Recently Ben & Jerry’s made headlines by announcing it would not sell its ice cream in West Bank settlements. This has ignited a healthy debate over the issue of the Occupation. It is still unclear how the company’s announcement will affect the contract with its Israeli plant, or its NASDAQ shares, and whether this move will eventually lead to the termination of its operations in Israel. What is clear is that the Israeli issue arouses strong emotions throughout the United States, and probably also among Trump-hating ice cream connoisseurs.

We don’t know how much the American public knows about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but it is certain that it knows enough to identify Trump with Netanyahu, Netanyahu with the Occupation, and the Occupation with the settlements. If the “social” ice cream stands with the tens of millions opposing Trump, this is a sign that it has a healthy sense of smell for business. Ben & Jerry’s is an ice cream powerhouse, recognized in 37 countries. Its revenues last year totaled $860 million, and it holds the second-largest market share in the giant UK and American ice-cream markets.

The Ben & Jerry’s business model is so successful that its parent company, Unilever, agreed to sign a clause allowing its board of directors freedom of decision on issues of a “social” nature. It turns out that Unilever also has a well-developed sense of smell for business, otherwise it would not have acquired Ben & Jerry’s as early as the year 2000. Just as Ben & Jerry’s is an ice cream powerhouse, so Unilever is a global food powerhouse, employing 180,000 worldwide. It is in fact an oligopoly: one of the ten international companies that monopolistically control the global food market. In letting itself be bought, while “preserving its social character,” Ben & Jerry’s in fact sold its soul to the devil, joining Unilever’s predatory capitalist machine.

Wearing its social cap, Ben & Jerrys at first intended to boycott Israel entirely while adopting the position of the BDS movement. Its official announcement, limiting the boycott to West Bank settlements, stemmed from a compromise with Unilever. The latter, which also operates in Israel, employs 2500 Israeli workers here; it controls dozens of companies in food and cosmetics, such as Strauss ice cream and Thelma. Unilever was not about to shoot itself in the foot, so Ben & Jerry’s position eventually came out tasting “half tea, half coffee.”

Half tea, half coffee is also the position of the Zionist Left, which today, for example, projects the illusion of a future, vague “political process” like a fig leaf over its participation in the Bennett-Lapid government, continuing to sell us two-state solution. MK Michal Rosin (Meretz) appeared on the program “Six o’clock with Oded Ben Ami” to defend the Ben & Jerry’s boycott of the settlements while sparing their creator, Israel. For this purpose, she harked back to the decision of the Netanyahu government to sign a “Horizon 2020 agreement with the European Union, which excludes settlements from any investments that are made through the plan.” Therefore, Rosin argued, the one who harms the State of Israel is “the one who conflates people who oppose selling in the settlements with people who oppose selling in Israel.” Meretz and the EU continue to promote the two-state solution, even though in practice they do nothing to advance it, as evidenced by Meretz’s participation in the Bennett-Lapid coalition.

Comparing Ben & Jerry’s with the European Union is like comparing ice cream and gazpacho. Both are cold, but that sums up the similarity. The EU, like Israel, is formally committed to the Oslo Accords, which do nothing about the settlements, leaving them as a bone of contention.

Ben & Jerry’s is another story altogether. First, it is a business venture and not a political one, and there is no diplomatic connection between it and the State of Israel. It is not committed to a two-state solution or any solution. It is simply protesting the Occupation by boycotting the settlements. Moreover, the July 22 headline of Yedioth Aharonot, “The Anti-Israel Brain Behind the Ice Cream Boycott,” leaves no room for doubt. Beside the headline was a picture of the chairperson of the company’s board, Anuradha Mittal, with several of her Tweets. Ms. Mittal adopts the BDS principle of boycotting not just the settlements but Israel as a whole, including Israelis who fight for justice toward the Palestinians.

Despite Michal Rosin’s claims, the decision to boycott settlements does not stem from support for a “Jewish and democratic” Israel, but from an aversion to the apartheid regime. Therefore, without getting into political gibberish designed to market the two-state program (which has long since disappeared from the political agenda), we may ask where BDS is heading. This is a legitimate question for any political activist operating against the Occupation, whether the action takes place in Israel and or the Occupied Territories. On this issue, BDS is silent. It wants to emulate what was done to South Africa, that is, to boycott Israel until apartheid collapses, without offering a political alternative. The solution in South Africa was “one man one vote.” Of this we hear nothing from BDS.

The so-called Palestinian equivalent of the South African ANC is the PLO, which ended its historic role when it signed the Oslo Accords and agreed to autonomy in the West Bank and Gaza, thus perpetuating the settlements, whose fate remains outside the agreement.

In fact, the number of settlers more than doubled after Oslo, but this did not stop the Palestinian Authority from continuing its cooperation with Israel in all areas, including security. Thus we are witnessing an absurd situation: while BDS is calling for a boycott of Israel, it is not calling for a boycott of the Palestinian Authority that cooperates with it. It is convenient for BDS to skip over reality, over the PA, and attack Israel, which, by the way, maintains overt or covert diplomatic relations with most Arab countries.

Before boycotting or taking any action to oppose the Occupation and the settlements, the right thing to do is to determine the political alternative to the Occupation and thus delineate the path of struggle. We agree with most of the BDS movement that the two-state solution is no longer viable. We also agree that Israel maintains apartheid in the Territories, and discriminates against Arab citizens within Israel. We also agree that action must be taken to change this reality. But at this point the question arises: What is the solution?

Here, the Da’am Party bids boycotts goodbye. Da’am advocates one democratic state between the Mediterranean Sea and Jordan River for all who live there, Jews and Palestinians. To achieve this goal, we oppose the boycott of the Palestinians by the Israeli Right, and we equally oppose the boycott of Israelis, which is what BDS and many Palestinians do in the name of rejecting “normalization.” The solution will not take place through mutual cancellation, but through constant cooperation and dialogue between democratic forces on both sides.

We look to the progressive movement in the United States, which advocates racial equality and multiculturalism, upholds democracy against autocracy, condemns blind nationalism and white supremacy, and favors climate and social justice. This movement can play an important role in bringing Israeli and Palestinian democratic forces together for the construction of a common future. Boycotting Israel and Israelis will not do this. Ben & Jerrys’ position has the good effect of reviving the issue of the Occupation, but it tastes too much of BDS.

The post BDS-flavored ice cream first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.

“Jews in the Service of Anti-Semitism” is the title of an article by Ben-Dror Yemini, a columnist for Yedioth Ahronoth, published on May 25. Yemini does not spare his wrath against organizations and individuals who harshly criticize Israel for its treatment of the Palestinian people.  Yemini accuses Jewish opinion shapers such as Noam Chomsky and Peter Beinart, as well as the executive director of Breaking the Silence, of adopting Hamas’ version of events and thus encouraging anti-Semitism, even though they are Jews. Yemini’s conclusion is clear: “The illusion that ‘anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism’ is disappearing.”

There is no doubt that many opponents of Zionism are indeed anti-Semitic, as evidenced by recent attacks on Jews in New York and Los Angeles in the name of support for Palestine. Things got to the point where Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, who leads the progressive wing in the Democratic Party and supports Palestinian rights, tweeted: “We will never ever tolerate anti-Semitism here in New York or anywhere in the world.” She was joined by her friend Ilhan Omar and by Senator Bernie Sanders, who are known for their support of Palestinians.

The problem is that while Israeli critics are accused of encouraging anti-Semitism, a much more dangerous anti-Semitism has grown among fierce supporters of Israel, those who have also identified themselves as ardent backers of former President Donald Trump. On the one hand, the Arab and Islamic public has slipped into Jew-hatred in the wake of the unresolved national conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, which has lately become a religious conflict, climaxing around the question of sovereignty over the al-Aqsa Mosque. On the other hand, the anti-Semitism of Trump supporters, as well as the American Right, draws from classical anti-Semitism and Nazism. Paradoxically, among these anti-Semitic Trump fans are people who back the Israeli Right; their support for Israel stems not from love of Jews but rather from hatred of Muslims. Because Israel is seen as anti-Muslim, it has become the object of admiration of outspoken anti-Semites who advocate white supremacy, according to the logic “my enemy’s enemy is my friend.”

As you may recall, on Saturday, October 27, 2018, Robert Bowers, a white American nationalist with anti-Semitic views, burst into a Pittsburgh synagogue with a semi-automatic rifle, shouting “All Jews must die,” before massacring 11 worshipers. Trump condemned him as did Netanyahu, of course, but the power of white supremacist organizations has only grown since then, with the active encouragement of Trump. The process culminated on January 6 this year, when an incited mob occupied the US Capitol to prevent Biden from being made president. Thus, pro-Trump and Israeli-loving American anti-Semites attempted to stage a coup d’état. Clearly, anti-Semitism, even when it does not threaten Israel, is a danger to American democracy when appearing in its fascist version.

Other bizarre examples from the Trump camp are the performances of Marjorie Taylor Green, a newly elected congressperson from the state of Georgia. During the severe fires in California and the criticism leveled at Trump, Green came out with the delusional announcement that the fires were not caused by humans, rather by secret laser forces from social circles around the “Rothschilds.” On the other hand, Green has recently compared the American medical establishment’s demand for wearing masks to the Nazis’ requirement that Jews wear a yellow star. Her position gained so much popularity among the Republican base and Covid deniers that she added to her Nazi comparison, announcing that a local bakery’s demand that its employees display a symbol of having been vaccinated was also reminiscent of the Nazi demand. While it took Republican Party leaders five whole days to come out with a weak condemnation of what she said, Donald Trump himself said not a word. It’s troubling that even in Israel we have not heard criticism of this contempt for the Holocaust. Green, by the way, is an ardent supporter of Israel, which proves in her opinion that she is no anti-Semite.

The overarching question is this: What has Israel contributed to the rise of anti-Semitism in the United States? We will start with Netanyahu’s sweeping support for Donald Trump, including the failure to criticize him or the violent occupation of the Capitol. Other factors have also contributed: How shall we describe the Nation State Law that discriminates against the Palestinian minority within Israel? Or the attempt to evacuate the Palestinians from Sheikh Jarrah and Silwan on the basis of the Absentee Property Law that applies—how surprising!—only to Palestinians? How do we describe Israeli control of 2 million Palestinians in the West Bank while denying their fundamental human rights? How do we describe the hermetic siege of Gaza and the ongoing humanitarian catastrophe there? How do we describe Netanyahu’s wild incitement against Arabs and his attempt to delegitimize their electoral power? This is a situation that has been going on for 54 years, and no person with a liberal democratic perspective can justify it, despite Israel’s lame excuse that the situation is due to the Palestinian refusal to recognize Israel.

In the United States, the Black Lives Matter movement occupied a central place in American politics. It was Trump who brought about extreme internal polarization, when the racism he encouraged caused a backlash from the Afro-American community, which mobilized and provided victory to Biden. And how surprising, Trump refused to recognize the legitimacy of the black votes just as Netanyahu refuses to recognize the legitimacy of the Palestinian or Arab votes. But unlike Israel, in the United States the political power of blacks is enormous, and they have succeeded in placing the question of institutionalized racism on the public agenda.

While the Democratic Party, which controls the White House and both houses of Congress, encourages the debate on racism to the chagrin of Republicans, in Israel the very raising of the issue results in a cry of “anti-Semite!” Herein lies the growing gap between liberal American society and Israeli society. While Americans dare to look inward, Israeli liberals flee from this question, as evidenced by their willingness to forge an alliance with racists such as Naftali Bennett and Gideon Sa’ar in the name of removing Netanyahu from the prime ministry.

Since there are anti-Semites who declare themselves to be Zionists, anti-Semitism is not necessarily anti-Zionism. But it’s good to be cautious and say that opponents of Zionism and white supremacy can also be drawn into anti-Semitism, if they wrap all Jews and Israelis in one package. As time goes by and Israel moves further to the right, to the point of supporting Trump, it is no wonder that increasing sections of the American Jewish public are ceasing their blind support for Israel. And so, not coincidentally, many from the liberal Jewish public, including Jewish members of Congress, are among the major supporters of both Afro-American and Palestinian rights. At the same time, clear supporters of Palestinian rights, such as Bernie Sanders, are very careful, and rightly so, not to fall into the trap of anti-Semites who connect Judaism to Zionism.

Criticism of Israel is not only legitimate but necessary. There is no other way to bring Israeli democratic forces and Palestinian democratic forces together. Democratic Israelis condemn any expression of racism by Israel’s messianic Right against Palestinians, just as democratic Palestinians are obligated to condemn any expression of national religious racism and anti-Semitism against Jews. In doing so, the Israelis are doing the Palestinians no favors, but are defending their very right to live in a democratic and secular society that respects human rights. Similarly, condemnation of fundamentalist political Islam and narrow nationalism is not doing a favor to Jews but to Palestinian society itself, in order to break free from patriarchal society and its political establishment, which suppresses all criticism and freedom of expression. The way to fight anti-Semitism in America, as well as in Israel, is to adopt democratic values that unite whites and blacks, Israelis and Palestinians, on the basis of equality and partnership in destiny.

The post Faces of anti-Semitism first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.

The specter of BDS is haunting Israel. Minister of Strategic Affairs Gilad Erdan has been appointed to coordinate the efforts against the boycott of Israel, and the popular daily newspaper Yedioth Aharonoth has launched a wide campaign against it.

The prime minister repeats ad nauseam that Israel is “willing to negotiate without prior conditions” and reiterates his commitment to the two-state principle. Jewish organizations around the world sign up for the battle and organize visits to Israel of distinguished journalists to persuade them that boycotting Israel is an error. Even Sheldon Adelson, the US Republican tycoon, has got together with Democrat tycoon Haim Saban to ward off what is beginning to be seen as a strategic threat to Israel.

The threat is so huge that even the opposition has forgotten its role. Opposition leader Issac Herzog and his partner, Tzipi Livni, have signed up for the “hasbara” (“explanation” – propaganda) efforts against the boycott, and Yesh Atid’s leader Yair Lapid, sporting a kippa, tours the US to “expose the true face” of the BDS movement. But all this is in vain: the EU continues the process of passing legislation that will compel Israel to mark goods produced in the occupied territories.

The differences between the EU’s position and that of the organizations involved in the BDS movement are fundamental. Europe recognizes Israel’s legitimacy and is committed to its security, while the BDS campaign is based on a perception of Israel as an apartheid state, and is modeled on the struggle against the racist regime in South Africa in the 70s and 80s. The EU is using an economic and cultural boycott targeted at the settlements, as a way of pressuring Israel to progress with negotiations with the Palestinians. The BDS movement, on the other hand, calls for boycotting all Israeli institutions, without differentiating between those in the “peace camp” and those on the Right – between those calling for an end to the occupation, in order to maintain a Jewish and democratic state, and those who swear a Palestinian state will never be established. The BDS movement, which gathered pace some ten years ago, adopted three aims which make its political objective blurred (some say – intentionally): an end to the occupation, full equality for Israel’s Arab citizens, and the return of all the Palestinian refugees who left or were forced to leave the new state after 1948. The call to boycott academic institutions and Israeli intellectuals (many of whom are openly against the occupation) raises a legitimate question about the BDS movement’s aims. For this reason, though the BDS movement is more vocal, the EU’s more focused policy is perhaps more effective.

The BDS movement gained momentum because world opinion turned against the occupation and Israel’s Right. While leaders of the western world, from US President Obama to the leaders of Europe, warn Israel again and again that if it does not give up the occupied territories it will become an apartheid state, those supporting the BDS movement hold that apartheid is already upon us, and draw attention to Netanyahu’s assertion that a Palestinian state will not be established as long as he is in power.

But despite these fundamental differences between the BDS movement’s position and that of the EU, both share the same Achilles heel: the Palestinian Authority (PA) and its leader, President Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen). While the EU boycotts Israeli goods produced in the territories, the PA continues to have full economic relations with Israel. The PA is dependent on Israeli electricity, the Israeli currency (the shekel), and the transfer of customs duties which Israel collects on its behalf. And to top it all, we must remember the security cooperation with Israel, which Abu Mazen considers almost sacred.

Israel’s construction in the territories certainly violates international law, but it is in keeping with the Oslo Accords which left out the status of the settlements. Moreover, the PLO agreed to the division of the territories into three parts, each with a different status: Area C, including the settlements, would remain under Israeli sovereignty at least temporarily, and only areas with a Palestinian population would be under the PA’s (very partial) sovereignty (Area C, and B).

Thus an absurd situation has been created: the EU boycotts Israeli goods from the settlements and at the same time channels funds to the PA, which continues to cooperate fully with Israel on security issues despite the construction in the settlements and despite Netanyahu’s assertion that no Palestinian state would be established on his watch. One hand boycotts, the other indirectly sustains the occupation and continued settlement.

The BDS campaign chooses to ignore Israeli-Palestinian cooperation, preferring to turn the spotlight on Israel alone. This is a policy fit for an ostrich. Even if we agree that Israel is not South Africa because no race laws have yet been legislated, the de facto situation in Israel is bad. The Arab population suffers discrimination and exclusion, so much so that its members are not considered legitimate citizens, as we saw during the last elections when Netanyahu warned that the Arabs were going to the ballot in droves. Alongside democratic Israel there is an occupation regime which has just marked its 48th year. The similarity between Israel and apartheid South Africa cannot be dismissed – even if we cannot label Israel an “apartheid state” de jure. But the PA is a long way from the African National Congress (ANC) and Abu Mazen is the complete opposite to the ANC’s legendary leader, Nelson Mandela. Those boycotting South Africa had an unambiguous political program which united both whites and blacks, expressed in the call for “one man, one vote.” The ANC gained an international consensus and for this reason it was victorious.

The Palestinians’ situation is completely different. The Palestinians are divided into two main camps, Hamas and Fatah. Fatah and Israel cooperate against Hamas, while Hamas is very different from all the ANC stood for. Hamas’ official position does not recognize democracy, does not support equality for all citizens regardless of race, sex or religious, and it is fundamentally a religious and racist movement. In this situation, the BDS movement, acting without a viable political alternative, becomes a blind and sterile struggle, motivated more by hatred for Israel than constructive efforts towards a solution. BDS organizations know what they want to destroy, but have no idea what they want to create.

It seems the BDS movement acts over the head of the Palestinian people, without its active involvement. In order that the boycott be effective, it needs to be backed up by a Palestinian leadership which, unlike the PA, refuses to cooperate with the occupation, and at the same time rejects the religious and separatist program of Hamas. The schism within Palestinian society plays into Israel’s hands. As long as the EU continues to fund the PA, and indirectly the occupation, with limited Palestinian opposition to the occupation, the effect of the BDS movement will remain disconnected with the complex political reality on the ground.

Nonetheless, the fact that the effectiveness of the BDS movement is limited under the present conditions does not make the occupation legitimate, or make Israel any more popular in world opinion. Israel has used up all its credibility. The pictures from the territories each day, particularly the terrible photos from Gaza, have caused the world to start loathing Israel. Every couple of years the world sees another round of civilians being killed including innocent children, another round of homes being destroyed and refugees fleeing, while Israel has no intention of putting an end to the occupation. Both Right and Left in Israel have found someone to blame: Abu Mazen and Hamas. They are certain Israel has nothing to answer for, and if the occupation is almost 50 years old, it is all because of the Palestinians. And every time the Palestinian people rise up against this continued injustice, they are punished severely, and the world’s faith in Israel is further undermined.

The Israeli Right and much of the Left believe that the Palestinians have got used to the occupation, that they will continue to be satisfied with the crumbs Europe throws to them, and that they will accept their status as residents without rights. But this is an illusion. Just as millions of Arab youth rose up in 2011 to make it clear that they would not accept the fate planned for them by the dictatorial regimes, so too the Palestinians will rise up and reject the bitter fate Israel plans for them. Regardless of the European boycott or the BDS movement, a day will come when they will succeed in setting up an alternative leadership to unite the people under a democratic program of social justice. When this happens, Israel’s isolation will become unmistakable and the call to boycott Israel will be a real and effective threat.

This article was translated from Hebrew by Yonatan Preminger

The post The Problem with BDS first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.

Until 2008 the boycott against Israel, known also as the BDS movement (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions), was a marginal phenomenon. It began on July 9, 2005 when 171 Palestinian NGOs called for a boycott at an economic and cultural level. Over time, the initiative spread beyond the Occupied Territories to the wider world. But the Palestinian Authority (PA), which maintains diplomatic, security and economic ties with Israel, refused to express support (and refuses until now). The world’s governments likewise withheld support. Here and there, a famous singer or actor cancelled a gig in Israel, and demonstrations were held abroad when Israelis performed there, but these did not have an impact on public opinion in Israel, or on its government, which regularly accused the boycotters of anti-Semitism.

The reason for the boycott movement’s marginality before 2008 was the extremist political message of some of the organizations involved, which called for a one-state solution from the Jordan River to the sea. Most boycotting organizations compared Israel to the South African Apartheid regime, against which boycott had been the obvious step. But Israel’s status in the world—the support it receives from the international community, the US above all, the fact that it has diplomatic relations with Egypt, Jordan and the PA, and the fact that its Arab citizens, despite rampant discrimination, enjoy the right to vote—rendered this political platform untenable, making it easier for its detractors to claim that its only aim is the destruction of Israel.

When Barack Obama entered the White House in 2008, however, things began to change. What had been a marginal movement began growing until it took center stage, especially in Europe. In countries friendly to Israel, such as the Netherlands and Britain, and even in the Scandinavian countries under whose patronage the Oslo Accords were signed, the call for boycott was heard in universities and unions. Obama declared that the solution to the conflict was the foundation of a Palestinian state side by side with Israel, even marking a date for the end of the process: September 2011. This gave new impetus to the efforts at pressuring Israel. When the time came, the Palestinians turned to the UN for recognition as a state, but the US vetoed the move. The Palestinians have since backtracked on this approach, but because of the deadlock in negotiations, Europe has become increasingly frustrated with Israel’s refusal to halt settlement construction, and the boycott on goods from the settlements has grown.

When John Kerry became US Secretary of State, the rules of the game changed. The US government gave up on its demand for a settlement freeze as a condition for talks, and pressured Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) to enter negotiations, threatening to stop the flow of US aid to the PA. Kerry succeeded in this aim, but Obama’s second term coincides with Netanyahu’s third; Netanyahu has established a coalition which grants settlers key ministries, and Israel’s position has become ever more hawkish position. The sides agreed to reach a final settlement by April 2014, but this date is no different from the other dates that passed quietly. Since Israel adamantly refuses to discuss the core issues and avoids delineating clear borders, the negotiations are meaningless. Despite this, Kerry insists on prolonging them, but knows he cannot do this without determining clear parameters, including borders, the status of Jerusalem, and the refugees. For the first time, Israel is being pressured to clarify its stance on the core issues, which the Oslo Accords had circumvented, thus allowing the settlement project to continue.

Europe and the US are the main funders of the PA. The Palestinian government has recently approved the state budget to the tune of 4.2 billion dollars, most of which come from contributing states and the taxes that Israel collects for the PA. This is a ridiculously small sum, whose main purpose is to pay the low wages of Palestinian officials. The tiny budget perpetuates the poverty suffered by most Palestinians while keeping them quiet. Europe sees little point in continuing this flow of funds when no Palestinian state is in the offing and the conflict escalates. Israeli announcements of settlement expansion, along with Netanyahu’s declarations that he will not dismantle a single settlement and that the River Jordan is Israel’s security border, increase the frustration and wrath of European taxpayers, who indirectly bankroll the occupation by enabling the status quo. It must be remembered that Europe agreed to fund the PA on the assumption that a final agreement would be signed in 1999, according to the Oslo schedule. Now they feel cheated. The more Kerry tries to define the parameters, the louder the outcry from central ministers in the Israeli government, like Economics Minister Naftali Bennett and Defense Minister Moshe (Boogie) Yaalon (who is fully backed by the prime minister).

Israel’s obstinacy has played a part in making boycott an effective tool for pressuring Israel – what Thomas Friedman in his New York Times column called the “third intifada.” While Netanyahu admits that the aim of the talks, from his point of view, is to play for time and ward off European pressure, the Europeans have seen through this game and are applying even more pressure. This time the boycotters are not extreme leftwing groups or radical professors, but a central Dutch pension fund and a central Danish bank. Netanyahu has set up a special committee to address what has become a strategic threat, appointing Yuval Steinitz, Strategic Affairs minister, to deal with the issue. But the pressure is not letting up, and none other than John Kerry is warning Israel of a boycott if the negotiations fail. This has raised a storm in the country, where he is accused of supporting a boycott himself.

The gravity of the growing boycott lies in the fact that unlike the BDS movement, which offered no realistic political path, the new boycott has a political agenda based on the two-state solution. Passively supported by the US, this newer European boycott has two goals:

(1) To bring about political change inside Israel, for it is clear that the current coalition cannot accept any agreement which refers to – or even hints at – the 1967 borders, Jerusalem, or the settlements. In other words, the Jewish Home party led by Bennett has to go. That is why Bennett is making so much noise, aiming to torpedo any agreement taking shape. On the other hand, the replacement of Shelly Yachimovich by Yitzhak Herzog as Labor Party chief, and the orthodox Shas party’s strong desire to get back into the government, make this political trick possible: if Bennett leaves, others will enter. The more Kerry presses and Europe boycotts, the more Netanyahu will feel compelled to take leave of his settler friends. Yair Lapid’s tweets on the likely damage a boycott will cause have also given the impression that his alliance with Bennett, which forced Netanyahu to set up the coalition in its current form, is crumbling.

(2) The second goal is to tie the boycott to a political program. But the question is: What program?

Kerry’s emerging parameters commit the same sin as the Oslo Accords: they offer no clear solution to the problem of the settlements, Jerusalem and the refugees. All Netanyahu is being asked to do is make some adjustments in his coalition. Abu Mazen, however, is being asked to perpetuate a situation in which the PA continues to be dependent on Israel: the “separation fence” will continue to strangle West Bank residents; border crossings will continue to be under Israeli control; and settlements will continue to divide the West Bank. Thus the Palestinian state will be helpless.

To achieve the goal, generous cooperation from Abu Mazen is needed. The interview he gave to the New York Times was intended to indicate exactly this. Abu Mazen is willing to accept (1) the presence of NATO forces instead of the IDF and (2) Israel’s gradual withdrawal from the West Bank phased over five years.

An editorial in the newspaper Al-Quds does not hide the intention behind this declaration, which is to show the world Abu Mazen’s flexibility as compared with Netanyahu’s intransigence.

It is not certain that Netanyahu will manage to make the required coalition changes, and it is even less certain that Abu Mazen will manage to force another Oslo agreement on his people. What is certain is that Kerry’s program seeks to compromise with the occupation instead of putting an end to it. Thus the current threats of boycott, wrapped as they are in the pale political program being promoted by Kerry, leave the bitter taste of yet another wasted opportunity.

– Translated by Yonatan Preminger

The post The boycott: To what end? first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.