clear

Creating new perspectives since 2009

The dangers of activism and the EU finding common ground

March 29, 2016 at 2:17 pm

While BDS can claim various gains, including the recent announcement by security firm G4S that it would be terminating its business deals with Israel, there are several points that need to be considered if activism is to conquer the prevailing political limitations.

In a recent anti-BDS conference organised by Yedioth Ahronoth, the EU Ambassador to Israel Lars Faaborg-Andersen was reported by the Jerusalem Post to have stated that the EU is against BDS and it perceives the movement as a hindrance to a solution.

The stream of rhetoric uttered by Faaborg-Andersen is proof of two things: The EU’s stance is decidedly anti-Palestinian, given its ridicule of activists’ efforts to attempt to minimise Israel’s colonial violence. Indeed, Faaborg-Andersen declared: “The BDS phenomenon is a rather marginal one. At this point in time it has very little effect on Israel. We have to stay vigilant to ensure that it doesn’t get further support.”

The EU’s contention with BDS is also embroiled within the two-state paradigm. “If more effort is put into that [the peace process] and showing a will to move forward and obtain progress, it will weaken the BDS movement.”

Contradictions can be gleaned from the entire repertoire of comments. However, the same contradictions can also be applied to the BDS movement which, despite its efforts, is still operating within a compromised system.

In its introduction, the BDS movement states that one if its aims is to ensure that Israel ends “its occupation and colonisation of all Arab lands occupied in June 1967 and dismantling the Wall.” The repetitive insistence upon the 1967 date has resulted in severe consequences for the Palestinian struggle. It has distorted history, misplaced emphasis rather than asserted the dangers of a continued colonisation process, and marginalised Palestinians who have suffered for decades beyond the date that has been normalised within international discourse.

Read: Israeli companies leaving West Bank settlements under boycott pressure

It can be argued that the movement is raising the ire of governments and international institutions which benefit from companies investing in Israel, thus managing to dent the cycle of complicity. However, given the extended emphasis upon 1967, there exists an intersection which renders both the EU and BDS on the same wavelength, even though the ultimate aim may be diverging.

The movement can claim that its aims are based upon the concept of human rights and international law – there is no particular mention of the two-state hypothesis as a solution. However, the implication is easily recognisable even without explicit articulation.

If there is no established framework that explicitly endorses anti-colonial struggle in its entirety, the movement which claims support for Palestinian rights is also supporting EU strategies and schemes that support the colonisation process. It is one thing for Faaborg-Andersen to declare unending EU support for Israel – despite the implicit violation in such a statement; the EU is clearly adhering to its inscribed role. BDS is another dimension that can easily be overlooked; hence the importance of ensuring that support for Palestine is not compromised by international impositions that prioritise Israel above safeguarding Palestinian rights.

Read: Palestinians sue US settlement supporters for $34.5bn

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.