|
The
Boycott Revisited from Antiwar.com
The Boycott Revisited
by Uri Avnery, September 07, 2009
The people of Sodom, the Bible tells us, were very wicked indeed.
They had a nasty habit of putting every passing stranger into one particular
bed. If the stranger was too tall, his legs were shortened. If he was too
short, his body was stretched to the required length.
In a way, each of us has such a bed, into which we put everything new.
Confronted with a novel situation, we tend to equate it with a situation we
have known in the past.
In politics, this method is especially pervasive. It relieves us of the
irksome necessity of studying an unfamiliar situation and drawing new
conclusions.
Once, the pattern of Vietnam was applied to every struggle around the world
-- from Argentina to North Korea. Nowadays, the fashion points to South
Africa. Everything resembles the struggle against apartheid, unless proven
otherwise.
Without getting ahead of the story
let me say up front examples of successful boycotts are few and far between.
That said the boycott against South Africa did achieve its objective. It
should be counted as a success.
Since sending out
last week's article, I have been flooded with responses, some laudatory,
some abusive, some thoughtful, some merely angry.
Generally, I don't argue with my esteemed readers. I don't want to impose my
views, I just want to provide food for thought and leave it to the reader to
form his or her own opinion.
This time I feel that I owe it to my readers to clear up some of the points
I was trying to make and answer some of the objections. So here we go.
I have no argument with people who hate Israel. That's entirely their right.
I just don't think that we have any common ground for discussion.
Mr. Avnery, the issue is not hatred
per se. The issue is what Israelis say is hatred. The two are never the same
thing. Hatred of what Israel does is not the same as hatred of Israel. It is
not what Israel does to survive. It is what Israel does to keep what it has
stolen from others. It is that Israel continues to steal from
others.
I would only like to point out that hatred is a very bad adviser. Hatred
leads nowhere, but to more hatred. That, by the way, is a positive lesson we
can draw from the South African experience. There they overcame hatred to a
remarkable extent, largely thanks to the "Truth and Reconciliation
Commission" headed by Archbishop Tutu, where people admitted their past
offenses.
This is a good observation. To keep
this observation in context it should be applied after a one state solution
is implemented. It is not applicable to the situation now to the
Palestinians and Israelis nor is it applicable to Israel and any other
country.
One thing is certain: hatred does not lead toward peace. Let me be quite
explicit about this, because I sense that some people, in their righteous
indignation over Israel's occupation, have lost sight of this.
Peace is made between enemies, after war, in which awful things invariably
happen. Peace can be made and maintained between peoples who are prepared to
live with each other, respect each other, recognize the humanity of each
other. They don't have to love each other.
Describing the other side as monsters may be useful in waging war, but
singularly unhelpful in waging peace.
When I receive a missive that is dripping with hatred of Israel, that
portrays all Israelis (including myself, of course) as monsters, I fail to
envision how the writer imagines peace. Peace with monsters? Angels and
monsters living side by side in peace and harmony in one state, hating each
other's guts?
If this is the case then you are
saying the Jewish hatred of Nazi Germany in the 1930s was a mistake. I
suspect you will always have an exception for those whom Jews hate.
It is not proper to put words in your mouth. Therefore I simply advise you
to apply this observation to the hatred Jewish Israelis have for non-Jewish
Israelis and for their non-citizen Palestinian victims. The Palestinians are
the innocent victims of Zionism. They did nothing to deserve their fate at
the hands of the Zionists.
The view of Israel as a monolithic entity composed of racists and brutal
oppressors is a caricature. Israel is a complex society, struggling with
itself. The forces of good and evil, and many in between, are locked in a
daily battle on many different fronts. The settlers and their supporters are
strong, perhaps getting stronger (though I doubt it), but are far -- even in
their own view -- from a decisive victory. Neve Gordon, for example, has been
left unmolested in his post at Ben-Gurion University, because any attempt to
remove him would have caused a public outcry.
To the contrary, good sir, to the
outside world Israel appears a monolith. This is perhaps attributed to the
fact that the far left of the Israeli political spectrum would be right of
center in the West. Israel's left is only left in the context of the
politics of the middle east.
I also have no argument with those who want to abolish the state of Israel.
It is as much their right to aspire to that as it is my right to want to
dismantle, let's say, the USA or France, neither of which has an unblemished
past.
It is illogical to compare the past
with the present. It is a method of propaganda not of reasoned discourse. It
is the USA and France wishing to bring the benefits of liberal and
multi-cultural society to Israel that is a problem for
you.
Reading some of the messages sent to me and trying to analyze their
contents, I get the feeling they are not so much about a boycott on Israel
as about the very existence of Israel. Some of the writers obviously believe
that the creation of the state of Israel was a terrible mistake to start
with, and therefore should be reversed. Turn the wheel of history back some
62 years and start anew.
What really disturbs me about this is that almost nobody in the West comes
out and says clearly: Israel must be abolished. Some of the proposals, like
those for a "One State" solution, sound like euphemisms. If one believes
that the state of Israel should be abolished and replaced by a state of
Palestine or a state of Happiness, why not say so openly?
It is not said openly because people
of this opinion are not caricatures. There is a difference between the
existence of a state and the nature of the state. Changing the nature of the
state does not abolish the state. The nature of South Africa changed while
the state remains.
Confounding the existence of a state with the nature of a state is a puerile
debating tactic. Not that you are alone in this. Israelis have always
confounded figurative destruction with literal destruction. Israel is
currently trying to cause war on Iran with the claim Iran wants to wipe
Israel off of the map. Jews wiped Palestine off of the map. No one but
Palestinians miss Palestine. It is unlikely anyone but Jews would miss
Israel.
Of course, that does not mean peace. Peace between Israel and Palestine
presupposes that Israel is there. Peace between the Israeli people and the
Palestinian people presupposes that both peoples have a right to
self-determination and agree to the peace. Does anyone really believe that
racist monsters like us would agree to give up our state because of a
boycott?
If one assumes Israeli Jews really
are racist monsters of course it is unlikely to work. But you are also
arguing they are not racist monsters. You are attacking the consistency of
the argument about a boycott. You are not addressing the boycott itself. As
such you are doing no more than attacking the messenger. That is a logical
fallacy.
The French and the Germans did not agree to live in one joint state, though
the differences between them are incomparably smaller than those between
Jewish Israelis and Arab Palestinians. Instead, they set up a European
Union, composed of nation-states. Some 50 years ago I called for a similar
Semitic Union, including Israel and Palestine. I still do.
Creating a false analogy is also a
logical fallacy. Do we not have 62 years of experience showing the
non-Jewish and the Jewish citizens of Israel can live side by side? Are we
to ignore the evidence of our eyes, that Jews and non-Jews in a single state
can live together peacefully and create a prosperous state?
I leave it to you to decide if I am being serious or
sarcastic.
Anyway, there is no sense in arguing with those who pray for the
disappearance of the sovereign state of Israel, rather than for the
appearance of the sovereign state of Palestine at its side.
A boycott is not a prayer. It is
clear that an oil embargo on Israel will cause the lights to go out in a
week. We know that will work. The only issue is the wise application of
boycotts to achieve an objective without such a drastic step.
As to the proper tactic, the boycott should be measured to achieve an
optimum rate of immigrants returning home such that the disappearance of a
Jewish majority is a foreseeable consequence. When that point is reached the
government of Israel must decide between emigration and salvaging the best
from a deal going sour.
A total boycott on any and all construction materials would appear to be the
place to start. This would directly address the criminal construction of
squattertowns in East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Syrian Heights, aka
Golan Heights. It would also collapse the construction industry inside
Israel sending the country into a recession. Further it would give Israelis
a direct experience with the consequences of their blockade on construction
materials entering into Gaza.
The real argument is among those who want to see peace between the two
states, Israel and Palestine. The question is: how can it be achieved? This
is an honest debate and is generally conducted in a civil manner. My debate
with Neve Gordon is in this framework.
If that is in fact the real
argument then first we must have two states. A boycott is proposed to bring
about two states. What is your real reason for not supporting a
boycott?
The advocates of boycott believe that the main, indeed the only, way to
induce Israel to give up the occupied territories and agree to peace is to
exert pressure from the outside.
I have no quarrel with the idea of outside pressure. The question is:
pressure on whom? On the government, the settlers and their supporters? Or
on the entire Israeli people?
The first answer is, I believe, the right one. That's why I hope that
President Barack Obama will publish a detailed peace plan with a fixed
timetable and apply the immense powers of persuasion of the USA to get both
sides to agree. I don't think that this is politically possible without the
support of a large part of Israeli society (and, by the way, of the U.S.
Jewish community).
You agree with pressure on the
government. Israel is a democracy. The people are the government. It is not
possible to pressure only the government of a democracy. The people can be
the only target. This does mean non-Jewish citizens of Israel will suffer.
We are making an omlette.
Some readers have lost all hope in Obama. That is, without doubt, premature.
Obama has not surrendered to Binyamin Netanyahu -- indeed, it is quite
conceivable that the opposite is happening. The struggle is on, it is a hard
struggle against determined opposition, and we should do all we can to help
Obama's peace policy to prevail. We must do this as Israelis, from inside
Israel, and thereby show that this is not a struggle of the U.S. against
Israel, but a joint struggle against the Israeli government and the
settlers.
Have we not had 42 years of
experience from which a rational person can only conclude Israel wants land
not peace? Have we not learned in these four decades that both the left and
the right want land not peace? Is not doing the same thing and expecting a
different result a functional definition of insanity?
The idea of a joint struggle with the government against the settlers
assumes the government is against the settlers. It is not. If in fact Israel
wanted to act against the settlers it could do so in as short a time as it
would take to shut off their electricity and water. The fact is the settlers
have electricity and water because the government supports those criminal
squatters. The squattertowns have been an enterprise of every government
liberal, conservative or middle of the road.
The government of Israel is not a partner in peace.
It follows that any boycott must serve this purpose: to isolate the settlers
and the individuals and institutions which openly support them, but not
declare war on Israel and the Israeli people as such. In the 11 years since
Gush Shalom declared a boycott of the products of the settlements, this
process has been gaining momentum. We must laud the Norwegian decision, this
week, to divest from the Israeli Elbit company because of their involvement
with the "Separation Fence" that is being built on Palestinian land and
whose main purpose is to annex occupied territories to Israel. This is a
splendid example: a focused action against a specific target, based on a
ruling of the International Court.
A boycott is not a declaration of
war no matter how devoutly you want to declare them the same so you can
judge them both by the justification for war. You are an example of the left
in Israel being right of center in the West.
Norway is not the first to divest itself of stock in Israeli companies. They
will do it by selling it to other people. The total consequence is to the
Elbit company whose stock price will decline for a while. It will have no
effect on the construction of the fence or the theft of the property of
Palestinians.
You speak of a boycott as though it were something based solely upon a moral
consideration rather than to do something that works. If you want to send a
message use Western Union. If you want to achieve results do something that
has a material impact which is both direct and immediate.
Let me take your own example. After eleven years of promoting a boycott of
settlement products it is (finally) gaining some momentum. Would Job have
this much patience? How many more generations of Palestinians must be
victims of Zionism before you Zionists get around to doing something about
it in your own way and on your own schedule?
I think that far more can be done by a concentrated national and
international campaign. A central office should be set up to direct this
effort throughout the world against clear and specific targets. Such an
effort could be helped by world public opinion, which recoils from the idea
of boycotting the state of Israel, and not only because of the memory of the
Holocaust, but will identify itself with action against the occupation and
the oppression.
This is an excellent reason to
forget the Holocaust. Israel misuses its memory. The world does not equate
Israel with the Holocaust and Israelis bridle at the suggestion of a
connection between it and the existence of their country. The West must
learn to imitate the Israelis in this regard and never again listen to any
Israeli politician such as Netanyahu and Lieberman making a connection
between the two.
While we are speaking of ineffective gestures, set up a central office? A
committee? To coordinate? To spend how many years coming up with specific
targets? No. Every country is different and must boycott Israel in its own
way that is in its own best interests if we want something accomplished in
our lifetimes.
I have been asked about the Palestinian reaction to the boycott idea. At
present, Palestinians do not boycott even the settlements; indeed, it is
Palestinian workers who are building almost all the houses there, out of
economic necessity. Their feelings can only be guessed. All self-respecting
Palestinians would, of course, support any effective measure directed
against the occupation. But it would not be honest to dangle before their
eyes the false hope that a worldwide boycott would bring Israel to its
knees. The truth is that only the close cooperation of Palestinian, Israeli,
and international peace forces could generate the necessary momentum to end
the occupation and achieve peace.
We know why the Palestinians build
the homes for the squatters. Israel has destroyed the economy of the West
Bank. As it has said Israel wants them as hewers of wood and carriers of
water using the biblical euphemism for slaves. They are a captive labor who
must take any work available even if it is from their enemy who despises
them for not being Jews.
The problem is always getting the cooperation of the Jewish Israelis. They
have a five to one majority of the Israeli voters. They do despise the
minority and do not consider them equals. They will never consider the
Palestinians their equals. A million of their lives are not worth a Jewish
fingernail. It is these people who must be coerced into being cooperative.
As with South Africa the only language they understand is
force.
This is especially important because our task in Israel today is not so much
to convince the majority of Israelis that peace is good and the price
acceptable, but first that peace is possible at all. Most Israelis have lost
that hope, and its revival is absolutely vital on the way to peace.
Peace is not possible at present
because Israel will only consider peace on its terms. Those terms are not
only no price at all but rather for additional rewards. If Jewish Israelis
need to learn anything at all it is that there must be a price for their
continued oppression of Palestinians.
At present they are paying no price at all. The price must be a broad based
reduction in their standard of living so every Israeli pays a price for
their oppression of non-Jews.
It is also possible to ban just Jewish Israelis from entering other
countries as Israel's internal passports are marked by religion. Thus it is
possible to exclude only those whose Israeli identification cards are
stamped with a J.
To remove any misconceptions about myself, let me state as clearly as
possible where I stand:
I am an Israeli.
I am an Israeli patriot.
P. W. Botha was both a South African
and a patriot.
I want my state to be democratic, secular, and liberal, ending the
occupation and living at peace both with the free and sovereign state of
Palestine that will come into being next to it, and with the entire Arab
world.
When Israel has had liberal
governments they have done the same as when there are conservative
governments. Why would you want a liberal state when you know it does not
work and have written to that effect?
A secular government is incompatible with rampant discrimination based upon
religious superiority. Yet you say you want a state with a majority for a
particular religion. That is not secular.
I want Israel to be a state belonging to all its citizens, without
distinction of ethnic origin, gender, religion, or language; with completely
equal rights for all; a state in which the Hebrew-speaking majority will
retain its close ties with the Jewish communities around the world, and the
Arab-speaking citizens will be free to cherish their close ties with their
Palestinian brothers and sisters and the Arab world at large.
Substituting Hebrew-speaking for
Jewish is deceptive in the extreme. Let me restate the above with your real
desires.
I want Israel to be a Jewish majority state belonging to all
its citizens, without distinction of ethnic origin, gender, religion, or
language;
It is not possible to have a state without distinction
regarding religion and at the same time use religion to establish a
majority. The term that comes to mind is
hypocrite.
If this is racism, Zionism, or worse, so be it.
It is a rare for an Israeli to admit Zionism is worse than racism.
What you have written is a description of your bed. You want the present
situation to continue so that your stand in your country against the
conservative forces continues. This will assure you a place in the liberal
hierarchy of Israel. Your vested interest resides in the struggle not in the
victory.
Your right of center political position is very clear. You want equality but
with a Jewish majority which can continue the segregated state of Israel
assuring non-Jewish Israelis will always be the butt of religious
discrimination. One might even suggest you relish taking up an ineffective
struggle against religious discrimination to carry you into retirement.
You do not say what you know. You know the West does not support Israel as a
state perpetually dominated by Jews. Long ago the West gave up on the idea
of a single religion dominating the state. Long since the West views such
states as backward and third world.
Israel will change because the times have changed. The Zionist enterprise is
out of date. It is old fashioned. It's time has passed.
|