Ira M Sheskin & Ethan Felson. Geographical Review. Volume 106, Issue 2, 2016.
If one disagrees with the actions of a company, an organization, or a country, boycotting that entity is an acceptable form of protest. Campaigns to boycott table grapes because of labor practices and Coors beer because of their antigay policies achieved their desired results. While a boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) campaign can have a measurable and positive impact in certain situations, a successful result is not guaranteed: witness that one can search online the name of just about any company, and the word “boycott,” and find campaigns waged against almost every major corporation—and almost none of them have produced any impact.
For more than ten years, there has been a global campaign to effect boycotts, divestment, and sanctions against Israel. This campaign has had little success, in part because, as we argue in this essay, it was born of an ideology hostile to Judaism and Jewish nationalism, and remains steeped in that hostile ideology to this day.
The Palestinian people are not united behind this effort. The Jerusalem Media and Communication Center, a Palestinian NGO, shows BDS support down ten percentage points from 59 percent in March 2015 to 49 percent in August 2015 (www.jmcc.org). Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, while supporting the boycott of goods produced in West Bank settlements, has opposed BDS of Israeli products not from those settlements.
The BDS movement was informally initiated in late August 2001 at the United Nations World Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa. An array of anti‐Israel groups campaigned for language equating Zionism with racism and opposed the inclusion of language that would define anti‐Semitism as a form of racism. Israel, these advocates said, was an “apartheid state” and its defensive security barrier an “apartheid wall.” They posited that BDS could impact this protracted conflict in the same way as it had been effective with the South African regime.
The final document from Durban accused Israel of genocide and apartheid. This was the opening salvo of what has become known as the “BDS movement,” an effort born, in effect, in the shadow of anti‐Semitism, and unable to this day to shed intolerance of Jews, Judaism, and the Jewish state from its core values. The Durban Conference’s final declaration described Israel as a state that was guilty of “racist crimes including war crimes, acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing.” The “Durban Strategy” promoted “a policy of complete and total isolation of Israel, the imposition of mandatory and comprehensive sanctions and embargoes, the full cessation of all links (diplomatic, economic, social, aid, military cooperation and training) between all states and Israel.” While it is clearly not true that all proponents of BDS are anti‐Semitic, the record of the Durban conference, and the campaign for BDS that has unfolded, have been mired by anti‐Semitic tropes and in many instances by outright anti‐Semitism (ADL 2015).
This essay provides several examples of BDS and its anti‐Semitic nature: the cultural case of Matisyahu in Spain; the case of attempts at BDS by academic associations; and the case of the boycott of commercial companies, particularly Caterpillar and SodaStream.
Case Studies: BDS in Cultural Events
Matisyahu (born Matthew Paul Miller), an American Jewish (but not Israeli) reggae rapper and alternative rock musician, was targeted by members of the BDS Movement simply because he is Jewish when he was scheduled to perform at the Rototom Sunsplash festival in Spain in August 2015. Representatives of the BDS movement demanded that the singer release a public statement stating that he endorses a Palestinian state. He was the only performer of which this demand was made. When he refused, pressure to cancel his performance came from a pro‐BDS group in Valencia and the performance was initially cancelled. Spain’s government and the European Jewish Congress condemned the BDS group’s action and the decision of the concert promoters. Eventually, the concert promoters apologized and rescinded their action. Matisyahu was heckled by BDS supporters when he performed. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhfToniEqzg). Matisyahu was targeted not because of any Israel connection or his opinions, but simply because he was Jewish (Liphshiz 2015). Singling out an individual for different treatment because of his or her Jewish religion is a clear manifestation of anti‐Semitism. We argue that this incident is indicative of the conflation of anti‐Israel and anti‐Semitic feelings on the European continent. While it is possible to be against various policies of the Israeli government without being anti‐Semitic, the very nature of this incident shows that anti‐Israel feelings can derive from anti‐Semitic feelings.
Case Studies: BDS in Academic Associations
This case study provides evidence that U.S. academic associations have criticized Israel in ways that single it out among the almost 200 nations of the world for special criticism and that at least in some cases this special criticism can only be explained by underlying anti‐Semitic feelings. A number of academic associations, including the American Public Health Association (APHA), the Association for Asian American Studies (AAAS), the American Studies Association (ASA), and the Modern Language Association (MLA) have considered BDS resolutions (Felson 2014). APHA rejected a boycott resolution by a 3-1 margin in November 2013. In April 2014, the AASA endorsed a boycott of Israeli universities with only 10 percent of its members in attendance. Of the 3,854 eligible ASA members, 20 percent voted, adopting a boycott resolution by a 2-1 margin.
The MLA rejected a resolution commending the ASA boycott in January 2014 and condemning what proponents called “attacks and intimidation” of ASA members. Yet, the MLA Executive Council, by a 60-53 vote, voted for a resolution criticizing Israel. The resolution was sent without endorsement to the full membership, where it needed a majority vote with at least 10 percent of the body’s eligible members voting. Less than 10 percent voted and the resolution thus failed. Further efforts in 2015 also failed to move forward a resolution criticizing Israel.
The American Historical Association failed to bring a resolution to the floor of their meeting as well. Several small academic associations did adopt BDS resolutions: the African Literature Association (April 2014), the Critical Ethnic Studies Association (July 2014), and the Peace and Justice Studies Association (November 2014). The Native American and Indigenous Studies Association and the National Women’s Studies Association also expressed official support for boycotts without adopting resolutions.
We contend that, even if one accepts the argument (we do not), that Israel’s actions in the Palestinian territories have often not been in keeping with what is expected of a democratic state, the reactions of these academic organizations are, we believe, tainted by anti‐Semitism. Note that we would not argue that all, or even most, persons who voted for these resolutions are themselves driven by anti‐Semitism. Rather, it is likely that, in many cases, it is simply ignorance. In other cases, some academics (and others) simply feel the need to fit every complex international dispute into a predetermined international, theoretical framework. This is often an anticolonial framework that views Israel as a settler‐state to be destroyed as one of the last vestiges of colonialism. How else can one explain the vitriol aimed at Israel by the BDS movement when there are so many countries around the world that have human rights records that are far, far worse than Israel? Witness the treatment of women and gays throughout much of the Muslim world, or the treatment of Tibetans, Uighurs, and Mongolians in China, or the genocide in Darfur. Why have these academic organizations not called for BDS in these and many other places? Apparently, our view is shared by others, as reactions to these academic associations endorsing BDS resolutions were forthcoming and impressive.
Cary Nelson, an English professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana‐Champaign and president of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) from 2006-2012, became a leader of the antiboycott movement (Nelson and Brahm 2014). He told Inside Higher Ed that “the great tragedy of all efforts to criminalize Israel is that they undermine efforts to get Palestinians their own West Bank state, the only realistic goal for the region.”
More than 250 university presidents endorsed statements rejecting a boycott of Israel. In January 2014, 134 members of Congress (69 Democrats, 65 Republicans) signed a letter to the ASA, which accused the ASA of engaging in a “morally dishonest double standard.” The letter stated that: “Like all democracies, Israel is not perfect. But to single out Israel, while leaving relationships with universities in autocratic and repressive countries intact, suggests thinly‐veiled bigotry and bias.” The Association of American Universities, the American Association of University Professors, and the American Council on Education have all publicly denounced the boycott as a violation of the academic freedom of both Israeli and U.S. scholars.
Reaction also came from a joint Hebrew University/Al‐Quds University—a Palestinian university in the West Bank—statement, which shows that not all Palestinian academics support academic boycotts of Israel:
“Our position is based upon the belief that it is through cooperation based on mutual respect, rather than through boycotts or discrimination, that our common goals can be achieved. Bridging political gulfs—rather than widening them further apart—between nations and individuals thus becomes an educational duty as well as a functional necessity, requiring exchange and dialogue rather than confrontation and antagonism. Our disaffection with, and condemnation of acts of academic boycotts and discrimination against scholars and institutions, is predicated on the principles of academic freedom, human rights, and equality between nations and among individuals.”
An interesting aspect of the ASA BDS action was that, in the end, they backed away from their own resolution when the California hotel they were to meet in was threatened with a lawsuit from the American Center for Law and Justice for hosting an organization that was deemed to discriminate against persons on the basis of national origin. One might also question why the ASA was even taking a stand on an issue unrelated to American Studies in the first place. Indeed, the singling out of Israel for ostensible violations of academic freedom flies in the face of academic integrity, given the remarkable academic freedom that exists in Israel. In fact, the founder of the BDS movement, Omar Barghouti is a PhD student at Tel Aviv University. Yet, similar campaigns are not waged against other countries, not even those countries in the Middle East in which academic freedom is extremely restricted.
Case Studies: BDS against Commercial Companies
Some BDS actions are aimed at convincing churches, universities, and other institutions to divest from various commercial companies (Felson 2013). The case study below about Caterpillar, an American equipment manufacturer, shows that the BDS movement blames all Israeli Jews for the supposed criminal action of one Israeli Jew. Historically, pogroms against countless Jewish communities have been launched based upon such charges. Blaming an entire group of people for the actions of a member of that group is clearly racist. The case study about SodaStream, an Israeli seller of home carbonation products, illustrates that it is clearly more important to BDS activists to punish a Jewish company than to support that company for its clear efforts to work toward coexistence between Jews and Arabs.
In 2012, some United Methodist Church members proposed resolutions calling for divestment from Caterpillar, Motorola, and Hewlett Packard because of their military sales to Israel. The church’s pension and benefits board, however, adopted a resolution describing Caterpillar as a good corporate citizen, noting that the Arab League declined to boycott them. They also noted that the Caterpillar equipment used by Israel was acquired not from Caterpillar, but from the U.S. foreign military sales program and that the company did not profit from the militarization of its equipment. This contradicted, on several levels, the false contention that BDS activists claimed that Caterpillar sold weaponized, armored bulldozers to Israel.
Those supporting divestment from Caterpillar charged that the company was complicit in the death of Rachel Corrie, an American activist who died in 2003 when, according to Israel, she laid down in front of a bulldozer, out of sight of the driver as he was clearing a field from which Palestinians had been firing mortars into Israel. The supporters of BDS charged that the bulldozer operator had purposefully killed Rachel Corrie. Even if one were to assume the worst of the bulldozer driver, connecting the dots between this incident and the company requires one to assign to Caterpillar responsibility for the end use of its products, which would be like holding General Motors responsible when someone drives their car into a pedestrian.
SodaStream is an Israeli company whose principal manufacturing facility was located in the West Bank, where it employed 950 West Bank Palestinians and 450 Arab Israelis. The company has been represented by American Jewish actress Scarlett Johansson. One could argue that, if one disagrees with Israeli settlement policy, boycotting products produced in the West Bank is a legitimate form of peaceful protest. Norway, Sweden, and Finland all decided to boycott SodaStream products produced in the West Bank.
BDS advocates scored a victory when SodaStream announced that they would close their West Bank plant and relocate the facility to the Negev to avoid the controversy (Shuttleworth 2014). Consistent with their commitment to employ both significant numbers of Jews and Arabs as an example of coexistence, the new location is in Lehavim, close to a Bedouin Arab town. Yet, a consequence of the BDS campaign was the loss of employment by many of the 950 West Bank Palestinians and 450 Arab Israelis who had high paying jobs in the Sodastream plant. Ironically, all SodaStream products sold in the countries that boycotted now derive from the SodaStream factory in China, named one of the world’s twelve most repressive societies by Freedom House.
Conclusions
The above examples illustrate the anti‐Semitic underpinnings of the BDS movement.
We contend that the BDS movement, born of an ideology hostile to Judaism and Jewish nationalism and still immersed in that ideology rather than the language of peace, is not, as its proponents assert, a focused campaign aimed to change Israeli policies. Instead, it a movement that often lacks integrity and quite often traffics in anti‐Semitism. We have demonstrated that these anti‐Semitic underpinnings are exhibited in the cultural, academic, and commercial spheres. In all three cases, persons who happen to be Jewish are blamed for the supposed sins of other Jews. Blaming an entire group of people for the actions of a member of that group is clearly racist. Historically, anti‐Semitic pogroms against countless Jewish communities have been launched based upon such charges. The BDS movement is not only tainted by anti‐Semitism, but its advancement is just one more impediment to the peace process.