My alma mater is making waves. On Wednesday, at the first annual conference of its union, it voted for an Israeli boycott. Well not quite. In actual fact all it voted for was to circulate the text of the boycott to its branches for discussion, but the sheer fact that the motion was passed by Britain’s University College Union (UCU) has created an international uproar.

Since childhood, I have boycotted Israeli products. The other day, I was innocently applying sun lotion when three words twinkled at me in the sunshine. I stopped mid-application, open-jawed and examined the bottle more closely. My dismay was justified; the product was made in Israel. My first instinct was to throw it away, but then I asked myself, what exactly is the point?

The point for me is a very simple one. In the daily choices I make, the almost insignificant choices of which fruit or which brand of sun cream, I actively choose not to support Israel. Checking the label reminds me that I am living in freedom and luxury whilst my Palestinian brothers and sisters live under brutal oppression and occupation. I choose not to give my money to the economy of a country that is illegally occupying territory and destroying the lives of innocent civilians. It is a matter of personal conscience, a civil and peaceful way of saying I object. I do not for one moment think that my individual decision is going to have an economic impact nor that it will make a palpable difference to anyone but me.

The other question I ask myself is if I boycott Israeli products, should I also boycott products from other countries? After all if I think that as a consumer each economic choice entails a political decision, then I should think carefully about the provenance of all the goods I use. My answer is that Israel is a special case because it is the very State of Israel, its government and army, whose policies I object to. In fact, the only other country whose products I have boycotted was South Africa in the days of apartheid. The parallel is an interesting one and one that many have been making.

You can argue about the historical accuracy of comparing South African apartheid to the treatment of Palestinians at the hands of the Israelis, but what you cannot argue with is the crucial role played by the international boycott of South Africa in ending apartheid.

I as an individual choosing not to buy Israeli may be insignificant, but I as part of an international movement boycotting Israel am a political force to be reckoned with, or at least I could be if the movement gained enough critical mass.

That said, I have some misgivings about an academic boycott. A consumer boycott is a matter of personal choice and is targeted specifically at the economy of a country. But an academic and cultural boycott strikes me instinctively as wrong, in the same way that I think sports boycotts are wrong. Academia, just like sport, should be a place outside politics, or above politics. It is an arena for discussion and exchange, a place for the pursuit of truth, a place for scientific progress, a place for a meeting of minds. If we close the door on academic discourse are we not shutting out open dialogue, part of the very process for peace? Moreover should academics be held responsible or accountable for the actions of their governments?

Again I think Israel is a special case. Israeli academics are also Israeli soldiers. Israeli universities are part of the machine that excludes Palestinians from enjoying the rights and freedoms that those very academics take for granted. There is also the issue that a sweeping boycott does not discriminate. Those who have valiantly objected to the policies of their government also end up excluded, which is far from fair. But by willfully excluding everything associated with Israel, we are saying unequivocally that Israel’s actions exclude her from civil society and that we will not tolerate the status quo. This is what happened with South Africa.

The boycott sometimes seemed unjust when individual athletes for example were excluded from international competitions, but it had to be unequivocal to be effective.

A total boycott should only be a peaceful last resort, a blunt instrument to be used when all else has failed. And when it comes to failure, none has been more enduring and complete as the quest for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.