The following report was sent to us by a long time U.S.-based activist for a just peace in Israel/Palestine posting under the name Rie Graham. It is in response to a discussion between Naomi Klein and Rabbi Arthur Waskow on the merits of using boycotts, divestment and sanctions to change Israeli policies in Israel/Palestine. The discussion appears in the current edition of In These Times under the title "To Boycott Israel…or Not?":
In the April 2009 cover story
of In These Times, Editor Joel Bleifuss moderates a discussion on the
merits of BDS (Boycott Divestment and Sanctions) with author Naomi Klein and Rabbi Arthur Waskow, director of
the Shalom Center in Philadelphia.
Klein and Waskow agree on the
goal of changing US policy as critical to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,
but differ on their strategic vision.
The discussion centers on whether
BDS is a strategy worth pursuing in advancing a just and lasting peace
in Israel/Palestine. Klein, who wrote an article in the Nation officially endorsing BDS, states that the strategy is critical
to changing the power imbalance and mobilizing grassroots activism for
change in US policy:
There is such an asymmetry of outrage on this issue – the uproar about Israeli universities facing a boycott at the same time as Palestinian schools and universities are being bombed, for instance. When we treat Israeli war crimes as deserving of international sanction, we are rejecting this double standard and embodying the future we want, which is a future of genuine equality
Klein is supportive of the
efforts such as the Hampshire Students for Justice in Palestine’s
two-year campaign to convince its Board of Trustees to screen out college
investments, which support Israeli occupation. She believes that
concrete solidarity should be mobilized in support of the 2005 call
by Palestinian civil society non-governmental organizations for BDS,
which she describes as the “most effective tactics in the nonviolent
arsenal.”
Waskow criticizes the BDS strategy
as one that “won’t work.” Dismissing the strategic value of BDS,
Waskow argues that attempts for “personal purity” (for instance
tying spending habits and investments to human rights and international
law) won’t impact U.S. policy. As an alternative Waskow believes
that an “Abrahamic” alliance is needed to change U.S. policy, meaning
bringing together U.S. Jews, Muslims, and Christians to lobby Congress
for change. He advocates offering Israel a “One Big Carrot of
Peace” rather than applying pressure through BDS that he describes
as a “sticks only” approach.
Waskow, who supported BDS against
the racist apartheid regime in South Africa, wishes that Palestinians
would learn the lessons from the U.S. civil rights movement and organize
nonviolent sit-ins, presumably to help Americans – and clearly American
Jews – see their human desire is for peace, not the destruction of
Israel. He criticizes Hamas for not organizing boats to Gaza in
the model of the Free Gaza movement initiated by ISM, as if this were
truly an option available to Hamas.
What Waskow (and other “peace”
activists who claim to be searching for the Palestinian Gandhi who will
lead Palestinians to freedom) fails to mention in the discussion is
any acknowledgment of the overwhelming nonviolent response by Palestinians
to decades of Israeli military occupation, including in Gaza. Where
does he cite the human chain initiated by Palestinians across Gaza calling
for unity and an end to the siege (that was dismissed as propaganda
in the west)? What about Palestinian attempts to maintain survival by
digging tunnels to Egypt as an act of nonviolent resistance to international
attempts to blockade, isolate and imprison 1.5 million Palestinians
in Gaza? Or all the diplomatic efforts to reach a ceasefire and
truce initiated and upheld by Hamas? Why does Waskow not mention the
weekly protests in Bi’lin – which regularly include Palestinians,
Israelis, and internationals in collective nonviolent action – as
well as the daily acts of courageous nonviolence at checkpoints all
over the West Bank? Do the Palestinians need to set up a lunch counter
to get the west and Waskow to see their nonviolent efforts to end occupation?
Klein argues that BDS can be
a complementary strategy to the dialogues and interfaith efforts that
Waskow believes will move leaders in Washington, DC. Waskow says
that “people will make up their own minds” about tactics, but should
remain focused on changing U.S. policies.
Perhaps when nonviolent strategies
are taken seriously in the US – and American rabbis like Waskow join
the boats to Gaza to break the siege and stand with Palestinian farmers
against continued land confiscation by Israeli authorities – there
will be the necessary resistance to politics as usual on the Israel/Palestine
question in DC.
Nothing but praise should be
given to those students at Hampshire College and political journalists
like Naomi Klein who demand solidarity for Palestinians who live under
occupation, and accountability for those who continue to finance their
destruction.
BDS will work ONLY if the B stands for BOMB.
The chances of the Israelis abiding by international law without the threat and/or use of devastating violence are zero.
When we treat Israeli war crimes as deserving of international sanction, we are rejecting this double standard and embodying the future we want, which is a future of genuine equality
That's cause state sponsored murder is really just the same as segragated drinking fountains. We could do a hell of a lot to improve the situation before we even get close to "genuine equality"
Let's stop the murder by Israel, and I bet things will get better right away.
good luck with that mooser… a constant funneling of military arm shipments to israel, smart bombs and the lot coming straight from the good ol usa can only lead to one thing… a shipping barricade of israel or the usa would be a good start..
Adam,
You should visit Hampshire College and talk to the gamut of students that are there.
I attended a rally in Amherst, MA, organized by Hampshire students for peace (rather than BDS or solidarity). I spoke with two students who signed the petition in "solidarity" that preferred the peace approach.
Some of the Hampshire students that organized a counter-rally (solidarity) at the same time, were borderline violent towards the peace rally.
"I've seen their ways to often for my liking".
It sounds good in a room where everyone agrees that Zionists are racist pigs. It sounds like a fraud in a room with the mix of real Zionists (some racist pigs, some the kindest in the world).
The METHOD of change IS a big deal, as it is what creates the setting for the next relationship.
That is the failing of Hamas. That by adopting 12 years of brutal, ruthless suicide bombing as their means of "dissent", then 5 years of randomly shelling civilians in Sderot, Ashkelon, Beersheba, imagine that the next relationship can be civil.
Maybe it can, IF Hamas and others renounce violence on civilians on principle. Even if they EVER expressed any remorse for the harms that they've caused, even some reluctance, then their humanity might be seen.
But, that is NOT what occurred. So, they have as long an uphill struggle even to get to 0, as Citibank or AIG.
SHELLING of Sderot!
You use language like an orangutan smearing its cage with feces.
Read Hamas' position on peace and stop the disgusting lying:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/24/AR2006022402317_pf.html
The Hamas leader in Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh, said on Saturday his government was willing to accept a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders.
http://menac.org/2008/11/10/haniyeh-hamas-willing-to-accept-palestinian-state-with-1967-borders/
Witty prefers not to focus on the long history of Palestinian non-violence, but instead on the desperate violent movement due to lack of any aid for passive protest. And then we have this, which supposedly was at least partially addressing:
"Waskow, who supported BDS against the racist apartheid regime in South Africa, wishes that Palestinians would learn the lessons from the U.S. civil rights movement and organize nonviolent sit-ins"
Witty, as other commenters over the last few days have patiently detailed, the Palestinian Gandhi-ML King strategy led to such inclined Pal leaders being deported or assassinated by Israel They never let them stick around long enough to have an impact like King.
And, the controversy is more international than purely domestic as in King's scenario, which leads to the question, why did Waskow support the BDS against apartheid S Africa, but not Israel? Further, as Klein says, why either/or regarding strategy–why not both? The combo is what toppled apartheid
S Africa.
c'mon, if I threw an empty coke can at R Witty, that'd be "shelling" in his book.
21% of Israeli exporters have been directly affected by the boycott movement since the beginning of 2009.
Witty is a dishonest piece of shit. Typically I go overboard on the insults towards the ZioPuke on the blog but every single thing I've said about Witty is accurate.
Bourgeois, pretentious, dishonest.
He refers to the rocket fire (15 people dead in 8 years before the Gaza massacre) as SHELLING.
Witty also refers to Israel dismantling the settlements in OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORY and taking back their COLONISTS as an ethnic cleansing.
He's a fucking liar.
So many examples too. Like the stupid story he told us about some Jewish family whose daughter became *more* Zionist due to those 'radical' pro-Palestinian activists.
And Haniyeh said the same thing back in 2006 to the Washington Post.
Whoops, didn't see your first link, Ry.
@ Richard Witty | March 30, 2009 at 12:16 PM
[Hamas], by adopting 12 years of brutal, ruthless suicide bombing as their means of "dissent", then 5 years of randomly shelling civilians in Sderot, Ashkelon, Beersheba, imagine[s] that the next relationship can be civil.
Readers, there is a context that Richard Witty and others leave out when they make such statements. The "12 years of brutal, ruthless suicide bombing", assuredly acts of terrorism even if overstated, was in response to Israeli military occupation and COLONIZATION of Gaza since 1967. Let me be clear exactly what is meant when people say 'military occupation' in an Israeli context: a system of population control measures inluding Jewish-only roads within the occupied Palestinian territories for servicing and protecting Israeli Jewish colonies, and webs of internal checkpoints on Palestinian roads with arbitrary if not whimsical criteria for passage which are designed to humiliate and hinder commerce, education, and social life. Make no mistake, unlike most military occupations, as defined under international law to which both Israel and the United States are signatories, Israel military occupation is solely for the purpose of fostering and protecting COLONIES; they have never had any intention of withdrawing. Yes, suicide bombing is reprehensible, but so are the constant killings of Palestinians, including huge numbers of children, the incessant COLONIZATION of Palestinian land, and the Israel's absolute refusal to engage in good-faith negotiations with any Palestinian political entity, not just Hamas. When one leaves a violently occupied and oppressed people no peaceful means of protest and then whine about them using violence, then one is a hypocrite of the lowest order. Any constraints on the likelihood of "the next relationship [being] civil" are at least as much imposed by Israelis.
Maybe it can, IF Hamas and others renounce violence on civilians on principle. Even if they EVER expressed any remorse for the harms that they've caused, even some reluctance, then their humanity might be seen.
Mutual renunciation of violence is exactly what good-faith negotiations are for, which Israel has steadfastly refused to do with Palestinians, ever. Is it reasonable to expect Palestinian violence when Israelis keep shooting at them and attempt to destroy their society in order to prevent the organization of a Palestinian state? Palestinian violence may be strategically stupid, but it is certainly no more immoral than Israeli violence. Readers, this is, once again, colonial Zionist hypocrisy unveiled.
Has Israel ever expressed genuine regret for the harm they have caused Palestinians, which absolutely dwarfs that suffered by Israels? Every declaration of remorse that I've ever seen has been preceded by negative international press coverage with consequent embarrassment. Palestinian children are killed almost weekly with little or no Western press coverage, and you hear nothing from the Israeli government. Mutual expressions of regret for violence, whether genuine or not, can only realistically be expected during a good-faith final-status negotiation. Palestinians, including Hamas, have no more 'need' to show their humanity than Israelis. Richard Witty's assertion make the implicit assumption that Israeli humanity could not possibly be in question. Richard, wake up. Israel's plummeting status in the world is happening because people are questioning Israeli inhumanity to Palestinians. Fair or not, the victim's humanity is usually not as questioned as the criminal's.
The struggle against South African apartheid is seen by many Americans through the lens of the US civil rights movement. The analogy is very poor, however. The black/white aspect I think contributes to this and Americans imagine that the issues and struggles were similar.
Americans, I think, underestimate the importance that violence had in influencing change in SA. The townships really were ungovernable. Of course the nats never bombed to bits the townships or the bantustans, but state murders/assassinations are another story (although not as high a rate as Israel's). Other than the _real_ extremists (Terrebanche et al), few supporters of apartheid envisioned a country cleansed of black Africans. I've heard a few racist jokes told by white South African's that acknowledge this difference with the American Indian genocide and the genocide of Australian aboriginals.
Boycotts and isolation can harden ideas (circle the wagons, "laager mentality"), but they can also work. Many white south Africans I know do attribute a lot of the success of de Klerk's referendum/confidence vote to the promise of re-entry into world sport.
I believe that organized cultural/academic/economic isolation of Israel may be effective. Academic integration with the West is probably as important to Israelis as sport was to South Africans. It is a blunt instrument, but it is non-violent.
On the other hand, the alternative, violence contributes to isolation. Several years ago, an international conference in my field was originally planned to occur in Israel but was moved late in organization due to attendees dropping out. Some may have been politically motivated, others were concerned about traveling to a violent country (despite minuscule actual risk). I currently know of a couple of different people who have turned down collaborations that involved a stay in Israel. This folks are apolitical/uninformed but the worry of violence influenced the decision.
People in power do not give it up without a reason and that reason is often force.
Violence is terrible, but it has effects (not always those intended by the instigator, however). To those who talk of Hamas "shelling", I say: you give the Palestinians accurate precision guided missiles capable of taking down Israeli warplanes, capable of accurately targeting military compounds, etc.
And Witty: being a racist and being kind are not mutually exclusive. I know many kind, funny, and or/smart zionists. They are still racists (or more accurately, tribalists). Zionism may not be racism but what is wrong about racism is the same thing wrong with zionism.
Again:
"The METHOD of change IS a big deal, as it is what creates the setting for the next relationship."
If Hamas and Islamic Jihad and PFLP stopped shelling civilians on the principle that civilians are not valid targets of resistance, then the boycott movement might be effective.
In South Africa, the west was very supportive of boycotts and divestiture, largely because it was not aware of some of the brutality that supporters of the ANC conducted (reserving their worst for "collaborators").
People support what they can feel good doing so. Anyone that supports Hamas, even indirectly in their presumed advocacy for Palestine, MUST bear some internal conflict about it.
There are great things about Hamas, social service and an aversion to personal gain as a valid boon of political responsibility. But, their former chosen method of "dissent" of blowing up schoolbuses, public buses, hotels, cafes, train stations, restaurants is not easily forgettable, especially with no statement of remorse or even recognition that there is a human being on the other end (even Muslim Arab human beings have been killed numerous times).
Israeli officials have stated remorse for civilian harms, for the 1948 dispossession even.
But, Colin's description of the "reason" for Hamas terror from 1993 to 2005 is innaccurate. Many of the largest terror incidents occurred specifically prior to meetings between the PA and Israel, between Fatah and Hamas. They were intentionally disruptive, indicating a FAILURE to make the transition from militia to political party.
There are good reasons for Hamas' and Palestinians' anger. There are no good reasons for such horrid expressions of that anger.
And, it is a fantasy to assume that it does not influence events. The shelling of Sderot after the cease-fire ended, functionally elected likud. Kadima would likely have won 7-10 more seats.
You are full of shit Witty and no one other than your own constituency will take you serious when you characterize the rocket fire as SHELLING and the dismantlement of settlements and removal of colonists by their own State as ETHNIC CLEANSING.
You have no intellectual credibility and no moral seriousness.
You are a wind bag.
Boycott works
"21% of Israeli exporters have been directly affected by the boycott movement since the beginning of 2009. So reports today (29 March) The Marker, a Hebrew-language economic newspaper. This number is based on a poll of 90 Israeli exporters in fields such as high tech, metals, construction materials, chemistry, textile and foods. The poll was conducted in January-February 2009 by the Israeli Union of Industrialists."
The above is from Angry Arab.
http://www.alternativenews.org/content/view/1665/104/
We are also trying to get a BDS movement off the ground at my university. It's tough work and requires a lot of time.
Hamas states they are willing to accept a hudna. Which means there be will be peace until Hamas determines it is time to attack.
Saleema: We are also trying to get a BDS movement off the ground at my university.
Good luck and best wishes!
@ Richard Witty | March 30, 2009 at 03:39 PM
Many of the largest terror incidents occurred specifically prior to meetings between the PA and Israel, between Fatah and Hamas. They were intentionally disruptive, indicating a FAILURE to make the transition from militia to political party.
Hamas has, except for a short period after its election as the majority party and before 'President' Abbas dissolved the government, been consistently ignored by the Fatah-dominated PA. Fatah has, not only with Israeli and United States' support, but with their insistence, been excluded in negotiations of any kind. Fatah has become a Western-paid collaborator with Israel, engaging in sham negotiations while their leadership raked in the cash. Fatah's corruption and betrayal of the Palestinian people is one of the major reasons for Hamas' electoral victory. It has been both Israeli and Zionist-driven American policy to not talk with Hamas because they think it will 'bestow legitimacy' on them. It is precisely because Hamas is not a collaborator organization that Israel doesn't want to deal with it. They know they can't bribe the leadership into selling out their people.
Terrorist acts are reprehensible. However, it is at best disingenuous to accuse Hamas of deliberately sabotaging sham 'negotiations' to which they were not invited, and the point of which was to provide political cover for acceleration of Israeli ethnic cleansing and colonization. Readers, check the times when the 'negotiations' were taking place and compare them to the timing of major colonization campaigns. This is no secret or conspiracy theory. Check for yourself. Fatah went along with it because their corrupt leadership got paid to do so. It is inaccurate to say that Hamas failed to make the transition from a militia to a political party WHEN THEY WERE NOT ALLOWED into the political process. When they were, they did make the transition, and they won.
The shelling of Sderot after the cease-fire ended, functionally elected likud.
What end to the cease fire? Are you referring to the cease fire that Israel violated on November 4th when America was having elections, after which Israel tried to blame the violation on Hamas before it began its terror bombing of Gaza? Or are you referring to the unilateral declaration of a cease fire after Israel decided to stop bombing? A cease fire doesn't come into effect just because Israel says it does. Cease fires are negotiated, again, something Israel has only done once, and then not in good-faith: it is well-documented in the Israeli press that Israel was already planning its attack on Gaza when it agreed to the last ceasefire, almost surely to prepare the political environment for the inevitable public relations campaign that would accompany it. It is nonsense to say that any attacks on Israel of any kind violated a ceasefire, because one did not exist.
Colin,
It was only in 2005, that Hamas EVER wanted to be considered to part of anything.
You are rationalizing.
The cease-fire restored from November 18 until December 18. Surely you read the newspapers, Haaretz say, that is widely regarded as more candid than say the NY Times.
I said "after the cease-fire ended". Actually on December 18, the cease-fire had a day to go, but Hamas gave Islamic Jihad permission to shoot rockets at Sderot.
I get the official story that you are telling, but the truth isn't that. Its not the Jerusalem Post's reporting either, but your rationalization isn't it.
Its propaganda Colin.
Hamas really did unilaterally begin shelling Sderot, without any Israeli military provocation from December 18 until the 28th. Its not "toys".
The Palestinian leadership have a moral obligation to attack the Israelis, as often, as violently and with as much loss of life on the Israeli side as they can manage.
Not to kill Israelis would be just as immoral, just as much an abnegation of responsibility as Vietnamese failing to kill the Nazi murderers from the United States who had come to rain death and destruction on a vastly weaker society.
I'm almost afraid to ask: what is the "One Big Carrot of Peace" that Waskow wants us to give to Israel? After all the billions we've given them and now with our people losing their homes and jobs, our bridges falling apart, our teachers getting pink slips, hospitals closing….when is enough ENOUGH! Obviously, the carrots haven't worked and we don't even have any left to give away anyway, so it's time to try something new.
Witty,
The ceasefire broke long before December 18th, it broke on November 5th (Barack Obama's election?) when Israel bombed targets in Gaza killing 6 Hamas members. Hamas responded by firing rockets and then stopped it's rocket fire.
Then in December, it restarted after Israel had refused an extension of the ceasefire (what was left of it).
You see how, when you put all the pieces into the Jigsaw, the picture looks very different?