The following article originally appeared in Hebrew on the Ynet website on August 25, 2010. It was translated by Dena Shunra.
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.
It is wonderful that companies, people, and even governments are taking AD HOC steps in the BDS direction. Keep it up!
It would also be wonderful, at least as a talking point, to urge governments to adopt BDS measures through legislation.
I suggest a rationale and a form for such legislation in this
essay.
I wonder if Chomsky will backtrack on his opposition to Israeli sanctions and ultimately support it like he does on South Africa.
Interesting article. Blankfort’s criticism of Chomsky is reasonable but so is, I think, the latter’s insistence on the larger criminal/problem, the US. Blankfort proposes a dual loyalty issue here:
“It would seem from that exchange that Chomsky has more respect for the opinions of Israel’s Jews than those of his fellow Americans. In applying double standards to Israel and the United States, Chomsky has been consistent. After telling the Israeli interviewer that, speaking as an American citizen, “we are responsible for our own actions and their consequences,” in the very next breath he declares that “every crime that Israel commits is with US participation and authorization,” which, even if true, which it is not, presumably would make Israel culpable, but not apparently enough, in Chomsky’s eyes, to warrant a boycott.
At the end of the day, it is evident that Chomsky’s affection for Israel, his sojourn on a kibbutz, his Jewish identity, and his early experiences with anti-Semitism to which he occasionally refers have colored his approach to every aspect of Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians and explain his defense of Israel. That is his right, of course, but not to pretend at the same that he is an advocate for justice in Palestine. That same background may also explain his resistance to acknowledging the very obvious power of the pro-Israel lobby over US Middle East policy which he, like many others who share a similar history, interpret as “blaming the Jews,” a most taboo subject.”
Well, I’d say it is perfectly respectable to clean up in front of your own house before you complain about the dreck in front of your neighbour’s door. Especially so if that neighbor/house is poorer/smaller. I never, for instance, get the demands for the US to insist on Israel’s compliance with international law and human rights. Hello??!!
You obviously regard damage to Israeli companies as a good thing and not as a form of collective punishment.
Do you think this boycott helps the Palestinians’ cause or harms it?
And, if you think that it helps it, in what respect?
Political pressure to realize a two-state consented solution?
Equal civil rights for Palestinians within the green line?
Equal civil rights for Palestinians in the West Bank?
Improvement for the status of Gazans? (How does a boycott of Israeli companies located in the West Bank help Gazans?)
Or, just rage at Israel, and that anything that sticks it to Israel is politic and effective, and somehow that is not collective punishment.
Face facts, Witty. The boycott is working. Spraying siege isn’t.
That last bit should have been “The siege isn’t.” I was originally going to inject some commentary about white phosphorous but decided to dial back the rhetoric, for reference.
Well let’s see. Israeli companies illegally doing business on the West Bank are failing. Which means settlement activity (bulldozing homes, land and water theft, the enormous system of checkpoints and concentration-camp-style barriers around Palestinian communities) is now becoming costly to Israel, instead of profitable.
You obviously regard damage to Israeli companies as a good thing and not as a form of collective punishment.
From a simple cursory reading of the article its obvious that it its not “collective punishment” but a direct refusal to either invest in or do trade with specific Israeli companies that are themselves in violation of international law and specifically the Geneva convention. Did you actually read the article, Richard, or simply skim the title as usual and knee-jerk respond? Do you find such knee-jerk, ill-informed responses of yours helpful, or are you simply acting out in rage at Adam?
Or is any action taken against specific Israeli companies that violate the law “collective punishment” in your eyes? Words have specific meanings and “collective punishment” is NOT the term for boycotts against those companies who are responsible for their own illegal actions.
Witty writes: “You obviously regard damage to Israeli companies as a good thing and not as a form of collective punishment.”
Please note that Israel, unlike some countries that have been subjected to boycotts (Cuba, Iraq) is a democracy. This means that Israelis who see it in their interest to call for political change are in a position to do so. The pressure of a boycott may (it is to be hoped) cause some or many Israelis to call for political change. That is the hope. That would be a “good thing”.
As to “collective punishment”, sure, any boycott is a form of punishment (or infliction of pain) and the wider and more effective the boycott the wider and more effective the punishment.
However, the legalistic phrase “collective punishment” describes for most readers of this blog something forbidden to an occupying power. Israel’s punishment (infliction of pain) on Gaza is forbidden by international law as “collective punishment.” Israel, by contrast with Gaza, is not an occupied territory and whatever else the boycott may be (in contemplation of law) it is not “collective punishment” in the sense of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
You obviously regard damage to Israeli companies as a good thing and not as a form of collective punishment. Do you think this boycott helps the Palestinians’ cause or harms it? And, if you think that it helps it, in what respect?
what an interesting response to the article witty. by ‘you’ do you mean adam? Dena Shunra? or perhaps didi remez who also offers a translation and coverage of this article? or perhaps you mean the publication of yediot?
you obviously regard coverage of the boycott as a bad thing and a form of collective punishment. does silence help the israelis’ cause or harms it? And, if you think that it helps it, in what respect?
It’s a tried and true method of ending apartheid, after all.
Tried once, in a very very different situation.
And, that takes an actual analysis to identify what was effective, how, to what extent, and which third parties were harmed.
very very very very different situation no doubt. in fact , alarmingly so. i’m confused tho. what distinction are you making between an analysis and an actual analysis? would you respect an actual analysis if its conclusions did not match your myoptics? take goldstone for example, that was an actual analysis and what difference did it make to israel’s defenders?
think of the advantages of the boycott taking place while you and others analyze it. multitasking is cool.
Third parties? You mean like Jack Abramoff?
Well, violence, and the threat thereof, was also very important in ending apartheid. I prefer BDS.
What political process, exactly? The one where Israel funnels in money from Europe as “Holocaust reparations,” holds mock diplomacy talks with the Palestinians, then doubles the number of settlers in occupied territory?
True enough. It boggles the mind how Israel quite recently managed to extort yet another huge sum of reparations for the expulsions of Jews during the Third Reich from Germany, while simultaneously expelling Palestinians from their homes in EJ and the WB. Why don’t Israelis see the bitter irony of this, and why does Germany, of all countries, not get it either???
Claims from the Israeli right against the legitimacy of boycotts in general should be taken with a few grains of salt from the Sea of Gaza (as Arafat used to say). The very same people promote multiple country-wide and company- specific boycotts for “anti-Semitism”. Netanyahu himself has urged Israelis to boycott Turkey.
It is important to point out to those who accept the logic of boycotting settlement goods that it is the government and society that create policy in the OT that should be boycotted, and not just goods manufactured by settlers in the OT. As Omar Barghouti has pointed out, those who oppose Chinese policies in Tibet do not limit their boycott to goods produced by Chinese settlers in Tibet, but boycott China itself.
I wouldn’t sweat it, Shmuel. If Israel does “threaten them that they will not be party to the political process,” the countries with which the boycott movement has been successful will do just that.
That threat of boycotting “participation” in the political “process” is certainly strange. After all, the boycott is meant to be a tool to underscore the “processing” of the political process to whitewash the reality of deprivations Palestinians are subjected to. BDS is, after all, a course of action undertaken in response to the realization hat there is not much of a political “process” to be had with Israel, only the illusion of one.
much appreciation for the translation btw.
“Settlement boycott causing ‘enormous damage’ to Israeli companies operating in the West Bank”
Why don’t they try to make the “better argument” instead? Tsk..tsk.tsk…