FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, 15 August 2011

It emerged Thursday that Irish company Total Produce was no longer in the running to buy troubled Israeli exporter Agrexco. The Irish fruit company dropped out of the running after pressure from Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaigners, who had written because of Agrexco’s involvement in illegal West Bank settlements.

BDS campaigners in Ireland reacted swiftly to a call by the BDS National Committee (BNC) and wrote to Total Produce explaining how Agrexco was involved in the illegal and immoral occupation and exploitation of Palestinian land, urging them not to invest in Agrexco. They also warned the company that investment in Agrexco would turn Total into the next target of the BDS campaign.

“There is now a clear pattern of companies targeted by BDS campaigners going into serious financial meltdown” said Adel Abu Ni’meh, head of the Palestinian Farmers’ Union (part of the BNC). “Agrexco and Veolia, two major companies strongly linked to illegal Israeli settlements are both in serious trouble now. This shows that BDS hits companies complicit in Israeli occupation, colonialism and apartheid where it hurts: their bottom lines”.

The news come only days after Veolia, a French company targeted by the BDS campaign because of its involvement in illegal Israeli settlement projects, announced it would massively scale-back its global operations.

A Tel Aviv judge gave Agrexco bankruptcy proceedings a final extension Thursday, as Israeli company Kislev now seems to be the only serious buyer, according to Israeli financial news website Globes. There was one other bid from a Dutch company, but the judge dismissed it as “having more holes than Swiss cheese”.

Agrexco has been a prime target of Palestinian solidarity activists calling for BDS against Israel until it ends its illegal and criminal policies against Palestinians.

A new coalition of European campaigners last month promised to “put an end to Agrexco’s presence in Europe”. Twenty-three groups signed a declaration saying they had established mechanisms to coordinate boycott campaigns and court actions against the Israeli exporter.

>>> Read the full press release on the BDSMOVEMENT website HERE

 A founding member of the campaign for the academic and cultural boycott outlines the motivation behind the movement.

Author and history professor Mark LeVine speaks with sociologist Lisa Taraki, a co-founder of the Palestinian campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel.

Mark LeVine: What is the “Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions” movement and how is it related to the academic and cultural boycott movement? How have both evolved in the past few years in terms of their goals and methods?

Lisa Taraki: The BDS movement can be summed up as the struggle against Israeli colonisation, occupation and apartheid. BDS is a rights-based strategy to be pursued until Israel meets its obligation to recognise the Palestinian people’s inalienable right to self-determination and complies with the requirements of international law.

Within this framework, the academic and cultural boycott of Israel has gained considerable ground in the seven years since the launching of the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) in 2004. The goals of the academic and cultural boycott call, as the aims of the Palestinian Civil Society Call for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions issued in 2005, have remained consistent: to end the colonisation of Palestinian lands occupied in 1967; to ensure full equality of Palestinian citizens of Israel and end the system of racial discrimination; and to realise the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194.

The logic of the BDS movement has also remained consistent. The basic logic of BDS is the logic of pressure, not diplomacy, persuasion, or dialogue. Diplomacy as a strategy for achieving Palestinian rights has proven to be futile, due to the protection and immunity Israel enjoys from hegemonic world powers and those in their orbit.

Second, the logic of persuasion has also shown its bankruptcy, since no amount of “education” of Israelis about the horrors of occupation and other forms of oppression seems to have turned the tide. Dialogue between Palestinians and Israelis, which remains very popular among Israeli liberals and Western foundations and governments that fund the activities, has also failed miserably. Dialogue is often framed in terms of “two sides to the story”, in the sense that each side must understand the pain, anguish, and suffering of the other, and to accept the narrative of the other.

This presents the “two sides” as if they were equally culpable, and deliberately avoids acknowledgment of the basic coloniser-colonised relationship. Dialogue does not promote change, but rather reinforces the status quo, and in fact is mainly in the interest of the Israeli side of the dialogue, since it makes Israelis feel that they are doing something while in fact they are not. The logic of BDS is the logic of pressure. And that pressure has been amplifying.

>>> Read full article on Al Jazeera’s website here.

The Black Liberation Movement and Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions: Lessons and Applications for the Palestinian Liberation Movement

By Kali Akuno

The Palestinian Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions or BDS movement, launched in 2005 to uproot the zionist settler-colonial project and dismantle the Israeli apartheid state following the various setbacks to the Palestinian liberation movement stemming from the Oslo accords, is rapidly growing into a powerful international political force. As the movement continues to grow and expand it is bound to encounter more obstacles and roadblocks. One way to defeat these limitations is to study and learn how other peoples’ movements that have employed BDS strategies and tactics on an extensive level organized themselves to overcome or maneuver around the roadblocks on their path. One such movement is the Black Liberation Movement (BLM) in North America. The BLM has employed BDS strategies and tactics extensively for the greater part of the last 200 plus years in its unfinished question for liberation. What follows is a brief summary of the BLM’s experience and a short exploration of some of the lessons learned from this extensive experience.

The BLM has employed a broad range of strategies and tactics in its pursuit of liberation over the 500 long years of its existence, including mass rebellions, emigration, work stoppages, mass strikes, armed struggle, and international dipolmacy. Some of the most dynamic of the liberation strategies and tactics employed have centralized the comprehensive utilization of boycotts, divestment initiatives and sanctions, commonly known as BDS. The most dynamic element of these BDS initiatives is that when they have been successful they have been able to engage masses of people and harness limited individual capacities and transform them via collective activities into powerful social and political weapons. And they have often been able to accomplish this in creative ways that have reduced individual risk and minimized direct conflict with brutal and vastly more powerful enemies like the Klu Klux Klan, White Citizens Councils, the Southern Planter Elite, and the United States Government.

It can be soundly argued that the employment of BDS strategies and tactics within the BLM have their roots in antebellum or pre-Civil War initiatives to end chattel slavery and secure basic human dignities. One of the earliest recorded successes of a combined boycott and divestment initiative was the protest of the Black Community in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in 1787 led by Richard Allan and Absolom Jones against the racist practices and policies of the Methodist Episcopal Church. This initiative lead to the creation of the order of the African Methodist Episcopal Church in 1816, which became a cornerstone in the institutional development of the Black Community in the United States. Another exemplary model from the antebellum period is drawn from the Abolitionist movement (under Black and white leadership on both sides of the Atlantic), which organized a boycott in the early 1790’s of the strategic goods of the triangular trade such as sugar, rum, tobacco, cotton, coffee, and dyes that built the empirical economies of the Atlantic ocean and laid the foundation for the capitalist world system. These boycotts played a major role in ending the trans-Atlantic slave trade in the United States and the United Kingdom by 1808.

BDS tactics within the BLM grew in considerable scope and application after the civil war. As African descendant people in the US have had very little access to capital until relatively recently, and even less substantive political power until the 1970’s, boycotts, rather than divestment and sanctions, have been the primary weapon in the BDS arsenal employed by the BLM. Between the 1860’s to 1940’s, a broad range of successful boycotts were organized by BLM forces that challenged the system of white supremacy and the institutions of oppression including government and private pension programs that excluded or exploited freed slaves and their descendants, lending agencies that exploited Black farmers, discriminatory transport systems and laws established at the turn of the 20th century, businesses that refused to hire or serve Black people, the US armed forces for discriminatory policies and engagements in imperial conquest, and the US government directly via the original March on Washington Movement led by A. Philip Randolph against racial oppression and discriminatory hiring and contracting practices.

The 1950’s witnessed the maturation of the BLM’s employment of boycott strategies. The Montgomery, Alabama Bus Boycott of 1955 – 1956, generally considered one of the three primary catalyzing moments of the high tide of struggle mounted by the BLM between the 1950’s – 1970’s (the other two being the Brown v Board of Education decision and the murder of Emmett Till), dealt a critical blow to the legally sanctioned policies and practices of white supremacy. Although the Montgomery Bus Boycott is generally portrayed as being the product of a spontaneous act and for canonizing the heroic actions and leadership of Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, Jr., it was in all reality a deliberate and well thought out campaign based on years of preparation and planning. Montgomery however, was not the first boycott of its kind. Similar boycotts were organized in Mississippi, such as the one lead by TRM Howard against the lack of restroom facilities for Blacks on commuter buses in 1952 – 1953, and the Baton Rogue, Louisiana Bus Boycott of 1953 lead by Willis Reed and the Rev. TJ Jemison.

As previously noted, divestment strategies were not as widely employed in the BLM prior to the 1960’s. But, when they were employed they tended to serve as catalysts for Black institutional development.  Most of the documented mass divestment initiatives employed by the forces of the BLM involved the removal of wealth, deeds, and insurance polices from financial institutions and insurance companies that brazenly supported the oppressive policies and practices of American Apartheid. The most successful of these divestment initiatives lead to the establishment of independent Black institutions such as banks, insurance companies and mutual aid societies, particularly before the Great Depression of the 1930’s which liquidated most of the wealth amassed by Black people after the Civil War. Two of the most successful divestment initiatives that translated into Black independent institutions occurred in Natchez, Mississippi and New Orleans, Louisiana where Blacks acted in mass by taking their merger savings from discriminatory institutions that denied them equal services – loans, medical assistance, burial funds, etc., and pooled them together to create mutual aid societies and banks. Initiatives such as this were employed after the Great Depression, more often to support a boycott initiative. But, they tended to be more short lived and limited in their impact as a result of capitals restructuring after WW II and the creation of various welfare state institutions that provided essential social services.

In the 1960’s the utilization of boycotts and divestment initiatives became less prominent in the overall orientation of the BLM primarily as a result of the defeat of the legalized dimensions of American apartheid and the attainment of more political power and social influence in the United States as a direct result of the success of the mass resistance mounted by the movement. Sanctions however, began to grow in both utilization and importance from the mid-1960’s on. The sanctions typically employed by the BLM concentrated on exerting intense political and economic pressure on government institutions and corporate enterprises to force them to comply with various demands, such as access to jobs, educational opportunities, community investment, and decent housing. This type of sanction was employed because then, as now, Blacks in North America have not been able to attain self-determination in the form of national independence to be able to enact state level sanctions. A few of the more successful sanction initiatives of this period  targeted the automotive industry, colleges and universities, and state social welfare agencies over hiring, safety, access and quality administrative issues.

One of the most memorable and celebrated BDS initiatives employed by the BLM was an international initiative in support of the anti-Apartheid Movement of Azania (i.e. South Africa). The BLM and the Azanian or South African liberation movement share a long and deep history of solidarity and strategic collaboration going back to late 1800’s. From the 1920’s on, through the efforts of activists like Max Yergan and A.B. Xuma, the BLM and the South African liberation movement not only appealed to each other for inspiration and solidarity, but consistently shared strategies and tactics to aid their respective struggles. How to apply BDS strategies and tactics, particularly after the success of the Indian liberation movement – which the BLM and Azanian liberation movements both stood in active solidarity with – in attaining independence from the British empire in 1947, and that of the Montgomery Bus Boycott, became a common feature of their exchanges. Upon the founding of the anti-Apartheid struggle by activists from the African National Congress (ANC) of South Africa in London in 1959, BLM activists and organizers were some of the first international supporters to take up the call and organize solidarity initiatives throughout the United States. These initiatives began to gain critical mass beginning in the 1970’s through the initiatives of formations like the African Liberation Support Committee (ALSC) and Trans-Africa Forum. They played a major role in weakening the Apartheid regime economically and isolating it politically be getting North American cultural workers (artists, academics, and athletes) to honor the boycott call, forcing several major American corporations to divest from the South African economy, and in forming a solid political block in the US Congress around the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) to press for US government to enforce international sanctions of the regime. This long history of solidarity played a critical role in the collapse of the Apartheid state in the late 1980’s and the transition to majority democratic rule in 1994.

The BLM was not playing favorites in its international support of the Azanian liberation movement it should be noted. It also employed BDS strategies and tactics in support of numerous national and social liberation movements in Africa – most notably those of Angola, Mozambique, Guinea-Bissau, Zimbabwe, and Congo/Zaire – where it called on the US government and the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance (NATO) to stop arming and supporting the colonial empire of Portugal, the white settler regime in Zimbabwe (then Rhodesia), or for the US government to sanction and US corporations to divest from the reactionary Mobutu regime in Zaire after the assassination of Patrice Lumumba.

What the history of the BLM’s employment of BDS strategies and tactics illustrates is that they can clearly be successful in advancing and attaining some of the critical objectives of a peoples’ liberation movement. However, as the uncompleted struggle for Black liberation in North America testifies to, they, like all strategies and tactics, have their limitations. Where BDS strategies and tactics have tended to be most successful in the history of the BLM has been when mass self-reliant resistance was employed to confront a target that was either dependent on Black labor or economic patronage, typically the utilization of a service like transportation or the consumption of a product, or when boycott and divestment campaigns lead to the establishment of Black autonomous or independent institutions. Another critical factor in the success, or failure, of BDS tactics in the service of the BLM was the degree to which they shamed the US government in the context of the Cold War or constrained its operations in the Third World. However, it should be noted that while Pan-Africanism and the eliciting of international solidarity have been central to the BLM since the era of slave rebellions, maroon societies, and the abolitionist movement, and was extensively mobilized between the 1880’s – 1900’s, the 1920’s – 40’s, and again in the 1960’s – 80’s, the BDS initiatives of the BLM tended to be insular or self-reliant mobilizations that self-consciously depended on the strength of the Black masses themselves.

These historical and contextual lessons from the BLM are critical for the Palestinian BDS movement to internalize and incorporate where applicable. As the Palestinian BDS movement is currently modeled more on the example of the anti-Apartheid movement than the BLM (or Indian) example, it possess some of the limitations of that particular movement, particularly the reliance on Palestinian exiles and descendants in the diaspora for leadership and non-Palestinains throughout the world for support and patronage. Exiles or their descendants in the diaspora can sometimes be gravely out of touch with realities on the ground in their homelands, non-Palestinians who engage the movement in various capacities can sometimes have little regard for the necessity of Palestinian self-determination for determining the course of the struggle, and the general support of international allies can often be whimsical and conditional. The balance of forces in the world must also be taken into strategic consideration. The lack of a critical mass of progressive nation-states, as existed in the 1960’s and 70’s for instance, limits the threat of sanctions, and the general weakness of progressive social movements the world over (even with the inspiration of the so-called “Arab Spring”) sets some constraints regarding both reach and depth on the employment of boycott and divestment initiatives.

These are the fundamental limitations related to the anti-Apartheid model of BDS. The primary limitation regarding the utilization of a more BLM oriented model pivots on the role of Palestinian labor in the interrelated and interdependent political economies of Palestine and the zionist nation-state. The Palestinian economy, namely that of Gaza and the West Bank, is severely constricted by what is in effect an Israeli and US-led embargo (in the case of Gaza its actually a full on military blockade), while Palestinian workers are rapidly joining the ranks of the worlds excluded, dispossessed and disposable populations due to the embargo and wholesale replacement in the Israeli economy by super-exploitable migrant workers imported from Southeast Asia and Africa. Prior to the 1st Intifada, the Israeli economy was largely dependent on Palestinian labor. Israeli capital, in unison with the Israeli nation-state, took deliberate steps after the 1st Intifada to make sure that Palestinian labor could never critically disrupt the economy again, hence the replacement. Palestinian labors limited ability to disrupt the Israeli economy means that it is limited in its ability to employ many of the successful BDS methods employed by the BLM in the 20th century.

However, as the example of the BLM illustrates, none of these challenges are insurmountable. The Palestinian liberation movement and its allies can and should learn a great deal from the BSM movements employed by the Black, Azanian, and Indian liberation movements, but take head that none of them can be copied whole cloth. In the final analysis, the Palestinian BDS movement is going to have to blaze its own course to address the conditions of the present era and those of the future. Those of us committed to the cause of Palestinian liberation and see the BDS movement as an essential tool to attain it would do well to take stock of the lessons that can be gained from critically examining a protracted struggle like the BLM, and prepare ourselves to embark on a long marathon down freedom’s road.

Sources

1. August Meier and Elliot Rudwick, “Black Boycotts before Montgomery”, Ebony Magazine, 1969. See http://books.google.com/books?id=09oDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA154&lpg=PA154&dq=boycotts+before&source=bl&ots=8ovB72dlY9&sig=XfYbDul8Lre4tHax_ZOmztjAu38&hl=en&ei=krI8Tu76K4bLgQfS9_DtBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=boycotts%20before&f=false.

2. Debbie Elliot, “The First Civil Rights Bus Boycott: 50 years ago, Baton Rogue Jim Crow Protest Made History”,  National Public Radio, June 19, 2003. See http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1304163.

3. Horace Campbell, “The End of Empires: African Americans and India”, 2008.

4. William Minter, Gail Hovey, and Charles Cobb Jr, editors, “No Easy Victories: African Liberation and American Activists over a Half Century, 1950 – 2000″, 2008.

5. Penny M. Von Eschen, “Race against Empire: Black Americans and Anti-Colonialism, 1937 – 1957″, 1997.

6. Peter M. Bergman, Mort N. Bergman, “The Chronological History of the Negro in America”, 1969.

7. John, H. Bracey Jr, August Meier, and Elliott Rudwick, editors, “Black Nationalism in Amerca”, 1970.

8. August Meier, Elliot Rudwick, and Francis L. Broderick, editors, “Black Protest Thought in the Twentieth Century”, 1971.

9. Elliott P. Skinner, “African Americans and US Policy Toward Africa, 1850 – 1924: In Defense of Black Nationality”, 1992.

10. Juliet E. K. Walker, “The History of Black Business in America: Capitalism, Race, Entrepreneurship, Volume 1, to 1865″, 2009.

11. James H. Meriwether, “Proudly We Can Be Africans: Black Americans and Africa, 1935 – 1961″, 2002.

12. Carol Anderson, “Eyes Off the Prize: The United Nations and the African American Struggle for Human Rights, 1944 – 1955″, 2003.

13. Charles P. Henry, editor, “Foreign Policy and the Black (Inter)National Interest”, 2000.

14. Thomas Borstelmann, “The Cold War and the Color Line: American Race relations in the Global Arena”, 2001.

15. Mary Dudziak, “Cold War Civil Rights: Race and the Image of American Democracy”, 2000.

16. Brenda Gayle Plummer, editor, “Window on Freedom: Race, Civil Rights, and Foreign Affairs 1945 – 1988″, 2003.

Kali Akuno is the National Coordinator for the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement (MXMG) and the Co-Director of the US Human Rights Nework (USHRN). Kali is currently working on a book tentatively entitled “Confronting a Cleansing: Hurricane Katrina, the Battle for New Orleans, and the Future of the Black Working Class”. The views expressed in this article do not reflect those of MXGM or USHRN. Email feedback to: kaliakuno@gmail.com.

JOINT STUDENT STATEMENT 

04 August 2011

There is no doubt, Israel is an Apartheid state; There is only one word, boycott! 

We, students and youth of a post Apartheid South Africa, who bear the scars of a racist history and who continue to fight for complete liberation, have a duty and responsibility to stand in solidarity with those facing oppression worldwide. Israeli apartheid is one such form of oppression. 

Israeli media boast that a mission of 150 Israeli propagandists will be sent to universities in 5 countries to fix Israel’s “serious image problems”. The Israeli mission will begin on South African campuses on the 11th of August, with a delegation that includes at least two aides from the Israeli parliament. A delegation member was clear about the intention of their trip: “We have to create some doubt in their [South African students’] minds.” 

Don’t patronize us! We lived apartheid, we suffered apartheid, we know what apartheid is, we recognise apartheid when we see it. And when we see Israel, we see a regime that practices apartheid. Israel’s image needs no changing; its policies do! We urge Israeli students to instead join the growing and inspiring internal resistance to their regime, particularly the boycott from within movement, rather than waste time and money on these propaganda trips to deceive us Black students, South Africans have no need for these Muldergate-like trips. 

A “major focus” of the Israeli trip will be the University of Johannesburg (UJ). On 1st April 2011 UJ’s Senate, with the full backing of UJ’s Student Representative Council, terminated its institutional relationship with Israel’s Ben-Gurion University. Indeed, UJ set an academic boycott of Israel precedent that all other South African and international universities can follow. 

Following UJ’s decision, and in response to a letter sent to us by Palestinian students, we urge all SRCs, student groups and other youth structures to strategize and implement a boycott of Israel and its campaigns. We declare that all SA campuses must be Apartheid-Israel free zones. 

As with the struggle against apartheid in South Africa, international solidarity is key in overcoming Israeli Apartheid. In Nelson Mandela’s words: ‘It behoves all South Africans, erstwhile beneficiaries of generous international support, to stand up and be counted among those contributing actively to the cause of freedom and justice….we know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians.’ 

FOR THE RECORD

A. On Education

1. The Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories has had disastrous effects on access to education for Palestinians. Palestinian students face poverty, harassment and humiliation as a result of Israeli policy and actions.

2. Israel mounted direct attacks on Palestinian education, including the complete closures of two Palestinian universities in 2003 and the targeting and bombing of more than 60 primary and secondary schools during the Israeli attacks on Gaza in 2009.

3. Israel’s assault on the education of Palestinians is illegal under international law. The right to education is a fundamental human right enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international instruments.

4. The Israeli blockade of Gaza has had a detrimental impact on students. Gaza’s electricity supply is controlled by Israel and shut-down for several hours most days, making it difficult for students to study. Moreover, the blockade means insufficient quantities of educational equipment, such as paper, desks and books, reach students.

B. On Israeli Apartheid

5. Several of our senior leaders have compared Israel to Apartheid South Africa, including Comrades Kgalema Mothlantle, Blade Nzimande, Zwelinzima Vavi, Rob Davies, Jeremy Cronin, Ahmed Kathrada, Winnie Mandela, Ronnie  Kasrils, Denis Goldberg, the late Kader Asmal and Archbishop Desmond Tutu.

6. Both the former and current United Nations Special Rapporteurs for Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories have requested that Israel be investigated for the crime of apartheid.

7. In an official report commissioned by the South African government in 2009, the Human Sciences Research Council confirmed that Israel, by its policies and practices, is guilty of the crime of apartheid.

8. In November 2010, South Africa’s Department of International Relations and Cooperation called upon the Israeli government “to cease their activities that are reminiscent of apartheid forced removals…”

C. On Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS)

8. Palestinian civil society, including student groups, have called for a policy of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) of Israel until it abides by international law.

9. This call has the endorsement of the largest and most representative coalition of civil and political society in Palestine. The call also has the support of a growing number of progressive Israeli groups.

10. In 2010, the United Nations Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Professor Richard Falk, said: “It is politically and morally appropriate, as well as legally correct, to accord maximum support to the BDS campaign.”

11. COSATU, South Africa’s largest trade union federation was one of the first unions to endorse the BDS call. Subsequently, numerous other international trade unions have also adopted a pro-BDS position.

12. Several international groups have began to advance the BDS call in the cultural, consumer, sports, economic and academic spheres. Earlier this year the largest student union in Europe, the ULU, passed a motion in support of BDS.” 

ISSUED AT WITS UNIVERSITY ON THURSDAY THE 4TH OF AUGUST 2011 BY

South African Union of Students, South African Student Congress and the Young Communist League of South Africa 

* The South African Student Congress (SASCO) is South Africa’s oldest and largest student organization.

** The SA Union of Students (SAUS) comprises all South African university Student Representative Councils and is the most representative student union in the country.

*** The Young Communist League of South Africa (YCL) has local branches at all South African universities

 

___________________________________________________

Above: Installed in the Bay Area Rapid Transit  System (BART) January 2011 and removed due to customer complaints.

We are reflecting and building on our activities as a coalition in 2010 as we strategize and prepare for 2011. We’re not ready to share all of our plans yet, but we can let you know that we’re hard at work researching and developing a more targeted campaign that we hope will contribute to the ever-growing international BDS movement.  Stay tuned for details!

Meantime, there’s some exciting stuff happening in our home state!  The Israel Divestment Campaign recently launched a ballot initiative to divest the state’s two public retirement funds from companies that provide equipment and services to Israel that are used in violation of international law.  Read below for more information about how to get involved!

We’ve also rounded up news about a recent action targeting Hewlett Packard, Students for Justice in Palestine’s recent response to being named on the ADL’s “Top 10 Anti-Israel Groups in America,” an event with Palestinian Knesset Member Hanin Zoabi, information on the Week Against the Wall, and more BDS news and victories from around the world.

In Solidarity,

BACEIA

Read the full newsletter >>

DON’T DIP INTO APARTHEID

Stolen:  Roasted Red Pepper Hummus

ISRAEL:  Practicing expulsion, occupation, apartheid and cultural & cuisine appropriation since 1948

SABRA & TRIBE HUMMUS PROFIT FROM

WAR & OCCUPATON

Sabra Hummus is co-owned by the Strauss Group, an Israeli company supporting the Israeli armys Golani Brigade.  The Golani Brigade has been cited for numerous human rights violations since 1948 including during Israel’s three week 2008-2009 assault on Gaza that killed more than 1,400 mostly unarmed Palestinian civilians.

Tribe   Hummus, is owned by the Osem Group a supporter of the Jewish National Fund (JNF).  The JNF aquires land for the exclusive use of “Jewish people in perpetuity” and in this way, contributes to the ethnic cleansing of indigenous Palestinians.

In 2005, Palestinian civil society called for a global boycott, divestment and sanctions movement against Israel until it complies with international law.

www.bdsmovement.net • facebook:  don’t buy into apartheid

• BOYCOTT SABRA & TRIBE •

CONTACT
Rae Abileah, 415-994-1723

Six Activists and a Writer Arrested at AIPAC Gala for Singing Flashmob Calling for End to US Military Aid to Israel
Protest of Ahava and AIPAC Planned Today in San Francisco

On Monday, December 13, when the American Israel Public Affairs Committee held its annual dinner in Oakland, a group of activists performed a flashmob inside the Marriott hotel to the tune of Pink Floyd’s “Another Brick in the Wall,” addressing Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine. Six Activists and one writer were arrested.

VIDEO of protest is now LIVE at: http://bit.ly/aipacflashmob

The activists were charged with trespassing and are were held at the North County jail for over six hours, released in the wee hours of the morning.  After arrest, Janet Kobren was searched without consent by an Alameda sheriff.  Gene St. Onge was held longer in solitary confinement for refusing to eat a baloney sandwich.  The flashmob was coordinated by activists representing CODEPINK Women for Peace, American Friends Service Committee, US Boat to Gaza, Students for Justice in Palestine, Queers Undoing Israeli Terror and Don’t Buy Into Apartheid.

Today, Tuesday, December 14, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee will hold its annual dinner in San Francisco, and a coalition of peace and justice groups, including CODEPINK, are coordinating a protest about the use of our tax dollars to fund apartheid and war on the Palestinian people.

In addition, activist, some dressed in spa attire,  will gather at a retail store that carries Ahava products to tell the store: No more Ahava cosmetics. Activists won’t just be holding signs and chanting, as the event will feature original parodies of “Jingle Bells“ and “Chanukah oh Chanukah“ sung by caroling demonstrators.

AIPAC lobbies annually for Congress to approve a $3 billion gift of military aid to Israel, much of which goes into demolishing Palestinian homes, uprooting thousand-year-old olive orchards, and pauperizing the people living in the Occupied Territories.

“While people in our communities are suffering in the worst economy since the Great Depression, we are outraged that some local politicians will still pander to a lobby that wants to divert billions of American tax dollars to enforce a brutal occupation in the Middle East,” said Jim Harris of Stop AIPAC.

The AIPAC protest is being coupled with an Ahava boycott action.  Activists want to illustrate how individuals can use their purchasing power to boycott and divest from Israel’s war crimes, modeling what they believe the US government should do as well: divest by ending US military aid to Israel.  Since June, 2009, activists have been pressuring stores around the world to stop carrying products made by the Israeli cosmetics manufacturer Ahava Dead Sea Laboratories because of the Ahava’s illegal practices. Ahava Dead Sea Laboratories is an Israeli cosmetics company that has its manufacturing plant and visitors center near the shores of the Dead Sea in the illegal Israeli settlement of Mitzpe Shalem in the Occupied Palestinian West Bank. All Israeli settlements in the West Bank are illegal under international law.  Although its goods are manufactured in the West Bank, Ahava labels them as “products of Israel,” a practice that is illegal under European Union law and is currently being investigated in the UK and Holland.  For more info visit www.stolenbeauty.org.

1. In Chicago, DePaul deshelves Sabra 11/19/2010

Today marks another win for the global boycott, divestment, sanctions (BDS) movement against corporations that profit from severe human rights violations. Chicago’s very own DePaul University just announced that their dining services will be discontinuing the sale of hummus manufactured by Sabra, an Israeli brand known for its vocal and material support of Israeli Defense Forces. The administration has temporarily suspended the sale of Sabra products and will likely move towards permanently banning the brand from campus.

Read more here: http://smpalestine.com/2010/11/19/depaul-divests-from-israeli-hummus-product/

2. Philly BDS held flash mobs to get Sabra and Tribe out of their stores…

Shoppers and employees at the Fresh Grocer’s flagship store at 40th and Walnut Street were surprised by a choreographed flash dance that was performed in the store this afternoon by activists calling for a boycott of products that support Israeli mistreatment of Palestinians.  Approximately twenty neighborhood residents, dressed in black and wearing sequined red accessories, danced in unison and sang an adaptation of a popular song by Lady Gaga to deliver their request that the store and its customers stop selling and stop buying Sabra and Tribe hummus products.

Sabra & Tribe products directly subsidize Israeli human rights abuses through their support of the Israeli Defense Forces and infrastructure of the occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza.

See more on the Philly BDS website: http://www.phillybds.org/?p=549

3. Strauss removes support for IDF from English website!!!

See the Philly BDS blog here: http://www.phillybds.org/?p=624

And the Jerusalem post article here: http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=195963

Congratulations to DePaul SJP and Philly BDS for fantastic work!

Egil Drillo Olsen, coach for the national Norwegian football team, recently wrote in Aftenposten, the country’s second largest paper, that the call to boycott Israel was “in line with what 90 percent of the world’s population believes. There cannot be many other opinions.”

OSLO (EJP)—One hundred famous Norwegians, led by the country’s national football coach, have signed a petition demanding a cultural and academic boycott of Israel, accusing its educational institutions of “playing a key role in the occupation” and equating it with apartheid.

A Norwegian ex-premier denounced their boycott call.

Egil Drillo Olsen, coach for the national Norwegian football team, recently wrote in Aftenposten, the country’s second largest paper, that the call to boycott Israel was “in line with what 90 percent of the world’s population believes. There cannot be many other opinions.”

The petition is the last item in a string of similar and high-profile initiatives to have taken place in Norway over the past two years. It was signed by coach Olsen and 99 other public figures from the arts and culture, who stated that a boycott is “necessary” not only to help Palestinians, but also to “support Israelis opposing the occupation.”

Read the full article here: http://www.ejpress.org/article/news/western_europe/47417