Boycott Israel movement needs a lesson in corporate responsibility
If anything, the global Occupy movement is without bounds.
In Melbourne this weekend a number of participants walked from the base at City Square to the Max Brenner shop at Melbourne Central. This occurred because many see a direct link between Israeli occupation of Palestine, or at least the failure to negotiate a peaceful settlement, and the Palestinian campaign to boycott, divest and sanction (BDS) Israeli products and services. (For a very good overview of the perceived synergies between the two movements read this).
Before I make a few comments, here is a Youtube video taken in Melbourne on the weekend:
First let’s make one thing clear: I do not consider criticism of the Palestinian BDS campaign as either anti- or pro- Israel or Palestine. My views mainly centre on the practical application of the Divestment strategy, after near ten years working in and consulting to the institutional investment industry on ethics. From 1 July of this year I no longer do so, so I am able to speak more freely about my views on ethical investment, and in particular, the practices of the pension (super) fund industry.
Whilst I see the logic and necessity of the Palestinian movement taking up a BDS strategy, its implementation is far more complex in my view for those wishing to target Israel.
Firstly, the capital markets have steadily become more complex. Over the past twenty years, as the pressure for investors to diversify risk has increased, so too have the proliferation of ever more complex financial instruments. Simply put, it is no longer as simple as avoiding Company XYZ because it is an identified firm.
Second, Israeli companies are much harder to identify than South African companies. This might appear nonsensical on first blush, however, Israeli assets are far more diversely spread and ownership far more common in foreign markets than were assets from South Africa.
Third, what precisely constitutes an ‘BDS worthy’ firm? For instance, when thinking about implementation, is an Israeli company with a factory in the West Bank such as Soda Stream the same as a Jewish catering company in Prahran? What if one of the company’s directors was Jewish, but he is a silent partner and contributes little start-up capital? Having done this at institutional level for billion of dollars of assets, I simply ask the question, as those with vast investment experience commonly ask these sorts of questions.
Fourth, what degree of involvement in Israeli government, foreign policy or the military is necessary to warrant divestment? For instance, do you prioritise the divestment of weapons manufacturers over chocolate franchises which sell their product to the IDF?
Fifth, does an American firm which supplies military equipment to the IDF qualify under the terms of the BDS? And what level of commercial activity – that is, many institutional investors adopt a minimum threshold whereby more than 10 percent of revenues must be derived from the blacklisted activity -would the firm need to engage in to trigger the BDS into action? Having set parameters assists not only in the implementation if the strategy, but also the prioritisation of targeted firms.
A useful and timely example is the targeting of Max Brenner by a number of participants of the Occupy initiative in Melbourne.
Max Brenner franchises make chocolates. However, Max Brenner corporate HQ previously stated that in its “corporate responsibility” statement that it supplied chocolates and related products to the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) to “sweeten their special moments”. At one stage, this passage referred to the Golani and Givati IDF Brigades, which are known to have been instrumental in the Gaza campaign in the Winter of 2008 in which around 1,400 Palestinians were killed, including several hundred children.
To be sure, Max Brenner has since removed that foul remark, however they continue to position their supply contract with the IDF as a demonstration of its “corporate responsibility” activities. Indeed this is a particularly strange corporate strategy given what is far from best practice in responsible business circles, and from a firm run by a man supposedly as “a man of peace”.
But the Max Brenner example, whilst extreme, does beg the question: what harm can chocolate do? For my mind the franchise is thoughtlessly provoking a reaction from the BDS movement, and should in fact draw closer scrutiny from the mainstream corporate social responsibility movement for its misuse of the “corporate responsibility” mantra.
Returning now to the Occupy movement in Melbourne, what worries me is how one placard in the above YouTube video translates all this to:
Allergy Warning: Max Brenner – May contain traces of genocide
This is precisely what I was talking about when discussing the inappropriate use of the BDS campaign by Kevin Rudd’s nephew Van Rudd, I have said of the BDS that:
I know there are a number of reasoned and progressive leaders who support the boycott of Israel. However, they generally acknowledge that such a position seeks to isolate Israel, economically and diplomatically, and leaves little room for dialogue. Instead, the pro-Palestine boycott logic rests on the belief that any harm incurred by Israelis will be outweighed by the gains in human rights for Palestinians.
For mind, the problem is becoming less the aggressive actions of Israel or its neighbours than it is those talking about Israel and Palestine with no commitment to dialogue, and no capacity to see all humans with a common humanity. For the BDS campaign is a sharp and noble instrument that must be handled with better care than it was on the weekend in Melbourne.
This is part of a series of posts on the Occupy movement.
Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :
Thank you for registering, we have just sent you a confirmation email, which includes your new password to be entered below.
Interesting observations and savvy. BDS is a complex beast and in many ways aims to raise the question of Israeli businesses complicit in the occupation of Palestine. I sometimes have strategic differences with parts of the BDS protest movement in Australia BUT Max Brenner is a legitimate place to display outrage due to its white-washing and support for IDF troops complicit in war crimes.
The BDS challenge in Australia is to highlight the Australian government’s selling of weapons to the IDF and a broader economic question of economic integration here between Israel and Australia.
Agree with this wholeheartedly:
My main concern is the aggressiveness of the campaign documents themselves, continual hijacking by well-meaning activists such as those behind “the Occupy action” in Melbourne, and what I see – like you above – as a less combative manner of implementing a BDS campaign.
Yes, Max Brenner’s positioning is abhorrent, but it’s dangerous to get sidetracked into spending time claiming they were responsible for the Operation Cast Lead in 2008 or are tied up in Israel’s rejection of the cluster munitions norm. The logic of causation is just not there. What is there is worthy of protest, but what has happened in Melbourne twice this year has been both damaging and I imagine distracting for those convening BDS Australia (and I’ve tried to talk to them about this six months ago).
Hi NAJ,
I was one of the co-organisers of the first national BDS conference held in Australia last year in October. My apologies for the long post, but I wanted to try and respond to some of the questions you had. Before address them, however, I did want to clarify a couple of things and point out that the Max Brenner BDS protests have been organise via the Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid, not Australians for Palestine. Also there is no-one convenor for the BDS campaign in Australia – that is the campaign is not solely organised by one group. Instead there are many individuals and groups involved in the campaign in many different ways – for examples there are trade unionists who have passed BDS motions, artists who are active in supporting the Palestinian Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (including artists such as Van Rudd). There are also a many community and human rights groups involved in the campaign doing a range of different activities – such as education campaigns, flashmobs, pickets, film showings etc.
BDS is a Palestinian-led movement, which was initiated in 2005 by more than 170 Palestinian civil society groups, with these groups representing the three key sectors of Palestinian society – Palestinians living under Israel’s military occupation, Palestinians living inside the Israeli state and Palestinian refugees). The BDS movement has a clear leadership from within Palestinian civil society and individuals and groups around the world who are involved in the campaign work in solidarity with Palestinan civil society.
In relation to the issue of divestment: While you raise some very important points, I did want to point out that the Palestinian initiated BDS campaign has never been solely about making an economic impact. While this is definitely an important objective, one of the primary aims of the Palestinan BDS campaign has been to challenge the dominant discourse around the “Question of Palestine”. For example, The Towards a Global Movement report (on BDS) issued by the Palestinian Stop the Wall campaign in 2007 notes: “… turning the tide within popular discourse and the media – building an acknowledgment of Palestinian rights – is a core objective of the campaign and goes hand-in-hand with activities on the ground attempting to implement the BDS appeal”.
In particular, BDS, which is consciously shaped as an anti-colonial campaign, seeks to highlight Israel’s policies of occupation, apartheid and ethnic cleansing and to counter the reduction of the “question of Palestine” to being merely a dispute over “contested land”. In particular, it counters attempts to exclude and ignore the rights under international law of the majority of Palestinians who are scattered around the world. While there is still a long way to go, in just six years the BDS campaign has dented the once unassailable discourse about the “Palestine question” in the corporate media and popular discussion. Today, discourse about Israel is peppered with words such as “apartheid”, “boycott”, “right of return”, something barely heard six years ago, when Palestinian civil society launched the BDS campaign.
Having said that, BDS has also started to have an economic impact. For example, in April 2009, the Israeli manufacturers’ association reported that 21% of its 90 local exporters who were questioned had felt a drop in demand due to boycotts, mostly from the UK and Scandinavian countries. In recent months, as a result of BDS campaigns by solidarity activists, an increasing number of international contractors have pulled out of Israeli projects. In May this year, the German state-owned company Deutsche Bahn, which was part of an Israeli rail project cutting through the occupied West Bank, pulled out because of potential breaches of international law. Also Ehud Barak, the Israeli former prime minister and current defence minister, in a May 5 interview with the Hebrew edition of the Tel Aviv Haaretz newspaper, acknowledged the impact that BDS was having. According to an English translation of the interview by Israeli activist Ofer Neiman from Boycott from Within (the Israeli campaign in support of BDS), Barak said that BDS was more “dangerous than what the [Israeli] public perceives at the moment”. According to Barak, BDS is uniting trade unions, academics, consumers, green political parties and others in a movement to do to Israel “what was done to South Africa”. He noted: “… there are people in the European Council that deal with export and import; they are capable, without any government decision, of inflicting significant damage on the Israeli economy”.
In relation to your third point/question – “what precisely constitutes an Israeli firm?”.. Firstly in the example you give, you conflate two separate things. Not all Jewish people are Israeli and not all Israelis are Jewish (about 20% of Israel’s population is non-Jewish). Secondly, BDS is opposed to all forms of racism, including anti-semitism and Islamophobia. BDS does not in anyway shape or form target companies based on either the religious identity or even the national identity of any of the staff, directors, owners or silent partners. As a recent statement issued by the Palestinian BDS National Committee notes: “Nowhere in the world are BDS activities about targeting specifically business with Israeli ownership, based on the nationality of their owner. Businesses and institutions are rather chosen based on their direct contribution to grave human rights abuses and international law violations of the Israeli state and military, or to rebranding campaigns that attempt to whitewash Israel’s crimes” (for full statement see: http://australianbdscampaign.wordpress.com/2011/08/16/bnc-condemns-repression-of-bds-activism-in-australia/ )
In relation to the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel – the Palestinian Academic and Cultural Boycott Campaign has issued the following two sets of guidelines in 2009 (see: Cultural: http://www.pacbi.org/etemplate.php?id=1045 / Academic: http://www.pacbi.org/etemplate.php?id=1108 ) Again, the boycott focuses on the Israeli state and insitutions which either contribute to human rights abuses against Palestinians and violation of international law by the Israeli state or the rebanding campaigns that attempt to white was Israel’s war crimes
In relation to your fourth point/question – Any company or institution – whether Israeli or international – who contribute directly to Israel’s human rights abuses against the Palestinians or Israel’s violation of international law or contribute to rebranding campaigns to white wash Israel’s war crimes are viewed within the context of the BDS campaign as a legitimate BDS target.
In relation to your fifth point/question: Yes, an American firm who supplies equipment to the Israeli Occupation Forces would be viewed as a legitimate BDS target, for the reasons outline above.
Thanks on behalf of all the readers for taking the time to write such a detailed post. In particular, thanks for clarifying for me who has been behing the Human Rights Arts and Film Festival (HRAFF) and Occupy protests that I have encountered. I did not know who was organising them before now.
There’s a couple of elements I feel I should respond to:
1. I do not suggest, as I think you are driving at, that the BDS campaign is “solely about making an economic impact”. To a large extent the “D” is, but again it is coupled with political pressure, awareness and so on.
2. Rightly or wrongly, and I have no firm views here, you seem to say that a discourse which posits that Israel are engaging in “occupation”, “apartheid”, “ethnic cleansing” etc is a positive development. To whom? On what grounds? Could it be possible that the use of those terms in the debate is divisive? That they deepen and strengthen the us/them boundaries that are present here? Or at the very least, that they are moving the debate down a path that is further away from the end goal of both parties being treated with a common humanity? My hunch is that the BDS campaign often does promote this sort of behaviour (e.g. the prominent placard about Max Brenner and “genocide”), and that unless it is more carefully constructed and implemented, it can’t be assumed to have the same effect as it did in South Africa, where there was far greater solidarity behind the claims being made because of a relative absence of this counter hatred especially evident at state level.
3. I’m not sure I “conflated” differences between Jewish-Israelis, Israelis etc. Rather, I merely seek to point out that boycotting Soda Stream for it being located on the West Bank, and extending the Max Brenner campaign to claims it is involved in the use of cluster munitions (a weapon currently the subject of an international norm, however not accepted by Israel and other states) is going to stop there. And I have heard that claim over a megaphone outside the HRAAF Melbourne a few months ago. It is sensationalistic to extend the BDS issues with Max Brenner, which could be based on strong evidence to qualify the firm for “direct contribution to grave human rights abuses and international law violations of the Israeli state and military, or to rebranding campaigns that attempt to whitewash Israel’s crimes”, to cluster munitions too?
4. The BDS cite a criteria of “human rights abuses” often. Irrespective of whether they are occurring or not, what is necessary for that clause to be triggered to the satisfaction of the campaign? My point being, human rights are not a universally accepted norm – in conflict, or in peaceful society. For instance, Australia have sought to prohibit cluster munitions in recognition of their humanitarian implications, however want to pass domestic legislation that will enable joint-operations with foreign militaries such as the United States who do not recognise the Cluster Munitions Convention.
I guess I return to my original thinking, that the BDS campaign often comes across as a divisive instrument that speaks in absolutist terms that are hard to sustain not only a logical argument (as in Max Brenner and cluster munitions), but also one that is implementable (as I’ve tried to explore in general terms in my original post).
To close, why given all you’ve said did the local BDS movement label attendees at the HRAFF Melbourne as supporters of israeli apartheid because one Vietnamese-Australian artist had their cartoons that addressed the Israel-Palestine conflict omitted from the show – contested by both parties as to why as I detailed here and referred to in my original post? I was there. And just now I’ve found this through Google which does not relay what was said on the night, or captured on the organisations film. I did not know about the omitted work until after I attended. And yet I was filmed before I walked in the door, as I entered, as I walked around inside and spoke to the festival organisers, as I left… all the time with claims of the festival siding with Max Brenner being bleated out over a megaphone.
(Perhaps the footage taken from the HRAFF could be uploaded? I would happily accept a copy on disc to upload here. I have not found the footage when looking here)
I’m all for the airing of views, but I have some problems with how BDS is being applied in Australia in relation to the single issue of divestment.
Hi NAJ,
in response to some of your points and questions:
In your second point you asked why is it a positive development that in discourse about the Israel and the conflict that words such as “occupation”, “apartheid”, “ethnic cleansing” etc is a positive development. In particular, you asked “to whom?” and “on what grounds” and “could it be possible that the use of those terms in the debate is divisive?”.
Yes, without a doubt, some people will claim that these terms are divisive. However, the use of these terms has nothing to do with “counter hatred” as you have argued. Instead, these terms are consciously used by the Palestinian civil society and the BDS campaign because they accurately describe Palestinian reality and Israeli state/ military practice.
As noted previously, the BDS campaign is consciously shaped by Palestinian civil society as an anti-colonial campaign – this is because from its inception, the conflict has been a colonial conflict and like all other colonial conflicts it is an asymmetric one – that is it is not a conflict between two equal states/nations/powers. Instead, it is a conflict between an oppressor settler colonial state (Israel) and an oppressed colonised indigenous people (Palestinians).
In any colonial conflict, while the aim of the colonisers is to impose a “peace” on their own terms, if necessary by force, however, the aims of those being colonised is very different. First and foremost their primary aim is to resist being dispossessed from their land, from being ethnically cleansed by the colonisers (Within the context of the BDS campaign this is done by utilising global solidarity and non-violent civil resistance to Israel’s occupation and apartheid policies).
As mentioned, the Palestinian BDS campaign is conducted within the framework of international human rights law. Thus when Palestinian civil society and BDS supporters use terms such as “occupation”, “apartheid” and “ethnic cleansing” to describe Israeli colonial practices, they are not just arbitrarily using terms plucked out of thin air, instead they are using terms articulated within the framework of international law.
In relation to the “occupation” – according to International law Israel is carrying out an illegal belligerent military occupation of the Palestinian people. This is something which has been recognised by several decades now by the international community.
In relation to the term “apartheid”, Omar Barthouti, one of the founders of the Palestinian BDS campaign articulates clearly in his book on the Global BDS campaign on why Palestinian civil society and the BDS campaign use this term.
He writes: “Characterising Israel’s legalized and institutional racist discrimination as such [ie.apartheid] does not attempt to equate Israel with South Africa under apartheid despite the many similarities, no two oppressive regimes are identical. Rather, it stems from the argument that Israel’s system of bestowing rights and privileges according to ethnic and religious identity fits the UN definition of the term as enshrined in the 1973 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid and in the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The disingenuous or manifestly misinformed argument that the rejects the apartheid charge on the basis that Jewish Israelis form a majority, unlike the whites in South Africa who were in a minority, ignores the fact that the universally accepted definition of apartheid has nothing to do with majorities and minorities. Rather it is defined by “inhumane acts … committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination of racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime” (Barghouti, 2011, BDS: The Global Struggle for Palestinian Rights, p17).
The term “ethnic cleansing” is similarly used, drawing on the definitions found within the statutes of the International Criminal Court and the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (for more detailed discuss on this, if you haven’t done so already, I would suggest reading Israeli historian Ilan Pappe’s 2006 book, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. Pappe is also supporter of the Palestinian BDS campaign).
In relation to your third point: I would have to disagree with you here, as I do think you did conflate being Jewish and being Israeli as being one and the same thing, when as I pointed out in my earlier post this is not the case – not all Jewish people are Israeli and not all Israelis are Jewish.
As far as I am aware, no-one has ever claimed that Max Brenner or its parent company, Strauss, are “involved in the use of cluster munitions” as you have argued. What has been stated is that the Strauss, which owns Brenner, actively supports the Israeli military (providing care packages, sports and recreational equipment, books and games for soldiers). And the Israeli military are not only carrying out an illegal (under international law) belligerent occupation of another people on behalf of the Israeli state, but have also engaged in well-documented systemic human rights abuses and war crimes against the Palestinian people for more than 60 years. What has been pointed out is that Strauss supports the Golani and Givati Brigade of the Israeli military, two brigades who were active on the ground in Gaza during Operation Cast Lead – an operation in which the Israeli military did use cluster munitions and white phosphorous. An operation which as a result of the use of these munitions and other munitions resulted in the mass murder of almost 1400 Palestinians, the majority of whom were civilians, including 350 children.
In relation to your fourth point: I disagree with your claim that human rights are not a universally accepted norm – I think the majority of people accept that there should be human rights for all. However, whether states accept this is of course another matter. We could of course get into an esoteric debate about all of this but the fact is that there is internationally adopted human rights laws and conventions which the majority of world states have signed onto, even if they don’t necessarily abide by them (for example, Israel and Australia are both signatories to the 4th Geneva Convention but both regularly violate the charter of the convention). Our job as activists and supporters of universal human rights, however, is to demand that they be held accountable and be held up to the standards of international law.
In relation to the Human Rights Arts and Film Festival, I think you have misunderstood my brief reference to Van Rudd being supportive of the Palestinian Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) campaign in my previous post. PACBI was not behind the action at the opening night – I was simply pointing out that Van is one of many artists who are supporting the Palestinian Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel.
Having just read your earlier article in relation the censoring of Van Rudd’s artwork by HRAFF and speaking just for myself on a personal level, I have to say I found a number of your assertions problematic. For example, your assertion that supposedly because Van Rudd’s work is “visual activism”, it is somehow not art and should not be afforded the full range of artistic freedoms that other art work supposedly are afforded. Firstly I think this is an extremely narrow definition of what art is, could be or should be. And secondly, as I understand it, most of the artwork at the HRAFF art show was “activist” in nature, so are you therefore claiming that the art work exhibited as part of the exhibition was therefore not really art? (According to HRAFF’s own mission statement, one of the key aims of the festival was to advance and encourage debate and make the links with activist campaigns).
I was also not aware that art was suppose to be by definition “inclusive” or “agreeable” (ie. in your article you label Van Rudd’s work as supposedly being “exclusionary” and “divisive”). While I am no artist, to me art should actually be challenging and yes, even divisive at times – perhaps this is because I tend to agree with what Bertolt Brecht (poet, playwright, artist) had to say about art. That: “Art is not a mirror held up to reality, but a hammer with which to shape it”.
Opps, sorry, spell check somehow correct Omar’s name: It is Omar Barghouti not “Barthouti”.
I first must clarify a number of instances where you are grossly misrepresenting me:
Regarding my opinion piece on Van Rudd and the HRAFF, I never stated that Van Rudd’s submission was not art as you claim. In fact, I went to great pains to call him “an artist” (even in the title), and I referred to his “artwork” throughout.
What I in fact said was that:
In reference to your statement that:
Again I don’t actually state that art must be anything “by definition”, so my giving the opinion that Rudd’s artwork was “exclusionary and divisive” does not imply anything about what art “should be” – that was simply my interpretation of it.
Regarding my “conflating” Jewish and Israeli identity, and indeed more nuanced combinations, I must again reiterate that I do appreciate the difference between them.
To hopefully put an end to this part of the discussion, I can state that more than three years ago I began working on a community project with the Middle Eastern diaspora – incorporating mainly Arabs, Palestinians, Muslims, Jews and Israelis. Along with an academic at La Trobe University, we have been writing a paper on the distinction that you describe, which will be published shortly. I have also written and spoken on radio elsewhere about this matter.
To clarify my point in the original post about Jewish caterers and Israeli firm in the West Bank, I merely intended to highlight that the identification of firms that trigger the BDS campaign is rather difficult. What if the Jewish caterer was a Zionist in their politics, and the Israeli firm was secular and employed all Palestinians at a good wage? Point being, the absolutist framework is bound to fall down on some cases, or at least target firms equally that are perhaps less fruitful to target to exert political or economic pressure.
Returning to your broader comments:
I confirm that I see many of the terms employed by the BDS campaign such as “ethnic cleansing” as divisive. I do see that I was sloppy here in taking of “counter hatred”: I meant to say, that in South Africa, there were not the widespread counter claims by states to eradicate the state of Israel, which makes the use of the terms described in the BDS movement especially divisive in my view. Put another way, you are yourselves creating a circular argument that those facing it will jump at and throw back at you – as has happened I see for months in the media regarding Max Brenner and the unfounded claim that the BDS movement is anti-semitic.
I would myself disagree with your statement that:
In my view, ‘reality’ and ‘fact’ are not so easily objective as you seem to suggest, nor even are world events able to be observed and documented and tested against some hard ‘law’. These tools and instruments are subjective, and they may be interpreted and argued – as we are doing here. So here I see we must agree to disagree.
I don’t feel we need to go down the road of arguing that BDS is not a harmful practice for those targeted, and that the logic often put forward is that the harm endured is (supposedly) less than the harm alleviated for those enacting it. (From memory this type of logic is even now incorporated into the global BDS documents.)
My view is, whether you agree or not is another thing, that it is advisable to be more cautious when referring to international law as universal:
and
I am not going down the road of arguing for or against your claims, I am merely pointing out that your expression seems to overstate what international law can achieve.
As to the HRAFF event and Max Brenner, the information you provide is widely known, and the statements regarding cluster munitions were made on film that has never been shown to me, but which was taken of me. Again, I am more than happy for it to be published on this site. I don’t see how it is fair for the campaign to take 20+ minutes of footage of attendees, who on arrival were confronted by a single person on a megaphone relating attendance at the event with complicity to a potted history of the Israel-Palestine conflict.
What I was arguing in my original blog post was that the manner in which the BDS campaign here is approaching Max Brenner is problematic:
• Max Brenner made abhorrent corporate social responsibility statements in relation to the IDF. This is well known, and whilst removed from the website, does not mean it does or does not still occur. For this BDS should be triggered in my view.
• Max Brenner supplies chocolates, it does not carry out campaigns in which “human rights abuses” are conducted. Following the logic you’ve laid out, should Microsoft be banned for supplying the IDF with their computer software?
Having worked in this field for some time, all I am trying to do is encourage the BDS campaign to consult with experts in the field of corporate social responsibility as well as ethical and responsible investment on how these types of matters are implemented. I suggest this because, at present, I believe the local BDS campaign identifies a firm, and then extends the issue too far, and wrapped in unnecessary rhetoric.
Hi again,
In relation to your comments regarding terms used within the BDS campaign. As far as I am aware, the Palestinian BDS Campaign and the Palestinian BDS National Committee has never called for “the eradication of the state of Israel”. I think this is straw argument which is often propagated by critics of the campaign and should be avoided because it has no basis in fact.
In relation to the issues of “reality” and “fact” – you are right in saying we will have to agree to disagree. This because, I would argue for the 5 million people living under Israel’s occupation, there is nothing subjective about what they are experiencing, it is an objective reality. It is an objective fact that the occupation exists and that every single day, Palestinians are forced to walk through checkpoints, their freedom of movement is curtailed, that families face the very real possibility that their home will be demolished and that their child, father, mother, brother, sister will be arrested in the middle of the night by the Israeli military on some bogus claim.
I have actually spent a considerable time the Occupied Palestinian Territories – at one stage living there for a year and also visiting their frequently since that time and I can say with complete certainty that Israel’s occupation objectively exists.
I would also argue that 1.5 million Palestinians living in Israel who are subject to 20 discriminatory laws, that their experiences of racism, discrimination and second class citizenry is not subjective, instead it is an objective reality because these laws exist and impact on the lives of every single Palestinian living in Israel, every single day. Thus apartheid exists not just in the Occupied Territories but also inside the Israeli state. Similarly for the 7 million Palestinians forced to live in exile and not allowed to return to their homeland – I would maintain that this is not subjective experience, instead it is an objective fact – they are not allowed to return to their home land by the Israeli state.
In relation to international law: I think you missed the point of what I was arguing.
In relation to Max Brenner: I noted previously, as far as I am aware no-one involved in the BDS campaign has ever claimed that Max Brenner/Strauss as an business entity itself is carrying out human rights abuses. Instead what has been stated is that they are actively supporting an entity (ie. the Israeli military) which does carryout human rights abuses – with these human rights abuses being well-documented and numerous. Thus what is being argued is that they are complicit in supporting human rights abuses via their support for the Israeli military, not that they themselves are carrying them out these abuses. This is the distinction you seem to be missing.
In relation to your hypothetical example of Microsoft – if the IOF (Israeli Occupation Forces) are simply just purchasing a Microsoft product for the military’s use, then Microsoft would not be subject to BDS. However, if Microsoft negotiated a contract/deal with the Israeli military to develop new software for the Israeli military to use, then yes it would be subject to BDS.
In relation to this, I would point out that BDS is not a “blunt” instrument. Instead it is an adaptable, nuanced and creative framework for action (something repeatedly noted by the Palestinian BDS National Committee). Thus depending on the political situation/context and practical restraints, the BDS call can and will be implemented in different ways, dependent on the target, the political situation and context of where the campaign is happening. So for example, taking the hypothetical example you have given of Microsoft, BDS activism could legitimately include such things as a letter writing campaign calling for Microsoft to divest from their deal with the Israeli military or it could include a picket of a Microsoft shareholders meeting or could be a “flash mob” in a Microsoft store to raise awareness of the fact that Microsoft has a deal with the Israeli military. BDS is not only about they “boycott” of goods, it is also about calling for “divestment” from and “sanctions” against Israel and it is also about raising awareness about Israel’s human rights abuses of the Palestinian people and their violations of international human rights laws.
In relation to your last point about corporate responsibility: It seems to me you are attempting to reduce BDS to being simply about corporate responsibility, rather than it being an anti-colonial campaign for and about Palestinian human rights. While BDS does support and call for companies to exercise corporate responsibility and not engage in or support human rights abuses against the Palestinian people, as I have already noted, first and foremost it is an anti-colonial campaign. Perhaps, I am wrong, but this seems me, from what you have written, that you seem to be missing this point entirely.
As an anti-colonial campaign, BDS is first and foremost at its core an “anti-normalisation” campaign. By this I mean that is a campaign which is about (non-violently) resisting the “normalisation” of Israeli occupation and apartheid practices.
In 2007, the first national BDS conference in Palestine adopted the following definition of “normalisation” – “normalisation means to participate in any project or initiative or activity, local or international, specifically designed for gathering (either directly or indirectly) Palestinians (and/or Arabs) and Israelis, whether individuals or institutions; that does not explicitly aim to expose and resist the occupation and all the forms of discrimination and oppression against the Palestinian people”.
I would point out that the concept of “normalisation” and “anti-normalisation” have long been part of the Palestinian national movement for more than 75 years (for example one of the first Palestinian anti-normalisation campaigns occurred in 1936, when Palestinian engaged in a 6 month general strike against both British imperialism and Zionist settler-colonial colonisation).
In relation to what is or isn’t “normalisation”, the Ramallah based Palestinian Ma’an Development centre offers this following definition in their 2009 booklet on BDS (you can view the full booklet here: http://www.bdsmovement.net/2009/maan-development-center-launches-booklet-on-palestinian-bds-campaign-574#.TqDup3LF6_s )
1. “Projects that do not agree on inalienable rights for Palestinians under international law and the conditions of justice,”
2. “Projects implying equity between Israelis and the Palestinians in the responsibility for the conflict, or that claim that peace is achieved through dialogue and understanding and increased cooperation between both sides, without achieving justice,”
3. “Projects that hide the situation of the Palestinian people as victims of the Israeli colonial project,”
4. “Projects that refuse, ignore or dilute the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, the right of return and compensation according to the UN resolution No. 194,” and
5. “Projects supported by or in partnership with the Israeli institutions that do not recognize the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people or projects receiving support or funding (in part or in whole) from the Israeli government such as cinema festivals, information technology exhibitions, etc.”
For more discussion about the issue of BDS as an anti-normalisation campaign, Rifat Odeh Kassis, who is the President of Defence of Children-International and the Director of Defence of Children – Palestine Section published an interesting article on this in February. You can read it here: http://www.alternativenews.org/english/index.php/topics/news/3278-levelling-the-scales-by-force-thoughts-on-normalisation-in-the-palestinian-israeli-conflict
An observation: you seem more intent on sharing stats than on discussing my original ideas on the BDS campaign and the single issue of divestment (“D”).
Often times you do this by, I feel given the frequency of it, misstating my words or adopting a reading of them that is rather combative (e.g. on Van Rudd, or my cautionary note to you to not claim the universalism of certain norms like international law, or human rights).
That said, I am pleased that I have seemingly put aside your readings on my positions on Van Rudd, as well as my understanding of Israeli and Jewish identity.
To your points:
On “reality” and “fact”, you’ve taken a general observation about presenting world events in black and white terms to imply that I don’t believe XYZ events have or are occurring. I won’t justify those claims with any more of a response – I even made my position on Israel / Palestine in the context of the BDS movement very clear in my original post:
On the “eradication of the state of Israel”, I am referring to the state discourse on Israel, not that of the BDS movement. Rather, because of that discourse that calls into question the legitimacy of Israel between certain states, the BDS use of the terms “colonial”, “genocide”, “settler state” takes on a new meaning. Apologies if I was not clear.
On Max Brenner, if you recall my post was identifying the complexity of implementing a BDS campaign on Israel, and your comments on “support” and the campaigns use of the word “fund” in relation to the firm and the IDF is an example of not being precisely clear as to what the issue with Max Brenner is. For instance at the protests, claims of “support” and “fund the IDF” are made, but on the international website the issue is that Max Brenner took the abhorrent step of including their provision of goods and services to the IDF in their corporate responsibility statement. Whilst that statement has been toned down over time, that does not mean it is still not occuring, and has been claimed, there are suggestions those same statements are still on the company’s Hebrew website.
I do note, however, that you only use the word “support” and “white-washing” which is more accurate than what I’ve seen being used during protests.
Again, this is an observation, not a judgement that the application of BDS is often misguided into feeling the need to sensationalise or overcomplicate claims.
On corporate responsibility, I am not inferring that, as you say:
But rather, that the BDS movement has much to learn from the broader CSR and ethical investment community. Particularly in relation to the implementation issues that my original post began to explore.
I think our discussion only serves to cement my views far more strongly than before.
I ask again, why wont you upload the 20 minutes of footage taken at the HRAFF opening night? I am more than happy to host it here.
Hello NAJ,
In response to your observation: No, I am not intent on simply sharing my many views rather discussing your original ideas. What I am doing is explaining the political framework and politics of the campaign because in any discussion about the BDS campaign or its divestment strategy in order to have a politically useful discussion, you first need to actually have a solid political understanding of the political framework of the campaign.
What is evident from your original blog and your subsequent posts is that your understanding of the political framework of the campaign is actually very limited, which is why I have attempted to explain at length what it is.
I acknowledge that the primary crux of your original blog is about the practical application of the Divestment strategy. However, in my opinion in order to make an informed comment about the so-called practical application of Divestment or BDS in general, as I said above, I think one needs to fully understand the politics and political framework of the actual BDS campaign. Without actually anchoring the three strategies (boycott, divestment and sanctions) within the political framework of the BDS campaign – which is, as I have pointed out at length, at its crux an anti-colonial, anti-normalisation campaign – then your understanding of the campaign and any subsequent blogs or posts about the campaign or the divestment strategy within the campaign will be quite superficial in content.
Despite the fact that I have raised several times that this is the political framework of the BDS campaign, you have not actually engaged at all with this, instead you have basically ignored it. I would be interested to know why this is.
In relation to the HRAFF opening: it’s simple – I can’t upload footage which I do not have.
Thanks for this, Kim. I think you nailed it here: you demand of me an acceptance, or at least an acknowledgement of your politics as it is applied to the BDS campaign before I may critique the BDS divestment strategy.
I can not do that.
I can only reiterate that I have read widely on the global BDS campaign, but admittedly I only skim the materials from Australia, because I find the official literature handed out at rallies and actions more militant for my tastes. I go back to my original post where I said my political position on Israel and/or Palestine is being put aside for the sake of identifying a small number of implementation issues related to divestment.
The scope and terms of my discussion were clearly set, but limited.
Having advised on ethical divestment strategies to a range of clients – as divergent as a $400 billion sovereign wealth fund with no overriding moral or religious requirements set on the management of its money, to a non-profit NGO solely interested in promoting environmental consideration within the institutional industry, down to a $2 billion religiously-based pension fund for individuals’ retirement savings – I can only say this: that regardless of which of the three institutions I consulted to, when I met their boards and/or management, it becomes readily apparent that their morals and values are often different, and certainly how they believe those generally-held principles should be implemented differs nearly every time.
A example from a client discusion three years ago: talking to a local pension (super) fund, one board member sought to ban all uranium investments from the portfolio. Given the role of the major resources companies in Australia, the implications of this decision alone are huge. So, an argument broke out. Often these disputes are settled based on some material limit – such that “if more than 10 percent of company revenues are derived from the excluded practice, the company will be divested and banned”.
In addition, two other board members asked by this is an ethical strategy given the civilian uses of uranium governed under international law and voluntary state mechanisms such as the Nuclear Suppliers Group.
Another board member, relayed that cluster munitions producers should also be banned should uranium be – because of the humanitarian concerns over those weapons.
I kid you not, without fail, there is nearly always a pragmatist in the room who retorts with this: why stop there? what about the environmental impact of mining practices and the labour standards of workers in the BRIC countries? The pragmatist isn’t generally sincere, they are attempting to make the obvious point clear that moral principles must be traded off between themselves and against other peoples, and that implementation of what is known as “ethical investment” is an incredibly complex once all is decided. Put another way, the pragmatist is trying to say, why bother with any of it?
This is why I have the views I do. And I’m pleased you have and shared yours so this discussion is on record here. May this dialogue continue.
No NAJ, I did NOT demand of you an acceptance or acknowledgement of my politics. What I said was that that in order to have a politically useful discussion, you first need to actually have a solid political UNDERSTANDING of the political framework of the campaign. I never said you had to accept that political framework.
Having a political understanding of something, does not mean you have to then politically accept it. For example, I have a very solid political understanding of Zionism but I do not accept Zionism as a political framework for myself.
Similarly in asking why you had not engaged in discussion about the political framework of the BDS campaign was not at all a demand that you accept or acknowledge MY politics. I was simply curious to know why you had not engaged with the political framework of the BDS campaign. This is not the same as “demanding” you accept that political framework.
However, given the fact you are discussing the Palestinian BDS campaign, than I think it’s pretty legitimate to expect that you or anyone else who wants to write about the campaign, should at least actually endeavour to try and understand the political history and political framework of the campaign. Otherwise, as I said, your analysis of the campaign and/or the divestment strategy in the campaign will be quite superficial in content.
Just to add: in relation to your comment that you have read widely on the global BDS campaign – if this is the case, then I am a little perplexed by the questions in your original blog, as I would have expected that anyone who had widely read-up on the global campaign would have already known the answers to the questions you asked and therefore would not have needed to ask them. Instead it appeared to me that in asking the questions you did, your understanding of the political framework campaign was limited. I am not saying this to be a smart alec, it is simply my observation. This is why, I attempted in my posts to address questions and explain at length the political framework of the campaign.
You seem to have reverted into combative Kim mode again.
To put it plainly: you attempt, once again, to claim intellectual hegemony over history, politics and the BDS campaign. Not only that, you allege that I personally don’t know this, and haven’t read that, throughout. Despite me suggesting otherwise.
I’m all for debate, but my patience was lost when my words were misrepresented.
For the sake of brevity:
I said “you demand of me, or at least an acknowledgement”. For me to claim this, it does not need to be explicit. You have done this throughout the comments I have published on this post, and I encourage you to submit more, if you wish.
You claim I know nothing about the “political history”, “politics” or “BDS campaign” – and you base this on the “questions in your original blog”.
When you hijack conversations with your rhetoric, remember to revisit the original blog if you do decide to drift back to it. What I said was:
What I then did was make a number of brief points by way of rhetorical questions highlighting some of the dilemmas involved in operating such targeted divestment strategies. From the beginning you’ve taken my questions literally, alleging I’ve no understanding of “the political history”, the difference between Israelis and Jews, and even the BDS campaign itself.
I am, after all, writing for an general audience Kim.
On the filming at HRAFF, it seems strange you can’t get access to the footage. It was filmed without authorisation on private land, so…
Dear NAJ, I am sorry but it is seems to me that it is you who are resorting to the “combative mode”.
I never claimed intellectual hegemony over the politics of the BDS campaign, I simply explained the political frame work of the campaign as designated by the Palestinian BDS National Committee and Palestinian civil society. I am still perplex by the fact that you are writing about a specific campaign but you refuse to actually engage with the political frame work of the campaign – one politically set by the Palestinians NOT me.
I have no problem if you disagree with me, but please disagree with what I actually said, not what you think I said. You said, that you have read widely on the global campaign. As I said, I was therefore perplexed by the questions in your original blog, as it appeared to me in asking the questions you did, your understanding of the political framework campaign appeared to be limited.
I get that you are writing for a general audience, I get that you were being rhetorical. However, if you knew the answers to the rhetorical questions you were asking, I am again perplexed why you did not then provide those answers to your audience yourself. Instead, you left them unanswered.
In relation to HRAFF – If you would like to come and check my home, computer etc and search for the footage, you are welcome. However, on a general point in relation to QVB where the HRAFF exhibition was held, while QVB is privately owned the open public spaces with in the QVB are just that – public spaces – thus people don’t need authorisation to film or photograpah anyone in a public space.
I feel I must leave you perplexed. This particular discussion has drifted too far off topic, and I don’t see it being productive – for you or I, let alone those reading it.
Please continue to post. Perhaps it would be useful to hear comments or views on what has been said from others.
Interesting article on JPost found by A.Lowenstein
Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :
Thank you for registering, we have just sent you a confirmation email, which includes your new password to be entered below.