This piece by Raymond Deane, cultural officer of Ireland’s Palestine Solidarity Campaign, reposted from Irish Left Review, includes a useful discussion of how to apply the criteria for cultural boycott.
Image of the protest at Filmbase during “Israeli Film Days” courtesy of Broadsheet.ie.
Between 24-27 November 2011, the Government of Israel held “Israeli Film Days” at Filmbase in Temple Bar, Dublin’s “cultural quarter”. In advance of this event, the Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign (IPSC) requested Filmbase to reconsider its decision to host the festival:
“At a time when Irish peace activists have been illegally imprisoned in Israel after their humanitarian ship the MV Saoirse was hi-jacked in international waters by Israeli commandos, hosting these ‘Israeli Film Days’ sends out the worst possible message: that Filmbase is indifferent to its exploitation as a site of propaganda for the state that perpetrates such atrocities. To cancel the event at this point would… be perceived worldwide as an honourable gesture of solidarity with the oppressed Palestinian people who have called for an international cultural boycott of the Israeli state.”
The Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) also issued an “Open Letter to Filmbase“, expressing its surprise
“that a prominent Irish cultural institution would allow the Israeli embassy to carry out this audacious ‘Brand Israel’ activity on its premises hardly two weeks after Irish peace activists were illegally apprehended by the Israeli navy in international waters, humiliated, and imprisoned in Israel…”
These approaches were rejected by Filmbase, despite much dissension among its employees, not all of whom supported the decision to host the event.
Professor Norman Finkelstein stormed UK campuses in the week to November 11, lecturing to packed auditoriums in London, Leeds, Manchester, Birmingham and Nottingham on How to solve the Israel-Palestine conflict.
His main message was that since Israeli settlement, occupation and denial of rights to Palestinian refugees are all acknowledged as illegal under international law, the campaign on these points is as good as won.
Norman Finkelstein addresses boycott activists. Photo: Brian Robinson
He said that Tzipi Livni, when serving as Israel’s foreign minister, had declared:
“I’m a lawyer – and I’m against the law, international law in particular.”
She had good reason for saying that because under international law “Israel loses, on Jerusalem, on the West Bank and Gaza, on settlements and right of return for refugees,” said Finkelstein.
The relevance of this to the campaign for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) was teased out in discussion between Finkelstein and Professor Jonathan Rosenhead, chair of the British Committee for the Universities of Palestine (BRICUP) on Friday afternoon, Nov 11, at UCL.
BRICUP chair Jonathan Rosenhead at the BDS discussion. Photo: Brian Robinson
Rosenhead opened with a review of the history of boycott as a weapon available to the weak oppressed by the strong, as in Ireland in the 1880s and in South Africa in 1960s-90s.
He said boycotts targeting Israel, begun in 2004, combine “symbolic protest, material intervention and political action.” The overall aim was ending the Israeli system of oppression, as called for by Palestinian civil society.
Rosenhead said freedom of expression in academia was a vital principle, but it was not absolute and could conflict with a higher principle, such as freedom and self-determination for an oppressed people.
Finkelstein said he supported the BDS campaign as a legitimate and potentially effective tactic. But he locked horns with Rosenhead and many in the audience when he argued that to go beyond goals that were enshrined in international law was to lose the possibility of reaching a broad public.
If your target is all Israeli institutions and your goal is an amorphous “system of oppression”, he said, the campaign may be morally pure, but it will be politically useless – a sect.
“The public will want to know, you are asking us to boycott until when? Until the Occupation ends, as defined in international law, or until Israel ends? If the latter, you will have no possibility of reaching beyond the people in this room,” Finkelstein said.
From the audience, Naomi Foyle of British Writers in Support of Palestine (BWISP) referred to the principles laid down by the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI), setting out the aims of BDS based on international law and human rights and including “dismantling the Israeli system of apartheid”.
She argued that Israel fits the United Nations definition of apartheid and that far from this position distancing us from the public, explaining the many ways in which Israel behaves like an apartheid state resonates within huge numbers of people.
Frank Barat, coordinator of the Russell Tribunal on Palestine, read out the findings of the Tribunal session held last week in Johannesburg. The judgement said that Israel’s “rule over the Palestinian people, wherever they reside, collectively amounts to a single integrated regime of apartheid.”
Abe Hayeem, of Architects and Planners for Justice in Palestine, said the boycott campaign laid considerable stress on the legal arguments when taking its message to the public. ”But governments don’t uphold the law, so civil society has to pressure Israel to come to its senses,” Hayeem said.
Tony Greenstein, anti-Zionist blogger and founding member of J-BIG, wrote later that Finkelstein’s focus on international law and institutions was misplaced.
Analysing Finkelstein’s evening lecture, Greenstein said: “Not once in his speech . . . did Norman Finkelstein mention the word ‘Zionism’. It is as if Israel magically appeared. As if its behaviour towards Palestinians is some form of aberration. As if the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is out of character. And as if Israel, once it hands back all the 1967 territories, will become a normal state.”
“The real task ,” Greenstein wrote, “is to de-Zionist Israel and the creation of one unitary, secular and democratic Israel/Palestine.”
The full BDS discussion can be heard in an audio recording by Brian Robinson here and on video from InMinds here.
The BDS discussion took place as part of Finkelstein’s lecture tour organised by students at University College London, supported by the Palestinian Return Centre and Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods.
The tour was targeted by Zionists attempting to prevent Finkelstein’s trenchant pro-Palestinian message from reaching a wide audience.
University authorities in Manchester threatened to cancel his lecture there unless non-students were denied access, forcing the Action Palestine organisers to find an off campus venue at short notice.
University head of governance Martin Conway, responding to a letter of complaint from J-BIG, insisted that they were simply following protocols to safeguard “the safety and security of our students and visitors.”
He denied there had been any pressure on the administration, but Action Palestine said the Jewish Society had alleged that Jewish students could be in danger if an open meeting was held.
Finkelstein said such suggestions were absurd. ” I have spoken at Manchester on at least two previous occasions without any incident,” he said.
On the day the tour ended, the pro-Zionist weekly Jewish Chronicle filled its front page with a hysterical outburst alleging that Finkelstein was one of “a wave of hate speakers” on UK campuses.
But as anyone who attended any of his lectures or has read any of his works will know, his learned, critical and challenging analysis of Middle East history and politics illuminates an area be-fogged with pro-Israel bias.
Click here for Brian Robinson’s audio recording of Finkelstein’s lecture at the Logan Hall, Institute of Education, on Friday evening, November 11.
Finkelstein and Rosenhead will discuss the proposition:
The Palestinians having being denied justice for 63 years, those who support their rights must endorse their call for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS), including academic and cultural boycott of Israel.
After lecturing to packed houses in Leeds and Manchester on Monday and Tuesday, Finkelstein’s tour continues with dates in Birmingham and Nottingham before concluding in London on Friday.
The Irish Times has published a protest letter challenging UEFA’s decision to let Israel host the Under 21 finals in 2013 Irish Times.
The letter (appearing under the headline “Israel to host tournament”), mirrors one published in the UK Guardian a month ago, with the addition of prominent Irish names including that of 1976 Nobel Peace Prizewinner Mairead Maguire.
European football’s governing body has yet to reply to an appeal from Palestinian football clubs in June not to reward Israel for its persistent infringements of Palestinian rights.
Manchester University is facing growing protests after caving in to Zionist pressure and forcing students organising a speaking tour by Professor Norman Finkelstein to move his planned lecture off campus.
In a letter to university Head of Governance, Martin Conway, J-BIG said it was astonished “that a respected university should collude with Zionist attempts to suppress open discussion of Prof Finkelstein’s views on campus.”
Students from Manchester Action Palestine said the university management and Union “capitulated to pressure from JSOC [Jewish Society] to limit attendees of the event to students only, depriving the public of seeing one of the world’s foremost commentators on the Israel-Palestine conflict.”
JSOC members alleged that the safety of Jewish students would be endangered if the public were allowed in, even though they had made clear their own intention to attend and hold a picket. Administrators issued an ultimatum saying that the lecture would have to be closed to non-students or be cancelled. Action Palestine was therefore obliged to find a new location in the city.
Abe Hayeem, Chair of Architects & Planners for Justice in Palestine, told Conway he was “appalled to hear that Manchester University had created impossible conditions that would prevent Professor Norman Finkelstein from speaking at a meeting that was open to both students and the public.”
“Your action smacks entirely of bias, pre-emption and censorship that does not enhance the reputation of such an important University, by caving into pressure of a determined minority who wish to deny anyone presenting the realities of Israel and the situation in the Middle East,” Hayeem wrote.
Manchester Action Palestine is asking supporters to send protest letters to Conway (martin.conway@manchester.ac.uk) and to Pat Sponder (pat.sponder@manchester.ac.uk) Head of the Office of Student Support and Services.
Finkelstein’s lecture in Manchester on November 8 is one of several planned around the UK as part of a speaking tour organised by students from University College London, supported by Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods and the Palestinian Return Centre.
It will include lectures on the Israel Palestine conflict and a discussion in London on Friday November 11 with Jonathan Rosenhead, chair of the British Committee for the Universities of Palestine, which leads the campaign for academic and cultural boycott of Israel.
The Manchester lecture will now take place at the Friends Meeting House, 6 Mount Street, M2 5NS at 6 pm on November 8.
Other tour dates:
Leeds – 7 pm Monday November 7
University of Leeds, Rupert Beckett Lecture Theatre, Michael Sadler Building
Woodhouse Lane, LS2 9JT. Arrive early or reserve your place in advance irial@hotmail.co.uk
Nottingham – Wednesday November 9
University of Nottingham, Coates Auditorium, University Park Nottingham - Thursday Nov 10, 1pm-3pm open Q&A Tickets for both events from Students Union box office in Portland or telephone 07411 430873
Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods is supporting the Nov 7-11 tour of the UK by Professor Norman Finkelstein whose work straddles political theory, the Israel-Palestine conflict and American policy towards the Middle East.
He has authored six acclaimed books including Beyond Chutzpah: On the misuse of anti-Semitismand the abuse of history andThe Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the exploitation of Jewish suffering.
Finkelstein has been at the centre of a storm of controversy about academic freedom in the United States. In 2007 an award of tenure and promotion at the university of DePaul was overturned after enormous outside pressure from the Israel lobby.
The following year he was invited to lecture atCalifornia State University, Northridge, which then, resisting a vitriolic campaign targeting the university as well as Finkelstein himself, offered him a post. This was vetoed by the CSUN president despite testimonials from eminent scholars.
Khaled Abou El Fadl, Professor of Law at UCLA wrote:
“To describe Professor Finkelstein as a towering intellectual figure—masterful, brilliant, meticulously methodical, precise, eloquent, and exceedingly gracious and polite—does not begin to describe him as a writer and lecturer. . .”
Norman Finkelstein’s tour of five UK cities November 7-11 is supported by J-BIG and the Palestinian Return Centre
DISCUSSION ON BOYCOTT, DIVESTMENT AND SANCTIONS
In addition to the lectures advertised on the flier, Prof Finkelstein will be in discussion with Prof. Jonathan Rosenhead, chair of the British Committee for the Universities of Palestine (BRICUP), at University College London at 2 pm on Friday November 11. They will consider the following proposition:
The Palestinians having being denied justice for 63 years, those who support their rights must endorse their call for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS), including academic and cultural boycott of Israel.
Pitch invasions by French protesters and a “Love Football, Hate Apartheid” action in Ireland last week expressed growing outrage at UEFA’s decision to let Israel host the Under 21 football final in 2013.
Photo: Agence-France Presse
European football’s governing body has yet to reply to an appeal from Palestinian football clubs in June not to reward Israel for its persistent infringements of Palestinian rights. This is despite a deluge of protest messages to UEFA president Michel Platini and a direct challenge from prominent Europeans published in a UK national newspaper.
French protesters invaded the pitch five times when Israel’s national women’s team played at Troyes on October 26. Irish campaigners used leaflets and banners to get their message across at another women’s European Cup qualifier at Tallaght stadium on October 22.
Photo: Irish PSC
Martin O’Quigley of the Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign said: “Some say that sport and politics should not mix, however we say that sport and racism should never mix.”
He drew a comparison with the sporting boycott against South Africa, which was one of the most effective tools employed in ostracising that state and revealing to the world its Apartheid regime and disregard for human rights.
O’Quigley said that while Israeli teams can travel and play freely, Israeli authorities regularly refuse visas to Palestinian female and male footballers alike.
According to Stephane Mahon, an organiser for the French campaigning group EuroPalestine, five girls and boys wearing green boycott Israel T-shirts or carrying Palestinian flags ran onto the pitch during the second half of the France-Israel match at Troyes. The last young woman suffered a cracked rib while being roughly handled by ground staff.
This is not shown on the video because the camera operator and other activists were ejected from the ground while the protest was going on.
Go to the BDS website for information on how to support the Red Card campaign.
The Red Card Israeli Apartheid campaign is launching a new phase of its activities aimed at persuading UEFA, football’s European governing body, not to grant Israel the privilege of hosting the Under-21 competition in 2013.
Following publication in the Guardian newspaper of the letter below, signed by several prominent Europeans, we are now working with activists across the continent to have the letter more widely published and to build pressure on the football authorities to respond to the Palestinian appeal.
So far not one word of acknowledgement has been received from UEFA for the letter they received back in June from representative Gazan sporting organisations.
Please tweet, Facebook, post and blog in order to pile the pressure on UEFA chief Michel Platini to get this decision reversed.
Those who lead European football must respond to an appeal from Palestinians dismayed at the prospect of Israel hosting Uefa’s under-21 tournament in 2013. A state that uses military might to hold sway over land it illegally occupies and exploits, flouts international law and ignores UN resolutions surely forfeits the right to be treated as a member of the community of nations. But western powers continue to embrace Israel as an ally.
During the 2011 under-21 tournament in Denmark in June, 42 Gazan football clubs, backed by many sporting bodies, wrote to Uefa president Michel Platini calling on his organisation not “to reward Israel for its violent repression of Palestinian rights”.
We ask Uefa to respond positively to this plea.
Stephane Hesseldiplomat
Ken Loachfilmmaker
Michael Mansfieldbarrister
Miriam Margolyesactor
Nurit PeledSakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought joint winner 2001
John Pilgerjournalist and filmmaker,
Ahdaf Soueifnovelist and political and cultural commentator
Jean Ziegler vice-president, advisory committee of the UN human rights council
BRICUP calls on ‘music-lovers of conscience’ to boycott the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra
J-BIG endorses this statement from the British Committee for the Universities of Palestine protesting the scheduled appearance of the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra at the BBC Proms in London on September 1.
Add your voice by sending protest emails to Proms Director Roger Wright c/o his assistant: yvette.pusey@bbc.co.uk
Hard copy letters to:
Roger Wright,
Controller BBC Radio 3
Director BBC Proms,
Broadcasting House,
Portland Place
London W1B 1DJ
PRESS RELEASE 7th August 2011
BRICUP, the organisation promoting academic and cultural boycott of Israel within the UK, today called on promenaders to shun the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra when it plays at the Royal Albert Hall on 1st September.
BRICUP was responding to the open letter sent to the Proms organisers on July 18th by PACBI, its Palestinian counterpart. PACBI referred to “the IPO’s complicity in whitewashing Israel’s persistent violations of international law and human rights”, mentioning specifically the IPO’s services to the Israeli army dating back to the ethnic cleansing of the Nakba in 1948 and the occupations of 1967, and continuing up to the present day: “the IPO proudly announces its partnership with the army under a scheme whereby special concerts for Israeli soldiers are organized at their army outposts”. On behalf of the leading Palestinian musical and cultural organisations, PACBI called on the BBC to withdraw its invitation to the IPO.
BRICUP wrote its own letter to Roger Wright, Director of the Proms, on 31st July, attaching a copy of PACBI’s Open Letter for good measure. In it BRICUP’s chair, Professor Jonathan Rosenhead, wrote: “By inviting the IPO, a pillar of the Israeli state system and of its cultural propaganda campaign, you provide the Israeli government, perpetrator of the Cast Lead invasion of Gaza and of so many other violations of international law and of human rights, with the support that they crave. Cancel the concert!”
Like PACBI, BRICUP has received no reply from the BBC.
“This is no surprise to anyone who knows what the BBC is like regarding Palestine”, said Dr. Sue Blackwell, one of 19 people who pursued an appeal to the BBC Trust concerning bias in the Panorama programme about the Israeli assault on the Mavi Marmara. “The BBC would not even screen the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal for civilians in Gaza who had had their homes and schools bombed in Operation Cast Lead, and they recently bleeped the word ‘Palestine’ out of a rap performance by Mic Righteous.”
“We can only assume they are ignoring us” said BRICUP’s Chris Burns-Cox. “They are mistaken if they think we will just go away. We are now calling on all music-lovers of conscience to boycott this Prom, and to call on the BBC to cancel it. We will be picketing and leafleting outside the Royal Albert Hall on 1st September”.
Prof. Rosenhead said: “For years now the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs has been promoting ‘Brand Israel’, a deliberate PR campaign to divert people’s gaze from what they are doing to Palestinians. The idea is to craft a new image by focusing on Israel’s cultural and scientific achievements. This Prom concert by the Israeli Philharmonic Orchestra is part of the Brand Israel campaign.”
Notes for Editors
1. Details of the Prom appear on the BBC website here:
BBC Proms: Cancel Israel Philharmonic Orchestra Invitation
4. BRICUP’s letter to Roger Wright:
July 31 2011
Roger Wright,
Controller BBC Radio 3
Director BBC Proms,
Broadcasting House,
Portland Place
London
W1B 1DJ
Dear Roger Wright
Israel Philharmonic at the Proms
You may already be aware of the call from the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel for the invitation to the Israeli Philharmonic Orchestra to perform at this year’s Proms season to be cancelled. In case you have not, I attach a copy of their Open Letter.
I shall not repeat here the arguments in that letter, signed by an impressive array of Palestinian cultural organisations. They are supported also by British organizations concerned to see justice for Palestinians. Boycott is a non-violent way, requested by Palestinian civil society, to bring the pressure of world civil society to bear on the Israeli public and government. By inviting the IPO, a pillar of the Israeli state system and of its cultural propaganda campaign, you provide the Israeli government, perpetrator of the Cast Lead invasion of Gaza and of so many other violations of international law and of human rights, with the support that they crave.
This piece by Miri Weingarten, published by Index on Censorship, brings home the full enormity of Israel’s undemocratic new legislation
The “Law for Prevention of Damage to the State of Israel through Boycott – 2011″ was approved on Monday 11 July by a majority of 47 to 38 Members of the Israeli parliament, the Knesset.
The law prohibits the public promotion of boycott by Israeli citizens and organisations, and, in some cases, agreement to participate in a boycott. It forbids not only a boycott of Israeli institutions but also of the illegal Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT).
The wording of the law is designed specifically to prohibit and penalise political boycott of Israel or of the settlements in the West Bank, rather than other types of boycotts, such as consumer boycotts related to pricing of products.
In private law, the law defines boycott as a new type of “civil wrong” or tort. It will enable settlers or other parties targeted by boycotts to sue anyone who calls for boycott, and the court may award compensation including punitive damages, even if no actual damage is caused to the boycotted parties. For example, if an Israeli actor publicly calls on others not to perform in a theatre in the Israeli settlement of Ariel, the theatre can sue that actor for a minimum sum of £5,000 in damages, which can be awarded even if no such damage was caused.
In public law, the law will revoke tax exemptions and other legal rights and benefits from Israeli organisations and charities, as well as academic, cultural and scientific institutions which receive any state support, if they engage in boycott. For example, if a theatre calls for boycott of settlement theatres, its right to state funding or grants can be revoked. As a result of this threat, theatres may limit the ability of their employees to speak out, for fear of losing funding and benefits. In addition, if a human rights organisation publishes information regarding settlements, and that information is used by others as a basis for boycott, that organisation or charity is liable to have its tax exemptions revoked, as well as being exposed to private compensation suits.
Israeli businesses and industries will also be penalised, if they work with the Palestinian Authority and Palestinian companies and accept their conditions that exclude trade with businesses that also trade with settlements. A recent example of this is the plan to build the new Palestinian city of Rawabi. Israeli contractors wishing to participate have been asked by Palestinians to refrain from also doing business with settlements. The law seeks to penalise such contractors and may in effect deter Israeli businesses from trading with Palestinian businesses more generally.
Israeli human rights organisations see the law as a double attack:
1. On democratic values and the rule of law — because it restricts freedom of expression and association and threatens Human Rights Defenders. Boycotts, even if unpopular as a tactic, are a non-violent and legitimate form of public protest.
2. On respect for international law and the chances for peace — because for the first time it provides official legal protection for the illegal settlement project in the West Bank, and conflates the status of the state of Israel with that of the settlements.
Prior to the vote, Israel’s Advocate General declared the bill to be ‘borderline unconstitutional’. The legal advisor to the Knesset also issued a harsh critique of the bill, defining it as illegal.
Following the passing of the law, an intense public debate broke out in Israeli media and in the Knesset. A poll held on behalf of Israel’s Knesset TV Channel immediately after the vote showed that 52 per cent of Israelis support the law, while 31 per cent oppose it , but following this there have been numerous calls of opposition from civil society. Israeli human rights group Physicians for Human Rights-Israel called for civil disobedience in the face of the law, while a Facebook page opened by activist group Peace Now, initiating a consumer boycott of settlement products in defiance of the law gathered 6000 supporters within two days. Most Israeli newspapers have come down clearly against the law, and a Member of Knesset from the Israeli opposition party Kadima (which initially participated in the drafting of the bill, but later withdrew its support) has tabled a proposal to revoke the law.
Immediately after the vote a petition was submitted to Israel’s High Court of Justice by Israeli peace group Gush Shalom, challenging the compatibility of the bill with constitutional principles. A second petition is currently being prepared by two leading Israeli human rights organisations, on behalf of other human rights groups as well as organisations most liable to be affected directly by the law.
Two days after the law was passed, the EU’s foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton responded to it, telling press that she was ‘concerned about the effect that this legislation may have on the freedom of Israeli citizens and organizations to express non-violent political opinions’.
Despite abstaining from the vote Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has voiced support for the law. In a debate in the Knesset he said the bill reflects Israeli democracy. “What stains (Israel’s) image are those savage and irresponsible attacks on a democracy’s attempt to draw a line between what is acceptable and what is not,” he said.
The anti-boycott law is the latest in a string of aggressive legislation by Israel’s Knesset, whose essence is the attempt to restrict political dissent and human rights-based criticism of Israeli policies toward Palestinians. On Wednesday 25 July, the Knesset is set to vote on a different initiative, put forward by FM Avigdor Liebermann’s party Israel Beitenu (Israel Our Home), to establish a parliamentary commission of inquiry that will investigate the activities and funding of left-wing groups and human rights organisations.
