Coauthored by Michael Zigmond and Naftali Kaminski
Last week we attended the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church USA (PCUSA) at the Pittsburgh Convention Center to listen to presentations and discussions of two resolutions of great relevance to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: namely, the boycott of products produced in Jewish settlements in the West Bank and the divestment from corporations whose products are used to suppress the legitimate rights of Palestinians in that area.
We were impressed with the care with which the resolutions were formulated and the responsible discussion on both sides of the issue. A committee charged with ensuring that PCUSA investments are socially responsible had engaged for many years with corporations whose products are used to support the occupation. The committee sought commitments to change those practices. Despite some successes, the committee failed to reach an accord with three corporations, Caterpillar, Hewlett-Packard, and Motorola Solutions, and therefore recommended that the PCUSA divest those stocks, while continuing to invest in many other companies that do business in Israel and the occupied territories but do not directly support non-peaceful aspects of the occupation. In the case of a boycott, the Committee echoed a recent decision by the United Methodist Church and recommended a call on all nations to prohibit import of all Israeli products coming from the occupied territories, including popular AHAVA cosmetic products.
The Jewish establishment of Pittsburgh attempted to influence the Presbyterians' ethical financial decisions, dedicating many months to defeating these resolutions. They claimed that the resolutions did not recognize the complexity of the situation, were too one-sided, and did not take into consideration the misdeeds of some Palestinians. They threatened that approving such resolutions would hurt Jewish-Presbyterian relationships. Sadly, even Jewish center-left organizations such as J Street and Americans for Peace Now published statements at the last minute that represented the resolutions were part of the larger boycott, divestment, and sanction movement directed towards Israel as a whole and labeled it "a distraction" reminiscent of "global anti-Semitism."
Let us set the record straight regarding these arguments. First, the issues are not complicated. Israel occupied a large amount of territory in June 1967 as a consequence of a military conflict. The international laws regarding such occupation are clear: An occupying government must maintain law and order and ensure basic services. It is not allowed to annex any of the land, move its own citizens into the territories, or take any of the natural resources (e.g., water). The Israeli government has followed none of these legal requirements. Instead, it has continued to build settlements and roads off-limits to West Bank Palestinians, construct portions of a separation wall on occupied Palestinian land, annex a large portion of the occupied land surrounding Jerusalem, accelerate the destruction of Palestinian homes, and divert water from Palestinians to the Jewish settlements and to Israel. Each of these actions is illegal, and we have not heard anyone present evidence to the contrary.
Second, the claim that such actions are one-sided is misleading. The U.S. administration has strong legal measures in place that prohibit U.S. companies from supporting violence by Palestinians. And if there were such companies, the PCUSA would undoubtedly divest from them.
Third, although some in this world are indeed anti-Israel and even anti-Semitic, the movement in favor of targeted divestment requires no such sentiments and over the last several days of the PCUSA General Assembly we never heard a single word against the Israeli people, let alone Jews in general. Instead, the commissioners consistently emphasized the overriding importance of alleviating suffering through the establishment of a just, peaceful solution to the conflict -- a profoundly pro-Israeli position.
On our visits to the General Assembly we met with Jewish supporters of the resolutions: young and old volunteers, including a Holocaust survivor; rabbis from Jewish Voice for Peace, an organization with a staff of only seven, that is rapidly becoming the largest Jewish grassroots organization in the U.S.; and local Jewish activists, some even from groups that officially oppose the resolutions. In contrast, there was a complete absence of any visible grassroots group opposing boycott or divestment. Despite the campaign of hyperbole and misinformation about the resolutions, Jews in Pittsburgh remained largely indifferent. Like their Christian neighbors, they seemed more interested in the recent success of the Pirates, the rising temperatures, and the economy.
At the General Assembly, the resolution to boycott settlement products passed with an overwhelming majority of 71 percent. The recommendation to divest from Caterpillar, Hewlett-Packard, and Motorola Solutions was defeated by two votes out of 664, although a resolution to create a personal divestment option for pension holders, to be voted upon in two years, passed by 57 percent, suggesting to us that whereas the Presbyterians were split on a church-wide decision to divest from companies that support the occupation, they clearly saw the moral imperative of allowing individuals to do so. Later, however, it was overturned on a procedural technicality.
Despite the defeat of the divestment resolution, the Assembly's approval of a boycott on settlement products represents a major victory to those of us who oppose the occupation. For years, many have said that if only Palestinians engaged in non-violent resistance they would win their freedom. Yet, the emergence of such resistance has not slowed Israeli settlement construction and has not brought Palestinians any closer to real statehood.
Supporting those who promote the end of the occupation by non-violent measures is in the best interests of Israel; targeted boycotts and divestments are precisely such measures. Concrete action may prevent deterioration into another bloody cycle of violence and eventually bring us closer to a just and equitable peace in the Middle East. We pray that the pro-peace, anti-occupation momentum we witnessed here in Pittsburgh will ultimately triumph, for the sake of Israelis, for the sake of Palestinians, for the sake of all of us.
Michael Zigmond is an American scientist and long-time member of the Pittsburgh Jewish community with strong ties to Israel. Naftali Kaminski is an Israeli Physician-Scientist now living in Pittsburgh. Both are members of the Middle East Peace Forum of Pittsburgh and blog at the Pittsburgh Middle-East Blog www.pittmep.com.
Then they laugh at you
Then they fight you .......................] You are here
Then you win
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/disney-family-member-renounces-her-investments-in-israel-s-ahava-cosmetics.premium-1.451506
* You know and I know what the result is. There’s no Israel! *
Dont forget to post all his other stuff about israel too!
"I’ve earned my right to speak my mind, and I’m not going to tolerate what I think is silliness, childishness, and a lot of leftist posturing.
I mean we have to be honest, and I loathe the disingenuous. They don’t want Israel. They think they are being very clever; they call it their three-tier. We want the end of the occupation, the right of return, and we want equal rights for Arabs in Israel. And they think they are very clever because they know the result of implementing all three is what, what is the result?
* You know and I know what the result is. There’s no Israel! *
"It’s not an accidental and unwitting omission that BDS does not mention Israel. You know that and I know that. It’s not like they’re “oh we forgot to mention it.” They won’t mention it because they know it will split the movement. ‘Cause there’s a large segment of the movement that wants to eliminate Israel."
normanFinkelstein 2012
It is the ultimate nonsense to suggest that some boycotts are “good” because they are promoted by well-intentioned advocates, in contrast to the South Africans who are “bad”. When we begin assessing hostile acts on the basis of good or bad intentions, we are surely heading towards an “Alice in Wonderland” situation.
A Diaspora Jew engaging in a campaign to boycott any sector of Israel society is indulging in a harmful and “pernicious” act. It reflects an indifference to the double standards employed against Israel and will unquestionably be exploited by those seeking to boycott and delegitimize Israel in general.
Diaspora Jews existed long before the creation of the state of israel and theyll exist long after it collapses under the weight of its on hubris and arrogance
http://israel21c.org/health/israeli-system-stops-leading-hospital-killer/?utm_source=Newsletter+7%2F11%2F2012&utm_campaign=July+11+2012+&utm_medium=email
Sepsis, a blood infection, causes more than 200,000 deaths in US hospitals every year. A non-invasive monitoring device from Israel is changing that....
As soon as NICOM’s uniquely non-invasive system received FDA and CE Mark approval four years ago, it was bought by hundreds of hospitals in the United States, United Kingdom, Italy, South Korea, Israel and France for ICU and anesthesia units. Just by sticking four sensors to the skin on the patient’s chest or back, the staff can continuously collect all the data needed to determine how much fluid to administer.
Now, trials at a dozen US hospital emergency departments are testing the assumption that using NICOM earlier would keep more patients from the ICU. This would save both lives and money, since one in four hospital deaths is caused by sepsis, and it’s the reason for about half of the admissions to medical ICUs."
But the BDS movement doesn't want this device in hospitals because they hate Israel more than they care about human lives.
The point of boycotts isnt to make difficult for yourself and other people. Good targets for boycotts are products that have replacements that are trivially easy to source and work equally well.
In israels case, good targets for boycotts are TOURISM, COSMETICS and GENERIC PHARMACEUTICALS. For example, India provides excellent production capacity for pharma and cosmetics and would be more than happy to take up any production slack, and alternatives to israeli tourism are obvious, try southern Cyprus!
Thanks for the suggestions. Keep them coming!
So much for "principles".
Yeah, just go to the WB. You would be doing a good thing too :-)
Inaccurate and misleading, as well as being hyper-simplistic.
1. It was a VERY SMALL amount, relative to the size of the region.
2. The previous regime in physical control of the territory (Jordan) were OCCUPYING.
3. The open and unresolved (critical) question remains, OCCUPYING WHOM? In order for their to be any "occupation", there must be both an OCCUPIER and an OCCUIPIEE. Just as there can not be a 'stolen" car that was "stolen" from NO previous owner. That would be an ABANDONED car. This case is even a step less legally~defined because the Israeli position is that they maintain unresolved territorial claims dating back to (at least) the League~of~Nations Mandate in 1922.
http://www.mythsandfacts.org/conflict/mandate_for_palestine/mandate_for_palestine.htm
When the UN was chartered in 1946, the world powers came together and in their ultimate "wisdom" decided NOT to provide for any international court with JURISDICTION over such territorial disputes. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE NATIONS CAN LEGISLATE WHAT THEY HAVE NO TRIBUNAL TO ADJUDICATE. And that is the most commonly repeated (blatant) error in the reasoning of people like the author. The UN has no legislative authority and it has no court with jurisdiction over these disputes. Therefore: "The Israeli government has followed none of these legal requirements" is also inaccurate.
"We are lying and being unethical, but we are falling just short of being criminal"?
I think that closer to the truth would be that the Israelis believe that most of the world has been both dishonest and unethical in their treatment of Israel.
2. At least Jordan gave those people citizenship rights as soon as they started the occupation, and according to UN resolution (that Israel accepted) that region was given to Arabs anyway
3. You cannot take league of nations mandate as your legal basis since that document says nothing about a formation of a Jewish state in that region, or that who would determine who is a Jew and says nothing about territorial claims of a nonexistent Jewish state.
Your first point is rhetorical in the EXTREME. Because the cogent issue as it exists today and therefore as the underlying article referenced did not factor the Sinai. The article eluded exclusively to territory related to the instant dispute.
2. Israel's acceptance of UNGA 181 was not unconditional. Suppose the Arabs had won that first war? There might thereafter be NO Israel. Why then should Israel be obliged to accept the limitations of UNGAR 181, upon the failure of the surrounding armies to extinguish it? and the resolution? It is precisely concepts such as these that distinguish your position as being incurably inequitable.
3. League of Nations: Your conclusion is a popular one among adversaries of Israel but it is also exceedingly anemic and obviously concocted. The entire purpose of the "Mandate" system was to incubate new independent nations. The wording "Jewish NATIONAL Home" is also dispositive on this point. Also, in 2004 the International Court of Justice blundered so profusely that they actually proved a valuable point in Israel's favor. They erroneously asserted that the abrogated Turkish~Ottoman territory was intended as the future nation/state of the Arabs.
(More)
.They did not have the state part wrong, just the beneficiary part. This topic was argued back in the 1920s. The mandate for Palestine was specifically written to be different enough from the other mandates to allow for a religious beneficiary but enough similar to clearly conclude that a NATION was the intended outcome. Lastly, groups of people declare their national independence all the time. They need permission from no one. So.Sudan did so about a year ago and a few years earlier, Kosovo defied Serbia by declaring its independence around borders drawn for the benefit of the local ethnic/religious population. You wrongly make it sound as if nationhood is the exclusive domain of every OTHER nation except the Jewish one.
"BDS does mean the end of the Jewish state"
-Ahmed Moor
"BDS represents three words that will help bring about the defeat of Zionist Israel and victory for Palestine"
-Ronnie Kasrils
"Going back to the two state solution, besides having passed its expiration date, it was never a moral solution to start with."
-Omar Barghouti
Why did you post them?
Such argument is indeed legitimate & valid in cases of dictatorships like Saddam's Iraq, Assad's Syria or mullahs' Iran -- where it is reasonable to make a difference between "the government" & "the people". Boycotting a government may be legitimate; sanctioning a people is not. More sophisticated Israel-haters understand that, which is why they take pains to argue that they "are pro-Israel, but against the actions of the Israeli government".
They have, however, a huge problem: in the case of Israel, "the government" is the emanation of "the people" and its political will, expressed in free & fair elections as part of a liberal democracy. Nor are the actions subject to the call for sanctions the result of some random, one-time political conjecture: every Israeli government -- left & right -- since 1967 has opted for "settlements".
Hence, those who advocate sanctions can't claim to "oppose a government"; they actually propose to ride rough shod over the will of the people -- to "twist that people's arm" through coercion, not persuasion. Of course, Israel-haters can advocate this -- it's a free country; but, while advocating collective punishment against an entire people, they can't pretend to be either "liberal" or "pro-democracy". And they CERTAINLY can't pretend to be "pro-Israel"!
Sorry I shop local thus boycotting a lot stuff.
Otherwise this is the same argument heard for South Africa and South Africa managed to continue on.
If anything, the sanctions against the mullahs' regime have been vindicated by the Iranian people -- see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/06/iran-nuclear-program-tv-poll_n_1654353.html .
Your comparison with South Africa is even more foolish: in apartheid South Africa, a small minority of whites had the power, while the large black minority was deprived of political rights. Therefore, the government represented the small minority (if that!), with the majority of people against it.
facts….from ure guru/hero:
They don’t want Israel. They think they are being very clever; they call it their three-tier. We want the end of the occupation, the right of return, and we want equal rights for Arabs in Israel. And they think they are very clever because they know the result of implementing all three is what, what is the result?
* You know and I know what the result is. There’s no Israel! *
They are LAW, very clear on issues like the West Bank and occupying states, NOT subject to "interpretation" (rather well written) and, like any LAW, may be subject to discussion while they are being OBEYED.
In addition, virtually every legal authority (not owned by the US or Israel) who has spoken on Palestine/the West Bank, says that Israel is in violation of the Conventions and various UNSC resolutions, including UNSC 242.
Could you have found someone more beholden and biased than Dershowitz?
It would have been difficult.
There are people in this country who don't have two nickels to rub together; troubling Israel economically is the last thing they're concerned about. That you don't "pray" for them, that your efforts aren't addressing their needs instead of trying to hurt people on the other side of the world says much about your true intentions and what sort of individual you really are.
"We didnt want you yo buy from israel anyway"
""Those grapes were sour anyway"
They have already been censured in Australia and South Africa for these shady practices.
F/F!
You make international law sound like domestic law. It is far from that. Each nation interprets for itself what international law requires of it. Further, individual nation states disregard it when it conflicts with their own law. The rest of the world may, or may not, choose to take action in respect to these decisions, but it is up to each nation when to follow or disregard international law.
Israel has signed the Geneva conventions and is obliged to follow them
Quantifying international treaty law is not a simple matter of saying that (for example) there were 50 signatories and 49 of the 50 are in agreement as to the meaning. Why? Because nothing is ever a problem until it becomes a problem. The one out of 50 is generally the one being adversely effected by the arbitrary interpretation. Had the adverse effect been borne onto the 49, rest assured that they would all swap sides.
as much as Kristallnacht was pro-Jewish
It is in fact. Not everything out of Israel gets boycotted. At least thats how i understand it.
Just the goods that are made in the settlements in the WB should be boycotted.
Or are all Israeli goods that get exported made in illegal settlements in the WB ?
No ? Then it really can't hurt the Israeli economy more than that, now can it ?