This is amazing. Next Tuesday evening, several groups will be picketing Ricky's NY, a cosmetics store in Brooklyn Heights that sells Ahava products, which are made in the occupied West Bank from minerals that belong to Palestinians. Nancy Kricorian of Code Pink, one of the organizers (along with Brooklyn for Peace, Jews Say No, and Jewish Voice for Peace), writes:
We have a sound permit for Tuesday [from 5:30-6:30 p.m.], and some people will be wearing monster masks that go with signs saying "Occupation is an Ugly Business/Don't buy Ahava products at Ricky's NY." The long-expected pushback started when we took the campaign to Brooklyn. Last month the counter-protesters included Hasids in black suits, some Hebron-settler-style young men wearing clown wigs, and Orthodox women who emerged from the store triumphantly clutching the Ahava products they had just purchased. Their chant was "Not One Inch."
There's another factor in the Brooklyn protest. Last summer in the Brooklyn Paper, two liberal Brooklyn rabbis, Rabbi Andy Bachman of Congregation Beth Elohim in Park Slope and Rabbi Ellen Lippman of Kolot Chayeinu took on Code Pink and urged Brooklynites to buy products made in the Occupied Territories! There were several rabbis signing the letter, but Bachman and Lippman stand out because they have such status in the progressive community. Bachman hosted Rashid Khalidi at his synagogue, and Combatants for Peace (though I'm told the map in his Hebrew school shows no Green Line for the Occupied Territories-- true, Rabbi?). Lippman is on the board of Rabbis for Human Rights (and despite her human rights concerns, she has warm n fuzzy feelings for Israel as "that grand experiment in Jewish self-determination").
What's amazing about their letter is the acceptance of the occupation, and the declaration of Area C as somehow Israel's territory! The rabbis:
CODEPINK ignores the history and legal status of Mizpeh Shalom, where the Ahava products in question are manufactured. In fact, Mizpeh Shalom is an Israeli Kibbutz founded in 1970 in an uninhabited area alongside the Dead Sea, near the southern boundary of the West Bank. According to the Oslo II accords, signed in 1995 by Israel and the Palestinian Authority, Mizpeh Shalom is part of “Area C”, a huge section of the West Bank over which Israel, again by joint agreement, was granted full control, except over Palestinian civilians.
As Rabbis, we pray and work for an end to the insecurity of Israelis and the sufferings of Palestinians. This will not come about through movements which are one-sided, and which would rather demonize and blacklist, rather than focus on effective, realistic political change.
Meanwhile, we encourage you to purchase Ahava products at Ricky’s, and to contact Dom Costello, Ricky’s CEO, [number deleted], and by leaving a comment at Rickysnyc.com (click on “log in” and then “contact us”). Tell Ricky’s that you expect them to give Israeli products the same access as those of any other democratic, law abiding country.
Last summer, Brooklyn For Peace (BFP) renewed its call to boycott Ahava products and made clear the status of Mitzpe Shalem.
The abuse that probably poses the greatest threat to the possibility for peace between Israelis and Palestinians has been the constantly expanding settlement of Palestinian lands by Israelis who, with the backing of their government, take control of an area and its resources. Contrary to the rabbis’ letter, Ahava products are, in fact, produced through unlawful appropriation of resources of the Occupied West Bank by a settlement located in the Occupied West Bank, under a partnership with organizations that profit from and fund the settlement of the West Bank. Specifically, Ahava’s manufacturing facility is located in Mitzpe Shalem, which is located in the West Bank. Two West Bank settlements (Mitzpe Shalem and Kalia) own 44.69% of the stock in Ahava—Dead Sea Laboratories Ltd, according to certificates from the Israeli Registrar of Companies. Another 37% of Ahava is held by Hamashbir Holdings, an investment fund that also invests in the export of agricultural products from West Bank settlements.
What is the applicable law? As the Israeli High Court of Justice acknowledged in a 2005 decision, the West Bank is “held by the State of Israel in belligerent occupation.” Consequently, as the Court stated, the legal regime that applies there is determined by public international law regarding belligerent occupation, including the Fourth Geneva Convention. Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” Thus, all of the Israeli settlements in the West Bank, including Miztpe Shalem and Kalia, exist in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Under the Convention, the only legitimate interests and duties of the occupying power concern the security needs of the people in the home territory of that power and the needs of the people being occupied. Settlement and expropriation of resources by civilians from the home territory are not lawful activities, and serve no security purpose for Israel.
The consequences of the illegal settlement of the West Bank are not theoretical. Apart from the day-to-day hardships that the settlement infrastructure has created for Palestinians and the persistent violent harassment of Palestinians by settlers, the settlements are perhaps the single greatest obstacle to peace.
The letter from the Brooklyn rabbis seeks to muddy the status, and therefore the role, of Mitzpe Shalem in obstructing peace. The letter correctly states that Mitzpe Shalem is located in what the now-defunct Oslo Accords had designated as Area C, the area in which all the illegal settlements are located. While the Oslo Accords initially placed that area under Israeli military control as part of a phased transition to Palestinian control, the Accords never transferred sovereignty over Area C to the Israeli government, as the 2005 High Court decision demonstrates. In any event, the transfer of Area C was blocked in 2000, by the Israeli government under the leadership of the current Prime Minister, Benyamin Netanyahu, and the Oslo process came to an end. To suggest that Mitzpe Shalem is not illegal because it may someday be part of some future agreement is, at best, wishful thinking. The West Bank remains Occupied territory; the settlements remain illegal; there can be no peace agreement as long as Israel continues its settlement project. Mitzpe Shalem remains an obstacle to peace, not part of the solution.
The rabbis criticize the boycott movement for not taking a position on “positive attempts to resolve the decades old Israeli-Palestinian conflict. . . .” In fact, our Ahava boycott campaign is precisely a positive attempt to remove one of the greatest obstacles to peace--the illegal settlement of the West Bank--and to restore a commitment to international law and respect for human rights. There can be no positive move toward peace without a commitment to law and human rights. The rabbis' misguided call to support Israel by buying these illegally produced products for the profit of illegal settlements is antithetical to any call for peace or justice. And there can be no peace without justice.
Its obviously in response to the imposed isolation of BDS, and not an advocacy in its own right.
“Its obviously in response to the imposed isolation of BDS, and not an advocacy in its own right.”
It is definitely advocacy. There is a clear option to avoid BDS – end settlements and lift thr blockade.
These religious nuts want to continue both.
I knew we could count on you to keep trying drowning the fish, Mr Witty..
BDS is doing a good job. A year ago, I would never have been able to identify which products are from occupied Palestine. Now, I am familiar with a few brands and buy alternative products.
Thanks BDS!
I’m very disappointed in Rabbi Andy Bachman; I know him to be a good man. I think he is open to reason, so I hope he sees this post, or others like it.
In the meantime, BDS continues.
Some ideas are too shocking for a person to “allow in”. “Cognitive dissonance” makes it impossible for a believer in Israel’s absolute right to do whatever it wants to any Palestinian person and with Palestinian lands to “hear” “see” etc. — international law, its applicability, the human rights violations, etc. ad naus.
In short, OUR WORLD is invisible to SOME PEOPLE.
These rabbis sound pretty badly infected with “see no evil” perhaps from an advanced case of cognitive dissonance. But, by all means, talk to them.
I IMAGINE THE CONVERSATION:
Oh, yes, I’m for human rights? Really? Oh yes, 100%. And what do you think about Israel’s occupation of Gaza or the West Bank — is there any human rights aspect there that you can see? Oh yes! What is it? Surely you know! I’m not sure what you mean.
OK, what I mean is that because of the Holocaust, the human rights of the Jewish people require the safety and security of the State of Israel and the safety of all (Jewish) Israeli people. Israel has determined (conclusively, by the way, in case you were wondering) that its safety and security depend on occupying and holding (and, often, on expropriating) Palestinian lands. It’s hard on the Palestinians, but that is they way it is.
Oh. I see.
>> I IMAGINE THE CONVERSATION:
You’d make an excellent Zio-”humanist”. ;-)
Cognitive dissonance…
link to kolotchayeinu.org
Rabbi Lippmann serves on the Executive Committee and board of Rabbis for Human Rights-North America, and on the board of The Shalom Center. In late 2006, she chaired THE FIRST NORTH AMERICAN RABBINIC CONFERENCE ON JUDAISM & HUMAN RIGHTS. She is also on the rabbinic councils of Jews for Racial and Economic Justice and Brit Tzedek vShalom.
RE: “liberal Brooklyn rabbis, Rabbi Andy Bachman of Congregation Beth Elohim in Park Slope and Rabbi Ellen Lippman of Kolot Chayeinu took on Code Pink and urged Brooklynites to buy products made in the Occupied Territories!” – Weiss
MY COMMENT: Shame on Rabbis Bachman and Lippman!
Her heart is moved by the memorial to the Israeli troops who died in the ’67 war with Syria, which started up as a dispute concerning the right of Israel to build its National Water Carrier to pipe water to lower Israel from the Sea of Galilee. Moshe Dayan claimed many years later that 80% of the incidents were deliberately provoked by Israel. If she loves Israel as much as she says she does, one can’t, reading her words, but wonder why she has not moved there. Absence makes the heart grow fonder? One reason given for Israel’s premeditated attack on the USS Liberty was Israel feared what the intelligence-gathering ship would discover Israel’s intentions and activity relative to Syria were decidedly different than what Israel had promised President Johnson. Ah, but that’s what self-governance means, right?
So it really is that simple:
Area C belongs to Israel.
Area A to Palestinians.
“Peace talks” are all about Area B.
Here are the facts:
link to peacenow.org
Here is the “desired” outcome of “peace talks”:
link to mondoweiss.net
They have chosen to be New Afrikaaners rather than Righteous Jews.
I propose a helicopter pilot take these Rabbis, land somewhere in the Balata refugee camp, drop them off and leave them there for a week or two.
Something tells me they are going to change their minds.
Is this the same Ricky’s that sells tons of Halloween costumes to New Yorkers at this time of year?
I have no tender feelings towards men of religion (all religions) in general but I have to admit that those “liberal” rabbis are starting to ‘heat my ears’ (Google translation for ‘me chauffer les oreilles’, hehe..) !!
The dynamics on this site work to take away any middle ground between hardcore supporters of BDS and Palestinian rights, and strong supporters of the Israeli security state. It’s a version of ‘who is not with me is against me’ which is sort of the same logic of the ADL and AIPAC folks. It’s destructive, and takes away from the ability of people to transition from a strident my-way-or-the-highway mentality to one of supporting peace and reconciliation.
Personally, I think the boycott of Ahava products is justified, and think that Rabbis Bachman and Lippman might someday change their mind on it. But it’s not unusual to find progressive Jews and Israelis who support some version of Palestinian rights to exempt Ahava and the settlement that owns it.
It’s a result of those settlers cultivating a sense that ‘they are not like those others’, working with environmental orgs doing regional work, getting a free pass from the Palestinian Authority back in the days when that meant anything, and a kind of geographic blindness that saw the Dead Sea region as related to Israeli/Jordanian issues, not Israeli/Palestinian.
I’ve met folks who supported Gush Shalom’s boycott of settlement products, would never visit a settlement, but who thought Ahava was fine.
That’s not a defense of buying those products. Or even of rabbis signing that basically negative letter. It’s more that having Bachman and Lippman feel a need to stand publicly against BDS speaks to a kind of failure of the movement to make inroads that might have been possible.
When Gush Shalom initiated the boycott of settlement products, it was far ahead of the curve. That sweet spot, of defining settlements as the weak underbelly of the occupation makes perfect sense. Liberal rabbis in the US have no problem supporting their removal or even seeing those settlers as ‘others’ who detract from Israeli security and well being.
Unfortunately, the move visible leaders of the BDS movement – for political and ideological reasons – decided to erase the Green Line. While affirming that BDS is whatever you want it to be on the one hand, they argue against a focus on ending the 67 occupation on the other. This blurring has had an impact, allowing right wingers to paint the movement for Palestinian rights as fundamentally about erasing the right of Israel to exist, something that is mostly false.
Some of the great groups highlighted on this very site are well aware of that, and take protective measures. Jewish Voice for Peace, for example, has been careful to go after targets that are profiting from occupation: Caterpillar comes to mind. They haven’t stepped in around efforts to boycott Israeli cultural events or products – and for good reason.
But adopting and defending the stance of JVP, or Gush Shalom means risking demonization from the community here. And it’s precisely the ability to work in shades of gray that make it possible to have dialogue with progressive rabbis who oppose the occupation but want to support Israel’s existence.
If BDS can be a tool to rid Israel of occupation, then it’s a great tactic. If it’s a tool to blur the distinction between Israel and the occupation, then it’s a boon to the Zionist right, helping to strengthen it at the expense of Palestinian rights. Somewhere in Brooklyn, whoever got Bachman and Lippman to sign that letter is smirking and thinking, ‘damn right you BDS assholes. Keep it up!’
clenchner: Thank you for a useful, thoughtful comment. I hope you get some valuable responses in return.
Clenchner, there are some in the middle but you’re not seeing them because they’re not waving a flag identifying themselves as such. I don’t consider myself in any of the categories you listed although I’m very pro-BDS. You’re almost saying that the dynamics of the site are responsible for making extremists of the people here but it’s what’s happening on the ground that is making them come across as you are seeing them. Don’t blame the people for being pissed-off at Israel.; they have reason to be.
Most of what you wrote has to do with perceptions and framing, both by settler movements and by self-styled leftists in Israeli politics.
As for the goal of BDS, keep in mind that with its refusal to end the theft of Palestinian land (settlements), Israel has forced the hand of anyone who cares about basic human rights and civil rights.
And finally, you need to keep in mind that the situation is dire. Israel’s home demolitions in Silwan, the terrorist attacks by the settlers on schools and mosques in the occupied territories, coupled with the continued Israeli siege on Gaza are pushing the reality on the ground to the brink of disaster. In other words, the Israeli government is looking to escalate the situation, the oppression of Palestinians, the violence used against them, all in an effort to push them to start a third Intifadah.
Why? Because the Israeli government is trapped in these “peace talks” which it considers pesky and embarrassing. It has an agenda to build more facts on the ground and take more land in occupied East Jerusalem. Thus, the “peace talks” constitute an obstacle.
So, while those “middle ground” folks — as you call them — are dipping their toes in the water to check whether it’s too cold or too hot, the Palestinians are already drowning in the deep end as the Israeli government is holding their collective heads underwater.
Do you hear that thrashing, splashing and gurgling? That’s a cry for help.
clencher ~ that’s reads to me as a rather long way of saying the BDS Movement should abandon Palestinian’s rights and adopt a two-state solution to calm the jangled nerves of a population (American jews) that has almost universally supported Israel in every effort it has made to destroy the Palestinian people.
Am I correct?
I’m up for a longer discussion but later. Just want to establish what you’re really proposing as an alternative direction for the BDS Movement.
To clarify ~ I’m up for a longer more nuanced discussion but later.
Sumud, I have to reject your framing. It’s not two states OR BDS. It’s Palestinian solidarity as a diverse place that includes one, two and no staters, or Palestinian solidarity as a vehicle for addressing the ‘problem’ of Israel’s existence.
This is the essence of ‘small tent’ politics: the need to push folks outside the tent for not accepting the party line. And who gets to decide the party line? The folks in the smallest tent!
Since I grew up as a follower of Tewfiq Zayyad, Emil Touma and other Palestinian national heroes, the cudgel of not being sufficiently pro-Palestinian ‘enough’ simply has no effect.
The horror and tragedy happening right now demand, as I see it, maximum expansion of alliances to encircle supporters of occupation. The alternative is letting occupation supporters to encircle the Palestinians. The more extreme the language, the more damage to Palestinian rights.
Letter from a Birmingham Jail
Apropos of this discussion.
Clencher, I’m confused by what you are arguing.
You said that the “more visible leaders” of the BDS movement are “erasing the green line.” I’m not sure what that means? The BDS movement, as per the call for BDS from Palestinian civil society in 2005, demands the following: 1) End of the occupation of all Arab lands (meaning Golan Heights included), 2) Right of Return for Refugees, and 3) Equality for Palestinian citizens of Israel. That is “blurring the line” and somehow hinting at an end of Israel’s existence? If so, then your implication is that asking for fundamental rights afforded the Palestinians by international law would lead to the end of Israel as a state. First, what does that say about Israel? And second, I don’t agree with you – I’m quite sure Israel can reform itself to abide by international law and function an as actual democracy.
So it sounds like there is no difference between what is being said by the “more visible leaders” of BDS and the Palestinian call, supported by over 170 Palestinian civil society organizations based in the ’67 territories, ’48 territories (Israel), and diaspora.
Furthermore, if your idea is that they should focus only on the occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza, then my question to you would be: Who is funding settlements? Who built them? How do they continue to function (electricity, water, etc)? How are they protected? Who is giving them citizenship? Are they prohibited from attending Academic institutions inside Israel? The answer to all of these questions is Israel (with the last question being a resounding NO). The occupation, the settlements, none of it is disconnected from Israel, its government, its institutions, all of which actively support and often promote the settlements & occupation.
PS: I appreciate your thoughts & contribution. I simply disagree. I hope you don’t turn around and label me an “extremist” who is “damaging Palestinian rights.”
clenchner,
The obstacle into which you repeatedly run seems to be the simple fact that:
A. BDS goals change in accordance with the reality on the ground. The two state reality was killed by Israel. That means that the BDS movement now needs to take into consideration not only the rights of the Palestinians under occupation, but also the right of return, and the rights of refugees scattered about the Middle East.
B. All the strategies of talking to this organization, uniting with that organization, non-violence, violence, speeches, and so on and so forth, have all been tried and failed. But, you simply ignore that fact.
In essence you expect a different outcome from the same old and tried strategy. That is your number one deficiency. That is to say that you claim to understand Middle East politics, claim to have studied brain surgery (That’s a hyperbole I’m using to make a point), and yet you seem to be oblivious to what goes on around you. The “big tent” strategy has been tried numerous times. It failed. That’s why the “small tent” strategy of a focused and concerted BDS effort is the only option left at this point.
If you insist on trying the failed strategies over and over while expecting different results, then don’t be surprised should someone call you insane.
That can’t be too difficult to understand, can it?
What a ridiculous thing to say. The Israeli government erased the Green Line … with increasingly seamless extension of Israeli government services, e.g. roads, power lines, post, etc, to myriad Jewish colonies in the West Bank like maggots competitively eating their way to the center of a corpse.
lame it on the powerless activists, LOL.
The majority of Jewish posters that bear sympathy with Israel are in the grey.
Wondering Jew, Yonira, myself, others.
The “lead” of solidarity has alienated us. The “lead” of Phil/Adam/others has alienated us.
The great divide is apparent. Those that describe “Zionism is racism” by definition, inevitable in application, are in the either/or camp.
There is no single state with them, and no peaceful two state. They don’t actually speak for human rights, as that includes Israelis’, even settlers. They speak for a story, partially true story.
The liberal rabbis’ argument is that the Oslo agreement gives Israel the right not just to control militarily but to exploit economically and establish property in the area called C. As Eva has remarked, this argument seems to imply that Area C is already a permanent, validly conceded part of Israel, with all that that implies. Plenty of fishbones to stick in liberal throats there.
Perhaps the rabbis’ deeper concern is that if you delegitimate anything coming out of Oslo you delegitimate Israel’s overriding insistence, much recognised at Oslo, on being secure. Then if you delegitimate anything insisted on by Israel through its elected leaders you deny the genuineness of Israel’s democracy and very soon you’ll be deligitimating Israel lock stock and barrel. Rank 1-statism will ensue. Anti-occupation BDS can’t in logic stop short of being anti-Israel BDS and even if all the Carteresque protestations of admiration and friendship for the true Israel are made in the most effusive terms they cannot be taken at face value.
The rabbis might have a point.
The environmentalist settlers reason:
“We live here now” “G-D is our king, human institutions are passing whether Zionist or Palestinian”.
“If we live here, we will live in as kind relations to our neighbors and our environment as is possible”.
As I consider the transition to a sustainable way of life as THE important political stance in the modern world, and even the important Israel/Palestinian issue as then secondary, I support settlers that are living rightly, even if some only see their badge, or skin color, or religion or origination.
I favor their continued residence, continued good neighbor relations, and continued obligation to compensate for any deficiencies in legal title.