What to make of this?
Some commentators suggest that this is akin to the German practices of labeling Jews and "Jewish" stores. I'm not sure one need not draw direct parallels to the later stages of what the "Jude" stars of Nazi Germany represented. But if I'm not mistaken, in Germany those too started out as a mechanism for the public to identify Jews and Jewish goods so they could choose to not do business with them on the grounds that they did not agree with purported Jewish political/societal practices. In other words, there are similarities, but at this point it's not quite the same thing. (So far?)
All in all, this strikes me as really misguided by the British and something of a disturbing idea for a supposedly classically liberal nation to suggest as policy (being as how it's based on ethnic grounds and not on national definitions). But I'd be interested to see if there are Britons who would choose to expand this practice to all Jewish goods from Israel if they find that their action doesn't result in enough of an impact. (Besides the strains of radical muslims in Britain, I mean).
Sunday assorted links
3 hours ago
It's not all "Jewish" products; it's Israeli ones, and that too only those produced on settlements, an intensely disputed area of international law and in the region, as you well know.
ReplyDeleteSince products must be designated by origin -- "Made in China," etc. -- there's room for interpretation here as to what counts as "Made in Israel" and "Made in Greater Israel/Made in Settlements Deemed Illegal Under International Law That United Kingdom Observes."
Also, I wonder -- what explains the difference of reaction among right-wingers in this case, and to the minaret ban in Switzerland? Wasn't that also a highly targeted move against a specific ethnicity? (And wasn't that also a disturbing idea for a supposedly classically liberal nation?)
Or do I have it wrong?