Investment Activism

Haaretz

Published 21:53 28.07.10  --  Latest update 21:53 28.07.10
http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/desmond-tutu-backs-u-s-food-co-op-boycott-of-israeli-products-1.304657

Desmond Tutu backs U.S. food co-op boycott of Israeli products

South African Nobel laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu issues statement of support for boycott announced by food co-op in Rachel Corrie's hometown of Olympia, Washington.
By Natasha Mozgovaya Tags: Israel news

South African Nobel laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu said on Wednesday that he supports the Olympia Food Co-op's boycott of Israeli products.

The Olympia Food Co-op, located in Olympia, Washington, the hometown of the International Solidarity Movement activist Rachel Corrie who was killed seven years ago in Gaza, announced last week that no Israeli products would be sold at its two grocery stores in the city.

“I, Desmond Tutu, fully support and endorse the Olympia Food Co-op's boycott of Israeli products," Tutu said in a statement. "The Olympia Food Co-op has joined a growing worldwide movement on the part of citizens and the private sector to support by non-violent tangible acts the Palestinian struggle for justice and self-determination."

Tutu also encouraged other cooperatives, grocers and businesses to boycott Israeli goods.

More on this topic: Food co-op in Rachel Corrie's hometown boycotts Israeli goods

Contact:
Susanne Hoder
Moderator, Interfaith Peace Initiative
(401) 595-9887
apassionforpeace@aol.com

World Actions to End Israel's Occupation Double After Flotilla Attack

A compelling new list of "Global Actions to End the Israeli Occupation" is available through the Interfaith Peace Initiative at http://www.interfaithpeaceinitiative.com/globalactions.pdf. It demonstrates clearly that the era of ignoring Israel's excesses and its abuse of human rights has ended. The world will no longer be silent. The tide has turned.

In 2009, the Interfaith Peace Initiative posted a 44-page list of actions by countries and organizations around the world designed to end the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land. On May 31, 2010, Israel's military raid on the flotilla of ships carrying humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip generated widespread global anger and opposition. It was followed by marches, demonstrations, declarations and plans for new flotillas by many groups around the world. The list has been updated, and now fills 88 pages, including actions by businesses, governments, labor unions and religious and consumer organizations. Among these are many Jewish and Israeli groups. Readers may obtain more information about each action using links provided.

Throughout history, regimes built on oppression and apartheid have failed. If the determined and creative actions documented in the new list are sustained, Israel's oppression of Palestinians cannot last. The Interfaith Peace Initiative wishes to celebrate the courage and initiative shown by countless individuals and organizations who have finally said, "Enough!" Special thanks should go to the committee of Ann Arbor Quakers who first initiated the list (piag_@mac.com) in the hope it would inspire others to action. The massive global surge of resolve reflected in the new report will hasten an end to Israel's occupation so a just peace may finally prevail.
 

Methodist Church to boycott goods from illegal Israeli settlements

http://www.methodist.org.uk/index.cfm?fuseaction=opentogod.newsDetail&ne...

The Methodist Church has today voted to boycott all products from Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territories, and to encourage Methodists across Britain to do the same.

The decision is a response to a call from a group of Palestinian Christians, a growing number of Jewish organisations, both inside Israel and worldwide, and the World Council of Churches. A majority of governments recognise the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories as illegitimate under international law.

Christine Elliott, Secretary for External Relationships, said, “This decision has not been taken lightly, but after months of research, careful consideration and finally, today’s debate at the Conference. The goal of the boycott is to put an end to the existing injustice. It reflects the challenge that settlements present to a lasting peace in the region.

“We are passionate about dialogue across communities and with people of all faiths. We remain deeply committed to our relationships with our brothers and sisters of other faiths, and we look to engage in active listening so that we act as agents of hope together.”

In December, Defra introduced new advice on labelling, recommending that packaging of products imported from the West Bank should distinguish between Palestinian areas and Israeli settlements.

The Conference also adopted a statement calling for a full arms embargo against all sides in the conflict. “This conflict is further fuelled by partisan support by other countries. Violence from all parties in this conflict must be denounced, and a just peace sought for all peoples living in the region,” said Christine.

The move to boycott is just one among a number of measures agreed by the Conference, which also include a commitment to regular and informed prayer for the needs of those in region. Methodists across Great Britain are also encouraged to visit the region, write to their MPs and engage in respectful dialogue with Jews and Muslims on this issue.

Published on The Nation (http://www.thenation.com)
________________________________________

The Boycott Divestment Sanctions Movement

Adam Horowitz and Philip Weiss | June 9, 2010

In April the student senate at the University of California, Berkeley, twice held all-night sessions to debate a proposal urging the school to divest from two US military companies "materially and militarily profiting" from the occupation of the Palestinian territories. Hundreds of people packed the hall, and statements in support of the measure were read aloud from leaders, including Noam Chomsky, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Naomi Klein and Alice Walker. In the end the divestment measure failed (the senate majority of 13 to 5 was not enough to overturn the student government president's veto), but the outcome was surely less significant than the furor over the issue. Following related battles last year at Hampshire College and the Toronto International Film Festival, the Berkeley measure was yet another signal that the divestment initiative, part of a broader movement popularly known as BDS, for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, has become a key battleground in the grassroots struggle over the future of Israel/Palestine.

"We're at a super-exciting moment, truly a turning point," says Rebecca Vilkomerson of Jewish Voice for Peace, an activist organization that supports selective divestment from companies profiting from the occupation. "For the first time we're seeing a serious debate of divestment at a major public university." BDS supporters say the movement has the potential to transform international opinion in much the way that the divestment movement in the 1980s isolated the South African apartheid regime. Or as Tutu wrote to the Berkeley students:

The same issue of equality is what motivates the divestment movement of today, which tries to end Israel's 43 year long occupation and the unequal treatment of the Palestinian people by the Israeli government ruling over them. The abuses they face are real, and no person should be offended by principled, morally consistent, nonviolent acts to oppose them. It is no more wrong to call out Israel in particular for its abuses than it was to call out the Apartheid regime in particular for its abuses.

Opponents of BDS see just that threat—that Israel will be isolated. They say that BDS unfairly singles out Israel for conduct that other states are also guilty of and that it seeks to delegitimize the Jewish state in the eyes of the world, thereby threatening Israel's existence. Some argue that grassroots actions put the emphasis on the wrong target. As Rabbi Arthur Waskow of the Shalom Center said on Democracy Now! in March, "It's the United States government you've got to look to, not private industry or private commerce. So that's one really big difference simply at strategic and tactical levels."

When did the BDS movement begin, why is it growing and what does it want?

The campaign traces its origins to a July 2004 advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice (the World Court), which found Israel's separation wall in the West Bank to be "contrary to international law." The ICJ also recommended that the parts of the wall built inside the occupied territories be dismantled and that Palestinians affected by the wall be compensated. When a year passed with no sign that the opinion would be enforced, a wide-ranging coalition of more than 170 organizations representing Palestinian civil society issued a call for boycott, divestment and sanction of Israel "until it complies with international law and universal principles of human rights." Compliance meant three things: ending the occupation, recognizing equal rights for Palestinian citizens of Israel and respecting the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194 of 1948.

The "call" (which can be found at bdsmovement.net [1]) was notable for unifying the Palestinian grassroots and for the simplicity and coherence of its platform. BDS was seen as an "essential component" for shifting the playing field in the Palestinians' favor after the slow death of the peace process, the Israeli settlement expansion and the inability of the international community to hold Israel accountable.
Boycotts are not a new tactic for Palestinians. As far back as the 1936–39 revolt against the British Mandate, Palestinians incorporated general strikes and boycotts into their struggle. During the first intifada in the late 1980s, they boycotted Israeli goods, and the West Bank town of Beit Sahour led efforts to refuse to pay Israeli taxes that helped finance the occupation. And in 2001 an international boycott effort was launched after the World Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa. It quickly met forceful pushback, notably in a 2002 charge by Harvard president Lawrence Summers that divestment was anti-Semitic "in effect, if not intent."

Today the BDS movement is loosely coordinated by a body called the Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions Campaign National Committee (BNC), which is made up of nongovernmental organizations representing Palestinian civil society. The BNC is not affiliated with any political party (though it has been endorsed by some) and does not take positions on issues that fall outside the specific principles of the "call." Thus it does not endorse either a one-state or two-state solution to the conflict.

Israel's 2008–09 attack on Gaza spurred the campaign in the United States and around the world. "The most important thing for the Palestinian movement is the rise of the solidarity movement worldwide after the war crimes in Gaza," Palestinian activist and former Palestinian Authority presidential candidate Mustafa Barghouthi said earlier this year at a demonstration in the West Bank. "Boycott is the best way of changing the balance of forces. Military force will not work, because of the imbalance of forces, but also because it is not right. I don't think Israel will change its policy unless it hurts, and BDS will hurt it."

Most recently, Israel's raid on the Free Gaza flotilla, which killed at least nine activists, has added fuel to the campaign. The attack on a humanitarian ship seemed to reignite much of the international furor from the Gaza invasion of the year before, as it highlighted Israel's inhumane policy of collective punishment in the besieged territory. And with this latest outrage came even louder calls for accountability.
BDS represents three strategies: boycotts are commonly carried out by individuals, divestment by institutions and sanctions by governments. For example, organizers have called on people to avoid buying products made in Israeli settlements; on churches to sell stocks of companies such as Caterpillar, which makes the infamous D9 bulldozer used to demolish Palestinian homes and fields; and on politicians to make conditional or end US aid to Israel. BDS's proponents argue that unless Israel experiences material, political and moral pressure, it will maintain the status quo. Nobel laureates Shirin Ebadi, Mairead Maguire (Corrigan), Rigoberta Menchu Tum and Jody Williams made this point in a letter supporting the Berkeley divestment bill:

We stand united in our belief that divesting from companies that provide significant support for the Israeli military provides moral and strategic stewardship of tuition and taxpayer-funded public education money. We are all peace makers, and we believe that no amount of dialogue without economic pressure can motivate Israel to change its policy of using overwhelming force against Palestinian civilians.
The movement has won adherents by saying that it will accept any gesture of boycott or divestment that Westerners are willing to make. "If you only want to boycott an egg, we want you to boycott an egg," said Omar Barghouti, a founding member of the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI), which is part of the BNC, during a tour of America last year to drum up support.

Even the Palestinian Authority—never celebrated for its connection to the grassroots—has made a nod toward the movement, with Prime Minister Salam Fayyad vowing to empty Palestinian homes of goods made in the settlements. But BDS's biggest victories have come in the West and have involved divestments from businesses profiting from investment in the West Bank, where 2.5 million Palestinians live under an occupation whose hundreds of armed checkpoints and separate roadways for Jewish colonists have led some South Africans to declare that the system is worse than apartheid. French multinational Veolia Transport was targeted for its role in building a light-rail system that will connect West Jerusalem to settlements in the occupied territories. Veolia dropped out of the project following an escalating international campaign against the firm, during which the Dutch ASN Bank severed ties to Veolia. Israeli diamond merchant Lev Leviev was also targeted because of his funding of settlements. Last year the US investment firm BlackRock divested itself of stock in Leviev's Africa-Israel company, and Britain canceled plans to move its Tel Aviv embassy into a Leviev-owned building. Similarly, the Frankfurt-based Deutsche Bank recently divested its shares in the Israeli military contractor Elbit Systems, which supplies components for the separation wall. Wiltrud Rösch-Metzler, vice president of Pax Christi Germany, who helped lead the campaign, called it "a huge success.... [Deutsche Bank] went out of their way to list numerous standards and international ethical commitments to which the bank is party, highlighting how Elbit investments would violate them all."

The immediate aftermath of the flotilla attack saw a surge in BDS activity across Europe. Most notably, Britain's largest union, UNITE, passed a motion to "vigorously promote a policy of divestment from Israeli companies," along with a boycott of Israeli goods and services. At the same time, the Swedish Port Workers Union announced it would refuse to load or unload any ships coming to or from Israel for nine days, to protest the flotilla raid.

In the United States, BDS has been percolating among activist groups, churches and campuses for several years. Since 2005 the Presbyterian Church (USA) has undertaken what it calls a "phased, selective divestment" process aimed at five companies benefiting from the occupation [see Hasdai Westbrook, "The Israel Divestment Debate," May 8, 2006]. Again, the West Bank is the focus. Adalah-NY, a New York–based justice group, regularly leads pickets of Leviev's Madison Avenue jewelry store and pressured UNICEF and the humanitarian organization Oxfam to distance themselves from Leviev. The peace group Code Pink has led a campaign called "Stolen Beauty" that targets Ahava, a cosmetics company based in a West Bank settlement that uses ingredients from the Dead Sea.
"What we've seen in the past two years is a rapidly growing, diverse movement dedicated to universal human rights and international law," says David Hosey, a spokesman for the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, a national coalition of grassroots organizations that supports BDS. "On campuses and in communities across the United States, people are sending a clear message that if the US government won't hold Israel accountable for violations of Palestinian human rights, then civil society will step up and do the job."
Two of the biggest divestment fights in the past year in some ways could not have been more different—Hampshire College in Massachusetts and the Toronto International Film Festival. One year ago Hampshire students ignited a firestorm with a campus divestment campaign that drew national attention, including calls from Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz to student organizers on their cellphones. The Hampshire board of directors voted to divest from six military companies involved in the occupation and to adopt a "social responsibility" screen for Hampshire's investments. Though the administration denied that the divestiture was specifically aimed at the Israeli occupation, the headlines helped catalyze the national student BDS movement. In November the college hosted a divestment organizing conference of student leaders from more than forty campuses, including Berkeley; UC, San Diego; the University of Arizona; and Carleton University in Ottawa—whose campaigns all made news this past spring. The movement won a notable victory in June when the student body of Evergreen College in Olympia, Washington—Rachel Corrie's alma mater—voted to call on the college to divest from companies profiting from the occupation and to ban the use of Caterpillar equipment on campus. The resolution passed with nearly 80 percent of the vote. Evergreen junior Anna Simonton explained that the issue resonated across the student body because of the US role in the conflict. "This issue is something we're all complicit in," she said. "It's our money and our taxes."

At the Toronto International Film Festival last fall, movie premieres were overshadowed by the controversy over a "city to city" promotion by the festival that paired Toronto with Tel Aviv. In a "Toronto Declaration," critics said the showcase had been pushed by the Israeli consulate as part of its efforts to "rebrand" Israel after the horrific public relations fallout from the Gaza war months earlier [see Horowitz and Weiss, "American Jews Rethink Israel," November 2, 2009].

The response from Israel's supporters was immediate and forceful. Big-name stars, including Sacha Baron Cohen and Jerry Seinfeld, came out against the declaration, and so did filmmakers David Cronenberg and Ivan Reitman. Dan Adler, a former executive at the Creative Artists Agency, worked with the Los Angeles Jewish Federation and United Jewish Appeal of Toronto to push the claim that the declaration was a boycott of the festival and a blacklist of Israeli artists. The declaration was neither, but the response was a sign of where the battle was headed, with many Israel supporters describing BDS as a Trojan horse aimed at delegitimizing Israel as a Jewish state.

In January the Reut Institute, a Tel Aviv think tank, issued a report describing BDS as part of a campaign "to demonize Israel." The movement has had limited "practical success," the Reut study said, but it has been "highly successful in generating publicity and in mobilizing anti-Israel activism, in effect uniting anti-Zionists with critics of specific Israeli policies." The risk, Reut went on, was to Israel's image: "that such campaigns will create an equivalency between Israel and apartheid-era South Africa that penetrates the mainstream of public and political consciousness."

This fear was echoed by Asher Fredman, a commentator on the website of the Israeli paper Yediot Ahronot, who described the BDS movement as a "soft war" against Israel. "The point that must be internalized is that the soft war constitutes not simply a nuisance or even an economic threat," Fredman warned. "It is a process that could play a major role in shaping the future status quo between Israel and the Palestinians."

Many American Jewish community groups have taken action against the movement on a similar basis. The delegitimization worry has generated some surprising alliances between liberal Zionist groups and right-wing hawks. BDS supporters counter that it is Israel's actions, not the protest, that are delegitimizing Israel in the eyes of the public. Ali Abunimah, author, activist and co-founder of the Electronic Intifada website, said at the Hampshire BDS conference, "Israel's self-image as a liberal Jewish and democratic state is impossible to maintain against the reality of a militarized, ultranationalist, sectarian Jewish settler colony that has to carry out regular massacres of indigenous civilians in order to maintain its control. Zionism simply cannot bomb, kidnap, assassinate, expel, demolish, settle and lie its way to legitimacy and acceptance."

Some liberal Jewish organizations and individuals have adopted a now-is-not-the-time policy. Naomi Paiss of the New Israel Fund says she respects colleagues who do not buy goods made in the territories, but she believes an "official" boycott of companies in the territories would be impossible to implement, given that major Israeli companies and the Israeli government itself are involved. "We think it's a delegitimizing tactic, inflammatory, won't end the occupation and isn't productive," she e-mailed. Cora Weiss, a longtime liberal leader who championed Hampshire's South Africa divestment initiative in the 1970s, when she was on the board, says BDS is too broad-brush. "César Chávez led a focused boycott—grapes—and for several years no one ate grapes," she recalls. "That had an impact."
Americans for Peace Now has also criticized BDS as being counterproductive and even anti-Semitic. The longtime peace group said in a recent statement that the campaign creates a "circle the wagons" reaction in the Jewish community:
Such a response is understandable, since much of the pressure for such campaigns comes from historically virulently anti-Israel sources that are often not interested in Israeli security concerns or Palestinian behavior. This in turn creates very real and understandable worries about global anti-Semitism and the perception that the campaigns are not truly (or only) about Israeli policies but rather reflect a deep-seated hatred for and rejection of Israel.
Parts of this ad hoc coalition went into action during the Berkeley divestment debate. J Street, the new alternative Israel lobby, joined forces with such right-wing groups as the Anti-Defamation League, the David Project and StandWithUs\SF to decry the original Berkeley senate bill. The issue is "complex," the coalition warned, and that "complexity should be reflected in the dialogue on campus rather than singling out one side or another for condemnation and punishment."

According to the Jewish Daily Forward, Berkeley Hillel, a Jewish campus organization, "coordinated a comprehensive national lobbying campaign consisting of a teach-in, face-to-face meetings with student senators and an intervention by a Nobel laureate [Elie Wiesel], all aimed at robbing the divestment supporters of three senate votes." Adam Naftalin-Kelman, Berkeley Hillel's newly installed executive director, said the strategy was devised at a roundtable convened by Hillel and attended by representatives of local branches of J Street, the Anti-Defamation League, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the Jewish Community Relations Council, as well as local rabbis and Israel's consul general in San Francisco. This strategy included circulating antidivestment talking points that urged students to reframe the debate as an attack on the Jewish community and to avoid talking about the particulars of the Israel-Palestine conflict.

But Jewish organizations face insurgent generational forces over the issue. Some students in J Street's college organizations quietly support BDS as a nonviolent means of doing something to end the oppression of Palestinians. This tension was even on display at J Street's organizing conference in October. During a student workshop called "Reckoning With the Radical Left on Campus: Alternatives to Boycotts and Divestments," there was reportedly considerable interest in divestment campaigns targeting the occupation. At the same time, "J Street U," the student branch of J Street, is officially opposed to divestment and has begun an "Invest, Don't Divest" campaign, which encourages students to "Invest $2 for 2 States" as an alternative to BDS activities on campus.

By opposing direct action, the older generation is arguing that government must take the lead through a peace process that so far has resulted in little more than further Israeli colonization. "I find boycotts kind of distasteful. It's a little bit like collective punishment," says Ralph Seliger, long associated with Meretz USA, a left Zionist organization. "That probably wouldn't be very emotionally satisfying to someone who was upset about the issue. But I think it's part of growing up to understand that the world is not here to give you emotional satisfaction, and in this issue there is both complexity and perplexity, and you need to learn as much as you can, and be receptive to all sides, and be discerning."

Portions of the BDS call have been unsettling even to longtime advocates for Middle East peace. Its support for the refugees' right of return is a deal breaker for many liberal Zionists, who believe Israel needs to maintain a Jewish majority. Other activists have said BDS should focus primarily on the US role in the conflict. Israeli writer and activist Joseph Dana says that while the campaign has informed people around the world about the issue, almost all US military aid to Israel winds up in the United States with military manufacturers, so "it would be more productive for the BDS campaigns to focus on these companies," especially if American citizens are doing the pressuring.

Perhaps the most controversial part of the BDS movement, even for some supporters, has been the call for a cultural and academic boycott. Organizers of the boycott explain that it is directed at institutions, not individuals, meaning that people are encouraged to boycott academic conferences, events or products (i.e., films, talks or performances) sponsored by the Israeli government or Israeli universities but not individual academics based on their politics. MIT scientist Nancy Kanwisher recently circulated anonymous letters of support for an academic boycott from two colleagues. One colleague said that while refusing to support Israeli academic research, "I will continue to collaborate with, and host, Israeli scientific colleagues on an individual basis."

Alisa Solomon, a noted critic of Israel's actions and editor, with Tony Kushner, of Wrestling With Zion: Progressive Jewish-American Responses to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, says she supports BDS but draws the line at academic boycott. "I believe in and support a lot of [the BDS movement]; I just see a lot of different strains and approaches and am enthusiastic about some (economic boycotts against settlement products, companies participating in and profiting from occupation, plus think we should cut military aid, etc.), generally supportive of others ("don't play Sun City" efforts), and have qualms about academic/cultural in this direction both for the free expression reasons and because it requires declaring some people kosher and some not," she wrote in an e-mail. "I prefer direct to symbolic action, so taking money away from occupation seems to me a far better effort than denouncing, say, a choreographer."
For their part, supporters of the academic boycott say that Israeli universities are implicated in the occupation because they are intimately connected with the Israeli government in ways that outstrip even American university contributions to the Vietnam War effort a generation ago. The argument was lent support last year when Rivka Carmi, president of Ben-Gurion University, attacked faculty member (and frequent Nation contributor) Neve Gordon for advocating BDS in an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times. Gordon had crossed "the boundaries of academic freedom," Carmi said, and she questioned his ability to work at the school: "After his...extreme description of Israel as an 'apartheid' state, how can he, in good faith, create the collaborative atmosphere necessary for true academic research and teaching?"

The controversy came to Tel Aviv University this spring when novelists Margaret Atwood and Amitav Ghosh were named as recipients of a $1 million prize from the Dan David Foundation, which is headquartered at the university. Boycott activists, including students from the besieged Gaza Strip, implored Atwood and Ghosh to refuse the award because of its relationship to the university. In the end, the writers accepted the prize and criticized the activists in their joint acceptance speech: "the all-or-nothings want to bully us into being their wholly owned puppets." They also quoted Anthony Appiah, president of PEN American Center, who said, "We have to stand, as we have stood from the very beginning, against the very idea of a cultural boycott. We have to continue to say: Only connect." After she got home, Atwood wrote a piece for Ha'aretz saying that Israel's greatest threat was now internal: "The concept of Israel as a humane and democratic state is in serious trouble."
Another prominent focus of the BDS campaign has been on musicians. In recent months Leonard Cohen played Tel Aviv despite an appeal to him to cancel, while Gil Scott-Heron and Elvis Costello pulled out of their Israeli appearances. Costello explained on his website that his decision was "a matter of instinct and conscience" and that "there are occasions when merely having your name added to a concert schedule may be interpreted as a political act that resonates more than anything that might be sung." The Forward recently quoted an anonymous music industry insider who said more than fifteen performers have recently refused to play in Israel, and in the week after the flotilla attack three more popular groups—the Klaxons, Gorillaz and the Pixies—canceled upcoming performances to protest the raid.
In the end many in Israel, and its supporters in the United States, return to the fear that BDS is advancing the likelihood of the dissolution of the Jewish state—the delegitimization issue. "The BDS movement seems dominated by those whose endgame is one state, not two," Meretz USA executive director Ron Skolnik wrote in Israel Horizons, a liberal Zionist publication. The movement "apparently wishes to build on legitimate international opposition to the 1967 occupation in order to undermine Israel's independent existence."

Rebecca Vilkomerson says that is not the case. Her group, Jewish Voice for Peace, does not take a position on the two-state versus one-state solution. Many Jewish students who spoke out against the Berkeley measure, she said, objected in highly subjective terms, saying, "We feel marginalized, we feel scared, we feel intimidated, we feel alienated" by the legislation. According to Vilkomerson, the best response to this came from Tom Pessah, an Israeli PhD student at Berkeley and co-author of the bill, who said that it was "OK" to have such feelings. He says he also felt uncomfortable when he first learned how much of his freedom in Israel was based on Palestinian dispossession—and so he feared what justice would entail.

Such anxieties would seem to accompany any transformative social movement, and BDS supporters are beginning to acknowledge them. Palestinian leader Mustafa Barghouthi addressed the issue in his appeal to the Berkeley students on grounds they might best understand. He has lived his life under occupation, he wrote; he and his community seek freedom: "Do not stand in the way like those angry Alabama students 50 years ago blocking integration. You have, I trust, nothing in common with those students but misplaced fear."
The Berkeley bill failed, but the all-night debates only seemed to give the movement confidence that the next vote will go differently. We might not have to wait long to find out: six more American university student bodies are said to be taking up the call in the near future.
________________________________________
Source URL: http://www.thenation.com/article/boycott-divestment-sanctions-movement

Links: [1] http://www.bdsmovement.net

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

UNITED METHODISTS VOTE TO DIVEST FROM COMPANIES THAT BENEFIT FROM OCCUPATION OF PALESTINE

CONTACT: CONNIE BAKER, 630-363-7713
End the Occupation, Northern Illinois Conference of the United Methodist Church

ST. CHARLES, ILL. June 15, 2010 – At its annual conference, the Northern Illinois Conference (NIC) of the United Methodist Church (UMC) voted to divest all holdings in three international corporations that profit from the occupation of Palestine. This action is in response to a plea by Palestinian Christians for action, not just words.

Divestment is a nonviolent form of economic protest long-used by churches and other shareholders to encourage companies to end unjust practices. By selling its investments in Caterpillar (CAT), General Electric (GE) and Terex (TEX), the NIC expresses its commitment to do no harm with its investments and affirms the call of the UMC Book of Discipline to "avoid investments that appear likely, directly or indirectly, to support violation of human rights” (Paragraph 716).

These three companies are among 20 targeted by many UMC conferences across the country because they (1) have a presence on occupied land, (2) are involved with the physical settlements, checkpoints and the separation wall, or (3) support activities of the Israeli military in the occupied territories.

Connie Baker from the End the Occupation Task Force of the Board of Church and Society which brought forth the resolution stated: “We are resolute in our support of peace for both Israelis and Palestinians in the Holy Land and the rights of each to co-exist according to the principles set forth in the Geneva Conventions. It is a small step, but an important one.”

The conference will also send a list of the 20 identified companies to the nearly 400 local churches in Northern Illinois and encourage them to consider divestment from any corporations on the list.

For the list of targeted corporations, which was compiled by the New England Conference (UMC) Divestment Task Force, please see: http://www.neumc.org/pages/detail/375.
 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

EVERGREEN STATE COLLEGE STUDENTS VOTE FOR DIVESTMENT FROM ILLEGAL OCCUPATION OF PALESTINE

On June 2, 2010, students at The Evergreen State College in Olympia, WA, made history by passing two resolutions supporting human rights, upholding international law, and promoting a just peace in the Palestine/Israel conflict.

1. The first resolution calls for The Evergreen State College Foundation to divest from companies that profit from Israel's illegal occupation of Palestine, as part of instituting a socially responsible investment policy.

2. The second resolution calls on the College to ban the use of Caterpillar, Inc. equipment from campus.

While other US colleges have passed similar divestment resolutions, these are the first of such resolutions passed by direct vote by an entire student body. Additionally, the student government unanimously passed its own resolution strongly supportive of the measures.

Divestment has been a popular tool employed at college campuses nationwide to protest South African apartheid and other human rights abuses around the world. It was only natural that divestment would be used to work toward an end to the oldest existing military occupation, Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine—and to target the corporations that profit from the illegal occupation.

The second resolution targets the Caterpillar Corporation, which is responsible for knowingly selling equipment for war crimes and military use against a civilian population, despite calls to cease sales by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and other human rights organizations. Israeli military officials have acknowledged that Caterpillar is a “key weapon” in its continuing occupation of Palestine. Activists worldwide have waged a campaign for several years to hold Caterpillar accountable.

Evergreen senior Rachel Corrie was killed in 2003 by a weaponized Caterpillar bulldozer as she attempted to prevent the demolition of a civilian Palestinian home in the Gaza Strip. Israel continues to claim that Corrie was not run over by the armored bulldozer, contradicting every eyewitness testimony.

The resolutions have received broad support outside of the campus, including an endorsement by Jewish Voice for Peace. Organizers also received a touching letter of support by students in the Gaza Strip, who wrote, “We strongly believe that through steadfast campaigns and grassroots efforts, those dissident voices—people of conscience and bravery—will be victorious.” (Letter available at tescdivest.org)

The resolutions passed overwhelmingly, with 79.5% of participating students voting for the divestment resolution and 71.8% voting for the Caterpillar resolution. This election marked the largest student voter turnout since the creation of Evergreen’s student union.

“In passing these resolutions, students at Evergreen are sending a clear message to the administration that we want a socially responsible investment policy with an unwavering commitment to human rights,” said student organizer Noor Salah.

The resolutions were inspired by similar initiatives by students at UC Berkeley, Hampshire College, and University of Michigan–Dearborn, and following a letter of encouragement from Desmond Tutu. These steps are part of a greater international movement that seeks to find nonviolent solutions to ending the Palestine/Israel conflict.

For more information, and for the complete text of the resolutions, please visit www.tescdivest.org.

Contact:
Andrew Meyer
(360) 628-3087
andrew.m@rachelcorriefoundation.org

Rachel Corrie Foundation for Peace and Justice
203 4th Ave E, Suite 307
Olympia, WA 98501
(360) 754-3998
http://www.rachelcorriefoundation.org
 

Media Contacts:
Alexx Wood, Communications Director
New England Conference of The United Methodist Church
978-682-8055 ext. 150 (office) or 617-838-2828 (mobile), communicate@neumc.org
William Aldrich, Divestment Task Force Chairperson
401-785-1596, wpaldrich@cox.net

New England Task Force Updates Divestment Recommendations
Nine companies added to divestment report and recommendations

LAWRENCE, Massachusetts—This week marks 43 years of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land, which the United Methodist Church has long opposed. The New England Conference of the United Methodist Church has issued an update to its Divestment Task Force report, which outlines divestment recommendations for companies supporting the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land. Nine companies have been added to the report published by the New England Conference in June 2007. The research of the task force has shown that each company supports the occupation in a significant way.

In addition to the 20 companies in the task force's initial report, the 2010 updated recommendations include Cellcom Israel, Cemex, Elbit Systems Ltd., Formula Systems Ltd., Hewlett-Packard, ICx Technologies, Ingersoll Rand, On Track Innovations, and Valero Energy Corporation.

The latest report and the full record of company correspondence are available at www.neumc.org/divest. Additional supporting documentation, including statements from Jewish organizations that support divestment, is also included.

The names of these companies were released after careful study and after giving each company a chance to respond to task force concerns. All companies included in the report met at least one of the following criteria:

• Providing support for the occupation's infrastructure (settlements, roads, checkpoints, or portions of the separation wall built on occupied land),
• Having a physical presence such as a factory or store on occupied land, or
• Providing the Israeli military with offensive weapons or items used to enforce the occupation of Palestinian land.

These recommendations are specific and selective and do not call for divestment from Israel, from Israeli companies, or from companies that do business in Israel. "Rather," stated Task Force Chairman William Aldrich, "we focus only on companies sustaining an occupation that damages Palestinian lives, Israeli lives, and the prospects for a just peace."

The New England Conference is one of at least ten United Methodist Annual Conferences that from 2005 to 2009 have adopted resolutions addressing some kind of divestment process consistent with the denomination's long-standing opposition of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land. The work of the New England task force provides information and resources on companies supporting the occupation in a significant way.

"The United Methodist church has called for an end to the Israeli settlements on Palestinian land, and we must continue to pray for and seek an end to violence and true steps toward peace with justice," said Bishop Peter D. Weaver of the New England Conference. "The task force information will be helpful for those that voluntarily choose to divest from companies involved in activities the denomination opposes."

About the New England Conference
The New England Conference (www.neumc.org) includes more than 500 United Methodist and federated congregations in Eastern Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island. In July 2010, Vermont churches will also become part of the New England Conference.
 

Peace fellowship supports economic sanctions for Middle East peace
Divestment strategy 'dangerously unhelpful,' Washington bishop says

By Matthew Davies, May 12, 2010

[Episcopal News Service] The National Executive Council of Episcopal Peace Fellowship has issued a statement in support of economic sanctions and divestment strategies that it believes "can inspire a more useful dialog and negotiation towards a just and lasting peace in the Middle East."

But Bishop John Bryson Chane of Washington, a member of EPF since 1969, told ENS May 12 that such a strategy is "flawed and dangerously unhelpful at this particular time in history" and would "further hurt the critical development of the economy of Palestine and increase the marginalization of the Palestinian people."

As an independent association of Episcopalians committed to nonviolence, EPF's position does not represent the official policy of the Episcopal Church, which supports "corporate engagement" and "positive investment" practices when dealing with companies in which it owns assets and shares.

The Social Responsibility in Investments Committee of the Episcopal Church, in a 2005 report on the subject, wrote, "Companies can and should operate in Israel proper." The report was commended by the Episcopal Church's Executive Council.

Chane told ENS that it is important for people to understand that EPF "does not speak for the Episcopal Church, Executive Council, General Convention, or reflect the position of our presiding bishop."

Linda Gaither, EPF chair, who voted in favor of the statement, explained in a commentary that the council recognizes the existing policy of the Episcopal Church "is the result of long and serious engagement with the issues raised by the Kairos document and the occupation itself."

The EPF statement, Gaither said, is a "faithful response" to a request from the Rev. Naim Ateek, a Palestinian Christian who is director of the Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center in Jerusalem, for the peace fellowship to "read and study the Kairos document; share it in our church and peace group; respond with prayer and advocacy."

The Kairos Palestine Document, released in December 2009 and signed by several Palestinian Christian leaders, accused Israel of "disregard of international law and international resolutions" and called for an end to occupation of Palestinian territory.

"Palestinian civil organizations, as well as international organizations, NGOs and certain religious institutions call on individuals, companies and states to engage in divestment and in an economic and commercial boycott of everything produced by the occupation," the Kairos document says. "We understand this to integrate the logic of peaceful resistance."

The EPF statement supports the principles of the Kairos document and endorses the "application of divestment and an economic and commercial boycott of products linked to oppression of Palestinian people and occupation of their land." The council membership voted eight for and two against the statement, with one abstention.

Although Anglican Bishop in Jerusalem Suheil Dawani is not one of the signatories to the Kairos document, he is a member of the Patriarchs and Heads of Churches in Jerusalem who wrote in a December 2009 statement: "We hear the cry of hope that our children have launched in these difficult times."

Meanwhile, Dawani has said that it is imperative that Christian churches support the movement toward peace through the diplomatic process which is emerging through the negotiations currently underway between Israel and Palestine with the assistance of the U.S. government.

Chane told ENS that a divestment strategy would compromise the work of the Episcopal Diocese of Jerusalem and make ongoing negotiations between the U.S., Israel and Palestine far more difficult than they already are.

He also acknowledged that development in Palestine "depends a great deal on an open relationship with Israel and ongoing investment in both economies."

The Social Responsibility in Investments Committee noted in its 2005 report that it was not recommending divestment because "the goal is for selected companies to change behavior resulting in a more hopeful climate for peace. If the church simply divests, nothing positive has happened."

That report, Gaither said, while recommending "positive investment," also acknowledged that "the opportunity for a viable Palestinian state is rapidly diminishing" and "the occupation is devastating to Palestinians and harmful to Israelis and comes at an enormous cost to both sides of the conflict." In 2010, Gaither said, "the crisis has intensified. The Kairos document is a cry from the heart of the suffering with its 'enormous cost to both sides.'"

The Episcopal Church, based on resolutions passed at its previous General Conventions regarding the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, remains committed to a just peace that ends the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land, guarantees Israel's security and Palestinian aspirations for a viable sovereign state with Jerusalem as the shared capital of both Israel and Palestine.

Alexander D. Baumgarten, director of government relations for the Episcopal Church, told ENS: "The present political moment offers much hope to those working for a two-state solution that safeguards the security of Israel and creates a free, viable, and secure state for the Palestinian people. The Episcopal Church's own advocacy witness in this discussion is enhanced and sanctified by interfaith relationships with both Jewish and Muslim partners."

The Episcopal Church is committed to dialogue with the Jewish community through the National Council of Churches Interfaith Relations Commission, as well as the Christian-Jewish Roundtable, which includes other ecumenical partners.

Furthermore, General Convention 2009, through its passing of Resolution A074, endorsed a Theological Statement on Interreligious Relations, which represents the Episcopal Church's official policy on the topic. "We believe that religions must stand together in solidarity with all who are suffering and witness to the dignity of every human being," the statement says. "In these ways, presence in mission becomes a courageous mode of peace-making in a violent world."

The statement notes that, in contemporary local and global contexts, the Episcopal Church "faces crucial opportunities and challenges for developing new creative relationships with people of other religious heritages. Throughout the world, people of different religions can be seen searching for compatible if not common ways toward justice, peace and sustainable life."

Baumgarten told ENS that "the most important thing we can do at the moment is to create broad-based, interfaith political support for the [U.S.] president's leadership in bringing parties to the table for negotiation and holding each responsible for its obligations. Creating peace in the land called holy by Jews, Christians, and Muslims is the responsibility of all of the children of Abraham, and the Episcopal Church is committed to building a two-state solution that honors and respects the connection to the land rightfully held by the people of each great Abrahamic faith tradition."

The EPF council, in its statement, has asked its Israel/Palestine Action Group "to offer resources to our membership and the wider church on effective strategies for boycott, divestment, and sanction, including links to partner groups and educational resources on the history of the cycle of violence and obstacles to peace in Israel/Palestine. We are all the children of Abraham, let us no longer profit at the expense of the safety and security of one another. Instead let us end the violent cycle and build a circle of peace."

Gaither said that EPF's council had considered the concerns of Jewish leaders that a "call for divestment, boycott and economic sanctions are anti-Jewish, extending the arc of the long tradition of Christian anti-Semitism," but that it had decided to "join our voices with those of a growing American Jewish public at large who are expressing opposition to Israel's treatment of Palestinians and questioning unconditional support for Israeli government policy."

Gaither expressed appreciation for a General Convention 1991 resolution (D122) that deplores "all expressions of anti-Jewish prejudice."

-- Matthew Davies is editor and international correspondent of the Episcopal News Service.

Source: http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79425_122182_ENG_HTM.htm

Archbishop Desmond Tutu to UC Berkeley: Divesting is the Right Thing To Do
Salem-News.com

Sent from Emily Schaeffer, human right lawyer in Israel/Palestine, who asked Archbishop Tutu to write the letter.

Desmond Tutu
Tutu is an active and prominent proponent of the campaign for divestment from Israel. Courtesy: writespirit.net

(CAPE TOWN) - Dear Student Leaders at the University of California – Berkeley

It was with great joy that I learned of your recent 16-4 vote in support of divesting your university’s money from companies that enable and profit from the injustice of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land and violation of Palestinian human rights. Principled stands like this, supported by a fast growing number of US civil society organizations and people of conscience, including prominent Jewish groups, are essential for a better world in the making, and it is always an inspiration when young people lead the way and speak truth to power.

I am writing to tell you that, despite what detractors may allege, you are doing the right thing. You are doing the moral thing. You are doing that which is incumbent on you as humans who believe that all people have dignity and rights, and that all those being denied their dignity and rights deserve the solidarity of their fellow human beings. I have been to the Ocupied Palestinian Territory, and I have witnessed the racially segregated roads and housing that reminded me so much of the conditions we experienced in South Africa under the racist system of Apartheid. I have witnessed the humiliation of Palestinian men, women, and children made to wait hours at Israeli military checkpoints routinely when trying to make the most basic of trips to visit relatives or attend school or college, and this humiliation is familiar to me and the many black South Africans who were corralled and regularly insulted by the security forces of the Apartheid government.

In South Africa, we could not have achieved our freedom and just peace without the help of people around the world, who through the use of non-violent means, such as boycotts and divestment, encouraged their governments and other corporate actors to reverse decades-long support for the Apartheid regime. Students played a leading role in that struggle, and I write this letter with a special indebtedness to your school, Berkeley, for its pioneering role in advocating equality in South Africa and promoting corporate ethical and social responsibility to end complicity in Apartheid. I visited your campus in the 1980’s and was touched to find students sitting out in the baking sunshine to demonstrate for the University’s disvestment in companies supporting the South African regime.

The same issue of equality is what motivates the divestment movement of today, which tries to end Israel’s 43 year long occupation and the unequal treatment of the Palestinian people by the Israeli government ruling over them. The abuses they face are real, and no person should be offended by principled, morally consistent, non-violent acts to oppose them. It is no more wrong to call out Israel in particular for its abuses than it was to call out the Apartheid regime in particular for its abuses.

To those who wrongly accuse you of unfairness or harm done to them by this call for divestment, I suggest, with humility, that the harm suffered from being confronted with opinions that challenge one’s own pales in comparison to the harm done by living a life under occupation and daily denial of basic rights and dignity. It is not with rancor that we criticize the Israeli government, but with hope, a hope that a better future can be made for both Israelis and Palestinians, a future in which both the violence of the occupier and the resulting violent resistance of the occupied come to an end, and where one people need not rule over another, engendering suffering, humiliation, and retaliation. True peace must be anchored in justice and an unwavering commitment to universal rights for all humans, regardless of ethnicity, religion, gender, national origin or any other identity attribute. You, students, are helping to pave that path to a just peace. I heartily endorse your divestment vote and encourage you to stand firm on the side of what is right.

God bless you richly,

Desmond Tutu. Archbishop Emeritus of Cape Town.

Nobel Laureates:
'We are all peace makers, and we believe that no amount of dialogue without economic pressure
can motivate Israel to change'

by Adam Horowitz on April 28, 2010

http://mondoweiss.net/2010/04/nobel-laureates-we-are-all-peace-makers-an...

Support for divestment continues to grow. Here is the latest amazing statement urging the University of California to divest:

To the ASUC Senate,

We the undersigned Nobel Women Peace Laureates support your courage and call on you to reaffirm the ASUC Bill in Support of UC Divestment from War Crimes. We stand united in our belief that divesting from companies that provide significant support for the Israeli military provides moral and strategic stewardship of tuition and taxpayer-funded public education money. We are all peace makers, and we believe that no amount of dialogue without economic pressure can motivate Israel to change its policy of using overwhelming force against Palestinian civilians. Last year's nearly 400 women and children casualties in Gaza, and thousands more injured and killed, were all victims of a well armed military machine allowed to operate unchecked. A delegation of us went to Gaza and saw firsthand the evidence of wholesale killing and destruction. Our hearts grieve for Gaza and we demand that there be no more Gazas. We urge the UC system to take the lead in this direction as has been its tradition, and commend the students who are working to achieve this goal. We reject the portrayals of this action as anti-Semitic, and maintain that it does not make a choice between Palestinians and Israelis, but between universal freedom and oppression.

Signed,

Shirin Ebadi, Iran, 2003 Nobel Peace Laureate
Mairead Maguire (Corrigan), Ireland, 1976 Nobel Peace Laureate
Rigoberta Menchu Tum, Guatemala, 1992 Nobel Peace Laureate
Jody Williams, USA, 1997 Nobel Peace Laureate