FAQ

Does the Co-op boycott call for the destruction of Israel?

No. The boycott calls for compliance with international law and human rights.

Many protesters claim that the Co-op Board of Directors is intent on destroying Israel through the boycott. One of the signs held by a protester claimed that the boycott would be in effect until “Israel ceases to exist.” A call to action by the anti-Arab/anti-Muslim organization StandWithUs claims the boycott calls for “nothing less than the disbanding of Israel as a Jewish state.” These claims exploit common fears. Nothing in the Co-op’s boycott calls for the destruction of Israel.

According to the Co-op’s Israel boycott policy, the conditions for ending the boycott cite the conditions outlined in the Palestinian Civil Society call for BDS. According to the Palestinian call, this requires Israel to “meet[] its obligation to recognize the Palestinian people’s inalienable right to self-determination and fully compl[y] with the precepts of international law.”

Thus the conditions for ending the boycott are based on international law. International law does not call for the destruction of Israel. The Palestinian BDS call requires that Israel “end[] its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands….” As recognized by international law, these occupied Arab lands refer to the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights, with the acceptance of “minor” and “mutual” adjustments to the borders under UN Security Council Resolution 242.

The Palestinian BDS call also requires Israel to “respect[], protect[] and promote[] the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194.” Protesters claim that allowing Palestinian refugees to return to their homeland (from which they were expelled by Israel) would mean the destruction of Israel. This is akin to white people who feared that the end of slavery in the US would mean the destruction of the South, or Afrikaners who feared that the end of apartheid meant the death of South Africa. However, respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of refugees to return home is simply what it says. Article 11 of UN General Assembly Resolution 194 also acknowledges that compensation for refugees is a viable alternative for those choosing not to return home.

Israel to this day refuses to accept any responsibility for the 1947-8 expulsion of Palestinians from what is now Israel — either blaming the Palestinians for deciding to leave, justifying the act as a reward for conquest, or in effect stating “finders keepers, losers weepers.” Despite attempts by Israel to delegitimize Palestinian refugee rights, international law remains clear on the issue.

The final stipulation of the Palestinian BDS call requires Israel to “recognize[] the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality.” Such a requirement would not be possible if the expectation was that Israel cease to exist.

There is nothing in the Co-op’s boycott policy nor in international law that calls on Israel to “cease[] to exist.” Opposition to the stated requirements is simply opposition to existing international law and basic human rights, while reframing the message to imply that abiding by international law and human rights standards is somehow harmful to Israel, with no acknowledgement of how Israel’s noncompliance is oppressive to Palestinians.

Why didn’t the Co-op board consult with its membership before honoring the boycott?

The Co-op has established policy guidelines and protocols for observing boycotts. The Israel boycott fit those guidelines. No previous boycott has ever been presented to Co-op members prior to implementation. In fact, the original request for a boycott was made by a Co-op working member in 2008.

If the Co-op had addressed the potential Israel boycott to the entire membership prior to implementation, it would have been instituting a double standard-one in which Israel’s actions are given greater license than those of China, Norway, or even Colorado.

The Co-op makes many decisions without conferring with the entire membership. However, those decisions are based on clear policy guidelines. For instance, the Co-op has product selection guidelines that relate to a product’s packaging. According to these guidelines, “[t]he Co-op will not carry products whose retail packaging is deemed exploitive or oppressive. Such determination may be made by the department manager, the merchandising team or the staff as a whole.” Items have been removed from the shelves when they were determined to violate the packaging guidelines and done without informing the entire membership.

But that’s a very undemocratic way of running a Co-op, isn’t it?

One could make that argument. Obviously, not all Co-op decisions can be put to a member-wide vote. The Co-op boycott policy has been posted on the Co-op’s website for years, and its previous boycotts have not drawn the type of criticism that the Israel boycott has evoked. The reaction to the Israel boycott enforces the concept that Israel is a country beyond reproach, or at least one that must be treated differently from all others.

Many people protesting the board’s decision have decided to institute a boycott against the Co-op. There are also threats to boycott local businesses that advertise in the Co-op newsletter. On one hand, it demonstrates that these protesters have faith in the power of boycotts. On the other hand, it demonstrates a confusion of priorities. While these boycotters decry the board’s “undemocratic” boycott policy, they have sidestepped the democratic option enshrined in the Co-op’s policies.

That is, opponents to the boycott can overrule board decisions (or other Co-op decisions) through a member-initiated ballot. They still have this democratic option within the Co-op’s guidelines. Yet their first reaction was to institute a boycott rather than take the most direct and democratic option available.

(If only it were that easy with Israel.)

The Co-op is singling out Israel! Why doesn’t the Co-op boycott China?

The Co-op does have a longstanding boycott on China. This has not deterred people from assuming that the Co-op “singles out Israel.” Some people, having learned that the Co-op has observed boycotts on China and Norway, then resort to arguing, “Why does the Co-op only boycott China, Norway, and Israel?”

The fact is that any criticism of Israel is perceived as singling out Israel. For some people, any criticism of Israel feels amplified. Even Amnesty International, which reports on human rights abuses around the world, has been accused of singling out Israel. (For example, see the article “Amnesty Is Not Out To Get Israel” in the June 19, 2005, Jerusalem Post.)

The “singling out” argument is both meaningless and circular. In order to address China’s abuses, the Co-op had to have singled out China. In order to address Colorado’s anti-gay legislation, the Co-op had to have singled out Colorado. In order to fight apartheid in the 1980s, one had to single out South Africa.

Moreover, if the Co-op did not have a boycott on China, the Co-op’s boycott policy made it possible for any member to request the boycott. Rather than complaining about a supposed lack of boycott on China, one could have requested it.

Still, isn’t it hypocritical for us to be boycotting Israel when our own government has committed tons of atrocities? Why don’t we boycott the US?

As stated, boycott is a tactic, not a principle. The above questions assume that a boycott is a way to express hatred of or retribution for past deeds. Rather, the boycott is to produce change. Boycotting the US for its past atrocities is not asking the US to change.

As for boycotting the US for its current crimes, it is difficult to boycott the US while living inside the US, and thus tactically unsound. At the same time, Israeli activists are calling for an international boycott on Israel. They themselves cannot participate in the boycott because they live in Israel, but they challenge their own government in ways that are only possible for Israeli citizens to do. They hope that an international boycott will buttress the work that they do from the inside. This is no different than the Arizonans who are asking for a boycott of Arizona.

For a boycott to achieve its goals, it requires a campaign. Even if the Co-op were to successfully boycott the US, it would mean nothing if there weren’t a whole campaign to back it up with a unified message and broad support. An Israel boycott is worthwhile because it is backed by an international movement. Trade unions, pension funds, European supermarkets, celebrities, and others are participating in the boycott. The Israeli government is aware of the campaign (including the Co-op boycott) and its goals.

Boycotting Israel does not mean that one cannot protest the United States for change. Boycott should be employed where the tactic seems possible to affect change. It doesn’t mean you boycott everything that you disagree with. Living in the United States gives us the privilege to protest our government’s actions in many ways. Boycotting the US from within the US is generally not one of those ways.

Different protests require different tactics. Employing one tactic for one cause does not commit one to employing the same tactic for all causes. Nor does it preclude employing different tactics for different causes.

Finally, we must acknowledge that the United States is instrumental in keeping the Palestine/Israel conflict going. The US provides massive aid, diplomatic cover, and political encouragement to Israel to continue its abuses and forestall a just settlement. Addressing Israel’s occupation is resisting our own government’s complicity. For decades, people inside the US have been working for change through demonstrations, lobbying, mobilizing, education, and direct action. This work continues, but it should not preclude further action in the form of boycotts. All these tactics work together.

But Israel is not the worst human rights violator in the world. Why don’t you go after [insert China or some Arab or African country here]?

This question implies that it is hypocritical to work for change anywhere unless one works for change everywhere. Or else, it implies that only the absolute worst violations in the world should ever be addressed.

The problem is that the argument can be applied to just about any activism, not just activism on Israel/Palestine. That is, one can level these arguments against doing anything about Arizona, or about immigration in general, or about civil rights, queer rights, environmental justice, racism, sexism, apartheid, AIDS, poverty, Iraq, Afghanistan, health care, etc.

No matter what cause you engage in, there is always some other cause that could be deemed “more worthwhile.” Someone can always point to a greater atrocity or more dire situation elsewhere.

In other words, the question implies that you have to address all the problems in the world, or else you’re a hypocrite. The only way to not be a hypocrite then is to do nothing at all. Thus the argument promotes apathy as the morally superior option.

For some reason, this question is often posed to say that a true activist’s priority is some random Arab or African country. Ironically, the person who poses this question is never engaged in working for change in the region that they cite. Thus the Arab or African atrocity is used only to deflect criticism of Israel. That in itself is exploitive.

The question before deciding to engage in a cause is not “Is it the worst thing in the world?” Rather, the questions should be:

1. Is it bad enough to do something about?

2. Is it a problem that you can do something about?

And bonus points for this question:

3. Is it a problem that you are already complicit in?

Was South African apartheid the worst problem in the world? No. Was it worth fighting against? Yes.

Is the situation in Palestine comparable to or worse than apartheid? If you ask prominent South Africans who suffered under apartheid, such as Desmond Tutu, Willie Madisha, Nozizwe Madlala-Routledge, Fatima Hassan, and Mondli Makhanya-or even if you ask the entire Congress of South African Trade Unions-the answer is yes.

If South African apartheid was bad enough to warrant boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS), and if the situation in Palestine is comparable to or worse than apartheid, then isn’t BDS a viable nonviolent option for peace and justice in Palestine/Israel?

It’s hypocritical to criticize Israel’s expulsion of the Palestinians since the US did the same to the Indians here. (A variation of this argument is expressed as, “Are you going to give up your home for the Native Americans? I didn’t think so!”)

This argument is flawed in several ways:

1. It is a cynical and offensive exploitation of the genocide of the indigenous peoples of this land, evoking it only to excuse the expulsion of another people.

2. It attempts to justify the expulsion of Palestinians by claiming that ethnic cleansing is not something new and was practiced here. Thus it excuses ethnic cleansing everywhere. Although ethnic cleansing is not new, that does not make it an excusable “tradition.”

3. It implies that the Native population here simply wants to take over everyone’s homes, and it does nothing to address the real issues of oppression that Native people currently face.

4. The expulsion of the Palestinians began in 1947 and continues to this day. Refusing to address our own complicity in the ongoing expulsion of Palestinians from their lands, for fear of being called a hypocrite, does nothing to help Palestinians nor Native peoples here.

5. As with related arguments, this argument of supposed hypocrisy can be used to promote inaction anywhere. That is, one cannot criticize anyone or anything because the US is not without sin.

If you’re going to boycott Israel, then you better stop using your cell phone because Israel invented the cell phone.

Believe it or not, this has been one of the most prevalent arguments against boycott received, indicating that various pro-Israel groups have been pushing this argument as the major talking point. Unfortunately, it has two major flaws:

1. It’s not true.

2. It doesn’t make sense.

Recall that boycott is a tactic, not a principle. The point is not to reject all things Israeli. The point is to employ nonviolent consumer-based activism within an international campaign in order to induce Israel to change its destructive policies.

Israel did not invent the cell phone, as is commonly argued. But even if it did, it would not mean we would necessarily reject cell phones. Nor does inventing the cell phone make it okay for Israel or the US (where the cell phone was actually created) to commit human rights abuses.

The first heart transplant was performed in apartheid South Africa. That did not make a boycott of South Africa any less relevant, nor did it mean that opponents of apartheid had to reject heart transplants.

Other commonly evoked inventions of Israel include the cherry tomato, voice mail, AOL Instant Messenger(!), and some ambiguous medical device that saved your life at some point. 99% of these claims are untrue, but they would be irrelevant even if they were true.

A boycott is so negative. Can’t we encourage change in the Middle East through positive energy? The Israeli government will change if we are nice to it.

A boycott is not a negative action. It is proactive action. It was not negative during the Civil Rights movement, and it was not negative during South African Apartheid. It was people taking action, nonviolently, where their governments failed or were complicit. The argument is often made that Israel simply requires positive encouragement. This was the same argument that the Reagan administration used to reject BDS against South Africa. They termed it “constructive engagement,” and it failed miserably. During the period of constructive engagement, the apartheid government increased its repression against black South African resistance, knowing that it could get away with it. Popular pressure eventually forced the Reagan administration to abandon constructive engagement and embrace BDS.

With Israel, the US has provided every gift imaginable, from the largest lump of US aid in the world, to UN Security Council veto power, to diplomatic cover, to concessions of every kind. This has only encouraged Israel to act with impunity. That is why the Israeli government was not afraid to humiliate the Obama administration with a “slap in the face” by declaring settlement expansion during Joe Biden’s visit in March. The Netanyahu government finally agreed to a temporary settlement freeze but then proceeded to violate that freeze.

Netanyahu has been caught quoted been as saying, “I know what America is. America is something that can easily be moved…80% of the Americans support us. It’s absurd.”

“Constructive engagement” enables Israel to act with impunity. The only recent time that the US has pressured Israel significantly was in 1992 when Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir refused to cease settlement expansion. Bush Sr. then rejected Israel’s request for $10 billion in loan guarantees. This was viewed as a monumental event and is credited with causing Shamir’s Likud party to lose to Labor in the subsequent Israeli elections.

Israel has been shown to only respond to international pressure. BDS is nonviolent international pressure.

I’m progressive on the Israel/Palestine issue, and I disagree with this boycott.

Many people consider themselves progressive or liberal or leftist on the issue, but it is insignificant where people stand on the political spectrum. What matters is what people are willing to do to help end the conflict in which we are complicit. Boycott is a nonviolent option for justice that we can all participate in. It is being utilized internationally. It is an alternative to the violence that is so common in the region. It is endorsed by prominent South Africans because they understand the value of the international BDS movement in ending apartheid. Opponents to the boycott have so far offered no viable alternatives for working toward peace. We need to stop congratulating ourselves for our political positions and start considering things we can actually do to work for change.

Is this boycott calling for a one-state or two-state solution?

The boycott calls for neither two states nor one state. It calls for respecting international law and human rights.

As Omar Barghouti, an outspoken Palestinian promoter of BDS, explains, “The boycott, divestment and sanctions movement takes no position on the shape of the political solution. It adopts a rights-based, not solutions-based, approach.”

Unfortunately, at this stage, it is not worth talking about a one-state or two-state solution, because Israel allows neither. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claims to support a two-state solution, but refuses to cede Israeli control over the Jordan Valley, the major settlements, any part of Jerusalem, and even West Bank airspace. Thus Netanyahu’s concept of a two-state solution does not support any semblance of an actual Palestinian state.

Regardless of the debate over two states or one, Israel needs to abide by international law and human rights standards.

Is the Co-op boycotting Jews?

Some people are claiming that the Co-op is boycotting Jews. The Co-op does not discriminate against Jews. It carries products marketed for observant Jews. It carries products produced by Jews.

When the Co-op instituted its China boycott, it was not construed as boycotting Chinese people or Asian-Americans. This is despite the fact that Olympia has a history of discrimination against Asians. In the late nineteenth century, Chinese immigrants living in Olympia were subjected to racist attacks and were driven out of town. During World War II, Japanese Americans in the area were imprisoned in internment camps. The only explicitly racially motivated killing in recent times was that of an Asian-American teenager who was stabbed and beaten to death by two neo-Nazi skinheads in downtown Olympia in 1992. Despite this history, it was understood that a China boycott was not more “anti-Chinese” or “anti-Asian” sentiment. People recognized that the China boycott was directed at the abhorrent actions of the Chinese government, and nobody complained that Chinese-Americans were not consulted before the boycott was instituted.

I’m not Jewish, so as an ally, I must take my cue from Jews on this issue.

To borrow from Martin Niemöller:

“When they came for the Palestinians,

I did not speak up because I was not a Jew.”

This is a mistaken application of an anti-oppression framework. It is tokenizing, stereotyping, and racist.

To illustrate, ask yourself (if you’re not Chinese): would you ask a Chinese-American for permission to criticize China over its treatment of Tibet?

Would you ask a white Arizonan for permission to criticize Arizona for its racist, anti-immigrant policies?

Let’s break down the problems with this thinking:

1) Jews are not monolithic. There are Jews on “both sides” of the issue. One cannot judge the breadth of “Jewish opinion” and assess a “Jewish consensus” merely through one’s Jewish friends.

Moreover, Jews who support the boycott have been marginalized the most. They have been marginalized by non-Jews who claim that their support of the boycott is not a “real” Jewish opinion. And they have been marginalized by other Jews who have accused them of being “self-hating Jews” and “kapos”-essentially race traitors. Pro-boycott Jews have been told by other Jews (by a local rabbi, even) that they do not belong to “the Jewish community.” They have also been accused of misrepresenting Jews to the gentiles by being outspoken.

The greatest and most anti-Semitic attacks have been committed by anti-boycott Jews against pro-boycott Jews. The Jewish voices that worry about anti-Semitism from the boycott are not coming to the defense of these Jews.

2) It is tokenizing and reductive to consider Jews in one’s community to be the arbiters of acceptable discourse and action on Palestine/Israel.

3) Granting Jews the role of arbiters ignores the thoughts and feelings of Arabs and Muslims in the community who also have a stake in the issue. Jews in the community have been featured prominently in news articles about the Co-op boycott, while Arabs and Muslims in the community have complained about being ignored-or worse, demonized. Supporters of the boycott have been accused of supporting terrorists, Jew-killers, jihadists, Islam-o-fascists, the stoning of women, and female genital mutilation-all sorts of racist and Islamophobic stereotypes.

4) As most Jews in the United States are white (while acknowledging that there are many Jews who are not white), and as mainstream US perception of Jews are as whites, this stance gives deference to Jews via white privilege. There is a greater affinity to white Jews within the US mainstream due to shared Judeo-Christian heritage (regardless of the existence of Palestinian Christians) and greater positive exposure (or at least more well-rounded exposure) in the media. Thus Jews are easier to identify with than Palestinians, who are viewed as foreign, oriental, exotic, and other. Consequently, the Palestinian stake in the conflict is less perceptible, less understood, and considered less relevant.

5) In fact, Palestinians are rarely mentioned at all in mainstream articles about the boycott, despite the fact that the boycott call originated from Palestinians. The Co-op boycott then becomes a matter that is only relevant to Jews.

6) Jews are perceived as having strong feelings about the boycott, while Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims are not considered to have feelings at all. If their feelings are ever registered, they are dismissed as biased.

7) It reduces the conflict to a Jewish affair-one in which Jews are expected to sort out.

8) Human rights is not strictly a Jewish issue. One should not have to seek Jewish consent before addressing human rights.

The fact that this very article is written by a Vietnamese-American immigrant and not by a white Jew-regardless of my exposure to the Palestine/Israel conflict-may make this article less relevant to some people. This is a difficult discussion to have, particularly coming from a “gentile” like myself. Unfortunately, Palestinian rights and dignity cannot be put on hold until Jews work this out among themselves. To do so only perpetuates the notion that discourse of the Palestine/Israel conflict is “owned” by Jews.

This is also a catch-22 for organizers of the boycott. In order to dispel the notion that a boycott of Israel is inherently anti-Semitic, the organizers had to stress that Jews were closely involved in the organizing. Unfortunately, this meant voices of Palestinians and of Arab and Muslim organizers were marginalized. If Arab and Muslim voices had been stressed, the boycott would be viewed with more skepticism and subjected to more accusations of anti-Semitism-not to mention being subjected to greater racist vitriol on the web.

This does not delegitimize the feelings of Jews who may feel anti-Semitism or who feel uncomfortable at the thought of a boycott. Those feelings are real by virtue of them being felt. The trauma and pain of a legacy of anti-Semitism cannot be dismissed. Yet the problem is when discourse begins and ends with the feelings of Jews-and in particular the feelings of Jews who occupy a certain political position-to the neglect of the feelings of other people, and especially to the feelings of Palestinians who are physically oppressed, and who live and die by the consequences of our actions.

We need to be sensitive to the feelings of people historically oppressed, but that should never be used to ignore or excuse the sufferings of others.

Why boycott?

Boycott is a nonviolent tool for social change that has been tested and proven effective in a variety of campaigns. It is an essential part of the engaged civilian’s toolkit and is an empowering process that everyone can participate in. When governments have failed—or in this case, have been fundamentally complicit—boycott helps level the playing field.

There is a rich history of boycotts for social change, from the Indian “Swadeshi” boycott of British goods, to the Montgomery bus boycott in the 1950s, to the California grape boycott in the 1960s, or the more recent Coalition of Immokalee Workers boycott of Taco Bell.

Perhaps the best example of this nonviolent tactic used to change the policies of a country is the boycott, divestment, and sanctions campaign on apartheid South Africa.

Some of us were not around to participate in these boycotts, but there are boycott campaigns today that are worth considering.

Why an Israeli boycott?

The Israeli boycott is part of a nonviolent international grassroots campaign of boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) to compel Israel to follow international law and respect Palestinian human rights.

The campaign’s clearest statement comes from a 2005 call for international action, signed by nearly 200 Palestinian civil society organizations and endorsed by prominent activists from Desmond Tutu to Arundhati Roy to Naomi Klein.

After 60 years, the roots of the conflict still remain unaddressed. There have been several rounds of US-sponsored “peace talks” that have actually served to suspend peace. International law has been clear on the solution, but the solution has been stymied by US support for the Israeli status quo.

The situation has only gotten worse:

1. Expansion: The number of illegal settlements and Israeli settlers taking over the Palestinian West Bank and East Jerusalem has consistently and continuously expanded — even during the Oslo “peace process” and even during the current Israeli “moratorium” on settlements.
2. Expulsion: The Israeli expulsion of Palestinians from Palestinian lands has grown. Palestinians continue to be driven out of their own land today, through a combination of Israeli military tactics, discriminatory legal rulings, and an Israeli bureaucracy deliberately designed to drive out Arabs from their own lands. The Palestinian refugee crisis that began with the initial expulsions in 1947 continues to this day, with more refugees being created to make way for a dominant Israel.
3. Strangulation: The siege of 1.5 million people in the Gaza Strip is into its fifth year. Israel has enacted what it calls “economic warfare” by trapping the population in the world’s largest open-air prison, prohibiting Gazans from fishing off their own waters, from importing books and livestock, from farming near the border, from exporting goods, and from creating their own economy or producing their own food. The plan was described by a senior Israeli advisor in 2006 as “like an appointment with a dietician. The Palestinians will get a lot thinner, but won’t die.”

Israel will continue to act with impunity until the world collectively responds. BDS is how the people of the world are responding right now.

But why should I honor the boycott? What does it have to do with me?

Simply put, we have the responsibility, and we have the means.

The Responsibility

People living in the United States have an exceptional responsibility for the conflict in the Middle East. For decades, the United States has guaranteed the power imbalance that makes it impossible for the Palestine/Israel conflict to be resolved. The US backs Israeli aggressions through the following policies:

1. Military and financial aid: The US gives Israel about $3 billion annually—usually more—making Israel the largest recipient of US aid, receiving roughly the same amount that the US gives to all of sub-Saharan Africa. However, Israel is not a developing country in need of financial assistance. Instead, Israel uses the money to expand its dominance in the region.
2. Diplomatic immunity: The US shields Israel from international criticism. In the history of the UN Security Council, half of all US vetoes have been performed on behalf of Israel. The US ensures that existing Security Council resolutions, World Court rulings, and other aspects of international law do not apply to Israel, making it possible for Israel to continue to commit war crimes and human rights abuses, at the expense of the Palestinians and Israel’s neighbors.
3. Political support: The US directs the situation in Palestine/Israel by encouraging Israeli supremacy in the region and co-opting the peace process for its own ends. Israeli actions are committed with US consent and approval.

In othe words, the Palestine/Israel conflict is our conflict, whether we like it or not. It’s our responsibility. Shirking that responsibility only makes us more complicit in the actions of our government.

The Means

Honoring the boycott demonstrates to Israel that US support is not unconditional and not absolute. It sends a message to Israel that we are putting Israel on notice and that we will not look the other way while our government colludes with them. If Israel sees the US people disapprove of its actions, then they will know that US support for its impunity is not guaranteed.

While other people around the world are participating in the BDS campaign, it’s the people of the US that Israel worries about the most.

Why should the Co-op honor the boycott?

The Olympia Food Co-op operates with an awareness of economic, ecological, and social justice, which is imbued in its mission and in its policies. The Co-op has a history of factoring in social ethics to its merchandising decisions — choosing not to carry certain products due to a workers’ stike or an existing boycott campaign. The Co-op has also refused to stock items that contain packaging construed as racist or sexist.

Because the Co-op understands that social ethics and social justice are inseparable from providing the community with goods, it is only appropriate that the Co-op honors the boycott campaign, which fits perfectly with its existing boycott policies.

Honoring the boycott help the Co-op live up to its goal to “encourage economic and social justice.”

But Israel won’t change its ways just because the Co-op boycotts, right?

Of course. A boycott doesn’t work if only one establishment chooses to boycott on its own. A boycott requires a campaign, a movement, and broad participation. All these items are already in place. The co-op would not be initiating a boycott. Rather it would be respecting, observing and participating in an existing boycott. It’s through collective power that a boycott resonates.

Here is a sample of the grassroots actions that have occurred or are occurring in the BDS movement:

• The Methodist Church of Great Britain recently voted to boycott Israeli settlement goods.
• The Swedish Dock Workers Union instituted a weeklong blockade of Israeli cargo from Sweden.
• The Evergreen State College student body voted overwhelmingly to call on the Evergreen Foundation to divest from companies that profit from the Israeli occupation.
• A similar call was passed at the University of Michigan—Dearborn.
• Hampshire College divested from companies that were engaged in human rights abuses with the Israeli military. (Incidentally, Hampshire was the first college to divest from apartheid South Africa.)
• The Northern Illinois Conference of the United Methodist Church also voted to divest from companies profiting from the occupation.
• Code Pink leads a campaign to boycott Ahava products, produced by an Israeli company from stolen Palestinian natural resources. Oxfam drops Sex and the City actor Kristen Davis as Goodwill Ambassador due to Davis’s role as a spokesperson for Ahava.
• Jewish Voice for Peace unveils its campaign to call on TIAA-CREF to institute its socially responsible investment policy and divest from companies profiting from the occupation.
• Britain’s largest union, Unite, votes to engage in boycott and divestment from Israel, “similar to the boycott of South African goods during the era of apartheid.”
• Italy’s largest supermarket chains, COOP and Nordiconad, announce a boycott of products exported by Israeli Carmel Agrexco.
• Germany’s largest bank, Deutsche Bank, along with the Norwegian State Pension Fund, the two largest Danish pension funds, Danske Bank and PKA Ltd, Sweden’s largest asset manager, Folksam, and ABP, a Dutch asset manager, have all divested their funds from Elbit Systems, an Israeli arms manufacturer.
• In Oakland, hundreds of labor and community activists enacted a 24-hour blockade of the port to prevent the unloading of an Israeli Zim Line ship on June 20, 2010 in protest of the Israeli siege on Gaza and the recent attacks on the Free Gaza flotilla. The June 20 blockade was honored by the Oakland ILWU.
• Echoing the apartheid-era calls to not play in Sun City, Gil Scott-Heron, Elvis Costello, the Klaxons, Gorillaz, Santana, the Pixies, and Devendra Banhart all cancel tour dates in Israel in response to the international call for BDS.
• Hollywood actors Meg Ryan and Dustin Hoffman cancel their appearances at the Jerusalem Film Festival in response to the Gaza flotilla massacre.
• Numerous filmmakers, authors, and artists, including Eve Ensler, Alice Walker, David Byrne, Danny Glover, Howard Zinn, John Pilger, and Harry Belafotne, sign the “Toronto Declaration,” protesting the use of the 2009 Toronto International Film Festival as part of the “Israeli propaganda machine.”
• John Berger, Arundhati Roy, Eduardo Galeano, Brian Eno, and several other artists and writers sign on to a separate declaration, calling for the cultural boycott of Israel.
• The South African Municipal Workers Union (SAMWU) declare efforts to make every South African municipality an “Apartheid Israel free zone.”
• The Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) and the South African Transport and Allied Workers Union (SATAWU) refuse to offload an Israeli ship in response to Israel’s invasion of Gaza. COSATU declares that it will strengthen BDS efforts on Israel.

As with every movement, as with every struggle, boycotting is a long term campaign. Although many people have made sacrifices, and many others have not seen peace in their lifetime, the struggle continues. All that is asked of the Co-op is that it honors the boycott.

How could boycotting make a difference?

Boycotts have been proven effective in other campaigns. And we know that BDS is something Israel has been paying close attention to.

Recently, a bill was introduced in the Israeli Knesset, submitted by 25 Knesset members, that would “criminalize” BDS. That is, Israeli activists who support boycott could be arrested for engaging in “illegal” activity. Israeli activists have risked their livelihoods and have endured death threats in order to tell the world that BDS is necessary. Now they also risk imprisonment.

This demonstrates how much Israel is concerned with BDS, that the government would consider curtailing free speech in order to make BDS disappear.

Israel is a country that is particularly consumed with PR. Its media and society constantly argue over whether Israel is “winning the PR war.” Even apart from AIPAC, the preeminent Israel lobby, tens of millions of dollars are spent on advocacy groups in the US to whitewash Israeli abuses and drown out criticism. Israel also hires prominent PR firms in the US and Europe to help manage its image.

Israeli PR moves have consisted of everything from producing a reality TV show (called “The Ambassador”), in which contestants compete to see who can best sell Israel to the world, to sponsoring a “Women of the Israeli Defense Forces” bikini spread in Maxim magazine, in order to make Israeli soldiers appear “sexy.”

Boycotting makes a statement to Israel that it cannot continue to act with impunity. Israel’s well documented and massive human rights violations can no longer be whitewashed or swept under the rug.

Isn’t this “anti-Israel”?

Criticizing US foreign policy is not “anti-American,” whatever that means. Israeli supporters of BDS are not “anti-Israel.” The term “anti-Israel,” as with “anti-American,” is rhetorical.

Supporting BDS is no more “anti-Israel” than boycotting South Africa is “anti–South Africa” or “anti-White,” or boycotting China is “anti-Chinese.” Boycott is a nonviolent people-powered tool for change. This is about changing Israel’s destructing policies and working for peace and justice in the region.

As Naomi Klein explains, “Boycott is not a dogma; it is a tactic.” The British author John Berger explains further: “As Nelson Mandela has pointed out, boycott is not a principle, it is a tactic depending upon circumstances….A boycott is directed against a policy and the institutions which support that policy either actively or tacitly. Its aim is not to reject, but to bring about change.”

Boycott is the means to an end, not an end to itself. How do we change Israel’s destructive policies, and how do we do it nonviolently?

When BDS was leveled on South Africa, the goal wasn’t to “delegitimize” South Africa, to eliminate white South Africans, or to destroy South Africa. The goal was specific: To end Apartheid and the human rights abuses associtaed with it. That was the goal. BDS was the tactic.

We want to boycott for change. We want to boycott for human rights.

But aren’t we taking sides? or I don’t want to take sides.

This argument makes the following faulty assumptions:

1. That by doing nothing, we are not taking sides.
2. That both sides are equal, that there are no power dynamics.
3. That there is no right or wrong, no international law, no sense of justice or human rights — only partisanship.
4. That we understand what the “sides” are all about.

A boycott is a boycott for justice and human rights. Apathy or “neutrality” actually sides with the status quo, which is not a pleasant status quo. If we don’t “take sides,” then we give a green light for atrocities to continue.

Shouldn’t we all take sides for social justice? Can we be neutral when it comes to racism, sexism, queer rights, apartheid, marriage equality, abortion, civil rights, torture, slavery, increased government surveillance, corporate globablization, and ethnic cleansing?

If we consider the “sides” to be Israel vs. Palestine, then one side is the occupying power, while the other side the occupied, the disempowered, and the dispossessed.

If we consider the “sides” according to what each party wants, it gets a little more complicated. As with all peoples, Israelis and Palestinians are not monolithic. In fact, 20% of Israelis are Palestinian, too. However, virtually all Palestinians are united against occupation. In Israel, even beyond the 20% Palestinian population, there are many conscientious Israelis who are opposed to the actions of their government. Some of these Israelis are openly asking for us to participate in the boycott campaign.

So on one side, there are Palestinians, conscientious Israelis, international law, human rights, and world opinion. On the other side is the government of Israel, backed by the government of the United States. Is it too much to favor one side?

Unfortunately, due to racism and perhaps lack of exposure to other peoples of the world, there are many people who fail to see the Palestinians as human beings who deserve freedom by virtue of being alive. They shouldn’t need to prove that they deserve freedom and human dignity.

The point is not that Palestinians are worth more than Israelis, but that Palestinians are entitled to human rights as much as Israelis are. To some, any acknowledgement of Palestinians as human beings seems partisan. We need to work against that, and “neutrality” won’t get us there.

But why single out Israel?

Israel is not being singled out. The Co-op already has a China boycott in place. There are thousands of social justice issues that people work on all the time. Yet when anyone brings up Palestine, they are immediately accused of “singling out” Israel, of “picking on” Israel—as if none of the other social justice issues ever came up.

By those standards, no matter what cause you’re working on, you’re “singling out” that cause. No one can address all the concerns in the world at the same time.

Is Israel the worst human rights abuser? No. But neither was South Africa under apartheid. That’s certainly no reason to not work against apartheid. Whatever cause you work for, someone can come by and claim that there’s a more important cause.

That’s not really a defense of Israel, but a defense of apathy.

There are several reasons why Israel is important for us in the US, however. Foremost, the problem is that the US does single out Israel. The US singles out Israel as the largest recipient of US aid, as the country which receives unconditional support, and which gets to be the world’s only undeclared nuclear power. So the best way to not single out Israel is to make Israel adhere to general principles such as human rights and international law, and hold Israel accountable for its actions.

Won’t a boycott hurt regular Israelis?

The short answer is no—not individually. Here’s the long answer:

The goal of the boycott is not to literally strike at the pocketbooks of the average Israeli. Boycott is a tactic that communicates to Israel as a whole that it cannot assume business as usual while oppressing a people. It demonstrates a diplomatic and political cost, by way of disrupting economic exchange. This disruption is experienced on a macro level, rather than on the micro level of individual Israeli citizens.

There are several dimensions of the boycott that must be addressed.

Economically:

Israel already receives $3 billion a year from the United States (Olympia’s own contribution adds up to about $940,000 a year). This doesn’t include additional grants and loan guarantees. And this has transpired every year for decades, totalling more than US aid to sub-Saharan Africa within that timespan. A boycott will not offset that, but will indicate to Israel that the US public is becoming aware of that $3 billion bounty, and that the aid might not continue indefinitely and unconditionally.

Comparatively:

A boycott is in no way comparable to what Israel is doing to the Gaza Strip, which is true collective punishment. In the 2009 attack on Gaza, Israel destroyed the Gazan infrastructure. It has continued to maintain a blockade that prevents Gaza from rebuilding its economy. Exports are prohibited. Imports are limited to the barest necessities to stay alive. Books and livestock are not allowed in. Shoes and clothes were not allowed in for three years. Because of the blockade, 95% of Gaza’s factories are closed, 98% of Gazans suffer from rolling power blackouts while the remaining 2% have no electricity at all. 93% of Gaza’s water is polluted. Unemployment is over 40%. Gaza is not allowed to produce its own food.

A recent Israeli poll found that 73% of Israeli Jews support this “economic warfare” on Gaza (non-Jewish Israelis were not polled because their opininons do not matter).

Goods imported into Gaza are at the whim of Israeli officials. A number of Israeli food manufacturers and growers compete to have access to the literally “captive” Gazan market. The same applies to the West Bank, where Israeli-imposed checkpoints, roadblocks, curfews, and Israeli-only “bypass” roads make Palestinian-produced goods more expensive to consume than the same products produced in Israel.

Israeli taxes are invested considerably more for Israeli Jews, at the expense of Palestinian citizens of Israel. VAT and customs collected from Palestinian financial exchanges and meant to be transferred to the Palestinian Authority are often held by Israel. “Free trade zones” located between Israel and the West Bank employ cheap Palestinian labor without according them any workers’ rights.

There are many ways in which the average Jewish Israeli citizen benefits from the exploitive relationship with Palestinians.

The problem is that we are currently rewarding Israel financially, politically, and militarily for its oppression of the Palestinians. A boycott seeks to correct that problem.

Tactically:

Here, we must address the nature of the original question, because it presents doubts about boycotts and activism in general. Almost every type of activism inconveniences someone who is not a direct target. Thus lunch counter sit-ins, boycotts, marches, phone call-in campaigns, pickets all impact people beyond the inteded target to some extent. Does that inconvenience compromise the action? If so, then one has made the case against almost all nonviolent direct action—certainly against the Civil Rights Movement as a whole.

The assumption is that one should not engage in actions for social change if it ruffles a few feathers. The fact that it inconveniences people who are not the intended target means the action is not “noble.” This is an unhealthy, idealized, and sanitized impression of what is required to create change. One cannot create change and not upset the status quo. It’s a contradiction.

One must decide which is preferable: the false “calm” of the present—in which the only people oppressed are the people who have been continuously oppressed—or the “messy” struggle for progress, in which the oppressed are uplifted at the temporary inconvenience of those who have been benefiting from the status quo.

Moreover, regardless of one’s stance on the Palestine/Israel conflict, there is often an automatic consideration for Israel and a mere afterthought afforded to Palestinians. Perhaps this is due to perceptions of Israel as a fellow western society, or perhaps it is due to the familiarity of centuries of anti-Semitic persecution of Jews. It could also be attributed to the fact that many people in the United States who are not Jewish, Arab, or Muslim have regular interactions with Jews but very few interactions with Palestinians, Arabs, or Muslims. Regardless, it is often easier to identify with a Jewish state than with a Palestinian refugee camp.

Thus, when the idea of a boycott on Israel is proposed, people automatically consider the feelings of the average Israeli, or even of their Jewish friends. This deference is considered first before any regard is granted to the Palestinians.

So when the original question is raised, is it raised because of concerns about boycotts in general, or because of concerns about bocyotts on Israel?

Would one have the same concerns about a boycott on South Africa, or China, or Sudan? Would one have the same concerns over an Arizona boycott? And would the concerns weigh the same as such concerns over Israel? And do we measure that against how much and how long the occupation has hurt Palestinians?

Popularly:

Finally, we must acknowledge the demographics of the region. Rougly 20% of Israelis are Palestinian, who are considered second- or third-class citizens and are routinely discriminated against. A number of prominent leaders among the Israeli Palestinian community endorse BDS. They have subsequently been denounced as a “fifth column,” have been imprisoned and beaten, and have even been threatened with deportation.

Conscientious Israelis are also calling for BDS. They have been threatened with firings, have received death threats, and now they might be facing imprisonment, too.

Yet these people making the BDS call from within, presumably the ones who will bear the brunt of BDS, are asking the international community to heed their call. We must acknowledge their sacrifices.

A boycott is nonviolent, but it’s still a blunt nondiscriminating weapon, isn’t it?

No. A boycott doesn’t need to be nondiscriminating. For instance, the Co-op carries a brand of olive oil called Peace Oil.

This oil is fairly traded and comes from Palestinian farmers in the West Bank and the Galilee, working in conjunction with Israelis. Although it is exported from Israel, its symbiotic and non-exploitive relationship with Palestinians makes it exempt from the boycott.

However, this Peace Oil, which is distributed in Seattle, should be distinguished from the London-based Israeli product with the same name. UK Peace Oil deceptively markets itself as a sort of fairly-traded, cooperatively run and harmonious product, but is actually a product of an exploitive relationship within Israel. That’s why there is a British campaign against UK Peace Oil.

If the Co-op institutes this boycott, will it cause a backlash?

Recently, students at The Evergreen State College overwhelmingly passed a resolution calling on the college to divest from companies that profit from the Israeli occupation. It made news internationally. Evergreen students braced themselves for a backlash, but it never came. Instead, they received literally thousands of messages of support from around the world, including from many in Israel.

It is hard to predict what amount of backlash will result, and a reactionary response is a common side-effect of working for justice. However, it is important to not let the possibility of a backlash muddy the virtue of a just cause.

The biggest potential threat to a boycott comes from StandWithUs, a racist, anti-Muslim organization with a chapter in Seattle. StandWithUs engages in fearmongering, threats, misinformation, and smear campaigns to push their agendas through. They have been known to resort to homophobic insults and immature (and incomprehensible) email attacks.

Fortunately, they do not have much of a foothold in Olympia. If they did respond, one can take pride that one has upset such an appalling and reprehensible organization.

I agree with the intent, but I’m concerned about the timing.

The initial request to honor the boycott came from Co-op staff and volunteers at least two years ago. And as time goes by, it only becomes more important than ever.

Unfortunately there is never a “convenient” time to act because there is never an appropriate time for injustice, oppression, and human rights abuses.

The occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip has gone on for 43 years. The ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians began 63 years ago and continues to this day. The ongoing imprsionment and strangulation of the 1.5 million people of Gaza is now in its fourth year. Every new generation is worse off than the prior one, with fewer hopes and fewer prospects.

However, there is a solution, but only if we commit to it.

No time is a “good” time to do the right thing. There’s only the right thing to do. The only “better” time would have been yesterday rather than today—and today rather than tomorrow.

I don’t like how this makes me feel. / This makes me feel unsafe. / This makes me feel uncomfortable.

Without discounting people’s personal feelings, we must distinguish between the actions that make one feel discomfort and the actions that cause people to be imprisoned, killed, malnourished, and oppressed. Activism is sometimes uncomfortable territory. It compels us to utilitze the powers and privileges that we possess. Standing up for what is right can be scary.

Those who feel uncomfortable because they feel it strikes at their sense of personal identity or makes them feel victimized or persecuted should be encouraged to express their feelings. However, it is important to recognize where those feelings come from, and distinguish those feelings from the efforts behind the boycott campaign and from the physical suffering of Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

I read on the internet (or heard from someone who heard from someone) that boycotting is illegal. Is that true?

No. This is a myth being propagated to scare people into supporting Israel. In the US, the Export Administration Act and the Ribicoff Amendment restrict the observance of boycotts “imposed by foreign countries that are unsanctioned by the United States.” The ongoing BDS movement is a worldwide grassroots movement, not imposed by any country and not beholden to any country.

Just to be sure, one activist emailed the Bureau of Industry and Security at the US Dept. of Commerce. She received confirmation that “[t]he Regulations relate to unsanctioned foreign boycotts. The Regulations are not applicable to boycotts of domestic origin.” That is, if the Co-op wants to boycott, it has that right — as it should.

No individual or organization has ever been penalized by the US government for participating in the grassroots BDS movement, and it demonstrates the lengths to which some people try to employ fear tactics in order to maintain the status quo and obstruct social change.

BDS is an international movement to affect change where governments have failed to do so. Its power comes from the people. It’s simple. It’s safe. And it’s the right thing to do.

I can’t use the drama, it’s messy, it’s complicated, we don’t need this right now

These aren’t actual arguments against boycott, but rather arguments against action, against taking responsibility, and arguments in support of the status quo. For us to honor the boycott in Olympia is much safer than Palestinians and Israelis requesting the boycott from their end. It is also much less dramatic and messy than the everyday trials of a military occupation.

What local drama may transpire will eventually pass, to be replaced no doubt with other drama. Yet the mark it makes on progress in Palestine will be permanent.

If we want to boycott Israel, then we would have to boycott cell phones, because Israel invented the cell phone. So there!

We didn’t make this one up. This argument is more common than you think. The problem with this argument is twofold:

1. It’s not true.
2. It doesn’t make sense.

The point is not to reject all things Israeli. The point is to employ consumer-based activism to work for peace and justice.

Israel did not invent the cell phone, as is commonly argued. But even if it did, it does not mean we would necessarily reject cell phones. Nor does inventing the cell phone make it okay for Israel or the US (where the cell phone was actually created) to commit human rights abuses.

The first heart transplant was performed in apartheid South Africa. That did not make a boycott of South Africa any less releveant, nor did it mean that opponents of apartheid had to reject heart transplants.

A boycott is so negative. Can’t we encourage change in the Middle East through positive energy? The Israeli government will change if we are nice to it. Why can’t we all get along?

A boycott is not a negative action. It is proactive action. It was not negative during the Civil Rights movement, and it was not negative during South Apartheid. It was people taking action, nonviolently, where their governments failed or were complicit.

The argument is often made that Israel simply requires positive encouragement. This was the same argument that the Reagan administration used to reject BDS against South Africa. They termed it “constructive engagement,” and it failed miserably. During the period of constructive engagement, the apartheid government increased its repression against black South African resistance, knowing that it could get away with it. Popular pressure eventually forced the Reagan administration to abandon constructive engagement and embrace BDS.

With Israel, the US has provided every gift imaginable, from the largest lump of US aid in the world, to UN Security Council veto power, to diplomatic cover, to concessions of every kind. This has only encouraged Israel to act with impunity. That is why the Israeli government was not afraid to humiliate the Obama administration with a “slap in the face” by declaring settlement expansion during Joe Biden’s visit. The Netanyahu government finally agreed to a temporary settlement freeze but then proceeded to violate that freeze.

Israel has even taken secret US military technology and offered to sell it to China. It was only US pressure, not constructive engagement, that caused Israel to cancel the China contract.

Netanyahu has been caught on tape telling Israeli settlers, “I know what America is. America is something that can easily be moved…80% of the Americans support us. It’s absurd.”

“Constructive engagement” enables Israel to act with impunity. The only recent time that the US has pressured Israel signigicantly was in 1992 when Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir refused to cease settlement expansion. Bush Sr. then rejected Israel’s request for $10 billion in loan guarantees. This was viewed as a monumental event and is credited with causing Shamir’s Likud party to lose to Labor in the subsequent Israeli elections.

Israel has been shown to only respond to international pressure. BDS is nonviolent international pressure.

Israel is not the worst human rights violator in the world. Why don’t you go after [insert Arab or African country here]?

This question implies that it is hypocritical to work for change anywhere unless one works for change everywhere. Or else, it implies that only the absolute worst violations in the world should ever be addressed.

The problem is that the argument can be applied to just about any activism, not just activism on Israel/Palestine. That is, one can level these arguments against doing anything about Arizona, or about immigration in general, or about civil rights, queer rights, environmental justice, racism, sexism, AIDS, poverty, Iraq, Afghanistan, health care, etc.

No matter what cause you engage in, there is always some other cause that could be deemed “more worthwhile.” Someone can always point to a greater atrocity or more “dire” situation elsewhere.

In other words, the question implies that you have to address all the problems in the world, or else you’re a hypocrite. The only way to not be a hypocrite then is to do nothing at all. Thus the argument promotes apathy as the morally superior option.

For some reason, this question is often posed to say that a true activist’s priority is some random Arab or African country. Ironically, the person who poses this question is never engaged in working for change in the region that they cite. Thus the Arab or African atrocity is used only to deflect criticsm of Israel. That in itself is exploitive.

The question before deciding to engage in a cause is not “Is it the worst thing in the world?” Rather, the questions should be:

1. Is it bad enough to do something about?

2. Is it a problem that you can do something about?

And bonus points for this question:

3. Is it a problem that you are already complicit in?

Still, isn’t it hypocritical for us to be boycotting Israel when our own government has committed tons of atrocities? Why don’t we boycott the US?

Boycott is a tactic, not a principle. The questions assume that the reason for the boycott is out of hatred or out of retribution for past deeds. No, the boycott is to produce change. Boycotting the US for its past atrocities is not asking the US to change.

As for boycotting the US for its current crimes, it is difficult to boycott the US while living inside the US. At the same time, Israeli activists are calling for an international boycott on Israel. They themselves cannot participate in the boycott because they live in Israel, but they challenge their own government in ways that are only possible for Israeli citizens to do. They hope that an international boycott will buttress the work that they do from the inside. This is no different than Arizonans asking for a boycott of Arizona.

For a boycott to achieve its goals, it requires a campaign. Even if the Co-op were to successfully boycott the US, it would mean nothing if there weren’t a whole campaign to back it up with a unified message and broad support. An Israel boycott is worthwhile because it is backed by an international movement. Trade unions, pension funds, European supermarkets, celebrities, and others are participating in the boycott. The Israeli government is aware of the campaign and its goals.

Boycotting Israel does not mean that one cannot protest the United States for change. Boycott is a tactic, and it should be employed where the tactic seems possible to affect change. It doesn’t mean you boycott everything that you disagree with. Different protests require different tactics.

Finally, we must acknowledge that the United States is instrumental in keeping the Palestine/Israel conflict going. As previously discussed, the US provides massive aid, diplomatic cover, and political encouragement to Israel to continue its abuses and forestall a just settlement. Addressing Israel’s occupation is resisting our own government’s complicity. For decades, people inside the US have been working for change through demonstrations, lobbying, mobilizing, education, and direct action. This work continues, but it should not preclude further action in the form of boycotts. All these things work together.