Posted on July 12, 2012 by Akashma Online News
By
Marivel Guzman Edited by
Gail Baker
BDS The Non Violent Movement That Can Change The Odds
Whose Cause!.. Gilad Atzmon, Norman Finkelstein, Ali Abunimah, Omar Barghouti or Palestine? The BDS Controversy!
What Does it mean to be a Pro Palestinian Activist?
– To be pro-Palestinian does not necessarily mean you want the state of
Israel to be wiped off the map; nor does it imply that you agree with
either the two-state or one- state solution. The pro-Palestinian
movement embraces many ideas and offers much diversity in way of
critique and pro-active solutions. For instance, some activists take a
stand, drawing upon the premise of Human Rights and International Law
while others pursue different strategies outside of U.N. sanctions,
precisely because the legal precepts have never been enforced.
Similarly, it is with this context in mind, that we can view the
Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS)
movement where we witness much diversity in terms of strategy and
goals. The international community of peace activists has been
preoccupied with boycotting Israeli products, goods, and services; and
also, has taken up the campaign for Cultural/Academic Boycott. However,
some blocks of the solidarity movement participate only if the products
were exported from the settlements inside the occupied territories,
namely the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Essentially, BDS is not a
uniform or homogenous movement with a strict set of standards which
would end up being restrictive and narrow in focus. Some may view this
as a weakness. And yet many others put another spin on it where the BDS
is seen as holding out much promise due to its open, versatile, and
dynamic appeal to a diverse range of groups. It is this versatility that
allows for broad-based support that can only strengthen the movement
all the more. As such, it would be a mistake to think that the BDS has
to strike a consensus in order to work. We really cannot expect such a
consensus since the movement has so many different branches, strategies,
goals, and supporters. Nonetheless, one thing is clear in the minds of
all supporters: inspired by the South African BDS campaign, most
people simply want to put an abrupt halt to the apartheid practices of
Israel! On this, I believe, there is a consensus and so it represents
the rallying point that shall galvanize the movement into a potent
force.
So it is we witness various scenarios where you have Israel citizens
who support BDS because they want peace and know that for this to
happen, there needs to be compliance with international law to the
extent that rights of Palestinians within occupied territories are
upheld. Therefore, they will not engage in talks or entertain the ideas
of one or two-state solution. Their main concern is to maintain
stability within Israel. Meanwhile, other activists take the stance that
it is morally wrong to purchase any Israeli-made products;
simultaneously, they will target any companies known to have ties with
the apartheid state, especially those corporations associated with
providing arsenal and weaponry which are used to kill Palestinians.
This in turn will weaken the financial empire that continues to support
Israel. Whatever the goal of the BDS participants, I personally think
that it is a moral duty of every citizen in the world to support the BDS
movement! This movement is not exclusive to any one leader or faction.
Even Omar Barghouti, often credited as the founder, does not claim a
monopoly on BDS; he does not own the movement but prefers to follow and
act on the direction of the Palestinian BDS factions. This in no way
diminishes the value of the BDS movement! On the contrary, BDS has
become massive and global in it’s appeal and should inspire us all the
more as active participants, realizing that each and everyone of us has
an important integral role to play.
We are already observing the inroads made. Not only has BDS
tarnished the false image of Israel as a progressive democratic state,
but it has been successful in financially crippling certain sectors of
the economy. Furthermore, every time a company comes public in its
support of BDS and severes its economic ties with Israel, this captures
the attention of the media and serves to act as counter-propaganda to
that once-well oiled Zionist machine. Every time we hear of these BDS
triumphs, awareness is stepped up a notch or two so that more is known
about how Israel’s apartheid system really operates. Subsequently, we
cannot discount the achievements nor diminish the value of this campaign
based on the opinion of one group, organization, or a handful of high
profile activists.
While everyone is entitled to their opinion and
deserves to be heard, we should take precautions not to restrict our own
perspective to one particular position when it comes to BDS, or any
issue for that matter. It would help to put the movement, itself, in
proper context and consider the implications. For instance, recall that
in South Africa it took more than 20 years for the BDS to gain some
recognition around the world until finally it did take root as to have
moral effect on the conscience of the people. Compare this to the
contemporary situation where, with the assistance of technology, the
Palestinian BDS campaign, since it’s inception, took only 5 or 6 years
to be known at a global level. By this time, the BDS already has taken
on a life of its own; the ideology of the founders and/or their
political aspirations have nothing to do with BDS anymore. There is no
office at this point that can control or organize what people around the
world do to support Palestine, so the rhetorical question of the two
-state solution that some want to use against the founders or against
the movement, itself, cannot undermine the global support for Palestine
that BDS is awakening in the people of conscience.
WHAT IS BDS
BDS stands for Boycott and Disinvestment Sanctions and it is aimed
primary to Israel, this movement is intended to pressure Israel
economically, financially and Culturally, By no means was created with
the intention to undermined Israel Legal Status as a Official Recognized
State but as the movement have grown and thousands of Organizations and
Universities across the Globe are being more and more involved in the
BDS Movement, the perception of Israel it is changing rapidly and many
Important Academy Figures that have been following the development of
the Conflict over the years are getting to the conclusion that Israel it
is losing its legal Status in the World.
In 2005 the Civil Society of Palestine called the attention of the
world when they founded a movement that it is known globally simply as
BDS and every sector of the population it is taking part of in little or
grand scale.
“Boycott – basically is a
tool of the weak, who individually are weak but collectively can have
some strength against overweening power. The first use of the word
[originated] with tenant farmers in Ireland against their land agent.
Famous cases are the Montgomery Bus boycott and, more recently, the
sporting boycott and other boycotts against South Africa. There are
differences between all these boycotts, and I would stress that by
taking the archetypal case of that of the tenant farmers who resisted
the land agent Charles Boycott, who gave his name to the whole process,
in the 1880s in Ireland. Boycott was the land agent for an absentee
English noble. And what they did, when he became too domineering, is
they denied him labour to save the harvest, they put him into isolation
-refused to talk to him under any circumstances, the shops wouldn’t
serve him, the workers wouldn’t go and look after his house for him, and
the person wouldn’t deliver him letters. And in reasonably short order,
by the end of the year Boycott had been forced out and returned to
England. So very direct.” Professor Jonathan Rosenhead, Novemeber11, 2011
Professor
Jonathan Rosenhead is chair of the British Committee for the
Universities of Palestine (BRICUP) which is the main organization in the
UK supporting the academic and cultural boycotts of Israel, it
parallels PACBI in Palestine. Professor Rosenhead is also an activist,
took part in the flotilla, sailing to Gaza to break the Israeli siege.
If we take this case as an archetype, or at least one standard by
which to view the BDS movement in general, it reminds us to use our own
critical thinking whenever high-profile people as intellectuals,
writers, emeritus, professors, Nobel Prize laureates, politicians,
scholars, and internationally-acclaimed activists speak on a issue.
Many of us may be tempted to automatically think and feel that our
support for an issue is validated merely because someone of high stature
takes a stand in favor. On the other hand, if these same people speak
against a campaign that we support, we may feel betrayed and angry. Some
of us even go to the extreme of doubting our own convictions and moral
standing and then we prematurely switch sides. It is, at that moment,
we become followers and lose our ability to think independently for
ourselves. This should be taken as a precautionary note, especially when
we are addressing the issue of the BDS movement since the campaign is
so immense and, therefore, cannot be accepted as a uniform doctrine
expected to fit all necessities. Rather it is versatile, diverse, and
dynamic in appeal. What we can say in terms of technicalities, it is not
a movement that necessarily seeks the liberation of Palestine, because
at its CORE, it was founded on 3 main premises: rights of return for
refugees, equality for Arabs in Israel, and the end of occupation. These
three points, if satisfied, will comply with international law! Even as
we consider this official position, it is important to realize that the
movement, itself, has evolved, the ideas have evolved as well, and by
natural effect, the goals have changed, at least for some.
For pro-Palestinians that seek the liberation of Palestine, it is not
enough to satisfy the 3 points, because such according to their
interpretation would be akin to recognizing and legalizing Israel as a
one-state solution. Palestinians and non- Palestinians alike, who take
this line of reasoning, refer to the partition of Palestine as illegal and thereby, will never accept Israel as
legitimate state. While we may understand this position, the concern and
grievances are misplaced: the original founders of BDS and the
fulfillment of the three premises, does not entail debating the one or
two-state solution; nor does it imply recognition of Israel as either
legal/legitimate or illegitimate. One could argue to the contrary, that
the original founders of the movement, whether they accept Israel as
legitimate or not, nonetheless view the BDS goals as a beginning for a
broader movement with effective outcomes that perhaps could eventually
lead to dissipation of Israel. Consider the various variables at work
here, such that the population growth of Palestinians is on the rise
and could imply the best tool to defeat Israel.
Norm Finkelstein’s Position on BDS:
On his Interview with Frank Baratta, a well known Human Rights
Activist, on February 9, 2012 attended the Imperial college London, and
delivered astonishing statements that left us all surprised and
wondering “what got into him?”.
Norm Finkelstein is now famous for repeating
The Law is Clear,
and he shields his views on BDS charging the founders of the movement
as dishonest that Israel it is a State and that it is the law, but sadly
he forgets easily how Israel had disregarded the law thousands of times
when it comes to respect the life and property of Native Palestinians.
“When the law is criminal, you must break it to be human.” – FendLOTRO youtube user responded to Norman Finkelstein
Norman
G. Finkelstein received his doctorate in 1988 from the Department of
Politics at Princeton University.For many years he taught political
theory and the Israel-Palestine conflict. He currently writes and
lectures.
The controversy arose when
Professor Finkelstein
slammed the BDS movement as a cult! I heard his argument and he does
not mean the literal definition of a cult; but rather is referring to
the centralized idea that forcing Israel to comply with the 3 points of
the BDS movement will destroy Israel. He goes on to say that he will
support the BDS movement if the organizers will honestly speak on their
goals, because he senses that they are not being genuine due to what he
considers “vague” statements made by Barghouti. In this sense,
Finkelstein’s interpretation imparts a misleading and inaccurate appraisal of the BDS movement. Meanwhile,
Ali Abu Nimahk, from the electronic intifada who has been a harsh critic of
Finkelstein, started a campaign against him by drawing upon disinformation, himself. Subsequently,
Ali Abu Nimahk supporters, fell for his rhetoric, without question, and failed to seriously consider the words of
Finkelstein
where he stated “I support the BDS, but I said that it will never
reach a broad public, until and unless they’re explicit on their goal,
and their goal has to include recognition of Israel, or it is no
starter. It won’t reach the public, because the moment it goes out
there, Israel will start to say, what about us? and they won’t recognize
our right, and it fact that is correct, you can’t answer the Israelis
on that, because they are making a statement that is factually correct.
It is not an accident and unwitting omission that BDS does not mention
Israel….you know that and I know that…is not that OH! we forgot to
mention Israel!”
Professor Norman Finkelstein.
Ali
Hasan Abu Nimah is a Palestinian American journalist and co-founder of
Electronic Intifada, a not-for-profit, independent online publication
about the Palestinian/ Conflict.
I highly respect the point of view of these personalities and their
approach to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict because each of them have
worked tirelessly for the Palestinian cause! Nonetheless, all of them
have their own goals, and because their goals differ in nature, their
arguments also differ. It becomes problematic, however, where this turns
into a “mud-slinging” fest and divides the various supporters
affiliated with each of these high-profile personalities, as those
aforementioned. We all can be peace activists and be pro-Palestinians
and not have an opinion on the one or two-state solution – that has been
the center point for
Ali Abu Minah. Yet when he criticizes
Finkelstein, he ignores the position regarding the legal question of
Israeli actions against occupied territories. Furthermore, he fails to
pursue the probable outcome of the BDS movement where we could envision
the prospect of an eventual dissipation of Israel as a legitimate state
according to international law.
I make mention of these disparate views above because they have
played a role in disseminating rumors regarding the BDS. Furthermore, it
would be unfair to give credit to or to discredit the words of any of
these heavy-weights, without first analyzing their background, their
profession, their nationality, and ultimately, the real motives behind
the positions they promote in public forums. Take the case of Norman
Finkelstein where many questions arise regarding his recent, often
contradictory and confusing arguments. What goals does he have in
mind? He has been a peace activist for years and out of moral duty has
stood firmly behind the Palestinian cause to defend truth, justice, and
law. He has in the past taken enormous professional risks to do this.
But now he is in the process of selling his image as a writer, political
scientist, scholar, and activist, as well as his books. This means his
integrity is at stake and once again he is taking a risk and has to
step cautiously into the Mid East arena regarding BDS. When he bashes
Israel, we give him credit for his courage. And yet, we must be
skeptical here since, of recent, he has taken the position that “the
law, it is clear. We cannot be selective with the law”. Moreover, he
slams the BDS for not staying within the bounds of the law because the
movement doesn’t explicitly give recognition to the state of Israel.
Did
Finkelstein forget the stipulations placed on Israel by
the League of Nations during the time that Palestine was partitioned to
create Israel? And it isn’t it true that Israel, in order to have
legitimacy, would have to respect the rights of the inhabitants of the
land with particular emphasis on all groups including Palestinians
Muslims, and Palestinians Christians? Now it is obvious to human rights
watch groups and it should be obvious to
Finkelstein,
himself, that since the moment of it’s inception, Israel has violated
every international law in the books and was never held accountable! Due
to this violations, it’s status as a legitimate/legal state should be
considered dubious, at best. Ironic it is, then, that
Finkelstein
criticizes the BDS movement due to it’s failure to make an official
statement in recognition of Israel. Why should the founder/s be
pressured to do so, in the first place? especially when
Finkelstein
stresses the idea that “the law is clear and is not selective”? What
he fails to address is the obvious - why when it comes to Palestine, is
the law selective and why are those legally-binding resolutions (in
favor of Palestinians rights) NOT enforced? Disturbing about this is
the fact that he takes a legal stance against BDS, but in this case he
appears to use it selectively in favor of Israel. Below I provide two
screen shots of the original documents of the United Nations –
Resolution 194-8 and 194-11 agreed and signed
All things being equal, the truth will prevail. When given a fair
chance, the truth should survive, because it is more natural, more
attractive, and less contrived than falsehood. In a democracy, certain
rights are inalienable, so that all men are equal before the law. On
that assumption we must pressure Israel to adhere to it’s own propagated
idea that as “the only democracy in the Middle East”, it must abide by
the law. Since this stands as a fundamental principle of democracy,
defending the truth will reach a conclusion. The anti-BDS propaganda
must be challenged at it’s source. The fact that such heavy-weights as
Ali Abu Nimah,
Omar Barghouti, Norm Finkelstein, and Gilad Atzman
have all entered the fray and media frenzy, opinions have likely been
taken out of context and the issues have been blown out of proportion.
Gilad Atzmon’s Position on the BDS:
Gilad
Atzmon is an Israeli-born British jazz saxophonist, novelist, political
activist, Pro Palestinian Peace Activist, and writer. Atzmon’s album
Exile was BBC jazz album of the year in 2003.
“
Gilad Atzmon: “
For
more than a while, myself and others are very suspicious of the BDS.
For some peculiar reason the BDS in the West is dominated by Jewish
activists. Though the BDS’ principle is valid and worth a fight, it has
become clear to many of us that something went wrong along the way. Last
month we have seen BDS calls to stop Norman Finkelstein; this month we see BDS calls to stop me. Great, isn’t it. The BDS is now used to stifle freedom within the solidarity discourse.”
I m not blaming Gilad Atzmon for the anti-BDS sentiment that is
circulating! Rather, I am quoting those words that were picked up by
media and likely contributed to the the controversy that arose following
the interview of Norman
Finkelstein, as well as,
Ali Abu Nimah‘s
heated debate on the issue. I think we can trace the roots here. In
addition, the people pushing hard on the surface of the BDS movement,
are hijacking the campaign where we observe attempts to silence the
dissident Jews as
Gilad Atzmon and
Norman Finkelstein. Because
they are taking center stage in the Palestine
Justice Movement, many
people followed the line being pushed by an anonymous group that seems
to operate behind the scenes, implying that there may well be a few spy
rings. Where these spy rings arise, they can do damage because they
plant “ideas” that are hurting the BDS. Similarly, this is exactly what
the Jewish global boycott of Germany goods did to weaken Hitler’s
economic power during WWII to force the Government to finance the Jews
Transfer to Palestine, and so did in South Africa during the horrible
Apartheid Era to bring the Apartheid System to an end.
I agree with
Gilad Atzmon where he criticizes certain groups
that have infiltrated the BDS and have been used to silence Jewish
dissidents as himself. Unfortunately, though, his defensive position
has become offensive and imparts a false impression that the BDS
campaign in general is not trustworthy. Sadly, I have seen good friends
and pro-Palestinian activists write against BDS, without considering
the consequences of doing so. We must put this in a broader perspective
and push aside the infighting upon realizing that this is an immense
movement in which millions of people are doing their level best to keep
up the campaign against apartheid. Meanwhile, I can only hope that
those people of high-profile who have great influence over public
opinion reflect upon the damage that could be done to Palestine whenever
they overgeneralize their personal opinions in attempt to defend
themselves against rogue BDS elements/agents.
With this in mind, I cite Gilad’s own words to remind us to stay focused on the real issues:
“For more than ten years I have been writing about Israel,
Zionism and Jewish identity. I am engaged in a process of deconstruction
and critique of different Jewish texts, ideas, politics and practice.
My intent is aiming towards some deeper realization of what Zionism is.
In my opinion, Zionism is one of the most dangerous political movements.
It is a global operation that threatens world peace on a daily basis.”
Gilad Atzmon
When citing any position, it is important to keep in mind that the
BDS movement is not the property of few persons. This is a global
campaign of awareness, to pressure Israel to end her apartheid practices
inside the occupied territories and to force Israel to respect the
human rights of Palestinians that live in West Jerusalem, Gaza and West
Bank.
“Boycott is a real
complicated issue. For years we’ve been arguing in favour of divestment
and boycott. At the time I supported any form of boycott in Israel, its
products and its culture.There are some elements in the boycott that are
obviously very welcome. For instance, the fact that UK unions are
standing up against Zionist evil is a major shift in the very right
direction. The Boycott is certainly bad news for Israel and this is
wonderful news in itself. Yesterday, I went to a reading of a play, it
was actually a theatrical adaptation my latest book. The producer is
Jewish, and at a certain stage when we were discussing the meaning of
the play he stood up and said. “You see, we had a Jewish State, it is
now sixty years later, and it is a very horrible place, it is so
horrible that it has now been boycotted. And this is there to make us
think, where did it go wrong?” This is the most positive impact of the
boycott. It makes people reflect.” Gilad Atzmon July 2007
When Gilad Atzmon refers to the Jewish, you have to understand his philosophy and point of view regarding the
modern Jewish
sentiment of ” the chosen ones”. This mentality is more intrinsic and
is best exemplified by the Jewish Only political spectrum in Israel, as
well as, powerful Jewish lobby groups around the world. But let us not
confuse Israel Jewish Only Policies with Judaism. “Jewish” refers
primarily to ethnicity while “Judaism” refers to religion. For
instance, those who support “Jewish only” policies in line with
apartheid, play upon the concept “the chosen few”, not as a matter of
religious principles, but more so, a matter of political arrogance.
Furthermore, it is notable that there are a number of Jewish groups of
orthodox faith who take offense to Israeli Zionist practices of
apartheid and occupation
. Neturei Karta Orthodox Jews are but an example.
Recently a group of intellectuals, and pro-Palestinians endorsed
Ali Abu Minah in a letter against
Gilad Atzmon.
I think that some people are using the spotlight of others to upstage
their popularity within the Palestinian movement. Meanwhile, there are
thousands of pro-Palestinians who have invested their time and sometimes
their money without thinking twice. Additionally, there are those who
have and continue to make a profession out of the Palestinian cause,
dedicating much of their life to this. Such is to be respected where and
when these people are clearly focused on the objectives to serve
justice. Moreover, it is only fair that they be paid for their time and
service since they, as anyone else, need money to live and support
themselves and families. Sometimes the tasks do involve various
campaigns for private donations, or setting up Non-Profit Organizations
where the structure is similar to the official NGO’s that participate in
charities (unlike many NGO’s, this participation in charities is not
merely a means to deduct taxes). Then, too, there is a group of
individuals who have thrown their support behind Palestine, not out of
love for Palestine, but more so as a matter of fighting injustice due to
violation of human rights.
Chomsky and
Finkelstein
may very well fall into this camp since they do not want to see Israel
wiped off the map; rather, they would prefer to see an Israel that
behaves democratically by working inside the parameters of international
law. Like Professor Horowitz,
Finkelstein engages in discussions with pro-Israeli supporters. BUT UNLIKE Horowitz,
Finkelstein
cites factual information regarding atrocities against Palestinians and
also clearly recognizes the need for Israel to put an end to human
rights abuses. As mentioned earlier, the argument may initially sound
appealing. However, delving further into
Finkelstein’s various
discussions and interviews, many contradictions arise and are worthy of
further examination if we are to assess his position on BDS.
Assessing the Implications of the Key Players Involved in the Controversy:
On February 2012 a video clip was released on youtube entitled
“Arguing the BDS Movement: Interview with Frank Barata and political
Scientist, Writer, and Activist
Norman Finkelstein“. According to
Finkelstein,
international law is unambiguous and could be used as a tool to compel
Israel to adhere to human rights. Meanwhile, he sees little value in
the so called Palestinian Authority’s efforts to conduct peace talks and
negotiations that have led nowhere, and also implies that the P.A. is a
collaborator of Israel since the leaders often strike bargains that
actually come at the expense of the Palestinians, themselves. In a
sense, he is right! This rather cozy relationship became more evident
especially after Abbas’ presidency. For instance, corruption is observed
in many instances, among all things, the criminalization of protests
against the occupation. Given the P.A.’s collaboration with Israel,
along with U.S. aid to the Zionist entity, it is hard to envision the
possibility of a peaceful outcome. According to
Finkelstein,
Palestine will never win the conflict since it is inconceivable that
Israel will give an inch. Not only is it equipped with one of the most
technologically advanced military and powerful armies, Israel too has
the moral and financial backing of the United Sates, as well as other
nations. The fact that the U.S. provides more than 3 billion dollars a
year in military aid and loan guarantees makes the prospects for
Palestine look all the more bleak, especially considering this one-sided
war, if it can even can be called a war. In reality this is
unprecedented and unwarranted aggression against the virtually
defenseless Palestinian population. As such, Israel would have to be
extracted by force, either through the Palestinians use of militancy or
through strict judicial procedures within the bounds of international
law.
It is on the point of international law that
Finkelstein
makes his case for Palestine, but in the meantime, also applies the
argument to undermine the legitimacy of the BDS campaign. What unravels
in his position, is an argument replete with serious flaws,
contradictions, assumptions, and confusion. It is no wonder then that
many of his own supporters have been left bewildered. The major
criticism regards the three strategies put forth by the BDS. To
Finkelstein, while these may be “ideologically possible”, on pragmatic
terms and according to international law, the three-pronged approach
can’t work since it excludes Israel as a viable state. Even if these
strategies did have effect, eventually this would culminate in the end
of Israel. This is particularly problematic to
Finkelstein
because the scenario is feasible given that the return of 6 to 7 million
Palestinian refugees will shift the balance of power due to
disproportionate representation in terms of a diminished Israeli
population. This prospect, accompanied by the BDS’ call for equal rights
to Arabs within Israel will quite likely result in a panorama view
where Palestinians as majority will be the major political players. On
these grounds,
Finkelstein accuses the BDS of being dishonest
since it does not acknowledge this possibility nor officially claim it
as a goal. Subsequently, he believes the campaign will never take root
because the international community simply will not accept these terms,
whether they are explicitly stated or not.
The bewilderment and confusion arising out of
Finkelstein’s
stance can be traced to the manner in which he takes comfort in citing
the 1967 borders that are supposedly the legal borders of Israel!
Disturbing about this argument is the failure on behalf of
Finkelstein
to acknowledge those disenfranchised Palestinians who were illegally
driven and forced out of their homeland prior to 1967. Did he forget
the history, the Nakba for instance, which violated international law
prior to 1967? Did he forget how the so The State of Israel was created
through war crimes when it was violently inserted into the heart of the
Middle East? There is reason for concern insofar he draws scarce
attention to and virtually ignores the atrocities and plight forced upon
Palestinians who became refugees in neighboring countries where they
are not accepted as citizens, and on the other hand Majority of Israelis
enjoyed double Nationality. If it is so as
Finkelstein
reiterates over and over that “the law is clear”, why is it that he
ignores the resolutions adopted by the General Assembly at it’s third
session on November 27, 1948? (refer to illustration 1 and 2).
Moreover, if he is going to use the stance that “the law is clear”, it
is incumbent on him as a political scholar, to admit that Israel
violated most of the U.N. resolutions and was never held accountable
since the moment of it’s inception.
Yes, the law in this case is clear, but it is unfair and unjust,
because it has not been enforced!!!! By all standards then, Israel’s
legitimacy as a state, is dubious and up for question. So we are left
to ponder why
Finkelstein places the burden of proof upon the
Palestinians rather than on Israel. And why does he uses such a flawed
argument to slam the BDS campaign? If anything, one could turn the
tables here and apply “the law is clear” premise to work in favor of the
BDS.
Finkelstein’s argument would be far more credible had he
used it to acknowledge that, by all international standards/UN
resolutions, Israel technically is not a legal nor legitimate state.
In this sense, the BDS movement, could satisfy the three pillars, and
could very well become a potent force enough to garner the attention of
the international and global community. It could reach a climax of mass
proportions in which the international players will no longer have the
luxury of appeasing Israel. The world will soon become weary and tired
of Israel arrogance and impunity. Sooner or later, Israel will be
forced to follow the path of South Africa!
Upon revisiting controversy surrounding
Gilad Atzmon’s position, it is important to note that he is
very critical of the Zionist ideology, insisting with reason, that the
state of Israel has instilled exclusivity of “the chosen few” in the
minds of Jewish citizens to advance colonial rule in Palestine.
Meanwhile,
Atzmon’s detractors are working hard to undo the
work that he has done on behalf of Palestine. They are using the wrong
arguments for the wrong reasons for the right cause, that is Palestine.
Some of these people get entangled in the criticism, some are genuine
pro-Palestinians, and some are misled by the well- oiled Zionist
propaganda that is trying to destroy the career of
Gilad Atzmon, that it is being cemented on the Palestine Conflict and
Zionism. It is no secret, after all, that
has published in favor of the Palestinian cause and due to his fame
and popularity, has much influence. Subsequently, Zionist groups have an
obvious motive for bashing his work. But the move to do so may be
premature, ill-conceived, and in fact, may backfire. As with any issues
that come under the spotlight due to controversy, the media attention
can serve both sides of the divide: on one hand it reinforces arguments
by the detractors, and on the other, it inspires greater interest and
curiosity in
Atzmon’s work. The same could be said of
Finkelstein
as well. So the question comes to mind, whether or not this anti-BDS
campaign is actually a stunt employed to sell books, or at the very
least, an opportunistic ploy conveniently playing in the hands of the
authors and publishers.
The claims articulated by both Finkelstein and Atzmon, strongly
suggest both are pro-justice, pro-peace, and ultimately, pro-Palestine.
“For me to be Jewish
is, above all, to be preoccupied with overcoming injustice and
thirsting for justice in the world, and that means being respectful
toward other peoples regardless of their nationality or religion, and
empathetic in the face of human suffering whoever and wherever
victimization is encountered” (Gilad Atzmon, “On Jewish Identity,”
1/15/2011).
In
Atzmon’s words, we find credibility in his cause and
struggle for justice. However, if this trumped up anti-BDS campaign has
been used as a propaganda scheme to gain free advertizement for books
recently published, then this is disturbing, to say the least. To attack
the BDS campaign as a means of serving one’s own interests is beyond
irresponsible and irreproachable since authors of high stature have
great influence on the pro-Palestinians. I would hope that these are
not the motives here. Whatever the case, there is no doubt that the
controversy did have spin-off effects that have undermined BDS
proponents and, meanwhile, divided the solidarity movement. For
instance, I recently heard some statements against the BDS movement
asserting that the strategies have not worked since Israel’s economy is
more “economically solvent than ever”. Yet pursuing this at greater
length, tells us that nothing can be farther from the truth - the
economic meltdown is a global phenomenon and it’s to a point where even
Israel is not immune. Taken in this context, we can quite confidently
assume that certain sectors of the economy will inevitably be hurt, as
some already have suffered losses. Add to this, the Campaign for the
Academic and Cultural
Boycott of
Israel. Many
high-profile personalities, as internationally-acclaimed author and
activist Alice Walker, have already entered the fray, inspiring the BDS
campaign once again with enthusiasm and optimism; meanwhile, striking
fear into the heart of Zionist lobby groups. Indeed Zionist Israel has
reason for concern; and it is high time that the key political players
are shaken enough to take note! Economic collapse may be more imminent
than they are willing to admit! And if this is what it takes to put an
end to apartheid, occupation, and genocide; then we owe at least some
credit to the BDS movement.
Consider too, how the average Israeli citizen is impacted by the
government’s heavy investment into security and weaponry used against
Palestinians. Simultaneously, the middle class is beginning to feel the
crunch as elsewhere in the world. Growing inequality, in terms of both
socioeconomic status and political policies, is the first sign spotted
by the ordinary citizen. The Occupy movement has actually reached the
Holy Land and has stirred up protests. Change is on the horizon. Even
Israel can no longer afford it’s own arrogance. Moreover, there is no
magical wand that can grant them immunity from global or economic
evolution where society is evermore awakening to mass consciousness. The
conditions exist and the time is ripe for the BDS to make inroads and
impact enough to dismantle apartheid Israel. On this optimistic note,
it is relevant to examine the ideas of Omar Barghouti.
Revisiting the Controversy Surrounding Omar Barghouti’s Position on BDS:
It would be remiss not to assess the credibility of
Omar Barghouti
also, since he too has become central to this BDS debate and as
mentioned earlier, he did emerge on the scene to espouse the values and
the 3 main objectives of the campaign against apartheid Israel: right
of return for refugees, equal rights for Arabs within Israel, and
termination of the occupation. Barghouti, also emphasizes that the
direction of this movement is to be in the hands of the Palestinians
themselves. While other affiliated groups and participants across the
globe are recognized as major players, the movement must not be
monopolized by any set of elites. It belongs to the grassroots people,
particularly guided by the Palestinians. While
statements have been embraced by most in the BDS movement, he too has come under attack by both
Finkelstein and Atzmon. According to
Finkelstein, the goals are too vague and cannot work.
Atzmon makes similar claims but stepped it up a notch when he unfairly referred to
Barghouti
as a racist against whites . Such an accusation, however, should not be
taken seriously since Atzmon took Barghouti’s words out of context
without giving accurate representation to the postmodern argument from
which Barghouti implied that those of Euro centric ethnicity/background
have no right to dictate the terms or set the agenda for the
Palestinians. Here,
Barghouti was making reference to the
colonial mentality where white supremacy is still very much a
denominator in international relations between the imperialistic
“colonizers/occupiers” and the “colonized/occupied”.
In yet another instance, March 7/2011, the London Review Bookshop was host to
Barghouti’s
launch of the work entitled “BDS: Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions – The
Global Struggle for Palestinian Rights”. Here Barghouti again came under
attack, accused of taking a “hypocritical position on academic boycott”
simply because he had attended an “Israeli University” to obtain his
Ph.D.. Even so, Barghouti’s rebuttal was swift, to the point, and “very
rational” which according to staff of Inminds.com suggests “that unless
someone is being dishonest with themselves, they will have no choice but
to accept the arguments”. The integrity with which
Barghouti replied is nicely captured in the following excerpt:
Audience Question: Omar, you are living in Israel, you are doing a PhD, you are
studying in an Israeli university. How does that equate with your
boycott campaign, isn’t that hypocritical to live in Israel and consume
everything Israeli, then call for a boycott of Israel? And secondly, if
God forbid, you ever needed a life saving medicine, or a member of your
family in Israel, would you accept that medicine or would you reject
that life saving medicine?
Omar Barghouti: I think Mandela went to an apartheid
university, when you are living under apartheid you have no choice. You
pay taxes to the apartheid regime, you accept services from the
apartheid regime, how else can you survive? You go to hospitals, you go
to universities, you go to the post office, you go to government offices
in the apartheid regime. You are a ‘subject’ of that colonial system,
there is no other way. Gandhi studied at a British university as well.
The point is that when you are under occupation, when you are under
apartheid, you have no moral choice. There is no choice. We ask people
from outside to boycott because they have a moral choice. Responsibility
comes with choice. Germans under Nazi rule who couldn’t open their
mouths were cowards; but we can perhaps forgive them for not opening
their mouths when you think you would be shot by the Nazi genocidal
regime if they opened their mouths. Israelis that stay silent are far
more cowardly because they do have a choice and they wont get shot if
they stand up against the occupation. So we measure this with how much
choice you have. When you have no choice what do you do? So there is
absolutely no double standard for people under oppression to call on
people who are not under oppression, standing in solidarity with them,
to oppose and boycott a completely the oppressive regime. What we cannot
do, you can do in the UK. The second part of your question.. of course
we do not boycott Israeli medicines in Israel. What else can we buy? We
are not irrational. I don’t know your view of the Arabs.. but you know
we are not suicidal..
A Q. [interrupts]: Why do you live there if you don’t like it there?
Omar Barghouti: Its my country, I’m a Palestinian.
A Q: You were brought up in Egypt
Omar Barghouti: I’m a refugee. Refugee’s have a
right to go home. I’m a Palestinian. The two-state solution, besides
having passed its expiry date, it was never a moral solution to start
with. In the best-case scenario, if UN resolution 242 were meticulously
implemented, it would have addressed most of the legitimate rights of
less than a third of the Palestinian people over less than a fifth of
their ancestral land. More than two thirds of the Palestinians, refugees
plus the Palestinian citizens of Israel, have been dubiously and
shortsightedly expunged out of the definition of the Palestinians. Such
exclusion can only guarantee the perpetuation of conflict.”
Omar Barghouti December 14, 2003
Counter Punch
JustFaith Retreat on Catholic social teaching. Participants learn
about civil rights, peace, justice efforts and the nonviolence of
Jesus. They examine how their purchases and investments might
[facilitate and continue to perpetuate] unjust systems. Their formation
has included “Journey To Justice,” a retreat organized by the Office of
Life, Justice and Peace of the Archdiocese of Portland. Now what [is]
Omar Barghouti the co-founder of BDS Movement saying these days about
the anti-BDS campaign?
We know [this] of Israel: To judge a book by its cover [has] never
been the best way to find its content. To argue about the real content
of a book, selecting excerpts and scripts taken out of context from the
internet demonstrates lack of judgement and insincerity on behalf of
those who pursue information selectively to fit conveniently with their
own self-interest.
If Israel doesn’t want to obey international law then why
should Israel be recognized as a legitimate state? Israel can’t have it
both ways! The Case for BDS:
Reflecting upon the controversies, debates, and the infighting, we
are left to assess and evaluate the merits of the BDS campaign.
Essentially, we need to do some of our own soul-searching, put aside
petty disputes, and ask the key question: What variables should we
consider in using our discretion either in favor or against the BDS?
Because
Omar Barghouti says we should? because
Ali Abu Minah says it is the right thing to do? because
Gilad Atzmon has been unfairly accused of anti-Semitic by some rogue boycott members? or because
Gilad Atzman has unfairly accused Barghouti of racism? or because the highly respected
Norman Finkelstein
suggests that the boycott has no clear goals and is unworkable? Do
these questions make your head spin, and confuse the issue rather than
clarify it? If so, then we need to get beyond the ambiguity and
propaganda that the infighting and divisiveness has created. If we
really are focused on the goal of serving the interests of Palestine,
then it is necessary to put an end to the “mudslinging” and dirty
politicking. After all, this is playing into the hands of Zionist
tactics of divide and conquer. Wouldn’t we fair much better if we
refused to be followers, used our own critical thinking, and put an
abrupt stop to the ungrounded attacks that deflect from the goal to end
injustice? The BDS campaign, in a sense, has become a battleground, a
war zone. And now is the time when we can refuse to enlist in that war
and instead, become conscientious objectors as we collaborate under the
banner of BDS to restore justice to Palestinians. By doing so, we shall
partake in the movement, doing so for Palestine only for Palestine! To
restore their rights, to help them to be heard by a world that for years
has turned its back and failed to listen.
Letter from Palestinians To the World
“The goal of the Palestinian people has always been clear: self
determination. And we can only exercise that inalienable right through
liberation, the return of our refugees (the absolute majority of our
people) and achieving equal rights to all through decolonization. As
such, we stand with all and any movements that call for justice, human
dignity, equality, and social, economic, cultural and political rights.
We will never compromise the principles and spirit of our liberation
struggle. We will not allow a false sense of expediency to drive us into
alliance with those who attack, malign, or otherwise attempt to target
our political fraternity with all liberation struggles and movements for
justice.
As Palestinians, it is our collective responsibility, whether we are
in Palestine or in exile, to assert our guidance of our grassroots
liberation struggle. We must protect the integrity of our movement, and
to do so we must continue to remain vigilant that those for whom we
provide platforms actually speak to its principles.
When the Palestinian people call for self-determination and
decolonization of our homeland, we do so in the promise and hope of a
community founded on justice, where all are free, all are equal and all
are welcome”.
Until Liberation and Return
Signed:
- Ali Abunimah, Naseer Aruri, Professor Emeritus, University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth, Omar Barghouti, human rights activist
- Hatem Bazian, Chair, American Muslims for Palestine, Andrew Dalack,
National Coordinating Committee, US Palestinian Community Network,
Haidar Eid, Gaza. Nada Elia, US Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel.
Toufic Haddad, Kathryn Hamoudah
- Adam Hanieh, Lecturer, School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), London, Mostafa Henaway, Tadamon! Canada
- Monadel Herzallah, National Coordinating Committee, US Palestinian
Community Network, Nadia Hijab, author and human rights advocate. Andrew
Kadi, Hanna Kawas, Chair person, Canada Palestine Association and
Co-Host Voice of Palestine
- Abir Kobty, Palestinian blogger and activist, Joseph Massad,
Professor, Columbia University, NY, Danya Mustafa, Israeli Apartheid
Week US National Co-Coordinator & Students for Justice in Palestine-
University of New Mexico
- Dina Omar, Columbia Students for Justice in Palestine, Haitham
Salawdeh, National Coordinating Committee, US Palestinian Community
Network, Sobhi Samour, School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS),
London
- Khaled Ziada, SOAS Palestine Society, London, Rafeef Ziadah, poet and human rights advocate
Other Voices
It is my hope that the non-violent BDS (Boycott, Divestment,
Sanctions) movement, of which I am part, will have enough of an impact
on Israeli civilian society to change the situation. In that
regard, I offer an earlier example of THE COLOR PURPLE’s engagement in
the world-wide effort to rid humanity of its self-destructive habit of
dehumanizing whole populations. When the film of The Color Purple was
finished, and all of us who made it decided we loved it, Steven
Spielberg, the director, was faced with the decision of whether it
should be permitted to travel to and be offered to the South African
public. I lobbied against this idea because, as with Israel today, there
was a civil society movement of BDS aimed at changing South Africa’s
apartheid policies and, in fact, transforming the government.
Alice Walker
Israelis have many other ways to show their dissatisfaction with the status quo:
They can boycott institutions that profit or take part in the
occupation, avoid the draft, take part in Palestinian-led protests or
lead their own demonstrations. Ultimately, this debate will also lead to
dealing with the question of BDS, though it’s clear that actual support
for BDS will remain very marginal in Israeli society. Still, as long as
no real alternative for the occupation is brought from the Israeli
side, I think it’s very important not to oppose
any form of Palestinian non-violent resistance, even if one is not taking part in it personally.
Noam Sheizaf
In the frenzy to discredit BDS, it’s perversely easy for critics to forget these facts,
to get lost in the abstraction (and sometimes distraction) of arguments
about the uplifting effects of transnational corporations, the
benevolence of 1948 Israel and the lurking anti-Semitism of the BDS
agenda. These arguments are not just misleading but often downright
dangerous and offensive; the anti-Semitism charge in particular is
probably the most often cited and potent. So let’s be clear: vile and
frightening anti-Semitism certainly exists, but BDS is not an example of
it. As a nonviolent movement dedicated to human rights and
nondiscrimination it is, in many ways, its opposite: the lesson of
“Never Again” interpreted universally, a reminder that in the face of
extreme horror, it is incumbent upon people of conscience to rally
around the inalienable rights of the abused.
Lizzy Ratner
BDS Triumphs
250 European academics call for exclusion of Ahava and Israeli arms companies from EU research projects
- Article 3 of the Treaty on European Union obliges the EU to uphold
human rights and to strictly observe and support the development of
international law in all of its external
relations.
The largest Presbyterian group in the US is considering divesting from three major global companies over the Israeli
military’s use of their products in the Palestinian territories.Pension
funds in Norway and Sweden have divested themselves of holdings in some
firms involved in building settlements or helping to erect Israel’s
contentious West Bank separation barrier. European activists have
stepped up pressure on companies by exposing their West Bank ties and
picketing stores that sell goods produced in Israeli settlements.
Last week, the US investment firm MSCI Inc. announced it had removed
Caterpillar from three of its popular indexes that track socially
responsible investments, leading mutual fund giant TIAA-CREF to divest
$72 million in Caterpillar stock.
BDS it is the Only Hope For Palestine to Become Independent
Palestine Treasure Land; Holy Land Economic Independence
Do you know that Palestine will be Self Sufficient If Israel Stopped Stealing the Natural Resources?
Palestine will be rich if Allowed access and control over the
Minerals in the Dead Sea or the Natural Gas recently discovered in Gaza
Shores?
If Israel would Stop Uprooting The Olive Trees that have been one of
the sources of income for Palestinians, they have commercialized the
Olive Oil and Olives for hundreds of years.
If Israel would would remove the Physical barrier that separated
Palestinians from their Farms and Business, this alone will save them
thousands of hours that are wasted on walking great distances to cross
the check points illegally installed by Israel in Palestine.
Just the time saved in removing barriers and checkpoints, itself
means money. Ultimately, efforts and resources to be fighting a
worthless occupation will be employed to restored people properties and
revive the Palestinian Economy. Just Imagine the possibility, These are
just some of the issues that the BDS is trying to solve for
Palestinians. There are more issues that need to be acknowledged by the
International Community
, this is what concern on the economy but none the less other important points need to be addressed as well.
Right now under apartheid Israel, Palestine loses close to 7 billion dollars every year:
“The economy of the Palestinian suffers annual losses of seven
billion dollars because of the occupation, which has turned these
territories into one of the most aid-dependent economies in the world.
In this respect, the ambassador of PNA in the UN, Riyad Mansour, said in
an interview with Prensa Latina that the cost of domination is easily
quantifiable, so that if this policyends, “we will be able to be
self-sufficient and not need external help.”The seven billion dollars
lost to the Palestinian economy in 2010 amounts to almost the entire
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) annually, and this damage was produced by
depriving the residents in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza from
using their natural resources.” Correspondent for Prensa Latina in
Egypt.Palestinian numbers, a despicable occupation –
Translated from the Portuguese version by: Lisa
KarpovaPravda.Ru
Follow your conscience. Follow what you feel is right. Propaganda is
cheap and costs great division. Use your own mind, heart, judgement on
this matter and try not pin your hopes and faith exclusively on one
source or person of influence. What ever works to create awareness
counts; any efforts aimed to let the world know that Palestine has been
suffering under apartheid for 60 plus years. We know BDS is working. We
know that boycotting Israel is one means of reigning in this rogue
state! It is a human duty and obligation to rally together against any
state that continually uses brutality and violates human rights and
international law, in the manner that Israel has done, to the point of
genocide. The BDS is beyond reproach, and trying to stop us from
exercising a rightful humanitarian cause is a treason against our own
human nature.
“The end of the Cold War, moreover, changed the West’s attitudes
towards Africa. Western governments no longer had strategic interests in
propping up repressive regimes merely because they were friendly to the
west. Along with the World Bank, they concluded that one party regimes
lacking popular participation constituted a serious hindrance to
economic development and placed new emphasis on the need for democratic
reform” The Struggles for Democracy- Martin Meredith -The Fate of Africa
At The End The US and Britain were forced to Boycott South Africa Apartheid: Library of Congress 1987
References:
The Fate of AFRICA – Martin Meredith -Public Affairs Series – 2005
How Israel was won – - June 17, 1999
Palestinians Civil Society Calls for BDS- BDS National Committee- July 9, 2005 -
BDSmovement.net
Gilad Atzmon Interviewed: Each Village is a Reminder by Brian Lenzo- July 13. 2010 -
Palestine Chronicle
Why Is BDS a Moral Duty Today? A Response to Bernard-Henri Levy – Omar Barghouti
- January 11, 2011- Huffington Post The Blog
Boycott Divides Jews In Britain, The New York Times, March 26, 1983 -0 Pasadena Library
Opening Chris Hedges-
Norman Finkelstein, Talk, 6 December 2011 – Video-
Cultural
Freedom,Nonfiction,Video-Recorded at the James A. Little Theater in Santa Fe, New
Mexico on December 6, 2011.
On Gilad Atzmon-Disavowal: “…a mental act that consists in rejecting the reality of
a perception.”-by William A. Cook
