As Annexation Debate Rages, Is BDS Gaining Ground?

Is BDS a reasonable response to annexation? On June 25, the Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) published an opinion piece by Ben Saul titled Why Australia needs to join global condemnation of Israel’s annexation plans.  Saul, an academic at the University of Sydney, opens his case for BDS by reminding the reader that annexation isn’t popular:

Israel’s incendiary move, paved by US President Donald Trump’s “peace” plan, has provoked near-universal condemnation. It has been deplored as a grave violation of international law by the UK’s Tory Prime Minister, most of Europe and the developing world, over 250 leading international lawyers, and an unprecedented 50 independent UN experts, and by 1000 European parliamentarians. Europe is considering sanctions.

Indeed, the European Union has said that it won’t recognize any changes to the 1967 lines not agreed upon in a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians. And on June 24, the UN Secretary-General called on Israel to scrap plans to annex parts of the West Bank.

But are the luminaries that Saul cites actual experts in international law? British Prime Minister Boris Johnson was educated at Eton and Balliol College, Oxford, where he read Classics.  And regarding many of the other international law scholars Saul alludes to, only some have experience in international law, many do not. In many cases,  ‘expert’  credentials haven’t been verified.

Yet Saul’s opinion, whether you agree or not, is based on an undeniable fact: annexation is not popular.

Then, Saul asserts that annexation is contrary to international law:

Since the United Nations Charter of 1945, it is illegal to use force to acquire sovereignty over foreign territory. This is the case even if a territory, such as the West Bank, was occupied in a war of self-defence (against Jordan in 1967), its precise borders are unsettled, or Palestinian statehood is disputed.

But there are equally compelling legal opinions on both sides of the issue. Legal scholars such as Eugene Kontorovich note that bilateral treaties between Israelis and Palestinians have the effect of overruling the Geneva Conventions by mutual agreement, and that the history of the region makes the term “annexation” a misnomer.  In effect, a legal argument can be made that the Palestinian leadership accepted settlements as a reality when they signed the Oslo Accords.

Again, this is an example of reasonable minds differing.

What About Anti-BDS Legislation And Rulings?

But in the second half of his piece, Saul glides from opinions based on certain facts to a conclusion about how the Australian government should react to Israeli annexation:

The Morrison government must now unequivocally condemn annexation as an illegal threat to international security and human rights and prepare to impose hard-hitting sanctions.

Saul justifies the boycott of Israeli products by writing that:

This month the 47-member state European Court of Human Rights declared that “Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions” is not discrimination against Israelis and that banning it violates freedom of political expression.

But Saul fails to mention that the EU’s 2016 Report on Competition Policy interprets the EU trade law as including, “the need to fight against unfair collective boycotts.” The chair of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations with Israel confirmed that this language was indeed intended to prevent private boycotts against Israel (as well as others) as a matter of EU trade law.  Saul selectively omits an important development in European Union policy vis a vis BDS.

And while he cites the decision of one institution, the European Court of Human Rights, Saul glosses over the fact that many governments and organizations around the world have passed anti-BDS resolutions, including:

• The US House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed  House Resolution 246 in 2019 that rejects the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign against Israel. The bill also calls for increased security aid to Israel and a two-state solution.
• In May 2020, Oklahoma became the 30th state to enact an anti-BDS bill.
• The European Union cut funding to a Palestinian group for refusing to adhere to anti-terrorist clause included in the EU grant General Conditions. The group, Badil, Resource Center for Palestinian Refugee Rights, is involved in the anti-Israel BDS movement.
• The UK plans to pass a law banning local councils from boycotting countries in their pension funds.

BDS Movement: Bent On Israel’s Destruction

Someone reading Saul’s piece may conclude that the goal of BDS is to force Israel to merely abandon its annexation plans:

Far from creating peace, it [annexation] would doom Israelis and Palestinians to a future of ceaseless violence, and further impoverish Palestinian civilians.

This couldn’t be further from the truth. A few quotes from leaders of the BDS movement shed light on its real motives:

Omar Barghouti, founder, BDS:

Definitely most definitely we oppose a Jewish state in any part of Palestine.

(Separately he clarifies that “Palestine” means all of Israel.)

As’ad Abu Khalil, California State University Professor of Political Science, BDS leader and activist:

The real aim of BDS is to bring down the State of Israel…this should be stated as an unambiguous goal.

John Spritzler, author, BDS leader and activist:

I think the BDS movement will gain strength from forthrightly explaining why Israel has no right to exist…

Of course plenty of people, Israelis included, criticize Israeli policies like annexation. They’re within their democratic right to do so. But by writing that support of BDS is a legitimate way to oppose annexation Saul whitewashes the movement’s one goal: to delegitimize Israel and bring an end to the country as a Jewish state.

Related Reading: En-Thralled with BDS

SMH: Beware Of Opinions Based On Falsehoods

Ben Saul’s piece is an eloquent expression of his personal opinion. He has every right to express his views. But the Sydney Morning Herald has certain journalistic standards to uphold. It’s obligated to prevent inaccuracies, omissions, and flat out falsehoods from being presented as facts in its pages and on its website. Because all that’s required for BDS to succeed in its plan to make Israel disappear is for “good people to do nothing.”

The SMH is the oldest continuously published newspaper in Australia and has become a national online-news brand. Its vast readership deserves nothing less than the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Enjoyed reading this article? Follow the HonestReporting page on Facebook to read more articles debunking news bias and smears, as well as others explaining Israel’s history, politics, and international affairs. Click here to learn more!

Unfortunately, SMH isn’t alone. HonestReporting encourages its readers to monitor their local news organizations. If you suspect anti-Israel coverage, consider contacting the site’s editor.