Showing posts with label boycott. Show all posts
Showing posts with label boycott. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

BDS Lite

The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement began in 2005, and as the name suggests the movement calls for boycotting Israeli products, as well as Israeli cultural, sports and and academic institutions; divesting from firms that participate in or benefit from the occupation of Palestine and the repression of Palestinians; and sanctioning Israel for its continuing occupation of Palestinian territories. The BDS movement advocates keeping the measures in place until Israel stops the occupation, treats Arab citizens of Israel fairly; and allows Palestinians to exercise the right to return to their homes and properties.

Peter Beinart, in a March 18, 2012 OPED, is at pains to oppose the BDS agenda with respect to Israel within the green line (i.e., with pre-1967 boundaries).  However, what he does urge is a boycott of products made in the occupied territories and of companies based there.  He urges that the IRS be urged and pressured to disallow tax deductions to "settler charities".  He also argues that references to democratic Israel should clearly differentiate between Israel within the green line, as opposed to "nondemocratic Israel," namely the Israeli occupied and colonized West Bank.  It is easy to see problems with Beinart's proposal in terms of the likelihood that enterprises may hide "inside the green line" and yet maintain shell companies in major settlement clusters, such as Ariel.  The distinction between BDS Lite and full BDS may be easy to maintain in theory than in fact.  Even so, Beinart's essay is an important benchmark of the recognition that unless the moral, political and economic costs of Israel's illegal settlements are raised significantly, the creeping annexation of significant swathed of the occupied territories will continue unabated.

It is somewhat surprising to find Beinart's piece in the Times, and one has to assume its appearance there is the culmination of extensive discussions at the upper reaches of the paper.  In those locales Bibi Netanyahu has been not viewed favorably, as any of a number of recent editorials attest. Anyone who has ever written OPED columns for the New York Times understands how intensely conscious the editors are of the importance of the OPED page.  Editors often play a significant role in giving shape to a piece.  Note also that headlines are not written by the authors but by the editorial staff.  The headline is "To save Israel, Boycott the settlements."

While you are pondering the Beinart piece, take time to read this article by the intrepid Amira Hass about nondemocratic Israel.

Saturday, June 04, 2011

Bahrain and F1

News reports indicate that Bahrain paid a $40 million fee to the organizers.

According to the Formula One's World Motor Sport Council, "the recent announcement by the King of Bahrain has established a political dialogue and reconciliation process."  This claim is included in the announcement that the Formula One race, originally scheduled for February will be run in October.


The Independent notes:



"The FIA does not mention that a quarter of the staff of the Bahrain International Circuit, which hosts the event, have been detained and given graphic details of being beaten and tortured. Some 28 of them have been sacked or suspended and at least five are still in prison. Others have fled Bahrain."

Tuesday, April 24, 2007

Why boycott Israel and not Myanmar?

Richard Cohen - Why Boycott Israel? - washingtonpost.com

I happen to think that the boycott just voted is counter-productive because it is more effective in mobilizing support for Israel's policies than in mobilizing opposition. Also, such boycotts, even if they are not inspired in part by anti-Semitism (as Cohen claims they are), feed right into the narrative of pro-Israeli groups. That being said, there is one defect of Cohen article that is glaring. While it is true the behavior of some other governments, say in Myanmar and Sudan, may be revolting yet do not evoke boycotts, yet those governments are susceptible to a variety of international sanctions imposed by the United Nations Security Council, as well as powerful global and regional trade organizations. Israel is generally immune to such sanctions because it is protected by certain powerful governments (hint: one important government in the very town that Richard Cohen works). That is a big difference, and it one of the reasons that people may feel compelled to take action on their own. I reiterate that I find the boycott counter-productive, but Mr. Cohen misses a bit in his analysis.