FAQ Cultural Boycott of Israel

Questions about implementation

1. What does the boycott mean in practice?

The boycott consists of four aspects. Institutions and artists who commit to a cultural boycott:
(i) give permission to make their participation in the boycott public;
(ii) refuse to take part in events and activities fully or partly sponsored or organised by the Israeli state or complicit organizations, withdraw from ongoing activities and collaborations, and cut ties with their complicit Israeli institutional partners;
(iii) do not enter into new collaborations with institutions funded by the Israeli state or complicit organizations;
(iv) do not participate in practices that falsely project symmetry between Israeli and Palestinian perspectives as “equal”, glossing over the history of injustice and structural oppression (see question 15).

2. What can you do to put the cultural boycott into action?

The work of cultural workers within institutions and independent artists differs greatly. Here are some examples and suggestions that apply to everyone:
(i) inform yourself thoroughly about all collaboration partners;
(ii) integrate legal clauses into contracts that identify the complicity you want to avoid, such as terms of distribution for publications. Examples can be found at Palestine Legal or No Music For Genocide;
(iii) make your participation visible: refuse awards or invitations to perform in Israel or collaborate with complicit Israeli organizations; post a statement on your website or socials; inform your audiences that you take part in the boycott;
(iv) Call it out: publicly address institutions that do not participate in the boycott if they organize an event with complicit Israeli institutions or their representatives and engage them in critical conversations;
(v) join initiatives such as Apartheid Free Zones or Towards Apartheid Free Zones.
(vi) educate yourself as much as possible about Palestine; use sensitive language: see page ALLIES;
(vii) provide a platform for Palestinian artists and cultural workers.

3. Do individual artists or cultural workers also fall under the boycott?

No. The cultural boycott that Palestinian civil society, including cultural organizations, has called for, targets institutions, not individuals, and not identity (i.e. it is not related to nationality, religion, gender, ethnic or racial categories). The pledge targets institutions, therefore, when someone acts as an official representative of the state or of a complicit Israeli cultural institution, or as a cultural ambassador for the state of Israel, this falls under the institutional boycott. Representation here is distinct from mere affiliation.

4. Are individuals boycotted because they are affiliated with an Israeli cultural institution?

No, unless they act as official representatives of the state or of a complicit Israeli cultural institution, or as cultural ambassadors for the state of Israel. Employment or affiliation alone is not a reason to apply the boycott. Also if individual Israelis incite to racial violence or participate in the commission of international crimes, say, they should be treated like anyone else committing the same violations.

5. Who is exempt from the boycott?

Organizations are exempt if they: a) are not implicated in grave human rights violations, b) speak out against genocide, against official policies of apartheid and illegal occupation, and c) recognize comprehensive, UN-stipulated rights of the Palestinian people, including the right of return for Palestinian refugees. (see question 12)

6. Can ongoing collaborations with complicit institutions continue after signing the boycott declaration?

No. In such cases, ties must be cut.

7. Can individuals participate in the boycott even if they don’t have decision-making power over all collaborations (e.g. in a film project)?

Yes. The declaration applies to collaborations and responsibilities that fall under the signatory’s authority. Understandably, artists or individual cultural workers cannot be held responsible for all contracts with third parties.

8. Is participation in the boycott campaign possible if there are collaborations with a non-Israeli institution that itself collaborates with the Israeli state?

The boycott is strategically limited to the Israeli state and complicit Israeli institutions, organizations, and companies. It remains an individual’s choice and responsibility whether or not to collaborate with other institutions complicit in human rights violations. It may indeed be an opportunity to discuss the legitimacy of such collaborations within your organization.

9. Must support for the boycott be made public, and if so, how?

Yes. This boycott is a public and collective declaration. By signing, artists and organizations give permission for their participation to be made public. The names are published on the website www.cultureleboycotisrael.nu. Those who are in a precarious situation and wish to support the boycott “silently,” without going public, are also welcome to do so to protect themselves.

10. Is the boycott meaningful if an artist or institution has no collaborations with Israel?

Yes. The boycott is a collective public statement by artists and cultural institutions in the Netherlands and Belgium. The statement is published with all names, and the group of signatories will only grow. It sends a strong signal to society and to political actors. The cultural boycott campaign follows the example of boycott campaigns in other sectors (academic, sports, economic) in the Netherlands and Belgium.

11. Do I risk professional or legal consequences?

Committing to a boycott against human rights violations is a lawful act. Choosing not to cooperate with entities that break the law is a form of protected expression–in a way, it is a legal and moral obligation. Initiatives such as the European Legal Support Center, Equity (UK), and Vakbond solidair met Palestina provide extensive information and defend freedom of expression for those who speak out for Palestinian rights. However, by signing the boycott declaration, you do take on some risk, since the reaction of third parties is unpredictable. That makes it all the more important that as many institutions and individuals as possible collectively endorse this action.

12. What is the difference between a cultural and an economic boycott?

The present pledge targets cultural and artistic collaborations with the Israeli state, as well as all complicit Israeli organisations and companies. In some cases this may involve direct economic ties, e.g. cancelling contracts, refusing fees or withdrawing from grants. In other cases, it may mean that you decide not to use a complicit Israeli catering service for a film shooting or avoid Booking.com for travel bookings, where reasonable alternatives exist. Those who want to be more consequent are encouraged to take further steps such as joining the Apartheid Free Zone initiative, which includes a range of economic boycott measures such as not serving Coca Cola or using Sodastream, and similarly commits its endorsers to cultural boycott.

Questions about principles

13. When is an institution “complicit” in the context of Israel?

Israeli cultural organizations have a decades-long history of actively whitewashing, justifying, facilitating and/or supporting state policy. Art and culture are used by the state as mechanisms to justify crimes–known as the ‘Brand Israel’ programme.

Despite operating under the Israeli apartheid regime, and benefiting from it, the vast majority of Israeli cultural organizations have never endorsed the full internationally recognized rights of the Palestinian people.

An Israeli cultural institution is complicit if:
(a) it does not end its involvement in the violations of the rights of the Palestinian people under international law (e.g. discriminatory policies, justifying violations, denial, whitewashing, or remaining silent); and
(b) it does not publicly recognize Palestinians’ inalienable rights under international law, namely:
 (i) Ending the occupation (and colonization) of Arab land occupied in June 1967 (UN Resolution 242) and dismantling the wall;
 (ii) Recognizing the fundamental rights and full equality of Palestinian citizens of Israel (UN Convention Against Apartheid);
 (iii) Respecting, protecting, and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties (UN Resolution 194).

14. Is it discriminatory to boycott Israeli institutions?

No. The boycott is explicitly not based on identity or origin. The signatories reject all forms of discrimination, including anti-Palestinian racism, antisemitism, Islamophobia, sexism, homophobia, and transphobia. They also reject the misuse of antisemitism accusations as a distraction from addressing human rights violations. They recognize that the right to boycott is supported by international and domestic law: it is both a right and an ethical responsibility of civil society to stand up for Palestinian human rights.

15. Is a cultural boycott effective?

Yes. It played an important role in the global movement that helped to end apartheid in South Africa. Cultural boycotts are not merely symbolic: they draw media attention, put institutions and policymakers under pressure, and strengthen public debate. They also reinforce other forms of pressure (economic, academic, political). Together, these pressures accumulate. When artists, writers, or festivals withdraw, it attracts significant attention, which increases pressure on businesses, universities, and politicians. The cultural boycott is, above all, a clear message of meaningful solidarity with Palestinians.

16. What is normalization?

Normalization is making oppression and injustice appear normal. In the context of Israel, it refers to practices of whitewashing or equivocation where Palestinians (and/or Arabs) and Israelis (individuals or institutions) are presented together as having “normal” relations and reconciling across differences, while ignoring the underlying systems and structures of oppression and injustice. This undermines international solidarity with the Palestinian struggle. As a good practice, the cultural boycott follows the decision of a broad Palestinian civil society coalition not to participate in joint activities with Israelis or Israeli institutions unless the activity is explicitly a form of joint resistance against Israel’s regime of occupation, colonization, and apartheid; and unless the Israeli party publicly recognizes the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people as affirmed by the UN. (see question 12)

17. When will the boycott be lifted?

The boycott is a tool of societal pressure in response to the failure of impactful political action by the UN and national governments. It will be lifted when Palestinians’ comprehensive rights under international law are respected. This means above all an end to genocidal violence, a permanent ceasefire, but also an end to apartheid policies, illegal occupations, and the guarantee of the right of return for Palestinian refugees.

18. Why speak of a “decades-long occupation”?

It is essential to place the current genocide in a broader historical context. Since Israel’s founding in 1948, when more than half of Palestine’s indigenous population was ethnically cleansed, Israel has sought to control as much land as possible and displace Palestinians. This forced displacement created what is now more than 7.25 million Palestinian refugees, who are denied their right of return under international law simply because they are not Jewish. In the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel occupied Gaza and the West Bank including East Jerusalem, as well as the Egyptian Sinai, and the Syrian Golan Heights. Since then, the West Bank and Gaza are, under international law, illegally occupied Palestinian territories, as the International Court of Justice determined in July 2024. The UN demands Israel’s withdrawal, but Israel refuses. Israel’s ongoing illegal colonization and expulsion or killing of Palestinians since 1967 violates international law (see also ALLIES).

Legal sources:
– UN Security Council Resolution 242 (1967) S/RES/242 – withdrawal from occupied territories;
– UN Security Council Resolution 338 (1973) S/RES/338 – reaffirming resolution 242
- International Court of Justice (Advisory Opinion, 9 July 2004) – confirms territories are occupied and subject to Geneva Convention IV; Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory
– UN General Assembly & Human Rights Council – consistently use the term Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT)
– International Court of Justice (Advisory Opinion, 2024) 186-20240719-ADV-01-00-EN - Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem

Common counterarguments

19. Won’t the boycott harm progressive and critical Israelis?

First, as noted, the boycott targets institutions, not individuals. Collaboration with individuals is possible as long as they are not official representatives of the state or complicit institutions, nor cultural ambassadors for Israel. Second, an increasing number of progressive and critical Israelis support boycott calls (see European Jews for Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace (US)). The Israeli human rights organization B’tselem in its report Our Genocide (July 2025) calls for using all means of international law to stop Israel’s genocide of Palestinians. Criticism of apartheid and occupation has long been silenced inside Israel. Many dissidents have left Israel because it is increasingly difficult to speak critically there.

20. Why only boycott Israel? Why not also Saudi Arabia or the US?

Asking “why not also this or that country” is often a way to avoid action. A cultural boycott is not a dogma to be applied in the same manner in all cases of injustice – it is a strategic tool for specific goals. This campaign in the Netherlands and Belgium follows the Palestinian civil society call of 2005. It is one of the few remaining pressure tools given Israel’s continuing impunity.

When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, a full boycott (including against individuals) was quickly accepted as legitimate. The Netherlands and Belgium are proud of their role in the boycott against South African apartheid, which, incidentally, also did not distinguish between individuals and institutions. The cultural boycott of Israel highlights the exceptional protection Israel enjoys from Western governments despite repeated violations of international law. It holds Israel accountable like other countries.

21. Isn’t it valid to choose our own way to speak out as artists and cultural organizations?

Individual forms of resistance or criticism need not exclude collective action. To send a strong signal, we must unite. Every artist and institution is part of civil society and has a responsibility to the wider cultural sector. In Italy, unions called a general strike against Israel’s genocide; in the Netherlands, 150.000 people protested. Numbers and collective positions matter if we want change. The plurality and diversity of actions, both individual and collective, makes for a more resilient cultural field. By refusing collective boycott statements and only opting for individual actions, the impact of collective action is effectively weakened.

22. Europe is already so polarized. Isn’t art supposed to build bridges?

That is valid. Yet bridges cannot be built as long as the basic conditions of relations are profoundly unequal. Calls for dialogue and a plurality of voices, which ignore the deep structural oppression, injustice and inequality between Palestinians and Israelis, are unethical and trivialize the role of art and culture as bridge-builders. Such “dialogue” is often used as a distraction or to whitewash oppression. Taking a “neutral” stance contributes, knowingly or not, to undermining universal human rights. Refusing to boycott Israeli institutions is itself a political statement. This is not about different perspectives but about grave violations of human rights and structural discrimination. Under these conditions, solidarity with Palestinians means refusing to whitewash oppression with art and culture (see also question 15).

23. Isn't there a peace agreement now? Why should we still boycott Israel?

Undoubtedly, a lasting ceasefire offers cautious hope for an end to the bombings, the starvation campaign and the military operations. However, it is uncertain if the agreement will hold; after all, Israel has repeatedly violated international agreements. A ceasefire may thus be the beginning, but it is certainly not the end of a process of justice for the Palestinians.

The boycott was initiated to end the impunity with which Israel is exterminating the Palestinian population, destroying its culture and making life structurally impossible. Israel's war crimes and violations of international law are not limited to the open genocide in Gaza and human rights violations in the West Bank over the past two years. In July 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories is illegal and that Israel must end all its occupations, dismantle the settlements and compensate for damages. Although the ruling focuses on 1967, colonial dispossession began as early as 1948 with the Nakba, the forced expulsion of more than 750,000 Palestinians.

The boycott will remain in place until the full rights of the Palestinian people, as guaranteed by international law, are respected. This means an end to genocidal violence and a permanent ceasefire, but also an end to apartheid and occupation, and the guarantee of the right of return for Palestinian refugees. (See also questions 12 and 17).

24. How to deal with criticism?

You have shown courage and followed your moral compass by refusing complicity. Yet, while this will be greatly appreciated by many, you should also be prepared for criticism in response to your public pledge, both from individuals as well as typically baseless threats to funding, censorship or pseudo-legal challenges.

Ignore: Wherever possible, ignore trolling, negative comments made anonymously or as social media provocations. Set up a stricter spam filter, report and block unwanted messages.

Engage: In case the objections come from people or places important to you, respond through invitation to an open, critical conversation. Point them to positive news coverage, as well as to the broad support the statement has garnered.

Unpack: Familiarise yourself with the arguments provided in the FAQ to offer clarifications and show that you have taken an informed decision.

Join forces: You are not alone in signing the pledge. A large number of organisations and individual artists and cultural workers share your position. Where possible, seek refuge in numbers, in collective responses and actions.

Media strategy: Prepare strategic social media posts that indirectly refute criticism and reveal their typical hollowness.