31 aug 2013
Officials from various political factions Saturday called for intensifying the popular resistance movement, describing it as the people’s choice for this period. Fatah Central Committee member Mahmoud Aloul told audience at the third Popular Resistance Conference held in the village of Qabalan, near Nablus, that the idea of popular non-violent resistance should become the approach of the people throughout the occupied territory.
“We want to spread the experience of popular resistance to become a way of thinking for our people and to constantly intensify it,” he said. “We should encourage the idea of economic boycott of the occupation authority, which has become one of the most effective tools in this resistance, and to make it a way of thinking for our people.”
He said Israel would not end its occupation if it does not see it as becoming costly for it.
Other speakers also praised the popular resistance saying that it proved to be an effective tool in the Palestinian struggle to end the Israeli occupation and confirmed that the Palestinian people are unarmed and fighting well armed occupiers.
“We want to spread the experience of popular resistance to become a way of thinking for our people and to constantly intensify it,” he said. “We should encourage the idea of economic boycott of the occupation authority, which has become one of the most effective tools in this resistance, and to make it a way of thinking for our people.”
He said Israel would not end its occupation if it does not see it as becoming costly for it.
Other speakers also praised the popular resistance saying that it proved to be an effective tool in the Palestinian struggle to end the Israeli occupation and confirmed that the Palestinian people are unarmed and fighting well armed occupiers.
30 aug 2013
PLO Executive Committee member Dr. Hanan Ashrawi called on the Dutch engineering firm, Royal HaskoningDHV, to quickly end its involvement in the development of an Israeli project in occupied East Jerusalem framed by some members of the Dutch parliament as a project that serves Palestinian interests: "Such claims are erroneous and highly misleading.
In actuality, this project, a municipal wastewater treatment plant commissioned by Israeli authorities, will be built in occupied East Jerusalem. The primary objective of this plant is to serve and to strengthen Israel's illegal settlements; to deepen its annexation of East Jerusalem; and to consolidate its occupation of the West Bank – not to provide clean water to Palestinians."
Dr. Ashrawi added: "Contrary to what some may claim, the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) is not a partner in this project; the PNA has explicitly and repeatedly expressed its strong objection to the project, and such a position has been communicated to Royal HaskoningDHV, as well as to the Dutch government."
In a recent public statement, Royal HaskoningDHV emphasized that it conducts its work with the highest regard for integrity and always follow (inter)national laws and regulations: "We warmly welcome this clear commitment and call on Royal HaskoningDHV to act accordingly and to altogether end its involvement with this Israeli project that contravenes international law", stressed Dr. Ashrawi.
"We would like to see Royal HaskoningDHV in Palestine and to invite the company to share its remarkable know-how and skills. However, its activities must adhere to international and humanitarian law and be commissioned by Palestinian authorities and contribute to an independent and sovereign Palestinian state on 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital."
"I commend the Dutch government for translating its opposition to Israel's disastrous settlement policy into action, in line with EU policy, and for urging Royal HaskoningDHV to end its involvement in this illegal project," concluded Dr. Ashrawi.
In actuality, this project, a municipal wastewater treatment plant commissioned by Israeli authorities, will be built in occupied East Jerusalem. The primary objective of this plant is to serve and to strengthen Israel's illegal settlements; to deepen its annexation of East Jerusalem; and to consolidate its occupation of the West Bank – not to provide clean water to Palestinians."
Dr. Ashrawi added: "Contrary to what some may claim, the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) is not a partner in this project; the PNA has explicitly and repeatedly expressed its strong objection to the project, and such a position has been communicated to Royal HaskoningDHV, as well as to the Dutch government."
In a recent public statement, Royal HaskoningDHV emphasized that it conducts its work with the highest regard for integrity and always follow (inter)national laws and regulations: "We warmly welcome this clear commitment and call on Royal HaskoningDHV to act accordingly and to altogether end its involvement with this Israeli project that contravenes international law", stressed Dr. Ashrawi.
"We would like to see Royal HaskoningDHV in Palestine and to invite the company to share its remarkable know-how and skills. However, its activities must adhere to international and humanitarian law and be commissioned by Palestinian authorities and contribute to an independent and sovereign Palestinian state on 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital."
"I commend the Dutch government for translating its opposition to Israel's disastrous settlement policy into action, in line with EU policy, and for urging Royal HaskoningDHV to end its involvement in this illegal project," concluded Dr. Ashrawi.
28 aug 2013
by Ruth Tenne
The Editorial of the liberal Israeli newspaper-Haaretz- had recently expressed growing concern over the economic boycott of Israel:
"Concern over a possible international economic boycott of Israel has been growing. Israel's Justice Minister Tzipi Livni is responsible for negotiations with the Palestinians. At the beginning of the month she warned that if there was no progress in diplomatic negotiations with the Palestinian Authority, the European boycott of Israeli products would not be limited to goods produced in West Bank settlements, but that it would be applied to Israel proper as well". The Editorial goes on to say: "The magnitude of the danger this poses to the Israeli economy is hard to overstate.
An European economic boycott of those with any connection to the occupied territories would be very broad. And Livni is warning that it would spread way beyond that. Even at this point, the worldwide Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS) has chalked up a not-inconsiderable number of achievements....The need for new, courageous and steadfast policy does not stem solely from the threatened economic damage. The diplomatic and moral price that Israel is paying for the continued occupation is high enough, but now − with Europe talking about stiffening its economic stance − the price that Israel is due to pay becomes substantial and tangible. Israel has only one conclusion to draw from this: To exercise a genuine readiness to end the occupation and reach an agreement, before this major threat becomes a reality".[1]
Tzipi Livni's pronouncement may indicate a growing anxiety of the Israeli Government which is due to the recent successes of the BDS movement. Yet, it may also be seen as a calculated tactic for convincing the Israeli public and the ultra right-wing parties in the coalition to respond favourably to John Kerry's recent efforts of bringing the two sides onto the negotiation table. The crucial issue, however, is how far any progress made by the BDS movement may help achieve its declared aims. A paper represented by Lee Jones (Queen Marry College) at a recent research consortium in London argued that "first, without mass-based liberation struggle, Palestinians lack the main mechanism by which change was achieved in South Africa and which gave sanctions their force. Second, lacking coherent goals, leadership and strategy, the BDS campaign displays contradictions and confusions about exactly how BDS will bring about change, what the best targets are and what defines 'success' ''. [2]
Being an old veteran of the BDS campaign, I tend to agree with the general arguments made by Lee Jones. Indeed, in a recent paper which was published by Palestine News Network I made some similar points. [3] I feel that a closer analysis of the "facts on the ground" ought to be made in order to appreciate the effectiveness of BDS. Essentially, the BDS campaign is a reactive rather than pro-active strategy - which by itself would not be able to achieve the declared following stated goals of the Palestine BDS movement (July 2005) :
"These non-violent punitive measures should be maintained until Israel meets its obligation to recognize the Palestinian people's inalienable right to self-determination and fully complies with the precepts of international law by:
1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands 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". [4]
BOYCOTT
In reality BDS includes three tiers of action. The first one is Boycott which is, in essence, regarded a as non-violent protest undertaken by the members of civil society. It comprises the following three main throngs: consumer boycott, academic boycott, and cultural boycott. Those forms of boycott are guided by different leading bodies, such as, the Palestine Solidarity Movement (PSC), the Boycott Israel Network (BIN), Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods (JBIG) , the British Committee for Universities in Palestine (BRICUP), and Boycott From Within (an Israeli outfit) . All of those bodies are committed to the endorsed statements issued by the Palestinian BDS, and the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI). However, in reality there is little coordination between those various outfits.
They do not seem to have effective "central command" which would help define priority targets, assess achievements and decide on the next course of action, in line with progress made towards the declared goals. In reality, the BDS declared goals ought to be defined in terms of priority targets (e.g. halting land confiscation and settlement expansion , defying Israel's blockade of Gaza , releasing Palestinians detainees and prisoners, removing the West Bank checkpoints, pushing for withdrawal of the Israeli military from occupied Palestinian land, etc). It follows that the success of BDS tactics have to be constantly re-assessed, and revised in terms of well-defined realistic targets. Otherwise , there is a danger that the BDS campaign would fall into the trap of a piecemeal boycott that is reinforced by self-gratifying partial victories which do not necessarily achieve the actual goals of the overall campaign.
In order to achieve BDS ultimate goals the boycott has to reach a "critical mass". That means an active support of both the Western and the Muslim words - including Middle East and Muslim states and Palestinians in the West Bank and Israel (where Palestinian citizens amount to 20% of the population). The boycott campaign has to be backed by an active support of leading organisations such as PLO and the Arab League . Indeed, on July 14 2012 a fresh campaign was launched by the Palestine National Initiative: "in previous campaigns, general-secretary of the PNI Dr Mustafa Barghouti has reiterated that the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement should be taken up from within the occupied territories as a tactic to not only emphasize the atrocious Israeli occupation policies, but also to absolve the Palestinians from unwittingly perpetuating these same polices against.
"It has been recorded that Israel sells nearly three billion dollars worth of goods in the occupied Palestinian territories," Dr Barghouti once stated in a press release. This means Palestinians constitute the second largest market in the world for Israel. The Israeli profits that we contribute to inevitably are used to further suppress Palestinians and expand the illegal settlements in the West Bank and Jerusalem".[5]
Indeed, this has been fully recognised by a recent BDS conference which took place in Bethlehem in June 2013. As reported by Electronic Intifada "The "ubiquity" of Israeli products in Palestinian stores in the West Bank was also a major talking point from both speakers and participants. From the platform, Mazen al-Azzah said that Palestinians are the first market for Israeli goods. He said this was largely down to the greed of Palestinian capital. But he cautioned that emptying Palestine of Israeli products would not be enough to pressure Israel, and that international successes would still be needed. However, he said local initiatives like the relatively new Bader initiative to boycott Israeli products could be a model for the international community.... local "Olive Convention" was formed which called on stores to boycott all Israeli products, with certificates being issued to those agreed". [6]
I believe that, crucially, the Arab league and PLO ought to support the newly launched boycott from within the Occupied Territories by endorsing and demonstrating their solidarity with the campaign. It may not be easy for Palestinian residents of the West Bank and Israel to avoid Israeli products altogether, but they undoubtedly could make a conscious choice of boycotting products and produce which are sourced from the illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank , or from Israeli companies which exploits Palestinian resources. Moreover, the Palestinian idea of offering certificates to stores which pledge not to sell products from the illegal Jewish settlements in the West bank, or from Israel (see above) could be adopted by the BDS campaign by awarding such a "human rights" certificate to conscientious stores outside Palestine (e.g. the Cooperative store in Britain) and publically placing the model certificate on the campaign's website(s).
The Academic and Cultural boycott could also be greatly reinforced by achieving a greater co-operation between supporters of the boycott inside and outside Israel. For instance, a protest undertaken by BRICUP against academics and artists who take up an invitation to officially visit, or perform in Israel could be effectively backed up by Israeli supporters of BDS (e.g. Boycott from Within, and Women Coalition for Peace) who may be able to organise a public protest/picketing in Israel against the boycotted performance/ event.
DIVESTMENT
The second tier of BDS extends the campaign to a commercial and financial level whereby public organisations have to be made aware of Israel's constant violation of human rights and be put under pressure to divest from, or disinvest in companies which exploit and profit from Israel's occupation of Palestinian land. the divestment campaign may require some careful planning, such as, identifying the relevant governing bodies , or individuals, who are in charge of the targeted company/financial institution along with the date and location of the company's annual general meeting of shareholders .
The campaign had some notable successes. As result of intensive divestment campaign, the Central Committee of the World Churches encouraged the Council's member- churches "to give serious consideration to economic measures that are equitable, transparent and non-violent" as a new way to work for peace , looking at ways to not participate economically in illegal activities related to the Israeli occupation. In that sense, the committee affirmed "economic pressure, appropriately and openly applied," as a "means of action".... The Central Committee takes note of the current action by the Presbyterian Church (USA) which has initiated a process of phased, selective divestment from multinational corporations involved in the occupation".[7]
More recently student unions in the US and Britain have been putting pressure on the governing bodies of their own university to divest from companies that profit from the Occupation .[8] Yet, there is a need for a coordinated campaign which would run by a central body, or Co-ordinator, on the lines of the successful pan-European campaign against Veolia. [9] The co-ordinating body may be responsible for identifying and issuing a "black list" of major companies against which divestment, exclusion from commercial contracts, and arms embargo campaign should be undertaken. The Israeli website Who Profits- which is run by the Coalition of Women for Peace [10]-could be used as a tool for identifying and prioritising companies against which intensive campaign should be undertaken. Websites of other campaigning bodies such as the Coalition Against Arms Trade (CAAT) [10] and War on Want may also be of help.
Divestment from arms companies such as BAE Systems, or G4S that supply Israel with security equipment which are employed in checkpoints and in Israeli prisons that jail Palestinians, should be high on the agenda of the BDS campaign. The BDS campaign ought to take some lessons from the global Occupy movement by organising "name and shame" rallies/picketing in financial centres /stock exchanges around the world. This will inevitably attract much-needed media attention and affect the financial standing of those companies (e.g. significant drop in share values). It is vital for The BDS movement to have a fresh look at its present tactics and learn from recent effective campaigns across the world. That calls for achieving active cooperation with human rights and campaigning bodies - such as trade unions, charities, church and faith organisations, the ecological and Greenpeace movement, Stop the War Coalition , and the Campaign for Nuclear disarmament( CND).
SANCTIONS
The third tier of BDS takes the campaign to a political sphere which is to be achieved on national, pan-European, or global level. Sanction is a well-used tool by powerful western states. Indeed USA administration holds a law-enforced sanctions programme against a number of regimes. The sanctions can be either comprehensive or selective, using means such as blocking of assets and trade restrictions to accomplish foreign policy and national security goals.[11] Yet, the USA grants $3.2 billions p.a. in aid to the State of Israel which contravenes international law and UN resolutions, with impunity. The American administration seems reluctant to suspend aid to Israel as a mean of enforcing its government to comply with international law and halt further expansion of Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. That stands in a stark contrast to US policy of the past when President Eisenhower had successfully forced Israel to return the Sinai Peninsula and Gaza Strip to Egypt in the aftermath of the 1956 Suez war. [12]
Ironically, and regrettably, Egypt is currently regarded by US as the main ally of Israel in the region. Its hard-line military regime is being granted $1.3 Billions p.a. in order to sustain US's interests in the region and help maintain Egypt-Israel's volatile alliance and help strengthening Israel's iron-grip on Gaza and Hamas.
In contrast, the EU is taking a tougher stance on the illegal settlements in the West Bank by recently issuing a directive which insists that "all future agreements between the EU and Israel must explicitly exclude Jewish colonies in the West Bank or East Jerusalem. The EU guidelines will prohibit the issuing of grants, funding, prizes or scholarships unless a settlement exclusion clause is included. Israeli institutions and bodies situated across the pre-1967 Green Line – including the Golan Heights, occupied by Israel in 1967 and later annexed — will be automatically ineligible". [13] The Arab league, however, seems to take less stringent approach. "In 1945, a year after it was founded, the Arab League started boycotting Zionist goods and services in Palestine. Then in 1948, the boycott was formalized to include three levels: primary, secondary and tertiary boycotts.
· Primary Boycott: No Arab country should import Israeli goods or export goods to the Israeli market, either directly or indirectly.
· Secondary Boycott: No Arab country should conduct business with any company already doing business with Israel.
· Tertiary Boycott: No foreign company should do business with another foreign company that has links to Israel.
Not all Arab countries implemented the boycott against Israel because the Arab League did not enforce it on its members. Therefore, some members did not apply the boycott at all; others ended it and established a trade relation with Israel; and the member countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) announced in 1994 that they would end the secondary and tertiary boycott but still enforce the primary boycott". [14]
The BDS movement ought to call on both the Arab League and the EU to enforce their initial guidelines to member-states by imposing sanctions on companies which profit and consolidate Israel's occupation of Palestinian land.
TAKING PRO-ACTIVE STRATEGIES
BDS, as it stands, is a reactive campaign of non- violent protest against an entrenched oppressor - the State of Israel. It could not, in itself, achieve the declared goals of sovereignty and self-determination as declared by the PLO charter. Therefore, it has to be recognised as a mean of serving pro-active strategies which lead to the creation of independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. Such a state should be established in the pre-1957 borders - being totally free of Jewish settlements and Israel's military presence with its capital as East Jerusalem.
I believe that the crucial element in preparing the way for an internationally recognised Palestinian state, which will realise the aspirations of the Palestinian people for self-determination, is a full political representation of Hamas in the PLO and the Palestine Legislative Council, (Hamas does not recognise the PLO and although it won an absolute majority in the 2006 election to the PLC it carries very little political clout in it). The division between Hamas and Fatah is seen as a major obstacle to achieving significant political progress. The current split between Fatah and Hamas is quite fundamental since it is not only expressed in political terms but, more importantly, in ideological terms, namely, a secular versus a religion-based state.
An official document in the form of an interim constitution/bill of rights, signed by both Fatah and Hamas is a key element for the foundation of an independent Palestinian state recognised by UN member-states. Such a document has to be issued in line with modern democratic principals which call for equal opportunities to all regardless gender, faith, or creed. (The human rights body of Lawyers for Palestine may have an important role to play in this respect). [10] Libya's interim constitution, which was drafted soon after the ousting of Gaddafi [15], could be seen as a vital step that helped awarding international credibility to the new Libyan government.
Similarly, a ceremonial Declaration of Independence could inaugurate the newly-formed Unity Government in Palestine and help cement its political status globally.
The recent turmoil in Syria and Egypt may encourage re-conciliation between Fatah and Hamas. The sudden removal of president Morsi from office by the Egyptian military and the consequent clampdown on the Muslim Brotherhood are bound to increase Hamas isolation. [16] This may stir Hamas towards forging political links with Fatah under the PLO umbrella, leading to a Unity Government in Palestine which will be based on endorsed constitution/bill of rights (that will also include the rights of Palestinian refugees). Such a step would help create the foundations of a Palestinian state that would be able to achieve full sovereignty and effectively fight for justice through International laws as enshrined by UN Charter and resolutions, the International Court of Justice, human rights conventions/treaties and UN associated bodies. [17]. The new independent Palestinian state will, then, gain the ability to form regional links with neighbouring countries from a secured position of power which will enhance its political sovereignty.
The Editorial of the liberal Israeli newspaper-Haaretz- had recently expressed growing concern over the economic boycott of Israel:
"Concern over a possible international economic boycott of Israel has been growing. Israel's Justice Minister Tzipi Livni is responsible for negotiations with the Palestinians. At the beginning of the month she warned that if there was no progress in diplomatic negotiations with the Palestinian Authority, the European boycott of Israeli products would not be limited to goods produced in West Bank settlements, but that it would be applied to Israel proper as well". The Editorial goes on to say: "The magnitude of the danger this poses to the Israeli economy is hard to overstate.
An European economic boycott of those with any connection to the occupied territories would be very broad. And Livni is warning that it would spread way beyond that. Even at this point, the worldwide Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS) has chalked up a not-inconsiderable number of achievements....The need for new, courageous and steadfast policy does not stem solely from the threatened economic damage. The diplomatic and moral price that Israel is paying for the continued occupation is high enough, but now − with Europe talking about stiffening its economic stance − the price that Israel is due to pay becomes substantial and tangible. Israel has only one conclusion to draw from this: To exercise a genuine readiness to end the occupation and reach an agreement, before this major threat becomes a reality".[1]
Tzipi Livni's pronouncement may indicate a growing anxiety of the Israeli Government which is due to the recent successes of the BDS movement. Yet, it may also be seen as a calculated tactic for convincing the Israeli public and the ultra right-wing parties in the coalition to respond favourably to John Kerry's recent efforts of bringing the two sides onto the negotiation table. The crucial issue, however, is how far any progress made by the BDS movement may help achieve its declared aims. A paper represented by Lee Jones (Queen Marry College) at a recent research consortium in London argued that "first, without mass-based liberation struggle, Palestinians lack the main mechanism by which change was achieved in South Africa and which gave sanctions their force. Second, lacking coherent goals, leadership and strategy, the BDS campaign displays contradictions and confusions about exactly how BDS will bring about change, what the best targets are and what defines 'success' ''. [2]
Being an old veteran of the BDS campaign, I tend to agree with the general arguments made by Lee Jones. Indeed, in a recent paper which was published by Palestine News Network I made some similar points. [3] I feel that a closer analysis of the "facts on the ground" ought to be made in order to appreciate the effectiveness of BDS. Essentially, the BDS campaign is a reactive rather than pro-active strategy - which by itself would not be able to achieve the declared following stated goals of the Palestine BDS movement (July 2005) :
"These non-violent punitive measures should be maintained until Israel meets its obligation to recognize the Palestinian people's inalienable right to self-determination and fully complies with the precepts of international law by:
1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands 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". [4]
BOYCOTT
In reality BDS includes three tiers of action. The first one is Boycott which is, in essence, regarded a as non-violent protest undertaken by the members of civil society. It comprises the following three main throngs: consumer boycott, academic boycott, and cultural boycott. Those forms of boycott are guided by different leading bodies, such as, the Palestine Solidarity Movement (PSC), the Boycott Israel Network (BIN), Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods (JBIG) , the British Committee for Universities in Palestine (BRICUP), and Boycott From Within (an Israeli outfit) . All of those bodies are committed to the endorsed statements issued by the Palestinian BDS, and the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI). However, in reality there is little coordination between those various outfits.
They do not seem to have effective "central command" which would help define priority targets, assess achievements and decide on the next course of action, in line with progress made towards the declared goals. In reality, the BDS declared goals ought to be defined in terms of priority targets (e.g. halting land confiscation and settlement expansion , defying Israel's blockade of Gaza , releasing Palestinians detainees and prisoners, removing the West Bank checkpoints, pushing for withdrawal of the Israeli military from occupied Palestinian land, etc). It follows that the success of BDS tactics have to be constantly re-assessed, and revised in terms of well-defined realistic targets. Otherwise , there is a danger that the BDS campaign would fall into the trap of a piecemeal boycott that is reinforced by self-gratifying partial victories which do not necessarily achieve the actual goals of the overall campaign.
In order to achieve BDS ultimate goals the boycott has to reach a "critical mass". That means an active support of both the Western and the Muslim words - including Middle East and Muslim states and Palestinians in the West Bank and Israel (where Palestinian citizens amount to 20% of the population). The boycott campaign has to be backed by an active support of leading organisations such as PLO and the Arab League . Indeed, on July 14 2012 a fresh campaign was launched by the Palestine National Initiative: "in previous campaigns, general-secretary of the PNI Dr Mustafa Barghouti has reiterated that the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement should be taken up from within the occupied territories as a tactic to not only emphasize the atrocious Israeli occupation policies, but also to absolve the Palestinians from unwittingly perpetuating these same polices against.
"It has been recorded that Israel sells nearly three billion dollars worth of goods in the occupied Palestinian territories," Dr Barghouti once stated in a press release. This means Palestinians constitute the second largest market in the world for Israel. The Israeli profits that we contribute to inevitably are used to further suppress Palestinians and expand the illegal settlements in the West Bank and Jerusalem".[5]
Indeed, this has been fully recognised by a recent BDS conference which took place in Bethlehem in June 2013. As reported by Electronic Intifada "The "ubiquity" of Israeli products in Palestinian stores in the West Bank was also a major talking point from both speakers and participants. From the platform, Mazen al-Azzah said that Palestinians are the first market for Israeli goods. He said this was largely down to the greed of Palestinian capital. But he cautioned that emptying Palestine of Israeli products would not be enough to pressure Israel, and that international successes would still be needed. However, he said local initiatives like the relatively new Bader initiative to boycott Israeli products could be a model for the international community.... local "Olive Convention" was formed which called on stores to boycott all Israeli products, with certificates being issued to those agreed". [6]
I believe that, crucially, the Arab league and PLO ought to support the newly launched boycott from within the Occupied Territories by endorsing and demonstrating their solidarity with the campaign. It may not be easy for Palestinian residents of the West Bank and Israel to avoid Israeli products altogether, but they undoubtedly could make a conscious choice of boycotting products and produce which are sourced from the illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank , or from Israeli companies which exploits Palestinian resources. Moreover, the Palestinian idea of offering certificates to stores which pledge not to sell products from the illegal Jewish settlements in the West bank, or from Israel (see above) could be adopted by the BDS campaign by awarding such a "human rights" certificate to conscientious stores outside Palestine (e.g. the Cooperative store in Britain) and publically placing the model certificate on the campaign's website(s).
The Academic and Cultural boycott could also be greatly reinforced by achieving a greater co-operation between supporters of the boycott inside and outside Israel. For instance, a protest undertaken by BRICUP against academics and artists who take up an invitation to officially visit, or perform in Israel could be effectively backed up by Israeli supporters of BDS (e.g. Boycott from Within, and Women Coalition for Peace) who may be able to organise a public protest/picketing in Israel against the boycotted performance/ event.
DIVESTMENT
The second tier of BDS extends the campaign to a commercial and financial level whereby public organisations have to be made aware of Israel's constant violation of human rights and be put under pressure to divest from, or disinvest in companies which exploit and profit from Israel's occupation of Palestinian land. the divestment campaign may require some careful planning, such as, identifying the relevant governing bodies , or individuals, who are in charge of the targeted company/financial institution along with the date and location of the company's annual general meeting of shareholders .
The campaign had some notable successes. As result of intensive divestment campaign, the Central Committee of the World Churches encouraged the Council's member- churches "to give serious consideration to economic measures that are equitable, transparent and non-violent" as a new way to work for peace , looking at ways to not participate economically in illegal activities related to the Israeli occupation. In that sense, the committee affirmed "economic pressure, appropriately and openly applied," as a "means of action".... The Central Committee takes note of the current action by the Presbyterian Church (USA) which has initiated a process of phased, selective divestment from multinational corporations involved in the occupation".[7]
More recently student unions in the US and Britain have been putting pressure on the governing bodies of their own university to divest from companies that profit from the Occupation .[8] Yet, there is a need for a coordinated campaign which would run by a central body, or Co-ordinator, on the lines of the successful pan-European campaign against Veolia. [9] The co-ordinating body may be responsible for identifying and issuing a "black list" of major companies against which divestment, exclusion from commercial contracts, and arms embargo campaign should be undertaken. The Israeli website Who Profits- which is run by the Coalition of Women for Peace [10]-could be used as a tool for identifying and prioritising companies against which intensive campaign should be undertaken. Websites of other campaigning bodies such as the Coalition Against Arms Trade (CAAT) [10] and War on Want may also be of help.
Divestment from arms companies such as BAE Systems, or G4S that supply Israel with security equipment which are employed in checkpoints and in Israeli prisons that jail Palestinians, should be high on the agenda of the BDS campaign. The BDS campaign ought to take some lessons from the global Occupy movement by organising "name and shame" rallies/picketing in financial centres /stock exchanges around the world. This will inevitably attract much-needed media attention and affect the financial standing of those companies (e.g. significant drop in share values). It is vital for The BDS movement to have a fresh look at its present tactics and learn from recent effective campaigns across the world. That calls for achieving active cooperation with human rights and campaigning bodies - such as trade unions, charities, church and faith organisations, the ecological and Greenpeace movement, Stop the War Coalition , and the Campaign for Nuclear disarmament( CND).
SANCTIONS
The third tier of BDS takes the campaign to a political sphere which is to be achieved on national, pan-European, or global level. Sanction is a well-used tool by powerful western states. Indeed USA administration holds a law-enforced sanctions programme against a number of regimes. The sanctions can be either comprehensive or selective, using means such as blocking of assets and trade restrictions to accomplish foreign policy and national security goals.[11] Yet, the USA grants $3.2 billions p.a. in aid to the State of Israel which contravenes international law and UN resolutions, with impunity. The American administration seems reluctant to suspend aid to Israel as a mean of enforcing its government to comply with international law and halt further expansion of Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. That stands in a stark contrast to US policy of the past when President Eisenhower had successfully forced Israel to return the Sinai Peninsula and Gaza Strip to Egypt in the aftermath of the 1956 Suez war. [12]
Ironically, and regrettably, Egypt is currently regarded by US as the main ally of Israel in the region. Its hard-line military regime is being granted $1.3 Billions p.a. in order to sustain US's interests in the region and help maintain Egypt-Israel's volatile alliance and help strengthening Israel's iron-grip on Gaza and Hamas.
In contrast, the EU is taking a tougher stance on the illegal settlements in the West Bank by recently issuing a directive which insists that "all future agreements between the EU and Israel must explicitly exclude Jewish colonies in the West Bank or East Jerusalem. The EU guidelines will prohibit the issuing of grants, funding, prizes or scholarships unless a settlement exclusion clause is included. Israeli institutions and bodies situated across the pre-1967 Green Line – including the Golan Heights, occupied by Israel in 1967 and later annexed — will be automatically ineligible". [13] The Arab league, however, seems to take less stringent approach. "In 1945, a year after it was founded, the Arab League started boycotting Zionist goods and services in Palestine. Then in 1948, the boycott was formalized to include three levels: primary, secondary and tertiary boycotts.
· Primary Boycott: No Arab country should import Israeli goods or export goods to the Israeli market, either directly or indirectly.
· Secondary Boycott: No Arab country should conduct business with any company already doing business with Israel.
· Tertiary Boycott: No foreign company should do business with another foreign company that has links to Israel.
Not all Arab countries implemented the boycott against Israel because the Arab League did not enforce it on its members. Therefore, some members did not apply the boycott at all; others ended it and established a trade relation with Israel; and the member countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) announced in 1994 that they would end the secondary and tertiary boycott but still enforce the primary boycott". [14]
The BDS movement ought to call on both the Arab League and the EU to enforce their initial guidelines to member-states by imposing sanctions on companies which profit and consolidate Israel's occupation of Palestinian land.
TAKING PRO-ACTIVE STRATEGIES
BDS, as it stands, is a reactive campaign of non- violent protest against an entrenched oppressor - the State of Israel. It could not, in itself, achieve the declared goals of sovereignty and self-determination as declared by the PLO charter. Therefore, it has to be recognised as a mean of serving pro-active strategies which lead to the creation of independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. Such a state should be established in the pre-1957 borders - being totally free of Jewish settlements and Israel's military presence with its capital as East Jerusalem.
I believe that the crucial element in preparing the way for an internationally recognised Palestinian state, which will realise the aspirations of the Palestinian people for self-determination, is a full political representation of Hamas in the PLO and the Palestine Legislative Council, (Hamas does not recognise the PLO and although it won an absolute majority in the 2006 election to the PLC it carries very little political clout in it). The division between Hamas and Fatah is seen as a major obstacle to achieving significant political progress. The current split between Fatah and Hamas is quite fundamental since it is not only expressed in political terms but, more importantly, in ideological terms, namely, a secular versus a religion-based state.
An official document in the form of an interim constitution/bill of rights, signed by both Fatah and Hamas is a key element for the foundation of an independent Palestinian state recognised by UN member-states. Such a document has to be issued in line with modern democratic principals which call for equal opportunities to all regardless gender, faith, or creed. (The human rights body of Lawyers for Palestine may have an important role to play in this respect). [10] Libya's interim constitution, which was drafted soon after the ousting of Gaddafi [15], could be seen as a vital step that helped awarding international credibility to the new Libyan government.
Similarly, a ceremonial Declaration of Independence could inaugurate the newly-formed Unity Government in Palestine and help cement its political status globally.
The recent turmoil in Syria and Egypt may encourage re-conciliation between Fatah and Hamas. The sudden removal of president Morsi from office by the Egyptian military and the consequent clampdown on the Muslim Brotherhood are bound to increase Hamas isolation. [16] This may stir Hamas towards forging political links with Fatah under the PLO umbrella, leading to a Unity Government in Palestine which will be based on endorsed constitution/bill of rights (that will also include the rights of Palestinian refugees). Such a step would help create the foundations of a Palestinian state that would be able to achieve full sovereignty and effectively fight for justice through International laws as enshrined by UN Charter and resolutions, the International Court of Justice, human rights conventions/treaties and UN associated bodies. [17]. The new independent Palestinian state will, then, gain the ability to form regional links with neighbouring countries from a secured position of power which will enhance its political sovereignty.
26 aug 2013
The Dutch government has asked the country’s largest engineering company to rethink its participation in a project with the Jerusalem municipality because the project is based on the Palestinian side of the 1967 border. Foreign Ministry officials fear that this will be a trend in Europe, not an isolated incident.
The project by Royal HaskoningDHV involves Israeli company Mati, a subsidiary of Hagihon, the municipality’s water and sewage company.
In the project, a sewage treatment plant would be built to battle the pollution in the Kidron stream, which runs from the Mount of Olives and the village of Silwan in East Jerusalem toward the settlement of Ma’aleh Adumim and the Dead Sea. The plant is to be built in Area C, under full Israeli military and civilian control.
According to a senior official in the Foreign Ministry, the municipality told the ministry two weeks ago about problems linked to the project. Royal HaskoningDHV officials told the municipality that the Dutch Foreign Ministry had warned about the possible consequences of carrying out projects for Israeli companies in East Jerusalem or the West Bank.
Dutch Foreign Ministry officials told Royal HaskoningDHV that such a project would violate international law, leading the company to consider pulling out of the project to avoid financial, legal and image problems.
The Dutch government isn’t the first in Europe to warn companies about possible consequences concerning projects over the Green Line. Britain and Sweden have been implementing such polices for several years.
Nevertheless, most EU governments are passive when it comes to private-sector companies. In the past two years, the Dutch government has increased its activity against the settlements; it is among countries leading the demand to label settlement products imported to EU countries.
The Israeli official told Haaretz that in the past two weeks there have been discussions with the Dutch government in an effort to solve the crisis, including talks with the Netherlands’ ambassador in Tel Aviv, Caspar Veldkamp. The Israeli ambassador to the Netherlands, Haim Divon, has also held talks with senior officials at the Dutch Foreign Ministry. At this stage it’s still unclear if the efforts by Israeli diplomats will lead to the resumption of the project.
As part of its lessons from the surprise publication of the European Union’s guidelines concerning settlements, the Foreign Ministry sent out cables to all 28 Israeli representatives in the EU member states. The ministry requested ambassadors to urgently inquire if the Dutch move was an isolated case or part of an EU decision that hadn’t been made known to Israel.
While many ambassadors have said in recent days that there is no new directive in their countries about warning companies, the Israeli ambassador to the European Union in Brussels, David Walzer, sent a cable with worrying information.
According to Walzer, a source told him that EU officials are considering warning businessmen and companies about contacts with the settlements. Walzer added that an EU committee on the Middle East is due to discuss the matter with all 28 member states as early as September. Walzer was already under fire due to his conceived failure to warn about the publication of the guidelines.
A senior official at the Israeli Foreign Ministry said that if the European Union passes a resolution requiring all member states to warn businesses about projects over the Green Line, this would be a serious escalation in EU measures against the settlements.
The original article can be found here. The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and do not represent the policy of EWASH
The project by Royal HaskoningDHV involves Israeli company Mati, a subsidiary of Hagihon, the municipality’s water and sewage company.
In the project, a sewage treatment plant would be built to battle the pollution in the Kidron stream, which runs from the Mount of Olives and the village of Silwan in East Jerusalem toward the settlement of Ma’aleh Adumim and the Dead Sea. The plant is to be built in Area C, under full Israeli military and civilian control.
According to a senior official in the Foreign Ministry, the municipality told the ministry two weeks ago about problems linked to the project. Royal HaskoningDHV officials told the municipality that the Dutch Foreign Ministry had warned about the possible consequences of carrying out projects for Israeli companies in East Jerusalem or the West Bank.
Dutch Foreign Ministry officials told Royal HaskoningDHV that such a project would violate international law, leading the company to consider pulling out of the project to avoid financial, legal and image problems.
The Dutch government isn’t the first in Europe to warn companies about possible consequences concerning projects over the Green Line. Britain and Sweden have been implementing such polices for several years.
Nevertheless, most EU governments are passive when it comes to private-sector companies. In the past two years, the Dutch government has increased its activity against the settlements; it is among countries leading the demand to label settlement products imported to EU countries.
The Israeli official told Haaretz that in the past two weeks there have been discussions with the Dutch government in an effort to solve the crisis, including talks with the Netherlands’ ambassador in Tel Aviv, Caspar Veldkamp. The Israeli ambassador to the Netherlands, Haim Divon, has also held talks with senior officials at the Dutch Foreign Ministry. At this stage it’s still unclear if the efforts by Israeli diplomats will lead to the resumption of the project.
As part of its lessons from the surprise publication of the European Union’s guidelines concerning settlements, the Foreign Ministry sent out cables to all 28 Israeli representatives in the EU member states. The ministry requested ambassadors to urgently inquire if the Dutch move was an isolated case or part of an EU decision that hadn’t been made known to Israel.
While many ambassadors have said in recent days that there is no new directive in their countries about warning companies, the Israeli ambassador to the European Union in Brussels, David Walzer, sent a cable with worrying information.
According to Walzer, a source told him that EU officials are considering warning businessmen and companies about contacts with the settlements. Walzer added that an EU committee on the Middle East is due to discuss the matter with all 28 member states as early as September. Walzer was already under fire due to his conceived failure to warn about the publication of the guidelines.
A senior official at the Israeli Foreign Ministry said that if the European Union passes a resolution requiring all member states to warn businesses about projects over the Green Line, this would be a serious escalation in EU measures against the settlements.
The original article can be found here. The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and do not represent the policy of EWASH
25 aug 2013
At least five European states have recently warned companies and businessmen against engaging in business activities in Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian lands as they risk breaking the European Union's ban in this regard, according to reports sent by Israeli ambassadors to their foreign ministry. The countries mentioned by Israeli ambassadors include Britain, Germany, Denmark, Holland and Sweden, according to Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper.
According to one of these reports, one European country's foreign office told a company involved in trade with an Israeli settlement inside the occupied Palestinian borders that its actions violate local and international laws which stipulates that settlements are illegal.
The newspaper said that the company considered dropping out of the project but is also under pressure from Israel to stay on board.
The newspaper quoted an official source from the Israeli foreign ministry as saying that other European Union (EU) countries, as well as the EU commission, are considering issuing warnings advising businessmen to avoid financial activities in the Israeli illegal settlements.
However, the Israeli official belittled these European warnings as having no legal significance and politically-motivated.
According to one of these reports, one European country's foreign office told a company involved in trade with an Israeli settlement inside the occupied Palestinian borders that its actions violate local and international laws which stipulates that settlements are illegal.
The newspaper said that the company considered dropping out of the project but is also under pressure from Israel to stay on board.
The newspaper quoted an official source from the Israeli foreign ministry as saying that other European Union (EU) countries, as well as the EU commission, are considering issuing warnings advising businessmen to avoid financial activities in the Israeli illegal settlements.
However, the Israeli official belittled these European warnings as having no legal significance and politically-motivated.
22 aug 2013
Israeli Ynet reported that the esteemed musician Salif Keita has joined the cultural boycott of Israel. Just hours before he was due to board a plane for Israel he decided "to meet the demands of the cultural boycott of Israel."
BDS France, BDS South Africa, and activists from around the world had asked Keita to refrain from playing in Israel and join the cultural boycott.
Keita is the first artist to cancel a planned show in the apartheid state following a major letter from Pink Floyd star Roger Waters asking:
"I write to you now, my brothers and sisters in the family of Rock and Roll, to ask you to join with me, and thousands of other artists around the world, to declare a cultural boycott on Israel,"
"Please join me and all our brothers and sisters in global civil society in proclaiming our rejection of Apartheid in Israel and occupied Palestine, by pledging not to perform or exhibit in Israel or accept any award or funding from any institution linked to the government of Israel, until such time as Israel complies with international law and universal principles of human rights." Waters wrote in an open letter posted to his Facebook page and the Electronic Intifada.
BDS France, BDS South Africa, and activists from around the world had asked Keita to refrain from playing in Israel and join the cultural boycott.
Keita is the first artist to cancel a planned show in the apartheid state following a major letter from Pink Floyd star Roger Waters asking:
"I write to you now, my brothers and sisters in the family of Rock and Roll, to ask you to join with me, and thousands of other artists around the world, to declare a cultural boycott on Israel,"
"Please join me and all our brothers and sisters in global civil society in proclaiming our rejection of Apartheid in Israel and occupied Palestine, by pledging not to perform or exhibit in Israel or accept any award or funding from any institution linked to the government of Israel, until such time as Israel complies with international law and universal principles of human rights." Waters wrote in an open letter posted to his Facebook page and the Electronic Intifada.
Tomato prices in the West Bank have dropped due to imports from Israel, prompting farmers and merchants to urge for intervention by the ministry of agriculture to protect local products.
At the same time, consumers are welcoming the low prices which fell to a half a shekel per kilo as a result of the surplus after local and imported products flooded Palestinian markets.
Muhammad Hamdan, a Palestinian shopper, told Ma’an Wednesday he hoped the ministry of agriculture would “allow importing other vegetables in order to lower prices and help Palestinian citizens face the dire economic conditions.”
He noted that a kilo of tomatos reached 10 shekels at some points in 2013.
Local merchant Abdul-Raof Ideis says the current prices are the result of a huge surplus in local markets because large quantities are being imported from Israel while the local harvest is already flooding the market.
An official in the ministry of agriculture told Ma'an that it had already warned merchants in the central farmers market in Hebron to avoid importing tomatoes from Israel except with a special permit.
The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, added that the ministry would start Thursday dumping tomatoes imported from Israel in an attempt to protect national products.
At the same time, consumers are welcoming the low prices which fell to a half a shekel per kilo as a result of the surplus after local and imported products flooded Palestinian markets.
Muhammad Hamdan, a Palestinian shopper, told Ma’an Wednesday he hoped the ministry of agriculture would “allow importing other vegetables in order to lower prices and help Palestinian citizens face the dire economic conditions.”
He noted that a kilo of tomatos reached 10 shekels at some points in 2013.
Local merchant Abdul-Raof Ideis says the current prices are the result of a huge surplus in local markets because large quantities are being imported from Israel while the local harvest is already flooding the market.
An official in the ministry of agriculture told Ma'an that it had already warned merchants in the central farmers market in Hebron to avoid importing tomatoes from Israel except with a special permit.
The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, added that the ministry would start Thursday dumping tomatoes imported from Israel in an attempt to protect national products.
19 aug 2013
18th August 2013 Warsaw.
To My Colleagues in Rock and Roll
Nigel Kennedy the virtuoso British violinist and violist, at The Recent Promenade Concerts at The Albert Hall in London, mentioned that Israel is apartheid. Nothing unusual there you might think, then one Baroness Deech, (Nee Fraenkel) disputed the fact that Israel is an apartheid state and prevailed upon the BBC to censor Kennedy’s performance by removing his statement. Baroness Deech produced not one shred of evidence to support her claim and yet the BBC, non-political, supposedly, acting solely on Baroness Deech's say so, suddenly went all 1984 on us.
Well!! Time to stick my head above the parapet again, alongside my brother, Nigel Kennedy, where it belongs. And by the way, Nigel, great respect man. So here follows a letter last re-drafted in July.
To My Colleagues in Rock and Roll
Nigel Kennedy the virtuoso British violinist and violist, at The Recent Promenade Concerts at The Albert Hall in London, mentioned that Israel is apartheid. Nothing unusual there you might think, then one Baroness Deech, (Nee Fraenkel) disputed the fact that Israel is an apartheid state and prevailed upon the BBC to censor Kennedy’s performance by removing his statement. Baroness Deech produced not one shred of evidence to support her claim and yet the BBC, non-political, supposedly, acting solely on Baroness Deech's say so, suddenly went all 1984 on us.
Well!! Time to stick my head above the parapet again, alongside my brother, Nigel Kennedy, where it belongs. And by the way, Nigel, great respect man. So here follows a letter last re-drafted in July.
15 aug 2013
Nora Barrows-Friedman/The Electronic Intifada
Students and alumni of York University in Toronto are organizing against what they say are increasing efforts by the administration to curb Palestine solidarity activism.
York University administration recently revoked the official club status of an on-campus group that has been instrumental in passing boycott, divestment and sanctions resolutions at both the York University Graduate Students’ Association and the York Federation of Students — the undergraduate student union — over the past year.
The resolutions call upon the university administration to pull its investments in companies which sell weapons and military equipment to Israel.
York University’s chapter of Students Against Israeli Apartheid (SAIA) was punished in May because of what the administration called a “disruption of academic activities” during a demonstration in March. SAIA and supporting groups gathered to celebrate recent victories at the university and elsewhere in Ontario, and called on the university to abide by the resolutions calling for divestment.
Revoking SAIA’s student group status cuts the organization off from university funding and resources, and prevents the group from holding meetings or doing student outreach on York’s campus.
In addition to York sanctioning the group, Hammam Farah, an alumnus of York University and a member of SAIA, has been given a trespassing order by the university. According to the administration’s order, he took part in on-campus demonstrations and used an “amplification device” to “express [his] views to a gathering of students and others,” according to a letter from the administration.
The York administration says it will not allow him to set foot on his alma mater campus until the end of April 2014.
Momentum Farah says that this is only the latest in a years-long series of administrative efforts to silence Palestine solidarity activists at York and other Canadian universities.
Farah had been working for several years with SAIA to research York’s ties to Israeli institutions and corporations. In 2012, SAIA drafted a petition to the student union in support of boycott, divestment and sanctions measures. Inspired by the actions of students in other academic institutions furthering the boycott of Israel, Farah said that he wanted to use the momentum of previous victories to take it a step further at York.
He told The Electronic Intifada that activists wanted to get the student unions to pass “full BDS [boycott, divestment and sanctions] resolutions.” Rather than just divesting from certain corporations, Farah advocated that students should back the entire call for BDS made by an array of Palestinian organizations in 2005.
SAIA activists started gathering the 5,000 signatures — 10 percent of the student body — needed to push the demands for boycott into the student government’s election agenda. And as they gathered signatures in November 2012, during Israel’s eight days of attacks on Gaza, the graduate student body asked SAIA to give a presentation about the boycott movement at its membership meeting.
“Domino effect” “They passed BDS right there on the spot,” Farah said. “They didn’t even need a petition.” He added, “We [then] started to see a domino effect across Ontario,” Canada’s most populous province.
In December, University of Toronto’s graduate student union passed their own resolution in support of boycott, divestment and sanctions and called on their administration to divest from companies which profit from Israel’s occupation. Ninety-seven percent of the members present voted in favor of the resolution.
As Charlotte Kates wrote for The Electronic Intifada in March, seven Canadian student unions in total voted to support the boycott call in the 2012-2013 school year alone. The Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 3903, which represents teachers’ assistants and contract faculty, also passed a motion in support of the call in 2009.
On 21 March, after gathering enough signatures and seeing the precedent being set for boycott resolutions across Canada, the undergraduate student union at York University passed a broad-based boycott resolution. It demanded that the university administration “abide by the BDS call” and that York “withdraw its investments from Northrop Grumman, BAE Systems, Amphenol and other companies that are selling weapons and military equipment to Israel.”
Backlash Six days later, on 27 March, SAIA members and Palestine solidarity activists gathered inside Vari Hall, a long-time meeting place and student center on campus, to celebrate the passage of the boycott resolutions. They also called on the administration to act on the students’ demands.
In recent years, students say that the administration has taken measures to ban protests and political actions inside Vari Hall, including placing a large structure inside the middle of the hall to discourage public assembly.
Farah said the demonstration on 27 March was held specifically in Vari Hall “to challenge the administration’s policies which restrict our rights to freedom of speech and academic freedom.”
About a month after the rally, York University’s administration sent several letters to Farah, SAIA group leaders and current York students, informing them that because of their participation in the protest, the university was taking — or warning that it could take — punitive action.
A letter dated 30 April, seen by The Electronic Intifada, was sent to Hammam Farah by York’s vice-president of finance and administration. The letter explains that because of his participation in demonstrations, and the university’s prior documentations of his “disruptions” of students and staff during earlier political protests, Farah was prohibited from “trespassing” on York University “property” until April 2014.
Another letter, dated a few days later, was sent to a York student, Arshia Lakhani, with an explicit warning by Dr. Janet Morrison, the vice-provost of students. Morrison stated that because Lakhani participated in the March rally and used an “amplification device” that “disrupted students during their class time,” the university could invoke disciplinary action if such demonstrations were to take place again.
The same letter was also sent to members of the Middle Eastern Students’ Association, the York University Black Students’ Alliance and a member of Filipino Canadian Youth Alliance, according to Farah.
Yet another letter was sent to Students Against Israeli Apartheid on 3 May, noting that the university had officially revoked SAIA’s group status. SAIA was told it is also prevented from re-registering for official group status until 1 January 2014.
Students push back In response, Students Against Israeli Apartheid released a statement saying that “the draconian and punitive measures of the York University administration will not stop students from organizing and participating in actions designed to educate the York University community about the unethical investments of university funds. We refuse to be silenced and we refuse to be complicit.”
This week, SAIA and dozens of Palestine solidarity groups and student associations in Canada, the US and Palestine sent a formal letter to Vice-Provost Morrison saying that “the student movement is giving you notice that you have failed to comply with basic democratic values.”
The letter calls on the university administration to rescind its trespass order against Hammam Farah, “to reinstate SAIA as an official student club, and to make a firm commitment to work with students to ensure that freedom of speech and freedom of association are upheld.”
SAIA members say that they believe York University has singled them out for their protest actions. Farah pointed to a number of other student organizations who have led similar demonstrations and used megaphones. Although some groups were warned, and some were even slapped with sanctions and fines in the past — including SAIA and Israel-aligned groups for a heated protest in 2009 — none had their student group status formally revoked.
The punishment meted out by York after the 27 March rally was not an isolated incident. Farah said that the administration has consistently attempted to thwart Palestine-related events and activities on campus.
“In past years, SAIA was asked to pay substantial and unnecessary security fees to hold an Israeli Apartheid Week event, and the rooms we booked under the administration were canceled last minute,” Farah explained. Israeli Apartheid Week is a series of awareness-raising activities held each year in universities throughout the world, and which got its start in Canada.
Repression has not been restricted to York University. Across Canada, students have faced censorship and attacks by Israel lobby groups, politicians and university administrations.
For example, in 2006, Concordia University in Montreal blocked events related to Israeli Apartheid Week. And last year, the student union at the University of Manitoba voted to strip the local Students Against Israeli Apartheid of official group status.
Sending a message When asked by The Electronic Intifada to respond to SAIA’s claims that it had been singled out, Joanne Rider, a York spokesperson, stated that SAIA was “reminded of the York University Senate policy on disruptive behavior in academic situations” in November 2012.
Rider added that the York administration “warned [SAIA] — in writing — not to disrupt classes or other academic activity. They were reminded and warned again prior to the event on 27 March 2013. All registered student organizations at York University are required to comply with university policies. The consequence for failing to do so is clearly articulated in the ‘rights and responsibilities’ document signed by SAIA members on 27 September 2012.”
Rider also stated that “There are no plans for the university to reconsider the current status of either the individual [Hammam Farah] or SAIA.”
Civil liberties concerns However, some civil liberties groups have a different opinion than that of the administration.
Cara Zwibel, director of Fundamental Freedoms Program at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA), told The Electronic Intifada that “any time a group is prevented from speaking out on an issue that matters to them, it sends the message that this isn’t a venue where freedom of expression is respected and tolerated. And it’s not a place to engage in heated dialogue and debate.”
Zwibel said that the CCLA sent two separate letters to the York officials — the most recent one to York’s Vice-Provost of Students, Janet Morrison, in June.
The June letter expresses concerns over York’s response to alleged violations of the code of student rights and responsibilities.
“It is notable that under York’s policies, almost any form of loud, expressive activity could be considered a breach of the code,” the CCLA letter states. It adds that these punishments “effectively neutralize” the intent of freedom of expression and the right to assembly.
The Ontario Civil Liberties Association also sent a letter of concern to the York administration.
In mid-July, Morrison sent a response to the CCLA. Zwibel told The Electronic Intifada that the university claimed that repeated attempts were made to engage SAIA members in dialogue prior to revoking the group’s status.
Farah noted that before SAIA’s group status was revoked, the York administration made them aware of a noise complaint that was filed by one student after the SAIA rally. The group sought legal advice and decided to apologize personally to the student. “We said that we hoped [the student] received our message of peace and justice at a better time,” Farah said.
A local adjudicator assigned to the case verbally determined that SAIA’s protest caused no disruption. In addition, the adjudicator told SAIA members that the student accepted the apology, and that the case was closed. But the university pushed forward with punitive measures anyway, Farah said.
Walk out Meanwhile, students say it is difficult to take Morrison’s remarks about exhausting attempts at dialogue seriously when the administration has walked out on students’ concerns.
In June, members of SAIA attended a meeting of York University’s board of governors. The students voiced their concerns over the administration’s charging Farah with trespassing, the revocation of SAIA’s club status, and demanded that the administration abide by the recently-passed boycott, divestment and sanctions resolutions.
Students and alumni of York University in Toronto are organizing against what they say are increasing efforts by the administration to curb Palestine solidarity activism.
York University administration recently revoked the official club status of an on-campus group that has been instrumental in passing boycott, divestment and sanctions resolutions at both the York University Graduate Students’ Association and the York Federation of Students — the undergraduate student union — over the past year.
The resolutions call upon the university administration to pull its investments in companies which sell weapons and military equipment to Israel.
York University’s chapter of Students Against Israeli Apartheid (SAIA) was punished in May because of what the administration called a “disruption of academic activities” during a demonstration in March. SAIA and supporting groups gathered to celebrate recent victories at the university and elsewhere in Ontario, and called on the university to abide by the resolutions calling for divestment.
Revoking SAIA’s student group status cuts the organization off from university funding and resources, and prevents the group from holding meetings or doing student outreach on York’s campus.
In addition to York sanctioning the group, Hammam Farah, an alumnus of York University and a member of SAIA, has been given a trespassing order by the university. According to the administration’s order, he took part in on-campus demonstrations and used an “amplification device” to “express [his] views to a gathering of students and others,” according to a letter from the administration.
The York administration says it will not allow him to set foot on his alma mater campus until the end of April 2014.
Momentum Farah says that this is only the latest in a years-long series of administrative efforts to silence Palestine solidarity activists at York and other Canadian universities.
Farah had been working for several years with SAIA to research York’s ties to Israeli institutions and corporations. In 2012, SAIA drafted a petition to the student union in support of boycott, divestment and sanctions measures. Inspired by the actions of students in other academic institutions furthering the boycott of Israel, Farah said that he wanted to use the momentum of previous victories to take it a step further at York.
He told The Electronic Intifada that activists wanted to get the student unions to pass “full BDS [boycott, divestment and sanctions] resolutions.” Rather than just divesting from certain corporations, Farah advocated that students should back the entire call for BDS made by an array of Palestinian organizations in 2005.
SAIA activists started gathering the 5,000 signatures — 10 percent of the student body — needed to push the demands for boycott into the student government’s election agenda. And as they gathered signatures in November 2012, during Israel’s eight days of attacks on Gaza, the graduate student body asked SAIA to give a presentation about the boycott movement at its membership meeting.
“Domino effect” “They passed BDS right there on the spot,” Farah said. “They didn’t even need a petition.” He added, “We [then] started to see a domino effect across Ontario,” Canada’s most populous province.
In December, University of Toronto’s graduate student union passed their own resolution in support of boycott, divestment and sanctions and called on their administration to divest from companies which profit from Israel’s occupation. Ninety-seven percent of the members present voted in favor of the resolution.
As Charlotte Kates wrote for The Electronic Intifada in March, seven Canadian student unions in total voted to support the boycott call in the 2012-2013 school year alone. The Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 3903, which represents teachers’ assistants and contract faculty, also passed a motion in support of the call in 2009.
On 21 March, after gathering enough signatures and seeing the precedent being set for boycott resolutions across Canada, the undergraduate student union at York University passed a broad-based boycott resolution. It demanded that the university administration “abide by the BDS call” and that York “withdraw its investments from Northrop Grumman, BAE Systems, Amphenol and other companies that are selling weapons and military equipment to Israel.”
Backlash Six days later, on 27 March, SAIA members and Palestine solidarity activists gathered inside Vari Hall, a long-time meeting place and student center on campus, to celebrate the passage of the boycott resolutions. They also called on the administration to act on the students’ demands.
In recent years, students say that the administration has taken measures to ban protests and political actions inside Vari Hall, including placing a large structure inside the middle of the hall to discourage public assembly.
Farah said the demonstration on 27 March was held specifically in Vari Hall “to challenge the administration’s policies which restrict our rights to freedom of speech and academic freedom.”
About a month after the rally, York University’s administration sent several letters to Farah, SAIA group leaders and current York students, informing them that because of their participation in the protest, the university was taking — or warning that it could take — punitive action.
A letter dated 30 April, seen by The Electronic Intifada, was sent to Hammam Farah by York’s vice-president of finance and administration. The letter explains that because of his participation in demonstrations, and the university’s prior documentations of his “disruptions” of students and staff during earlier political protests, Farah was prohibited from “trespassing” on York University “property” until April 2014.
Another letter, dated a few days later, was sent to a York student, Arshia Lakhani, with an explicit warning by Dr. Janet Morrison, the vice-provost of students. Morrison stated that because Lakhani participated in the March rally and used an “amplification device” that “disrupted students during their class time,” the university could invoke disciplinary action if such demonstrations were to take place again.
The same letter was also sent to members of the Middle Eastern Students’ Association, the York University Black Students’ Alliance and a member of Filipino Canadian Youth Alliance, according to Farah.
Yet another letter was sent to Students Against Israeli Apartheid on 3 May, noting that the university had officially revoked SAIA’s group status. SAIA was told it is also prevented from re-registering for official group status until 1 January 2014.
Students push back In response, Students Against Israeli Apartheid released a statement saying that “the draconian and punitive measures of the York University administration will not stop students from organizing and participating in actions designed to educate the York University community about the unethical investments of university funds. We refuse to be silenced and we refuse to be complicit.”
This week, SAIA and dozens of Palestine solidarity groups and student associations in Canada, the US and Palestine sent a formal letter to Vice-Provost Morrison saying that “the student movement is giving you notice that you have failed to comply with basic democratic values.”
The letter calls on the university administration to rescind its trespass order against Hammam Farah, “to reinstate SAIA as an official student club, and to make a firm commitment to work with students to ensure that freedom of speech and freedom of association are upheld.”
SAIA members say that they believe York University has singled them out for their protest actions. Farah pointed to a number of other student organizations who have led similar demonstrations and used megaphones. Although some groups were warned, and some were even slapped with sanctions and fines in the past — including SAIA and Israel-aligned groups for a heated protest in 2009 — none had their student group status formally revoked.
The punishment meted out by York after the 27 March rally was not an isolated incident. Farah said that the administration has consistently attempted to thwart Palestine-related events and activities on campus.
“In past years, SAIA was asked to pay substantial and unnecessary security fees to hold an Israeli Apartheid Week event, and the rooms we booked under the administration were canceled last minute,” Farah explained. Israeli Apartheid Week is a series of awareness-raising activities held each year in universities throughout the world, and which got its start in Canada.
Repression has not been restricted to York University. Across Canada, students have faced censorship and attacks by Israel lobby groups, politicians and university administrations.
For example, in 2006, Concordia University in Montreal blocked events related to Israeli Apartheid Week. And last year, the student union at the University of Manitoba voted to strip the local Students Against Israeli Apartheid of official group status.
Sending a message When asked by The Electronic Intifada to respond to SAIA’s claims that it had been singled out, Joanne Rider, a York spokesperson, stated that SAIA was “reminded of the York University Senate policy on disruptive behavior in academic situations” in November 2012.
Rider added that the York administration “warned [SAIA] — in writing — not to disrupt classes or other academic activity. They were reminded and warned again prior to the event on 27 March 2013. All registered student organizations at York University are required to comply with university policies. The consequence for failing to do so is clearly articulated in the ‘rights and responsibilities’ document signed by SAIA members on 27 September 2012.”
Rider also stated that “There are no plans for the university to reconsider the current status of either the individual [Hammam Farah] or SAIA.”
Civil liberties concerns However, some civil liberties groups have a different opinion than that of the administration.
Cara Zwibel, director of Fundamental Freedoms Program at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA), told The Electronic Intifada that “any time a group is prevented from speaking out on an issue that matters to them, it sends the message that this isn’t a venue where freedom of expression is respected and tolerated. And it’s not a place to engage in heated dialogue and debate.”
Zwibel said that the CCLA sent two separate letters to the York officials — the most recent one to York’s Vice-Provost of Students, Janet Morrison, in June.
The June letter expresses concerns over York’s response to alleged violations of the code of student rights and responsibilities.
“It is notable that under York’s policies, almost any form of loud, expressive activity could be considered a breach of the code,” the CCLA letter states. It adds that these punishments “effectively neutralize” the intent of freedom of expression and the right to assembly.
The Ontario Civil Liberties Association also sent a letter of concern to the York administration.
In mid-July, Morrison sent a response to the CCLA. Zwibel told The Electronic Intifada that the university claimed that repeated attempts were made to engage SAIA members in dialogue prior to revoking the group’s status.
Farah noted that before SAIA’s group status was revoked, the York administration made them aware of a noise complaint that was filed by one student after the SAIA rally. The group sought legal advice and decided to apologize personally to the student. “We said that we hoped [the student] received our message of peace and justice at a better time,” Farah said.
A local adjudicator assigned to the case verbally determined that SAIA’s protest caused no disruption. In addition, the adjudicator told SAIA members that the student accepted the apology, and that the case was closed. But the university pushed forward with punitive measures anyway, Farah said.
Walk out Meanwhile, students say it is difficult to take Morrison’s remarks about exhausting attempts at dialogue seriously when the administration has walked out on students’ concerns.
In June, members of SAIA attended a meeting of York University’s board of governors. The students voiced their concerns over the administration’s charging Farah with trespassing, the revocation of SAIA’s club status, and demanded that the administration abide by the recently-passed boycott, divestment and sanctions resolutions.
|
A video recently published by SAIA shows that the entire board of governors stood up and walked out of that meeting.
SAIA stated to The Electronic Intifada via email that “the significance of this [walk-out] must not be underestimated. On York’s board of governors sit some of the university’s biggest donors, and simultaneously, some of Canada’s most affluent economic elites. York’s board of governors is, at the same time, the administrative body that has substantial influence on the university’s tuition fee levels, budget allocations and investment patterns.” Solidarity Even though the York administration says it is unwilling to reinstate Students Against Israeli Apartheid before January 2014, or rescind its trespass order against Hammam Farah, student groups and activists are keeping up the pressure. |
The York Federation of Students, York’s Graduate Student Union and the Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 3903 have all recently passed motions publicly condemning York’s punishments against SAIA and Farah.
And a new petition is being circulated calling on York to revoke its ban against Farah and reinstate SAIA as a student organization. Approximately 1,300 signatures have been collected as of 9 August.
However, Farah said that throughout this debacle, Students Against Israeli Apartheid has become more popular than ever. “We’ve had statements of solidarity coming in; our membership is growing,” he said. “Even the faculty is alert and more supportive.”
This article was originally published on The Electronic Intifada. Click here to view original.
And a new petition is being circulated calling on York to revoke its ban against Farah and reinstate SAIA as a student organization. Approximately 1,300 signatures have been collected as of 9 August.
However, Farah said that throughout this debacle, Students Against Israeli Apartheid has become more popular than ever. “We’ve had statements of solidarity coming in; our membership is growing,” he said. “Even the faculty is alert and more supportive.”
This article was originally published on The Electronic Intifada. Click here to view original.