Boycotting Israel isn't anti-Semitic – how many human rights groups need to condemn it until this is clear?

by Fuzzy Zack Thu Feb 18, 2016 12:39 am

Voices
Boycotting Israel isn't anti-Semitic – how many human rights groups need to condemn it until this is clear?
Is the BDS movement singling out Israel? No – but the British government is singling it out for impunity
Ben White Tuesday 16 February 2016297 comments

The Conservative Government is planning a significant assault on political freedoms in the name of protecting those profiting from human rights violations. Specifically, they are seeking to shield Israel from the growing pressure of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) campaign.

The Government is intentionally misrepresenting the BDS movement as anti-Semitic, despite the fact that many Jews in this country and worldwide back boycott in solidarity with Palestinians.

The campaign is quite straightforward, and strictly in opposition to Israel's illegal policies. Just like the boycotting of South Africa during apartheid, it is about applying non-violent, popular pressure to effect change and challenge impunity.

The case for a boycott of Israel is based on three elements – none of which have anything to do with anti-Semitism.

The first is the reality of Israeli settler colonialism and occupation. Israel’s settlements in the West Bank have been declared a war crime by Amnesty International, and successive Israeli governments of all political stripes have furthered and expanded an apartheid regime enforced by military courts, torture, detention without trial, and needless violence.

In the Gaza Strip, Palestinians are subjected to devastating Israeli offensives; in July-August 2014, more than 500 children were killed in their homes, in the street, or playing football on the beach. Palestinian citizens of Israel, meanwhile, face constant and official incitement as well as racist laws.

This reality is attested to and well-documented by Palestinians, Israeli human rights groups, international bodies like Amnesty and Human Rights Watch, as well as in UN resolutions, and by UN agencies.

Secondly, calls for a boycott are based on the appeals for solidarity from Palestinians. The BDS campaign, launched in 2005 by Palestinian NGOs, trade unions, and other civil society groups, has three basic "asks": an end to occupation, equality, and the rights of Palestinian refugees, expelled by Israel, to return.

Thirdly, the BDS movement is an effective and empowering tactic. Like any country, Israel is vulnerable to pressure. As Nelson Mandela said in 1958, boycott is not “a matter of principle” but “a tactical weapon”, whose application is based on “the concrete conditions prevailing at the given time”. There is no shortage of evidence that Israel is practicing apartheid; this is attested to by numerous human rights organisations. Therefore, the same tactics that helped free South Africa must be our response.

In recent years, the BDS campaign has grown considerably, with companies complicit in Israel’s occupation being ditched by everyone from mainline churches to major pension funds. The cultural boycott has been backed by the likes of Henning Mankell, Roger Waters, Ken Loach, Judith Butler, Elvis Costello, and Mira Nair.

But the question remains: is the BDS movement singling out Israel? No – there are currently dozens of active consumer boycott campaigns targeting a variety of state or private sector abuses around the world, as well as numerous sanctions and arms embargoes enforced by the European Union or UK.

In reality, it is Israel who is singled out by our government for impunity and protection – and this is yet another example. This would not be the first time that the Government has legislated in order to protect Israel. In 2011, changes in the law were implemented in order to try and remove the prospect of arrest for Israeli war crimes suspects visiting the UK.

In this case too, such proposals have much broader implications, since the ban also relates to action against companies involved in the arms trade, fossil fuels and tobacco.

In response to a public consultation period which ends shortly, a number of groups have got behind a “Protect Local Democracy” campaign and e-action. According to War on Want, some 14,000 people have expressed opposition to this “attack on local democracy.”

As Palestinian BDS National Committee spokesperson Rafeef Ziadah has pointed out, the new measures are unlikely to succeed in “thwarting the growing public support for the Palestinian struggle for freedom, justice and equality.”

This new attack on BDS highlights the contrast between growing, grassroots support for Palestinian rights on the one hand, and governmental support for occupation on the other. The latter can make a difference for a while, but ultimately, it is likely to prove vulnerable to the pressure of an anti-apartheid movement.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/boycotting-israel-isnt-anti-semitic-how-many-human-rights-groups-need-to-condemn-it-until-this-is-a6876816.html

by Guest Thu Feb 18, 2016 12:54 am

Hear bloody hear, every word the truth.

by Guest Thu Feb 18, 2016 2:58 pm

I think a lot of people forget about this boycott:

Boycotting Israel isn't anti-Semitic – how many human rights groups need to condemn it until this is clear? CbgT4prWIAAA6W5

Boycotting Israel isn't anti-Semitic – how many human rights groups need to condemn it until this is clear? CbgT4prWIAAA6W5

by Guest Thu Feb 18, 2016 2:59 pm

Here is the press release by the UK government saying that boycotting Israel by public institutions is illegal. They are simply highlighting existing laws and agreements that make all boycotts of countries under the WTO illegal.

Notably, the press release explicitly says that the boycotts pushed by the BDS movement are "fuelling anti-Semitism."

Note also that the same press release also reiterates support for labeling all goods from the territories:

Guidance published today makes clear that procurement boycotts by public authorities are inappropriate, outside where formal legal sanctions, embargoes and restrictions have been put in place by the government.

Town hall boycotts undermine good community relations, poisoning and polarising debate, weakening integration and fuelling anti-Semitism.

Locally imposed boycotts can roll back integration as well as hinder Britain’s export trade and harm international relationship.

All contracting authorities will be impacted by this new guidance including central government, executive agencies, non-departmental public bodies, the wider public sector, local authorities and NHS bodies. Any public body found to be in breach of the regulations could be subject to severe penalties.

The World Trade Organisation Government Procurement Agreement – an international market access agreement – requires all those countries that have signed up to the Agreement to treat suppliers equally. This includes the EU and Israel. Any discrimination against Israeli suppliers involving procurements would therefore be in breach of the Agreement.

The guidance published today complements existing government guidance about trading or investing overseas (including with Israel), where we advise UK businesses to consider any potential legal and economic risks of doing so. It is also in line with the government’s existing policy of support for clear and transparent labelling of settlement products to ensure that individual consumers are able to make informed choices before they buy.

Cabinet Office Minister, Matthew Hancock said:
We need to challenge and prevent these divisive town hall boycotts. The new guidance on procurement combined with changes we are making to how pension pots can be invested will help prevent damaging and counter-productive local foreign policies undermining our national security.

We support UK local authorities, businesses and individual consumers alike in making informed choices about how they procure services and products from overseas.

Here are the actual guidelines that were issued, which do not mention Israel at all:

Procurement Policy Note: Ensuring compliance with wider international obligations when letting public contracts
Information Note 01/16 17th February 2016

Issue

1. This PPN sets out contracting authorities’ international obligations when letting public contracts. It makes clear that boycotts in public procurement are inappropriate, outside where formal legal sanctions, embargoes and restrictions have been put in place by the UK Government.

Dissemination and Scope

2. This PPN is directly applicable to all contracting authorities, including Central Government, Executive Agencies, Non Departmental Public Bodies, wider public sector, local authorities and NHS bodies. Please circulate this document (for information) within your organisation, including where relevant to Executive Agencies and Non Departmental Public Bodies and other contracting authorities for which you are responsible, drawing it to the attention of those with a purchasing role.

Advice

3. The UK has a longstanding and widely accepted policy that applies to all public contracts, of ensuring value for money in public procurement, as set out in HMT's Managing Public Money. Value for money is defined as securing the best mix of quality and effectiveness for the least outlay over the period of use of the goods or services bought. That definition has recently been updated to make clearer that the key factor is whole life cost, not necessarily the lowest purchase price.

4. Further, wider policy objectives (such as economic or employment-related considerations) can be pursued through the procurement process where they are linked to the subject-matter of the contract. The new Public Contract Regulations (PCR) 2015 also provide flexibility for authorities to take account of wider matters in the procurement process, such as social and environmental factors. Contracting authorities may apply these flexibilities where relevant, ensuring always that all suppliers are treated equally and without discrimination.

5. The UK's regime of procurement rules (the PCR 2015), derives largely from the EU procurement directives and the WTO Government Procurement Agreement (GPA) - an international market access agreement. These rules impose a legal obligation on public authorities when awarding contracts above certain thresholds to treat EU and GPA 2 suppliers equally, and not discriminate by, amongst other things, favouring national suppliers. There are remedies available through the courts for breaches of these rules, such as damages, fines and ineffectiveness (contract cancellation). The European Commission can also bring legal proceedings against the UK Government for alleged breaches of EU law by a UK contracting authority. This can lead to formal action being required to rectify the breach, and substantial fines against the Government. The Government will always involve the relevant contracting authority in these proceedings.

6. Suppliers from "third countries" (which are neither part of the EU, nor the GPA or other international free-trade agreements with the EU) do not enjoy access to our remedies system if they are discriminated against. However, third country suppliers could, potentially, offer the best value for money outcome, so the UK Government expects that its authorities will deal with bids from such third countries in the same way as EU or GPA countries.

7. Public procurement should never be used as a tool to boycott tenders from suppliers based in other countries, except where formal legal sanctions, embargoes and restrictions have been put in place by the UK Government. There are wider national and international consequences from imposing such local level boycotts. They can damage integration and community cohesion within the United Kingdom, hinder Britain’s export trade, and harm foreign relations to the detriment of Britain’s economic and international security. As highlighted earlier, it can also be unlawful and lead to severe penalties against the contracting authority and the Government.

Contact
8. Enquiries about this PPN should be directed to the Crown Commercial Service Helpdesk (telephone 0345 410 2222, email info@crowncommercial.gov.uk)

The PLO is furious, and is using the "peace process" that they oppose as a reason to boycott Israel:

“This policy puts the UK in the position of defending Israel’s occupation, expansion, racism and colonialism,” said Husam Zomlot, ambassador-at-large for the Palestinian leadership.

"It is a bullet at the heart of peacemaking because peace will only come when Israel is under pressure and feels consequences for its illegal actions."

That is the entire PLO foreign policy message in a single sentence. They have no responsibilities, only rights, including many that no one else has.

Peace-seeker Zomlot likes analogies to bullets, because he also told Financial Times "This is a bullet at the very heart of a peaceful resolution to the conflict in the Middle East and the very heart of democracy in Britain."

by Guest Thu Feb 18, 2016 3:00 pm

So that is the to forum Jew/Israeli haters exposed for their racism

by Guest Thu Feb 18, 2016 3:01 pm

The British government is currently preparing to unveil rules that will prohibit public institutions from adopting boycotts against Israel. Under the new legislation, all publicly funded institutions, such as local town halls, universities, and students unions, could face prosecution should they pursue and enforce the boycott of goods and services from the Jewish state.

Critics argue that the move amounts to a gross attack on democratic freedoms. But does it really? The truth is that there is nothing democratic about singling out Israel – and only Israel - for boycotts out of all countries in the world. Israel is a vibrant democracy that protects the rights of women, homosexuals and religious minorities. Arabs in Israel have more freedoms than Arabs in any other Arab country. In fact, Israel is the only functioning democracy in the entire Middle East region, surrounded by cruel dictatorships that engage in systematic and egregious human rights violations. And yet the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement calls for the isolation of only one state: Israel.

Across Europe, politicians, academics and students launch "Israel Apartheid week", erect "Israeli Apartheid Walls" and push for cities and campuses to become "Israel-free zones". If you are looking for "Iran Apartheid week", one of the worst violators of human rights in the world, you are looking in vain. If you are searching for a "Saudi Apartheid Wall", a kingdom where gender apartheid is practiced in its purest form, you will be disappointed. And if you are looking for a "Syria-free zone", in protest against Bashar al-Assad's murderous campaign against his own people, you will find no such thing.

The primary goal of the BDS movement is the destruction of Israel, not the well-being of the Palestinian people. How else might one explain the selective outrage and moral myopia when it comes to the imprisonment, torture and killing of Palestinians in Arab countries?

The Syrian regime currently starves to death almost 18,000 Palestinians in the notorious Yarmouk refugee camp near Damascus. Hundreds have already died from malnutrition. However, if you visit the website of the Palestinian Solidarity Camp, you get all the information on why and how to get involved in BDS. However, the suffering of the Palestinians in Yarmouk is little more than a side issue to them.

The BDS movement and its supporters seek not only the destruction and delegitimisation of the state of Israel, it also demonises and targets Jewish people at a time when Europe is becoming increasingly unsafe for those who openly identify as Jews. Every year on Holocaust Memorial Day, we are being reminded of the parallels between the Shoa and the alleged genocide of Palestinians in Gaza.

Of course, freedom of speech, not matter how intellectually dishonest one's position might be, is not a crime and boycotts, per se, are not inherently racist. But too often anti-Israel sentiments are used as a political cover for anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism is not free speech. In fact, like any form of racial intolerance, it is the enemy of free speech.

Let us be clear about the true nature of the BDS movement. They want Israel to be erased from the map. The BDS leadership advocates the full right return of the Palestinians - from the river to the sea – a "Judenfrei" Middle East region. That makes BDS more than just an anti-Israel movement; it makes it an attack on the very principles we hold dear in this country.

To oppose BDS is a moral imperative and the new British legislation, expected to be announced by Matt Hancock, Britain's cabinet office minister, on a visit to Israel later this week, should be welcomed. It is a necessity against a movement that, for too long, has applied double standards that have dangerously blurred the line between legitimate criticism of Israeli policies and anti-Semitism.

It also sets Britain apart from a controversial directive issued by the European Union (EU) in November 2015 that makes it mandatory for Israeli producers to explicitly label goods produced in disputed territories. Again, it is difficult to see how the new EU directive is not discriminatory against the Jewish state, given that the EU does not enforce the same legislation in other long-standing international territorial disputes, such as Tibet, Western-Sahara and Kashmir.

Perhaps Britain, with its principled and courageous stance against the boycotts against Israel, can offer a model to the rest of Europe.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/israel-boycotts-are-used-cover-anti-semitism-britain-must-take-stand-democracy-1544252

by Raggamuffin Thu Feb 18, 2016 3:18 pm

Of course it's not anti-semitic.

There's nothing wrong with boycotting companies, or even whole countries, if you don't approve of they way they behave. One might have boycotted L'Oreal, for example, because they used animal testing, and then they stopped. If someone wants to boycott a country because they disapprove of the way their Government behaves, that is their right - like I said I would boycott Zimbabwe the other day.

The issue only seems to be a problem in relation to public bodies - those which get public money. Other organisations are free to boycott who they like, are they not?

by Guest Thu Feb 18, 2016 3:19 pm

Of course it is when the view is to target Jews through being israelis

Read the article and stop wasting time when you have not bothered to do so

by Guest Thu Feb 18, 2016 3:21 pm

Also targeting Zimbabwe is making all its people culpable when many suffer already under Mugabe, not the brightest move at all and again very racist

by Guest Thu Feb 18, 2016 3:25 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Of course it's not anti-semitic.

There's nothing wrong with boycotting companies, or even whole countries, if you don't approve of they way they behave. One might have boycotted L'Oreal, for example, because they used animal testing, and then they stopped. If someone wants to boycott a country because they disapprove of the way their Government behaves, that is their right - like I said I would boycott Zimbabwe the other day.

The issue only seems to be a problem in relation to public bodies - those which get public money. Other organisations are free to boycott who they like, are they not?

Quite. America and the UK were quite happy to impose sanctions ie boycott, Iraq and they caused 100s of 1000s of children to die https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iraq#Infant_and_child_death_rates

by Raggamuffin Thu Feb 18, 2016 3:27 pm

sassy wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Of course it's not anti-semitic.

There's nothing wrong with boycotting companies, or even whole countries, if you don't approve of they way they behave. One might have boycotted L'Oreal, for example, because they used animal testing, and then they stopped. If someone wants to boycott a country because they disapprove of the way their Government behaves, that is their right - like I said I would boycott Zimbabwe the other day.

The issue only seems to be a problem in relation to public bodies - those which get public money. Other organisations are free to boycott who they like, are they not?

Quite. America and the UK were quite happy to impose sanctions ie boycott, Iraq and they caused 100s of 1000s of children to die https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iraq#Infant_and_child_death_rates

Yes, it does seem a bit hypocritical when the Government itself indulges in what amount to boycotts. Isn't it to do with trading rules or something?

My concern would be that public bodies are supposed to represent all the people they serve, not just those who agree with them, so a boycott could be misconstrued as a political statement which could alienate those who don't agree with the boycott.

by Guest Thu Feb 18, 2016 3:29 pm

Again who says sanctions are right?

Even then have sanctions worked against nations?

Take Cuba, as it never worked

Again sanctions should be against individuals as has happened in Russia

Just because other wrongs have happened does not make another right, that iks just plain dumb and sanctions and different to a boycott, as there are specific in what they target

by Guest Thu Feb 18, 2016 3:31 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
sassy wrote:

Quite. America and the UK were quite happy to impose sanctions ie boycott, Iraq and they caused 100s of 1000s of children to die https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iraq#Infant_and_child_death_rates

Yes, it does seem a bit hypocritical when the Government itself indulges in what amount to boycotts. Isn't it to do with trading rules or something?

My concern would be that public bodies are supposed to represent all the people they serve, not just those who agree with them, so a boycott could be misconstrued as a political statement which could alienate those who don't agree with the boycott.

That's quite funny, as the government are supposed to represent all the people they serve. If councillors are elected on a platform of ethical investment, then they will be doing what they were elected to do.

by Guest Thu Feb 18, 2016 3:34 pm

But going against the Uk overall policy

by Raggamuffin Thu Feb 18, 2016 3:37 pm

sassy wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes, it does seem a bit hypocritical when the Government itself indulges in what amount to boycotts. Isn't it to do with trading rules or something?

My concern would be that public bodies are supposed to represent all the people they serve, not just those who agree with them, so a boycott could be misconstrued as a political statement which could alienate those who don't agree with the boycott.

That's quite funny, as the government are supposed to represent all the people they serve. If councillors are elected on a platform of ethical investment, then they will be doing what they were elected to do.

I do take your point, but legally-speaking, it seems to be a different situation.

Let's take the example of a students' union. What if there are Israeli students? I'm not saying that anyone would be mean to them, but they might feel a bit ostracised and unwelcome in the students' bar or wherever, and that doesn't seem right. Even Jewish students who weren't from Israel might feel the same way.

As a matter of interest, does this rule on boycotts also apply to charities which get public money?

by Guest Thu Feb 18, 2016 3:40 pm

That is what is happening though, take for example this in the US

http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Students-in-Brooklyn-College-demand-Zionists-off-campus-445381

by Guest Thu Feb 18, 2016 3:41 pm

I love it when two act like two year olds thinking they can outsmart,but will always come on stuck hee hee

by Sponsored content

Boycotting Israel isn't anti-Semitic – how many human rights groups need to condemn it until this is clear?

Boycotting Israel isn't anti-Semitic – how many human rights groups need to condemn it until this is clear?

Re: Boycotting Israel isn't anti-Semitic – how many human rights groups need to condemn it until this is clear?

Re: Boycotting Israel isn't anti-Semitic – how many human rights groups need to condemn it until this is clear?

Re: Boycotting Israel isn't anti-Semitic – how many human rights groups need to condemn it until this is clear?

Re: Boycotting Israel isn't anti-Semitic – how many human rights groups need to condemn it until this is clear?

Re: Boycotting Israel isn't anti-Semitic – how many human rights groups need to condemn it until this is clear?

Re: Boycotting Israel isn't anti-Semitic – how many human rights groups need to condemn it until this is clear?

Re: Boycotting Israel isn't anti-Semitic – how many human rights groups need to condemn it until this is clear?

Re: Boycotting Israel isn't anti-Semitic – how many human rights groups need to condemn it until this is clear?

Re: Boycotting Israel isn't anti-Semitic – how many human rights groups need to condemn it until this is clear?

Re: Boycotting Israel isn't anti-Semitic – how many human rights groups need to condemn it until this is clear?

Re: Boycotting Israel isn't anti-Semitic – how many human rights groups need to condemn it until this is clear?

Re: Boycotting Israel isn't anti-Semitic – how many human rights groups need to condemn it until this is clear?

Re: Boycotting Israel isn't anti-Semitic – how many human rights groups need to condemn it until this is clear?

Re: Boycotting Israel isn't anti-Semitic – how many human rights groups need to condemn it until this is clear?

Re: Boycotting Israel isn't anti-Semitic – how many human rights groups need to condemn it until this is clear?

Re: Boycotting Israel isn't anti-Semitic – how many human rights groups need to condemn it until this is clear?

Re: Boycotting Israel isn't anti-Semitic – how many human rights groups need to condemn it until this is clear?