13 june 2015
The European Union (EU) will soon begin to mark the products of Israeli settlements, according to the Associated Press.
According to Al Ray, the EU had frozen its decision to put marks on settlements products under the pressure of the United States, in 2013, but this move was restored again and approved by 13 European countries.
The report added that 16 foreign ministers of EU demanded in less than two months, to go forward with procedures to mark settlement products in European marketing networks.
The foreign ministers assured that the continued expansion of illegal settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories, and in other areas occupied by "Israel" in 1967, threatens the chances of reaching a final and fair peace deal.
European diplomats said that "after the Israeli elections, and in the light of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's latest statements against two-state solution, it was decided to renew the initiative of marking the Israeli products ."
The Belgian Foreign Minister, Dedea Rendr, is the initiator of the draft letter, according to the diplomats.
In 2014, Belgium published instructions obliging the marketing networks to mark the agricultural products of settlements in the occupied West Bank, the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem.
To be noted, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier is the only one of the five major foreign ministers of European countries who did not sign the letter.
According to Al Ray, the EU had frozen its decision to put marks on settlements products under the pressure of the United States, in 2013, but this move was restored again and approved by 13 European countries.
The report added that 16 foreign ministers of EU demanded in less than two months, to go forward with procedures to mark settlement products in European marketing networks.
The foreign ministers assured that the continued expansion of illegal settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories, and in other areas occupied by "Israel" in 1967, threatens the chances of reaching a final and fair peace deal.
European diplomats said that "after the Israeli elections, and in the light of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's latest statements against two-state solution, it was decided to renew the initiative of marking the Israeli products ."
The Belgian Foreign Minister, Dedea Rendr, is the initiator of the draft letter, according to the diplomats.
In 2014, Belgium published instructions obliging the marketing networks to mark the agricultural products of settlements in the occupied West Bank, the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem.
To be noted, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier is the only one of the five major foreign ministers of European countries who did not sign the letter.
Amendments to Obama's sweeping trade package would fight BDS, but Democrats opposed to other sections are holding things up.
The United States House of Representatives on Friday approved a measure to allow a "fast track" process for a free trade agreement between the US and Europe, which includes a section obligating EU countries to refrain from any kind of boycotts on Israeli goods.
The measure requires the government to fight governments, international organizations, companies, and individuals working to boycott Israel.
The amendment to the bill also states that boycotts, divestment, and sanctions against Israel by governments, governmental bodies, and international organizations are contrary to the principle of non-discrimination enshrined in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which regulates trade agreements and lowering of tariffs.
The bill further supports an American probe into companies pushing for or surrendering to the boycott and instructs the president to report to Congress on boycott activities after 180 days since the bill's implementation, as well as describe what steps the US government is taking to encourage foreign countries and international organization to stop boycotting.
Additionally, the president will need to explain what steps the government is taking to prevent probes and filing of lawsuits by governments or international bodies against Israel.
Republican Representative Peter Roskam was the first to push the anti-boycott measures, which have been endorsed by former Israeli ambassador MK Michael Oren of Kulanu.
However, the bill cannot be signed by President Barack Obama yet. Democrats overwhelmingly voted against the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) bill, a worker's aid program – thus also torpedoing the president's path to the larger trade package.
Despite the failure of the Trade Adjustment Assistance bill, Congress went on to narrowly approve the president's request to pass Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), which would clear the way for signing the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) – a major deal with around a dozen nations, whose unreleased details have been partially leaked.
The TAA and TPA bills are conditioned on each other, meaning both must be passed. The political divisions over the TPP caused Democrats to kill the TAA, rendering the TPA toothless. Congress must now work towards an agreement before the president can sign the package into law.
Currently there are no European countries boycotting Israel, with the exception labeling of goods made in settlements, and Europe is concerned that a boycott of Israel could damage their free trade agreement with the US.
For the same reason, the French government responded decisively – if somewhat belatedly – to the statements by Orange CEO Stephane Richard, who announced a plan to cut ties with Israel before apologizing and making a trip to Israel to visit Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
President Obama is pushing for free trade agreements with Europe and East Asia, and the fast track he seeks requires the approval of a two-thirds majority in Congress. Republicans are with Obama on this issue, and it is his own party who is raising opposition out of a concern for unions.
In order to obtain the go-ahead from Congress for the fast track plan, the president received advance instructions from Congress, including the amendments dealing with the economic boycott against Israel and fighting boycotts.
Obama arrived at Capitol Hill to convince his party's members to stand behind the bill. While his pleas were not heeded this time, an agreement could be reached next week.
US House of Reps: Europe Can't Boycott Israel
The United States House of Representatives has fast-tracked a bill regarding a free trade agreement between the US and Europe which would include a section barring EU countries from any form of commercial boycott against Israel and Israeli goods.
According to the PNN, Israel’s Ynetnews indicated that two versions of the law had been presented to the House of Representatives and the Senate, clarifying that both versions included the section obligating EU countries to refrain from the boycott of Israeli products.
This section states that any affiliation and cooperation with the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement on the part of EU countries is in violation of the “principle of non-discrimination’ statute in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT).
According to Ynetnews, the second law did not pass at this stage due to disputes with respect to compensation for businesses in Europe. There was also severe opposition from Obama’s own Democrats, but it is expected that an agreement will be reached between the House of Representatives and the Senate during the coming days.
From the moment that an agreement is reached, a unified document will be presented to the American President, Barack Obama, for a review of the trade agreement as soon as possible. He will then sign the document and it will be put to the vote in the House of Representatives and the Senate.
The United States House of Representatives on Friday approved a measure to allow a "fast track" process for a free trade agreement between the US and Europe, which includes a section obligating EU countries to refrain from any kind of boycotts on Israeli goods.
The measure requires the government to fight governments, international organizations, companies, and individuals working to boycott Israel.
The amendment to the bill also states that boycotts, divestment, and sanctions against Israel by governments, governmental bodies, and international organizations are contrary to the principle of non-discrimination enshrined in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which regulates trade agreements and lowering of tariffs.
The bill further supports an American probe into companies pushing for or surrendering to the boycott and instructs the president to report to Congress on boycott activities after 180 days since the bill's implementation, as well as describe what steps the US government is taking to encourage foreign countries and international organization to stop boycotting.
Additionally, the president will need to explain what steps the government is taking to prevent probes and filing of lawsuits by governments or international bodies against Israel.
Republican Representative Peter Roskam was the first to push the anti-boycott measures, which have been endorsed by former Israeli ambassador MK Michael Oren of Kulanu.
However, the bill cannot be signed by President Barack Obama yet. Democrats overwhelmingly voted against the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) bill, a worker's aid program – thus also torpedoing the president's path to the larger trade package.
Despite the failure of the Trade Adjustment Assistance bill, Congress went on to narrowly approve the president's request to pass Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), which would clear the way for signing the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) – a major deal with around a dozen nations, whose unreleased details have been partially leaked.
The TAA and TPA bills are conditioned on each other, meaning both must be passed. The political divisions over the TPP caused Democrats to kill the TAA, rendering the TPA toothless. Congress must now work towards an agreement before the president can sign the package into law.
Currently there are no European countries boycotting Israel, with the exception labeling of goods made in settlements, and Europe is concerned that a boycott of Israel could damage their free trade agreement with the US.
For the same reason, the French government responded decisively – if somewhat belatedly – to the statements by Orange CEO Stephane Richard, who announced a plan to cut ties with Israel before apologizing and making a trip to Israel to visit Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
President Obama is pushing for free trade agreements with Europe and East Asia, and the fast track he seeks requires the approval of a two-thirds majority in Congress. Republicans are with Obama on this issue, and it is his own party who is raising opposition out of a concern for unions.
In order to obtain the go-ahead from Congress for the fast track plan, the president received advance instructions from Congress, including the amendments dealing with the economic boycott against Israel and fighting boycotts.
Obama arrived at Capitol Hill to convince his party's members to stand behind the bill. While his pleas were not heeded this time, an agreement could be reached next week.
US House of Reps: Europe Can't Boycott Israel
The United States House of Representatives has fast-tracked a bill regarding a free trade agreement between the US and Europe which would include a section barring EU countries from any form of commercial boycott against Israel and Israeli goods.
According to the PNN, Israel’s Ynetnews indicated that two versions of the law had been presented to the House of Representatives and the Senate, clarifying that both versions included the section obligating EU countries to refrain from the boycott of Israeli products.
This section states that any affiliation and cooperation with the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement on the part of EU countries is in violation of the “principle of non-discrimination’ statute in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT).
According to Ynetnews, the second law did not pass at this stage due to disputes with respect to compensation for businesses in Europe. There was also severe opposition from Obama’s own Democrats, but it is expected that an agreement will be reached between the House of Representatives and the Senate during the coming days.
From the moment that an agreement is reached, a unified document will be presented to the American President, Barack Obama, for a review of the trade agreement as soon as possible. He will then sign the document and it will be put to the vote in the House of Representatives and the Senate.
The Norwegian insurance giant, KLP Kapitalforvaltning has divested from two international building material companies from its investment portfolio because of their operations in the West Bank settlements.
According to Haaretz, KLP divested of its shares in these companies effectively on June 1, citing international law as set in the Hague and Geneva conventions. The Norwegian firm insures all municipal workers in the Scandinavian nation and holds 35 billion dollars worth of assets.
Haaretz added that the move is part of KLP’s half-yearly review of companies in its portfolio, alongside excluding five more companies because of their income from coal-based operations, one for corruption, one for severe environmental damage and one for production of tobacco.
The two companies, Heidelberg Cement, a German company, and Cemex, a Mexican firm, acquired smaller companies with Israeli subsidiaries operating quarries in parts of the West Bank known as Area C, under complete Israeli civilian and military control as defined by the Oslo accords, Haaretz reported.
Earlier this month, KLP wrote that “no such agreement can override the rules relating to occupation set out in the Hague Regulations and the Fourth Geneva Convention.”
In response, head of responsible investment at KLP, Jeanett Bergan stated that “From the perspective of international law, an assessment of this case has proved more difficult than similar assessments with respect to Western Sahara. Nevertheless, the international legal principle that occupation should be temporary has carried the most weight. New exploitation of natural resources in occupied territory offers a strong incentive to prolong a conflict.”
KLP before taking any steps asked the companies for clarifications about their West Bank operations.
Heidelberg confirmed that one of its subsidiaries operated quarries in the West Bank and was aware of the criticism about this operation, with no intents of stopping. Cemex asserted that most of the workers at its West Bank quarry were Palestinians, and that they received the same conditions as their Israeli colleagues. Cemex also asserted that its operation in the West Bank was legal because the Oslo Accords allow Israel to maintain full control of Area C pending a permanent settlement, Haaretz said.
KLP rejected these arguments.
“KLP considers that the ethical arguments carry the heaviest weight in this case,” the company announced. “The extraction of non-renewable resources in occupied territory may weaken the future income potential of the local population, including the Palestinian residents. Moreover, when this is undertaken in a way that is difficult to justify within the requirements of the law of belligerent occupation, KLP considers that this activity represents an unacceptable risk of violating fundamental ethical norms.”
According to Haaretz, KLP divested of its shares in these companies effectively on June 1, citing international law as set in the Hague and Geneva conventions. The Norwegian firm insures all municipal workers in the Scandinavian nation and holds 35 billion dollars worth of assets.
Haaretz added that the move is part of KLP’s half-yearly review of companies in its portfolio, alongside excluding five more companies because of their income from coal-based operations, one for corruption, one for severe environmental damage and one for production of tobacco.
The two companies, Heidelberg Cement, a German company, and Cemex, a Mexican firm, acquired smaller companies with Israeli subsidiaries operating quarries in parts of the West Bank known as Area C, under complete Israeli civilian and military control as defined by the Oslo accords, Haaretz reported.
Earlier this month, KLP wrote that “no such agreement can override the rules relating to occupation set out in the Hague Regulations and the Fourth Geneva Convention.”
In response, head of responsible investment at KLP, Jeanett Bergan stated that “From the perspective of international law, an assessment of this case has proved more difficult than similar assessments with respect to Western Sahara. Nevertheless, the international legal principle that occupation should be temporary has carried the most weight. New exploitation of natural resources in occupied territory offers a strong incentive to prolong a conflict.”
KLP before taking any steps asked the companies for clarifications about their West Bank operations.
Heidelberg confirmed that one of its subsidiaries operated quarries in the West Bank and was aware of the criticism about this operation, with no intents of stopping. Cemex asserted that most of the workers at its West Bank quarry were Palestinians, and that they received the same conditions as their Israeli colleagues. Cemex also asserted that its operation in the West Bank was legal because the Oslo Accords allow Israel to maintain full control of Area C pending a permanent settlement, Haaretz said.
KLP rejected these arguments.
“KLP considers that the ethical arguments carry the heaviest weight in this case,” the company announced. “The extraction of non-renewable resources in occupied territory may weaken the future income potential of the local population, including the Palestinian residents. Moreover, when this is undertaken in a way that is difficult to justify within the requirements of the law of belligerent occupation, KLP considers that this activity represents an unacceptable risk of violating fundamental ethical norms.”
11 june 2015
Palestinians in Nablus lead a protest against Israeli products and goods produced in Israeli settlements, 7 February.
Israeli Channel 7, on Thursday, reported fears of the PA stepping up BDS activities against Israel before filing lawsuits in the International Criminal Court, in June, to hold it accountable for crimes in Gaza and the occupied West Bank.
Walid Assaf, chairman of the Commission Against the Wall and Settlements, said through international media that the PA will have no choice but to intensify BDS against Israel on an international level, in order to stop settlement expansion.
Assaf assured that the negotiations will never happen unless Israel completely halts settlement activities in the occupied West Bank. He added that Palestinians will not return to negotiations in their old form, since Israel has never responded to any given demand, in addition to its continuing violations against Palestinian rights in Susya, Jerusalem, the Jordan Valley are and more attempts of displacements.
Channel 7 considered these potential acts a strategic threat to Israel that should not be taken for granted.
Israeli forces have razed 17 dunams of Wadi Fukin village, in the course of a single day.
The popular struggle committee told PNN that Israeli bulldozers broke into the village in the early morning hours, razing lands long targeted for settlement expansion.
Israeli Channel 7, on Thursday, reported fears of the PA stepping up BDS activities against Israel before filing lawsuits in the International Criminal Court, in June, to hold it accountable for crimes in Gaza and the occupied West Bank.
Walid Assaf, chairman of the Commission Against the Wall and Settlements, said through international media that the PA will have no choice but to intensify BDS against Israel on an international level, in order to stop settlement expansion.
Assaf assured that the negotiations will never happen unless Israel completely halts settlement activities in the occupied West Bank. He added that Palestinians will not return to negotiations in their old form, since Israel has never responded to any given demand, in addition to its continuing violations against Palestinian rights in Susya, Jerusalem, the Jordan Valley are and more attempts of displacements.
Channel 7 considered these potential acts a strategic threat to Israel that should not be taken for granted.
Israeli forces have razed 17 dunams of Wadi Fukin village, in the course of a single day.
The popular struggle committee told PNN that Israeli bulldozers broke into the village in the early morning hours, razing lands long targeted for settlement expansion.
This past Thursday, Yousef Munayyer and Peter Beinart held a debate on the solution to the Palestine/Israel conflict at the New America Foundation in New York City. During his segments, Beinart reiterated his opposition to the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement on the grounds that it allegedly implies a single-state solution. Beinart’s arguments have been productively critiqued in numerous forums, including by Munayyer himself in the course of the debate and on this website, from his desire to separate different classes of refugees to his fundamental misunderstanding of the goals of the BDS movements.
However, listening to Beinart, what strikes me is how nonsensical his argument is, even on its own terms. That is to say, even if we accept Beinart’s proposal to distinguish between Israel’s systematic legal discrimination against Palestinians within the Green Line and the undoubtedly even more severe systematic legal discrimination practiced by Israel against Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip; even if we are willing to countenance his desire to forgo international humanitarian law by establishing distinctions between first- and second-generation refugees; and even if we are willing to entertain his increasingly isolated opinion that drawing a border to divide Palestine from Israel would be a relatively simple matter – in other words, even if we grant every single questionable claim Beinart makes – his conclusion to oppose BDS remains continues to defy all logic.
Let’s begin by briefly reviewing his stated position on Palestine-Israel: Beinart is willing to recognize “the unjust, immoral one state reality that exists today.” In other words, he is willing to acknowledge that the Israeli state maintains an apartheid system in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. He also acknowledges that systematic legal discrimination exists within the Green Line, although he does not classify what he calls “Israel proper” as an apartheid system.
Therefore, while Beinart supports a boycott of settlement products, he is unwilling to endorse a wider boycott effort. As becomes clear in the course of the debate, for Beinart, this is not simply a question of tactics. Adopting the talking points of apologists for Israeli human rights violations, Beinart argues, that the BDS movement has unfairly “singled-out” Israel and applied a “double-standard,” as there exist other countries which violate human rights that are not subject to similar international boycott campaigns.
For those of us who have worked on labor and human rights campaigns in the past, Beinart’s criticism of the BDS movement displays a shocking ignorance of how a boycott – any boycott – actually works.
First, boycotts target those responsible for maintaining oppressive systems, in the hope that such pressure will cause those responsible for these injustices to change their ways.
To be effective, a boycott must focus on those who (a) are responsible for maintaining oppressive situations and (b) have the power to change that situation. However, because all countries and companies are engaged in diverse activities at any one time, bringing effective pressure to bear on those who violate basic human rights entails boycotting not only the specific activities that are the immediate impetus for the action, but the company or country itself. For instance, few years back, farm workers from the Coalition of Immokalee Workers launched a consumer boycott of Taco Bell, a major consumer of Florida tomatoes, demanding that the company leverage its buying power in order to insist that workers be paid better wages and improve working conditions.
Of course, Taco Bell serves many products that do not contain tomatoes and, as far as I know, no one had called for a boycott of any of their other ingredients. But, as a major purchaser of tomatoes, Taco Bell was responsible for running a system that exploited farm workers. The boycott – whose demands were fully met in March 2005 – targeted the responsible entity because it ran an unjust system.
Calls to boycott clothing companies who manufacture some of their products in unsafe factories in Bangladesh following the collapse of a factory in that country in 2013 followed a similar logic. Consumers were not asked to check the labels of individual shirts to ensure they were not sourced from these dangerous factories. Rather, the companies responsible for maintaining an exploitative system were held responsible for their actions. Just as boycotting Taco Bell’s tomatoes while eating the rest of their menu would be nonsensical, so too is Beinart’s call to only boycott settlement products. If, as Beinart readily admits, the Israeli state is responsible for maintaining an apartheid system, then it is the Israeli state and its complicit institutions which must be targeted with nonviolent direct actions. Doing any less would undermine the basic logic that undergirds all boycotts.
Second, boycotts do not work by ranking and comparing suffering. Instead, they select target that is violating somebody’s rights and mobilize people to pressure that target, in the hope that these actions will force them towards displaying the basic moral behaviors that they should have been upholding all along. In other words, all boycotts necessarily “single out” a target for direct action. In fact, it is precisely this focus that allows these movements to achieve success. For instance, Colombian activists have called for a boycott of Coca-Cola products, due to their partnering with paramilitary groups that murder and intimidate union organizers. (This despite the fact that Coca-Cola products in the USA are not manufactured in Colombia.)
Is Coca-Cola the single worst violator of labor rights in the world today? Who knows? Who cares? Workers at Coca-Cola asked for international solidarity in order to uphold their basic human rights. Similarly, over 170 Palestinian civil society organizations have asked us to stand with them as they demand that their own basic human rights be respected. Asking any boycott to wait in line for other struggles to be addressed first is anathema to the very concept of solidarity, which undergirds all boycotts.
If Peter Beinart believes that Palestinians’ basic rights are not being violated or simply does not care, then he is free to scab. However, if, as he claims, Beinart truly is willing to acknowledge that the state of Israel is running an apartheid system – even if he believes that it is only in the West Bank and Gaza Strip – then he has a responsibility to endorse the nonviolent solution which actually targets the responsible party: boycotting, divesting from, and bringing sanctions to bear on Israel itself.
The objections raised by Beinart against the BDS movement are not actually objections to this boycott so much as they are objection to all boycotts. Assuming Beinart does not think boycotts are an inherently illegitimate political tactic, it is he, rather than the BDS movement, which is applying a double-standard.
However, listening to Beinart, what strikes me is how nonsensical his argument is, even on its own terms. That is to say, even if we accept Beinart’s proposal to distinguish between Israel’s systematic legal discrimination against Palestinians within the Green Line and the undoubtedly even more severe systematic legal discrimination practiced by Israel against Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip; even if we are willing to countenance his desire to forgo international humanitarian law by establishing distinctions between first- and second-generation refugees; and even if we are willing to entertain his increasingly isolated opinion that drawing a border to divide Palestine from Israel would be a relatively simple matter – in other words, even if we grant every single questionable claim Beinart makes – his conclusion to oppose BDS remains continues to defy all logic.
Let’s begin by briefly reviewing his stated position on Palestine-Israel: Beinart is willing to recognize “the unjust, immoral one state reality that exists today.” In other words, he is willing to acknowledge that the Israeli state maintains an apartheid system in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. He also acknowledges that systematic legal discrimination exists within the Green Line, although he does not classify what he calls “Israel proper” as an apartheid system.
Therefore, while Beinart supports a boycott of settlement products, he is unwilling to endorse a wider boycott effort. As becomes clear in the course of the debate, for Beinart, this is not simply a question of tactics. Adopting the talking points of apologists for Israeli human rights violations, Beinart argues, that the BDS movement has unfairly “singled-out” Israel and applied a “double-standard,” as there exist other countries which violate human rights that are not subject to similar international boycott campaigns.
For those of us who have worked on labor and human rights campaigns in the past, Beinart’s criticism of the BDS movement displays a shocking ignorance of how a boycott – any boycott – actually works.
First, boycotts target those responsible for maintaining oppressive systems, in the hope that such pressure will cause those responsible for these injustices to change their ways.
To be effective, a boycott must focus on those who (a) are responsible for maintaining oppressive situations and (b) have the power to change that situation. However, because all countries and companies are engaged in diverse activities at any one time, bringing effective pressure to bear on those who violate basic human rights entails boycotting not only the specific activities that are the immediate impetus for the action, but the company or country itself. For instance, few years back, farm workers from the Coalition of Immokalee Workers launched a consumer boycott of Taco Bell, a major consumer of Florida tomatoes, demanding that the company leverage its buying power in order to insist that workers be paid better wages and improve working conditions.
Of course, Taco Bell serves many products that do not contain tomatoes and, as far as I know, no one had called for a boycott of any of their other ingredients. But, as a major purchaser of tomatoes, Taco Bell was responsible for running a system that exploited farm workers. The boycott – whose demands were fully met in March 2005 – targeted the responsible entity because it ran an unjust system.
Calls to boycott clothing companies who manufacture some of their products in unsafe factories in Bangladesh following the collapse of a factory in that country in 2013 followed a similar logic. Consumers were not asked to check the labels of individual shirts to ensure they were not sourced from these dangerous factories. Rather, the companies responsible for maintaining an exploitative system were held responsible for their actions. Just as boycotting Taco Bell’s tomatoes while eating the rest of their menu would be nonsensical, so too is Beinart’s call to only boycott settlement products. If, as Beinart readily admits, the Israeli state is responsible for maintaining an apartheid system, then it is the Israeli state and its complicit institutions which must be targeted with nonviolent direct actions. Doing any less would undermine the basic logic that undergirds all boycotts.
Second, boycotts do not work by ranking and comparing suffering. Instead, they select target that is violating somebody’s rights and mobilize people to pressure that target, in the hope that these actions will force them towards displaying the basic moral behaviors that they should have been upholding all along. In other words, all boycotts necessarily “single out” a target for direct action. In fact, it is precisely this focus that allows these movements to achieve success. For instance, Colombian activists have called for a boycott of Coca-Cola products, due to their partnering with paramilitary groups that murder and intimidate union organizers. (This despite the fact that Coca-Cola products in the USA are not manufactured in Colombia.)
Is Coca-Cola the single worst violator of labor rights in the world today? Who knows? Who cares? Workers at Coca-Cola asked for international solidarity in order to uphold their basic human rights. Similarly, over 170 Palestinian civil society organizations have asked us to stand with them as they demand that their own basic human rights be respected. Asking any boycott to wait in line for other struggles to be addressed first is anathema to the very concept of solidarity, which undergirds all boycotts.
If Peter Beinart believes that Palestinians’ basic rights are not being violated or simply does not care, then he is free to scab. However, if, as he claims, Beinart truly is willing to acknowledge that the state of Israel is running an apartheid system – even if he believes that it is only in the West Bank and Gaza Strip – then he has a responsibility to endorse the nonviolent solution which actually targets the responsible party: boycotting, divesting from, and bringing sanctions to bear on Israel itself.
The objections raised by Beinart against the BDS movement are not actually objections to this boycott so much as they are objection to all boycotts. Assuming Beinart does not think boycotts are an inherently illegitimate political tactic, it is he, rather than the BDS movement, which is applying a double-standard.
10 june 2015
Israeli cosmetics company Ahava will relocate its factories and offices after the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS) condemned its location in an illegal settlement in the occupied West Bank, reported Arab48.
The company is currently based in Mitzpe Shalem, a settlement one mile away from the Dead Sea in the West Bank and illegal under international law. It announced plans to relocate after coming under heavy pressure from BDS activists. The accumulative cost of relocating will be over 10m Israeli shekels ($2.5m)
Ahava has been the focus of a BDS campaign in the UK, Spain, US and other EU countries for a few years.
After a BDS campaign in 2011, it was forced to close one of its shops in London and 2 of its 7 branches in Israel as sales plummeted. According to Alternative News (AIC), the company also cancelled a ‘Twitter party’ due to be held last week after Palestine solidarity activists planned to crash the party and disrupt proceedings.
According to Forward, Ahava is considering opening a factory within Israeli borders instead, citing ‘changing needs’ rather than politics as the reason for its relocation.
BDS calls for an international boycott of Israel based on its policies in the West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem. The movement has been gaining ground in recent times, most recently convincing the UK company Boots to stop selling illegally-taken Dead Sea mud.
Channel Ten explained that Israel has already begun to feel the effects of the potential damage to the Israeli economy, and an Israeli official warned that the government had run out of ways to combat the BDS threat.
The company is currently based in Mitzpe Shalem, a settlement one mile away from the Dead Sea in the West Bank and illegal under international law. It announced plans to relocate after coming under heavy pressure from BDS activists. The accumulative cost of relocating will be over 10m Israeli shekels ($2.5m)
Ahava has been the focus of a BDS campaign in the UK, Spain, US and other EU countries for a few years.
After a BDS campaign in 2011, it was forced to close one of its shops in London and 2 of its 7 branches in Israel as sales plummeted. According to Alternative News (AIC), the company also cancelled a ‘Twitter party’ due to be held last week after Palestine solidarity activists planned to crash the party and disrupt proceedings.
According to Forward, Ahava is considering opening a factory within Israeli borders instead, citing ‘changing needs’ rather than politics as the reason for its relocation.
BDS calls for an international boycott of Israel based on its policies in the West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem. The movement has been gaining ground in recent times, most recently convincing the UK company Boots to stop selling illegally-taken Dead Sea mud.
Channel Ten explained that Israel has already begun to feel the effects of the potential damage to the Israeli economy, and an Israeli official warned that the government had run out of ways to combat the BDS threat.
9 june 2015
Deputy speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) Ahmed Baher has called for forming an international lobby group to work together on escalating the boycott campaigns worldwide against Israel.
In a press release on Monday, Baher hailed the growing boycott campaigns, which he said started to gain international momentum, and stressed the need for pooling the efforts regionally and internationally to boycott and isolate Israel.
He said that such international moves against Israel should include serious efforts to take legal action against Israeli leaders at international courts for committing war crimes against the Palestinians and not be confined to commercial boycott campaigns.
In a press release on Monday, Baher hailed the growing boycott campaigns, which he said started to gain international momentum, and stressed the need for pooling the efforts regionally and internationally to boycott and isolate Israel.
He said that such international moves against Israel should include serious efforts to take legal action against Israeli leaders at international courts for committing war crimes against the Palestinians and not be confined to commercial boycott campaigns.
8 june 2015
Growing calls for academic boycotts against Israeli institutions and researchers have caused deep concerns among Israeli academics and scholars.
Israel Hayom newspaper said Sunday that "Israeli researchers who are being denied promotion and tenure, a significant decrease in scientific collaborations with international companies fearing consumer boycotts, rejected essays, and increasing pressure by student unions on universities worldwide to shun Israeli academia."
This grim picture was painted by the heads of Israel's universities during a meeting with President Reuven Rivlin last week to discuss the growing phenomenon of global academic boycotts against Israel, the newspaper said.
Professor Peretz Lavie, president of the Israel Institute of Technology and chairman of the Association of University Heads of Israel, warned that time was running out on the fight against academic boycotts.
"This is the 11th hour. Anti-Israeli student unions used to be the minority, but now they are present in all major universities," he said.
Israel Academy of Sciences and the Humanities Chairwoman Professor Ruth Arnon said the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement "has good public relations. It's well funded and very active in many universities, which are now pursuing the delegitimization of Israel."
According to Arnon, "While the practical aspects of the boycott haven't manifested yet, the future ramifications will be very serious."
Hebrew University of Jerusalem President Menachem Ben-Sasson appealed to Rivlin, saying, "This is a 'silent' boycott, meaning it has not been officially declared. We ask you, Mr. President, to discuss this issue in your meetings with world leaders."
Professor Zvi Ziegler, who heads the Inter-University Senate forum striving to counter academic boycotts initiatives against Israel, told Israel Hayom that the phenomenon dates back at least a decade, but the massive efforts by Israeli academics have been able to thwart them so far.
"It became a dormant issue, but we have seen it resurface over the last few years. It's taking a different shape in the U.S., where it's brewing underneath the surface. Decisions are being made that actively undermine Israeli research and researchers, but without calling it by name. The problem is that those promoting boycotts include some very experienced, well-funded individuals," he said.
In 2013, the American Studies Association decided that while it would not boycott Israeli researchers as such, it would avoid any collaboration with Israeli academic institutions, and would not invite state-sponsored researchers to participate in its projects or symposiums, Ziegler said.
"Military campaigns attract a lot of attention and foster [Israel's] negative image. Many groups tried to jump on the bandwagon of the [charged] atmosphere and promote boycotts, but it was stopped, in part thanks to many American organizations inside U.S. academia," he said.
"An academic boycott is a negative thing because it hinders humanity's progress. Undermining Israeli science is simply wrong."
Israel Hayom newspaper said Sunday that "Israeli researchers who are being denied promotion and tenure, a significant decrease in scientific collaborations with international companies fearing consumer boycotts, rejected essays, and increasing pressure by student unions on universities worldwide to shun Israeli academia."
This grim picture was painted by the heads of Israel's universities during a meeting with President Reuven Rivlin last week to discuss the growing phenomenon of global academic boycotts against Israel, the newspaper said.
Professor Peretz Lavie, president of the Israel Institute of Technology and chairman of the Association of University Heads of Israel, warned that time was running out on the fight against academic boycotts.
"This is the 11th hour. Anti-Israeli student unions used to be the minority, but now they are present in all major universities," he said.
Israel Academy of Sciences and the Humanities Chairwoman Professor Ruth Arnon said the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement "has good public relations. It's well funded and very active in many universities, which are now pursuing the delegitimization of Israel."
According to Arnon, "While the practical aspects of the boycott haven't manifested yet, the future ramifications will be very serious."
Hebrew University of Jerusalem President Menachem Ben-Sasson appealed to Rivlin, saying, "This is a 'silent' boycott, meaning it has not been officially declared. We ask you, Mr. President, to discuss this issue in your meetings with world leaders."
Professor Zvi Ziegler, who heads the Inter-University Senate forum striving to counter academic boycotts initiatives against Israel, told Israel Hayom that the phenomenon dates back at least a decade, but the massive efforts by Israeli academics have been able to thwart them so far.
"It became a dormant issue, but we have seen it resurface over the last few years. It's taking a different shape in the U.S., where it's brewing underneath the surface. Decisions are being made that actively undermine Israeli research and researchers, but without calling it by name. The problem is that those promoting boycotts include some very experienced, well-funded individuals," he said.
In 2013, the American Studies Association decided that while it would not boycott Israeli researchers as such, it would avoid any collaboration with Israeli academic institutions, and would not invite state-sponsored researchers to participate in its projects or symposiums, Ziegler said.
"Military campaigns attract a lot of attention and foster [Israel's] negative image. Many groups tried to jump on the bandwagon of the [charged] atmosphere and promote boycotts, but it was stopped, in part thanks to many American organizations inside U.S. academia," he said.
"An academic boycott is a negative thing because it hinders humanity's progress. Undermining Israeli science is simply wrong."
7 june 2015
Prime Minister Netanyahu and Minister Erdan
In letter, Netanyahu tells attendees at emergency BDS summit in Las Vegas, 'You are on the front lines of fight against BDS, and Israel must stand with you.'
"De-legitimization of Israel must be fought, and you are on the front lines," Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told attendees in a letter read aloud at a BDS emergency summit organized by Sheldon Adelson in Las Vegas on Saturday night.
"It’s not about this or that Israeli policy. It’s about our right to exist here as a free people," the prime minister stressed.
"And I thank each and every one of you for defending Israel on campus. Young Jews will know they can stand tall and be proud of Israel," he continued
Thanks to such efforts to combat the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement (BDS), "friends of Israel can be armed with facts to defend the truth," Netanyahu said.
"And so everyone will see that Israel, the most embattled democracy on earth that seeks a genuine peace while fending off the forces of barbaric terrorism, deserves their support," he added.
Concurrently Netanyahu held talks with several officials over the weekend regarding the possible plans of action to combat BDS.
The talks included Strategic Affairs and Information Minister Gilad Erdan, whose office's perview includes fighting BDS, as well as other officials from relevant ministries.
The Israeli government is debating ways to improve cooperation between the different government agencies fighting BDS, and Jewish organizations abroad.
The talks included issues of funding and resources for battling the boycott campaign. Netanyahu and Erdan agreed that his office will receive at least NIS 100 million, most of which will go to fighting BDS.
Erdan's office will also receive 10 new positions for employees who will deal solely with the boycott and de-legitimization activities against Israel.
The minister mentioned that he is flooded with calls from Jewish leaders from across the globe, who want to join the effort against BDS.
Erdan estimated that the budget can double or triple to NIS 300 million with the help of Jewish and pro-Israel organizations.
The campaign against the BDS needs to include government ministries, intelligence agencies and the defense community, as well as increased cooperation with Jewish organizations, he said.
EU delegation nixes meeting with MKs A delegation of Green Party members from the European parliament, which planned on visiting Israel and the Palestinian Authority, cancelled their planned meetings with Israeli officials at the last minute, but did meet with Palestinian officials as planned.
The delegation is comprised of five members of the European Parliament who asked to meet with officials from both sides. Meetings were planned with officials from the Foreign Ministry and the Knesset, who where meant to present a green project in the field of environmental protection to the delegation.
As the members of the delegation left for the region, the Green Party's political advisor informed Israeli officials that those meetings where to be cancelled, due to priority and scheduling issues. Israeli officials did not appreciate the actions of the European Parliament delegation, "We regret that the delegation chose to proceed in a one-sided manner, with only the Palestinian point of view, and without the opportunity for a balanced view of both sides."
It was later made evident to Israeli officials that the European parliamentarians found the time to visit Palestinian prisoners.
In letter, Netanyahu tells attendees at emergency BDS summit in Las Vegas, 'You are on the front lines of fight against BDS, and Israel must stand with you.'
"De-legitimization of Israel must be fought, and you are on the front lines," Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told attendees in a letter read aloud at a BDS emergency summit organized by Sheldon Adelson in Las Vegas on Saturday night.
"It’s not about this or that Israeli policy. It’s about our right to exist here as a free people," the prime minister stressed.
"And I thank each and every one of you for defending Israel on campus. Young Jews will know they can stand tall and be proud of Israel," he continued
Thanks to such efforts to combat the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement (BDS), "friends of Israel can be armed with facts to defend the truth," Netanyahu said.
"And so everyone will see that Israel, the most embattled democracy on earth that seeks a genuine peace while fending off the forces of barbaric terrorism, deserves their support," he added.
Concurrently Netanyahu held talks with several officials over the weekend regarding the possible plans of action to combat BDS.
The talks included Strategic Affairs and Information Minister Gilad Erdan, whose office's perview includes fighting BDS, as well as other officials from relevant ministries.
The Israeli government is debating ways to improve cooperation between the different government agencies fighting BDS, and Jewish organizations abroad.
The talks included issues of funding and resources for battling the boycott campaign. Netanyahu and Erdan agreed that his office will receive at least NIS 100 million, most of which will go to fighting BDS.
Erdan's office will also receive 10 new positions for employees who will deal solely with the boycott and de-legitimization activities against Israel.
The minister mentioned that he is flooded with calls from Jewish leaders from across the globe, who want to join the effort against BDS.
Erdan estimated that the budget can double or triple to NIS 300 million with the help of Jewish and pro-Israel organizations.
The campaign against the BDS needs to include government ministries, intelligence agencies and the defense community, as well as increased cooperation with Jewish organizations, he said.
EU delegation nixes meeting with MKs A delegation of Green Party members from the European parliament, which planned on visiting Israel and the Palestinian Authority, cancelled their planned meetings with Israeli officials at the last minute, but did meet with Palestinian officials as planned.
The delegation is comprised of five members of the European Parliament who asked to meet with officials from both sides. Meetings were planned with officials from the Foreign Ministry and the Knesset, who where meant to present a green project in the field of environmental protection to the delegation.
As the members of the delegation left for the region, the Green Party's political advisor informed Israeli officials that those meetings where to be cancelled, due to priority and scheduling issues. Israeli officials did not appreciate the actions of the European Parliament delegation, "We regret that the delegation chose to proceed in a one-sided manner, with only the Palestinian point of view, and without the opportunity for a balanced view of both sides."
It was later made evident to Israeli officials that the European parliamentarians found the time to visit Palestinian prisoners.