A Boycott of Israel: Something Has Changed

From a limestone hill rising above Qalandia refugee camp you can see Jerusalem. I watched a lone figure standing there in the rain, his son holding the tail of his long tattered coat. He extended his hand and did not let go. “I am Ahmed Hamzeh, street entertainer,” he said in measured English. “Over there, I played many musical instruments; I sang in Arabic, English and Hebrew, and because I was rather poor, my very small son would chew gum while the monkey did its tricks. When we lost our country, we lost respect. One day a rich Kuwaiti stopped his car in front of us. He shouted at my son, “Show me how a Palestinian picks up his food rations!” So I made the monkey appear to scavenge on the ground, in the gutter. And my son scavenged with him. The Kuwaiti threw coins and my son crawled on his knees to pick them up. This was not right; I was an artist, not a beggar . . . I am not even a peasant now.”

“How do you feel about all that?” I asked him.

“Do you expect me to feel hatred? What is that to a Palestinian? I never hated the Jews and their Israel . . . yes, I suppose I hate them now, or maybe I pity them for their stupidity. They can’t win. Because we Palestinians are the Jews now and, like the Jews, we will never allow them or the Arabs or you to forget. The youth will guarantee us that, and the youth after them . . .”

That was 40 years ago. On my last trip back to the West Bank, I recognized little of Qalandia, now announced by a vast Israeli checkpoint, a zigzag of sandbags, oil drums and breeze blocks, with conga lines of people, waiting, swatting flies with precious papers. Inside the camp, the tents had been replaced by sturdy hovels, although the queues at single taps were as long, I was assured, and the dust still ran to caramel in the rain. At the United Nations office I asked about Ahmed Hamzeh, the street entertainer. Records were consulted, heads shaken. Someone thought he had been “taken away . . . very ill”. No one knew about his son, whose trachoma was surely blindness now. Outside, another generation kicked a punctured football in the dust.

And yet, what Nelson Mandela has called “the greatest moral issue of the age” refuses to be buried in the dust. For every BBC voice that strains to equate occupier with occupied, thief with victim, for every swarm of emails from the fanatics of Zion to those who invert the lies and describe the Israeli state’s commitment to the destruction of Palestine, the truth is more powerful now than ever. Documentation of the violent expulsion of Palestinians in 1948 is voluminous. Reexamination of the historical record has put paid to the fable of heroic David in the Six Day War, when Ahmed Hamzeh and his family were driven from their home. The alleged threat of Arab leaders to “throw the Jews into the sea”, used to justify the 1967 Israeli onslaught and since repeated relentlessly, is highly questionable.

In 2005, the spectacle of wailing Old Testament zealots leaving Gaza was a fraud. The building of their “settlements” has accelerated on the West Bank, along with the illegal Berlin-style wall dividing farmers from their crops, children from their schools, families from each other. We now know that Israel’s destruction of much of Lebanon last year was pre-planned. As the former CIA analyst Kathleen Christenson has written, the recent “civil war” in Gaza was actually a coup against the elected Hamas-led government, engineered by Elliott Abrams, the Zionist who runs US policy on Israel and a convicted felon from the Iran-Contra era.

The ethnic cleansing of Palestine is as much America’s crusade as Israel’s. On 16 August, the Bush administration announced an unprecedented $30bn military “aid package” for Israel, the world’s fourth biggest military power, an air power greater than Britain, a nuclear power greater than France. No other country on earth enjoys such immunity, allowing it to act without sanction, as Israel. No other country has such a record of lawlessness: not one of the world’s tyrannies comes close. International treaties, such as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, ratified by Iran, are ignored by Israel. There is nothing like it in UN history.

But something is changing. Perhaps last summer’s panoramic horror beamed from Lebanon on to the world’s TV screens provided the catalyst. Or perhaps cynicism of Bush and Blair and the incessant use of the inanity, “terror”, together with the day-by-day dissemination of a fabricated insecurity in all our lives, have finally brought the attention of the international community outside the rogue states, Britain and the US, back to one of its principal sources, Israel.

I got a sense of this recently in the United States. A full-page advertisement in the New York Times had the distinct odor of panic. There have been many “friends of Israel” advertisements in the Times, demanding the usual favors, rationalizing the usual outrages. This one was different. “Boycott a cure for cancer?” was its main headline, followed by “Stop drip irrigation in Africa? Prevent scientific co-operation between nations?” Who would want to do such things? “Some British academics want to boycott Israelis,” was the self-serving answer. It referred to the University and College Union’s (UCU) inaugural conference motion in May, calling for discussion within its branches for a boycott of Israeli academic institutions. As John Chalcraft of the London School of Economics pointed out, “the Israeli academy has long provided intellectual, linguistic, logistical, technical, scientific and human support for an occupation in direct violation of international law [against which] no Israeli academic institution has ever taken a public stand”.

The swell of a boycott is growing inexorably, as if an important marker has been passed, reminiscent of the boycotts that led to sanctions against apartheid South Africa. Both Mandela and Desmond Tutu have drawn this parallel; so have South African cabinet minister Ronnie Kasrils and other illustrious Jewish members of the liberation struggle. In Britain, an often Jewish-led academic campaign against Israel’s “methodical destruction of [the Palestinian] education system” can be translated by those of us who have reported from the occupied territories into the arbitrary closure of Palestinian universities, the harassment and humiliation of students at checkpoints and the shooting and killing of Palestinian children on their way to school.

These initiatives have been backed by a British group, Independent Jewish Voices, whose 528 signatories include Stephen Fry, Harold Pinter, Mike Leigh and Eric Hobsbawm. The country’s biggest union, Unison, has called for an “economic, cultural, academic and sporting boycott” and the right of return for Palestinian families expelled in 1948. Remarkably, the Commons’ international development committee has made a similar stand. In April, the membership of the National Union of Journalists (NUJ) voted for a boycott only to see it hastily overturned by the national executive council. In the Republic of Ireland, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions has called for divestment from Israeli companies: a campaign aimed at the European Union, which accounts for two-thirds of Israel’s exports under an EU-Israel Association Agreement. The UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Jean Ziegler, has said that human rights conditions in the agreement should be invoked and Israel’s trading preferences suspended.

This is unusual, for these were once distant voices. And that such grave discussion of a boycott has “gone global” was unforeseen in official Israel, long comforted by its seemingly untouchable myths and great power sponsorship, and confident that the mere threat of anti-Semitism would ensure silence. When the British lecturers’ decision was announced, the US Congress passed an absurd resolution describing the UCU as “anti-Semitic”. (Eighty congressmen have gone on junkets to Israel this summer.)

This intimidation has worked in the past. The smearing of American academics has denied them promotion, even tenure. The late Edward Said kept an emergency button in his New York apartment connected to the local police station; his offices at Columbia University were once burned down. Following my 2002 film, Palestine is Still the Issue, I received death threats and slanderous abuse, most of it coming from the US where the film was never shown. When the BBC’s Independent Panel recently examined the corporation’s coverage of the Middle East, it was inundated with e-mails, “many from abroad, mostly from North America”, said its report. Some individuals “sent multiple missives, some were duplicates and there was clear evidence of pressure group mobilisation.” The panel’s conclusion was that BBC reporting of the Palestinian struggle was not “full and fair” and “in important respects, presents an incomplete and in that sense misleading picture.” This was neutralized in BBC press releases.

The courageous Israeli historian, Ilan Pappé, believes a single democratic state, to which the Palestinian refugees are given the right of return, is the only feasible and just solution, and that a sanctions and boycott campaign is critical in achieving this. Would the Israeli population be moved by a worldwide boycott? Although they would rarely admit it, South Africa’s whites were moved enough to support an historic change. A boycott of Israeli institutions, goods and services, says Pappé, “will not change the [Israeli] position in a day, but it will send a clear message that [the premises of Zionism] are racist and unacceptable in the 21st century . . . They would have to choose.”
And so would the rest of us.

John Pilger is an internationally renowned investigative journalist and documentary filmmaker. His latest film is The War on Democracy. His most recent book is Freedom Next Time: Resisting the Empire (Bantam/Random House, 2006). Read other articles by John, or visit John's website.

9 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Mulga Mumblebrain said on August 25th, 2007 at 4:56pm #

    In Australia the local Jewish community has a mission to demonise Moslems. Just in the the last few weeks, the notorious and fervid anti-Moslem hatemonger Wafa Sultan was imported on a secret visit, to address local Jewish leaders, and, more dangerously and sinisterly, talk with political leaders including the Prime Minister, anti-Moslem and pro-Israeli fanatic, John Howard. The Jewish community has a veritable cottage industry of importing both Jewish and Gentile Islamophobic agitators. They are given a bully pulpit in Murdoch’s principle organ of aggressive propagandising, ‘The Australian’, (aka ‘The Fundament’) and regularly appear on local radio, spreading a message of pure hatred. Naturally enough, the local media is replete with home-grown propagandists, many Jewish, preaching antipathy to Moslems and agitating for war against Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas. And there is a coterie of Moslem Quislings trotted out to please their Masters by jumping through rhetorical hoops and preaching love of ‘The West’ and its famous dedication to ‘democracy’. Bias in the media is total- Palestinian voices are entirely absent, save recently when acolytes of the uber-Quisling Abbas have been given space to preach hatred of Hamas. Even Israeli voices for peace, B’tselem etc, are absent. On the other hand, every strain of Right-wing Israeli hate is present, even to the racist extremes where Palestinians and Arabs are represented as innately evil.When the role of local Jews in this unprecedented tsunami of hate-mongering is pointed out, if the opinion is not completely suppressed, the smear of anti-Semite is immediately mobilised. Even Jews who question Israel’s evil policies are no longer ‘self-hating Jews’. They too,now, are ‘anti-Semitic’. Naturally no other group in society is accorded the right to preach hatred of other groups, and the idea that Moslems would import agitators to preach odious theories of the innate evil of Jews or Judaism is inconceivable, and any attempt to do so would provoke a ferocious reaction. We must, I feel, realise the centrality of Israel and the bellicose and aggressive elements of overseas Jewish communities in the instigation of ‘Civilizational hatred’ worldwide. If not combated this vile Crusade, which has led to millions of deaths already, threatens millions more, and even, in a bitter irony, threatens the existence of the belligerent racist state that has spawned it.

  2. brian said on August 25th, 2007 at 5:44pm #

    Yes, ive met australian jews who claim that muslims are seeking to take over the country. At the time i heard that claim (1998 if i recal), i didnt realise it was a version of the Protocols of the Order of Zion….

  3. sk said on August 26th, 2007 at 6:51am #

    Here’s the lowdown on who’s angling to ‘take over Europe’ from the scholar who coined the phrase ‘Clash of Civilizations’. As Primo Levi put it, “Everyone is somebody’s Jew,” and the “Palestinians are Israel’s Jews.”

  4. Michael Kenny said on August 26th, 2007 at 8:47am #

    I think John Pilger is right to detect an odor of panic! The odd thing about the UCU boycott is that it has got very little attention in Europe, mainly because nobody gives a damn what university lecturers do, and nobody believes that many of those affected will actually take part. The thing has been hyped up out of all proportion in the US and in so doing, the Israel Lobby has shot itself in the foot!

    There are plenty of other examples of such panic. Here in Europe, the “street” doesn’t give a damn about Israel, Palestine, Iran, Iraq, Afgahnistan or any of the rest of it and just wants to be left alone. In particular, they do not want to be involved in anything that might bring terrorism down on their heads. Yet, the Israelis and US neocons keep trying to drag Europe into the fight and the more they do so , the more they antagonise people. The can’t not see that, but they persist, as if in their own minds, they were desperate and had nothing left to lose.

  5. jaime said on August 26th, 2007 at 8:47am #

    Ethnic cleansing of Palestine?
    Sorry, but the above bilge is just so much hysterical and antisemitic claptrap. Written and posted for total idiots to swallow.

  6. Espresso said on August 27th, 2007 at 9:43am #

    John Pilger,
    I”ve noticed more and more blogs in the U.S. being moderated seemingly exclusively by Pro Zionist ideologues. The Huffington Post which occasionally gets some anti-semitic drivel on some unmoderated threads (due to high posting volume) largely censures anyone who takes issue with, or articulates a differing opinion on any blog by a Zionist Commentator.

    They get some serious neo-con/zionist Commentators on there like Alan Dershowitz, etc.. and they’ll start calling people like Jimmy Carter an anti-semite, and if you post a respectfully articulate disagreement, they’ll censor it (remove it). This is so common now that if there’s a lot of zionist commentators on a given day I can get like 80% of all my comments censored (never saying anything vulgar, hateful, rude, etc.. mind you).

    When all is said and done you read all the comments they allowed and they are all in agreement or only in slight disagreement with the author. It paints this picture that all on the left who visit HuffPost are big Israel supporters. It is just intellectually dishonest.

  7. Mulga Mumblebrain said on August 28th, 2007 at 5:08pm #

    Precisely, Espresso. The same censorship has reduced the Guardian’s Comment is Free to a replica of Little Green Footballs. As Jaime and Brian neatly illustrate above, no argument is possible, or permissible. Total obeisance to Israel or you are peddling the Protocols or ‘anti-Semitic bilge and claptrap ‘.I think the mentality is part hatred and fearfulness from the Judeocide and part cultural arrogance. The local pro-Israelis, when not describing Palestinian children as ‘suicide spawn’, often peddle ‘research’ that proves the innate mental superiority of Ashkenazi Jews. The Sephardim, let alone the Ethiopian Jews are not accorded this distinction. It must be hard to live with the knowledge that, as Rabbi Kook the Elder said,’There is a greater difference between the soul of a Jew and a non-Jew than there is between the soul of a non-Jew and an animal’.

  8. hp said on August 30th, 2007 at 1:09pm #

    There you go again, Jaime. The antisemitic word like a pistol.
    Neither you nor Dershy, nor Bibi, noe Sharon, nor Ben-Gurion, nor Golda Meir have one drop of semitic blood in your pseudo Jewish bodies.

  9. jaime said on October 27th, 2007 at 5:33pm #

    “There you go again, Jaime. The antisemitic word like a pistol.
    Neither you nor Dershy, nor Bibi, noe Sharon, nor Ben-Gurion, nor Golda Meir have one drop of semitic blood in your pseudo Jewish bodies.”

    What breathtaking ignorance and bigotry!
    On the one hand I’m castigated and censored for speaking out as a perceived Jew, on the other this mental patient pronounces on my lineage without any knowledge whatsoever.