The following is an exchange between editors (and a guest-editor) of Jewish Peace News on the topic of the BDS (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions) movement. The exchange was precipitated by a blog posting on August 31 by Mitchell Plitnick on the subject, and the responses below, written over the past few days, are by Lincoln Shlensky, Rela Mazali, and Ofer Neiman (our guest editor). The exchange is presented from top to bottom in chronological order, except that Mr. Plitnick’s original blog post referenced in this exchange is included at the end, as is customary in JPN dispatches. As readers will see, the views expressed strongly differ on the subject of BDS. Jewish Peace News, as an editorial group, does not take a position for or against specific BDS or other political programs; each editor, however, is free to present an opinion, and we place a high value on such editorial diversity.

——————————-
Lincoln Z. Shlensky writes:

Mitchell Plitnick, a former editor of Jewish Peace News and former co-director of Jewish Voice for Peace, who has worked for the Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem and now is blogging for Examiner.com, Meretz USA, and other sites, writes informatively in a recent blog posting about recent successes of the BDS movement — and also about the movement’s weaknesses.

He cites as an example of the BDS movement’s successful tactics the recent decision by the government of Norway to divest from Danya Cebus Ltd. and Africa-Israel Investments because of the companies’ involvement in building Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Norway’s decision to divest would have been unlikely, Plitnick maintains, were it not for the BDS movement’s activism. He rightly points out, however, that what’s really hurting the illegal Israeli settlements economically is not divestment by small Skandinavian countries but rather an increasingly stringent boycott of settlement products by the Palestinian Authority. This has sharply cut into the settlements’ industrial and trading profits, according to the settlers themselves.

But what distinguishes the PA boycott from other more conspicuous BDS efforts is that the Palestinians have explicitly stated that they are boycotting settlement products — and not other Israeli products in general. Such a clear distinction between Israel and the settlements is at odds with the strategy of most activist groups associated with the BDS movement, because the BDS movement’s agenda has become, by and large, a one-state program. That program implicitly anticipates the end of Israel as a predominantly Jewish, democratic state and therefore serves to radicalize Jewish Israelis against it and to make its aims unacceptable to almost all Western governments –as well as to most Palestinians, the majority of whom demand a separate Palestinian state.

Plitnick argues that it’s time for those who seek a democratic and peaceful Israel, and particularly for those who object to Israel’s reprehensible occupation of the Palestinian territories, to participate emphatically in the time-honored nonviolent tactic of boycott — and to do so while clearly drawing a distinction between the settlements and Israel proper. Such a strategy can succeed if the occupation, and not the existence of Israel itself, is the clear target. So far, boycott and divestment have not been nearly as successful as they could be because such tactics have been taken up bluntly rather than, as Plitnick prefers, in a broad-based yet focussed campaign against the settlements. I fully agree that such a well-defined yet inclusive campaign by peace groups and religious and civic organizations against the settlements is increasingly necessary — and, if articulated potently and cogently, it’s attainable.

——————————-
Rela Mazali writes:

I take serious issue with Plitnick’s categorical claim that the tool of Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions “was taken up by one-staters who believe the only way to address the historic, and massive, injustice done to the Palestinians is by promoting a single state where Jews lose their political self-determination and quickly become a minority in the area in question.” As a member of the group supporting BDS from inside Israel and a public supporter of BDS since the early years of this decade, I fail to see any evidence supporting this empirical claim. While prominent members of the BDS movement may concurrently believe in, and support, a one-state solution, there is no necessary link between that and supporting BDS. Many others may support two states while some, in fact, systematically reject the question altogether, concentrated instead on how to end the relentless oppression and dispossession of Palestinians. See, for instance, Michele Warshawsky’s formulation, in a piece featured last October on JPN and introduced by editor Joel Beinin, “whether the final result of … de-colonization will be a one-state solution, two democratic states (i.e. not a ‘Jewish State’), a federation or any other institutional structure is secondary.”

However, implicitly and misleadingly establishing such a link-by-association (through claiming that it just happens to be the fact that supporters of BDS are supporters of one state), provides an easier means of discrediting the 2005 Palestinian Civil Society call for inclusive BDS. It allows opponents such as Plitnick, who supports selective BDS of settlements only, to taint the campaign for inclusive BDS as a tactic of those who reject “Israel’s very existence” or those who would totally forfeit “political self-determination” for Jews in Israel. The opposite, self-determination and (supposedly) ensured existence, are in turn erroneously and implicitly equated with “a Jewish Israel,” as if this link too were a self-evident fact. These scare allegations, then, serve to sidetrack legitimate debate about the grounds for, and effectiveness of, general BDS.

Resisting that, I propose to return the debate to the actual issue at hand: as is very obvious from the meticulous work and website of “Who Profits?”, numerous major players in Israel’s economy profit directly and substantially from the violent military oppression and occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Other thorough research (such as that of Shlomo Swirsky) has identified the prolonged conflict as a major means of averting social unrest inside Israel, accordingly allowing widespread exploitation of Israel’s underclasses. This further benefits major economic players. In resisting the exploitation of Palestinians and their resources, BDS therefore targets Israel’s occupation-based economy as well as the cultural structures and patterns enabling and often camouflaging this profiteering, aiming to affect the complacency of Israeli elites. Accordingly, in my view, the convenient compartmentalization proposed by selective boycott and sanctions, may be more catchy and more “marketable,” but in fact misses much of the point.

Finally, to comment briefly, nevertheless on Plitnick’s scare claims, I would like to point out that there isn’t and never has been “a Jewish Israel.” What there is, what I live in, is a Jewish-controlled Israel. Which is not a democracy.
——————————-

Ofer Neiman writes:

[Ofer Neiman is a contributing editor to Occupation Magazine and The Only Democracy? website. In the near future, we hope to welcome Ofer to the existing list of editors already contributing to Jewish Peace News. Meanwhile, as Ofer is also an activist with the group inside Israel supporting the Palestinian call for BDS, JPN asked him to add his comments on Plitnick's piece. This is his response:]

The Palestinian BDS call is first and foremost a call for the promotion of universal principles of human rights. From this universal perspective, it should not be difficult to see that there is something inherently flawed about Israel’s entire constitutional fabric when it comes to the treatment of its Palestinian citizens, not to mention the specific policies pursued by successive Israeli governments on this issue. Public support for many of these policies has been strong.

Is this situation a result of Israel’s construction of settlements, or is the construction of settlements a symptom of a fundamental, collective Israeli ailment? A recent statement issued by Peace Now supporter and Israeli Professor, Yossi Ben Artzi (”I too believe that settlements are the source of all evil in Israel”) should serve as a warning sign to us all. Israel will not necessarily become a model society once the settlements are dismantled (and certainly not if they are partially dismantled, under the “settlement bloc” schemes). Uzi toting sheriffs who currently terrorize the inhabitants of the West Bank may end up doing the same in the Negev or in the Galilee under some Judeaization program initiated by a government eager to “compensate” the erstwhile lords of the land for their “humiliation”. As responsible Israeli citizens (or concerned Jews all over the world), we must try to preempt such disastrous developments by addressing all the maladies of Israeli society. This means that even the most unpleasant topics should be on the table, including the ongoing plight of the Palestinian refugees since the ethnic cleansing of 1948. The Palestinian BDS call’s focus on not one but three issues (Occupation, Discrimination of Israel’s Palestinian citizens and Israel’s responsibility for the Nakba) is thus morally justified.

Is the BDS call a call for a one state solution? Well, these lines are being written by an Israeli citizen who supports the Geneva Initiative and believes that no BDS campaign can be effective if the only option presented to Israelis is the dismantling of their entire state. Indeed, the BDS call, as Mr. Plitnick admits, is not a call for a single state solution. Do those Palestinian leaders of civil society who are behind the BDS call support a one-state solution? Some of them do, perhaps most of them. If the aforementioned flaws of Israel are incurable, they may even be right. In any case, it should be stressed that there is a difference between the call and its proponents. And when the discussion of UN resolution 194 is implicitly presented by Mr. Plitnick as a bête noire from any pragmatic point of view, it should be noted that even the Geneva initiative presents an agreed upon implementation of this resolution in the framework of a two-state solution. It is also unfortunate that Plitnick puts a statement like “the root of the problem in the Middle East is Israel’s very existence.” in the mouths of “radical” BDS activists, when these people tend to be the ones who see the broader picture, including the destructive consequences of US meddling in the Middle East, or the non-democratic conduct of reactionary Arab regimes in the region.

If the Palestinian BDS call’s moral foundations are accepted, one should still discuss its practical value. Should the boycott campaign be aimed only at the settlements? The Israeli government has indeed expressed concerned over the Palestinian authority’s boycott measures. However, a great deal of the protest is related to what Israeli officials and settlers, high on hubris, see as Chutzpah on behalf of what they view as a subordinate authority. The boycott actions are an independent move by the Palestinian Authority, but the muscles it is flexing have atrophied long ago. After all, the global BDS movement’s success is due to the fact that the Palestinian Authority has been consistently co-opted by Israel and the US. The Israeli actors’ refusal to perform in Ariel has also generated some public debate. However, these recent developments should be put in perspective. The settlers (including those living in East Jerusalem) make up only 7% of Israel’s citizens. Most of the
settlements are small communities, and many of their inhabitants make their living either through work in Israel (west of the green line) or as state employees in their communities. Therefore, a selective boycott against settlement products will not affect all these settlers.   Moreover, Israel can relocate factories currently operating in the West Bank to nearby industrial zones inside the green line borders.

In a 2009 Haaretz article, Journalist Aluf Benn wrote: “Only one thing does bother the Israelis, according to the polls: fear of a diplomatic embargo and an international boycott.” It seems that the average Israelis who are concerned about an international boycott are fearful of the broader BDS measures more than they are fearful of selective measures, which may have no impact on their pockets or on their sense of normalization with the outside world.

——————————-
Lincoln Z. Shlensky responds:

Rela Mazali responds to Mitchell Plitnick’s blog posting, and implicitly to my endorsement of it, by rejecting any claim that the BDS movement is necessarily linked to one-state positions that deny Israel’s legitimacy in its current form. But Plitnick’s point, with which I concur, is that folded into the premises of the most prominent elements of the BDS movement is the deeply held notion that Israel cannot remain a legitimate, predominantly Jewish, state without compromising the universalist principles of democracy.

The BDS movement’s foremost advocates demonstrate this in their unswerving support for the right of Palestinian refugee return, which, if literally (whatever that means) put into practice, would end the current demographic majority of Jews in Israel and precipitate a further massive displacement of population. It’s inconceivable that an actual “return” of refugees and their descendents would do otherwise. Of course, one way that those who support the right of return have tried to evade this issue is to suggest that through negotiations, refugee return might only entail a quasi-symbolic gesture involving the actual repatriation of a small number of Palestinian refugees with the rest receiving monetary or other compensation. But in that case, the “right” of return is not really a right, after all. And who is to say whether most of those refugees who wish to return would be satisfied instead to receive a different form of compensation?

Although I support the general idea that refugees of conflict should be allowed to return whenever possible, it becomes clear, in the complicated and protracted context of Israeli and Palestinian history, that the question of Palestinian refugees cannot simply be resolved by demanding their right to return. The same could be said of analogous cases elsewhere in the world (for example, in the US and Canada), where indigenous peoples who were forcibly transferred from their land will never regain it, but yet must be compensated (that is, assured justice) in other negotiated ways. So to continue to speak of the “right of return” is, strictly speaking, to anticipate indirectly (or through obfuscation) the end of Israel in its current form — precisely what Plitnick is concerned the BDS movement does.

The problematic focus of the BDS movement on the Israeli state itself, above and beyond Israel’s immoral settlement policy, was demonstrated yet again in the past two days. Yesterday, 150 well-known American actors and directors, organized by the group Jewish Voice for Peace, issued an unprecedentedly powerful statement in support of Israeli academics, artists, and actors who recently declared their refusal to participate in any cultural events in the settlements. Then today, the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) just as quickly upbraided these cultural figures and their supporters for taking a stand against Israeli cultural productions in the settlements but not equally against all other cultural events and academic institutions within Israel itself. It strikes me as astounding that PACBI would decide that artists and intellectuals who support a boycott of the settlements and are willing to put their careers on the line for it deserve not encouragement but rather a scolding. Such are the dilemmas of the BDS movement at present.

——————————-

The Power and Weakness of Boycott
August 30, 2010
by Mitchell Plitnick

Recently, Norway announced that a major Israeli company and a subsidiary were to be excluded from its national wealth fund’s investment list. The reasons were past activity in building settlements in the West Bank and working on construction of the Separation Barrier.

Before I go into what this means for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS), let me say I applaud this action. Continued development of industry in the settlements only entrenches their presence. It is crucial that foreign governments and corporations stop supporting that development and make it clear that settlement industries cannot expect “business as usual” and, most importantly, that those companies are not in Israel. That is a line that must be drawn clearly, in the boldest green. The message must be sent in no uncertain terms that the settlements are NOT ISRAEL!

Predictably, supporters of the BDS movement have been declaring how this incident proves their strategy is working, that their “movement” is making real progress. But that is really overstating the case.

This is, indeed, a victory for the BDS movement, but not nearly the one they will,understandably, purport. The two companies are part of the corporate group owned by billionaire Lev Leviev, who actively promotes settlement expansion. Leviev has been targeted by BDS activists spanning the spectrum from anti-occupation groups to anti-Israel ones for years.

European companies have, for years, divested from Israeli companies seen as doing the business of settlement or occupation expansion. This has been, and remains, a limited trend, but some European companies will stop doing business with Israeli businesses when involvement with the settlements or occupation is brought to their attention (it often requires some investigation to find these things out). So, yes, this is the sort of thing activist groups can do, though it happened with less frequency before the BDS movement really rose up.

Still, this was certainly caused by the BDS activities. And they can rightly take credit for it.

But the larger impact that is being felt in the settlements is not the result of this movement’s efforts. It’s the result of the Palestinian Authority doing what it should have done a long time ago—cut itself off as a market for settlement products.

The PA boycott of settlement products has been very meticulous. They have specified which products are made in settlements so that the boycott does not affect Israeli businesses located inside the Green Line. They have acted to stop Palestinians from working in the settlements as well. This is what is hurting the settlement businesses that, perversely, do a very large amount of business by selling to Palestinians.

Two factors have allowed this tactic to succeed and to resonate well in Europe. The Palestinians have effectively communicated their goals and strategy behind this boycott in Europe, where they tend to be heard far better than in the United States.

But the major factor is that the PA, and specifically Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, has gotten the point across clearly that this boycott is aimed at the settlements and not at Israel. Europe is not going to boycott Israel, for many reasons. But there is a lot less tolerance in Europe for the settlements than there is in the US, and a good opportunity to strike at the settlement project alone is likely to win at least some European support.

The BDS movement is diverse and different people and groups in it have a wide variety of views on many issues. But, despite the fact that not all of the groups who engage in BDS activism hold to these views, the movement as a whole has become associated with one-state ideologies and support for the Palestinian Right of Return, two points that fall well outside the international diplomatic consensus and are non-starters for most of Europe’s elites.

This is why the Netanyahu government is able to twist a legitimate protest tactic into an attack on Israel’s very existence—because it is being employed by some who do indeed believe that the root of the problem in the Middle East is Israel’s very existence.

Economic actions like boycotts and divestment are legitimate and time-honored non-violent tactics to express protest and to try to take concrete action against policies people believe are wrong. There is nothing inherently wrong with employing such economic action against the occupation and the siege of Gaza. The test of such tactics is whether or not enough people will come to agree that the policy in question is wrong; if they do, the tactic will be effective, otherwise it will not.

Unfortunately, a targeted program of economic action was not pursued by those who realize that the problem is the settlements, and that peace with two states, one of which is a Jewish Israel, is possible. The tactic was taken up by one-staters who believe the only way to address the historic, and massive, injustice done to the Palestinians is by promoting a single state where Jews lose their political self-determination and quickly become a minority in the area in question.

Now, it’s harder to take up the tactic, despite the fact that, from talking to many two-staters, both activists and politicians, I know that many such folks now realize that a well-orchestrated campaign targeting the settlements could very well be effective.

The PA, however, has proven it can be done. And a handful of artists and performers in Israel have also given us an opportunity to pursue an effective campaign against the settlements. A pro-Israel, pro-peace boycott campaign has the potential not only to really affect the status quo but also to bring back many Jews who feel less and less affinity to an Israel whose identity is increasingly being radicalized by the settler movement.

Thus far, Diaspora Jewish peace groups have been largely silent on this issue. That’s understandable, because there will be considerable political fallout from it. But this is a real opportunity to back and Israeli initiative, brought by ordinary Israelis not career leftists or radicals. This is a chance to back an Israeli initiative that clearly targets the settlements from within Israel.

It would be a shame if Israeli and American peace groups let this chance go by. They screwed up once by leaving a powerful tactic in the hands of those who cannot possibly use it to maximum effect. One hopes they don’t make the same mistake again.

……………………………………………………….

Jewish Peace News editors:
Joel Beinin
Racheli Gai
Rela Mazali
Sarah Anne Minkin
Judith Norman
Lincoln Z. Shlensky
Rebecca Vilkomerson
Alistair Welchman
————
Jewish Peace News archive and blog.

Open Letter to the SA Zionist Federation

Open Shuhada Street
6 September 2010

SA Zionist Federation (Cape)
leahwpzc@ctjc.co.za

Why are you supporting occupation, settlement and oppression?

We are members of Open Shuhada Street (OSS) an organisation committed to peace and security for Israelis and Palestinians. We have called for a boycott of products made by Ahava [1] [and see  posting on the JfJfP website Boycotting Ahava – anyone can join in] – Dead Sea Laboratories Ltd (Ahava) because these products are manufactured illegally in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) by a company owned by illegal settlements in the OPT. The profitability of settlements businesses like Ahava causes suffering for millions of ordinary Palestinian children, women and men. The call to boycott Ahava is a common sense, peaceful expression of the need to reverse the settlement enterprise which stands in the way of the creation of two states, Israel and Palestine, living in peace.

On 25 August 2010, in response to the call to boycott the settlement-made products of Ahava, the SA Zionist Federation (SAZF) Cape launched a vicious personal attack on us. This was coordinated by SAZF head office. We respond in this open letter.

What are the facts?

It is undisputed that Ahava is manufactured in the West Bank, part of the occupied Palestinian territory, outside of the recognized borders of the State of Israel. A letter by Y. Ellis the CEO of Ahava [2], sent out by the SAZF, says: “Ahava’s manufacturing facility is located … within the area usually referred as the West Bank.” Ahava neither pays taxes to the Palestinian Authority, nor does it get its license to operate from the Palestinian Authority.

It is undisputed that Ahava is manufactured in an Israeli settlement. The Ahava CEO says: “Ahava’s manufacturing facility is located at Kibbutz Mitzpe Shalem… within the area usually referred as the West Bank.” See this map [3] and this photo [4] of Mitzpe Shalem. Also see this map [5] and this photo [6] of Kibbutz Kalia.

Settlements own 44.69% of the stock in Ahava – Dead Sea Laboratories Ltd. Settlement Kibbutz Mitzpe Shalem owns 37.31% and Settlement Kibbutz Kalia owns 7.38%. These figures are calculated, based on certificates from the Israeli Registrar of Companies. The calculations and certificates are available here.[7]

The presence of these settlements means land confiscations, house demolitions, discriminatory water use and harassment by settlers. These cause hardship to Palestinians. Some in surrounding communities were displaced from Nabi Musa where Kalia is now situated and Arab al-Ta’amira near Mitzpe Shalem.

What is the law?

The highest judicial authority in Israel, the Israeli Supreme Court – sitting as the High Court of Justice, recognizes the West Bank as Occupied Territory.

For example, in the September 2005 High Court of Justice decision in the Alfei Menashe case, then Chief Justice Barak held:

The Judea and Samaria areas are held by the State of Israel in belligerent occupation. The long arm of the state in the area is the military commander. He is not the sovereign in the territory held in belligerent occupation… His power is granted him by public international law regarding belligerent occupation. The legal meaning of this view is twofold: first, Israeli law does not apply in these areas. They have not been “annexed” to Israel. Second, the legal regime which applies in these areas is determined by public international law regarding belligerent occupation (see HCJ 1661/05). In the center of this public international law stand the Regulations Concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 18 October 1907… These regulations are a reflection of customary international law. The law of belligerent occupation is also laid out in IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War 1949… The State of Israel has declared that it practices the humanitarian parts of this convention… We are aware that the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice determined that The Fourth Geneva Convention applies in the Judea and Samaria area, and that its application is not conditional upon the willingness of the State of Israel to uphold its provisions.[8]

Numerous other judgments repeat these basic principles.[9] Those like Chief Rabbi Dr Warren Goldstein who assert that it “is incorrect legally, factually and even morally to speak of an occupation” are simply in denial.

Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention [10] (cited above by the Israeli court) states: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

This is the simple basis for the illegality of all the settlement built beyond the Green Line, which is the border agreed in the 1949 armistice negotiations.

In general, according to the Convention, the Occupying Power has only two legitimate interests and duties within the Occupied Territory. These are, firstly, the legitimate security needs of the people living legally within the home territory of the Occupying Power (i.e. the Israelis, including Jews and Palestinians, living in Israel demarcated by the 1949 armistice line), and secondly, the needs of the people being occupied, known in the law as Protected Persons (i.e the occupied Palestinians).

Flowing from the fact that the Occupying Power has only these two legitimate interests, it is illegitimate and therefore illegal for the Occupying Power, or the civilian population of the Occupying Power, to use the Occupied Territory for profit-making activities. It is also illegal to use the natural resources of the Occupied Territory in this way, meaning, for example, that the water used in the Ahava factory is being used in violation of international law.

What are the consequences?

It is very clear that Ahava and Mitzpe Shalem are international law breakers. Why is this so important.

It is generally recognised that the West Bank (which together with the Gaza Strip is 22% of what was, before 1948, British Mandate Palestine) is to be, with the Gaza strip, a Palestinian state alongside Israel. Every settlement is an obstacle to this.

Some settlements might be included within Israel as part of a land-swap agreement. However this does not apply to Mitzpe Shalem or Kalia. As seen in the 2001 Taba [11] map, both Mitzpe Shalem and Kalia are well within the proposed Palestinian state. They are therefore obstacles to negotiation, obstacles to Palestinian statehood, obstacles to Israeli security, and obstacles to peace.

Does the SAZF stand by its smear tactics?

The SAZF response to the call for a boycott of Ahava has been to smear, by name, the members of Open Shuhada Street interim committee: Ilan, Strauss, Zackie Achmat, Nathan Geffen, Doron Isaacs, and Daniel Mackintosh. (For some reason Nabeelah Martin was not mentioned.)

The smears, contained in a publicly-distributed SAZF e-mail,[12] are that we are “anti-Israel” and that we are part of a campaign “against Israel to delegitimize her by her enemies”. In fact, it is the support given by the SAZF, and other groups, to settlement activity, which may destroy the state of Israel. In partnership with the SAZF, shlichim (Jewish Agency emissaries) encourage, and provide financial incentives, for Jewish South Africans, most of whom would not want to support oppression, to relocate to illegal settlements such as Ariel. The SAZF is therefore aiding and abetting international law breaking. By encouraging policies that close the door on peace it is a friend to Israel’s real enemies.

Our campaign is targeted at those living or profiting outside the border of the state of Israel, on Palestinian land, in Occupied Territory. It is disturbing that the SAZF draws no distinction between Israel and illegal settlements outside its borders. Like the Israeli actors refusing to perform in settlements in the Occupied Territories,[13] we intend to distinguish very clearly between all those who support an end to occupation and oppression, and those who don’t.

More disturbing are the contents of David Abel’s letter,[14] published and spread by the SAZF, which casts aspersion on the personal finances of Zackie Achmat and Nathan Geffen. The distribution of this letter, as an attachment to an SAZF e-mail, constitutes publication for the purposes of the law.

Abel, besides misspelling his relative Nathan Geffen’s last name has his facts wrong about his grant from Atlantic Philanthropies. Geffen received R150,000 (not R210,000 as stated by Abel) not to “go on a sabbatical leave” but to write his book, Debunking Delusions. This is presented as a case of corruption in which Geffen took money in order to promote an agenda which can be “traced back to enemies of Israel lurking in the background”. The letter alleges: “With that kind of funding available, it is not too difficult to understand that some Jewish members of OSS could be seduced into promoting a cause extremely hostile to the best interests of their own people.” In fact this went specifically towards Geffen’s working income while he wrote a book about HIV/AIDS for which the SA Jewish Board of Deputies sent him a letter of congratulations.[15] Does the SAZF stand by this disgraceful smear?

Abel writes, as if exposing a scandal, that Atlantic Philanthropies gave Achmat “R1.2 million for research at Wits”. Throughout Achmat’s multiple terms as Chairperson of the Treatment Action Campaign (TAC) he never drew a salary. It was necessary for him to take on additional work at academic institutions and non-governmental organisations in order to earn a living. The grant referred to by Abel was over three years. It paid for work-related expenses and salaries for assistants and researchers. We have already seen that the SAZF will use a boy’s Bar Mitzvah to punish his grandfather. Does the SAZF also consider it decent and proper to cast aspersions on the legitimate and perfectly legal financial details of its political opponents?

The letter suggests that the Atlantic Philanthropies may be “a front for other operators”. (Until a court order [16] forced him to desist, Matthias Rath, the notorious vitamin salesman, made similar baseless allegations against TAC and Achmat and Geffen.) Since the SAZF saw fit to give this allegation a wide circulation through its e-mail database will you please tell the public: who are these “other operators”?

None of these tactics will in the least deter people working for peace between Israel and Palestine. But the thuggish and cowardly tactics of the SAZF must be brought to the attention of the South African Jewish community, and the wider public.

Why is the SAZF supporting the colonisation of the West Bank?

The call for a boycott of Ahava products is necessary to make the occupation unprofitable. These settlements remain because there is not enough incentive for them to be removed. There is no security benefit to the state of Israel whatsoever in having settlements like Mitzpe Shalem and Kalia protruding into the West Bank. On the contrary, the greatest security and existential threat to the state of Israel is the inability to define permanent borders recognised as legitimate by the world. The whole basis for organising the necessary defence of the citizens of the country will be enormously improved when this is done.

The SAZF is now calling for people to increase their purchases of Ahava. In other words, the SAZF is devoted to increasing the profitability of the occupation, to defending the use of Occupied Territory in violation of international law, and to entrenching and sustaining Israeli settlements which stand in the way of peace. This exposes the SAZF as an obstacle to peace.

Every Ahava product bought postpones the end of the occupation. Every Ahava product bought oppresses Palestinian women, men and children. Every Ahava product bought is a contribution to war and a payment against peace. The majority of the people of South Africa will never support this.

Notwithstanding the wishful thinking of the CEO of Ahava, the settlements cause enormous harm to the Palestinian population. The physical manifestations of the occupation – including exclusive roads, legal systems, water systems and electricity grids; and checkpoints, electronic fences and concrete walls – result in an extreme form of separation. Access to all rights and services, whether transport, water or land, is based on heavy discrimination against the Palestinian inhabitants.

The settlements endanger the soldiers sent to protect them. Moreover, the settlements cause resentment, not only against the settlers, but against every Israeli, making them all targets for terrorist attacks. Nothing can justify such brutal violence, nor acquit the perpetrators. But, the role the settlements play in fomenting the anger must be squarely faced. By supporting the settlements the SAZF shares responsibility for this anger and its consequences.

Many settlers were enticed into settlements by attractive housing subsidies and financial incentives. A minority are fanatics who terrorise the Palestinian population. The point however is not to demonise the settlers, some of who were born in the settlements; they need to be resettled in Israel with care.

Those outside of Israel who support the settlement project cannot be so easily forgiven.

Simultaneously, the SAZF speaks about peace and two-states, but supports settlement in the West Bank. Is the SAZF disingenuous when it speaks about two states? Or does the SAZF support only a Bantustan Palestininan state in whichever patches of land remain unsettled?

The position of Open Shuhada Street is clear. We campaign for security and peace for all people in Israel/Palestine, an end to the 43 year-occupation, the dismantling of the settlements, justice for Palestinian refugees, the creation of a Palestinian state, within all of the West Bank and Gaza, alongside the state of Israel, with Jerusalem as a shared city, on the basis that both states conform to principles of constitutional democracy, including freedom and full equality. The conclusion we draw from the SAZF call to massively buy Ahava products is that the organisation works actively to prevent this outcome.

Sincerely,
Doron Isaacs, Ilan Strauss, Nathan Geffen, Daniel Mackintosh, Zackie Achmat, Nabeelah Martin

[2] http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4290627/AhavaLetterToBusinessPartners.doc

[3] http://dl.dropbox.com/u/193052/MitzpeShalemMap.pdf

[4] http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4290627/MitspeShalemPhoto.jpg

[5] http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4290627/KalyaMap.jpg

[6] http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4290627/KalyaPhoto.jpg

[7] http://dl.dropbox.com/u/193052/StockholdingsAhavaDeadSeaLaboratories.pdf

[8] HCJ 7957/04 Mara’abe v. The Prime Minister of Israel (2005) (accessed at http://elyon1.court.gov.il/files_eng/04/570/079/a14/04079570.a14.pdf) at para 14. Note that the Ahava CEO says the Ahava factory is “only 6km” beyond Green Line. Alfei Menasha was “only 4km” beyond the Green Line, but this did not prevent the Israeli Supreme Court, sitting as the High Court of Justice, from finding it to be in violation of international law. As the map indicates, settlement Kibbutz Kalia, one of the shareholders, is at the deepest point within the West Bank.

[9] See for example Beit Sourik (2004) p. 832; The Gaza Coast Regional Council v. The Knesset (2005) para 3.

[10] http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5

[11] http://www.fmep.org/maps/redeployment-final-status-options/final-status-map-presented-by-israel-taba-mar-2001/final_status_map_taba.pdf/at_download/file

[12] http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4290627/SAZF_Email.pdf

[13] http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4290627/IsraeliArtistsBoycottSettlement.pdf

[14] http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4290627/DavidAbelLetter.doc

[15] http://dl.dropbox.com/u/193052/LetterOfCongratulationsFromSAJBDToNathanGeffen.doc

[16] http://www.tac.org.za/documents/JudgmentTACvRath-200603.doc

Uri Avnery, 28 August 2010

The activists interviewed, both male and female, young and old – quite a number of them Jews – demonstrate at supermarkets against the products of the settlements and/or of Israel in general, organize mass meetings, make speeches, mobilize trade unions, file lawsuits against Israeli politicians and generals.

According to the report, the various groups use similar methods, but there is no central leadership. It even quotes (without attribution, of course) the title of one of my recent articles, “The Protocols of the Elders of Anti-Zion” and it, too, asserts that there is no such thing. Indeed, there is no need for a world-wide organization, it says, because all over the place there is a spontaneous surge of pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli feeling. Recently, following the ”Cast Lead” operation and the flotilla affair, this process has gathered momentum.

In many places, the report discloses, there are now red-green coalitions: cooperation between leftist human-rights bodies and local groups of Muslim immigrants.

The conclusion of the story: this is a great danger to Israel and we must mobilize against it before it is too late.

THE FIRST question that arose in my mind was: what impact is this report going to have on the average Israeli?

I wish I could be sure that it will cause him or her to think again about the viability of the occupation. As one of the activists interviewed said: the Israelis must be brought to understand that the occupation has a price tag.

I wish I believed that this would be the reaction of most Israelis. However, I am afraid that the effect could be very different.

As the jolly song of the 70s goes: “The whole world is against us / That’s not so terrible, we shall overcome. / For we, too, don’t give a damn / For them. // … We have learned this song / From our forefathers / And we shall also sing it / To our sons. / And the grandchildren of our grandchildren will sing it / Here, in the Land of Israel, / And everybody who is against us / Can go to hell.”

The writer of this song, Yoram Taharlev (“pure of heart”) has succeeded in expressing a basic Jewish belief, crystallized during the centuries of persecution in Christian Europe which reached its climax in the Holocaust. Every Jewish child learns in school that when six million Jews were murdered, the entire world looked on and didn’t lift a finger to save them.

This is not quite true. Many tens of thousands of non-Jews risked their lives and the lives of their families in order to save Jews – in Poland, Denmark, France, Holland and other countries, even in Germany itself. We all know about people who were saved this way – like former Supreme Court President Aharon Barak, who as a child was smuggled out of the ghetto by a Polish farmer, and Minister Yossi Peled, who was hidden for years by a Catholic Belgian family. Only a few of these largely unsung heroes were cited as “Righteous among the Nations” by Yad Vashem. (Between us, how many Israelis in a similar situation would risk their lives and the lives of their children in order to save a foreigner?)

But the belief that “the whole world is against us” is rooted deep in our national psyche. It enables us to ignore the world reaction to our behavior. It is very convenient. If the entire world hates us anyhow, the nature of our deeds, good or bad, doesn’t really matter. They would hate Israel even if we were angels. The Goyim are just anti-Semitic.

It is easy to show that this is also untrue. The world loved us when we founded the State of Israel and defended it with our blood. A day after the Six-day War, the whole world applauded us. They loved us when we were David, they hate us when we are Goliath.

This does not convince the world-against-us people. Why is there no world-wide movement against the atrocities of the Russians in Chechnya or the Chinese in Tibet? Why only against us? Why do the Palestinians deserve more sympathy than the Kurds in Turkey?

One could answer that since Israel demands special treatment in all other matters, we are measured by special standards when it comes to the occupation and the settlements. But logic doesn’t matter. It’s the national myths that count.

Yesterday, Israel’s third largest newspaper, Ma’ariv, published a story about our ambassador to the United Nations under the revealing headline: “Behind enemy lines”.

I REMEMBER one of the clashes I had with Golda Meir in the Knesset, after the beginning of the settlement enterprise and the angry reactions throughout the world. As now, people put all the blame on our faulty “explaining”. The Knesset held a general debate.

Speaker after speaker declaimed the usual clichés: the Arab propaganda is brilliant, our “explaining” is beneath contempt. When my turn came, I said: It’s not the fault of the “explaining”. The best “explaining” in the world cannot “explain” the occupation and the settlements. If we want to gain the sympathy of the world, it’s not our words that must change, but our actions.

Throughout the debate, Golda Meir – as was her wont – stood at the door of the plenum hall, chain-smoking. Summing up, she answered every speaker in turn, ignoring my speech. I thought that she had decided to boycott me, when – after a dramatic pause – she turned in my direction. “Deputy Avnery thinks that they hate us because of what we do. He does not know the Goyim. The Goyim love the Jews when they are beaten and miserable. They hate the Jews when they are victorious and successful.” If clapping were allowed in the Knesset, the whole House would have burst into thunderous applause.

There is a danger that the current worldwide protest will meet the same reaction: that the Israeli public will unite against the evil Goyim, instead of uniting against the settlers.

SOME OF the protest groups could not care less. Their actions are not addressed to the Israeli public, but to international opinion.

I don’t mean the anti-Semites, who are trying to hitch a ride on this movement. They are a negligible force. Neither do I mean those who believe that the creation of the State of Israel was a historical mistake to start with, and that it should be dismantled.

I mean all the idealists who wish to put an end to the suffering of the Palestinian people and the stealing of their land by the settlers, and to help them to found the free State of Palestine.

These aims can be achieved only through peace between Palestine and Israel. And such a peace can come about only if the majority of Palestinians and the majority of Israelis support it. Outside pressure will not suffice.

Anyone who understands this must be interested in a world-wide protest that does not push the Israeli population into the arms of the settlers, but, on the contrary, isolates the settlers and turns the general public against them.

How can this be achieved?

THE FIRST thing is to clearly differentiate between the boycott of the settlements and a general boycott of Israel. The TV report suggested that many of the protesters do not see the border between the two. It showed a middle-aged British woman in a supermarket, waving some fruit over her head and shouting: “these come from a settlement!” Then it showed a demonstration against the Ahava cosmetic products that are extracted from the Palestinian part of the Dead Sea. But immediately after, there came a call for a boycott of all Israeli products. Perhaps many of the protesters – or the editors of the film – are not clear about the difference.

The Israeli right also blurs this distinction. For example: a recent bill in the Knesset wants to punish those who support a boycott on the products of Israel, including – as it states explicitly – the products of the settlements.

If the world protest is clearly focused on the settlements, it will indeed cause many Israelis to realize that there is a clear line between the legitimate State of Israel and the illegitimate occupation.

That is also true for other parts of the story. For example: the initiative to boycott the Caterpillar company, whose monstrous bulldozers are a major weapon of the occupation. When the heroic peace activist Rachel Corrie was crushed to death under one of them, the company should have stopped all further supplies unless assured that they would not be used for repression.

As long as suspected war criminals are not brought to justice in Israel itself, one cannot object to the initiatives to prosecute them abroad.

After this week’s decision by the main Israeli theaters to perform in the settlements, it will be logical to boycott them abroad. If they are so keen to make money in Ariel, they can’t complain about losing money in Paris and London.

THE SECOND thing is the connection between these groups and the Israeli public.

Today a large majority of Israelis say that they want peace and are ready to pay the price, but that, unfortunately, the Arabs don’t want peace. The mainstream peace camp, which could once bring hundreds of thousands onto the street, is in a state of depression. It feels isolated. Among other things, its once close connection with the Palestinians, which was established at the time of Yasser Arafat after Oslo, has become very loose. So have relations with the protest forces abroad.

If people of goodwill want to speed up the end of the occupation, they must support the peace activists in Israel. They should build a close connection with them, break the conspiracy of silence against them in the world media and publicize their courageous actions, organize more and more international events in which Palestinian and Israeli peace activists will be present side by side. It would also be nice if for every ten billionaires who finance the extreme Right in Israel, there were at least one millionaire supporting action in pursuit of peace.

All this becomes impossible if there is a call for a boycott on all Israelis, irrespective of their views and actions, and Israel is presented as a monolithic monster. This picture is not only false, it is extremely harmful.

Many of the activists who appear in this report arouse respect and admiration. So much good will! So much courage! If they point their activities in the right direction, they can do a lot of good – good for the Palestinians, and good for us Israelis, too.

Settlement boycott causing ‘enormous damage’ to Israeli companies operating in the West Bank

by Adam Horowitz on 26 August  2010

The following article originally appeared in Hebrew on the Ynet website on August 25, 2010. It was translated by Dena Shunra.

[See also Boycott of settlement goods is biting hard, 21 June 2010]

Damage to Israeli Companies exacts a heavy price

It’s not only Norway: Israeli companies are boycotted by many countries for political reasons. Glass factory owner: the boycott has caused me enormous damage.

Yesterday’s decision by the Norwegian Oil Foundation to remove its investments from Africa-Israel and from Denia-Seabus, claiming that they are involved in illegal construction in the Territories is only the last of a long and growing line of decisions taken by governmental and private companies in Europe to boycott Israeli companies for political reasons.

In most cases, the claims are that the products were manufactured beyond the Green Line and thus, in “occupied territories”. Sometimes it is a political protest against Israel’s policy against the Palestinians, as in the response to the flotilla events. One thing is not in doubt: in the past few months, boycott of Israeli brands for political reasons has become markedly increased.

“Since the Palestinians declared a boycott on Territories products, I’ve had a 40% drop in production over the past few months,” said Avi Ben-Zvi, owner of the Plastco company which produces glassware in Ariel. “Export to Europe has entirely cased, and traders in the Territories have stopped working with us. The damage is enormous.”

According to Ariel mayor Ron Nachman, the damage to local factories is immense: “broad-reaching government activity should be initiated, to contact the boycotting countries and threaten them that they will not be party to the political process.”

Human Rights Organization Applied Pressure – Sweden Apologized

Norway’s decision, the day before yesterday, was preceded last March by a decision by a large Swedish pension fund to boycott Israeli company Elbit Systems, due to its role in constructing the Separation Fence. The fund announced that it had sold its holdings in Elbit following a recommendation by the fund’s ethics committee to refrain from investing in the shares of companies that are involved in the violation of international treaties.

Elbit had also been hurt by a boycott before then: the Norwegian government pension fund announced last September that it would stop investing in Elbit due to its role in construction of the fence. Late last May the German Deutschebank announced that it had sold all of its shares in Elbit, probably after great pressure had been applied on the directors of the bank by representatives of anti-Israeli and pro-Palestinian organizations.

Two years ago giant Swedish corporation Assa Abloy, owner of Israeli Mul-T-Lock, was criticized for the fact that its production plant was operating in the Barkan industrial park, which is located beyond the Green Line. The company promised to transfer the plant “into the boundaries of Israel,” following pressure by a Swedish Christian human rights organization.

Specific Events

Shraga Brosh [owner of the “Ayelet Barkan” factory in the Barkan industrial zone in the West Bank], chairman of the Industrialist Association, yesterday said that “every now and then organizations, especially from Scandinavia, boycott one or another organization from Israel. All told, these are specific events which have no effect on the overall trade with Israel.”

Soda Club was also hurt by the boycott: the Paris municipality had to deny the participation of that Israeli company in a large fair promoting the drinking of tap water after having received threats from pro-Palestinian organizations.

In July 2009 it was also discovered that French transportation company Veolia, operator of the Jerusalem light rail project, had decided to sell its shares in the project. Veolia did not specify the reason for this sale, but the fact that a French court agreed several months before that to hear a suit filed against Veolia due to the construction of part of the light rail line inside East Jerusalem, to connect Jewish neighborhoods in the east of the city to the west, could be seen as a clue.

Africa-Israel: “Africa and its subsidiaries have not been involved for a while in developing real-estate or residential construction in the West Bank. Thus, there is no foundation to the claims.”

________

This item was initially published in the Yediot Acharonot Mammon supplement; Daniel Beittini, Navit Zomer, and Offer Petersburg took part in its preparation.

SHAME

In Czechoslovakia,
The actors,
Led by a playwright,
Started the revolution
That freed
Their country.

In Israel,
The major theaters
Decided this week
To perform in the
Settlements.

How shameful!

Help to pay for our activities and ads by sending checks to
Gush Shalom, P.O.Box 3322, Tel-Aviv 61033.
Tel:+972 03-5221732
Email

Ad published in Haaretz, 27 August 2010

____________________________________

Israeli theater actors refuse to perform at new West Bank cultural center,

Chaim Levinson, 27 August 2010

Leading settler responds to refusal by Yousef Sweid and Rami Heuberger by saying that ‘Israel is much stronger than such boycotts.’

The Haaretz’s Wednesday report that major Israeli theaters will travel across the Green Line for the first time to perform at a new theater at Ariel has sparked some stormy reactions: Two actors from the national theater, Habima, Yousef Sweid and Rami Heuberger, have already announced that they will not appear in any plays in Ariel.

Sweid, who is currently appearing in “A Railway to Damascus” at Habima, told a Channel 1 television talk show yesterday that “I would be glad to perform in settlements in several shows that have messages I’d like to deliver in many communities. But settlers and settlements are not something that entertains me, and I don’t want to entertain them.”

No plays

No plays that Heuberger acts in are currently slated to be performed in Ariel, but he said that “if I am asked, I believe I would have a problem with performing there. As a stage actor it is a very, very problematic issue, and I think that so long as settlements are a controversial issue that will be discussed in any negotiations [with the Palestinians], I should not be there.”

Shaul Goldstein, a leading settler and head of the Gush Etzion local council, retorted, “we don’t need them. The nation of Israel is much stronger than such boycotts.”

The plays are scheduled to take place at a cultural center at the West Bank city of Ariel, one that has been under construction for some 20 years, due to recurring funding shortages.

Recently, the city’s mayor, Ron Nachman, managed to secure the funding necessary to complete the building, rounding up the total cost at NIS 40 million.

The cultural center is set to open with Be’er Sheva Theater’s “Piaf” on November 8, followed by the Cameri Theater performing Bertolt Brecht’s “The Caucasian Chalk Circle,” “Havdalah” and “Tuesdays with Morrie”. Be’er Sheva Theater will return with “The Count of Monte Cristo,” followed by Habima’s “Dancing and Flying” and “A Railway to Damascus,” and Khan Theater’s “Les fourberies de Scapin” by Moliere.

The cultural center’s manager, Ariel Turgeman, told Haaretz that he fully believes the venue will be ready for opening within three months. In recent weeks, construction has been going on by night, to allow the Muslim construction workers to fast during the Ramadan month.

Phyllis Bennis, 20 August  2010

Phyllis Bennis wrote this article for YES! Magazine, a national, nonprofit media organization that fuses powerful ideas with practical actions. Phyllis is a Fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies and author of Understanding the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict: A Primer. She serves on the steering committee of the U.S. Campaign to End Israeli Occupation.

A growing grassroots movement is using the techniques of the anti-apartheid movement to challenge U.S. support for Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories.

When Israeli commandos launched their assault on the unarmed flotilla of ships carrying hundreds of humanitarian aid workers and 10,000 tons of supplies for the besieged Gaza Strip, killing at least nine activists and injuring scores more, part of the operation was “Made in the USA.”

Decades of uncritical U.S. financial, military, and diplomatic support has ensured that Israel’s military power—nuclear and conventional—remains unchallengeable. A U.S. pattern of using UN Security Council vetoes to protect Israel from accountability has ensured that Israel can essentially do whatever it likes with those U.S.-provided weapons, regardless of what U.S. or international laws may be broken.

Israel has long relied on the numerous U.S.-made and U.S.-financed Apache and Blackhawk war helicopters in its arsenal—it’s a good bet those were in use in the May 31st assault in international waters. Use of U.S.-provided weapons is severely limited by our own laws: The Arms Export Control Act (AECA) prohibits any recipient from using U.S. weapons except  for security within its own borders, or for direct self-defense. And no amount of Israeli spin can make us believe that an attack by heavily-armed commandos jumping onto the decks of an unarmed civilian ship in international waters has anything to do with self-defense.

So yes—our tax dollars and our politicians’ decisions play a huge part in enabling not only the flotilla attack but Israel’s violations of human rights overall. But increasingly, across the country, people and organizations are standing up to say no to U.S. support for those policies of occupation and apartheid.

The main strategy is known as “BDS”—boycott, divestment, and sanctions. Based on the lessons of the South African anti-apartheid movement of the 1980s, BDS brings non-violent economic pressure to bear in order to end Israeli violations of international law. In 2005, a coalition of Palestinian civil society organizations issued a call for a global campaign of BDS. The call was based on the understanding that the Palestinian struggle for human rights, equality, and the enforcement of international law needed international support—and civil society organizations would have to step in, given that the traditional Palestinian leadership hadn’t created a strategy for mobilizing such support.

The strength of the BDS call was its recognition that while a unified global campaign was needed, conditions are different in every country. So in Europe, the focus began on individual boycotts of consumer goods produced in Israeli settlements. In countries like Brazil and India, the emphasis was on military sanctions, pressuring governments to stop buying Israeli armaments. And in the U.S., the initial focus was on divestment.

In fact, the U.S. Campaign to End Israeli Occupation, the largest coalition of organizations working on the issue, had been working on divestment even before the 2005 Palestinian call. The movement began in earnest following the 2003 death of Rachel Corrie, a young U.S. peace activist killed as she tried to block the demolition of a Palestinian home in the Gaza Strip by Israeli troops. Corrie was run over by an armored bulldozer manufactured by Caterpillar, which became the first target of the divestment efforts.

Since that time, BDS work in the U.S. has increased dramatically. In addition to Caterpillar, the campaign is now targeting Motorola (the company’s Israeli affiliate provides special communications systems for Israel’s illegal settlements in the West Bank) and Ahava (a cosmetics company that uses mud from the Dead Sea, harming the fragile environment as well as expropriating Palestinian land).

Across the U.S., churches, university campuses, municipal governments, and many more institutions are debating divestment and boycott resolutions. The Presbyterian Church is debating how to include an anti-occupation approach within its socially responsible investment policies. On June 15, the Northern Illinois Conference of the United Methodist Church voted to divest from three corporations that profit from the occupation of Palestine. And in spring 2010, Hampshire College became the first university to divest from companies supporting occupation—a moment of special resonance because Hampshire was also the first U.S. college to divest from South Africa in the 1980s. When the issue was debated in Berkeley’s student senate, more than 4,000 people mobilized to support divestment.

The U.S. Campaign is also working to end U.S. military aid to Israel, calling for the enforcement of U.S. laws already prohibiting Israel’s illegal use of U.S. weapons. Really, it’s a call for sanctions from below. Who really thinks that giving $30 billion of our tax money in military aid to Israel—already militarily powerful and nuclear-armed—as promised by George Bush and now being implemented by President Obama over the next ten years, is a good use of those funds in this time of economic crisis? BDS is a strategic effort to change U.S. policy to support human rights, equality, and an end to the occupation rather than continued military build-up.

In the first 24 hours after the attack on the Gaza aid flotilla, the Obama administration limited itself to expressions of concern and regret for the loss of life, along with a polite request to Israel for “clarifications.” But maybe the international outcry that followed the attack, joined by the rising BDS movement in the U.S., will mark the beginning of a shift in U.S. policy.

In the first days and weeks after the flotilla attack, BDS actions across the United States took on new energy and achieved new results. In California, hundreds of activists formed a picket line at dawn at the Port of Oakland where an Israeli cargo ship waited, urging dock workers not to unload the ship in protest of the flotilla assault. Workers of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) refused to cross the picket line, a labor arbitrator immediately upheld their right to refuse to unload the ship, and the shipping company abandoned the effort. The ILWU workers joined counterparts in a number of other countries, including Sweden, South Africa, Norway, and Malaysia, who have all announced their refusal to unload Israeli ships.

The powerful example of the BDS movement that helped end apartheid in South Africa is a constant source of inspiration. Current BDS campaigns have learned key lessons and grounded much of their work in the accomplishments—and, indeed, the challenges and even failures—of that earlier, seminal version.

A generation ago, South African apartheid appeared to be an equally impossible-to-change political reality. Considering that history, is it so unlikely that Washington could tell Israel that we would rather keep those $30 billion here at home to create 600,000 new green union jobs, rather than support a foreign military force’s ability to kill humanitarian workers trying to break an illegal blockade in order to bring desperately needed supplies to a besieged population?

• A Real Pro-Israel Strategy Helps Palestine, Too: Here’s how both sides could gain by building on their common interest for peace and fairness.

It’s better not to ask questions

Posted on Muzzlewatch by Sydney Levy, 19 August 2010

What did they get instead? They got slammed. Their survey was called “abhorrent and repulsive,” and the newspaper that brought the charges against them ignored their calls for a reasonable policy debate and did not allow them to respond with as little as a letter to the editor.

The candidate survey from Peace Action Montgomery came under attack for a single question in it, that – you guessed it – addressed the Israeli occupation.

Del. Benjamin Kramer (D-Montgomery), one of the candidates receiving the survey, issued a public letter calling the questionnaire “anti-Semitic” and promising to encourage fellow candidates to ignore it.

Anti-Semitic? You be the judge.

Question 5 is composed of only three sentences. The first two are statements of facts:

1. “In the past, the Maryland state legislature has exercised its power to order the state’s pension system to divest its holdings in companies that are complicit in illegal activities in other countries.”

2. “The World Court has ruled that Israel’s separation wall and settlements in the West Bank are illegal.”

Based on those facts, a legitimate policy question is asked:

“Would you support a similar divestment bill targeting companies that knowingly participate in these illegal activities in Israel?”

The question does not single out Jews. It does not even single out Israel. It does single out actions that break international law. What’s wrong with that?

Ask Ron Halber, executive director of the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington, who described the questionnaire by Peace Action Montgomery as “abhorrent and repulsive.” The JCRC holds its own set of candidate forums and distributes questionnaires to inform its members. But apparently others cannot do as much.

This whole controversy erupted on the front page of the local Washington Jewish Week (“Parsing the D-word”). 

Peace Action Montgomery was quoted in the D-article, but its letter to the editor following the publication of the slander was never printed. In that letter, Peace Action Montgomery called for an open, reasonable debate on the merits of BDS, pro and con. The group even invited the paper that slandered it to co-moderate the debate. But the Washington Jewish Week has chosen to ignore the invitation altogether. What are they so afraid of?

We print here what the Washington Jewish week would not publish:

“Parsing the D Word” (July 29) not only pointed out the controversy over using divestment as a strategy to encourage Israel to abide by international laws regarding human rights; it also included statements by an unidentified Jewish backer to MD Delegate, Jim Pettit, that slammed Peace Action Montgomery as “a façade” and questioned its legitimacy as an organization that truly promotes peace. In reality, anyone who took the time to review our activities would see that we have consistently opposed military interventions and U.S. funding of ALL military occupations, but particularly those in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Palestinian territories, since they garner by far the largest chunk of U.S. taxpayer dollars. We also vehemently oppose anti-Semitism and bigotry and are offended at being defamed for our support for human rights, protection of civil rights and opposition to violations of the rule of law.

Our question to the Washington Jewish Week is why the published article neglected to point out that our letter in response to Delegate Kramer invited him to join us in a public debate on the issue of how best to advance a just resolution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, with Washington Jewish Week as a co-moderator of the event, along with a representative of another organization.

We have had no response to that invitation and so propose it again. We hope that Del. Kramer and/or Washington Jewish Week will accept this invitation for a much needed dialogue on this significant issue.

To: Wellness Warehouse, Cape Town, 16 August 2010

From: Open Shuhada Street, South Africa

“We have unquestionable respect for human rights and dignity. We strongly believe in empowering people. All are treated with empathy.”
- Wellness Warehouse Corporate Values

AHAVA PRODUCTS ARE PRODUCED IN VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW: WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU DESIST FROM IMPORTING AND SELLING AHAVA PRODUCTS

We write on behalf of Open Shuhada Street. We are an organization dedicated to giving solidarity to Palestinian and Israeli activists working together to peacefully end the Occupation and human rights abuses. Open Shuhada Street stands for non-violence, the mutual respect of human rights, and equality of life for all people living in Israel and Palestine.

According to your mission statement, Wellness Warehouse promotes consumption that “cares for the earth and its people”. This commendable policy provides people in South Africa with an ethical choice when buying your products. There can be little doubt therefore that you aim to source products in a manner that is consistent with international human rights values and law.

In this spirit, we request that you do not stock products from the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) and in particular, products made by Ahava Dead Sea Laboratories.

CONQUEST AND OCCUPATION IN PALESTINE AND ISRAEL

For decades, the Israeli government has repeatedly violated human rights of the Palestinian people. The War of 1948 scattered refugees across the Middle East, while those remaining within the state of Israel have been treated as second-class citizens. In the Occupied West Bank, the official policy of separation and legal discrimination is tragically reminiscent of our own history in South Africa.

In a recent report on West Bank settlements, the respected Israeli human rights organisation B’tselem found that

• More than 300,000 Israeli settlers live in 121 settlements and about 100 outposts.
• Almost 200,000 live in twelve neighbourhoods that Israel established on land it annexed to the Jerusalem Municipality.
• Altogether these 500,000 Israeli settlers have effectively usurped 42 percent of the land area of the West Bank.

B’tselem concludes that the Israeli “settlement enterprise has been characterized, since its inception, by an instrumental, cynical, and even criminal approach to international law, local legislation, Israeli military orders, and Israeli law.”

Furthermore, Israel has a dismal track record regarding the treatment of civilian populations in theatres of war. The UN Commission on the Gaza War headed by former South African Constitutional Court judge, Richard Goldstone, found that Israel had a case to answer for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during Operation Cast Lead in Dec. 2008 – Jan. 2009 in which 13 Israelis and 1417 Palestinians were killed. Israel’s disregard of international law should no longer be tolerated.

It must also be noted that actions by the Palestinian resistance require condemnation, particularly suicide bombings and rocket attacks on Israeli civilians – which the Goldstone Commission also described as war crimes.

All people have the right to life and the right to defend themselves – within the limits of the law. Nonetheless, Israeli claims of self-defense cannot justify the ongoing oppression of Palestinians.

In response to their intolerable circumstances, Palestinian civil society has called for economic, military and other international sanctions against Israel. Similarly, the Palestinian Authority has called for the boycott of all products manufactured by the unlawful settlements in the OPT.

WHY AHAVA?

Ahava products are manufactured by Dead Sea Laboratories, a privately held Israeli cosmetics company using minerals and mud from the Dead Sea. Their main factory is located in the Israeli settlement of Mitzpe Shalem in the Occupied West Bank. Ahava products are labeled as of ’Israeli origin,’ but according to international law, including UN Security Council resolutions, the West Bank cannot be considered to be part of the State of Israel. Not only does Ahava profit from the occupation by locating its main plant and store in an illegal Israeli settlement, it also extensively uses mud from the Dead Sea in its products, excavated in an occupied area, and thus it exploits natural resources from the OPT, for profit. This is theft.

International law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention, forbids an occupying power from utilizing the natural resources of the occupied territory for its own benefit. In February 2010, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that products from the OPT cannot carry the label ‘Israeli origin’. The ECJ held that products obtained from the OPT did not qualify for preferential treatment under European Union and Israeli trade agreements.

The Wellness Warehouse website states that you “promote fair and ethical interactions and business dealings” and “accept accountability in all … areas of responsibility.” By stocking Ahava products, Wellness Warehouse is unwittingly violating its own code.

We urge you to stop stocking all settlement products, in particular Ahava. By doing so you will help to make the occupation unprofitable, and hasten its end. This is necessary for peace in Israel and Palestine.

Open Shuhada Street looks forward to receiving your reply by no later than close of business on 23rd August 2010. We support non-violent protest and the international boycott of Ahava Products. Should you fail to respond positively to our request Open Shuhada Street will regrettably organise protests at your stores in South Africa.

Yours faithfully,
The Open Shuhada Street steering committee

__________

keyterm: boycottahava

Palestine activists celebrate legal victory

Rethinking Israel boycotts, the ADL and a N.Y. mosque

I want to thank the Olympia Food Co-op Israel boycott. Something extremely valuable is happening there.

Bradley Burston, 2nd August 2010

[See also the Magnes Zionist The ADL’s Selective Sensitivity to “Sensitivities”]

In theory, the first purpose of the Anti-Defamation League is the same. To cause people to discover, to rethink, to become aware of and combat bigotry, within themselves as well as in others.

This week a boycott campaign caused me to rethink boycotts against Israel. And a campaign by the Anti-Defamation League caused me to rethink the Anti-Defamation League.

The boycott was the decision by the Olympia, Washington Food Co-op, to remove Israeli products from the shelves of its two stores.

In a move as courageous as it was overdue, the co-op also featured and published online a pamphlet strongly opposing manifestations of anti-Semitism in leftist movements.

Download April Rosenbaum’s 2007 pamphlet referred to above:
The Past Didn’t Go Anywhere: making resistance to antisemitism part of all our movements

“Unfortunately,” the co-op’s blog observed, “anti-Semitic statements have abounded in a lot of the ’support’ that the co-op has received in regard to the Israeli-products’ boycott.”

The Olympia Food Co-op has taken an important step in distinguishing between opposition to the policies of Israel on the one hand, and anti-Jewish hatred on the other.

It has also worked to identify and distance Islamophobia and anti-Arab bigotry from the wider discussion of boycotts and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Which makes it all the more curious that when longtime ADL National Director Abraham Foxman chose to publicly oppose the construction of a mosque and Muslim cultural center near the Ground Zero site, his rationale was troubling, to say the least:

“Survivors of the Holocaust are entitled to feelings that are irrational,” Foxman, himself a survivor, told The New York Times.

“Referring to the loved ones of Sept. 11 victims, he said, ‘Their anguish entitles them to positions that others would categorize as irrational or bigoted.’”

There is something at once refreshing and destructive about Foxman’s words. Refreshing, in the sense that this sounds like unfiltered honesty. Destructive, in the sense that this is precisely the rationale under which many on the left have justified or excused non-progressive, at times overtly bigoted, statements and actions by militant Palestinians.

It is high time to strike bigotry of all forms – by both sides – from the debate over the Mideast conflict.

It is time, as well, for the Jewish community as a whole to relate differently to those in their midst who have a serious difference of opinion with Israel.

In this regard, it is time for the Jewish community to engage those who support the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement, rather than effectively excommunicating them.

Perhaps what is most profoundly needed is for those who care about the Mideast equation to genuinely say what they think, and to abandon the time-honored codes in which each side attacks the other.

Allow me to begin.

I fully recognize as valid the opinions of those who oppose the idea of a specifically Jewish state. I would only ask that they be honest and open about it.

If you think a Jewish state is a bad idea, an institution that should be disbanded, I believe that it is the honest thing – honest to yourself, before all else – to come out and say so.

As a supporter of the idea of a truly democratic Jewish state alongside an independent and sovereign Palestinian state, what I cannot accept is the idea that formally Muslim states are acceptable, where a Jewish state is not.

In the past I have been vociferous in opposing boycotts. I now realize that it was not the boycott per se that caused me rage, but the tolerance for a double standard that said “While others – including our own United States – commit war crimes, engage in oppression, and have a long history of subjugating, disenfranchising and dehumanizing minorities, Israel will be our sole target.”

Something else angered me as well – not the fact that some of the people who advocated boycotting Israel were actually against the idea of having a state of Israel, but the fact that for tactical reasons, they refused to come out and say so.

I remain opposed to boycotts, Olympia’s included, first because I oppose collective punishment of all kinds, whether practiced by Israel against Gazans, or by progressives against Israelis as a whole. I also believe that boycotts against Israel tend to be self-defeating and play into the hands of the right.

But I want to thank the Olympia Food Co-op for going an important step. Something extremely valuable is happening there. Something truly radical. An awareness that people who are truly in favor of social justice must take a stand against bigotry, no matter the target.

The mayor of New York has set an example in this regard, saying of the mosque and its critics, “What is great about America, and particularly New York, is we welcome everybody, and if we are so afraid of something like this, what does that say about us?”

It’s a lesson that Abraham Foxman needs to relearn.

The ADL’s Selective Sensitivity to “Sensitivities”
31 July 2010

The Anti Defamation League has been pummeled by nearly everybody, including the liberal hawk Jonathan Chait in the New Republic and Jeffrey Goldberg in the Atlantic, for supporting the demand of Newt Gingrich and some rightwingers to move the Cordoba Islamic Center from its proposed lower Manhattan site. Under the guise of sensitivity to the victims of the 9/11 attack, it signs on to the religious bigotry of the Christian right.

But when it comes to the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s building the Museum of Tolerance on the oldest and largest Muslim cemetery in Jerusalem, the ADL has no problem backing the legal rights of the Wiesenthal Center and turning a deaf ear to the sensitivities of the Palestinian Muslims.

It wasn’t always like that. When the Jerusalem Mammilla Cemetery controversy came up, the ADL first proposed suspending the construction of the Museum

The ADL believes that a Museum of Tolerance in Jerusalem can be an important institution for educating against bias and for respect and understanding. We trust that the same tenets that undergird [sic] the museum’s mission will be applied to finding a resolution to address the concerns of the Muslim community and the families of those whose graves have been discovered…To do less would weaken the foundation upon which a museum of tolerance stands.

This sensitivity was at the time hailed by opponents of the Museum and was criticized, of course, by the Simon Wiesenthal Center.

Consistent? Not exactly. The ADL later reversed its position. According to its website,

Update: Following discussions in Israel, ADL withdrew its call for halting construction on the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s Museum of Tolerance in Jerusalem.

So why is it ok to be sensitive to the feelings of some victims of al-Qaeda Jihadists (not Muslims, and, by the way, Muslims were also killed in 9/11). But it is not ok to be sensitive to the feelings of Palestinian Muslims?

Apparently for the ADL, the value of support for Israel trumps the value of religious tolerance.

Of course, the cases themselves are not comparable. One consists of building a Jewish museum (let’s face it: the story of the Jews will play a big role in the Museum of Tolerance) on the top of one of the last visibly Muslim Palestinian landmarks in West Jerusalem, expropriated from the owners against their will. The other consists of building a mosque near a site that has nothing to do with it.

Perhaps some Christians are offended when those they consider to “Christ killers” wish to build a synagogue nearby? This sort of sensitivity we have to pay attention to?

I am waiting to see the following retraction on the ADL website.

Update: Following discussions in America, ADL withdrew its call to move the Islamic Center in lower Manhattan

Israel and Economic “Warfare”

Israeli parliament passes first of three readings illegalizing boycott activism or advocacy

See also:
Ishai Menuhin, An Assault on Democracy, 24 July
David Landau, Former editor-in-chief of Haaretz calls for boycott of Knesset, 16 July
Jnews, Israeli NGOs remain under pressure, 16 July
JNews, New bill seeks to outlaw boycott – both of settlements and of Israel, 21 June

On Wednesday, July 14th, the Israeli Parliament approved the first of three readings of a new law. If passed, the law will make it illegal to declare a boycott on Israel or Israeli companies, participate in a boycott, or provide aid in the form of information to anyone who is part of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign. The bill also penalizes the Palestinian Authority for its decision in May to ban the use by Palestinians of settlement products. The law even affects international citizens who will be banned from entry into Israel for 10 years and will be effective retroactively. Lia Tarachansky of The Real News spoke with Dalit Baum of Who Profits and Ronnie Barkan of Boycott from Within about how their work will become illegal if this bill passes.

Bio

Dr. Dalit Baum teaches gender and the global economy at the Haifa University and Beit Berl college in Israel. A feminist anti-occupation activist, she has been a co-founder of Black Laundry, the Community School for Women and the Coalition of Women for Peace. Presently, she is the project coordinator of “Who Profits from the Occupation”, an activists’ research initiative of the Coalition of Women for Peace.

Ronnie Barkan is a long time Israeli activist and conscientious obje

In this blog post to the highly informative Palestine Note website Merav Amir and Dalit Baum, both members of the Coalition of Women for Peace, describe their project ‘Who Profits from the Occupation?’.

The project collects specific information about the full range of economic involvement in the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Many people already engage in ‘ethical shopping’ practices by refusing to buy products made by settlers in the occupied territories. But Amir and Baum show that the economic penetration of the occupation goes much further than this relatively modest consumer market, including banks (like Dexia) that provide loans to local settlement governments, those involved in the security/repression industrial complex (constructing and maintaining the wall, checkpoints, providing surveillance equipment, fencing for Israeli-only roads etc.) and also Israeli producers that benefit from the violent elimination of Palestinian economic activity either through the removal of potential competitors or through the exploitation of the Palestinian consumer market as a dumping ground for low grade produce.

‘Who Profits?’ is already making waves in Israel itself, landing an uncritical review with the new Israel business paper Calcalist (according to the British Observer newspaper ). The project shows how the privatization of government services (including government repression) that has been so characteristic of the neoliberal era in Israel as elsewhere can, with a good information source like ‘Who Profits?’ open up new avenues for activist engagement. The sheer scale of the commercial sector’s investment in the occupation of Palestine provides another argument in favor of selective divestment as an activist tool to end the occupation.

Alistair Welchman

Merav Amir is a scholar and activist. She is a PhD candidate at the Tel Aviv University and the research coordinator of Who Profits from the Occupation in the Coalition of Women for Peace.

Dalit Baum PhD, is a feminist activist and scholar. She teaches classes in gender studies, the global economy and activism in Beit Berl College and in the Haifa University. She is the project coordinator of Who Profits from the Occupation in the Coalition of Women for Peace.

Working from Within

A Political Compromise

Dalit Baum and Merav Amir, 9 July 2010

Ever since the outbreak of the Al-Aqsa intifada, the Israeli anti-occupation movement has been reinventing itself in new forms of action and solidarity work. Facing hostile denial from Israeli public opinion, large protests have first been met by a complete lack of media attention, and then by a wave of public sympathy for police and army violence towards protestors. The movement, further marginalized and radicalized, has found itself reorganizing as a network of small groups, each specializing in a different form of direct action, public education or resistance work. In this network, the feminist anti-occupation movement has found a central and leading role, both in keeping visible opposition in the Israeli street, and in creating ad-hoc as well as long term coalitions for broader efforts.

Who Profits from the Occupation is one such specialized project of the Coalition of Women for Peace (CWP). It came into being in 2006 as a political compromise in a deep on-going discussion inside the organization concerning our response to the July 2005 Palestinian call for Boycott, Sanctions and Divestment (BDS), a call also specifically directed toward Israeli activists. CWP is an organization comprised of Jewish and Palestinian women activists from within 1948 Israel, and affiliated left-feminist groups such as Women in Black, New Profile, Bat Shalom, Machsom (Checkpoint) Watch and Tandi.  As a radical feminist organization, CWP has been haunted from its inception by dilemmas of economic justice with respect to the occupation, and by the challenges of solidarity and respective privilege in the joint movement, all of which led to the BDS discussion.

What is the role of Israelis in a movement that calls for international pressure? How can an Israeli organization continue to try to communicate and change Israeli public opinion in such a setting? What is the responsibility of Israeli Ashkenazi middle class women who advocate economic measures that might further impoverish the poor, Mizrahi Jews or Palestinians living in Israel? The discussion raised valid and important questions, and in the tradition of consensus decision-making, it focused on existing agreements: to promote economic activism in all forms against the 1967 occupation both in Palestine/Israel and internationally. The decision included a plan for action – the initiation of a grassroots research effort, both to educate ourselves about the economy of the occupation and to serve the broader movement, using our access to this information.

Three years later, in November 2009, the general body of CWP reconvened to review the BDS discussion. Strikingly, this time support for the general call for BDS was unanimous. Throughout those three years we witnessed the attacks and the siege on Gaza; the occupation in the West Bank has further entrenched itself as a form of apartheid regime; this was all done with the support of Israeli public opinion. At the same time, the BDS movement has grown globally, and CWP has played an important part in it through its three-year research project entitled Who Profits from the Occupation. Through the project we have studied new facets of the economy of the occupation, and the results of our three year study have played an important part in showing how the use of boycott, divestment and sanctions is justified, necessary, and potentially very effective in our work for a just peace in Israel/Palestine.

From Cost to Profit

This is not the first time that the Israeli anti-occupation movement has tried to engage with the economic aspects of the occupation. The well-worn Peace Now slogan “Money to the [inner-city] neighborhoods and not to the settlements” was coined about thirty years ago. It has been criticized since for its simplistic formation and presented as proof of this movement’s disregard for “real” class and poverty issues. This slogan was developed into a solid argument by researchers such as Shlomo Swirski of the Adva Center, who conduct periodic studies estimating the cost of the occupation to the Israeli economy and society.  Arguing that the occupation is very costly aims to undermine the Israeli-Jewish support for the settlements and for the ongoing occupation,  but a closer look at the same figures shows that much of the same economic cost (to the Israeli public) can also be viewed as income (to certain parties). This new perspective also calls for another line of political intervention:
it is not enough to rhetorically inform the Israeli public about the costs of the occupation, it is also necessary to directly influence their economic interests by applying pressure to raise the price of the occupation.

Israeli control of the West Bank and Gaza has changed over the years, but from the start and throughout it has remained a system of economic-military control. Economic exploitation and repression have been used as tools to control the Palestinian population, and the terms of this control have been dictated by the interests of the Israeli economic elite. A potentially competitive Palestinian economy was actively de-developed, the movement of Palestinian workers and goods was regulated to the benefit of the Israeli market, and the Palestinian consumer market has become a captive market for Israeli goods. Israeli manufacturers, employers and merchants have used this economic-military control to secure profits.

During the 1990’s the Israeli economy underwent very rapid neoliberal reforms, which included cuts in social services and support; increased exposure to global investors, markets and corporations; and the privatization of public services, national projects and governmental assets and companies. These dramatic changes in the Israeli economy have significantly increased the economic activity of private companies in the occupied territory, in the settlements, at the checkpoints, providing security services, technologies and weapons. As is the case in similar global settings, such as the American military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, with the rise of the occupation business, the corporate sector has a higher stake in maintaining the occupation.

As grassroots activists, we tackle political arguments and religious/nationalistic beliefs in the Israeli public arena, but economic interests are often more hidden and intricate, and Who Profits was set up as an effort to expose and study these interests, in order to influence them. Corporate complicity with the occupation is a dangerous influential force that can stifle peace initiatives or set them back. On the other hand, corporations are profit-oriented, and their involvement in these controversial endeavors can become costly for them: public campaigns could tarnish their public image, important clients or investors could choose to leave them due to ethical concerns, and complicity with human rights violations could even have legal repercussions in some countries. In a way, this increased corporate involvement can be used to enhance civil society’s reach and influence, if we can effectively demand corporate accountability.

Who Profits from the Occupation focuses on exposing these corporate interests, in order to provide accurate, reliable and well-documented information for such corporate accountability campaigns. As Israeli activists, living inside 1948 Israel, who speak Hebrew, have freedom of movement in the occupied territory and are well acquainted with the Israeli economy and the occupation, we are at a useful vantage point for such research. Almost all of our information comes from the companies’ own publications or from regular visits to sites in the occupied West Bank and Golan Heights. We have set up a database listing specific corporations, launched a website, www.whoprofits.org, and have become an information center, aiding dozens of initiatives and providing on-going support by checking information for campaigns, both internationally and locally.

Beyond the boycott of settlement products

When we started our mapping of the occupation industry, the main focus of economic activism against the occupation was on settlement production. Long lists of settlement companies and products were distributed by Gush Shalom, Bat Shalom and some student organizations, as tools for consumer boycotts. The lists themselves were mostly based on the companies’ main address, leaving out most of the distributors of agricultural goods, products partially manufactured in the settlements or companies registered elsewhere. Hence, these boycotts included only a small number of well-known products; they were carried out by a small group of Israeli, mostly Jewish, activists; at best, they were implemented as individual concerns, framed within the language of ethical shopping practices.

Besides being an easy, perhaps even a much too easy route for Israelis to seemingly distance themselves from the settlements, these initiatives did not provide the tools for taking on specific companies with sustained campaigns, in order to change corporate policies. More significantly, our research shows that settlement industries are few, the revenues from them are very limited and for all but a handful of agricultural settlements, they do not contribute substantially to the settlements’ economic sustainability. Consequently, we have decided to broaden the focus of our mapping, and include, under the headline “settlement industry”, the entire economic sustenance of the settlements. In addition to settlements’ agricultural and industrial production, we investigate real estate deals, construction of settlements and infrastructure and the provision of all vital services and utilities to the settlements. Israeli and international corporations build roads and housing units, provide
services such as public transportation, waste management, water, security and telecommunication, provide loans and market goods.

This wider settlement industry includes most large Israeli retailers and service providers. These companies claim a policy of “nondiscrimination”, meaning that they provide equal services inside the official borders of Israel and in the occupied territory – to the Jewish-Israeli settlers. Their intended services map does not include the Palestinian residents of the West Bank. In other words, their policy is not only a policy of systematic discrimination; it is a facet of the ethnic segregation between Palestinians and Jews in the occupied West Bank.

Dexia Israel: from public to private and back

The increasing privatization of governmental services in Israel has not skipped over local governance and municipalities. International corporations offer local authorities anything from waste management and public transportation services to management and financial services, and many of the public tenders for these services in Israel cover services to regional councils and municipalities of settlements in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. This provides new opportunities for activist intervention, as exemplified by the quick success of the campaign against Dexia Bank.

In 2001, Israel privatized the Israeli Municipality Treasure Bank, a governmental institution providing credit and financial services to local authorities. The bank was bought by the Belgian-French financial group Dexia and renamed Dexia-Israel, while retaining most of its former functions.

In June 2007, the bank’s CEO David Kapah was summoned to the Knesset Finance Committee by representatives of the settlement movement, after making allegations that Dexia-Israel refrained from providing loans to West Bank settlements. Kapah claimed that Dexia had no such “discrimination” policy, and he listed, for the record, at least seven Israeli settlements and three regional authorities of settlements that had received long term loans from his bank since 2003. Little did he know that Who Profits and the Belgian solidarity group Intal had been looking for such proof of direct involvement for many months.

The loans provided by Dexia are used for the development of infrastructure, the construction of public buildings and for municipal services. Further investigation has proven that the bank provides services to additional local authorities of settlements; it operates as a financial channel transferring government funds to settlements and it provides them with loans using future public income as collateral. Moreover, the bank regularly transfers funds from the Israeli National Lottery (Mif’al HaPa’is) to settlements, funds which are used for the construction of schools, community centers and for other projects of local development.

Intal and other Belgian groups, working with the Coalition of Women for Peace, launched a campaign called “Israel colonizes – Dexia finances”, calling Dexia to break all economic ties to Israeli settlement activity. This demand gained much public credence after September 2008, when Dexia bank was bailed out by the governments of Belgium, France and Luxembourg, governments that officially oppose construction of Israeli settlements and view them as illegal. Thus, privatization of financial services has come almost full circle: from the Israeli government-assured support for its own controversial colonization projects, to a seemingly indifferent international publicly-traded corporation, and back to substantial national ownership, this time on the part of a European public very much opposed to the same projects.

In June 2009, the management of the Dexia Group stated that financing Israeli settlements was contrary to the bank’s code of ethics, and that it would stop providing new loans to West Bank settlements; furthermore, the bank announced that it had not given any new loans to settlements since June 2008. However, our research exposed records that show that the bank had continued to provide new loans to local authorities of settlements during 2009. The campaign continues, demanding from the bank both accountability for its actions and the complete divestment from all settlement-related activities.

The business of repression

The settlement industry does not exhaust the different ways in which corporations benefit from the 1967 occupation; our mapping adds two more categories of corporate involvement. The second category studies corporations involved in Israeli control over the Palestinian population in the occupied territory. This includes the construction and operation of the Wall and the checkpoints and, in general, the supply and operation of means for surveillance and control of Palestinian movement inside the occupied territory and between the occupied territory and the State of Israel. Aware of our own limited capacities, we decided not to directly investigate the military industrial complex and the weapons industry, but they would fit nicely into this category as well. Since 9/11 and the terror attacks in Europe, the growing market of the homeland security industry has contributed significantly to the growth of the Israeli high-tech market. Often, the Israeli-controlled area is perceived as a
testing ground or a laboratory for new innovations to be “tested on Palestinians”. We have seen this used by sales representatives of Israeli homeland security products as a blunt marketing strategy.

One example of a seemingly benign company deeply involved in the restriction and control of Palestinian movement in the occupied territory is the South African steel and wire producer, Cape Gate, whose Israeli affiliate Yehuda Welded Mesh  has supplied security fencing for separation barriers in the “seam line” zone, around settlements and Israeli-only roads and railroads, settlement industrial zones and the besieged Gaza Strip. It is perhaps ironic that the late founder and owner of this company, Mendel Kaplan, former President of the World Zionist Congress, wrote extensively about his opposition to Apartheid in his own country and called upon all Jews in South Africa to “give leadership in the movement to abolish all discriminatory practices” as a lesson from Jewish history.

Last but not least: exploitation

The third category of involvement points to corporations that directly benefit from systemic advantages stemming from the Israeli control of Palestinian land, people and market. This category includes the companies that plunder natural resources in the occupied area, use it as a dumping ground for waste, profit from the exploitation of Palestinian labor and benefit from access to the captive Palestinian consumer market.

For example, many Israeli food manufacturers and distributors benefit from selling low-grade products in the West Bank, while Palestinian competitors are denied free movement through Israeli military checkpoints. Similarly, telecommunication service providers exploit Israeli control of land and airwaves in the occupied area to illegally penetrate the Palestinian market.

Perhaps it is appropriate to give one example of a company involved in all three categories. The giant transnational corporation Cemex is one of the largest suppliers of building materials globally and is controlled by the Mexican tycoon Lorenzo Zambrano. Through its Israeli subsidiary, Readymix Industries,  the company has several plants in Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, in which it uses Palestinian labor. It is a partner in an aggregates quarry in the West Bank, exploiting Palestinian non-renewable natural resources for the needs of the Israeli construction industry. Furthermore, the company has provided ‘concrete elements’ for the construction of security walls and military checkpoints in the West Bank.

Who Profits has prepared the corporate research for a Supreme Court petition submitted by Yesh Din in March 2009, demanding a halt to all Israeli mining activity in West Bank quarries, including the Yatir quarry, co-owned by Cemex. Israeli quarries operating in the occupied territory transfer most of their output back into Israel. As stated in the petition, this type of activity violates the laws of occupation and in some cases it may be considered pillage. In May 2010, the government of Israel informed the court that it would stop all new land allocation for Israeli quarrying purposes in the West Bank and would cease to approve any expansion of existing quarries there as well. As of June 2010, the petition is still pending before the court.

Israel and the occupation: where is the Green Line?

As we complete our mapping, one fact becomes very clear: any clear-cut distinction between the Israeli economy as a whole and the economy of the occupation can no longer be justified. The Green Line border has all but disappeared from the corporate activity map. Even if we only look at the Israeli settlements, and then again only focus on settlement construction, we will discover that the major players in the Israeli economy are deeply complicit. For instance, our findings show that all major Israeli banks have funded and supervised construction projects in the settlements.

According to Israeli regulations, every construction project has to have an “accompanier” bank, which not only provides funding and loans, but acts as an active partner and supervisor of the project on the ground. Thus, all major Israeli banks are not only aiding in the construction of settlements, but are actively involved in this activity. Moreover, all of the Israeli banks provide mortgage loans for homebuyers in settlements; provide financial services to Israeli business activities in the occupied territory and to local authorities of settlements.  Most large retailers have branches in settlements, service providers provide their services, importers and exporters exploit the uneven trade agreements.

The Israeli economy is highly centralized; it is often claimed that a handful of tycoons control a third of private sector revenues, as well as most media, telecommunications, banking and infrastructure industries.  Our research shows that each of these central economic players is implicated in the occupation industry in more ways than one.

Thus, we can safely say that most of the Israeli economy is involved in the economy of the occupation and, from an economic perspective; the Green Line is long gone. Choosing to call for economic activism against Israeli corporations directly complicit in the Israeli occupation, rather than calling for economic activism against all significant Israeli corporations, should be regarded as a strategic decision, since this distinction is almost only a semantic one. However, tracing the occupation involvement of corporations broadens our perspective, since, as our database shows, many of the culprit companies are international corporations.

Who Profits today

In 2010, the Who Profits database holds over 1000 companies in the three categories of involvement, with specific information about their direct complicity in at least one of the aspects of the military-economic control system. The details are crucial for the effectiveness and success of any campaign, be it legal or educational, using public advocacy or economic pressure.

The BDS movement aims to put pressure from the outside on Israel and its economy. Using corporate accountability for the occupation is a powerful tool, both legally and politically. The targets for economic activism should be chosen with care, because this budding movement needs to educate and recruit, and, most of all, because it needs to make a difference. For that purpose, we continue to investigate and document corporate involvement in the occupation.

An historic decision was taken by Swansea City Council to bar future contracts with Veolia on the grounds of its illegal activities in the West Bank.

Swansea City Council approved the following resolution on Thursday June 17th 2010:

“The UN not only does not recognise Israel’s annexation and
occupation of East Jerusalem, but has repeatedly stated its view that
the Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank
contravene international law, and it has demanded that Israeli
settlement activities and occupation should not be supported.
The international trading company, Veolia, is a leading partner in a
consortium seeking to build a light railway system linking Israel to
illegal settlements in occupied East Jerusalem, a project that clearly
not only contravenes UN demands but is in contravention of
international law.

This Council therefore calls on the Leader & Chief Executive not to sign
or allow to be signed any new contracts or renewal of any existing
contracts with Veolia or any other company in breach of international
law, so long as to do so would not be in breach of any relevant
legislation.”

Veolia currently has contracts with the authority for local bus, park & ride to the tune of £699k per annum and home school to the tune of £238k per annum.

The passing of the resolution was very important in its own right, but we have since dicovered that this is the first resolution of its kind to have been passed by any UK authority, in that it makes explicit its reasons for ruling out any future contracts with Veolia. Other authorities have discontinued contracts with Veolia, but have not specified this reason. Swansea City Council is therefore leading the way with what is now seen as a landmark decision.

The resolution was put to the Council as the result of a campaign, in the course of which, all 72 councillors were mailed with details of Veolia’s illegal activities. We were gratified with the level of cross part support for some kind of action to be taken and have since been in regular contact with councillors from nearly all parties who are actively pursuing the issue.

Swansea now leads a growing number of cities ready to take a moral stand against international lawbreakers. The list already includes Dublin, Stockholm and Melbourne and within the UK moves are already being made which would mean that other authorities follow Swansea’s example.

Jews for Justice for Palestinians welcomes the Methodist Conference decision to approve the report ‘Justice for Palestine and Israel’. We cannot understand your editorial attack on this decision, except as a thoughtless refusal to appreciate that other religious groups can have a principled objection to Israeli occupation and settlement of Palestinian land, without being at all anti-Semitic.

We believe that interfaith dialogue cannot be predicated on a refusal to recognise the rights of an occupied people. We are all aware that the implications of occupation are influencing ever more people within and outside the Jewish community. Increasing numbers of Jews are concluding that true peace and justice will only be delivered when we hear the cries of those under military yoke in the occupied territories. We hope and pray that the established community leadership will soon come to realise that supporting Israel ‘right or wrong’, contributes to their isolation from meaningful interfaith dialogue and serves neither justice nor peace.

______

Richard Kuper also wrote in a personal capacity (since an official JfJfP letter had also been sent). This was published, much abridged – and was billed as being from JfJfP!

It read:

The Methodist conference should be congratulated for adopting its report ‘Justice for Palestine and Israel’.

Palestine and Israel. Or can’t it be justice for Israel if illegal settlements are named as such and occupation is called by what it is in international law?

As for your headline, where is the ‘bad faith’ in the desire to uphold international law?

To paraphrase the words of the Board and the JLC, the Methodist Church decision has led me, a supporter of peace and reconciliation to cheer from the sidelines.

______
The letter as sent read as follows:

The Methodist conference should be congratulated for adopting its report ‘Justice for Palestine and Israel’.

So I read your lead story ‘How could Methodists act in such bad faith?’ (JC, 2 July 2010) with incredulity, as indeed I did your self-righteous, indignant editorial.

The alleged crime: ‘passing a policy which calls for a boycott of goods from “illegal” Israeli West Bank settlements and blam(ing) Israeli occupation as the “key hindrance” to Middle East peace.’

Jewish community elders seem incapable of distinguishing between disagreement and bad faith and would apparently appoint themselves gatekeepers as to what others think and say. I for one am quite happy to associate myself with the Methodist position.

I repeat: the report is called ‘Justice for Palestine and Israel’. And Israel. Or can’t it be justice for Israel if illegal settlements are named as such and occupation is called by what it is in international law?

To whoever approved the JC headline to the article I ask: where is the ‘bad faith’ in the desire to uphold international law? And to whoever approved the subhead: “Fury at church’s ‘shameful’ anti-Israel motion”: why is calling for a boycott of goods from illegal settlements ‘anti-Israel’ rather than anti-occupation and pro the enforcement of international law?

I thought we took a special pride in the achievement of René Cassin and others in laying a broad framework for international law immediately after World War Two.

To paraphrase the words of the Board and the JLC, the Methodist Church decision has led me, a supporter ‘of peace and reconciliation to cheer from the sidelines’.

Israeli academics hit back over bid to pass law that would criminalise them

Backlash over threat to outlaw supporters of boycott movement aimed at ending the continued occupation of the West Bank

Rachel Shabi in Jerusalem & Peter Beaumont, 11 July 2010

See also:
Neve Gordon BDS campaign wants Israel to abide by international law Observer, 11 July 2010
JNews Israeli academics under attack 21 June 2010

The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel has gained rapid international support since Israeli troops stormed a Gaza-bound flotilla of aid ships in May, killing nine activists. Israeli attention has focused on the small number of activists, particularly in the country’s universities, who have openly supported an academic boycott of Israeli institutions.

A protest petition has been signed by 500 academics, including two former education ministers, following recent comments by Israel’s education minister, Gideon Saar, that the government intends to take action against the boycott’s supporters. A proposed bill introduced into the Israeli parliament – the Knesset – would outlaw boycotts and penalise their supporters. Individuals who initiated, encouraged or provided support or information for any boycott or divestment action would be made to pay damages to the companies affected. Foreign nationals involved in boycott activity would be banned from entering Israel for 10 years, and any “foreign state entity” engaged in such activity would be liable to pay damages.

Saar last week described the petition as hysterical and an attempt to silence contrary opinions. While the vast majority of the signatories do not support an academic boycott of Israel, they have joined forces over what they regard as the latest assault on freedom of expression in Israel. The petition states: “We have different and varied opinions about solving the difficult problems facing Israel, but there is one thing we are agreed on – freedom of expression and academic freedom are the very lifeblood of the academic system.”

Daniel Gutwein, a history professor at Haifa University who is one of the signatories, described the minister’s intervention as an attempt “to make Israeli academia docile, frightened and silent”.

Although the BDS campaign – in various forms – has been running for over half a decade, it has become an increasingly fraught issue inside Israel in the past year since a small number of academics publicly declared support for a boycott, including Neve Gordon, author of Israel’s Occupation and a former paratrooper who was badly injured while serving with the Israeli Defence Force.

Speaking to the Observer last week, Gordon said that many Israelis saw support for the BDS as “crossing a red line”. Adding that he had received recent death threats, he said: “I am worried about what is happening to the space for debate in Israel. I find that there is a proto-fascist mindset developing. One of the slogans you hear a lot now is no citizenship without loyalty. It is an inversion of the republican idea that the state should be loyal to the citizen.”

Israeli campaigners believe the Gaza flotilla incident represents a tipping point in raising support for boycotts. Musicians including Elvis Costello, Gil Scott Heron and the Pixies have cancelled shows in Israel. Hollywood actors also snubbed Jerusalem’s international film festival and internationally acclaimed writers have supported the BDS movement, which is gaining support in dozens of countries.

“It’s a different world to what it was even a month ago,” says Kobi Snitz, member of an Israeli BDS group. “Suddenly, all sorts of people are supporting it – people that you wouldn’t expect.”

What is most interesting, however, has been the impact in Israel itself. Israeli journalist and blogger Noam Sheizaf wrote recently that such actions are now forcing Israelis “to think about the political issues and about their consequences… For a country in a constant state of denial regarding the occupation, this is no small thing.” Sheizaf does not promote the boycott, but says: “I will gladly return concert tickets if that is the price for making Israelis understand that the occupation cannot go on.”

Adi Oz, culture editor on the Tel Aviv weekly Ha’ir, appeared on Israeli national radio explaining her support for recent boycott activity. “When the Pixies cancelled their concert here I was disappointed,” she says. “But I was not critical of the Pixies, I was critical of our government, because they are responsible for Israel’s isolation.” She adds that, post-flotilla, the cultural boycott is “something that everyone has a stand on – and some people are realising that they are in favour of it, without having thought about it before.” There has also been a spate of boycott-related discussion in the financial press. The daily business newspaper Calcalist ran an uncritical profile of the Israeli campaigners behind Who Profits, an online database of Israeli and international companies involved in the occupation of the West Bank.

The project’s co-ordinator, Dalit Baum, of the Coalition of Women for Peace, says: “Every day there is an article about this issue in the Israeli media, which creates a discussion about the economy of the occupation and raises the fact that there’s a problem.”

BDS campaign wants Israel to abide by international law

Boycott Divestment and Sanctions strategy arises from realisation that the occupation will not end unless Israelis understand it has a price

Dr Neve Gordon, The Observer, Sunday 11 July 2010

Dr Neve Gordon is a prominent Israeli academic supporting a boycott and sanctions against Israel.

____________________________________

There is a considerable amount of misunderstanding about Boycott Divestment and Sanctions. BDS is not a principle but a strategy; it is not against Israel but against Israeli policy; when the policy changes BDS will end.

BDS is not about a particular solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but the demand that Israel abide by international law and UN resolutions.

It is, accordingly, something that you can support if you are for a two-state solution or a one-state solution. You can even support it as a Zionist.

It arises from the realisation, following years of experience, that the occupation will not end unless Israelis understand that it has a price.

In a sense, the need for a boycott is a sign of weakness following the polarisation and marginalisation of the left in Israel. We are witnessing the development of a proto-fascist mindset. I am, for example, extremely anxious about the extent that the space for public debate in Israel is shrinking.

One of the ways of silencing dissent is through the demand for loyalty, so that a slogan you hear a lot now is “no citizenship without loyalty”. This reflects the inversion of the republican idea that the state should be loyal to the citizen and is accountable for inequities and injustices. The reversal of this relationship between state and loyalty, and the adoption of a logic similar to the one that informed Mussolini’s Italy, is alarming. One of the expressions of these symptoms is the increasingly violent attitude to any dissent within Israel. I have received more death threats following my criticism of the flotilla fiasco than ever before.

When I walk on campus people ask in jest if I am wearing a bulletproof vest. Such jokes have a menacing undertone. It is not surprising that only three professors in Israel openly support a boycott; many others are in the closet because supporting BDS is not considered a legitimate critique, and people who back it risk being punished.

Yet there is also a sense that the pro-government proponents have gone too far. They are not only targeting people on the far left, but practically everyone who is even slightly critical of government policies. A couple of months ago a high-school principal who objected to military officers coming in to speak to his pupils, was all but crucified.

Clearly the outrage of so many Israeli academics against the assault on academic freedom has little to do with the boycott, but is rather against the attempt to silence any kind of critique.

There is an ever-growing sense that public discourse in Israel is dramatically shrinking.