Open Shuhada Street (OSS) has called for a boycott of a beauty product range called Ahava. These products, made from mud extracted from the Dead Sea, are manufactured at Mitzpe Shalem, an Israeli settlement in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT). Mitzpe Shalem is also the major shareholder of Ahava, with 37% of the company's stock. Another settlement, Kibbutz Kalia, owns 7% of the company. Both settlements have displaced local Palestinian populations.
Our call has generated controversy. Apologists for the Israeli occupation have asked why we do not boycott products from other countries with poor human rights records.
Before answering that question, consider this quick recap to the background of the conflict. In 1967 Israel, after a short war with its neighbours, occupied the two areas which constitute the OPT, the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The West Bank includes East Jerusalem and its famous Old City. The three and a half million occupied Palestinians, like the Jews who emigrated to what is now Israel, have nationalist aspirations. The majority want independence in their own state. A minority want equal rights within a broader Israeli-Palestinian state.
Two broad choices faced, and still face, Israel. It could either withdraw from the OPT or it could annex them thereby making them part of Israel. In the former case, an independent Palestinian state would be established alongside Israel. Alternatively with annexation, Israel would be morally obligated to give the Palestinian population equal citizenship to Israelis, including the franchise, the same justice system and freedom of movement throughout Israel.
Some mixture of these choices may also be possible, but the principles would remain unchanged. The Israeli government, the Palestinian Authority and the major Zionist organisations around the world claim to support the former solution, i.e. two states.
But Israel has maintained the longest occupation in recent history. It only annexed East Jerusalem, a small but important part of the OPT, but failed to give the Palestinians living there citizenship. Furthermore, in breach of the fourth Geneva Convention, it has allowed and encouraged Israeli citizens to settle in the OPT. The consequence of this is the mess we have to today; a highly cantonised West Bank in which 2 million Palestinians are gradually being forced into a few enclaves to make way for half-a-million settlers.
Many of the settlers have moved to the OPT because of economic incentives. A minority are religious zealots. The Palestinians have no meaningful franchise. Their movement is restricted, they suffer sustained human rights abuses, and they are subject to military law while the settlers enjoy the full protection of Israeli civil law. An official policy of separation operates in the West Bank. This is the problem at the frontline of the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
A worldwide movement to end the occupation has formed. It has gained momentum in recent years and it has now culminated in calls for boycotts. Some demand a boycott of all Israeli academia, culture and goods; others have called for partial boycotts. We argue that a call to boycott products produced in the West Bank is justified, both morally and strategically.
A boycott is a tactic. It is not a moral call to boycott every product produced by every country with a dubious human rights record. For one thing this is impossible in today's global economy. Also some boycotts are wrong. For example the embargo on Iraqi goods in the 1990s caused hundreds of thousands of innocent deaths but did not help topple Saddam Hussein. A boycott only works in certain circumstances.
The boycott of settlement goods is one such case for three reasons: (1) there is a worldwide movement to end the occupation and so a boycott has some prospect of success, (2) the boycott will cause inconvenience, but it won't result in deaths, it will help alter policy and save lives on all sides, and (3) Israel, because of the liberal sensibilities of part of its population, and its desire to be recognised as a modern Western democracy, is sensitive to the boycott.
This partially answers the question why is there a boycott movement to end the Israeli occupation but not to end human rights abuses in, say, China or Iran. Yet some Zionist organisations will have everyone believe that it is simply because of worldwide hatred for Jews. Undoubtedly there are anti-Semites who target Israel but the vast majority of people support this cause because they are committed to human rights and oppose all racism, including anti-Semitism. Indeed, a large and growing number of Jews support it.
The reasons for this are that the Occupation is the longest in recent history, smacks of hypocrisy in the face of Israel's image as a liberal democracy, is undermining the prospects of democratising the whole middle east, and is destabilising the region and the world. Furthermore, the system of separation in the West Bank bares an extremely close resemblance to racial discrimination, which, in the wake of the US civil rights and anti-Apartheid movements is considered a universal evil.
Apologists for the Occupation pose Iran as the main example of a country that should be boycotted if those calling for boycotts are to be consistent. Iran is a destabilising force in the middle-east, particularly in its pursuit of nuclear weapons to match Israel. But in their antagonism to the West the Ayatollahs are more impervious to global moral pressure. Boycotts, like all tactics, are only invoked when they have a chance of success.
There is therefore a necessary inconsistency. This does not imply criticism of Iran's anti-democratic theocracy should slacken. Nevertheless, what these apologists fail to account for is that there are very strictly enforced sanctions imposed upon Iran, and its clients like Hamas. Israel does not currently experience even a fraction of such sanctions.
The boycott will not bankrupt Israel, but it succeeds in posing the political question in the clearest light: either one supports these illegal settlements, or one is helping to remove them and to end the immoral Occupation. The rationale for a boycott of settlement products is compelling. We hope people throughout South Africa will join this boycott.
In the long run, a worldwide strategic and principled boycott of settlement goods will not only help Palestinians realise their rights; it will make Israel a better place for all its people, Jews, Muslims, Christians and others. The leaders of white South Africa discovered this before it was too late. We hope Israeli leaders will too.
Geffen and Isaacs are founding members of Open Shuhada Street, an organisation that supports Israelis and Palestinians working together using non-violent means to end the Occupation.
Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter
