Friday 19th of April 2024

ice-cream war...

tip...tip...Ben & Jerry’s decision to suspend its operations in the occupied Palestinian West Bank is an event that is proving critical to Palestinian efforts, which ultimately aim at holding Israel accountable for its military occupation, apartheid and war crimes. 

 

By responding to the Palestinian call for boycotting apartheid Israel, the ice cream giant has delivered a blow to Israel’s attempts at criminalizing and, ultimately, ending the global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign. 

 

 

‘New Form’ of Ice Cream ‘Terrorism’: How Ben & Jerry’s Has Exposed Israel’s Anti-BDS Strategy

 

by  Posted on July 31, 2021

 

  

What differentiates Ben & Jerry’s decision to abandon the ever-growing market of illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank from previous decisions by other international corporations is the fact that the ice cream company has made it clear that its move was morally motivated. Indeed, Ben & Jerry’s did not attempt to mask or delude their decision in any way. "We believe it is inconsistent with our values for Ben & Jerry’s ice cream to be sold in the Occupied Palestinian Territory," a statement by the Vermont, US-based company read on July 19. 

Expectedly, the Israeli government was infuriated by the decision, especially as it comes after years of a well-funded, state-sponsored, global campaign to discredit, demonize and altogether outlaw the BDS movement and any similar initiatives that aimed at boycotting Israel. 

For years, the Israeli government has viewed the boycott movement as a real, tangible threat. Some Israeli officials went as far as perceiving the "delegitimization" resulting from the boycott campaign as the primary threat faced by Israel at the present time. Well attended conferences were held in Las VegasBrusselsJerusalem and elsewhere, hundreds of millions of dollars raised, fiery speeches delivered, while politicians and "philanthropists" lined up at many occasions, vowing their undying allegiance to Israel and accusing anyone who dare criticize the "Jewish State" as "antisemitic." 

However, Israel’s biggest challenge was, and remains, its near complete reliance on the support of self-serving politicians. True, those "friends of Israel" can be quite helpful in formulating laws that, for example, falsely equate between criticizing Israel and antisemitism, or render the act of boycott illegal, and so on. In fact, many US states and European parliaments have bowed down to Israeli pressure to criminalize the BDS movement and its supporters, whether in the realm of business or even at the level of civil society and individuals. All of this is amounting to very little.

Additionally, Israel doubled down on its attempts to control the narrative in mainstream media, in academia and wherever the anti-Israeli occupation debate proved to be consequential. Through a Kafkaesque, and often bizarre logic, Israel and its supporters deliberately misinterpreted the IHRA definition of antisemitism, applying it at every platform where criticism of Israel or its Zionist ideology is found. The reckless Israeli dialectics was, sadly – albeit predictably – embraced by many of Israel’s Western benefactors, including US, Canada and Italy, among others.

Yet, none of this has ended or even slowed down the momentum of the Palestinian boycott movement. This fact should hardly come as a surprise, for boycott movements are fundamentally designed to circumvent governmental control and to place pressure on politicians, state and corporate apparatuses, so that they may heed the calls of civil society. Thus, the more Israel attempts to use its allies to illegalize, delegitimize, and suppress dissent, the more it actually fuels it. 

The above is the secret of the BDS success and Israel’s very Achilles’ heel. By ignoring the boycott campaign, the movement grows exponentially; and by fighting it, using traditional means and predictable language, it grows even faster. 

In order to appreciate Tel Aviv’s unsolvable quandary, just marvel at this odd response, which was offered by top Israeli officials in response to Ben & Jerry’s decision. Israeli Prime Minister, Naftali Bennett, warned the British company that acquired Ben & Jerry’s in 2000, of "severe consequences," threatening that Israel will take "strong action," most likely referring to legal action. 

But what was truly strange was the language used by Israeli President, Isaac Herzog, who accused Ben & Jerry’s of participating in "a new form of terrorism," namely, "economic terrorism." On July 21, Herzog vowed to fight "this boycott and terrorism in any form." 

Note how the Israeli response to the continued success of the Palestinian boycott movement remains confined in terms of options and language. Yet on the legal front, most attempts at indicting BDS activists have repeatedly failed, as the recent court rulings in Washington demonstrate. On the other hand, the act of accusing an ice cream company of "terrorism" deserves some serious examination. 

Historically, Israel has situated its anti-Palestinian propaganda war within a handful of redundant terminology, predicated on the claim that Israel is a Jewish and democratic State, the security and very existence of which is constantly being threatened by terrorists and undermined by anti-Semites. 

The above mantra may have succeeded in shielding Israel from criticism and tarnishing Israel’s victims, the Palestinians. However, it is no longer a guarantor of international sympathy and solidarity. Not only is the Palestinian struggle for freedom gaining global traction, but the pro-Israeli discourse is finally discovering its limitations. By calling an ice cream company "terrorist" for simply adhering to international law, Herzog has revealed the growing lack of credibility and absurdity of the official Israeli language. 

But this is not the end of Israel’s problems. Regardless of whether they are branded successful or unsuccessful, all BDS campaigns are equally beneficial in the sense that each campaign kickstarts a conversation that often goes global, as we have seen repeatedly in the past. AirbnbG4S, and SodaStream, are but a few of many such examples. Any global debate on Israel’s military occupation and apartheid is a BDS success story.

That said, there is one strategy that will surely end the BDS campaign, and that is ending the Israeli occupation, dismantling the racial system of apartheid and giving Palestinians their freedom as enshrined and protected by international law. Alas, this is the only strategy that Israeli officials are yet to consider.

 

 

Ramzy Baroud is a journalist and the Editor of The Palestine Chronicle. He is the author of five books. His latest is These Chains Will Be Broken: Palestinian Stories of Struggle and Defiance in Israeli Prisons (Clarity Press). Dr. Baroud is a Non-resident Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA) and also at the Afro-Middle East Center (AMEC). His website is www.ramzybaroud.net.

 

Read more: 

 

 https://original.antiwa‘New Form’ of Ice Cream ‘Terrorism’: How Ben & Jerry’s Has Exposed Israel’s Anti-BDS Strategyby Ramzy Baroud Posted on July 31, 2021r.com/

 

 

real estate...

real estatereal estate

australia ratified it...

Australia ratified the Fourth Geneva Convention in 1958. So why do we question the ICC’s jurisdiction over war crimes committed in Palestinian territories?

 

By

Paul Heywood-Smith

 

 

Last month the UN Human Rights Special Rapporteur on Palestine, Canadian academic Michael Lynk, drew attention to Israel’s non-compliance with the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949) by its practice of sponsoring Israeli squatters on Palestinian-owned land in the Occupied Palestinian West Bank including East Jerusalem.

Lynk asserted that the illegality of the Israeli squatter settlements is the most settled issue in international law. He relied particularly upon UN Security Council Resolution 2334 (December 2016) which resolution per se has the force of international law.

I reproduce portions only of that instrument.

In its pre-amble the Resolution re-affirms, “the obligation of Israel, the occupying power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention…”  and condemns “all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, including, the construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions”.

The Fourth Geneva Convention, inter alia, forbade occupiers from transferring their own populations into occupied territories.

The Resolution proceeds to record the following paragraphs (along with others, substantially intended to implement those paragraphs):

  1. Reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace;
  2. Reiterates its demand that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and that it fully respect all of its legal obligations in this regard;  and
  3. Stresses that the cessation of all Israeli settlement activities is essential for salvaging the two-State solution, and calls for affirmative steps to be taken immediately to reverse the negative trends on the ground that are imperilling the two-State solution

Lynk proceeded to call upon the international community to adopt a plan of action which included:

  • calling upon Israel to fully dismantle its settlements
  • developing measures to bring Israel into compliance with international law; and
  • ensuring full accountability of Israel’s leaders responsible for breaches of international law.

Lynk also called upon the international community to fully support the work of the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) as it investigates whether the Israeli settlements constitute war crimes and violate the Rome Statute. The Rome Statute to which he refers adopted the charter of the International Criminal Court established in 2002 at the Hague.

The Special Rapporteur’s report raises pertinent questions for Australia, its government, its opposition parties, and its people.

Australia ratified the Fourth Geneva Convention in 1958. Australia is, of course, a member of the United Nations, and bound to adopt and implement the Resolutions of the Security Council (Article 25 of the UN Charter). As well, Australia is a signatory of the Rome Statute and ratified it in 2002. And yet despite the fact that Palestine is accepted by the vast majority of nations as a signatory, to which jurisdiction would necessarily extend, Australia still questions the ICC’s jurisdiction over war crimes committed in the Occupied Territories including East Jerusalem.

Australians might ask themselves: How is it that having undertaken obligations as a nation we ignore those obligations, and, indeed, have ignored them for years? Have we compromised our sovereignty by allowing Israel, or Israeli interests, to dictate to us, and if so, why?

 

Read more:

https://johnmenadue.com/australians-must-ask-why-we-havent-spoken-out-on-israeli-squatter-settlements/

 

See also: 

FREEING JULIAN ASSANGE would be a good start...