The boycott debate
On August 20 this year, the Los Angeles Times published the article 'Boycott Israel' by Neve Gordon. As an Israeli peace activist -- and lecturer in Political Science -- Gordon took the drastic step of calling upon "foreign governments, regional authorities, international social movements, faith-based organizations, unions and citizens" to boycott the state of Israel. This, he felt, was necessary in order to force Israel to end the occupation, a step vital as much for Israel's own sake as for the sake of the oppressed Palestinians.
In fact, some Israelis had taken a similar stance before, but none of them got such an enormous impact (to be sure, much of it negative) in the mainstream media. In part, this can be attributed to the fact that the BDS movement ("Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions") had been gathering momentum since the Gaza War.
It may also have hit harder because Gordon left no doubt that he fully intends to stay in Israel and raise his children here, that he wants a boycott exactly in order to deflect Israel away from a perilous course. In fact, though Gordon did not use the word, he expressed that calling for a boycott on Israel was what an Israeli patriot should do under the present dire circumstances.
There were quite a lot of sharp and vociferous attacks on "Gordon the Traitor", some of them highly emotional and rather incoherent. (Some extreme-right groups responded to Gordon's boycott call by... themselves calling upon foreign donors to boycott the Ben-Gurion University in Beersheba as long as Gordon remained on its staff.)
But there was also a significant number of fellow activists conspicuously standing by him and publishing support petitions with hundreds of signatures. And in fact, though the university administration did not hide its displeasure with Gordon, it did not move to get him fired (as he has gotten his tenure, this would have been extremely difficult).
While the hullabaloo in the general media died down after a week or so, a less-publicized and far friendlier discussion continued among Neve Gordon's fellow activists and peace-seekers.
A slightly shortened version of Gordon's article is followed by parts of the debate that it opened.
'To save Israel from itself'
Neve Gordon
Israeli newspapers this summer are filled with angry articles about the push for an international boycott of Israel. Films have been withdrawn from Israeli film festivals, Leonard Cohen is under fire around the world for his decision to perform in Tel Aviv, and Oxfam has severed ties with a celebrity spokesperson, a British actress who also endorses cosmetics produced in the occupied territories.
Clearly, the campaign to use the kind of tactics that helped put an end to the practice of apartheid in South Africa is gaining many followers around the world.
Not surprisingly, many Israelis -- even peaceniks -- aren't signing on. A global boycott can't help but contain echoes of anti-Semitism. It also brings up questions of a double standard (why not boycott China for its egregious violations of human rights?) and the seemingly contradictory position of approving a boycott of one's own nation.
It is indeed not a simple matter for me as an Israeli citizen to call on foreign governments, regional authorities, international social movements, faith-based organizations, unions and citizens to suspend cooperation with Israel. But today, as I watch my two boys playing in the yard, I am convinced that it is the only way that Israel can be saved from itself.
I say this because Israel has reached a historic crossroads, and times of crisis call for dramatic measures. I say this as a Jew who has chosen to raise his children in Israel, who has been a member of the Israeli peace camp for almost 30 years and who is deeply anxious about the country's future.
The most accurate way to describe Israel today is as an apartheid state. For more than 42 years, Israel has controlled the land between the Jordan Valley and the Mediterranean Sea. Within this region about 6 million Jews and close to 5 million Palestinians reside. Out of this population, 3.5 million Palestinians and almost half a million Jews live in the areas Israel occupied in 1967, and yet while these two groups live in the same area, they are subjected to totally different legal systems. The Palestinians are stateless and lack many of the most basic human rights. By sharp contrast, all Jews -- whether they live in the occupied territories or in Israel -- are citizens of the state of Israel.
The question that keeps me up at night, both as a parent and as a citizen, is how to ensure that my two children as well as the children of my Palestinian neighbors do not grow up in an apartheid regime.
There are only two moral ways of achieving this goal.
The first is the one-state solution: offering citizenship to all Palestinians and thus establishing a bi-national democracy within the entire area controlled by Israel. Given the demographics, this would amount to the demise of Israel as a Jewish state; for most Israeli Jews, it is anathema.
The second means of ending our apartheid is through the two-state solution, which entails Israel's withdrawal to the pre-1967 borders (with possible one-for-one land swaps), the division of Jerusalem, and a recognition of the Palestinian right of return with the stipulation that only a limited number of the 4.5 million Palestinian refugees would be allowed to return to Israel, while the rest can return to the new Palestinian state.
Geographically, the one-state solution appears much more feasible because Jews and Palestinians are already totally enmeshed; indeed, "on the ground", the one-state solution (in an apartheid manifestation) is a reality.
Ideologically, the two-state solution is more realistic because fewer than 1% of Jews and only a minority of Palestinians support binationalism.
For now, despite the concrete difficulties, it makes more sense to alter the geographical realities than the ideological ones. If at some future date the two peoples decide to share a state, they can do so, but currently this is not something they want.
So if the two-state solution is the way to stop the apartheid state, then how does one achieve this goal?
I am convinced that outside pressure is the only answer. Over the last three decades, Jewish settlers in the occupied territories have dramatically increased their numbers. The myth of the united Jerusalem has led to the creation of an apartheid city where Palestinians aren't citizens and lack basic services. The Israeli peace camp has gradually dwindled so that today it is almost nonexistent, and Israeli politics are moving more and more to the extreme right.
It is therefore clear to me that the only way to counter the apartheid trend in Israel is through massive international pressure. The words and condemnations from the Obama administration and the European Union have yielded no results, not even a settlement freeze, let alone a decision to withdraw from the occupied territories.
I consequently have decided to support the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement that was launched by Palestinian activists in July 2005 and has since garnered widespread support around the globe. The objective is to ensure that Israel respects its obligations under international law and that Palestinians are granted the right to self-determination.
(...) Nothing else has worked. Putting massive international pressure on Israel is the only way to guarantee that the next generation of Israelis and Palestinians -- my two boys included -- does not grow up in an apartheid regime.
Full text no longer at http://www.latimes.com, but cached in Occupation Magazine http://www.kibush.co.il/
'I don't give up on the Israelis'
Uri Avnery
I have known and respected Neve Gordon for many years. Before becoming a lecturer at Ben Gurion University in Beersheba, he organized many demonstrations against the Separation Wall in the Jerusalem area, in which I, too, took part.
I am sorry that I cannot agree with him this time.
Gordon, like other advocates of boycott, believes that the main, indeed the only way to induce Israel to give up the occupied territories and agree to peace is to exert pressure from the outside.
They have in fact despaired of the Israelis, and reached the conclusion that there is no chance of changing Israeli public opinion. According to them, no salvation will come from within. One must ignore the Israeli public and concentrate on mobilizing the world against the State of Israel. (Some of them believe anyhow that the State of Israel should be dismantled and replaced by a bi-national state.)
But Israel is not a monolithic entity composed of racists and brutal oppressors -- even if at some moments it looks like. Israel is a complex society, struggling with itself. The forces of good and evil, and many in between, are locked in a daily battle on many different fronts.
The settlers and their supporters are strong, perhaps getting stronger (though I doubt it), but are far -- even in their own view -- from a decisive victory. Neve Gordon, for example, has been left unmolested in his post at Ben-Gurion University, because any attempt to remove him would have caused a public outcry.
I do not share despair of the Israeli people, to which I belong, nor the hope that the world will stand up and compel Israel to change its ways against its will. For this to happen, the boycott must gather worldwide momentum, the US must join it, the Israeli economy must collapse and the morale of the Israeli public must break.
How long will this take? Twenty Years? Fifty years? Forever?
Meanwhile, a complete boycott on Israel would push the large majority into the arms of the extreme right and create a fortress mentality. "The whole world is against us, they are all anti-Semites". (The boycott would, of course, have a different impact on the Palestinians, but that is not the aim of those who advocate it.)
I have no quarrel with the idea of outside pressure. The question is: pressure on whom? On the government, the settlers and their supporters? Or on the entire Israeli people?
A boycott must serve the purpose of isolating the settlers and the individuals and institutions that openly support them -- but not declaring war on Israel and the Israeli people as such. In the 11 years since Gush Shalom declared a boycott of the products of the settlements, this process has been gaining momentum. We must laud the Norwegian decision, this week, to divest from the Israeli Elbit Company because of their involvement with the "Separation Fence" that is being built on Palestinian land and whose main purpose is to annex occupied territories to Israel. This is a splendid example: a focused action against a specific target, based on a ruling of the International Court.
I think that far more can be done by a concentrated national and international campaign. A central office should be set up to direct this effort throughout the world against clear and specific targets. Such an effort could be helped by world public opinion, which recoils from the idea of boycotting the State of Israel, and not only because of the memory of the Holocaust, but will identify itself with action against the occupation and the oppression.
Only the close cooperation of Palestinian, Israeli, and international peace forces could generate the necessary momentum to end the occupation and achieve peace.
This is especially important because our task today is not so much to convince the majority of Israelis that peace is good and the price acceptable, but first that peace is possible at all. Most Israelis have lost that hope, and its revival is absolutely vital on the way to peace.
Excerpted from 'Tutu's Prayer' (Aug. 29) and 'The Boycott Revisited' (Sept. 5, 2009).
Avnery's articles are archived at http://www.gush-shalom.org
'BDS does address the Israelis'
Michael Warschawski
Despite the fact that I sometimes disagree with Avnery's opinions -- though much less than in the past -- I have great respect for the man, the journalist, the activist and the analyst. We have been closely active together, and I would dare say that we became friends. This is why I feel compelled to react to his criticism of the BDS campaign.
Uri writes: "Neve Gordon and his partners in this (BDS) effort have despaired of the Israelis". If this were true, why do Neve, myself and many other Israeli BDS campaigners devote so much of their time to building -- together with Uri Avnery -- an Israeli movement against war, occupation and colonization? (...) We do agree -- and this is even more important -- that in order to achieve substantial results in our struggle, we need to build joint dynamics including the Palestinian national resistance, Israeli anti-occupation forces, and an international solidarity movement. Ten years ago, I called this "the winning triangle".
The true issue is not changing Israeli society, but how and for what.(...) An important divergence with Uri Avnery concerns the dialectics between the Palestinian national liberation agenda and the role of the so-call Israeli peace camp. While it is obvious that the Palestinian national movement needs as many Israeli allies as possible to achieve liberation as quick as possible and with as little suffering as possible, one cannot expect the Palestinian movement to wait until Uri, Neve and the other Israeli anti-colonialists convince the majority of the Israeli public.
For two reasons: first, because popular national movements do not wait to fight oppression and colonialism; second, because history has taught us that changes within the colonialist society have always been the result of the liberation struggle, and not the other way round: when the price of occupation becomes too high, more and more people understand that it is not worth continuing.
Yes, a hand extended for coexistence is needed, but together with an iron fist fighting for rights and freedom. The failure of the Oslo process confirms a very old lesson of history: any attempt for reconciliation before the fulfillment of rights strengthens the continuation of the colonial domination relationship. Without a price to be paid, why should the Israelis stop colonization, why should they risk a deep internal crisis?
This is where the BDS campaign is so relevant: it offers an international framework to act in order to help the Palestinian people achieve their legitimate rights, both on the institutional level (states and international institutions) and on that of civil society. On the one hand it addresses the international community, asking it to enact sanctions against a state that is systematically violating international law, UN resolutions, the Geneva Conventions and signed agreements. On the other hand, it calls on international civil society to act, both as individuals as well as social movements (trade-unions, parties, local councils, popular associations etc) to boycott goods, official representatives, institutions etc. that represent the colonial State of Israel.
Both tasks (boycott and sanctions) will eventually be a pressure on the Israeli people, pushing them to understand that occupation and colonization have a price, that violating international rules will, sooner or later, make the State of Israel a pariah country, not welcome in the civilized community of nations. Just like South Africa in the last decades of apartheid.
In that sense, and unlike Uri's claim, BDS is addressed to the Israeli public, and, right now, is the only way to provoke a change in Israeli attitudes towards occupation/colonization. If one compares this BDS to the anti-apartheid BDS campaign that took twenty years to start bearing real fruits, one cannot but be surprised at how efficient the anti-Israeli occupation campaign has already been, and even in Israel we already witness its first effects.
The BDS campaign was initiated by a broad coalition of Palestinian political and social movements. No Israeli who claims to support the national rights of the Palestinian people can, decently, turns his or her back to that campaign: after having claimed for years that "armed struggle is not the way," it will be outrageous that this BDS strategy will too be disqualified by those Israeli activists. On the contrary, we must all together join to "Boycott from Within" in order to provide Israeli support to this Palestinian initiative. It is the minimum we can do, and it is the minimum we should do.
Published October 8, 2009
http://www.alternativenews.org/michael-warschawski
'Sanctions, if nothing else works'
Abraham Simhony
(...) Having visited and worked in Apartheid South Africa of the 1970s and 1980s, I remember the situation among the "Whites" was very similar to the situation of the Jewish population of Israel.
They, in their vast majority, including the so called English speaking "progressive" forces, despised the "non-whites" and did not want to even share a bit of power with them. Any "white" person who dared to quarrel with this mentality was termed "a traitor", "a communist," and the like. Is the situation in Israel any different? Unfortunately, I find that most Israelis (some of them the nicest of people) adopt the same attitude towards the Arabs, the Palestinians, whom they cruelly rule. The latest developments in Israel go in the direction of more hatred, more prejudice, less tolerance and more inhuman cruelty towards Arabs and those who think differently (...)
I do not believe that an utter boycott and complete sanctions should be initiated. I see the solution along the lines of the Solana Plan -- a process decided on and supervised by the Security Council, with a time table for the establishment of two states in secure and peaceful borders and an international force to supervise. Only if Israel does not comply, the world community will have no choice, but to impose a solution -- and if by no other way, then by sanctions! I strongly believe that this would be in the interest of Israel and its future as a peaceful democratic society.
'Letter to Uri Avnery' http://www.gush-shalom.org, Sept.3
'How to get Israelis to think'
Ran Greenstein
Avnery says that those who call for a boycott act out of "despair" of ever changing Israeli public opinion. Not quite true: disappointment yes, despair no. In any event, it is not an either or situation. Pressure from the outside must not replace work from within: both are essential and need to be conceptualized in such a way that they reinforce one another rather than act at cross-purposes.
The challenge is how to get Israeli Jews thinking about what they take for granted (that they are a majority in Israel legitimately, that the boycott reflects anti-Semitism, and so on): this cannot be done by leaving things as they are, but also not by blanket boycott. Rather, what we need is smart focused sanctions that would show the relationship between crime and punishment, between offensive behavior, the related sanction, and the way to avoid it. This is the major weakness of the BDS campaign as currently conceptualized: it does not show those who face the threat of boycott what they can do concretely -- what is within their own powers, in other words -- to avoid it. Instead, it tells them what their government must do, and they have very little control over that.
To take a concrete example connected with the specific subject of academic sanctions: In February this year I suggested a campaign demanding that the School of Law at Tel Aviv University terminate the employment of war criminal colonel/lawyer Pnina Sharvit-Baruch, who played an active role in planning the implementation of war crimes in Gaza in such a way that would shield perpetrators from possible prosecution.
Should the Law School reject this demand, it would be subject to sanctions (precise nature of which to be determined as appropriate). It should be noted that sanctions must be applied to practices rather than opinions. Sharvit-Baruch should not be targeted because of her opinions, however objectionable, but because of her active involvement in the commission of war crimes.
The problem with the general academic boycott as it has been discussed over the last few years is that it is punitive, externally imposed, and does not encourage people to work directly for change within their own institutions and take responsibility for their own environment -- in other words, to work for change to be effected through their own efforts and within their powers.
Preventing a war criminal from being hired, in contrast, is a concrete and realistic goal. It is not on the grandiose scale of dismantling settlements or implementing the right of return of refugees (about which most people can do little except sign a couple of petitions and attend demonstrations with zero impact), but it is linked to people's daily lives and activities.
In all major Israeli universities there are progressive student groups of both Jewish and Palestinian students. These forces are based internally, are familiar with the circumstances of each place, and are best positioned -- together with progressive academics within each institution -- to identify the specific issues facing them.
For this strategy to succeed it must be based on regular exchange of information between activists at different locations, and good coordination between them.
Israeli-based activists are subject to enormous pressure internally, and the only way they could sustain a campaign to change society from within is through maintaining a constant exchange of information, solidarity, and a flow of moral and material assistance from the outside. Palestinian activists are in need of even more external exchange and assistance. It is only in dialogue between all the relevant constituencies that the campaign can move forward.
Link to full text on the Gush Shalom site
http://toibillboard.info/RanGreen.htm
Greenstein's earlier article to which he refers at:
http://www.monthlyreview.org/mrzine/greenstein060209.html
'Spectrum of pressures'
Adam Keller
Whatever Israeli activists have to say about it, a considerable number of people around the world are developing the tendency to boycott Israel. Not only because there is an organized worldwide campaign of BDS ("Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions") which was launched by Palestinian groups several years ago and taken up by groups and organizations all over the world (including some Israeli radicals). No need for an organized campaign to make decent persons, who just saw the images of death and destruction from Gaza, feel disgusted about the Israeli oranges on display in their neighborhood supermarket.
The acts of the Government of Israel, its armed forces, and the settlers whom it sponsors provoke a very wide spectrum of reactions. There are those who boycott Israel because they frankly feel that its continued existence is a blot on the global map, while others want a boycott to save Israel from itself. Some want to boycott the state of Israel and all its works, and specifically impose an academic boycott. Others want a selective boycott of settlements or military officers or companies directly benefiting from the occupation.
And there are quite a few people and groups in various countries who feel concerned and try to do something other than a boycott -- speaking out and sometimes crying out in a variety of articles and statements and petitions and meetings. The dovish new American Jewish lobby known as "J-Street" would recoil from the very idea of any kind of boycott on Israel. Still, in their recent, highly publicized conference in Washington they reiterated that American Jews should no longer close ranks and reflexively and unconditionally support every government in Israel, and that the best way to support Israel would be to ensure that Israel ends the occupation and that a viable Palestinian state comes into being already in the near future.
There is no way that all these divergent forces could be made to consciously cooperate and coordinate their actions. Indeed, some of them undoubtedly regard the others as the worst of anathemas. Still, it can be hoped that the cumulative result of all these pressures together would be to push the governments of the world -- and specifically, the government of the United States -- into taking the necessary steps before it is too late.
The educational-military complex
Review of Uri Yacobi Keller's research
While academic boycott started to be an issue in 2002, in Britain, by now calls for it are coming from Sweden, Norway, Canada, Spain, USA and Australia. The main argument brought up against singling out Israeli universities is that Israel's Academia includes the most outspoken government critics.
Though a relatively large part of the Israeli opponents of the occupation are academics, it would be quite wrong to say that most Israeli academics are against it. Committed peace and human rights activists are in fact only a small percentage among the faculty of Israeli universities (mostly in Humanities) who find themselves often isolated among colleagues.
Israeli universities as institutions can actually be said to be supporting and facilitating the occupation in many direct and indirect ways. This at least is the conclusion from a detailed new research, conducted by Uri Yacobi Keller of the Alternative Information Center (AIC), Jerusalem.
Virtually all major Israeli universities are shown to be deeply involved in and extensively cooperating with the armed forces and/or the arms industry -- in ways that have direct implications for the repression of the Palestinians. For example, at least 29 Palestinians were killed in the Gaza Strip by pilotless drones, key parts of which were developed for the Israeli Air Force by Israeli Universities. To find out this and many other similar pieces of information, Yacobi Keller needed no access to classified information or to the revelations of whistleblowers. The universities concerned published the information themselves, in fact taking pride in having done their patriotic duty and given their share to the country's war effort.
Most deeply implicated, according to the data gathered, is the Haifa Technion (officially "Israel Institute of Technology"), with its emphasis on engineering and computer science, which has "all but enlisted itself in the military." The Technion took pride in its major share of such projects as development of a remote-controlled "D9" bulldozer used for demolishing Palestinian houses, or methods for detecting underground tunnels, developed specifically in order to assist the army's continued siege on the Gaza Strip. However, other universities shared in the credit (and the financial reward) for these and other military projects.
Universities also have close relationship with such giant arms producers as Rafael and Elbit. The government of Norway recently divested from Elbit, due to the latter's involvement in creating electronic systems for the "Separation Fence" which cuts Palestinian villagers off from their land.
Yacobi Keller reveals that Israeli universities maintain close partnership with Elbit, including the training of students specifically for future employment in this company; their taking part in weapons development projects already while in the university; and the involvement of "experts" from the company in the university teaching alongside the official academic staff.
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem maintains, jointly with the army, the "Talpiot" program -- intended for science students who will later be integrated into the army's research & development units. These students wear uniforms throughout their years of study and live in a special army base located on the university's campus. Likewise, the "Havatzalot" program for future military intelligence officers also has an on-campus military base -- in this case at Haifa University.
Zefat College, a branch of Bar Ilan University, has an exclusive academic program for training members of the Shabak (General Security Service), notorious for using torture during interrogations, and finding ways of bypassing Supreme Court rulings forbidding this practice. This program was intended to be moved to the more prestigious Hebrew University, but the plan was eventually revoked -- interestingly, the program's cancellation was directly connected to protests by activists and the apprehension that the program might facilitate an academic boycott.
The report also notes various types of university preferential treatment of students who had performed military service, or are called to do reserve duty while studying. The measures to help students who missed lectures or examinations due to reserve military service -- usually one month per year, and longer in emergency periods -- are more generous than to students who missed them due to illness.
Military service -- including occupation duty in the Palestinian territories and the guarding of settlements -- is often classed among the "socially beneficent activities" which universities officially encourage their students to undertake, and some universities give academic credit points for such service. In the prestigious Herzliya Interdisciplinary Center, ten percent of the places for students are officially reserved to veterans of elite combat units, who also benefit from lower acceptance entry criteria.
It should be noted that any preferential treatment for soldiers is by definition discriminating Arab students, who are not drafted, as well as Jewish students who did not serve for reasons of conscience of health.
The most direct academic involvement in the occupation is seen at Bar Ilan University. Founded upon the principles of Religious Zionism Bar Ilan is spending much of its financial and academic resources in building up the "Judea and Samaria College" at the West Bank settlement of Ariel, with the intention of making it into a full-fledged university.
Other universities have so far blocked the upgrading of the college, but do maintain regular contacts, their lecturers attending academic conferences held in the college -- that is: on a campus in an armed enclave at the midst of an occupied territory.
In September 2009 the Spanish government canceled the participation of the Judea and Samaria College in a contest on solar energy technology development, specifically citing its being in an Occupied Territory and refusing to budge in face of strong protests by the government of Israel. The argument that the college's location "had nothing to do with the academic work of its staff" was rejected out of hand.
This was the successful culmination of a short but effective campaign by Spanish and Catalan academics organizations, most probably the first real ever success of an academic boycott campaign.
As the AIC report concludes, the fact that the campaign was mounted by a relatively small group and took little time to reach its goal could indicate that targeted and fact-based academic boycott campaigns may be more effective than large, wide scale campaigns. And indeed, this brochure provides the clues.
The full report -- including a detailed, annotated section for the specific acts of each university -- was published as part of the AIC Socioeconomic Bulletin 'The Economy of the Occupation' edited by Shir Hever (No. 23-24, October 2009).
Pdf version & video interview with the author
http://alternativenews.org in multimedia.
Hard copies can be ordered from:
AIC, PO Box 31417, Jerusalem 91313, Israel
