[WCUSP] Boycott Movement Targets Israel (SF Chronicle)

[KATHARLOW at aol.com]

_http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/08/15/EDASRIF3U.DTL_ 
(http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/08/15/EDASRIF3U.DTL) 
 

San Francisco Chronicle

Boycott movement targets  Israel

George Bisharat

Wednesday, August 15, 2007


When  does a citizen-led boycott of a state become morally justified?

That  question is raised by an expanding academic, cultural and economic 
boycott  of Israel. The movement joins churches, unions, professional 
societies and  other groups based in the United States, Canada, Europe 
and South Africa. It  has elicited dramatic reactions from Israel's 
supporters. U.S. labor leaders  have condemned British unions, 
representing millions of workers, for  supporting the Israel boycott. 
American academics have been frantically  gathering signatures against 
the boycott, and have mounted a prominent  advertising campaign in 
American newspapers - unwittingly elevating the  controversy further in 
the public eye.

Israel's defenders have  protested that Israel is not the worst 
human-rights offender in the world,  and singling it out is hypocrisy, 
or even anti-Semitism. Rhetorically, this  shifts focus from Israel's 
human rights record to the imagined motives of  its critics.

But "the worst first" has never been the rule for whom to  boycott. Had 
it been, the Pol Pot regime, not apartheid South Africa, would  have 
been targeted in the past. It was not - Cambodia's ties to the West  
were insufficient to make any embargo effective. Boycotting North Korea  
today would be similarly futile. Should every other quest for justice 
be  put on hold as a result?

In contrast, the boycott of South Africa had  grip. The opprobrium 
suffered by white South Africans unquestionably helped  persuade them to 
yield to the just demands of the black majority. Israel,  too, 
assiduously guards its public image. A dense web of economic and  
cultural relations also ties it to the West. That - and its irrefutably  
documented human-rights violations - render it ripe for boycott.

What  state actions should trigger a boycott? Expelling or intimidating 
into  flight a country's majority population, then denying them 
internationally  recognized rights to return to their homes? Israel has 
done  that.

Seizing, without compensation, the properties of hundreds of  thousands 
of refugees? Israel has done that.

Systematically torturing  detainees, many held without trial? Israel has 
done  that.

Assassinating its opponents, including those living in territories  it 
occupies? Israel has done that.

Demolishing thousands of homes  belonging to one national group, and 
settling its own people in another  nation's land? Israel has done that. 

No country with such a record, whether first or 50th worst in the  
world, can credibly protest a boycott.

Apartheid South Africa  provides another useful standard. How does 
Israel's behavior toward  Palestinians compare to former South Africa's 
treatment of blacks? It is  similar or worse, say a number of South 
Africans, including Archbishop  Desmond Tutu, U.N. special rapporteur in 
the occupied territories John  Dugard, and African National Congress 
member and government minister Ronnie  Kasrils. The latter observed 
recently that apartheid South Africa never used  fighter jets to attack 
ANC activists, and judged Israel's violent control of  Palestinians as 
"10 times worse." Dual laws for Jewish settlers and  Palestinians, 
segregated roads and housing, and restrictions on  Palestinians' freedom 
of movement strongly recall apartheid South Africa. If  boycotting 
apartheid South Africa was appropriate, it is equally fair to  boycott 
Israel on a similar record.

Israel has been singled out, but  not as its defenders complain. 
Instead, Israel has been enveloped in a  cocoon of impunity. Our 
government has vetoed 41 U.N. Security Council  resolutions condemning 
Israeli actions - half of the total U.S. vetoes since  the birth of the 
United Nations - thus enabling Israel's continuing abuses.  The Bush 
administration has announced an increase in military aid to Israel  to 
$30 billion for the coming decade.

Other military occupations and  human-rights abusers have faced 
considerably rougher treatment. Just recall  Iraq's 1990 takeover of 
Kuwait. Perhaps the United Nations should have long  ago issued Israel 
the ultimatum it gave Iraq - and enforced it. Israel's  occupation of 
Arab lands has now exceeded 40 years.

Iran, Sudan and  Syria have all been targeted for federal and 
state-level sanctions. Even the  City of Beverly Hills is contemplating 
Iran divestment actions, following  the lead of Los Angeles, which 
approved Iran divestment legislation in June.  Yet the Islamic Republic 
of Iran has never attacked its neighbors nor  occupied their 
territories. It is merely suspected of aspiring to the same  nuclear 
weapons Israel already possesses.

Politicians worldwide, and  American ones especially, have failed us. 
Our leaders, from the executive  branch to Congress, have dithered, or 
cheered Israel on, as it devoured the  land base for a Palestinian 
state. Their collective irresponsibility dooms  both Palestinians and 
Israelis to a future of strife and insecurity, and  undermines our 
global stature. If politicians cannot lead the way, then  citizens must. 
That is why boycotting Israel has become both necessary and  justified.
-                -                -                -                  -       
         -
George Bisharat is a professor of law at Hastings College of the Law in  
San Francisco, and writes frequently on law and politics in the Middle  
East.






************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at 
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://wilpf.org/pipermail/wcusp_wilpf.org/attachments/20070816/6617a008/attachment.html