Trending Topics:

‘NYT’ covers historic American boycott vote by quoting 3 Israelis attacking it

Israel/Palestine
on 51 Comments
Omar Barghouti

Omar Barghouti

The New York Times today concedes the changing reality in recognizing that the boycott-Israel movement is growing. But it does everything it can to undermine the movement’s impact.

The boycott vote of the of American Studies Association is on front page of New York Times: “Boycott by Academic Group Is a Symbolic Sting to Israel,” by Richard Perez-Pena and Jodi Rudoren.

But the first two comments in the paper are from opponents of the measure, a leading Israeli scholar (“It’s almost like a family betrayal,” said Manuel Trajtenberg)  followed by Israeli ambassador Ron Dermer. This is followed by a third comment, from Avraham Burg, that says he’s a leftist but he’s against the boycott.

Not until the 16th paragraph does boycott proponent Omar Barghouti get cited with one quotation:

“It is perhaps the strongest indicator yet that the B.D.S. movement is reaching a tipping point, even in the U.S., the last bastion of support for Israel’s unjust system,” he said.

Then it’s back to the negativity. The Times quotes Mahmoud Abbas publicly rejecting boycott of Israel and an adviser to Abbas saying we are not asking anyone to boycott products of Israel.

The Times had to cover this news. But how did they do it? They attacked it before they even told you what it was. You have to get to the 16th paragraph to find anyone who spoke out in favor of it– even though it won, 2-1.

Couldn’t they have found someone in the American Studies Association who voted for it? There were 1252 votes in the ASA. 66 percent were in favor. So that’s more than 800.

They couldn’t find any one of the 800 American scholars to explain why they voted for this historic measure? Not one?

Correction: The last paragraph of the NYT article does include a quotation from a Stanford Professor, David Palumbo-Liu, which seems to support the boycott.

James North
About James North

Other posts by .


Posted In:

51 Responses

  1. pabelmont
    pabelmont
    December 17, 2013, 10:34 am

    They didn’t need new interviews. They could simply have quoted any one or more of the already-published ENDORSEMENTS in support of the boycott that were published here in Mondoweiss.

  2. Citizen
    Citizen
    December 17, 2013, 11:01 am

    Compare the depth this NYT article from 1966 goes into about the former apartheid regime in S Africa: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/blogs/learning/pdf/2013/19660619peopleothersLN.pdf

  3. Citizen
    Citizen
    December 17, 2013, 11:12 am

    CAMERA has a blog and video devoted to NYT bias against Israel; at a glance, mostly centered on NYT coverage of Iran, Syria, I-P: http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=68&x_article=2602

    • Citizen
      Citizen
      December 17, 2013, 11:25 am

      One recent example CAMERA’s claiming to show NYT & other mainstream/blog bias against Israel, is they all noted Israel’s PM not attending Mandela Memorial, but did not note that Turkey’s PM and the Dali Lama did attend either. (Hasbara 101: Charlie Brown’s “Why is everybody picking on little old me? What about the others?”)
      Another example is claimed NYT deference to US government’s estimate of how much sanctions against Iran damage it (more), as compared to Israeli finance guy’s (less).

      http://blog.camera.org/archives/2013/12/wheres_the_coverage_netanyahu_1.html

      • piotr
        piotr
        December 17, 2013, 10:50 pm

        There is no way to please these people. Would NYT be silent on the issue of Israel sending someone for the funeral, they would be accused of ignoring the most treasured ally of USA.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        December 17, 2013, 11:18 pm

        Oops, I meant to say Turkey’s PM and the Dali Lama did NOT attend either.

    • philweiss
      philweiss
      December 17, 2013, 11:27 am

      I concur with this piece; and would add, This is an American organization, and American political/intellectual/cultural history. Why is the Times quoting Israelis? I’d imagine the Gray Lady looked on developments in the South Africa boycott movement in a more neutral manner, and interviewed American leaders who had taken steps back then.
      And why not interview the Methodists. Does the ASA vote portend a change in the weather in that church?

      • W.Jones
        W.Jones
        December 17, 2013, 12:42 pm

        “Why is the Times quoting Israelis?”
        Because the Times is “pro-Israel”. American politicians are too. Americans also lean in that direction. So the Times is part of what it is.

        “I’d imagine the Gray Lady looked on developments in the South Africa boycott movement in a more neutral manner, and interviewed American leaders who had taken steps back then.”
        Yes. America’s Congress got to the point where it strongly supported a boycott.
        I think that the US left though would be divided over BDS, but probably not in support of it yet on average. But maybe I am wrong, as the ASA showed. I think the more people learn about the issue the more they will support it, and that explains why the academic group took the position.

        “And why not interview the Methodists.”
        Because they were not part of the ASA decision. Had the NYT wished to make an article that gave a serious consideration to the ASA decision they might have interviewed the Methodists.

        “Does the ASA vote portend a change in the weather in that church?”
        Yes.

        Thanks for your articles, Phil.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        December 17, 2013, 11:26 pm

        The NYT archives reveal that it published articles that went deep into the wrongs in apartheid S Africa before that regime was isolated by world consensus to the point it had to step down. The more average Americans learn about the I-P situation, the more they will support BDS. The NYT is a yellow journalism rag when it comes to this issue. It’s not an arm of democracy dedicated to informed consent. Thus, on this issue, at least, and it’s a BIG issue, the NYT deserves to be taken down from its former position as defender of the voice of the people.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        December 18, 2013, 12:15 am

        @Phillip —

        The South African boycott movement was popular with the Congressional Black Caucus long before it was mainstream with liberals. So by the time there was a South African boycott movement in any large scale sense it had political support. This was acceptable position once it became public discourse. And very quickly after becoming public discourse the support in congress grew.

        In the case of BDS there are domestic political groups with stature that would likely favor a less pro-Israeli approach in particular the foreign policy realists in the mainstream republican party and their financial backers the oil companies. Then their are the paleoconservatives. None of which are nearly as large or united. Outside of those everyone is a Zionist. BDS is a movement of the left, and isn’t isolationist so it can’t even cooperate. So BDS gets treated like a fringe movement.

        With the NYTimes in particular, as the saying goes for the NYTimes Israeli policy is a municipal issue. NYTimes readership quite often has particular Israeli parties they like or see themselves as supporting. So BDS is going to get covered the way members of the Sunni resistance or Mexican drug cartels get covered; people who are attacking us.

        There were lots of people who supported the SA government, and opposed the antiapartheid movement. But no one that I knew back in the heyday of the antiapartheid movement identified with Afrikaners. So no one (at least mainstream), even the most strident defenders of SA, felt personally attacked by antiapartheid activism. Everyone saw this as moral vs. pragmatic. They could see how people could be on the other side.

        BDS doesn’t really aim for that sort of legitimacy. They use really strident language and aim to hurt people’s feelings, they aim to offend. And frankly they have a much tougher problem because people do identify with Israel.

  4. hophmi
    hophmi
    December 17, 2013, 11:42 am

    “They couldn’t find any one of the 800 American scholars to explain why they voted for this historic measure? Not one?”

    Did you miss the long quote from the Stanford professor at the end of the piece?

    • James North
      James North
      December 17, 2013, 12:01 pm

      You are right, hophmi. But surely you noticed that the Stanford professor who appears at the very end is responding to yet another attack on the boycott, this one by the American Association of University Professors.
      My scorecard reads: Anti-Boycott: 4 people quoted
      Pro-Boycott: 2 people quoted — deep in the story
      What’s more, Shmuel and others can clarify, but I believe it is illegal for Israelis to advocate for a boycott — a point the article should have made.

      • annie
        annie
        December 17, 2013, 12:26 pm

        I believe it is illegal for Israelis to advocate for a boycott — a point the article should have made.

        instead, they chose to run a false claim by ron dermer:

        , the A.S.A. chooses as its first ever boycott to boycott Israel, the sole democracy in the Middle East, in which academics are free to say what they want, write what they want and research what they want,” Ron Dermer, Israel’s ambassador to the United States, said Monday.

        that is simply untrue. http://www.adalah.org/eng/?mod=db&dld_page=law&slg=anti-boycott-law-prevention-of-damage-to-the-state-of-israel-through-boycott

        Description: The Anti-Boycott Law, passed on 11 July 2011, prohibits the public promotion of academic, economic or cultural boycott by Israeli citizens and organizations against Israeli institutions or illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank. It enables the filing of civil lawsuits against anyone who calls for boycott; it creates a new “civil wrong” or tort. It also prohibits a person who calls for boycott from participating in any public tender.

        The law also provides for the revocation of tax exemptions and other economic benefits given by the state from Israeli associations, as well as academic, cultural and scientific institutions which receive state support, if they call for or engage in boycott. The court may also award compensation, including punitive damages, even if no actual damage is proven.

        Furthermore, the law provides that Israeli businesses, which publicly declare that they will not buy supplies or goods manufactured in the OPT may have their state-sponsored benefits revoked. As such, the law severely restricts freedom of expression and targets non-violent political opposition to the Occupation.

        http://www.adalah.org/eng/?mod=db&dld_page=law&slg=nakba-law-amendment-no-40-to-the-budgets-foundations-law

        Description: The “Nakba Law” authorizes the Finance Minister to reduce state funding or support to an institution if it holds an activity that rejects the existence of Israel as a “Jewish and democratic state” or commemorates “Israel’s Independence Day or the day on which the state was established as a day of mourning.”

        Palestinians traditionally mark Israel’s official Independence Day as a national day of mourning and organize commemorative events. The law violates their rights, and restricts their freedom to express their opinion, and will cause substantial harm to cultural and educational institutions and further entrench discrimination. The law causes major harm to the principle of equality and the rights of Arab citizens to preserve their history and culture. The law deprives Arab citizens of their right to commemorate the Nabka, an integral part of their history.

      • piotr
        piotr
        December 17, 2013, 10:58 pm

        I think that it is mostly true that Israelis have academic freedom. The government tried to dissolve political science department of BGU for being a den of anti-Zionists, but this project seems to be abandoned.

        But if it is true that arts, sports and academics should be exempt from the consequences of conflicts and the conduct of their states or independent political units, should it also be true for Gaza etc.? Personally, I think that a “partial peace” would be an excellent idea. I am partially quoting Ghandi here; allegedly asked what does he think about the Western civilization, he replied that it would be an excellent idea.

  5. Donald
    Donald
    December 17, 2013, 12:28 pm

    “A number of American scholars, while angry at Israeli policies in the West Bank, say they oppose singling Israel out over other countries with far worse human rights records.”

    This is such BS. Anyone really angry at Israeli policies in the WB would notice that the US has been acting as Israel’s enabler and lawyer for decades. If they disagree with a boycott of Israeli universities, they would keep a sense of perspective about it. The US habitually singles out Israel by defending it against charges of human rights violations. And are any of these boycott critics speaking out against the blockade on Gaza? Not that I’ve seen. Do they worry about innocents who suffer under the sanctions on Iran? Not that you’d notice. Boycotts and sanctions imposed by our government or the Israeli government which do real harm to ordinary people don’t bother them at all. Or if it does, somehow nobody ever hears them complaining about it. Their “anger” at Israeli policies seems mainly a cover for attacking people who draw attention to those policies.

    • Citizen
      Citizen
      December 17, 2013, 11:38 pm

      @ Donald
      Follow the track record of the US in the UN SC vetoes played arena. No country is singled out so often to be protected by the US veto, usually a lone veto.

  6. DaveS
    DaveS
    December 17, 2013, 12:30 pm

    James, thanks for pointing this out. I did notice as I read the article that I was waiting a long time for the Palestinian pro-boycott position, that finally, belatedly, arrived.

    I would add one thing. The ASA Board recommended this decision unanimously but still left it up to a membership vote that overwhelmingly supported the recommendation. The article discusses the anti-boycott position taken by the much larger AAUP, which has almost ten times the ASA membership. Presumably, this anti-boycott position was taken by its leadership. Wouldn’t it be fair for them to allow the membership to vote, like the ASA board did?

  7. LeaNder
    LeaNder
    December 17, 2013, 12:35 pm

    I start to find these enforced linguistic particles slightly amusing:

    Israel, the sole democracy in the Middle East

    But then, I have just encountered “Israel’s national water company, Mekorot ” in Hatim Kanaaneh’s: A Doctor in Galilee: The Life and Struggle of a Palestinian…

    Wrote Manuel Trajtenberg in 2005. Hmm, really superficial look, I have to read that more closely.

    Defense R&D in the Anti-terrorist Era

    Abstract

    This paper seeks to analyze the nature of the terrorist threat following 9/11, and to explore the implications for defense R&D policy. First it reviews the defining trends of defense R&D since the cold war, and brings in pertinent empirical evidence: The US accumulated during the 1990s a defense R&D stock 10 times larger than any other country, and almost 30 times larger than Russia. Big weapon systems, key during the cold war but of dubious significance since then still figure prominently, commanding 30% of current defense R&D spending, vis a vis just about 13% for intelligence and antiterrorism. The second part of the paper examines the nature of the terrorist threat, focusing on the role of uncertainty, the lack of deterrence, and the extent to which security against terrorism is (still) a public good. I develop for that purpose a simple model of terrorism, cast in a nested discrete choice framework. Two strategies are considered: fighting terrorism at its source, and protecting individual targets, which entails a negative externality. Contrary to the traditional case of national defense, security against terrorism becomes a mixed private/public good. A key result of the model is that the government should spend enough on fighting terrorism at its source, so as to nullify the incentives of private targets to invest in their own security. Intelligence emerges as the key aspect of the war against terrorism and, accordingly, R&D aimed at providing advanced technological means for intelligence is viewed as the cornerstone of defense R&D. This entails developing computerized sensory interfaces, and increasing the ability to analyze vast amounts of data. Both have direct civilian applications, and therefore the required R&D is mostly “dual use”. Indeed, there is already a private market for these systems, with a large number of players. R&D programs designed to preserve this diversity and to encourage further competition may prove beneficial both for the required R&D, and for the economy at large.

    my emphasis

    Page 28:

    The model thus provides a clear, sharp-edged answer to the question posed: the government should spend on fighting terrorism at its source as much as it takes so as to induce private targets to spend nothing on local security.

    author’s emphasis, I hope it will work. No, it doesn’t picture the bold passage also italicized and “nothing” unlined.

    Beyond that, I wish I had Phil’s optimism, but then I guess little steps count. Without doubt MW is a very important enterprise.

  8. annie
    annie
    December 17, 2013, 12:37 pm

    perhaps it is because i woke up today in somewhat of a daze recovering from a bad flu. but when i opened the homepage and saw barghouti’s photo and expression i burst into tears.

    i really believe we’re going to lick this thing. everything he said about the cracks appearing, it’s all coming true. we owe a huge debt of gratitude to omar barghouti.

    • December 17, 2013, 8:55 pm

      annie- i appreciate your enthusism and optimism. i use to be like that, a long long time ago but 40 plus years of this disgusting crap will do it to you.
      i strongly believe, after observing this most troubling and worsening situation all these years, that there will be a catastrophic clash between truth and evil.
      but don’t let me keep you down. keep up the spirit and youthful exuberance, it’s energizing

      • annie
        annie
        December 17, 2013, 11:45 pm

        but 40 plus years of this disgusting crap will do it to you.

        if palestinians can hold out, then i can. it feels like the least we can do. of course it is a matter of time, and hopefully i will live to see the day. but if i don’t others will take my place and we will prevail. you have to believe in justice and humanity, believe it in your bones and with every breath and heartbeat.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        December 17, 2013, 11:46 pm

        There will be a regional war, escalating into WW3. I am too old to be here to watch it. The US will not come out on top, as in WW2. Nobody will except the international bankers and less legal criminals tied in with them beneath the rubble.

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        December 18, 2013, 1:44 am

        Maybe you’ll be proven right, citizen . I think it’ll play out like the shutdown of murdoch’s news of the world. The bots will completely lose public support and be exposed as the cruel, intransigent ideologues they are. It will get more and more hysterical until an adult comes in and restores equilibrium. I guess the bots have made a lot of enemies within judaism and that there are more than a few who will be happy to stick the knife in and move onto a new paradigm that reflects real jewish values instead of nihilism.

    • just
      just
      December 17, 2013, 8:58 pm

      I hope you’ll feel better, and soon!

  9. Krauss
    Krauss
    December 17, 2013, 12:43 pm

    Nowhere in the article was the argument – and the fact – that America is much more responsible for Israel’s crimes due to the funding, military help and constant diplomatic support that we provide than we are for Russia, China etc.

    America has a special responsibility in this regard. Yet this argument was suspiciously absent. This is the most common tactic of the NYT; when you don’t like a view, supress the best arguments and give ample of space for the arguments of the opponents.

    • Krauss
      Krauss
      December 17, 2013, 12:48 pm

      P.S.

      Was it just me or did we see a strong shift in the lobby’s tactics?

      What do I mean? Well, after the Asian Studies Association voted to boycott Apartheid Israel’s academic institutions, deeply enmeshed in the apparatus of the occupation, there was virtually no coverage at all.

      Why?

      My guess is that the lobby felt that if we bring too much attention to it, by defaming it, we might help the movement grow. So ignore it, maybe it’ll be a one-off. Well, it wasn’t a one-off. So now the fear is running high, coverage is everywhere and Haaretz even went as ballistic as to give a picture of the Dreyfus affair in their coverage of it.

      So the tactic has shifted: from silence to all-out attacks. I guess this was the playbook they went after Max with, too. First ignore, as the sales started to pile up, go ballistic. Sales only went up more.

      I can’t see why this wouldn’t go the same way. Also, by so publicly attacking it, the lobby is forcing the academics to take a stand; to truly think through the issue. Some will fall off the bandwagon, intimidated and scared. But many others will become much more committed and well-read on the topic, deepening their understanding and their opposition to the intimidation tactics and smear campaigns employed by the defenders of Apartheid.

  10. yrn
    yrn
    December 17, 2013, 6:16 pm

    The BDS has been terminated by Mahmoud Abbas publicly rejecting AGAIN boycott of Israel.
    and an adviser to Abbas saying we are not asking anyone to boycott products of Israel.

    You all think that the public is stupid, when they read that the Leader of the Palestinians, Chose from all places and occasions to declare in South Africa during the funeral of Mandela that he rejects the BDS, what do you expect.
    Who are you westerns loonies to push boycott, when the Leader of the Palestinians rejects it.
    And look again who speaks up Omar Barghouti, the Phd student of the Tel Aviv University.
    You are doomed.

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      December 17, 2013, 10:56 pm

      You all think that the public is stupid, when they read that the Leader of the Palestinians, Chose from all places and occasions to declare in South Africa during the funeral of Mandela that he rejects the BDS, what do you expect.

      That’s pretty much what everyone expects, since a vote in the UN on statehood already resulted in Israel confiscating all of the revenue it had collected for the PA. IIRC Israel wanted it applied to utility bills.

      Abbas does have a program to boycott settlements, which is pretty bold considered the Knesset has already adopted a Law for Prevention of Damage to the State of Israel through Boycott and a law to tax otherwise exempt organizations 45% of their contributions if they have called for a boycott or demanded that members of the IDF stand trial for crimes. Abbas has done both.

    • thankgodimatheist
      thankgodimatheist
      December 18, 2013, 3:49 am

      “The BDS has been terminated by Mahmoud Abbas publicly rejecting AGAIN boycott of Israel.”
      Products of Israel not the products of the settlements. Nuance, my friend, nuance!

    • thankgodimatheist
      thankgodimatheist
      December 18, 2013, 4:04 am

      “Who are you westerns loonies to push boycott, when the Leader of the Palestinians rejects it.”
      Abbas has very minimal support among Palestinians. Where do you live?

      • OlegR
        OlegR
        December 18, 2013, 5:18 am

        As opposed to Omar Barghoutti ?
        How many supporters does he have ,
        300 , 400 a 1000?

      • thankgodimatheist
        thankgodimatheist
        December 18, 2013, 7:44 am

        “As opposed to Omar Barghoutti ? How many supporters does he have ,
        300 , 400 a 1000?”
        An overwhelming majority of Palestinians support BDS. Abbas is really isolated. So it’s safe to assume that they support O. Barghouti. You seem to be totally out of touch. Again, where do you live?

      • OlegR
        OlegR
        December 18, 2013, 8:11 am

        /An overwhelming majority of Palestinians support BDS. Abbas is really isolated./
        Ahh the Palstinian civil society those hudreds of thousands of millions
        NGO’s in Ramallah that eatch time the organize a demosntration the gather about 300 people.
        Where do you live?

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        December 18, 2013, 2:11 pm

        Abbas is really isolated.

        Bear in mind Omar Barghouti didn’t participate in the academic boycott of Tel Aviv University and that we supposedly don’t require any Palestinians living under Israeli occupation or jurisdiction to do so. Nonetheless, the Abbas’ government does boycott Israeli settlement products as a matter of official policy.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        December 18, 2013, 2:04 pm

        As opposed to Omar Barghoutti ?
        How many supporters does he have ,
        300 , 400 a 1000?

        Opinion polls show two thirds of Palestinians still support efforts by Abbas to take Israelis to the International Criminal Court (ICC) in order to stop settlement construction, even if such a step leads to suspension of Israeli transfer of revenues to the PA and a halt to prisoners’ release. They also show that, if the talks do lead to a peace agreement, the public believes that a majority of the Palestinians will approve it in a referendum. http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/polls/2013/p49englishpressrelease.html

        FYI, whether it stems from popularity or enforcement power, there have been reports that the Palestinian boycott of settlement goods has caused some Israeli factories to cut production. See for example, “Palestinian boycott of Israeli settlement goods starts to bite” http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jun/29/palestinian-boycott-israeli-settlement-goods

      • OlegR
        OlegR
        December 18, 2013, 5:28 pm

        /Opinion polls show two thirds of Palestinians still support efforts by Abbas to take Israelis to the International Criminal Court (ICC) i/

        But we are talking about the boycotts and the BDS and Omar Barghoutti
        so whatever Palestinians think about ICC is as relevant as what they think of Martians.

        /FYI, whether it stems from popularity or enforcement power, there have been reports that the Palestinian boycott of settlement goods has caused some Israeli factories to cut production./

        A piece by the Guardian from 2010 yeah i can just see how Yesha economy crumbled since then.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        December 18, 2013, 6:36 pm

        But we are talking about the boycotts and the BDS

        And I was too, opinion polls show two thirds of Palestinians still support efforts by Abbas to take Israelis to the International Criminal Court (ICC) in order to stop settlement construction. Don’t you Zionist fruitcakes know that the “S” in “BDS” includes criminal “sanctions”? Calling on our governments to impose sanctions on Israel was part of the 2005 call to action, and I can’t think of anything more appropriate than seeing Netanyahu behind prison bars. God knows he has built prisons for just about everyone else.

        A piece by the Guardian from 2010 yeah i can just see how Yesha economy crumbled since then.

        I also cited an article from the Israeli press which indicated it was effective enough that the Israeli finance minister had asked his Palestinian counterparts to end the boycott too.

        And this one: Abbas backs Palestinian boycott campaign of Israeli goods made in settlements: Palestinian president dismisses Israeli accusations that the campaign amounts to incitement of hatred against Israel. http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/abbas-backs-palestinian-boycott-campaign-of-israeli-goods-made-in-settlements-1.291569

        If a Zionist is calling your boycott “incitement” then its obviously gaining enough attention that he considers it dangerous to his illegal cause.

      • yrn
        yrn
        December 18, 2013, 7:10 am

        thankgodimatheist
        “Where do you live?”
        I live in Israel

        Where do you live? , somewhere in Europe or the US !
        One of those western Loonies.

        Read Hostage wordings you ignorant

        “Abbas was elected President by a larger margin than Haniyeh and his term certainly wasn’t expired”

        Read Again Abbas he was elected and as a President, if he says he rejects the Boycot, he represents the Palestinians.

      • just
        just
        December 18, 2013, 9:03 am

        Tel Aviv, Israel or one of the illegal “settlements”?

      • yrn
        yrn
        December 18, 2013, 2:18 pm

        Just

        I live in Tel Aviv Israel

        And where do you live ?

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        December 18, 2013, 2:20 pm

        Read Again Abbas he was elected and as a President, if he says he rejects the Boycot, he represents the Palestinians.

        Then you should read again too. Abbas has backed an official Palestinian program to boycott settlement products. See Palestinian Authority steps up boycott of goods made in Israeli settlements in West Bank http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2010/0225/Palestinian-Authority-steps-up-boycott-of-goods-made-in-Israeli-settlements-in-West-Bank

        Two thirds of Palestinians still back efforts taken by Abbas to prosecute responsible Israelis in the ICC and want him to go there now in order to stop settlement construction – even if such a step leads to suspension of Israeli transfer of revenues to the PA and a halt to prisoners’ release. http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/polls/2013/p49englishpressrelease.html

  11. LanceThruster
    LanceThruster
    December 17, 2013, 7:33 pm

    Only three? How magnanimous of them!

  12. Hostage
    Hostage
    December 17, 2013, 10:49 pm

    The Times quotes Mahmoud Abbas publicly rejecting boycott of Israel and an adviser to Abbas saying we are not asking anyone to boycott products of Israel.

    They do have a program to boycott products from Israeli settlements. I believe the Law for Prevention of Damage to the State of Israel through Boycott could easily be construed by the Finance Minister to deny any Palestinian entity essential services using the Budget Foundations Law, 1985 or some other such justification. After all, a vote in the UN can trigger sequestration of all of Palestine’s customs revenue for payment of electric bills.

    • OlegR
      OlegR
      December 18, 2013, 8:59 am

      /They do have a program to boycott products from Israeli settlements./

      Yes the only problem is they don’t enforce it or ever try to and their own public do not adhere to that program.For lack of choice perhaps but it is also is indicative about what they think about the effectivness of such boycott.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        December 18, 2013, 2:29 pm

        Yes the only problem is they don’t enforce it or ever try to

        It’s not hard to find pictures of former Prime Minister Fayyad burning settlement products http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2010/0225/Palestinian-Authority-steps-up-boycott-of-goods-made-in-Israeli-settlements-in-West-Bank

        And there have been reports, like the one I cited in another comment here, which claim Israeli factories have been forced to cut back on production and other signs that the boycott has been effective, e.g. See “Palestinians ‘adamant about continuing boycott on settlement goods’: PA economy minister says after meeting with Ben-Eliezer that Israel’s request to end the campaign proves that it is working.” http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/palestinians-adamant-about-continuing-boycott-on-settlement-goods-1.307624

      • OlegR
        OlegR
        December 18, 2013, 5:32 pm

        It’s not hard to find pictures of former Prime Minister Fayyad burning settlement products link to csmonitor.com/

        You do know the difference between publicity stunts and coherent and enforced government policy right ?

        /And there have been reports, /
        Ie. even you aren’t sure whether there were any actual impact or it’s all PA officials huffing and puffing.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        December 18, 2013, 6:57 pm

        You do know the difference between publicity stunts and coherent and enforced government policy right ?

        Nice try. But all of the articles I’ve quoted said the Palestinian boycott was beginning to bite or that Israelis were worried about incitement.

        I’m aware of the fact that the government of Israel compensates for incoherent policies with paid political propaganda that it hopes will incite others to action. That’s probably why you are here in the first place.

  13. mcohen
    mcohen
    December 18, 2013, 6:35 am

    Hostage says:
    December 17, 2013 at 10:49 pm

    “The Times quotes Mahmoud Abbas publicly rejecting boycott of Israel and an adviser to Abbas saying we are not asking anyone to boycott products of Israel.”

    a total boycott of israel now will back fire and destroy the bds movement,lose whatever left wing israeli support abbas has ,and leave nothing in the bank for later

    in fact abbas in his haste gave the game away.

    for israel it must be seen as a warning

    whatever concessions he can gain now from bds will be used later on when full sanctions will be called for

    “Oh ,Jerusalem, how you beauty beckons in the fading light,a place in the heart,behind closed walls.”
    ERL

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      December 18, 2013, 2:34 pm

      Hostage says:

      That Abbas does back the Palestinian campaign to boycott products from Israeli settlements.

  14. jenniferashcroft
    jenniferashcroft
    December 18, 2013, 7:16 pm

    It is great that the American Studies Association has voted to boycott Israeli academics. Left-thinking people have been accused of inconsistency and even hypocrisy in some of its actions – like boycotts – with respect to Israel. This is of course not true and there is a great rebuttal I can recommend here:

    http://palestinefreenow.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/academic-boycott-of-israel.html

Leave a Reply