Hello there! I’m very excited to be blogging here at Duck of Minerva for the next several months, and I’d like to thank all the full-time Ducks for the opportunity! For my first post, I thought I’d address something I’ve been thinking about ever since a student asked about it in my US Foreign Policy class this past semester. She asked about the BDS movement and whether I thought it had any chance of influencing Israel’s behavior towards the Occupied Territories and the Palestinians. Not having thought much about the issue before, I gave a typically hemming-and-hawing answer, but the more I think about it the more I think that the Boycott, Sanctions, and Divest Movement is, perhaps, the most significant threat faced by Israel today. (As an aside, this is not at all an area of expertise of mine, so what follows is more musing than academic treatise. I’ll post more serious stuff in my area of academic expertise soon.)
Seriously, you ask? Yes, seriously. Seriously, you ask again? More significant than the rockets of Hamas and Hezbollah? More significant than Iranian nuclear proliferation? More significant than the civil war in Syria and the potential collapse of the Assad regime? Yes. Let me explain.
None of these things is a serious threat to the continued existence of the State of Israel (obviously, I am not among those who take seriously Iranian threats to nuke Israel…but that’s a topic for another post). Given Israel’s military dominance and nuclear deterrent, Israel is more existentially secure than it ever has been. But the BDS has the potential to strike at and undermine the very essence of the character of Israel.
Israel, much like the United States with its claim of “American Exceptionalism“, has long seen itself as different from other states. The Book of Isaiah twice speaks of Israel being a “light unto the nations” and a large part of the “case for Israel” rests on Israel’s status as the only free democracy in the Middle East (a claim which no longer may be true as Freedom House now lists Tunisia as “free”; Kuwait, Turkey, Morocco, and Lebanon all rate as “partly free”). Israel prides itself (pun very much intended) on its LGBTQ friendliness and points to its courts as a hallmark of its commitment to the rule of law.
But the BDS Movement challenges and undermines that claim to exceptionalism. It focuses on the worst that Israel has to offer: its inhuman treatment of the Palestinians and illegal settlement and blockade policies. And while the broader political situation and dyadic nature of the situation are essential for understanding those policies, the simple fact remains that Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians is not suitable for a democratic, rights-respecting nation.
In the much the same way that the international sanctions movement aimed to pressure South Africa into abandoning its racist apartheid system, the BDS Movement seeks to pressure Israel into “meet[ing] its obligations under international law by: 1) Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands occupied in June 1967 and dismantling the Wall; 2) Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and 3)Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194.” [Note: I do not wish to here discuss whether the BDS Movement, and particularly number 3 above are, either intentionally or unintentionally, aimed at destroying the state of Israel itself] Even the US eventually abandoned its Cold War ally, imposing sanctions on South Africa in 1985 and 1986. But the evidence is scant that the sanctions played an important role in dismantling the white regime (here and here). But the threat of the BDS Movement lies less in the threat of economic losses, and more in the social, cultural, and moral isolation of Israel.
In a mere 10 years since its founding (the BDS Movement emerged following the 2004 ruling by the International Court of Justice that the Israeli security barrier along the Green Line is illegal), artists such as Elvis Costello, the Pixies, Santana, and Lauryn Hill have all canceled concerts scheduled in Israel, numerous academic groups and associations have voted to end contacts with Israeli academics and academic institutions, pension funds are divesting from Israeli banks and more and more groups are boycotting Israeli goods produced in the West Bank. We’re now at a point where any music act that does choose to play in Israel feels it necessary to explain its decision. While the economic impact of all of this is still relatively negligible, the effect of this isolation is likely to continue to grow over time.
So, how is all of this threatening to Israel? Because the BDS Movement is able to ignore the one thing that has long protected Israel from serious political pressure: its strategic importance. Since 1973, when Israel’s neighbors largely came to accept Israel’s existence, strategic considerations have prevented countries that purport to care about the plight of the Palestinians like Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia from doing much to help the Palestinians. Pledges of money go unfulfilled, little to no pressure is put on Israel, and things continue as they always have. Israel can take public criticism, especially when that criticism isn’t backed with action.
But, it seems to me that the BDS Movement has a much greater likelihood of being successful. Given how it has been able to change the discourse in only 10 years, assuming that it continues to grow Israel will continue to be marginalized and have its moral righteousness challenged. When that is combined with the growing Israeli resistance to the status quo (such as the recent report from Breaking the Silence in which Israeli soldiers involved in last year’s war in Gaza described both episodic and systematic violations of the laws of war by the IDF), there might be real pressure on Israel to change its policies. A majority of Israelis generally support the peace process and the two-state solution (of course, the devil is in the details). If the BDS Movement is indeed able to increase Israel’s isolation, the costs of that isolation might eventually overwhelm those details.
Thoughts?
UPDATE: This timely op-ed piece in yesterday’s Jerusalem Post by Professor Gil Troy of McGill University (full disclosure: Gil is an old friend of mine) reinforces my argument. While Troy dismisses the BDS Movement as devoted to the demonization and elimination of Israel (a point which I noted in the main post I did not want to engage) and its supporters as “deluded,” his call for national unity to counter the movement seems to imply a serious threat to Israel, no?
Ok, after much thought I’ve decided to weigh in on this issue. Please note that I am not an academic, have no background in studying history; I am merely someone who strives to stay informed in order to take part in a real debate about Israel and the “Middle East”. I realize my opinions are fairly controversial, but they are based on fact and history.
1. In reality, the BDS movement poses no actual existential danger to Israel. Yes, it magnifies the world’s bias, legitimizes anti-semitism, and makes life for Jewish/Pro-Israel academics and students more difficult. However, on an economic level, it will never have a real impact. Will people boycott Teva? Good, they’ll die of diabetes or cancer. Will they boycott Google? Facebook? Wix? Or maybe they’ll boycott drip irrigation? How about Apple? The variety of products, innovations, services and software that has a direct connection to Israel is huge.
On an academic level, yes it is problematic. But who cares if the MLA boycotts Israel? What real affect will that have? Student organizations voting in favor of Divestment is bad press, but has no real impact since universities don’t actually take it seriously.
In terms of sanctions, we all know that it will never happen. Labelling settlement goods? Looks like that is inevitable, but the percentage of GDP attributed to exports from settlements is miniscule. And I doubt Jews are going to stop drinking wine made in the West Bank.
2. The BDS movement is run by hypocrites. Omar Bargoutti, the founder and head of BDS got his degree from… wait for it… Tel Aviv University! Yes, you read that right. In theory, he should boycott himself. Bargoutti holds a Masters Degree in Philosphy from TAU and he was enrolled as a student there as recently as 2009. When asked about this, his response was “my studies at Tel Aviv University are a personal matter and I have no interest in commenting.”
Are you f’n kidding me?
3. BDS is anti-semitic. I know that Bargoutti and his cronies would be the first to jump up and say there are many in his “movement” that are Jewish. Well, there were also Jews working with the Nazis (Kapos) – doesn’t make them less anti-semites. While BDS loves to highlight that not all Jews are Zionists, their overall philosophy vis a vis “Palestine” is inherently anti-semitic.
Why you might ask?
You better believe that an Arab-Israeli academic (ahem, Sayed Kashua) would not receive the same treatment by BDS and its followers as a Jewish Israeli. This is fact. Not to mention the hundreds of instances where anti-semitic statements (and songs) were observed at BDS events. While they may not have come from the upper echelon, they are tacitly accepted.
4. Yes, BDS believes in the destruction of Israel as a state. Bargoutti himself has written against the “two-state” solution. They advocate for the “right of return” of 5 million “refugees” which would completely change the character of the state, and would eventually lead to its demise. BDS has no interest in “peace”.
I have a lot more to say about the Arab/Israeli conflict, but that’s for another day.
Thanks for your comment! As with my original post, I’m not going to engage the questions of whether BDS is anti-Semitic, devoted to the destruction of Israel, or whether its leaders are hypocritical. These are all important issues and I do hope others will address them. So let me focus on your first point. I agree that BDS is not an existential threat; as I wrote, Israel is at the moment not facing any existential threats (the demographic question you raise in #4 is interesting. I’ve read some stuff that suggests those concerns are overblown, but it is a possibility). And I agree, as I originally wrote that the true danger to Israel from BDS is not the economic impact of the sanctions. But I think you’re underestimating the impact of things like the MLA ban. Israel is not an insular state like South Africa was. South Africa was willing to sacrifice everything–even the ability to compete in international rugby (which if you know South Africa was HUGE)–to perpetuate apartheid. It suffered political, cultural, and social isolation for decades. I do not believe that most Israelis feel so strongly about holding on to the West Bank, maintaining the settlements, or keeping the Gaza blockade in place that they’re willing to risk isolation. Israel doesn’t see itself as just any other state; it has a moral obligation to be a leader. Just look at the pride that came out of the Israeli response to the earthquake in Nepal. Then, look how far BDS has come in 10 years; assuming it continues to grow, Israel will become more isolated. Imagine if Israeli academics can’t participate in conferences, if Israelis artists cannot compete in shows or put on exhibitions, if every new tech innovation or startup that arises is shunned. This will have a devastating impact on the moral and social character of the state. Especially when combined with the struggle between the secular and religious. I don’t see this happening any time soon, but it is impressive how far BDS has come in 10 years. Just imagine where it will be in another 10 years. I do see it as a serious threat to Israel; whether it will force Israel to deal differently with the Palestinians or whether it can be countered, it’s probably too soon to say.
A few comments:
A. The general difficulty with labelling ‘BDS’ a threat relates to an assumption that it’s goals are inherently bad for Israel. They are not. Although Israel likes to portray itself as a ‘democracy’ and bastion of ‘rights’ this is highly misleading. Israel is a democracy if you are Jewish. At best it can be described as an ethnic democracy. Also, yes there are good LGBTQ rights in *some* parts of Israel but go see how many gay people feel comfortable in hanging around in conservative areas of Israel. The liberal strand of Israeli thought is being increasingly strangled by internal forces and left to small corners of Tel Aviv. Israeli racism, once quietly hidden, is now open.
B. Israeli support for the two-state solution is nonsense. They support separating the Palestinians from themselves but maintaining complete control over the Jordan valley.
C. Israel is no longer strategically important. Since the Gulf War’s, at least, they have been a massive liability. They are also one of the main threats to the U.S. and other ‘western’ states in terms of spying.
D. All of the above means that BDS can be good for Israel. It is only by forcing Israel to reconsider itself, its policies, and its culture- through isolation- that any of these increasingly extremist policies will be reversed.
To ‘Mark’:
A. BDS is not anti-semitic. Criticising Israel is not anti-semitic. This is similar to stating the boycott of South Africa was ‘anti-white.’ Just nonsense.
B. The return of the refugees is an important issue. If it is not to happen then Israel must also halt its perpetual ‘right of return’ for Jews. This latter policy is what has most dramatically changed its demographics and culture in recent decades: right-wing Jewish immigrants from the U.S. and Russia, principally. There’s a reason most of the settlers in Hebron have New York accents and are disliked by most Israelis.
C. Israel innovates, yes, but there’s little it has proprietary control over that there are not alternatives to. Being a good innovator is not an excuse for ethnic cleansing.
D. BDS does not believe in the destruction of Israel. Most of its followers are now, yes, against the two-state solution. Why? Because Israel has single handedly destroyed any possibility of that. They just advocate for a one-state solution. This requires, certainly, a re-imagining of Israel: as a truly democratic and inclusive state. Ideally, a federal solution can be envisaged.
Anyhow, there is no reason to doubt that the Israeli establishment is scared of BDS. The amount of time and money they expend on Hasbara campaigns is testament to this. But Israel has lost all moral authority. Why? Because at one time it had leaders who if there actions were not reasonable than at least there discourse was. Today, in terms of their own interests, they have gone nothing short of insane. Railing against their best allies (the U.S), spying on their best allies (everyone), irrationally obsessed with Iran, refusing to accept responsibility for their disregard for the laws of war, building settlements without relent, silencing internal dissent, openly standing against the two-state solution, doing everything they could to destroy the two-state solution, and- what’s worse- doing all of the above and more while having the gall to whine every time they are criticised. During my time in Palestine, I met many people working for the U.S. embassy. To a person, they intensely dislike the Israeli politicians and functionaries they interact with. They are, in these diplomats words, “all liars.” If your best friend no longer believes anything you say then, well, it’s only a matter of time before things radically change.
I feel like this article didn’t hold up to it’s title. It was a good description of the BDS movement, but never really detailed how it would be a threat to Israel besides vague mentions to its “social and moral character.” But what does that MEAN, how will it affect Israel in specific scenarios, etc. Also, i think the BDS movement is a lot more diverse than you give it credit for, with many supporters still backing a two-state solution, but critical of Israeli treatment of Palestinians and negotiating tactics (whether these criticisms are valid or not.) Still and excellent article though