Posted By Ramzy Baroud
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 endeavor, 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 organized
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 traveling has been to try and
build a bridge between various
proactive organizations, 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 is a Palestinian
American author and editor of
PalestineChronicle.com; his latest
book is The Second Palestinian
Intifada: A Chronicle of a People’s
Struggle (Pluto Press, London)
|
