Stephen Glover on the Press Why Israel but not Burma? The NUJ's boycott astonishes me

The motion by the National Union of Journalists to boycott Israeli goods is in one sense absurd. It is as meaningful as Vanuatu declaring war on the United States.

Many of the NUJ's 38,000 members may not support the motion, which was passed by 66 to 54 at the delegates' recent annual meeting. Even if they do, they are unlikely to be major consumers of Israeli goods. Presumably the NUJ would like its comrades in other trade unions to join the boycott, but I doubt the Israeli Government is quaking in its boots.

Nevertheless, on a symbolic level the motion is important, as was the vote last year by the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education to boycott Israeli academics and universities. It is astonishing to me that any vaguely intelligent person could support such measures.

In the first place I am not sure that I am in favour of boycotts of any sort against any country, unless we happen to be at war. In the case of the university lecturers, and possibly the NUJ, the upshot is to cut off communication with one's counterparts in other countries, to stifle debate and to impede whatever chances there may be of a peaceful and reasoned resolution to differences.

In the case of Israel there is an even more important objection. I do not at all write as an apologist for the country, and I can see that it has sometimes acted foolishly and even brutally, as, for example, in its invasion of Lebanon last year. But to single out Israel as being uniquely evil, and worthy of measures that are not contemplated against anyone else, is intellectually disreputable.

The NUJ has not passed any motion to boycott China, where there are hundreds of political prisoners. Nor has it picked on North Korea, a totalitarian state in which millions of people have been deprived of the bare necessities of life. The same could be said of Burma. I do not believe that the NUJ has puffed itself in indignation against Saudi Arabia, an autocratic state where women do not enjoy rights that are taken for granted in Israel.

Whatever criticisms can be justly made of Israel, it is a functioning democracy with a free Press and a robust tradition of free speech. Even if one takes the harshest view of its treatment of Palestinians, it is not to be compared with the genocidal policies of countries such as North Korea and Zimbabwe, against which the NUJ has applied no boycotts.

Why is Israel singled out? I hesitate to raise the charge of anti-Semitism since it is used too often and too carelessly by defenders of Israel in order to try to quash criticism of the country. But though laying aside that explanation, I confess that I am unable to find another one. Why Israel but not Burma? Perhaps someone would tell me.

Some people have suggested that, as result of the NUJ motion, journalists may report Israel unfairly. I doubt this is so, though there is a wider issue as to whether the country is habitually fairly treated. That the BBC has spent a lot of money trying to prevent the publication of a report on alleged bias in its reporting of Israel may indicate it has something to hide.

The issue for me has simply to do with the lack of fairness on the part of the NUJ, which has just celebrated its centenary. Has it ever done something as stupid as this in all its hundred years? I am not a member, but if I were I would most certainly tear up my card.

I don't think Peter has done his sums

My friend and former colleague Peter Wilby has been around a long time, and we must take his Guardian Press column very seriously. However, I fear the Methuselah of media punditry was wide of the mark when he asserted last week that Sir Max Hastings would have been paid "a grand or so" for a column in the Daily Mail judged by Mr Wilby to be somewhat inadequate.

I do not know what Sir Max is paid for his effusions in the Daily Mail or the Guardian. Perhaps it is not our business. Yet it surely verges on the libellous to suggest that a columnist of his magnificence receives only "a grand or so" for his work.

Last week we learned that Boris Johnson is paid £250,000 a year by the Daily Telegraph, a fact I believe I revealed here some time ago. On the basis of 45 columns a year, this works out at £5,555.55 per column. Surely Mr Wilby would not have us believe that Boris is paid five-and-a-half times more than Max?

Wills and Kate: any theory is acceptable

Having read, not very enjoyably, several thousand words about the break-up of Wills and Kate, I cannot say I am any the wiser. According to various authorities, they split up because of him, because of her, because of the Duke of Edinburgh and because of the Queen. Kate's mother's love of chewing gum, and her alleged use of the word "toilet", were said by some to have been decisive factors.

Plainly, all these theories cannot be true, since some of them conflict with one another. I am tempted to say that no one really knows why they split up, perhaps not even the participants themselves. Who are these much quoted "friends"? Are they, as we are invited to believe, well-placed members of the Royal Household? Or are they, in fact, Billy Trumpington-Smythe, who himself dabbles in journalism and went to school with Wills, and is always good for a theory if telephoned by a royal correspondent?

We should, of course, beware of discounting all these stories, remembering how some 15 years ago Andrew Morton's book about Diana, Princess of Wales was dismissed. The great and the good said that they did not believe a word of it, and that he must have made it up, only to discover subsequently that Mr Morton had virtually taken dictation from Diana.

Still, I remain sceptical in this instance, particularly about the class theories.

The beauty of the story, from the point of view of the journalists writing it, is that it will almost certainly never be resolved. The truth about a political break-up, such as the one between Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, or even a showbiz divorce, is eventually known. By contrast, it is most unlikely - unless Kate should "kiss and tell", which I pray she won't - that we will ever know why they split up. Almost any theory will do.