First, Boycott from Within, the Israeli group most targeted by the law issued a statement in defiance.

And here’s the Coalition of Women for Peace, whose video campaign targeted the law before it passed.

Orly Noy from "We Will Still Resist Campaign"

A new law passed July 11 in the Israeli Knesset. The law seriously harms freedom of expression and freedom of association, and is expected to protect the illegal West Bank settlements in Israeli law, by penalizing their opponents.
Hours before the vote, Eyal Yanon, the legal advisor of the Knesset, released a legal opinion criticizing the law as “bordering illegality and perhaps beyond”. He stated the the law clearly violates the freedom of expression in Israel. This argument apparently was not convincing for the 47 MKs who voted for the bill, to 38 who objected.

The ‘Law for Prevention of Damage to the State of Israel through Boycott – 2011′ 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. 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.

The law will revoke tax exemptions and other legal rights from Israeli activists, organisations and institutions if they “engage in boycott”. This means that peace and human rights organisations “engaged in boycott” will not be able to receive funding from the EU and other public institutions.
Israeli businesses and industries will also be penalised by the law, if they work with the Palestinian Authority and Palestinian companies and accept their conditions that exclude trade with businesses that also trade with settlements.

In Israel, as well as in the rest of the world there is extensive use of boycott as a means to achieving social and consumer ends. The new law is targeting only a very specific form of calls to boycott, of groups and movements of the opposition, who resist the occupation. As such, this law tramples upon the civil rights of a political minority and has a “chilling effect” on civil society.

In addition to extensive mobilization of civil society and international community in objection to this bill, it was met with harsh criticism from government offices, including the attorney’s office who called it borderline unconstitutional). Several MKs from the coalition who previously signed on the bill, later withdrew their support.

Journalist Mya Guarnieri reminds us  in Huffington Post that the alarm for Israeli democracy should have been wrung long ago.

Finally, a new documentary about the military “justice” system that has always made Palestinian protest illegal

Sorry Video clip taken down at request of producers, was not a final cut.

“Boycott Bill” update, June 27, 2011

A new article was introduced in the Knesset committee hearing today denying public and non-profit tax status to organizations who “call for boycott.’ Knesset committee approved bill including new article for final vote. Members of Kadima party who supported the bill withdrew their support. The bill was heavily criticized by government officials present at the hearing

Highlights from today’s hearing:

Eilat Maoz, CWP, to committee members:
“We are honored to inform you that even if you pass the bill, we will continue calling on Israelis to boycott the occupation”

MK Taleb Assana: ”What about the fact that the bill breaches international law creating de Jure unification of Israel and the OPT?”

MK David Rotem (Chairman of Knesset Committee): “International Law is none of my interest”

MK Yohanan Plesner (Kadima): “{eople who advance this delirious bill are mindless about the efforts to maintain Israel’s position in the world. You are robbing Israel of its greatest PR asset, its democracy.”

State’s Attorney’s office: “The bill is shaky and borders illegality”

Foreign Office representative: “The bill might cause serious diplomatic damage and encourage boycotts”

Background:

The bill aims at preventing citizens of Israel from protesting against the occupation by means of initiating or calling for a boycott. It passed first reading in the Knesset plenum on March 7, 2011 and has been deliberated today in preparation for a final vote. The bill defines a call for boycott as a tort, for which the court may rule compensation without obligation to prove damage. The bill further authorizes the Minister of Finance to limit the participation of companies that have committed themselves not to work in illegal settlements in the OPT in state tenders. The bill is one of the most dangerous anti-democratic laws promoted in this current Knesset. It criminalizes non-violent, legal and legitimate means to promote social and political aims that are protected in civil rights of freedom of expression, opinion and assembly. Leading civil society organizations have joined CWP’s campaign against the bill.

Coalition of Women for Peace: “Right to Resist” Campaign

CWP was present at the Knesset hearing and sent live twitter and facebook updates as part of its campaign against the bill. CWP is now launching the second phase of the “Right to Resist” campaign. The campaign consists of four videos starring some of Israel’s popular artists and cultural figures: singer-songwriter Rona Kenan, filmmakers Eitan Fox and Gal Ochovsky, the poet Meit Wizeltir, actress Einat Weizman, and cultural figure Muhammed Jabali.

Follow our campaign on twitter and facebook

OMAR BARGHOUTI: It’s very hard to say who killed him, because no Palestinian group or individual had any interest in killing him. I mean, any patriotic Palestinian lost Juliano, because Juliano did a great service to the people of Jenin, especially the refugee camp, and on the front of cultural resistance. When I talked about nonviolent popular resistance, people forget that Palestinians have been resisting Israel’s occupation and apartheid in many forms, including culture—dance, music, poetry, theater and so on. And Juliano was really one of the people at the forefront of that cultural resistance.

This is the promo for a series of films by other celebrities that will follow it.

On Tuesday, I posted about a free documentary screening. I then edited that post when I learned that the film received Israeli government funding. I provided the disclaimer for folks who are observing the full cultural boycott of Israel, (which my sponsor Jewish Voice for Peace is not). However, it turns out that the actual call for cultural boycott does not demand the boycott of films simply for receiving government funding, only those that are used to promote the government in some way.  Many thanks to the readers who pointed out both the funding and the actual call (as well as the fact that I originally refereed to the women soldiers as refusers when in fact they had served.) All in all, a good lesson in what is and isn’t the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement. Here’s the text from the Palestinian Campaign for the  Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) explaining the criteria for applying the boycott.

(1) Cultural product is commissioned by an official Israeli body

All cultural products commissioned by an official Israeli body (e.g., government ministry, municipality, embassy, consulate, state or other public film fund, etc.) deserve to be boycotted on institutional grounds, as they are commissioned and thus funded by the Israeli state — or any of its complicit institutions — specifically to help the state’s propaganda or “rebranding” efforts aimed at diluting, justifying, whitewashing or otherwise diverting attention from the Israeli occupation and other violations of Palestinian rights and international law.  However, this level of explicit complicity is difficult to ascertain quite often, as information on such direct commissioning may not be readily available or may even be intentionally concealed.

(2) Product is funded by an official Israeli body, but not commissioned (no political strings)

The term “political strings” here specifically refers to those conditions that obligate a fund recipient to directly or indirectly serve the Israeli government’s “rebranding” or propaganda efforts.  Products funded by official Israeli bodies — as defined in category (1) above — but not commissioned, therefore not attached to any political strings, are not per se subject to boycott.  Individual cultural products that receive state funding as part of the individual cultural worker’s entitlement as a tax-paying citizen, without her/him being bound to serve the state’s political and PR interests, are not boycottable, according to the PACBI criteria. Accepting such political strings, on the other hand, would clearly turn the cultural product or event into a form of complicity, by contributing to Israel’s efforts to whitewash or obscure its colonial and apartheid reality, and would render it boycottable, as a result.

While an individual’s freedom of expression, particularly artistic expression, should be fully and consistently respected in this context, an individual artist, filmmaker, writer, etc., Israeli or not, cannot be exempt from being subject to boycotts that conscientious citizens around the world (beyond the scope of the PACBI boycott criteria) may call for in response to what is widely perceived as a particularly offensive act or statement by the cultural worker in question (such as direct or indirect incitement to violence; justification — an indirect form of advocacy — of war crimes and other grave violations of international law; racial slurs; actual participation in human rights violations; etc.).  At this level, Israeli cultural workers should not be automatically exempted from due criticism or any lawful form of protest, including boycott; they should be treated like all other offenders in the same category, not better or worse.

And a bright and liberating Hanukkah to all who observe!

Here’s a packet of resources for the holiday from Jewish Voice for Peace’s new rabbinical council.

I am proud to note that Emily Schaeffer’s blog post on the BDS movement was linked to in Bradley Burston’s recent column. I have noted Burston’s shift in one of my first blog posts; it makes me happy that we are now part of his evolving thinking and the broader opinion shift that represents.

To  celebrate, here’s a video clip I have been meaning to post: Jewish Israelis protesting for Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) at the Cape Town Opera’s Porgy and Bess. A couple of things that are so exciting about this: the performance is great!  And it’s not Lady Gaga, who I love but was getting a bit overdone. It is well-targeted given the strong message asking, of all people, South African actors coming to Israel to perform, of all operas, an opera about racial segregation in, of all places, the United States!  Finally,it shows the very real relationships being built up between global activists around BDS. Definitely the spirit in which this blog was founded.

Israel is being targeted for its violations of international law and failure to meet standards of equality, non-discrimination and human rights in the occupied territories as well as within Israel. There are many countries that violate the same or similar norms, and should the oppressed populations in those countries call for the international community to impose BDS on the governments controlling them, then much of the same Israeli and international community that has decided to heed the Palestinian call for BDS against Israel would follow their lead as well.

Unfortunately, however, there are a lot of misconceptions about the Palestinian BDS call. The aim of the call is to target the Israeli government and entities that operate on its behalf or with its support. So, for instance, if enough people around the world spread the truth about the beauty products corporation Ahava’s unlawful practices, then perhaps Ahava will be forced to end its operations in a settlement in occupied territory and stop plundering natural resources from that territory — all of which are done in contravention of international law and with the financial, legal and logistical support of the Israeli government. If enough major investors divest from corporations like Caterpillar for its provision of D9 bulldozers that raze homes and injure civilians, or Motorola for its provision of security and surveillance equipment and services that are key in maintaining the oppressive occupation, or the dozens of banks that provide loans for settlement construction, then perhaps these corporations will call on the Israeli government to change its practices in order to preserve their profits. If enough academics are called out for their affiliation with Israeli universities that are major players in research and development for the security industry and military activities in the West Bank, Gaza and beyond, then perhaps they will call on their universities to “divest” their time and energy from the occupation and “invest” more in healthy debate about how to promote peace, justice and human rights both within Israel and under occupation. The potential damage to profits, to images, and to feelings is real, but it is intended to be short-term — and moreover, it is incomparable to the damage that has been done and continues to be done to those who suffer from Israel’s policies and practices. In other words, “a small price to pay.” And much to gain. For everyone involved.

And in fact, it’s already happening. More and more corporations (including Veolia, Caterpillar and Africa-Israel) have withdrawn businesses involved in violating international law in the occupied territories, and artists and authors (including the Pixies, Elvis Costello, Annie Lennox, Sarah Shulman, Gil Scott-Heron, and Naomi Klein) have expressed their solidarity with the Palestinian BDS call by not performing in Israel for profit until Israel upholds international law.

In the meantime, these grassroots campaigns are an excellent means of raising awareness about the reality on the ground for Arab, Palestinian and Bedouin communities within Israel (against whom Israeli law discriminates in over 30 laws and numerous policies, nevermind the overt cultural exclusion they experience) and in the occupied territories, where rights to land, movement, family unification, education and protection from violence and property destruction (to name but a few) are regularly violated. No one wants to see the Pixies, Elvis Costello and the Alvin Ailey dance company perform in her home city more than I do. But when they cancel their performances — or are simply asked to — questions about why (and even anger and resentment toward the artists and the BDS call) spur essential discussions about Israel’s unjust actions.

But unfortunately, even BDS supporters often confuse the issues, boycotting anything and anyone associated with Israel. These kinds of sweeping boycotts are often counterproductive and spoil the very simple, strong message of the BDS movement, which calls for Israel to observe international law. For instance, the Israeli baker in downtown NYC should not be boycotted just because his country of origin is Israel (unless the bakery is somehow Israeli government supported, which seems quite unlikely). The Jewish klezmer band in Toronto should not be boycotted simply because its members may (or may not) be Zionists, unless the performance is sponsored by the Israeli Ministry of Culture. The Israeli filmmaker whose film is featured in a Portland Israeli-Palestinian film festival should not be asked to withdraw from the festival if his film was funded by non-Israeli official sources.

Just because Israel and the Zionist movement have long encouraged every Jew and Israeli across the globe to stand with Israel no matter what it does, and to want a state that unapologetically grants preference and privilege to Jews at the expense of others, does not mean that every Jew and Israeli worldwide follows suit. And boycotting people based on their origin is a form of the same kind of unjust discrimination that the BDS movement seeks to end.

At the same time, just because a person supports BDS and aspires for major change in Israel does not mean that said person cannot love a million and a half aspects about the life, culture, landscape and even politics of Israel today and historically. Nor does it mean that Israelis need to boycott themselves (something that is neither possible nor part of the Palestinian call). The only thing that is black and white in the BDS movement is that the call will remain in effect until Israel — with a lot of help from its friends — ceases to violate international humanitarian and human rights law.

This confusion must be straightened out in order for the simple and strong message of BDS to be heard and for its goals to be reached sooner than later. In that same spirit, just as debate and critique surrounding Israel are healthy and important (and do not equate anti-Semitism), I would encourage anyone who wants to see positive change in the region but is critical or skeptical or dubious regarding the BDS movement not to shun it or feel alienated by it — but to engage in the debate around it.

There’s more than one way to advocate for justice and equality in Israel/Palestine, and BDS is only one strategy. But of the many possibilities, wouldn’t we all prefer those, like BDS, that are non-violent, bottom-up, of the people and for the people, and that have a simple and just goal? After all, aren’t critics of the Palestinian cause constantly asking where the non-violent movement is? Well, here is just one example of where you can find it (among others, such as the Popular Struggle Coordinating Committee whose work is often mentioned on this blog). And so I would just ask those who oppose BDS, but truly believe in justice and equality over profits and oppression: what are they afraid of — or what they are defending?

Iff you saw my credit at the end of JVP Executive Director (and Forward 50 honoree!)  Rebecca Vilkomerson’s piece, or if you have read any of my own work, it should be no surprise where my sympathies lie. The surprises are only that the New Israel Fund managed to make an anti-BDS case without the use of epithets or smears. This is not so surprising when you consider the record of the New Israel Fund, who we have extolled several time on these pages. But it is sadly the exception among Jewish organizations when discussing BDS, so much so that BDS supporters in Olympia felt compelled to issue an open letter to their opponents asking them to refrain from such tactics.

As for the New Israel Fund’s actual arguments I am, unsurprisingly, less impressed. While the invest in Peace initiatives are perhaps worthy on their own terms, it is hard to see how they will overturn the juggernaut that is the Israeli land grab. And then there’s this curious conclusion:

Not a Dead Armadillo

Recently, an NIF board member was invited to speak at a panel in a community whose food co-op was considering a boycott of all Israeli products. Literally positioned between Stand With Us and Code Pink, she described our work and the alternatives to global BDS offered by the New Israel Fund and other pro-Israel, progressive organizations. At the end of the night, she was literally embraced by several audience members, who were urgently looking for ways to live their progressive values without shunning Israel as a pariah state, beyond redemption.

While it is nice that their supporters hugged them for providing a “moderate” alternative, New Israel Fund owes its supporters, of which I am one, a program that is capable of actually achieving its goals. New Israel Fund’s grantees are the best hope for Israeli democracy, but without an internationally engaged BDS movement they are badly outgunned in a quite literal fashion. I hope that New Israel Fund will come to see that, but I welcome being friendly adversaries with them on this question. If only all groups were engaged in sucha  good faith effort to determine the most ethical and effective way to support freedom and equality in Israel-Palestine.

You could already have a quite a film festival with the stars supporting the Ariel settlement boycott. Now one of my favorite directors Mike Leigh, has refused to come to Israel at all. On the same weekend that I heard JVP advisory board member Udi Aloni speak about artists who let themselves be used by the government versus those who don’t, Leigh gives us a good example.  He had already refused to come since 1990, but was about to make an exception when the loyatly oath came up for a vote.

British director Mike Leigh has canceled his scheduled visit to Israel after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s cabinet approved a controversial amendment to the Citizenship Law last week requiring non-Jews to pledge allegiance to Israel as a “Jewish and democratic state.”

Leigh, who last visited Israel in 1990 and has since stayed away to protest Israeli policy, was due to arrive on November 20 for a one-week stay as a guest of the Sam Spiegel Film and Television School in Jerusalem. He was scheduled to lead student workshops and meet with audience members at cinematheques. Leigh was also due to give a lecture to Palestinian colleagues at the Jenin Cinema.

	British director Mike Leigh

In a letter addressed to school director Renen Schorr, Leigh said that he had considered canceling his trip after the raid of a Gaza-bound aid flotilla on May 31, but that the amendment to the citizenship law was the final straw.

The director of such hit films as Life Is Sweet and Career Girls wrote that he would not feel at ease visiting the country, since his arrival would be interpreted as support for the government’s policy.

Leigh, who is Jewish, said that he began seriously contemplating canceling his visit after the government announced that it would resume construction in West Bank settlements. It was only after the citizenship amendment was passed that the decision to stay home was made, Leigh wrote.

He also wrote that he did not anticipate the media firestorm that would have erupted had he continued with his original plan and made the visit. Leigh added that only after a “just solution” to the Palestinian issue and the rehabilitation of Gaza would he accept an invitation to the country.

The director apologized to students and faculty at the school for the cancelation.

Leigh was born to a Jewish family and initially carried the surname “Lieberman.” He last visited Israel in 1990. Since then he has refused to
return in protest of Israeli policy in the territories.

This is a good illustration of how Israel’s government delegitimizes itself, a true top 10 list would have the government on top, closely followed by its American advocates. While Leigh’s films are political in their very structure, with their use of improvisation, I had trouble thinking of a clip that would celebrate his decision. Instead I think this video from his early work “Nuts in May” illustrates the caliber of the international entertainers who will be left to perform in Israel if the BDS Movement keeps growing in strength.

Here’s MIke Leigh himself talking about his decision at a press conference.

Reading the press coverage of Jewish Voice for Peace’s fabulous campaign in support of the Israeli theater artists boycotting settlements, I was struck by an item in Arutz Sheva, the settler’s news service, which ends with this paragraph..

The liberation of Israeli territory in the War of Independence in 1948 was accompanied by a massive exodus of Arabs, and dozens of Jewish communities were then built atop the ruins of Arab villages whose inhabitants had fled, as opposed to the Six-Day War in 1967, when the return of Judea and Samaria [Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza] to Israel was less violent and was not accompanied by an Arab exodus. Paradoxically, leftists in Israel consider communities built on the ruins of Arab villages taken in 1948 legitimate, but view communities built beside Arab villages taken in 1967 as illegitimate.

First of all, over 200,000 Palestinians were displaced by the Six Day War. and no doubt more would have been if the memory of the Nakba had not been so recent. Many people died as well, so I am not sure about where Arutz Sheva gets “less violent” from. But nonetheless I am fascinated that the settlers’ news service is arguing the dispossession they are responsible is not so bad as the Nakba, Israel’s founding. Is this is further sign of potential right wing support for a one state solution?