If one is serious about the "S" of BDS - sanctions, that is, penalties enacted by governments - one has to recognize that there is no prospect of any government in the world which has an economic relationship with Israel being ready to enact a penalty on Israel based on one-statism. South Africa and Europe recognize Israel - a member of the United Nations - within its 1967 borders. So there is no increased legitimacy for Israel based on such actions - South Africa and Europe already recognize Israel as "legitimate" within its 1967 borders, and there is little prospect of changing that in the future as far as anyone can see - even if we agreed that trying to change that would be is a good idea if it were plausible (which, personally, I am not at all convinced of.)
I don't agree at all with the claim that the settlement boycott is meaningless, and as evidence for the contrary view I would advance the fact that the Israeli government is quite hysterical about it, going so far as to effectively ban Israelis from advocating for it. The main campaign in the U.S. - the Ahava campaign - is a boycott of settlement products. The Methodists recently defeated a divestment resolution - that was focused on particular companies tied to the occupation, like Caterpillar - by a vote of two-to-one. On the other hand, they overwhelmingly endorsed boycotting settlement products. So, in terms of what one should care about in the U.S., what the South African government is proposing to do is something we can emulate. A boycott of Israel per se is a demand that we can do absolutely zero about politically in the U.S. It's pie in the sky. In Iran you could get a hearing. But since Iran doesn't have any economic relationship with Israel, it would be meaningless. Further, it should be recognized that the two-state solution is not just the position of Fatah, it's also the position of Hamas. Every election that takes place in the occupied territories is dominated by parties that support the two-state solution. 80% of Palestinians living under occupation supported the push for recognition of a Palestinian state at the UN. On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 6:19 PM, Joseph Catron <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 1:55 AM, Patrick Bond <[email protected]> wrote: > >> We've been having quite a good debate about this, in part because our >> university just joined BDS basically by accident. An article's nearly >> ready on it, will send tomorrow. > > > That's right! You're at U. KwaZulu-Natal. A lot of us in Gaza are very happy > with the recent developments there. I can't wait to read your insider's > account. > > My concern with settlement boycotts, of which I'm not a complete fan, is > that they can inadvertently legitimize the ol' colonial regime as a whole > (which is why we see liberal Zionists, from Gush Shalom to Peter Beinart, > supporting them). > > Settlement goods are a bit of a red herring anyway. Most West Bank > settlements function mainly as bedroom communities for '48, rather than > industrial zones. > > -- > "Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen > lytlað." > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > -- Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org [email protected] _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
