Israel boycott not self-serving
K Nolan refers to the proposed boycott of Israel by 150 (now over 160) Irish artists as "sanctimonious and self-serving to say the least!" (Letters, August 16).
This puzzles me. Is K Nolan not being "sanctimonious" when he refers to "the sectarian and apartheid state of Israel"? The artists share this view of that state, but are prepared to go beyond invective and take action in the most effective way that is open to them.
In the process, they are potentially depriving themselves of income (Israel pays well for those who are prepared to act as its propaganda tools) while simultaneously risking their careers in the USA, where the vindictiveness of the Zionist lobby leads to discrimination against Israel's critics.