Joanne
McEwan’s article “To Boycott or Not to Boycott: Is that the
Question?” (IslamOnline.net: May 8, 2002) is timely. She has
raised important questions about the effects of boycotting Israel.
All Arab and most Muslim countries have been boycotting Israel for
the past fifty or so years; but what have they achieved? In fact,
according to her, during the last ten years, use of Israeli
connected products has increased in some Arab countries. What is the
use of continuing such boycott against Israel, she asked. Joanne
McEwan has raised these questions in the wake of renewed calls for
boycotting Israel in support of the recent Intifada in
Palestine, and in response to Israeli atrocities against the
Palestinians. These are very important questions that every observer
of international affairs must give serious consideration.
It
is true that “in the Arab world a boycott of Israel is nothing
new.” It is also true that since the Oslo Agreement (1993) the
sale of Israeli-connected goods has increased in the Arab and Muslim
world. And since then, of course, Israel’s financial resources
have soared. It has definitely helped Israel increase its military
aggression in Palestine.
Can
anybody do anything to curb Israeli aggression? Will the peace
loving democratic minded people in Western countries exert their
democratic rights to develop the consciousness of their government
that actions must be taken against Israel because “it has violated
UN resolutions?” Is it possible to open Palestinian museums in
those countries depicting the sufferings of the Palestinian people
along with the so-called Jewish Holocaust museums in Europe and
North America? Maybe. But these are all remote possibilities. Should
the people of Palestine continue to suffer for Western Europeans to
bring a change to this situation? This, in fact, may prepare more
Palestinian activists for the ultimate sacrifice of their lives to
promote their cause. Moreover this solution does not foresee any
role for the Arabs and Muslims outside of Palestine. Do they also
have a role to play in this conflict? Doesn’t the Islamic concept
of ummah demand their direct involvement in this conflict?
Can’t they make a difference in this struggle of the Palestinians?
This
brings us to the question of the economic boycott of Israel. But
will the economic boycott against Israel work? Has the strategy of
economic boycott worked in history at all? Well, sometimes it worked
and sometimes it failed. Recently it has succeeded against the
Apartheid regime in South Africa.
If
Muslims want to make their design of boycotting Israel successful,
they need to work seriously to achieve this goal. They need to work
out a strategy. Haphazard activities, as has been pointed out by
Joanne McEwan, will not be successful. In fact, the way the boycott
campaign has been initiated in some Muslim countries, and in the
internet, is going to be counter productive. That is why Muslims
need to develop a research-based strategy in order to achieve their
goal.
Recently,
an Internet message was circulated suggesting that Coca Cola Company
expressed its desire to donate its four days income/profit to
Israel’s war fund. Is this information authentic? One needs to
conduct some research to find out if it is true. And if it is true,
one should quote the exact source while making an appeal for
boycott. Muslims are a huge market; and they are in a position to
make a difference. With the current political atmosphere, Muslims
are prepared for it.
The
research on the strategy to conduct an economic boycott of Israel
has to be very serious. One has to identify the companies that
support Israel most, no matter what nationality they are, identify
the products of those companies and make a targeted campaign.
For
example, if company A produces cereal and has connections with
Israel, then not only inform the Muslim masses about it, but also
identify its market rival. Obviously its rival, say company B, which
also produces cereal, will benefit from this campaign; so bring it
into the campaign. Company B will be happy even to financially
support such a campaign. The idea here would not be to cause any
harm to company A, or to support company B, but only to stop company
A’s support for Israel.
The
current boycott campaign is faulty for many other reasons: Many
campaigners are asking to boycott all American goods. One has to
understand that not all American companies support Israel
financially. And Israel has survived and flourished, not only
because of American support, but for the support of the British as
well, without which it would not have come to existence in the first
place.
Israel
has received significant support from other European countries,
including the former Soviet Union. Therefore it will be a mistake to
direct Muslim anger against the United States alone. Muslims should
direct their campaign against the pro-Israeli elements only. Of
course, it is true that pro-Israeli elements in the United States
are very strong. And this is a challenge that Muslims have to
undertake.
However,
it is also true that Muslims might be able to attract a significant
number of Americans to support the Palestinian cause either for
their commitment to humanitarian causes or for their business
interests. The Israeli economy has been suffering heavy losses ever
since the current Intifada started twenty months ago. But it
needs a further push, and an economic boycott against the donors of
Israel will cause that final push.
Not
welcoming an Israeli academic in an Arab or a Muslim university is
the most ridiculous thing that can happen. What is wrong with
listening to opposing viewpoints? Is there a rational foundation of
the state of Israel in Palestine today? It is based totally on
myths. Can’t the Arabs and Muslims extend their courtesy to
Israeli academics? Do they have to extend their boycott to education
and academics? Don’t Muslims have the courage to encounter and
confront an Israeli academic? Are Muslims intellectually inferior?
Don’t they realize that they have higher moral ground in the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict? In fact, if they listen to Israeli
views and rationally counter Israeli arguments, they will be able to
make a better case and will have a better and favorable audience in
the West.
Muslim
emotion has led many youth to raise a slogan at the popular level
for the destruction of the state of Israel. This will only provide
ammunition to their enemies. After more than half a century of its
existence most Muslims now seem to have accepted this imposition on
them by Western colonialism.
But
this “darling little baby” has to learn how to live in a
civilized world; it has to accept mediation by the United Nations or
the International Red Cross.
Recently,
in the aftermath of the killings in the Jenin refugee camp, even
though the UN agreed to change the aim of the committee’s mission
from “investigation” to “fact-finding,” agreed to include
military personnel in that committee and agreed that the committee
submits its findings to the Israeli government before submitting to
the UN, Israel declined to allow the UN to enter into Palestine. Yet
Israel still claims “it has nothing to hide.” Is this a
civilized behavior? Ironically Israel is the only country that owes
its existence to the world community. An economic boycott of Israel
is, perhaps, the only weapon that can force Israel to behave in a
civilized manner.
The
Organization of Islamic Conferences (OIC) Secretary General’s
office in Jeddah has a unit on the boycott of Israel. This office
must be able to conduct such research. The OIC has adopted hundreds
of resolutions without implementing them. If it conducts a
successful research on the subject and succeeds in bringing down
Israel’s economy, it will achieve a lot.
