropy as well.
The list of companies with significant R&D operations in Israel is hardly obscure: Google, Apple, Intel, Microsoft, NVIDIA, Samsung, Amazon and Meta.
These are some of the world’s biggest technology companies.
This is the problem with virtue-signalling foreign policy.
It is easy to announce a boycott.
It is considerably harder to explain what the boycott actually achieves, and what it costs.
The same question should be put to Australian politicians.
Penny Wong and the Albanese Government enjoy lecturing Israel.
But Australia is not immune from the benefits of Israeli innovation. Israeli technology operates across Australia’s cybersecurity, agricultural, medical, water and technology sectors. Australian businesses collaborate with Israeli companies, while Australian researchers work with Israeli institutions.
And Australian lives have benefited from Israeli intelligence cooperation.
Why is Israel so often expected to defend itself against accusations while the contribution it makes to Western societies is ignored?
In some circles, Israel-bashing has become a badge of progressive virtue. It certainly is in Albanese’s circles.
But there lies the hypocrisy.
Many of the same people demanding boycotts of Israel happily benefit from Israeli technology, medicine and innovation without even knowing it.
The Israeli contribution doesn’t arrive with a big sign. It arrives quietly.
A pharmaceutical product helps a hospital.
A medical technology helps a patient.
A cybersecurity system protects a company.
An Israeli investment creates a British or Australian job.
And sometimes Israeli intelligence helps prevent a plane from becoming a mass grave.
That is Israel’s contribution.
It is practical, measurable and often invisible.
So by all means, criticise Israel as you would any country’s policies.
But if you want to play the boycott game, be honest about what you are boycotting.
You are not simply boycotting a government. You may be boycotting technology, medical research, investment and security cooperation that benefit your own citizens.
And if the objective is really peace, ask yourself what isolating one of the world’s most innovative democracies actually achieves.
Does it bring Israelis and Palestinians closer to an agreement?
Does it encourage compromise?
Does it improve the lives of Palestinians?
Or does it simply make people in Western countries feel morally superior while doing little to resolve the conflict? Perhaps they should look at why their actions embolden and encourage the Palestinians to avoid the need to seriously negotiate peace.
Israel should be held to the same standards as every other democracy.
But it should also be recognised for what it contributes.
The next time Britain, Australia or any other Western country is tempted to join the Israel-bashing chorus, perhaps it should pause before reaching for the boycott list.
Ask what Israel gives back.
Then ask whether walking away from that contribution is really in the national interest.
And the next time someone types “Boycott Israel”, perhaps they should look down at the device in their hands.
They may discover that Israeli innovation is already part of the life they are trying to boycott.
