FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Why BDS Should Target All Israeli Institutions

The BDS movement and its attack on SodaStream and Scarlett Johansson have been much in the news.

The BDS movement (the movement for boycott, divestment, and sanctions against Israeli businesses and institutions) aims at ending the occupation, the settlements, Israeli discrimination against Palestinian Arabs, and Israel’s long-continuing exclusion from return to its territory of the Palestinians expelled and/or exiled by Israeli forces from that territory in the 1948 war.

Some people, although they wish to see an end to the occupation and settlements, believe that BDS should target only institutions that directly support the occupation and/or settlements. They want settlements-related business to be “disentangled” from other Israeli businesses and institutions.

For reasons given below, I believe that this view would lead to a sadly truncated “movement”, shorn of most of its potential power to effect change—that BDS should target all Israeli businesses and institutions.

The trouble involved in “disentangling” settlements businesses from other Israeli businesses is worth noting. Many businesses work on both sides of the “green-line”, Israel’s boundary from 1950-1967. How can one boycott part of a business?

It might be supposed that “disentanglement” would not be a problem if all Israeli businesses pulled out of the OPTs. But if this unlikely—and maybe impossible, see below—event should occur, it would “pull the teeth” of any BDS program targeting “settlement-businesses-only”. Meanwhile, BDS’s other goals—ending the settlements themselves and ending the occupation and ending Israel discrimination against Israeli Palestinians and Israel’s refusal to readmit the exiles—would remain.

Of course, ending Israeli business in the occupied Palestinian territories (OPTs) would not be so simple.

Power, water, transport between Israel and OPTs are both necessary and border-crossing. Israeli banks finance things other than business in OPTs — residences, town-structures, the university in the enormous Ariel settlement, entertainment and sports centers, etc. And the Israeli army (IDF) makes both the occupation and the settlements possible and has business relations with arms suppliers, “security” providers, etc.

But “entanglement”—whether it exists or disappears—seems to me unimportant. BDS should be aimed at all Israeli businesses, products and services, culture, sports, travel, etc., not merely at businesses and institutions with ties (“entanglements”) to the occupation and settlements.

Why? Because the entire Israeli society (or the dominating Jewish part of it) is democratically responsible for what the government does, and the government is in charge of promoting the occupation/settlement project. Indeed, it does so not only politically but with huge expenditures. Therefore the burden of BDS must fall on the entire society, not merely on a few members of the settlements communities.

To aim BDS solely at businesses operating in OPTs is not only hard to do (because of the “disentanglement” problem) but the wrong thing to do. It appears to absolve Israel and most Israelis of responsibility for ending the occupation/settlements.

Sometimes a full-court-press (the all-Israel-BDS which I propose) is said to illegitimately “delegitimize” Israel. This is hooey.

An all-Israel-BDS would certainly recognize and bruit the “illegitimacy” of the occupation/settlements, the discriminatory legal structures inside Israel, and Israel’s long-standing refusal to allow the return of those Palestinians ethnically cleansed in 1948—but it would in no way “delegitimize” the State of Israel (understood—as to territory—as behind the green-line).

It is up to Israel and Israelis to decide whether occupation/settlements are intrinsic to Israel (to Zionism, if you will) and necessarily — from their vantage point — permanent; or if, to the contrary, they can be abandoned as unnecessary.

If Israel’s love affair with occupation and settlements, etc., is intrinsic to Zionism, then Israel is ideologically chained to international lawlessness. Forever. Unless occupation and settlements can be unhitched from Zionism — or Israel unhitched from Zionism.

And even Zionism may not be forever. Some Israeli Jews talk about a “one-state-solution”, that is, a single multi-ethnic, multi-confessional democratic state in which both Israeli Jews and Palestinians can live together in harmony. Those Jews who talk this way have certainly abandoned much that other Israeli Jews cling to under the rubric of “Zionism”.

International law anticipates that military occupation will be brief, but by lasting 46 years (so far, and counting!), Israel’s occupation looks not like anything intended to be temporary but like a permanent land-grab, declared illegitimate by the UN Charter and UNSC 242 (the latter declaring the “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”). The settlements are well-known to violate international law.

The enormous expense of Israel’s settlements-building spree, its highways building spree, etc., in the OPTs is practically a definitive signal of Israel’s intention—other things being equal—to make the occupation and settlements permanent. Yes, Virginia, so far, Israel intends to be an international lawbreaker in perpetuity.

The question is, whether “all thing are going to remain equal” and whether, for instance, BDS can change Israeli minds.

BDS should work to help Israel and Israelis decide to end the occupation and settlements program. And it will do so quickest if it has impact on every segment of Israeli life, not merely on the businesses that operate in OPTs.

That is my case for all-Israel-BDS as opposed to settlement-businesses-only-BDS. I’d be glad to read  well-argued opposing views.

Peter Belmont lives in Brooklyn. He can be reached at: pabelmont2007@verizon.net.

 

More articles by:

Peter Belmont lives in Brooklyn. He can be reached at: pabelmont2007@verizon.net.

Weekend Edition
September 21, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Alexandra Isfahani-Hammond
Hurricane Florence and 9.7 Million Pigs
Andrew Levine
Israel’s Anti-Semitism Smear Campaign
Paul Street
Laquan McDonald is Being Tried for His Own Racist Murder
Brad Evans
What Does It Mean to Celebrate International Peace Day?
Nick Pemberton
With or Without Kavanaugh, The United States Is Anti-Choice
Jim Kavanagh
“Taxpayer Money” Threatens Medicare-for-All (And Every Other Social Program)
Jonathan Cook
Palestine: The Testbed for Trump’s Plan to Tear up the Rules-Based International Order
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: the Chickenhawks Have Finally Come Back Home to Roost!
David Rosen
As the Capitalist World Turns: From Empire to Imperialism to Globalization?
Jonah Raskin
Green Capitalism Rears Its Head at Global Climate Action Summit
James Munson
On Climate, the Centrists are the Deplorables
Robert Hunziker
Is Paris 2015 Already Underwater?
Arshad Khan
Will Their Ever be Justice for Rohingya Muslims?
Jill Richardson
Why Women Don’t Report Sexual Assault
Dave Clennon
A Victory for Historical Accuracy and the Peace Movement: Not One Emmy for Ken Burns and “The Vietnam War”
W. T. Whitney
US Harasses Cuba Amid Mysterious Circumstances
Nathan Kalman-Lamb
Things That Make Sports Fans Uncomfortable
George Capaccio
Iran: “Snapping Back” Sanctions and the Threat of War
Kenneth Surin
Brexit is Coming, But Which Will It Be?
Louis Proyect
Moore’s “Fahrenheit 11/9”: Entertaining Film, Crappy Politics
Ramzy Baroud
Why Israel Demolishes: Khan Al-Ahmar as Representation of Greater Genocide
Ben Dangl
The Zapatistas’ Dignified Rage: Revolutionary Theories and Anticapitalist Dreams of Subcommandante Marcos
Ron Jacobs
Faith, Madness, or Death
Bill Glahn
Crime Comes Knocking
Terry Heaton
Pat Robertson’s Hurricane “Miracle”
Dave Lindorff
In Montgomery County PA, It’s Often a Jury of White People
Louis Yako
From Citizens to Customers: the Corporate Customer Service Culture in America 
William Boardman
The Shame of Dianne Feinstein, the Courage of Christine Blasey Ford 
Ernie Niemi
Logging and Climate Change: Oregon is Appalachia and Timber is Our Coal
Jessicah Pierre
Nike Says “Believe in Something,” But Can It Sacrifice Something, Too?
Paul Fitzgerald - Elizabeth Gould
Weaponized Dreams? The Curious Case of Robert Moss
Olivia Alperstein
An Environmental 9/11: the EPA’s Gutting of Methane Regulations
Ted Rall
Why Christine Ford vs. Brett Kavanaugh is a Train Wreck You Can’t Look Away From
Lauren Regan
The Day the Valves Turned: Defending the Pipeline Protesters
Ralph Nader
Questions, Questions Where are the Answers?
Binoy Kampmark
Deplatforming Germaine Greer
Raouf Halaby
It Should Not Be A He Said She Said Verdict
Robert Koehler
The Accusation That Wouldn’t Go Away
Jim Hightower
Amazon is Making Workers Tweet About How Great It is to Work There
Robby Sherwin
Rabbi, Rabbi, Where For Art Thou Rabbi?
Vern Loomis
Has Something Evil This Way Come?
Steve Baggarly
Disarm Trident Walk Ends in Georgia
Graham Peebles
Priorities of the Time: Peace
Michael Doliner
The Department of Demonization
David Yearsley
Bollocks to Brexit: the Plumber Sings
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail