How clear does the BDS have to be about its true intentions before seemingly well-meaning people stop giving it the benefit of the doubt?
A case in point is the recent article from Haaretz columnist Bradley Burston, who seems to genuinely want the BDS to come clean about its goals:
What does BDS really want from Israel?
I’m not asking for much. And I am certainly not asking out of antagonism. I’m just asking for clear goals. And straight talk.
I want to know if BDS wants to encourage two states – for example, by concentrating on supporting labeling of products from the West Bank and East Jerusalem – or if the goal is a one-state Palestine.
One state or two? That’s the essence of Burston’s question. Very reasonable.
Burston seems to answer this question a few paragraphs later when he relates comments from a pro-BDS activist in a motion to boycott SodaStream at the Park Slope Co-Op. Burston notes that SodaStream is in the process of moving its factory from an area over the Green Line to the Negev, well within Israel proper.
“SodaStream is now moving onto land stolen from Palestinian Bedouins, who are also human beings,” said Anna Baltzer, national organizer of the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation.
Baltzer, a California-born Jewish woman who has said her grandparents narrowly escaped the Holocaust, and who was rather unfortunately described by the far-left Mondoweiss website as “The It-Girl of Anti-Zionism” continued, “We support the rights of indigenous Palestinians inside Israel, including the Bedouins. We can’t end our boycott when SodaStream is simply occupying new land of Palestinians.”
Occupying new land of the Palestinians? Inside the Negev? Sounds like some straight talk on the issue, right Mr. Burston? Doesn’t sound like it’s concentrating on product labeling, does it?
[sc:graybox ]Join the Fighting BDS Facebook page and follow @FightingBDS on Twitter and stand up against the delegitimization of Israel.
Well, Burston’s still not sure:
Is BDS then saying that all of Israel is occupied land? That the events of 1967 are, in fact, irrelevant, and that the events of 1948 are all that matters?
It is certainly their every right to believe that and say so. I just want to hear the answer. Clear. Straight.
If that’s not clear and straight, then nothing will be.
Burston ends with the claim that the co-op was unresolved on the issue of SodaStream, and “within the BDS movement, the issue stands no less unresolved.” But if SodaStream’s “crime” was to have a factory in the West Bank, and it is now moving to Israel proper, the issue would be resolved. The fact that it is not is a bold red flag for anyone seeking a two-state solution.
So here is some straight talk to help you out, Mr. Burston:
- The BDS won’t say it supports two states because it doesn’t. The problem is not that the BDS is wishy-washy about its goals. It’s that peace is not one of them.
- BDS does not distinguish between Israel and the West Bank. Its website states: “Anyone can boycott Israeli goods, simply by making sure that they don’t buy produce made in Israel or by Israeli companies. Campaigners and groups call on consumers not to buy Israeli goods and on businesses not to buy or sell them.” All of Israel is in its crosshairs.
- The claim that BDS is “agnostic” about the conflict is a tactic to co-opt supporters of the two-state solution. The rhetoric speaks loudly and clearly. The term “occupied Palestinian land” in reference to pre-1967 is not the expression of an agnostic mindset.
Burston claims he supports a two state solution. It’s time for people like him to recognize that the biggest threat to that solution is coming from BDS.
