There is an old saying: If someone comes to kill you, rise up and kill him first. In light of the boycott law proposed by MK Zeev Elkin and his colleagues, we can now amend the saying: If someone comes to boycott you, rise up and boycott him first. I can't read the mind of MK Zahava Gal-On of the Meretz party, a woman who refuses to buy products from Israeli settlements and has demanded that goods made in Ariel bear a yellow stamp, even if the company's headquarters are in Ramat Gan. A Jew does not expel another Jew from his home. A Jew does not boycott another Jew. Syrian peanuts are sold and enjoyed in Israel. Will Gal-On boycott them because Syrian President Bashar Assad is killing his own people- Some say that boycotts are legitimate tools for a social or political struggle. This is half true. The recent consumer boycott on expensive cottage cheese was legitimate, certainly, but what about the German boycotts of Jewish-run stores in the 1930s? The line here is thin, and easily crossed. The boycott law is an answer to a justifiable need. Consider this scenario: A person incites violence against Ben-Gurion University, and then decides to compete in a tender for the construction of a new campus bomb shelter. Obviously we don't want such a character to build the shelter, but without a law on the books, there is no way to legally prevent such an atrocity. What we must do, however, is examine the law's potential pros and cons. The boycott law will do widescale damage to Israel's international image, while its benefits will be minimal. The problem with the law is the principle it is based on; a principle of reciprocity. When MK Elkin argues that this law is vital for Israel, we must in turn ask him why. While it would be appropriate to oppose a bill that seeks to deny financial support for troublesome organizations like the New Israel Fund, it should be enough to live in a society that bears responsibility for the community and general public. If all the people of Israel are truly responsible for one another, we need no such law. In this sort of a society, when right-wing activists march with flags on Jerusalem Day to celebrate the city's reunification, a lecturer is allowed to show disdain. But should he urge his students to "break their necks," he should find his classroom empty -- not because the university dismissed him, or because of any specific law, but rather because the students refuse to be taught by him. The general public should bring the boycott up by themselves, rather than rally around a law that will do it for them. If they cannot, then it is because there is a void in their hearts -- a void that no law will be able to fill. A void that we must, together, work to repair.