by Omar Barghouti
In a situation of systematic oppression, silence amounts to complicity. Almost 60 years after the creation of Israel on the ruins of Palestinian society – following the ethnic cleansing of most of the indigenous Palestinians from their lands, and in the face of Israel's 40 years of military occupation of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem – this complicity becomes indicative of a deeply ingrained colonial view of the Palestinians and Arabs in general as lesser humans, or what I call 'relative' humans.
The latest political developments in Israel, particularly the last parliamentary election that allowed an overtly fascist party into the governing coalition, showed that an overwhelming majority of Jewish-Israelis stand fervently behind their state's racist policies and its persistent violations of international law. A reliable Israeli poll conducted on 31 July and 1 August 20061 found almost the entire Jewish-Israeli public supported bombing Lebanese civilians and their infrastructure, despite the level of destruction and civilian casualties that resulted.
Following Israel's widely recognized defeat in Lebanon, which undermined its deterrence doctrine, the Israeli military-security establishment has intensified its campaign of death and destruction against innocent Palestinian civilians under occupation, particularly in the Gaza Strip. Many more people of conscience have, as a result, started paying more attention to Palestinian civil society's call for nonviolent resistance in the form of boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel until it fully complies with international law. While not endorsing boycott yet, former US President Jimmy Carter, and current UN Special Rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory, John Dugard, are only the latest high-profile figures to draw parallels between Israel and apartheid South Africa.
In September 2000, after years of a 'quiet' Israeli occupation and the enormous growth of its settlements in the occupied territories, the second Palestinian intifada broke out. Israel's brutal attempts to crush it reopened – at least in intellectual circles – long-forgotten questions about whether a just peace can ever be achieved with this exclusivist and expansionist state. It was against this background that the UN World Conference Against Racism in Durban in 2001 revived the 1975 debate on Zionism. While the official assembly failed to adopt a specific resolution, due to direct threats from the US, the NGO Forum condemned Zionism as a form of racism and apartheid. Despite the official West's unwillingness to hold Israel to account, Durban confirmed that grassroots support, even in the West, for the justness of the Palestinian cause was still robust. What it needed was to be channelled into effective forms of solidarity.
Soon, campaigns calling for divestment from companies supporting Israel's occupation spread across US campuses. On the other side of the Atlantic, particularly in Britain, calls for various forms of boycott started to be heard among intellectuals and trade unionists. These efforts intensified with the brutal 2002 Israeli military reoccupation of Palestinian cities.
By 2004, mainstream churches were joining academic associations, trade unions and solidarity organizations across the US and Europe. They launched a study of divestment and other forms of boycott against Israel, similar in nature to those applied to apartheid South Africa. Most significant was the precedent-setting decision of the US Presbyterian Church in July 2004, calling for 'phased selective divestment in multinational corporations doing business in Israel'. The Presbyterian move could not be dismissed as 'symbolic' or economically ineffective and inspired other denominations to consider halting their investments.
A development of signal importance for these efforts was the Advisory Opinion issued by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) at The Hague on 9 July 2004, condemning as illegal both Israel's Wall and the colonies built on Palestinian land. Ironically, the PLO scored this victory at a time when it was least prepared to build on it. A similar advisory opinion by the ICJ in 1971, denouncing South Africa's occupation of Namibia, had triggered what became the world's largest and most concerted campaign of boycotts and sanctions, eventually contributing to South African apartheid's demise. The ICJ ruling on the Wall failed to create a similar reaction, chiefly due to Palestinian structural and political powerlessness, but it did fuel a revival of principled opposition to Israeli oppression around the world.
About the time of the ICJ ruling, the Ramallah-based Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI), formed in April 2004, issued a statement of principles urging the international community to boycott all Israeli academic and cultural institutions as a 'contribution to the struggle to end Israel's occupation, colonization and system of apartheid'.2 On the first anniversary of the ICJ ruling, 170 Palestinian civil society organizations and unions, including the main political parties, issued a further Call for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel 'until it fully complies with international law'.3 After 15 years of the so-called 'peace process', Palestinian civil society reclaimed the agenda, articulating demands for justice long obscured by deceptive 'negotiations'. In a noteworthy precedent, the BDS Call was issued by representatives of all three segments of the Palestinian people — the refugees, the Palestinian citizens of Israel, and those under occupation. It invited conscientious Israelis to support its demands.
It is not just Israel's military occupation and denial of refugee rights that must be challenged, but the wider Zionist system of racial supremacy. Jews have stood in the front lines of the struggle for civil rights, democracy, equality before the law and separation between church and state in many countries. For them, any defence of Israel's ethno-centric laws and its reduction of Palestinians to relative humans, whether under occupation or in Israel itself, should be out of the question. The Palestinian claim to equal humanity must be primary, because it lays the proper moral and political foundation for addressing effectively the myriad injustices against Palestinian people.
Progress on the BDS initiatives will be gradual. It is designed to be effective in various contexts. The West, owing to its overwhelming political and economic power, as well as its decisive role in perpetuating Israel's colonial domination, remains the main battleground for this non-violent resistance. However, the rest of the world should not be ignored. The movement should reach China, India, Malaysia, South Africa, Brazil and Russia, among other states that seek to challenge the West's monopoly on power.
If oppressors can afford a measure of 'constructive ambiguity' – to borrow the words of Henry Kissinger – the oppressed certainly cannot. Failure to spell out the endgame adversely affects our ability to sway international public opinion in our favour. For the Palestinian BDS movement to be as influential as its South African predecessor was, it needs to define its ultimate objectives, its vision for a future of justice, peace and reconciliation.
Since Israel is a settler-colonial state, its replacement must be a secular, democratic state, offering unequivocal equality in citizenship, individual and communal rights to both Palestinians (refugees included) and Israeli Jews. Only such a state can ethically decolonize Palestine and reconcile the ostensibly irreconcilable: the inalienable, UN-sanctioned rights of the indigenous people of Palestine to self-determination, repatriation and equality, in accordance with international law; and the acquired and internationally recognized rights of Israeli Jews to coexist – as equals, not colonial masters – in the land of Palestine.
- 1 Professor Ephraim Yaar and Professor Tamar Hermann, 'Peace Index: July 2006 / Support for the war and the IDF holds up', Ha'aretz, 9 August 2006. 2 PACBI's 2004 Call for Boycott can be found at www.PACBI.org. 3 The BDS Call and the list of signatories
Originally from on May 1, 2007, 6:45am
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)