Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat decides to hold the first Jerusalem International Marathon in March 2011. He gets Adidas to sponsor the event. An Israeli runner registers and then discovers that the route runs through some of the most egregious examples of discrimination and dispossession in East Jerusalem: Sheikh Jarrah, Issawiya, the Shufat Refugee Camp, Jabel Mukaber and Sur Baher (see map on right.)

He approaches the Meretz representatives on the Jerusalem city council and they, with international human rights organizations, approach Adidas. Adidas smells a possible consumer boycott and gets cold feet. The company demands “clarifications” from the Jerusalem municipality. What does that mean? Time (and persistence) will tell.

—-

Adidas considers withdrawing sponsorship of Jerusalem marathon

Yosi Eli, Maariv, December 10 2010 [Hebrew original here and at the bottom of this post]

The sports giant Adidas, which is sponsoring the Jerusalem International Marathon, requested clarifications from the Jerusalem Municipality about the manner in which the event would be conducted [sic]. Sources in the company [say they] are even considering withdrawing the sponsorship because of fears of a consumer boycott, after it became clear that the route also runs through neighborhoods beyond the Green Line.

The company’s communication with the Jerusalem Municipality follows a series of protests it received from human rights organizations across the world, demanding that the company cancel its sponsorship of the marathon, which is scheduled for March 2011.

The calls for a boycott came after a left-wing activist, who will be participating in the marathon, complained to the Meretz faction in Jerusalem. He said that it was not proper that the route run through neighborhoods beyond the Green Line. Among other things, the organizations are threating to start a consumer boycott of it does not withdraw its support of the race.

In their letter to the Mayor Nir Barkat, which was communicated with the help of the Meretz faction in the Jerusalem City Council, headed by Councillor Pepe Alalou and Dr. Meir Margalit, the [company's] managers clarification over the planned route. A source in the Jerusalem Municipality said that following the approaches to the company, some of the Adidas management and its board, requested explicit clarifications regarding the event, which will be held for the first time in Jerusalem.

—-

This is a fairly wide-raging, if shallow, review. I found the section the section describing a botched attempt by an Israeli company to re-export Iranian marble to the US interesting. Particularly insightful was the justification for an Israeli double standard on this issue, as articulated by Danny Catarivas, head of the Division of Foreign Trade and International Relations in the Manufacturers Association of Israel (emphasis mine):

Catarivas

Economic threats are a mainstay of the Obama agenda and fuel the flames between the two countries after every statement on the issue.

The Israeli order banning trade, on the other hand, is not visible. “There’s an advantage to size in this case,” says Catarivas.”The Americans can afford to do things that others can’t.” Catarivas explains that as a small country dependent on foreign trade, Israel needs to separate politics and economics and refrain from economic boycotts. “In the same way that we are outraged against attempts to boycott us , we’re the last ones that should support boycotts of any kind,” he adds.

So until Israeli floors bring about a peace agreement with our neighbors in Tehran, the decision on whether to buy products manufactured in enemy countries is a private one to make. Alternatively, it is up to the quality of camouflage and the creativity of the importer, since Iranian marble is just one example from among dozens of products manufactured in enemy countries and available in the Israeli market.

—–

The trader from Isfahan

Noa Oron, Maariv Friday Business Supplement [page 8; Hebrew original here], August 27 2010

The exquisite lobby of Bank Leumi’s management building on Yehuda Halevy Street in Tel Aviv accentuates the contrast between the ancient and pastoral nature of the restored Mani House, and the modern pace of life.  Perspiring men in button-down shirts walk quickly past the 1930s-style porch, and conversations on mobile phones reverberate in the impressive space.  Heels click on the gleaming marble, and one after another the senior bank officials enter and go up to their offices, which overlook the Tel Aviv cityscape.

It is interesting to consider what the late judge Malkiel Mani would say, if he knew that the directors of the bank—the shares of which are still held by the state—were scurrying about on marble that was quarried in Iran.

Bank Leumi was among the first in Israel to purchase the Iranian Gohare stone, which is named after the ancient city of Gohar-Tappeh in Iran, and quarried mainly in Isfahan, in central Iran.  The marble stone, the hues of which combine beige and gray, became popular among Israeli architects, and was soon purchased by many traders in Israel, along with other Iranian marble stone.

But how did marble reach Israel from Iran, a state with which trade is barred by law?  Through the ultimate transit station — Turkey.  The stone slabs arrive in containers marked “Made in Turkey,” accompanied by Turkish documents, and easily pass through customs agents at the ports.  This is only one of the methods for camouflaging the country of production, for goods coming from countries with which Israel does not have trade relations.  This does not refer only to marble: Other products also make their way to Israel in a similar fashion, including textile, carpets, candy and of course pistachios.

The order banning trade with the enemy defines Lebanon, Syria and Iran as states with which trade is forbidden.  Nevertheless, trade with them takes place on a regular basis, indirectly, through third parties.  Whether it is because of globalization, the drive to develop the Israeli economy, or just because it sells, certain goods from enemy countries are prevalent in the Israeli market.  How much difference does this make to the Israeli economy, to the Americans or to Ahmadinejad’s pocket?

Means of camouflage

When architect Miri Kaiser presented the directors of Bank Leumi with the plans for the new management building, about ten years ago, importing thousands of square meters of Iranian Gohare stone was a minor detail on the way to the dream office.  Members of the bank’s planning team chose the stone with Kaiser’s assistance and also traveled with her to Greece, where the Gohare slabs were chosen carefully.  At that time, the Gohare blocks were shipped to the city of Drama, Greece, where the cutting and finishing of the marble slabs was done.  From Greece, the marble was transferred to Israel, and it is currently imported through Turkey.  The name “Drama,” incidentally, became a common name for Gohare among the Israeli traders.

Bank Leumi sources said that none of the current bank employees had any knowledge of the fact that the origin of the stone was in Iran.  Moreover, the paperwork related to the construction of the management building states explicitly that the stone is Greek stone, without any mention or hint of the fact that the stone is of different origin.  An explanation for such registration could be the cutting stage in the marble production process, so that at times the country in which the marble is cut is ultimately registered as its country of origin. The explanation could be that the country where the stone was cut is sometimes labeled as the country of origin. Another possibility is that Greek containers were used to import the stone, prompting Israeli Customs to mark the the marble as originating in Greece, which is what happens today with Gohare imported through Turkey. In any case, according to informed sources, the architect and importer both knew that the the Gohare had been quarried in Iran. But who has time for patriotism when a multi-million project is at stake?

Bank Leumi is not alone.  Hundreds of public buildings and residential buildings in Israel shine thanks to Iranian marble.  In the Avenue conference room of the Airport City project, you can see 2,000 square meters of Gohare; several luxury buildings in northern Tel Aviv boast lobbies courtesy of Khamenei; and even the Pivko building in Tel Aviv, the huge spaceship that can be seen from the Ayalon Highway, displays several hundred square meters of marble from Iran.

The Gohare is also not alone in the fray.  Graphite, onyx and other types of marble are imported from Iran.  However, the Gohare is quarried only in Iran and is unique for its relatively low price and popularity among Israeli architects—a winning formula for marble importers and traders.

“I call the Iranians from here and speak to them directly on their mobile phones,” a salesman explains in a north Tel Aviv flooring shop.  Most sales personnel are not embarrassed to say that this is stone that originates in Iran, sometimes immediately when it is shown to you, and sometimes after you ask.  “I am not always eager to say where everything came from,” the salesman qualifies, “but it doesn’t matter.  People also have a problem with Turkey.  You simply can’t mix politics with this.”

Since it is indeed preferable to avoid a political debate — after all, we are talking about floors — the marble marketers will use a variety of “means of camouflage.” In order to leave the stones nameless (and mainly so that we will not be able to compare prices), the marble companies give the stones original names that are the fruit of their imagination.  “Gray Steel” is one of the names given to the Gohare, for example.  Other traders will say that this is Turkish stone or “imported from Persia.”  If you catch the salesman in a friendly moment, you may be able to extract the information from him.  “I’ll tell you a secret,” one saleswoman whispers, “the Turks import from the Iranians, but let’s not make a big deal of it.”

Statistics provided by the Federation of Israeli Chambers of Commerce show that marble imports to Israel have increased over the past three years, and marble imported from Turkey constitute over 60% of the imports.  The scope of marble imports from Turkey in these years stood at over USD 22 million per year, on the average.  It is impossible to know what percentage of marble originated in Iran, but in light of the popularity of the Gohare stone and other Iranian stones, we can presume that it is a considerable share.  But the most troubling fact was supplied by a senior source in the marble sector: 90% of Gohare stone in Iran is owned by the Iranian government — meaning that the Iranian government is clipping the coupon from the trade with Israel.

“The question is what economic damage is being caused to the Israeli industry,” explains Danny Catarivas, head of the Division of Foreign Trade and International Relations in the Manufacturers Association of Israel.  “In any case, I don’t think that the Iranian economy depends on its marble exports, and if they don’t sell the marble to Israel they will sell it to someone else.”  Catarivas says that in order to continue to maintain a stable economy that is part of the globalization trend, [Israel] has to balance between bureaucracy and regulation to the free market: “I hope that the Israeli government can find the balance.  All in all, I don’t see the Israeli market being flooded by goods from enemy countries.”

“Whoever imports from Iran is a traitor and the State of Israel should make every effort to track down and stop these imports,” Oded Tira, former president of the Manufacturers Association of Israel, says angrily.  Tira is opposed to the approach that the business end justifies the means, and says that globalization serves as an excuse for trade relations with enemy countries.  “Even if the imports help us improve our own economy, I would sacrifice this in favor of pressure on the economy of the enemy states,” he explains.  “There should be a moral demand from people not to try to deceive the state, thereby strengthening the enemy.”  He says that giving up solidarity for the sake of business is dangerous, even if the sums involved are small: “Perhaps the tax that the Israeli trader pays will enable the Iranian government to buy the last fuse that it needs to complete the nuclear bomb.  This is an outrage.”

Finance Ministry officials said that no permit had been given to import stones from Iran.  Therefore, if imports were carried out, these importers risk breaking Israeli law.  Moreover, due to the international sensitivity and the sanctions on Iran, there is serious concern that additional laws were broken.

From Israel with love

Us sanctions on Iran have caused increased vigilance in imposing a ban on Iranian imports. As tension mounted between the two countries, our friend in the West banned all commercial ties with Iran in 1997, but the phenomenon of indirect imports via third countries is evident.  US Customs is strict and assertive on this issue, but also faces the same difficulty as Israeli Customs in identifying goods that are not labeled as made in Iran.

The office of the US Trade Attaché told Maariv Business that import from Iran to the Us have been in decline since 2007. Imports decreased by 41% between 2007 and 2008 and by 34% between 2008 and 2009. To date, about $35 million of Iranian goods have been transferred to the US in 201o, a a decrease of 48% compared to the previous year, but the year has still not ended.

In any case, when Israel is the one exporting Iranian marble to the Americans it becomes an embarrassing story. About two years ago, the Israeli company Bastones [spelling uncertain] sold two containers of Iranian Gohare marble to the US company Ann Sacks , which specializes in high-end interior design. Bastones promised that the stone was Turkish, in the same way that many traders in Israeli promise their local clients. The two containers full of Gohare made their way from the Mediterranean to the Western giant, but on the way they encountered a “storm” of a type one does not usually encounter at sea.

Ann Sacks’s management became suspicious that the marble was Iranian and started questioning Bastones’ exporters.After a few interrogations and a lot of stuttering Bastones confessed to the Americans that marble was indeed quarried in the Iranian mountains. Ann Sacks immediately cancelled the the deal and the containers made a rapid u-turn back to Israel. Bastones suffered losses, but it appears that it sold the stone in Israel. The Kohler corporation, Ann Sacks’s owner, refused to comment for this story.

Economic threats are a mainstay of the Obama agenda and fuel the flames between the two countries after every statement on the issue. The Israeli order banning trade, on the other hand, is not visible. “There’s an advantage to size in this case,” says Catarivas.

“The Americans can afford to do things that other can’t.” Catarivas explains that as a small country dependent on foreign trade, Israel needs to separate politics and economics and refrain from economic boycotts. “In the same way that we are outraged against attempts to boycott us , we’re the last ones that should support boycotts of any kind,” he adds.

So until Israeli floors bring about a peace agreement with our neighbors in Tehran, the decision on whether to buy products manufactured in enemy countries is a private one to make. Alternatively, it is up to the quality of camouflage and the creativity of the importer, since Iranian marble is just one example from among dozens of products manufactured in enemy countries and available in the Israeli market.

Cracking the origin

The term “Persian carpet” is quite revealing of the product’s country of origin. Most traders don’t even try to hide this fact from their customers. Even though the term also refers to a style of weaving – Persian carpets are also made in India and China — when a seller told us that the country of manufacture was “a secret”, we had no difficulty in understanding what he meant. If carpets of the “Qom” or “Isfahan” types sound familiar, it may be because you’ve already heard of  of the nuclear center near these cities.

Iranian carpets are imported mainly through Germany or Turkey and most importers remove the labels so that nothing is left to reveal their origin. According to data provided by the Israeli Federation of Chambers of Commerce, carpet imports from these two countries comprised some 40% of all Israeli imports of handmade carpets — on average $425,000 from Germany and $30,000 from Turkey. As with marble, its impossible to ascertain how many of these carpets were manufactured in Iran. However, it’s important to remember that imports of handmade carpets have declined in recent years as consumers have come to prefer more modern carpets.

The Tax Authority sayst that Customs does not have the professional tools to deal with the phenomenon of label removal. It is also hampered by the fact that most Israeli specialists are themselves carpet importers and unwilling to provide expert opinions. This was not the case when an opinion was needed regarding another consumer product: A number of “nut PhDs” starred in the “pistachio import affair”, when they managed to identify the source of pistachios imported to Israel from Turkey. Based on the taste, shape and color of the pistachios the experts knew that they originated in Iran, even without seeing the labels.

In early 2009, the Tax Authority estimated that an absolute majority of pistachios imported to Israel from Turkey — 90% of total pistachio imports in 2008 — originated in Iran. This lead to an October 2009 Treasury decision to raise tariffs on Turkish pistachios to 23%. The decision mad a significant impact on the pistachio market and resulted in a rise in imports from the US, to the satisfaction of the Western exporters [sic]. To date, he Israeli Federation of Chambers of Commerce, 93% of pistachio imports in 2010 have come from the US and only 4% from Turkey.

Sometimes, especially when the camouflage is unsuccessful, goods are seized by Customs in port, usually confiscated and the importer fined. The Tax Authority reports that in the recent past it has confiscated chocolate candies from Lebanon, labeled as manufactured in Turky, and destroyed sweets that it discovered were manufactured in Syria. The mode of camouflage was relatively primitive: The sticker emblazoned with “Made in Syria” had been covered by another, labeled “Made in Jordan.” The importer was made to pay the cost of destroying the goods and paid a fine of tens of thousands of NIS. Customs also routinely confiscates commercial quantities of Syrian-made cosmetics from travelers at the border crossings. Candies and cosmetics that make it through can be found in the markets of Acre and East Jerusalem.

We can’t get through the summer without chilled Lemon-Arak. Some of the bottled Zahlawi Arak comes from the Lebanese town of Zahle and is transferred to Israel via Cyprus, without a country of origin label. An if that’s not enough it looks like next Tu B’Shvat we’ll be eating dried fruits from Turkey that were actually picked and dried in Iran or Syria. If you take a peek at the label on your shirt, under your nargila table or at the manual that came with your coffeemaker, you might find that they too were manufactured in Syria. Nargila tables supposedly made in Jordan and textile imported through Turkey were recently stopped as they entered Israel.

Importers and wholesalers take stickers off products, change packages and label them unclearly — without a specific indication of country of origin — all in order to foil attempts by customs to determine where the goods were made. The Customs Authority has systems, such as profiling, to spot suspicious signs and shares information with other Israeli law enforcement agencies. But in many cases providing solid proof is difficult, so that even when Customs agents suspect that the goods were manufactured in an enemy country, the Tax Authority is still forced to release them to the importer.

Are there other solutions to the enforcement problem? Catarivas suggests increasing cooperation between the Israeli and Turkish customs authorities, based on the longstanding economic cooperation agreement between the two countries and irrespective of the diplomatic situation. Tira proposes the establishment of a special police force under the Ministry of Industry, Commerce and Labor, that will identify connections between Israeli traders and merchants in enemy countries, in the same way that the Police established a task force to fight organized crime.  ”This is as grave as organized crime,” Tira adds. “Organized crime is only interested in money, but these trade connections can strengthen our enemies and destroy the State of Israel.”

The Finance Ministry stated that under the Enemy Trade Order, the Minister of Finance is authorized to permit trade (import or export) with enemy countries. All trade with these countries must be licensed individually. These licenses are granted rarely and limited in in their scope and time period, providing localized solutions to the requested need.

The Politics of economics: The boycott on Israel is expanding

Daniel Bettini, Navit Zumer and Ofer Petersburg, Yediot, August 25 2010 [Hebrew original here and at bottom of post]

The decision made on Monday by the Norwegian oil fund to divest from Africa Israel and Danya Cebus on the grounds that they are involved in illegal construction in the territories, is only the latest in a long series of decisions by governmental and private companies in Europe to boycott Israeli companies for political reasons.

In most cases, the argument is that the products were manufactured over the Green Line, and are therefore in the “occupied territories.”  At times, this refers to a political protest against Israel’s policy towards the Palestinians, for example, in response to the flotilla events.  One thing is not in question: In recent months, there has been an escalation in the boycott of Israeli brands for political reasons.

“Since the Palestinians announced a boycott on products from the territories, I have had a 40% drop in production in recent months,” said yesterday Avi Ben-Zvi, owner of Plastco, a glass plant in Ariel, “exports to Europe have completely stopped, and traders in the territories have stopped working with us.  The damage is huge.”

Ariel Mayor Ron Nahman said that this was causing great damage to the factories in the area: “Large-scale governmental action should be taken in order to go to the boycotting countries and threaten that they will not be partners to the peace process.”

Norway’s decision from Monday was preceded in March 2010 by the decision of a large Swedish pension fund to boycott Elbit Systems, an Israeli company, due to its part in building the separation fence.  The fund announced that it had sold its holdings in Elbit following a recommendation of the fund’s ethics committee not to invest in shares of companies that are involved in violating international conventions.

Elbit also suffered from a boycott beforehand: the Government Pension Fund of Norway announced last September that it would stop investing in Elbit due to its part in building the fence.  At the end of last May, the Deutsche Bank announced that it had sold all of its shares in Elbit, apparently after heavy pressure that was applied to the bank’s management by representatives of anti-Israeli and pro-Palestinian organizations.

Two years ago, the Swedish giant Assa Abloy, owner of the Israeli Multi-Lock, apologized for operating its factory in the Barkan Industrial Zone, Beyond the Green Line. The company promised to move the factory “into Israel” following pressure from a Swedish human rights organization.

Chairman of the Manufacturers Association of Israel Shraga Brosh said yesterday that “from time to time, various bodies, mainly Scandinavian, boycott one company or another from Israel.  In the end, these are pinpointed events that do not affect trade with Israel as a whole.”

Soda Club has also been hit by the boycott: After receiving threats by pro-Palestinian groups, the Paris Municipality was forced to deny that the Israeli company was participating in a large fair promoting the us of tap water.

In July 2009 it became known that the French transport company Veolia, operator of the the Jerusalem light rail, decided to sell its hares in the project. Veolia did not cite the reason for the sale, but a hint may be found in the agreement of a French court a few months earlier to hear a petition against Veolia for building parts of the line inside East Jerusalem, in order to connect Jewish neighborhoods in the eastern part of the city with the west.

Africa Israel stated: “Africa Israel and its subsidiaries have not been involved for quite some time in real estate development or residential construction in the West Bank.  Therefore, the allegations are groundless.”

[Teaser] Is the whole world against us?

[Headline] European Parliament: “Phenomenon of boycotts against Israel gaining momentum”

[Sub-headline] Members of the European lobby for Israel warn: The deterioration in the political climate is increasing boycotts of Israeli products, companies and businessmen; requested that Peres utilize his stature and appear before the European Parliament

David Lipkin, Maariv, June 28 2010 [page 4 of business section; Hebrew original here and at bottom of post]

The leaders of European Friends of Israel (EFI), the European lobby for Israel and its economy, warned yesterday of a deterioration in the political climate in Europe against Israel, and an increase in the phenomenon of boycotts of Israeli products and businesspeople throughout Europe.  They noted that there was a growing phenomenon of European investment funds that were divesting from Israeli companies, for reasons defined as “business ethics.”

Ronny Bruckner, leader of the lobby, which includes members of Parliament in the European Union and senior European businesspeople, asked President Shimon Peres yesterday to use his unique international standing and appear before the European Parliament.  Bruckner also asked the president to step up his activity vis-à-vis the EU institutions and to invest in smaller European states, which have recently joined the EU.

Bruckner noted that the significantly expanding Arab population in the large European countries might help Muslim bodies join radical coalitions and boycott products from Israel, not only those produced east of the Green Line.  He said that Arab activists have already taken to harassing Israeli businessmen and that recently, companies that engage in business ties with Israeli companies have received threats.

Senior EFI officials told President Shimon Peres that there is an expanding trend whereby European investment funds declare they are pulling out their investments in Israeli companies, citing reasons such as “business ethics.”  There is fear, the officials warned, that the phenomenon will expand further.

EFI CEO Michelle Gorari told Asakim that the economic boycott against Israel is accelerating in Europe in view of the recent political developments.  He believes that in view of the rising pressures, the boycott against Israeli exports might affect some 30% of Israel’s exports to Europe.  There is a dangerous trend that aims at imposing a total ban on the sale of Israeli products on certain European markets.

Gorari pointed out that the pro-Israeli lobby has managed to foil an emerging trend whereby the European Parliament intended not to ratify a new aviation agreement between Israel and the EU.  After EFI made efforts to gain support for Israel, the agreement was approved by a majority of 465 against 65.  They are currently considering whether it is the right time to ask the European Parliament to approve an agreement on the harmonization of standards between Israel and the EU because there is a fear that, given the current anti-Israeli atmosphere, it may be hard to attain a majority that would approve it.

Israeli TVs didn’t show. Since the event was extraordinary, however, Channel Two TV News had to mention it in the evening newscast. Here’s the clip:

Yair Lapid

The script, delivered by aspiring politician Yair Lapid, is matter-of-fact:

Some five hundred leftist activists and Palestinians demonstrated this afternoon in the Silwan neighborhood of East Jerusalem in protest of the approval by the Local Planning Committee in Jerusalem of the King’s Garden plan, which includes the planned demolition of 22 Palestinian homes in the neighborhood to make way for the construction of a new archaeological garden.

Channel Two did not have its own footage. They had options, however. They could have bought footage from the wires or Arab TVs, who were there in force. They could have approached the organizers and gotten free footage.

Instead, they used B Roll from the archive. Fair enough. They could have used, for example, their own footage from previous protests and marked it as archival.

Not only was the B Roll not labelled. It was highly unrepresentative of the event — prayers at an open-air mosque, followed immediately by children throwing stones at Police jeeps. End result: For the the lay viewer, the protest is associated with violence (preceded by Islamic religious incitement, no less).

Was this done with intentionally? As documented in-depth by Max Blumenthal last week and demonstrated in a Coteret series a few months ago, the Israeli mainstream media tends to serve as dutiful stenographers of government information, especially on security and foreign policy issues.

It’s doubtful if anyone was briefing in this instance, however. My hunch is that someone at Channel Two was pandering to his audience’s sensibilities (or to his own), consciously or subconsciously averting cognitive dissonance. For many months and years, Israeli audiences, of Channel Two TV in particular, have been subject to nightly conditioning: The only opposition to government policies on Palestinian issues is from violent Muslims and their lunatic-fringe Israeli sympathizers. Images of masses of young and “normal” Israelis (some of them religious!) marching peacefully to protest patent injustice, would move viewers outside their comfort zone, and on a Friday night to boot.

This is a large part of the answer to the question of where the Israeli peace movement has been for a decade. It would still be dormant if the new media had not allowed activists to break free of the restrictions of the MSM and top-heavy NGO structures. The demonstration at Silwan, like the dozens in Sheikh Jarrah that preceded it, was organized with nearly no outlay using Facebook and other social media.

Facebook also enabled many supporters who could not be present to support the demonstrators.  Not only through the sharing of reports and images. On Saturday afternoon, one of the organizers — Daniel Dukarevich — sent out a note (Hebrew) describing what Channel Two had done and asking readers to e-mail the relevant ombudsmen with complaints. Twenty-four hours later, he reported that the Israel Press Council had received the largest number of complaints over a single incident ever and that Channel Two News had contacted him: They had gotten the message and really needed to unclog their inbox.

He [Yaakov Malach, CEO and owner of a company located at the Barkan Industrial Zone] says, “there is not a single factory in Barkan today that is not searching for alternative locations inside Israel, particularly if the construction freeze continues.”  However, other factory owners are not willing to discuss the matter at the moment, for fear of prematurely harming their workers.  “Clearly, we’re concerned, and we are also examining things, but we don’t want to reveal the name of the factory,” a CEO of one of the largest factories in the area told Ma’ariv.

Along with this, Avraham Barkan, director of the Jezreel-Afula industrial zone administration, reports that he has received a number of requests from owners and managers of factories located over the Green Line, regarding the relocation of their activity to the Alon Tavor industrial park.  Barkan attributes this to the factories’ fear of a shortage of workers as of the start of 2011, because of the Palestinian boycott, and to the fear that the construction freeze will continue

On June 17 2010, Calcalist’s Weekend Supplement profiled Who Profits?, the organization that compiles much of the data enabling targeted action:

Dr. Dalit Baum and Merav Amir watched all of that media noise from the side. They prefer to remain behind the scenes: to manufacture the thunder but to be away from the stage when it rolls into the media. The two are responsible for the project “Who Profits From the Occupation” that maps Israeli companies that earn money from the Israeli presence in the territories. Baum and Amir, with another 10-20 activists, do an in-depth study of each company, “based on stock exchange reports, newspaper reports and more,” explains Amir.

Full translations of both articles are posted below.

—–

Factories over Green Line looking for way back

Ronit Morgenstern, Maariv, June 21 2010 [business section cover story; Hebrew original here]

Ma’ariv has learned that the Achva factory, which is located in the Barkan industrial zone in Samaria, over the Green Line, is examining the possibility of relocating its factory for manufacturing halva and tehina into the boundaries of the Green Line.  The revenues of the factory, which is the leading factory for halva in Israel and one of the leading manufacturers of tehina and pastries, come to about NIS 100 million per year.

Yaakov Malach, CEO and owner of the company, which exports about 25% of its products, says that he is encountering increasing difficulties on the part of clients in Europe, because he is situated over the Green Line.  “Selfridges of London took our products off the shelf in the past,” Malach relates, and adds that “it is difficult to reach sales points in Europe because of the fact that our products are marked as ‘Made in the West Bank.’”

Malach adds that the company also absorbs the special 7% tariff that is imposed on products manufactured over the Green Line, in order to keep his European clients.  “Now the situation is even more complicated because of the Palestinian boycott, which affects clients abroad.  What will break us down, and other factories in Barkan, is the fact that starting on January 1, 2011 Palestinian workers will no longer be permitted to work in Israeli factories over the Green Line.”

Achva has recently invested some NS 35 million of its capital in setting up a new pastry factory in the Ariel industrial zone, near Barkan.  “Despite the large investment, and despite the fact that we have prepared a nearby area for transferring the halva and tehina factory from the Barkan industrial zone to the site in Ariel, we are preparing an alternative within the Green Line, and examining sites along the Trans-Israel Highway,” Malach explains.

About 200 workers are employed in the Achva factory, of whom about 100 are Palestinian workers.  “There are no politics in our factory,” the CEO declares, “our Palestinian workers are the richest people in their villages, because they earn NIS 6,000-7,000 per month here.  From talking to them, [I know that] they are afraid of what will happen, it means a loss of livelihood for them.”

Malach adds that he doesn’t understand the Palestinian Authority, “which prefers politics at the expense of thousands of workers in Israeli factories.  If it acts at the beginning of 2011 as it has announced it will act, it is harming its citizens more than the factories, which will find an alternative.”

He says, “there is not a single factory in Barkan today that is not searching for alternative locations inside Israel, particularly if the construction freeze continues.”  However, other factory owners are not willing to discuss the matter at the moment, for fear of prematurely harming their workers.  “Clearly, we’re concerned, and we are also examining things, but we don’t want to reveal the name of the factory,” a CEO of one of the largest factories in the area told Ma’ariv.

Along with this, Avraham Barkan, director of the Jezreel-Afula industrial zone administration, reports that he has received a number of requests from owners and managers of factories located over the Green Line, regarding the relocation of their activity to the Alon Tavor industrial park.  Barkan attributes this to the factories’ fear of a shortage of workers as of the start of 2011, because of the Palestinian boycott, and to the fear that the construction freeze will continue.

He says, “the Alon Tavor industrial park and the Afula Illit industrial zones are defined as National Priority A areas — and therefore they enjoy the benefits specified by the law for encouraging investments, a 24% refund of investments in property or a 10-year tax exemption.  In addition, the area enjoys the benefits included in the employment track.”  Barkan says further that the relocation of the factories will create hundreds of new places of employment for residents of the Afula and Jezreel Valley area.

The Manufacturers Association of Israel has also mobilized, and on July 1 will hold an emergency gathering together with Industry, Trade and Labor Ministry Director General Sharon Kedmi on the matter of the Palestinian boycott against factories over the Green Line.  Reports say that Chairman of the Manufacturers Association of Israel Shraga Brosh is holding talks on the matter with senior PA officials, and asking them to separate politics from economics.

It has further been reported that Brosh is working at the same time to find a substitute for the Palestinian workers — and is demanding that the government bring foreign workers in their stead.  Brosh has already approached Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on the matter, and also met with Industry, Trade and Labor Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer.

Mul-T-Lock will move

The Barkan industrial area has 120 Israeli factories of different sizes including Bagel Bagel (which once announced it was considering moving back into the Green Line) and Mul-T-Lock, whose owners – the Swedish lock giant Assa Abloy announced two years ago in Stockholm its decision to immediately pull the Mul-T-Lock factory it owns out of the West Bank.

The company took that step after human rights organizations and the Swedish Church published a harsh report warning the company directors that Assa Abloy and its directors could be prosecuted personally for violating international law which forbids building settlements on occupied territory. Mul-T-Lock said it had not yet found an alternative site and the minute it did it would move its factory out of the Barkan industrial area.

The Barkan Winery left the Barkan area for similar reasons in the early 2000s and moved its operations to Kubbutz Hulda in the Green Line.

Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin toured the factories in the Barkan industrial area in Samaria less than a month ago because of the boycott on products from Jewish settlements in the West Bank announced by the Arab Authority [sic]. Rivlin, who visited factories that employ both Israelis and Arabs, said: “This boycott is exactly the same as a boycott on factories in Tel Aviv or Sderot. It is a hostile activity which should be treated accordingly.”

Rivlin called on the Prime Minister and Finance Minister to check whether damage was caused by the boycott and to compensate the factories accordingly.

Chairman of the Samaria Regional Council, Gershon Mesika, who accompanied Rivlin on his tour, said “the Israeli government is not acting seriously to stop the boycott.” He said the Arab Authority “is biting the hand that feeds it while gravely violating the Paris agreement of economic cooperation between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Israel cannot continue honoring the free trade agreements unilaterally while the PA violates the agreements and harms Israeli industry.”

—–

Boycott the Occupation: The Israelis promoting the boycott on settlement products

Dr. Dalit Baum and Merav Amir are waging a resolute economic battle against businesses operating beyond the Green Line. Their comprehensive study maps out all of those companies and served as the basis for the boycott throughout the world, which is expanding. In an interview with the Calcalist Supplement they explain they are not extremists — it is simply Dankner, Levayev, Arison and about a thousand other companies who are violating international law

Ari Libsker, Calcalist Weekend Supplement, June 17 2010 [Hebrew original here]

The Israeli takeover of the flotilla to Gaza set off a series of tsunami waves, from the political sector to the volunteering arena. Meanwhile it brought up the issue of the economic boycott on Israeli companies. Britain’s largest worker’s union decided on such a boycott, port workers from Europe refuse to unload cargo from Israeli ships and this week it turned out that European business parties approached Israeli companies with whom they have long-standing relations to make sure they do not work with the security system. If the Israeli companies do, explained the European partners, we will have to cut off relations with them; our companies’ ethical codes require us to do so.

The flotilla was just the trigger; measures towards severing relations have been underway for months. A few hours before the raid on the ship Marmara, for instance, the media reported that Deutsche Bank sold all of its shares in the Israeli high-tech company Elbit. According to the reports, the CEO of the largest banking group in Germany announced it at the annual shareholders meeting, liquidating a holding of 50,000 shares within two months. Two international political organizations quickly welcomed the move and explained it was the outcome of pressure they put on Deutsche Bank to prevent investment in the Israeli company that manufactures security equipment. A few hours after the initial reports Deutsche Bank issued a denial, explaining it had not directly held any Elbit shares and therefore obviously did not sell them, but the noise had already been made.

Four months earlier Elbit had already gotten onto another “blacklist” — the list of companies the Danish bank Danske Bank will not invest in because of their business involvement in the territories. Elbit got on the list as manufacturer of equipment to secure the separation fence, and was joined by Africa Israel, because of its construction projects in the settlements. In December it was a Belgian bank that dealt a blow: it turned out that Dexia Israel — a Belgian government-owned bank that gave sizable loans to local authorities in Israel in cooperation with the finance ministry — refused to loan money to local councils in the territories. Dexia claimed they were following procedure, while the authorities in the territories claimed the bank was using weak official excuses, and there was much ado.

Dr. Dalit Baum and Merav Amir watched all of that media noise from the side. They prefer to remain behind the scenes: to manufacture the thunder but to be away from the stage when it rolls into the media. The two are responsible for the project “Who Profits From the Occupation” that maps Israeli companies that earn money from the Israeli presence in the territories. Baum and Amir, with another 10-20 activists, do an in-depth study of each company, “based on stock exchange reports, newspaper reports and more,” explains Amir. Their activity has strong activist backing: it is undertaken as part of the Coalition of Women for Peace, an umbrella organization including organizations such as Women in Black and Machsomwatch and funded by American donors and various funds through the New Israel Fund.

And so, while the Yesha Council was furious at Dexia and claimed that pressure by Arabs and anti-Semitic parties acting against Israel was behind the stoppage of the loans, it was actually the work of two industrious women from the heart of Tel Aviv. “A Belgian human rights organization called Inatl found our website, read our reports about Bank Dexia funding councils in the territories and began to act,” Amir recounts how it developed. “Following the global collapse, the bank was nationalized by the Belgian government and became a national resource — and that made it possible to apply pressure that yielded results.”

Don’t you think it’s a little extreme? Even you aren’t claiming they are arms manufacturers or companies working with the Army or helping to build the fence.

Baum: “Israeli companies that have interests and business overseas or are under foreign ownership are subject to a different law, even if they operate in Israel by Israeli law. Dexia’s Belgian management is subject to the Belgian law, according to which providing services to settlements is helping settle the population of an occupying power in an occupied territory.”

The foreign companies do not want to take a risk and get dirty

Baum is a lecturer in the Department of Women and Gender Studies at the University of Haifa, and Amir is a doctoral student at the Cohn Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Ideas at Tel Aviv University. We met at Café Bialik in Tel Aviv and from there took off around the world, to activities that concern hundreds of corporations, banks and companies.

Take the Norwegian case. The Norwegian government manages a national pension fund that administers state revenues from its oil resources and allocates them for retirement allowances for all the residents. In September 2009 the fund administrators withdrew their $5.4 million investment from Elbit, explaining they were not willing to have their fund financed by a company that contributes so directly to the violation of international law. “We were really active in this story the whole time,” says Amir. “When I say ‘we’ I mean various left-wing organizations in Israel, but without doubt the main catalyst for the process was the website’s research.” Baum adds proudly: “We published a public letter in the Norwegian press calling on the pension fund to withdraw its support from the Elbit deal. We received an answer very quickly and subsequently met with a delegation from the fund that came to Israel. We showed them Elbit’s involvement in the control regime of the separation wall.” That involvement consists of Elbit applying the “Lapid” surveillance system planned especially for the fence (Elbit did not provide a reaction).

The Norwegian fund’s ethics committee was convinced, the money was withdrawn, and Finance Minister Kristin Halvorsen announced that her government would not finance companies that contribute so directly to the violation of international law. “People automatically resent the Norwegians and call them ‘anti-Semites, haters of Israel,”‘ says Amir. “Look how it was written about in the newspapers here. But in many cases the Europeans are insisting on international law. That is an insight the Israeli public lacks — that there is something about the entire settlement enterprise that is not legitimate, and that business and economic involvement in the settlements is not perceived by the world as legitimate business involvement.”

One of the companies who understood that is Unilever. The giant corporation holds 51% of Bagel Bagel, which manufactures crackers and other snacks in the Barkan industrial area near Ariel. The corporation’s strong base is in Holland, which exposed it to local pressure: a group of Dutch left-wing activists called United Civilians for Peace investigated the connections of Dutch companies with companies operating in the territories, and among others worked with Baum and Amir. When it discovered the connection between Unilever and the territories it began to apply heavy pressure on the matter. “They waged a very serious campaign,” says Baum. “They approached the company’s workers’ committee and ran giant ads in the newspapers calling on the company not to continue its dealings in the territories. In this way they created public pressure without a consumer boycott, which is only one possible tool. Their technique was to try to educate the company and tell it about the occupation, the Barkan industrial area and the history of the land on which the factory was built. In the end Unilever said: ‘We are not willing to be part of this, it is against our policy and ethics.’ They understood it was not worth it for them to take the risk and sully their prestigious reputation because of such a small company. They went to their partners, the Israeli Bagel family, and asked them to relocate the factory into the Green Line. The Bagel family refused for ideological reasons, and since then Unilever has been trying to sell its share of the company.” Bagel Bagel Unilever said: “Unilever has been working for several years to simplify the organization, focus and increase investments in a smaller number of categories and brand names in the corporation’s business core. As part of that process activities that were not in the business core have been sold and the company has among other things decided to leave the area of baked goods and seek a buyer for its share of Bagel Bagel. The sales process is still underway.”

Levayev, Dankner, Arison, Tshuva. There all there

A look at the “Who Profits From the Occupation” website shows that almost all the large companies in the Israeli economy have reason to fear similar cases such as those of Elbit and Bagel Bagel concerning business abroad and international partnerships. There are some 400 companies on the list, and outside of the website, in Baum and Amir’s files, there are another 600. The names are well-known: Africa Israel, for example, entered the list because of construction in the settlements through Danya Cebus and because of its holdings in Dor Alon, which controls the supply of oil and gas to Gaza. Nohi Dankner’s IDB is on it because it operates Celcom in the territories, and according to Baum and Amir exploits various restrictions on the Palestinian companies to profit from the existing situation; because it owns the FiberTech company in Karnei Shomron that is involved in building infrastructures in the territories; and because Nesher Cement owned by Klal Industries profits from construction of the separation fence and infrastructures in the territories. You can also find on the list Tshuva’s Delek, Arison’s Solel Boneh, all the major banks, oil and communications companies and chains such as Café Café and Castro.

It is not surprising: 43 years of Israeli rule have weaved the territories deep into the local economy, and over the years they served as comfortable ground for manufacturing resources — as well as a new and emerging market, Israeli and Palestinian. Now there are a number of parties trying to tear the fabric. On the one side is the Palestinian Authority, recently leading a boycott of settlement products and planning to forbid its residents from working in Israeli factories in the territories or building settlements. On the other hand pressures are increasing on foreign organizations, especially European, to tighten the boycott of the Israeli economy in general and settlement business in particular. In the middle are Baum and Amir. Both are afraid of the assault on Israeli left-wing activists who support the boycott of Israel; they hesitated before the interview and Amir refused to have her picture taken. They are aware that the various pressures being applied today could have far-reaching consequences for the Israeli economy, but that is not their goal, they say. “Our goal is to end the occupation.”

How did you get the idea to create the website?

“In a series of discussions about the economic aspect of the occupation that we held in the coalition the question came up of how we could contribute to fighting the occupation in the commercial-economic area. The conclusion was that there is a change in the way bodies treat the situation in the territories. Economic activism is accepted in the world and has a glorious history. In recent years for instance we have seen the border-crossing public campaign against Nike because of its sweat shops and the campaign by vegetarians and vegans against McDonald’s. There are large campaigns today against products from Iran and Iranian companies because of the violation of human rights there. In Israel we know it mainly from mobilization of workers or consumer boycotts in the haredi sector, but it was not known here in the past in the area of fighting against the occupation.”

Does the Israeli economy profit from the occupation?

Baum: “Definitely yes. Shlomo Svirsky has been writing for years that the occupation has a heavy price. But the money that goes to security expenses and settlement construction, all of the things that Svirsky viewed as expenditures — we view as profits that lead to the growth of the Israeli economy.”

Amir: “A situation that is not economically feasible cannot last for years. If the situation has persisted for decades then somebody is profiting from it. It is not possible to be paying all the time because a society cannot pay heavy economic prices without an economic rationale. We said: ‘Let’s deconstruct this mass called the occupation and see where the money is, where the interests are.”

How do two women from the liberal arts and culture deconstruct economic interests? What tools do you have to do that?

“I think the very fact that economics have become something inaccessible to anyone who did not go through the academic training course is what allows very specific dogmas take over the economic discourse. We do not do economic analysis of companies and analyze their profits or losses or their economic feasibility. We only point to their business involvement in the territories, which can be learned about easily from the companies’ own publications and reports.”

It was painstaking work. For a year Baum and Amir traveled themselves to all of the industrial areas in the territories, documented the companies operating there and concentrated all of the information from the media and reports. Only in February did the website go up. All of the material they collected redefines the term settlement economy. “In the past the product of the actual settlements was viewed as the main thing,” explains Baum. “But actually the settlement industry is not the main source the settlement economy relies on. When you talk about the settlement economy, the industrial and agricultural part of it is small. What really maintains the settlements are two things: first of all construction. If you check where the construction industry grew in the last decade, you see that it grew mainly in the territories; within the Green Line the industry remains quite static. The large construction companies are the ones who profited from that growth, especially Africa Israel, Shikun and Binui and all of their adjuncts. The other big story is the infrastructures and services — all of the communication companies and supermarket chains allow the settlements to exist. This includes public transportation.

“The next category is what we call population control. It includes the wall, the checkpoints and everything that restricts the movement of Palestinians — roads meant only for Jews, security areas. The wall is the largest national project Israel has ever undertaken. It is a project that has exceeded the budget dedicated to it and there is also the maintenance of the fence. They didn’t just put a wall and go home.”

Another source is Palestinian retail. “The Palestinians cannot achieve decent production conditions in their factories, which once functioned,” says Baum, “and because of the checkpoints and the separation and the customs envelope agreements they cannot import or export independently. They must go through Israel and that increases costs. Furthermore, there are entire categories of products that they cannot export or import and are forced to buy from Israel. Therefore a great many Israeli exporters make a tidy profit from the current situation and therefore have a vested interest in maintaining it and the system of checkpoints, which harms their competitors in the West Bank. Maintaining a situation of underdevelopment of the territories also allows them to dump cheaper products on the Palestinian market, which they may not have had any way to get rid of elsewhere. We found that most of the Israeli food industries flood the Palestinian market with goods.”

Defective goods?

Baum: “Cheap goods, because it is a cheap market that is 20 minutes from the factory. They can sell goods they could not sell in Israel for a good price.

Amir: “Meaning all of the products whose expiration date is near.”

Which companies do you mean?

Amir: “Go into any Palestinian grocery store and you will see there are hardly any local products. The products are Israeli. That was not the case in the past. There was self manufacture and relative economic independence. Today you cannot speak about that at all because all of the products are Israeli, from all the companies.”

Baum: “It really is all of the companies. We are not complaining about the companies or telling them not to sell there. What we want is to open a discussion in the Israeli political sphere of the fact that the large chains and food manufacturers have a vested interest in continuing the current situation, the continued control of the Palestinian market.”

Not politicians, just showing things as they are

Selling product is only one aspect. Services are another. According to the Oslo Accords, Israeli companies are not allowed to provide services to the Palestinians without approval of the PA, but they have found a bypass route. “The Palestinian cellular companies are not allowed to build antennas in area C, which is 60% of the West Bank, without permission, and it is very hard to get a permit for an antenna. They can erect antennas in Ramallah and Nablus but there is no reception between the cities. The Israeli companies are deployed over the entire territory, they have hundreds of antennas, so not only do they provide services to the settlements but unofficially and under the table they also provide services to the Palestinians.”

Are they doing this illegally?

Baum: “If they want to sell subscriptions in the territories they have to pay tax to the PA and they are interested in avoiding that. So they do not let residents of the PA subscribe by credit and sell only prepaid cards for cash, and that is how they circumvent this tax question. I call it settlement on the airwaves. After all, the airwaves belong to the Palestinians.”

Another issue treated extensively on the site is use of natural resources beyond the Green Line. There is currently a pending petition submitted to the High Court of Justice by Yesh Din against 13 Israeli mining companies who, the petitioners claim, use Palestinian natural resources. The largest one is Hanson, controlled by the international corporation HeidelbergCement. Baum and Amir are doing the research for the petitioners. “According to international law, the quarries are in a territory that is still defined as occupied,” says Baum. “According to the Geneva Convention an occupying power cannot exploit land resources for its needs, except for a certain exploitation for the needs of the occupied population. In this case we are talking about the gravel industry. The resources of building materials in the Israeli quarries are depleting and therefore a large part of the product of the resources from the territories goes to construction in Israel. It borders on looting.”

Another project in which Dalit and Baum are currently involved with the Coalition of Women for Peace and left-wing American and European organizations is an aggressive international campaign against the Ahava company, which manufactures cosmetic products from the Dead Sea and whose laboratories are at Mitzpe Shalem. Over the last months Ahava has been contending with mud-covered demonstrators standing next to its sales points in Europe and the US and explaining to potential buyers about the occupation. Recently the Dutch Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen has ordered an investigation to check the source of the company’s products (no reaction was received from Ahava).

“We want to harm the image of the brand in the world,” explains Baum. “The demonstrators are only the beginning, I am sure there will be more activist protests in the future.”

Mitzpe Shalem is on the shore of the Dead Sea and the Israeli public does not perceive it as a controversial settlement. Why are you involving in the project settlements that are not perceived as unequivocal settlements? Doesn’t it weaken your struggle?

Amir: “According to Israeli law a settlement in that area is considered a settlement. Everything north of Ein Gedi is outside of the borders of Israel. Whether the Israeli public perceives it as a settlement or as occupied territory or not is not our concern. We are not politicians or publicists trying to sell something and who need to be considerate of the public perception. We are attempting to show things as they are.”

Most imagery from the village is much more banal in its horror. Like this one, of the arrest of a twelve-year old in the olive groves of the village on the same day.

Louis Frankenthaler moved to Israel in 1995 and lives, with his family, in West Jerusalem. He has an MA in Jewish Education, is a doctoral student and works for the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel. His political writings have appeared in Zeek, Global Dialogue, the Electronic Intifada and in Ha’aretz. The opinions reflected in his essays are his own.

—-

Louis translated the activists’ statement, which was originally published in Hebrew on the Sheikh Jarrah blog, his commentary follows.

From the Sheikh Jarrah activists

Today is a difficult day for all of us, for the thousands who have stood over the months in protest in Sheikh Jarrah and to the tens of thousands who support this grave struggle, a struggle for the future of the society in which we live.

Today, adding to the physical police barriers in Sheikh Jarrah [the Jerusalem Magistrate/"Shalom" Court] Judge Ziskind added, in her decision, an additional barrier. Through its decision the Court is attempting to prevent core [Sheikh Jarrah] activists from taking part in any public event connected to Sheikh Jarrah for five months and even to issue a sweeping order preventing the activists from even appearing in the neighborhood during this period. With this the Court, in no uncertain terms, stands with the Jerusalem Police and has joined its efforts to repress and crush the struggle. We know now, like in the past, such repression will only strengthen us as we stand in resistance to injustice.

In the face of this newest challenge we will present the only response we have: solidarity. Solidarity with our Palestinian partners against the attempts purge the neighborhood of its Palestinian residents in favor of Jewish settlers; solidarity with our comrades in detention and against the attempts to repress their protests; solidarity with our fellow citizens/civilians who want only to live in a democratic society in which politically based law enforcement is inconceivable. All must be equal before the law. The law, when applied discriminatory, challenges is very legality [constitutionality].

In the name of solidarity we call on everyone to come to Sheikh Jarrah next Friday. Standing together we will deliver a loud and clear message to the Magistrate’s Court and to the settler’s police: You cannot kill popular resistance

This is the moment that demands of all of us to join the struggle, to call on our friends to join us as we stand shoulder to shoulder against the corruption of a law enforcement system infected by the Occupation.

Friday — 4pm/16:00 Sheikh Jarrah: We call on YOU to join us. More details to follow.

The Sheikh Jarrah Activists

—-

Commentary

There is little more that one can add to the morally just call from the Sheikh Jarrah activists. Over the past month or two I, normally cynical about demonstrations, have decided to frequent the neighborhood, to come out from behind my computer screen activism, my writing and my role as a full time human rights worker, to protest and to start visiting with the people beyond Friday afternoons.

The weekly demonstrations in Sheikh Jarrah are exciting and inspiring examples of a pure representation of democratic and human rights based activism. I have come by myself and witnessed (and was almost touched by) police brutality. I have come with my children (7 and 10) and faced their tough questions: “Why we are here? What is going on? Why are there so many police here and why do they have different uniforms on?” The simple answer I give them children reflects the relative simplicity of the struggle in Sheikh Jarrah. It is an answer that draws together a relatively large variety of people, mostly Israelis, some of them professors, authors, politicians but most of them regular people from regular homes in regular neighborhoods. The answer to my kids’ questions: we are here because what Israel is doing to the Palestinian residents of Sheikh Jarrah is wrong. Israel is hurting them and it is not fair. As for the police, to my children I am forced to answer them with a hint of sadness that says “normally we expect the police to protect us. If someone hurts you, you should call the police and they will protect you but today, they are helping the State do something bad.”

Of course we know, like in the activists’ statement above, that the police, the Courts, the army, politicians and so many others have been drafted, co-opted, with democracy sequestered, to serve the structural and physical violence of the Occupation. Sheikh Jarrah is one small pocket of this system but it is also a pocket of resistance, sometimes subtle and sometimes more effervescent but always an expression of an enduring struggle to change the way that the hegemonic forces of injustice operate. For too long the Israeli take over of East Jerusalem, the building of settlements in the middle of Palestinian communal life has continued with Israeli public acquiescence and silence. The activists have been left to defend democracy by themselves. The human rights and peace NGOs forced to struggle against an on-going cynical effort by official Israel to delegitimize and to demonize them. All of us continue to be held hostage by the far right who prefer Sarajevo of the 1990s or Belfast of the 70′s and 80′s over a just and democratic city at peace. These same people have organized themselves as self anointed Monitors and self defined ‘New Zionists’ who prefer to tell us what to think and to sue those who deviate from their demands. They, like settler activists, have colonized any democratic life course that remains in Israel and subjugated it to the Occupation.

We live in a society which has reached a dangerous level of moral and political bankruptcy. Israel’s leadership, in a disturbing reincarnation of manifest destiny, defends settlements and maintains its perceived metaphysical right to colonize at will. We are left with little option but to come out of our homes and from behind our computer screens and drum up a vocal and musical crescendo that the State will no longer be able to ignore. Israel continues to descend dangerously into de-democracy led by an ultra right wing Government in which Bibi Netanyahu is seen as a leftist. There is little optimism left except for in those pockets of resistance that wave the flag of democracy and human rights instead of the flags of nationalism and violence. It is a flag embodied by the pirate flag flown weekly at the demonstrations, which perhaps symbolizes the way that Israel sees democratic activism as criminal and illegitimate. This is the brilliance of Sheikh Jarrah and the reason why activists will continue to be arrested and to be released under counter democratic conditions. It is one (not the only) of the reasons why the Palestinian victims of settlement in East Jerusalem will be vindicated.

Sheikh Jarrah is not a battleground. It is the black board upon which it is possible to re-write the course of IsraelPalestine politics. In Sheikh Jarrah a new paradigm is being realized. It is the paradigm of level headed, patient and just struggle by people who have moved beyond co-existence to mutually-assured-existence. It is a paradigmatic struggle that will infiltrate and subvert the de-democratic forces of Occupation and denial of basic human and civil rights to too many people for far too long. It is a struggle for a ‘Just Jerusalem’ but not just that.

—-

Post Script on the Free Gaza Flotilla

Yesterday (May 31, 2010),  Israeli naval commandos attacked the peace flotilla as it sailed to Gaza to break the blockade. Activists were killed. It is an act beyond our collective and common human understanding of basic decency and dignity. The Israeli siege on Gaza is illegal collective punishment. Never mind the Hamas rulers – who are far from embodying any human rights ideals – the civilian population of Gaza must have free access to food, medicine, building supplies and mostly to normal life. Israel prevents this. The official Israeli narrative on the events of today and on its relationship with Gaza attempts to be the last word. It is not because we will continue to speak and act up.