Two points about it:

1. The artistic community within Israel is VERY progressive and constitutes a large portion of the dissenting community and solidarity with Palestinian humanity.

2. The input that will get Israel to change is involvement, interraction.

If Israel was parallel to South Africa, that of a small minority controlling a large majority, in which majority rule was in fact "just", then the question would be a different one.

In Israel/Palestine, the population is currently a Jewish majority, and MAJORITY rule now would result in some suppression of Palestinian rights, and certainly in the rejection of Palestinian national aspiration.

With a 51-49% majority/minority relation, either nationalism prevailing would result in a LARGE minority suppressed.

I personally consider the suppression of 49% to be UNJUST.

I personally would think much less of Nadine Gordimer if she took the conforming position of obeying the official left, rather than the free-thinking position of supporting the Israeli free-thinking sector.

Israel gets PR benefit from sponsoring international artistic events BECAUSE it routinely sponsors arts, not as a front.

Wouldn't you think so Phil?

When I ran Green Island Productions (producers of unabridged audiobooks on progressive themes), with the verbal support of Nigerian author Chinua Achebe, we began an African writers series. We were not able to acquire rights to any of Gordimer's works, but did agree to produce two works by Andre Brink.

The company folded due to my serious illness in 1996, before we began production on the Brink, Ousmane, Achebe, Emecheta, Ngugi Wa Thiongo works.

We did briefly correspond with Nadine Gordimer.

She should speak in the belly of the whale if she regards it as such, rather than be effectively silenced except for her "none of the above" single word.

During the apartheid era, the cultural boycott of South Africa was rather effective. The country is physically isolated from the rest of the developed world. Being shunned in international academic, cultural and sports events made them feel even more isolated — and deservedly so.

Israel is not as physically distant, but it is nevertheless surrounded by neighbors who are either cool or openly hostile. Cultural isolation, along with cutting the unjustified American aid, would cure Israeli belligerence in a hurry.

According to an attorney named Christine Qunta, writing in the Cape Argus last year, in 1990 Nadine Gordimer "announced in the Herald of Zimbabwe that she thought the time for the cultural boycott was over. This notwithstanding that the broad liberation movement, which fought long and hard for the cultural boycott, had not decided that it should be terminated."

http://www.capeargus.co.za/general/print_article.php?fArticleId=3842614

Gordimer likely was reacting to the unbanning of the ANC and Nelson Mandela's release from prison in 1990. But the first democratic vote with black participation, resulting in Mandela's election, wasn't held until 1994. Was it really Gordimer's call to advocate dropping the boycott — in a foreign newspaper, no less — four years before arduous negotiations finally solidified the country's multiracial political settlement?

In any case, Nadine Gordimer has a highly focused understanding of how cultural boycotts work. She's going to have to address the issue head-on now.

The ONLY question was whether a racial minority were the only ones allowed to vote, or whether all were allowed to.

It was a genuine PRO-democracy movement.

That is NOT the question with Israel/Palestine. The jurisdiction of hte state is not clear as to what is agitated for. A just two-state (rather than a rump state), or a single democratic state (with the likelihood of very violent civil war). Dissent in this case is only "anti", not "pro" anything.

And "anti" in a pressure cooker.

Only if the dissent was very specific, and there was global concensus as to what the goal of the dissent was (and that it was just), then it might be effective.

Otherwise, the dissent is just rage, not activism.

The situations are NOT parallel, and to apply "medicine" that worked in one, is likely to poison the other.

" 'One person one vote' in a state that EVERYONE regarded as an integrity."

Ever heard of Transkei? Venda? Ciskei? Bophuthatswana? South Africa had denationalized the bantustans and the people living within them. It was NOT "an integrity" when Nelson Mandela emerged from prison in 1990. Here's what it looked like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Southafricanhomelandsmap.png

The bantustans were not internationally recognized, just as Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Israel's security wall are not internationally accepted. But — as with the Palestianian territories — the bantustans served to exclude an unwanted group from nationality and voting.

Even the provinces of South Africa were reconfigured after the bantustans were reintegrated, after four years (1990-1994) of political negotiations. There were four provinces; now there are nine. Look it up in Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provinces_of_South_Africa

Israel will face the same border drawing issues, in regard to the occupied territories, that South Africa faced in reintegrating the bantustans. Like South Africa, Palestine was broken up into pieces, and may yet reintegrate.

That there was concensus as to the objectives of the boycotts.

And, that there is NONE associated with proposed boycotts of Israel.

And, that the medicine that worked (its hard to know exactly what worked) with South Africa, may harm severely.

Boycotts themselves are an intervention, a collective punishment.

If the goal is very clear, and there is a path, maybe a collective punishment is warranted to make a greater good.

Boycott born of political rage though seems to me to be more of "lets guess to see what effect this chemical will have on the patient. Maybe it really is a medicine".

The same applies to Nadine Gordimer. Attending the event will only bolster Israel's image. The only way for people of conscience to win the rigged game that Israel is offering them is to refuse to play.