For
Boycott To Be Effective,
An International Coalition
Is Indispensable
By Ramzy Baroud
03 June, 2007
Countercurrents.org
South
Africa's Minister of Intelligence Ronnie Kasrils whispered to me as
I sat down following a most enthusiastic speech I gave at a recent conference
in Cape Town: "if you want the world to heed to your call for boycotting
Israel, the call has to originate from the Palestinian leadership itself."
Kasrils is obviously right.
The call for boycotting the racist Apartheid government was an exclusively
South African endeavour, made resonantly and repeatedly by the African
National Council (ANC) and backed by the various liberation movements
in the country and in exile. It took years for the dedicated campaign
to be effective. The message communicated to the international community
was clear and simply persuasive: put an end to Apartheid. It was but
only a facet of various methods of struggle, notwithstanding the armed
struggle which spread to Namibia, Angola and other African countries.
Nonetheless it was a committed strategy. One of the architects of the
campaign which boycotted banks involved in investing in South Africa,
presented me with an elaborate plan to involve civil societies in holding
to account banks that facilitate the Israeli occupation economically
and thereby help to facilitate its existence. It comprised a clear strategy,
a straightforward plan of action and non-negotiable demands.
Is a similar campaign possible
in the Palestinian case? Many people seem to think so. In fact, calls
for boycotting Israel have dotted the political landscape of the Arab-Israeli
and later Palestinian-Israeli conflict for years. The main obstacle
to utilising civil societies in compelling Israel to end its brutal
policies against the Palestinians is that these efforts are neither
centralised nor do they emanate from a respected Palestinian authority
and leadership. Despite their good intentions, and their sincere solidarity,
they remain uncoordinated and lack a clear set of objectives.
A young Indian activist,
who spent days on end urging shoppers at Britain's Marks and Spencer,
to boycott the store for contributing to the Israeli occupation, recalled
her utter frustration with the fact that many of the store's customers
were Arabs from the Gulf. While nothing beats a good deal, she failed
to understand why a wealthy Arab would find it morally permissible to
patronise a company that contributed to the occupation. Needless to
say, the same scenario is repeated at many Starbucks branches, despite
the corporate management's unabashed support of Israel.
I called Ahmed Youssef, the
chief political advisor to Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh
to ask him whether such a call for a boycott was feasible, especially
prior to the forthcoming mass rallies to be held in London and other
major cities on 9 June -- on the 40th anniversary of the Israeli occupation.
Youssef was clearly distressed; the infighting between Palestinians
had taken its toll on his often optimistic attitude. "How can one
expect a unified leadership position on a boycott while Palestinians
are fighting on two fronts; against one another and against Israel?"
I am certain that large numbers
of conscientious people around the world would refuse to purchase Israeli
products if they understood exactly how Israel has maintained its illegal
occupation of Palestinian land. But how can we ascertain this fact without
a professional and well organised boycott which would provide figures
and statistics as part of the campaign to pressure companies that do
business with Israel?
Should we wait for the Palestinian
leadership, some of whom are in the process of complete capitulation,
while others are struggling for basic survival and limited to an exclusivist
political ideology, to cease their infighting, unify their ranks, rehabilitate
their political institutions and only then call for boycott? The wait
might be too long and arduous.
One of the main objectives
of my frequent travelling has been to try and build a bridge between
various proactive organisations, linked to change and liberation, and
the Palestinian struggle. In some ways, these efforts have been successful.
I believe that by creating a wider, well coordinated platform for the
struggle against injustice, with Palestine being one of several central
points of focus, civil society can be both effective and relevant. To
achieve this, one must not dwell on specifics (in the Palestinian case,
the debate of one versus two states, armed struggle versus passive resistance,
Hamas verses Fatah, are cases in point) but search for unifying themes,
leaving the more divisive issues for Palestinians to sort out.
The conflict in Palestine
is at a very critical juncture. Israel, brazenly aided by the two remaining
imperialist countries, the US and the UK, is in the final stages of
planning its Bantustanisation of the disconnected pockets that remain
of historic Palestine. Martin Luther King Jr once said "injustice
anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere". An Israeli victory
against the Palestinian people is indeed a defeat for every struggle
for justice, rights and equality everywhere. It simply must not be allowed.
But how to prevent this is a debate that should immediately commence
without reverting to dogmatic approaches and language, political or
religious sensitivities, and most importantly without any sense of ownership
over the discourse, which is sadly creeping up in Palestinian circles
everywhere.
Ramzy
Baroud’s latest book: The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle
of a People’s Struggle (Pluto Press, London) is available from
Amazon.com and other venues.
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights
Comment
Policy
Digg
it! And spread the word!
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands
of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page
of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an
vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So,
as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.