March 23, 2014
As
Secretary of State John Kerry prepares to present Israeli and Palestinian
negotiators with yet another “framework” agreement, the Boycott, Divestment, Sanction movement (BDS) has been
increasingly presented in the media as a legitimate social movement aimed at
securing rights for Palestinians in Israel, "under occupation," and
in the diaspora. However, nothing demonstrates BDS’ growing influence and game
changing potential more than the recent reactions of Israeli leaders and their
allies in the U.S. Congress to BDS successes. With expectations exceedingly low on both sides for the latest U.S.
peace initiative, the BDS movement offers Palestinians a credible movement
aimed at securing their rights when no alternative exists.
The
recent international controversy over actress Scarlett Johansson’s endorsement
of SodaStream and the December 2013 decision by the
American Studies Association (ASA) to boycott Israeli academic institutions
have together brought significant Western media attention to the BDS movement.
To be sure, the ASA boycott and Oxfam’s decision to sever ties with Johansson
following her endorsement—along with other recent BDS achievements like the
formation of the European Union’s anti-settlements policy and
the withdrawal by the largest Dutch pension fund and
the largest Danish bank of their investments from Israeli
banks—will not immediately force the Israeli government to change its policies.
However, BDS does not need to immediately cripple the Israeli economy; rather,
as Larry Derfner recently asserted, “All the boycott has to do is keep growing,
drop by drop . . . for it to succeed.”
Expanded
media coverage of the moment can help to address mischaracterizations of its
mission and strategy. For example, BDS adherents have long faced accusations of
anti-Semitism and been accused of having pernicious intentions, despite the BDS call in
2005, which explicitly urged “non-violent punitive measures” and garnered
support from a variety of Jewish groups. What BDS has achieved will undoubtedly
be furthered or diminished by the way the movement is portrayed in the media.
These recent controversies have expanded coverage of BDS and provided it with a
growing place in the discourse on the conflict. Such media attention is in and
of itself an important success for the movement.
The New York Times serves
as a bellwether of mainstream press coverage, and in recent months BDS
proponents can point to both a marked rise in overall coverage of the movement
and a relatively more nuanced discussion of its merits and flaws from the
newspaper. Social movement scholars William Gamson and Gadi Wolfsfeld have
identified three chief services that the media fills for nonviolent
resistance groups: mobilization for political support; legitimation in the
mainstream discourse; and broadening the scope of the conflict. To that end,
overall expanded coverage presents the movement with the possibility of
reaching and mobilizing a larger audience, increasing legitimation, and the
ability to broaden the scope of the conflict by involving heretofore uninformed
or uninvolved actors.
In
February alone, Times columnists Roger Cohen and Thomas Friedman authored pieces on BDS developments
and their attendant ramifications on the peace process. While Cohen noted that
he did not “trust” BDS, he deemed it a “wake-up call” for Israel. Friedman did
not specifically reference BDS but cited several of the movement’s recent
achievements and called its actions a “third intifada,” which is “based on a
strategy of making Israelis feel strategically secure but morally insecure.”
The Times also
published a lengthy discussion in response to a separate opinion piece on boycotting settlements, featuring
letters from a variety of perspectives.
In early
February, the New York Times featured
one of the movement’s most prominent advocates, Omar Barghouti, offering a
defense of the movement and suggesting that “The Israeli government’s view
of B.D.S. as a strategic threat reveals its heightened anxiety at the
movement’s recent spread into the mainstream.” The Times also provided
substantial coverage of the ASA boycott, and its foreign affairs editor, Carol
Giacomo, wrote a blog post upbraiding those who sought to
suppress free speech in their reactions to the ASA decision. Ahead of the
annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) policy conference in
Washington, the Times also discussed Israeli officials’ plans to “pound
the drums about what it regards as the pernicious motives” of the BDS movement.
In early March, the paper published an extended debate on the topic, “Is a Settlement
Boycott Best for Israel?”
Elsewhere,
liberal Jewish intellectuals and journalists have advocated a settlement
boycott, or “Zionist BDS,” as Peter Beinart called it, and condemned those who criticize the wider BDS
movement for being against the two-state solution while supporting settlement
expansion, a conspicuously hypocritical position. Such defense helps combat the notion that BDS is
anti-Semitic and provides it a place in the discussion for those who may not be
familiar with the movement or are uncomfortable with its tactics.
A growing
indication of the increasing influence and potential of BDS is the recent
reaction of Israeli leaders and their allies in the U.S. Congress. Amid what
the Jerusalem Post called “a growing public perception that the
boycott Israel movement is gaining traction,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu convened a meeting with senior ministers on February 9 to discuss
ways to combat BDS initiatives. At the meeting, from which left-leaning ministers and
the media were excluded, the senior ministers discussed employing legal action
against pro-BDS organizations and financial organizations that boycott
settlements. The Israeli leaders also discussed encouraging the capitals of
allied countries to implement anti-boycott legislation. Strategic Affairs
Minister Yuval Steinitz proffereda “media war” plan that would also utilize
Israeli intelligence to expose BDS organizations’ “connection to terror
organizations and enemy states.”
According
to Haaretz, the Strategic Affairs Ministry has already
provided the Israel Defense Forces’ intelligence unit with millions in funding
“for the purpose of bolstering military surveillance of such organizations.”
Israeli leaders also responded harshly to a remark made by Secretary Kerry
about “talk of boycotts” as the peace process stalls, with
Steinitz calling Kerry’s comments “offensive, unfair and insufferable.”
Netanyahu also paid significant attention to the BDS movement in his speechon March 4 at the AIPAC conference, calling the
movement’s supporters “anti-Semites” and “bigots.” More than anything, this
illuminates the profound concern Israeli leaders have over the BDS movement as
it achieves successes and increased coverage.
Similarly,
reactions within the U.S. Congress have highlighted anxiety over the movement’s
growing success. Illinois Congressmen Peter Roskam and Dan Lipinski introduced a bill in response to the ASA boycott in
February that would take away all federal funding for American universities
that decide to boycott Israeli institutions. Similar efforts have taken place
in New York and Maryland. In other words, these lawmakers are
attempting to defend academic freedom—that is, as long as it aligns with their
own ideological positions.
A robust
international BDS campaign could have profound implications for Israel,
particularly at the international diplomatic level. In a recent interview with Jeffrey Goldberg, President
Obama warned, “If Palestinians come to believe that the possibility of a
contiguous sovereign Palestinian state is no longer within reach, then our
ability to manage the international fallout is going to be limited.” In other
words, in the absence of a peace deal, the U.S. will be constrained in just how
much it can continue to diplomatically shield Israel, even as the BDS movement
continues to expand. For instance, the United States cannot force European
Union (EU) countries to disregard existing EU law boycotting settlements, nor
can it prevent international lawsuits against or divestment from companies
operating in settlements. The movement could also have dramatic effects on the
Israeli economy. Justice Minister Tzipi Livni, who recently said that BDS
movement “is moving and advancing uniformly and exponentially,” called the ongoing conflict “the glass
ceiling of Israel's economy.”
Amid the
stalled peace process, the BDS movement provides Palestinians an alternate
means of pursuing self-determination. BDS proponents argue that the peace
process only offers the possibility of an attenuated state, while the movement
addresses the grievances of all Palestinians, not simply those who would live
in a future Palestinian state. Moreover, Palestinians who have long been
exasperated with their ineffective political parties can see a movement with increasing
international legitimacy and efficacy seeking to hold Israel accountable.
With that
said, the BDS movement could benefit from this media attention to further
explain its aims and the tactics it employs. Although the expanded coverage of
the movement will increasingly provide legitimation, the movement could also
use this broader reach to explain its rights-based approach, how this approach
offers Palestinians a more just solution than the peace process does, and what
its implications would be for Israel. Such a campaign would ultimately require
a more explicit BDS position on the two-state solution, a particular point of contention between
critics and proponents of the movement.
With such
little hope for any substantive progress for the next round of peace talks, BDS
proponents have kept the spotlight on the denial of Palestinian rights. The BDS
movement’s upward trajectory presents an alternative to the stagnant peace
process, an alternative that will continue to be aided by increased media
coverage. If successful on a larger scale, the movement could exert enough
pressure on Israel, both on the economic and international public relations
front, to give the Palestinians the political rights demanded in the BDS
call.
This
article is reprinted with permission from Sada. It can be accessed online
at:
http://carnegieendowment.org/sada/2014/03/18/media-s-effects-on-bds/h4k7
Adam E. Gallagher is an independent media analyst and writer
focusing on U.S. Foreign Policy in the Middle East and Afghanistan. He is a
contributor at Tropics
of Meta.