Phan Nguyen, a member of the Olympia Food Co-op, defends of the co-op's Israeli boycott in the Tacoma, WA News Tribune:
When we talk about the Israel/Palestine conflict, we cannot talk about it in the third person. It is our conflict, as it is our taxpayer dollars that supply Israel’s weapons of war and our diplomatic cover that allows war crimes and human rights abuses to thrive.
When our own government fails to end the violence – or worse, encourages violence and conflict – then it is time for the common people to step in.
It is with that concern that the Olympia Food Co-op board of directors added Israeli products to its list of boycotts. The call for boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) on Israel originated from Palestinian civil society organizations and has been endorsed by Jewish Israeli peace activists and by organizations around the world.
The goal is for Israel to end its illegal military occupation, abide by international law and respect Palestinian human rights.
A boycott is a tactic for change. It is not a tool for rejection. When people boycotted the Montgomery buses, they were working to end segregation, not to reject buses. When activists boycotted South Africa, they were working to end apartheid, not to push the whites into the ocean.
This is a good motto for everyone here. Little by little, step by step, to shift the ground under the Zionist hegemony.
Great statement, one of the most effective I’ve read.
Phan Nguyen, thank you.
Phan Nguyen was one of Rachel Corrie’s profs when she attended Evergreen State. In 2003 he wrote a devastating Counterpunch analysis of Joshua Hammer’s hit piece the latter wrote for Mother Jones.
There’s an easier reading version (through great formatting) of Nguyen’s article, posted in 2006 at rachelswords.org.
Thanks for the background information, Philip. I appreciate it.
The co-op’s attitude should be copied by the UNGA.
The UNGA should pass a resolution pointing to Israel’s crimes and to the UNSC’s failure to act to stop or prevent same, and then RECOMMEND that each nation enact a boycott/sanctions regime which is based on each nation’s responsibility (if it is one) AS a High Contracting Party to “ensure respect” for the Fourth Geneva Convention “under all circumstances” and to state that the legislation is undertaken as that nation’s effort (hopefully in concert with many others) to “ensure respect”, presumably a boycott/sanctions regime to continue in place until the blockade of Gaza ends and the settlers are removed and the wall removed. AT A MINIMUM.
Perhaps a boycott would be no more than cessation of commercial air traffic. Perhaps it would end all trade in arms. Perhaps it would end all trade, absolutely. But, whatever EACH boycott amounted to, the weight of many of these (my fingers are crossed here) could be substantial.