Why I Used to Support Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions against Israel But No Longer
Because it fits the textbook definition of discrimination
First of all, I recognise that the Israeli government’s continuing occupation of Palestine cannot be morally justified. Thus I share the outrage and indignation stated by Nadia Abu-Shanab and Justine Sachs. Abu-Shanab and Sachs, however, use the Israeli government’s occupation to call on Lorde to not tour Israel, because that would send a message that Lorde condones the occupation. As Dane Giraud rightly counters, this is a classic tactic used by the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel. Giraud argues that it is a counterproductive tactic to use to bring about an end to the occupation because it instigates rather than resolves conflicts. In addition, the continuing occupation is to preserve the security of Israel, which as a state has as much right to survive as the Palestinian state.
Indeed, both sides use rehearsed argument against one another. If the issues are so easy to resolve, then it would have been solved years ago.
I find the security argument for occupation, stated by Giraud and a favourite of the Israeli government, confuses the effect with cause. If Palestinians have their own state, without being colonialised by Israeli settlers in the West Bank or being blockaded in Gaza by the Israeli military, will they continue to threaten the security of Israel? I think not. The security problem of Israel is caused by the occupation, therefore the occupation cannot be justified by the preservation of the security of Israel. If Israel deserves security, Palestine deserves territorial integrity, by the same token. Let me say categorically that I do not condone violence against Israel or its people, rather I am saying that the effect should not be confused with the cause.
However, there is one fundamental issue of BDS that anyone who abhors discrimination cannot ignore: BDS does not distinguish between the Israeli government and the Israeli people (Jews, Arabs, and all Israeli citizens), therefore it is blatant discrimination to punish the Israeli people for the sins of the Israeli government. It is as discriminatory as making no distinction between the Trump government and the American people. We can disagree vehemently with the current Israeli/American government, but it is wrong to blame Israeli people/American people for the policies of their government. After all, they live in a democracy, and quite a lot of people voted against the Netanyahu/Trump government.
It is difficult for me and others who abhors the continuing occupation of Palestine by the Israeli government to accept this point. I know I have been resisting this, but after I have listened to the other side of the argument against BDS, I came around.
The corollary of this is to accept that the anti-Springbok movement in the 1980s should have been distinguished from the anti-apartheid movement: while people against Springbok touring New Zealand and against All Blacks touring South Africa may have raised the profile of the anti-apartheid movement in New Zealand, I think it was the wrong tactic to use. Because the tour affected the South African people, not the South African government which institutionalised racism, but not all South Africans supported apartheid. New Zealand shouldn’t have to stand against the South African apartheid regime because of rugby. New Zealand should have stood against apartheid without qualification, with or without rugby involved. That is the principled stance. Hence we shouldn’t use the success of the Springbok tour boycott to justify BDS.
By the same token, when the All Blacks were touring apartheid South Africa, they should never had placated the apartheid regime by not selecting Māori. An All Blacks team with Māori touring South Africa would have been a powerful demonstration of the faulty logic of apartheid, just as Jesse Owens demonstrated the flaw of the Nazi regime by winning gold in the Berlin Olympics in 1936.
However, I am not against BDS on a case-by-case basis. One particular case is against Israeli company Sodastream, which had factories in the West Bank, but no longer. I think as long as Sodastream have factories in the West Bank, they would be supporting the occupation, and therefore they deserve boycott. Because, in this case, there is a direct connection between the company’s business with the occupation. Scarlett Johansson, incidentally, had a brush with this issue, when she was a spokewoman for Sodastream before Sodastream relocated from the West Bank, and copped criticisms because she was also an ambassador for Oxfam. She later chose to resign from her responsibilities to Oxfam rather than to Sodastream.
My suggestion to Lorde would be to look at whether any company involved with the tour is in any way justifying or supporting the occupation of Palestine. She should make a principled stand and should not deal with any business that has anything to do with the occupation. Bring a message of peace and reconciliation to Israel, but do not try to preach to concert goers. Respect their opinions, but still make her own voice heard as a demonstration. We would not take kindly to overseas musicians preaching to New Zealand about, e.g. discrimination against Māori, even if it is still a problem. Therefore it would be counter-productive to the Palestinian cause for Lorde to explicitly rail against Israeli occupation in her Israeli concert.
Finally, let me give you two links that crystalised my thoughts in the last year on the Israel/Palestine conflict:
Mahmoud Abbas on Balfour Declaration (Historical context, from a very partial but not unreasonable point of view.)
John Kerry’s 2016 speech on Middle East Peace (The Chinese have an idiom: “人之將死，其言也善”, meaning a dying person speaks from the heart. When Kerry was making that speech, it was the dying days of the Obama presidency. And indeed Kerry spoke of the Israel/Palestine conflict from the heart, calling out faults of both sides, and that the current trajectory, as of 2016, is moving further and further away from peaceful co-existence, towards continuing oppression of Palestinians. Given recent events, it is clear there is no change in direction in 2017.)
