The invaluable Comment Is Free Watch (CiF Watch) has been doing yoemen’s work opposing the Scottish boycotters, first covered here by Alana a few weeks ago. You’ll remember that the West Dunbartonshire council decided in 2009 to showcase their commitment to freedom by banning Israeli books from their public libraries.

The council was promptly upstaged in its quest for the vaunted “most reminiscent of Nazi tactics” ribbon by the Scottish city of Dundee, which announced its intention to brand Israeli products with “a special mark . . . to make them easily identifiable.” As of yet there has been no decision on whether the badge will be yellow, a star, or something totally innovative. Presumably they’ll just follow whatever the UK government recommended when it urged businesses to mark Israeli West Bank products. But while people wait for Dundee to come to a stylistic consensus, they’re focusing on the West Dunbartonshire council’s original creepy callback to genocidal Nazism.

When recently pushed to defend themselves, the formerly eager-to-swagger West Dunbartonshires suddenly insisted they weren’t banning Israeli books at all. They were merely banning books from Israel, which is different. Seriously. Thinking adults put their heads together, brainstormed the very best defense they could come invent, and that’s what they came up with:

West Dunbartonshire Council utterly refutes recent media claims that it has “launched a boycott on Israeli books.” The Council’s boycott does not in any way seek to censor or silence authors and commentators from Israel. The Council’s boycott only relates to goods “made or grown” in Israel. The vast majority of mainstream books by Israeli authors are published in the UK and are therefore not affected by this boycott. Only books that were printed in Israel and transported to the UK for distribution would be potentially boycotted.

Shorter version: “West Dunbartonshire Council clarifies boycott stance: we’re only banning the ‘Israeli’ books that are really Jewy!”

These aren’t serious people. They wallow in moral consensus while striking a pose of political courage, but only as long as there are zero practical consequences. They’re one step more pathetic than the self-declared activists who fantasize that their tweets and Facebook messages are acts of “solidarity” with Palestinian “freedom fighters.” At least social media terrorist apologists are taking a stand. The West Dunbartonshires won’t even admit that they’re targeting Israelis, when the whole point of their strutting resolution is to target Israelis. It’s a repeat of what happened at the University of Johannesburg, where the University embraced a BDS motion to cut academic ties with Ben-Gurion University and then—in the face of protests—hurriedly denied that they were engaging in anything like a “boycott.” These poseurs want their “resistance,” but only as long as it’s emptied of any resistance.

At least when Australia’s Marrickville Council tried to boycott Israel they promised to replace existing Israeli technology and forgo future purchases. They had to promptly drop the idea because they discovered it would cost millions of dollars to replace HP computers (opps!) but at least they were committed. “Stupid and repugnant,” according to Prime Minister Julia Gillard. But definitely committed.