Boycott, Divest, Sanction BDS on behalf of Palestine troubles me. I know this is a worldwide effort and many claims of success have been extolled. Israel and its allies have made numerous attempts to block BDS, discredit any such activity and even outlaw its adoption.
Boycotting is nothing new and clearly it can be very effective. There can be absolutely no doubt that preventing the supply of weaponry or other components of aggression such as intelligence gathering and surveillance etc would be effective against Israel. Israeli strategists make it clear, in their expressed view that the rather convenient excuse ‘attack is the best method of defense’ is a necessity for their survival.
It would be reasonable to suppose that the procurement of such weaponry is based on overall cost, the effectiveness and compliance with integrated systems. Therefor, restricting or blocking that supply would impair or otherwise negatively impact their offensive capability. Clearly, this would be effective.
Of course, we have a great benchmark in terms of boycotting as means to oppose apartheid and worse. We all know how effectively apartheid in South Africa was opposed and overwhelmed. Boycott was clearly a key component, but was it the argument winner?
That is the question I will try to answer. This is an extremely important topic because the situation in Palestine and especially Gaza has already reached such extremes as to render comparison with South Africa almost trivial. Of course this raises the stakes enormously in terms of finding an effective solution.
Perhaps my title should have read ‘the Pros or Cons’. And off we go ….
A professional boxer will often adopt a strategy of feigning the opponents effectiveness to encourage him (could be her) into continuing to do more of the same. In fact this is not hurting the boxer as much as it is wearing out the opponent. We must be very careful that we are not being fooled and distracted away from far more effective tactics. Remember the motto of Mossad, ‘we will use 1000 deceptions to wage war!’
Now a piece of simple business nouse. A manufacturer sells a mass product. How much does the manufacturer produce is a key question. Just the right amount is the easy answer, but how much is that. Well, first they need to understand the size and potential of their market. If you produce more than your market share you carry the cost of over production or you must compete with yourself to sell your product at a lower margin. That means that you must produce LESS than your market share. The benefit of this rather obvious decision is that if you lose a customer there are other customers within your target market that enable you to mitigate your losses. Furthermore, over-production will lower the investment market perception of your company that can have a damaging downward spiral. For those reasons, boycotting Israeli products may not have the affect or the full affect hoped for.
In South Africa, Nelson Mandela recognised the somewhat futility of a South African product boycott because it was hurting the very people it aimed to protect. If a company loses business it rarely lays off the Managing Director or other senior people. They spend their time resizing the company, in other words making people redundant. In Israel this has a further and potentially game changing impact. Ordinary Jewish people who may sympathise with the plight of the Palestinian people. However, that may change dramatically if they lose their job and livelihood as a consequence of a product boycott affecting their employer. These may be the same people who may have otherwise voted against the Likud Party; and who may even switch alliance to protect their own interests and that of their family.
There has to be a serious concern that Israel may be ‘boxing clever’ with their BDS protestations.
Business rivals who invest in serious competitive rivalry will have a clear understanding of what they are doing, they will know exactly what success looks like and they will have monitors and measures in places to assess effectiveness on an ongoing basis. A wise business will withdraw from a competitive strategy long before it becomes an own goal and they will switch to another of their pre-planned mitigating strategies for competitiveness.
The Palestinian BDS strategy looks very ‘poke and hope’. Does anybody seriously believe that forcing Jaffa to close their doors or lay off staff will cause Israel to abandon or divert them from their Accession Strategy in Palestine and who knows, beyond. Israel has it’s eye on a much, much, much bigger prize; perhaps domination of the Middle East?
Clearly, certain boycotts are very effective. South Africa demonstrated the power and mass media attention from music festivals and the impact of sporting embargoes. This makes good Press because it involves very large communities of people in attendance or otherwise. Certainly, this can have an impact at the voting booths. Beyond that I believe the effectiveness of a boycott becomes more doubtful and perhaps counter productive. Nevertheless, effective boycotting can form part of a multi faceted or compound approach.
The most obvious power of a compound approach is to spread the opposition much thinner. On one hand, Medical Aid for Palestine MAP is a highly effective and respected support organisation. That said, prevention is always better than cure, both in terms of avoiding human suffering and the material costs of remedial action.
In the end, people must talk their way to peace. However, the present regime in Israel are highly unlikely to want to talk as they are emboldened by the US and UK, two war mongering nations from the present and the past. However, the talking must eventually take place, but before that, the conditions must be achieved that facilitate the talk.
The most obvious resolution to stop the conflict may come from within Israel itself. When the voting public become aware of a growing and global groundswell of opinion; they have the power of the ballot box to defeat the Likud party. A substantial effort from world groups to identify and embrace, guide, and support an effort to oust Netanyahu for, hopefully, a more moderate, progressive non-Zionist leader. This would be a game changer. This may also herald reconciliation but also justice for those who have flaunted international law. These actions often serve to reinforce reconciliation and future peace.
Breaking the popular high ground enjoyed by Israel may come as a result of the removal of Donald Trump, especially if people in the US feel he has become a puppet of Netanyahu. However, there may be an opportunity for ‘death by 1000 small cuts’ that signals a reversal of fortune for Zionism. There is a common held belief even amongst some intellectual Jewish anti-Zionists that the trick of silencing critics through claims of antisemitism may be a weakness . As they manipulate the media and minds of the people into acceptance of antisemitism as a crime in itself, if a Court sets a precedence that it is actually a form of Hate Crime with no more weight than homophobia or Islamophobia etc this would be a massive blow to their credibility.
On the evening of 16 Oct 2018 on national news the BBC reported in very substantial rise, cc 40% on Hate Crime this year. They cited a number of examples where crimes were committed against the Islamic community. By BBC standards this was a bit of an own goal because it made the point crystal clear that a crime committed based on Islamophobia is Hate Crime – thus making the important point that a crime based on antisemitism is also a Hate Crime. Put another way, antisemitism in itself is not a crime but when it is the basis of a crime the crime is one of Hate Crime.
THIS CONTRADICTS THE NARRATIVE OF ZIONISTS, CERTAIN JEWISH PEOPLE AND THEIR SUPPORTERS WHO WOULD HAVE US BELIEVE THAT HOLDING A PARTICULAR OPINION OR VIEWPOINT IS A CRIME
A final example could set another vital precedent. Israel clearly believes they have supremacy in the Middle East as a nuclear power. However, no country has ever been able to establish military dominance through nuclear power, based on the reality of ‘mutually assured self destruction’. As a major nuclear power, the UK has been just as vulnerable to terrorist attacks as any other country regardless of the nuclear status or perhaps despite their nuclear status. In the event of a country bringing vital non military aid to Gaza by sea but supported by a warship escort, it is highly unlikely that Israel would attempt an attack they must surely lose. If for example that country was Norway, certainly the NET richest country on earth who have sent humanitarian aid to Gaza. Should the repeat this exercise with a naval escort the have a very substantial navy [read about the Norwegian Navy]This, if it ever occurred would set a vital precedence.
These are just a few examples of actions that could be considered as pressure points. There will be very many others that can be teased out through the correct focus and imagination.
1 comment for “BDS the Pros and Cons”