• BDS, the boycott law and Israel's democracy  - Naomi Chazan
For Israeli critics of the occupation, the BDS effort has proven to be counterproductive.

• For human rights advocates, supporting BDS is a no-brainer  - Nadia Hijab
The question is how to shift the balance of power.

• Seeking signs of health  - Samah Jaber
There is no win-win situation between the occupied Palestinian nation and the Israeli occupation.

• BDS and limited boycotts: a distinction without a difference?  - Gerald M. Steinberg
The objective of this form of warfare is rejection of the sovereign Jewish nation-state, regardless of boundaries.

BDS, the boycott law and Israel's democracy
 Naomi Chazan

July 11, 2011 was a watershed in Israel's political history. The adoption by the Knesset of "The Law to Prevent Harm to the State of Israel via Boycott" (generally known as the boycott law), makes it a compensable civil wrong to publicly encourage a boycott against the state of Israel, its institutions or any territory under its rule. This legislation conflates dissent against Israel's continued occupation of Palestinians with de-legitimization of Israel in its entirety, seriously undermines Israel's global standing and constitutes the latest--and the most severe--in a series of parliamentary blows to the country's increasingly fragile democratic order.

Boycotts are an acceptable tool of non-violent democratic action utilized broadly in struggles against oppression and injustice. They offer citizens a means to express their displeasure with anything from the price of cottage cheese to official policy directions and actions. Debates over the validity and viability of particular boycotts have traditionally focused on their specific objectives, which is precisely what makes the present legislation so objectionable. It sets out to stifle all such discussion.

The boycott law is unabashedly political both in intent and content. Although ostensibly against all boycotts, in fact it seeks to prohibit any Israeli citizen from shunning Jewish settlements beyond the 1967 borders and their products. This government-backed bill purposefully blurs the distinction between Israel and the occupied territories. It treats the West Bank as an integral part of the state--an overt act of legal annexation. It therefore stands in direct contravention to Israel's professed support for a two-state solution and reinforces the settlement enterprise that has emerged as the key obstacle to its realization.

By effectively erasing the green line, this law goes one step further: it makes a mockery of efforts to differentiate between spurious attacks on Israel's fundamental right to exist and legitimate disagreements over the legality of settlement activities. Many of Israel's foremost critics of the ongoing occupation have vigorously opposed the call of the growing global BDS movement to refrain from all things Israeli precisely because a blanket boycott against Israel might actually delay the creation of a viable, independent, Palestinian state. Even though they have consistently refused to purchase goods or services from the settlements, these Israelis have argued repeatedly that the purpose of a total economic, cultural and academic boycott of Israel is insufficiently focused and plays directly into the hands of those who believe that the whole world is against Israel, thereby reinforcing precisely those right-wing extremists who parlayed the latest anti-boycott legislation.

For these critics of the occupation, the international BDS effort has proven to be counterproductive: it weakens peace and human rights organizations that have struggled systematically against the continued Israeli presence in the territories and diverts attention from the need to find a political solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conundrum. The ratification of the boycott law takes the wind out of their sails, ironically reinforcing those who advocate shunning all things Israeli.

The anti-boycott legislation, however, is much more than just an egregious attempt to muzzle open debate on the single most controversial issue on Israel's agenda; it is also anti-democratic to the core. By selectively curtailing the basic civil liberties of those who do not agree with government policies and who claim that these are antithetical to Israel's own interests, this law sanctions limiting freedom of speech, conscience and dissent and makes mincemeat of the concept of equality before the law. These intrinsic rights of citizens in democratic societies, protected in Israel's unwritten constitution, should not be jettisoned at the whim of a heuristic parliamentary constellation transformed into a band of legal vigilantes who have opened the door for anyone to sue anyone on political grounds. The thought that the ruling coalition can override basic freedoms and impose its political will on all citizens is nothing short of sanctioning the tyranny of the majority under the guise of majority rule.

No single recent act by Israel has tarnished its name more than the boycott law, which inevitably reinforces its obdurate image in the international community. It casts doubt on the credibility of Israel's desire to reach a lasting accommodation with its neighbors. It belies Israel's claim to a democratic ethos. And it threatens to sacrifice Israel's most significant strategic asset--its democracy--to opportunistic domestic political goals. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that this law has been criticized by democrats from all parts of the political spectrum within Israel, by a wide variety of Jewish organizations abroad and, tellingly, not only by its detractors in the world but also by its long-time supporters in the United States and the European Union. The law is a mark of weakness that contributes directly to Israel's increased global isolation.

The boycott law is just the latest in what is nothing short of a blatant anti-democratic parliamentary offensive. Prompted by anger, trepidation and bravado that fuel a need to apportion blame for Israel's precarious global status, overly-zealous members of the ruling coalition have abused their parliamentary position in an attempt to enforce the will of the settlers and their proponents on Israel's body politic. In the process they have not only misused Israel's democracy, they have demonstrated their fundamental ignorance of its basic components.

It is not too late to reverse this deleterious trend. Israel's High Court of Justice has yet to rule on the petitions against the boycott law brought by civil society organizations; but any jury of even the strongest opponents of BDS already knows that the external, political, democratic and moral damage the law has unleashed is extensive. Only a comprehensive mind-shift can stem its consequences.-Published 21/7/2011 © bitterlemons-international.org

Naomi Chazan, former deputy speaker of the Knesset and currently dean of the School of Government and Society at the Academic College of Tel-Aviv-Yaffo, is president of the New Israel Fund.

Making the Palestinian case has never been a problem. It is a powerful story grounded in universal principles of human rights and in international law. The question has always been how to shift the balance between one of the strongest military powers in the world and a people struggling with occupation, inequality, and exile.

That question began to be answered in the mid-2000s. The International Court of Justice issued its advisory opinion in 2004, affirming the illegality of Israel's wall and settlement enterprise, the Palestinian right to self-determination, and the applicability of international law. The ICJ opinion reinforced a resurgent Palestinian civil society movement not seen since the Madrid and Oslo peace processes defused the first intifada or uprising.

The 2005 Palestinian civil society call for boycott, divestment and sanctions (also known as BDS) marked the first anniversary of the ICJ opinion, becoming another strand in Palestinian non-violent resistance that included the popular struggle against Israel's separation wall in the Palestinian villages directly impacted by its route.

International solidarity activists flocked to both the popular struggle and BDS. However, while it costs time and money to travel to Palestine, anyone can join a boycott or divestment campaign, or lobby for state sanctions wherever they live. This is one of the strengths of the global BDS campaign. Others strengths include:

• The campaign is Palestinian-led, and the people whose rights have been violated are now gradually imposing their agenda on a sterile, US-Israeli led process.
  
• The call clearly spells out Palestinian goals--self-determination, freedom from occupation, justice for the Palestinian refugees, and equality for the Palestinian citizens of Israel. This is important because the peace process had reduced Palestinian rights to haggling over land percentages.
  
• The campaign sidesteps the divisive issue of whether the solution to the conflict should be one state or two. It is rights- rather than solution-based.
  
• The call cannot be dismissed because it does not recognize Israel. Indeed, it "invites conscientious Israelis to support this Call, for the sake of justice and genuine peace."
  
• All political factions and representatives of main organizations have now joined the BDS National Committee, providing an effective forum for intra-Palestinian coordination at a time when political reconciliation is frozen.

For those who lament the Palestinians' use of violence and sigh, saying, "Where is the Palestinian Gandhi?" here is the answer: Israel delegitimizes all tools of resistance. Most recently, the Israeli parliament passed legislation making it possible to punish any public call for economic, cultural or academic boycott of the Israeli occupation and its settlements.

A boycott is a very reasonable tool of resistance, one used by many nations--the Irish, the Indians, the Jews--against their respective tyrants. With the notable exception of the state of Israel that continued providing the apartheid regime of South Africa with weapons, boycott was even international policy at one time. At an individual level, each person is entitled to choose to give or not give oxygen to entities that contradict their personal values.

While Israel's new law is meant to empower the settlers and intimidate the international movement in solidarity with Palestinians, it also generates many thoughts about the Palestinian stance on the boycott. Some Palestinians have a very stratified, complicated and enmeshed relationship with Israelis.

I, a Palestinian, am writing about the boycott while enjoying a learning experience in London in the presence of Israeli colleagues. In October, I will start a three-year study program at the Israeli Institute of Psychoanalysis. In East Jerusalem, where I live, many Palestinians work in Israeli institutions and when they get sick, are treated in Israeli hospitals. Many Palestinians from the West Bank can only find work in Israeli settlements, and let us not forget the tragic reality that the infamous separation wall was built by Palestinian hands.

As a result, it is perplexing how to draw a fine line between the need to live and survive and not hindering the national plight by normalizing relationships with the occupier. In the current absence of a Palestinian national policy despite patriotic awareness, one can only "freelance". While I keep good interpersonal connections with a very few Israelis with whom I share common values, I strongly oppose normalizing relationships with the occupation and its institutions. A Palestinian needs to be aware and accomplished enough to do one thing without eroding the other.

One can be sure that there is no win-win situation between the occupied Palestinian nation and the Israeli occupation. The more the occupation expands its settlements, the more it develops its racist policies, the more we suffocate in occupied land. A boycott of the Israeli occupation is the mildest form of resistance that Palestinians and those who support them are obliged to carry out. The boycott is a sign of an individual and collective strength; its main value is the psychological and moral effect of confronting and potentially isolating Israel.

I know some Israelis who until today refuse to buy German cars, although they like them, because they don't want to contribute to improving the German economy. Imagine us, whose wounds from Israelis are still open and bleeding.

Israelis who endorse the boycott are seen as an autoimmune disease by those who fail to see any sign of health in these few good antibodies trying to protect the infected Israeli conscience. I hope that this legislation against boycotts will serve to further expose the false democracy that the occupation brags about and delegitimize Israel internationally, causing more uproar than the boycott itself. "Autoimmune disease" is just additional nomenclature augmenting "self-hating Jews," "anti-Semites," and other terms meant to silence and intimidate people.

By neutralizing military resistance, and prohibiting boycott, the occupation should be very happy in the status quo. Why make any steps towards peace? Why give up its old tired racist ideologies and practices? Palestinians will go to the United Nations and announce their state and things will only get more polarized. There is, on the other hand, a good opportunity to wage a large international boycott campaign against the Israeli occupation. Israeli individuals can only encourage their government to move towards peace by endorsing a boycott. If they fail to do so, Israel will keep hastening quickly towards a moral collapse that will bring only shame and humiliation upon all of its supporters.-Published 21/7/2011 © bitterlemons-international.org

Samah Jaber is a writer and activist.

Since independence in 1948, Israel has been confronted by boycott campaigns, beginning with the Arab League's extensive embargo that continues in many countries. The objective of this form of warfare was and remains the rejection of the sovereign Jewish nation-state, regardless of boundaries.

In 2001, the Non-Governmental Organizations Forum of the United Nation's Durban "World Conference against Racism" expanded this campaign in the form of the BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions) movement. The NGOs at Durban, including global powers such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, adopted a final declaration, sponsored by Palestinians and written during a preparatory conference in Tehran, calling for "the imposition of mandatory and comprehensive sanctions and embargoes, the full cessation of all links (diplomatic, economic, social, aid, military cooperation, and training) between all states and Israel".

After Durban, the BDS movement's first action in 2002 focused on a boycott of Israeli academic institutions, led by British trade union activists and NGOs. Additional campaigns target large Israeli firms (including banks), export products, and tourism. The NGO boycott movement has become a major form of "soft power" warfare, reinforcing the ongoing security threats faced by Israel.

The language of the BDS campaign reflects its objectives: referring to all of Israel as "occupied territory" and exploiting the "apartheid" label, accompanied by crude allegations of "genocide", "ethnic cleansing", and war crimes. Boycott campaigns, including the widespread embargo on academic ties, were closely associated with the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa, and thus the use of this tactic is designed to reinforce the image. The Durban process also revived the 1975 UN "Zionism is racism" resolution that was repealed in 1991. BDS leaders, such as Sue Blackwell, refer to their campaign as a means of combating the "illegitimate state of Israel" and preventing Israelis from being treated as "normal citizens from a normal state".

NGOs involved in BDS also promote the Palestinian narrative, such as on refugee claims (the so-called "right of return") that are inconsistent with the two-state framework necessary for a stable peace. Similarly, the militant advocacy of a one-state formula, meaning the replacement of Israel by a Palestinian-Arab state, is part of the BDS agenda.

In this context, recent moves by influential NGOs on the Israeli Left, such as Peace Now and the New Israel Fund, to promote economic and cultural boycotts of communities beyond the green line (the 1949-1967 ceasefire line) are inseparable from the BDS movement. While NGO officials refer to "targeted boycotts", the use of this divisive tactic and symbol blurs the core distinction between the objectives of the two boycott campaigns. While the Zionist Israeli Left claims to oppose BDS, its use of selective boycotts adds more weight and recognition to the established BDS "brand-name" and suggests that Israeli peace groups are silent partners.

This wedge tactic and the blurring of opposition to settlements with the wider rejection of Israel's legitimacy, regardless of policies and borders, is a central BDS strategy. In many cases, anti-occupation language is used as a ruse to gain legitimacy. Boycott campaigns targeting Israeli banks, the export cooperative Agrexco, and other major economic enterprises, are explained by the claim that all Israeli firms contribute to the occupation. And disruptive demonstrators who invade stores in London and other European cities that sell Israeli creams and lotions from the Dead Sea claim that these are "products of the occupation" when in fact most of the western shore of the Dead Sea was part of Israel prior to the 1967 war and the occupation claim is part of the obfuscation.

As a result, in the framework of Israeli politics, the Left's use of boycott tactics has created a major backlash. This angry response is reflected in the Knesset's adoption of a law enabling Israeli victims of boycotts, regardless of where they are located, to bring suit against the promoters of these campaigns, claiming economic discrimination. (Many of the ideological attacks on this legislation as "anti-democratic" erroneously refer to "criminalization" of support for boycotts, but the mechanisms are strictly civil and will be challenged in the courts.)

The large-scale and often secret European government funding for boycott promoters--both BDS, such as the Coalition of Women for Peace, and settlement-linked including Peace Now--adds to the resentment among Israelis. This is reflected in opinion polls by the Tami Steinmetz Center at Tel-Aviv University and by support for politicians on the Right who promote legislation against foreign manipulation of Israeli democracy.

Thus, in the Israeli political arena, "limited boycotts" will not revive the Left, but rather increase the friction between the ideological poles and further alienate the Center. For groups claiming to promote peace, boycott campaigns in any form are counterproductive.-Published 21/7/2011 © bitterlemons-international.org

Gerald M. Steinberg is the founder and president of NGO Monitor and professor of political science at Bar Ilan University.