New rules announced by Britain’s Conservative government that effectively ban boycotts of Israel have naturally drawn parallels with former Conservative prime minister Margaret Thatcher’s measures opposing sanctions against Apartheid South Africa.
There are direct links between then and now, besides Israel supporting and emulating South Africa’s apartheid system.
Britain’s current prime minister David Cameron accepted an all-expenses paid trip to South Africa in 1989 while Nelson Mandela was still in prison. The visit was organised and funded by a firm that was created specifically to lobby against sanctions.
In 2006, Mr Cameron belatedly acknowledged that his party had made “mistakes” in opposing sanctions against apartheid South Africa, adding that this makes it “all the more important to listen now”.
A decade on, however, he seems to have not learnt from those mistakes, and has thoroughly covered his ears again, this time regarding the case for sanctions against Israel, or at least not opposing them.
Under new guidance, public bodies – including National Health Service trusts, local councils and universities – will be prevented from boycotting Israel, and could be taken to court for doing so.
Arms companies are also included – to be expected given the lucrative trade that contributes directly to Israel’s enforcement of its occupation. More than 100 companies supplying military and security equipment to Israel have bases in the UK, and the value of licences awarded for export to Israel amounted to over £40 million (Dh211m) in 2014 alone. The guidance also mentions fossil fuels and tobacco products – but given that it was formally announced in Israel, the movement to boycott, divest from and sanction Israel (BDS) is clearly the intended target.
While the guidance has understandably caused widespread uproar, it should not come as a surprise. The plans were first announced in October 2015, ahead of the Conservative Party annual conference. However, besides the traditional staunch support for Israel from within the party and from Mr Cameron himself, he made his views on the issue clear well before then.
In March 2014, he told Israel’s parliament: “To those who want to boycott Israel, I have a clear message. Britain opposes boycotts, whether it’s trade unions campaigning for the exclusion of Israelis, or universities trying to stifle academic exchange.” He added: “Delegitimising the state of Israel is wrong. It’s abhorrent. And together we will defeat it.”
The new legislation comes amid what looks like a wider crackdown on expressions of solidarity with Palestine. It was reported last week that teaching staff at British universities, colleges and schools are being encouraged to consider Muslim students who display an interest in Palestine as vulnerable to being drawn to terrorism.
The e-learning presentations – listing Palestine as among issues that need “careful monitoring” – are meant to help staff fulfil their obligations under the government’s Prevent counter-extremism strategy, against which hundreds of academics signed an open letter last year criticising its “chilling effect” on free speech and political dissent. Prevent was also condemned in 2015 for extending surveillance to nursery schools – since then, children as young as three have been referred under the programme.
London may have been spurred to take action following recent similar measures in Israel, France and the US. Pro-Israel sympathisers are portraying this as a show of resolve against the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign.
However, it smacks of desperation against a movement that has grown in leaps and bounds since its launch in 2005 – all the more desperate because governments that take pride in democratic values are resorting to blatantly undemocratic methods.
Perversely, the aim is to actively thwart peaceful resistance against gross injustices, rather than hold the perpetrator of those injustices to account – this is even more morally bankrupt than turning a blind eye. Initial dismissal of BDS as a fringe movement has turned into acknowledgement by senior officials from Israel and its allies that it poses the biggest strategic threat to the country.
Last year alone, a UN report said BDS was a key factor behind the 46 per cent drop in foreign direct investment in Israel in 2014.
French corporate giant Veolia sold off all of its businesses in Israel and telecoms giant Orange said it would pull out by 2017. More than 1,000 artists in western countries joined the cultural boycott, thousands of academics from various countries joined the academic boycott, major trade unions in the US and Canada joined dozens of others that already support BDS, and divestment motions were passed in numerous western universities.
Attempts to undermine BDS are a clear indication that it is a force to be reckoned with. This alone should be a morale-boost for pro-Palestine activists. Indeed, solidarity organisations and individuals have reacted defiantly to the British guidance, with grass roots campaigns being launched and talk of legal challenges.
The guidance may hinder boycott attempts to an extent, but it will prove largely ineffective. It is giving further free publicity to BDS, which is taking the opportunity to once again highlight the Israeli abuses behind its raison d’être.
Indeed, the guidance is against boycotts of any country signed up to the World Trade Organisation government procurement agreement, but it is the Israeli-Palestinian issue that has garnered by far the most attention. Any challenges to the guidance, and any penalties it inflicts, will bring yet more publicity to BDS and the wider Palestinian cause.
More fundamentally, however, the government has inadvertently widened the debate far beyond Palestine, to core democratic values such as freedom of expression and the independence of public bodies from government interference. This has now become an issue that affects not just Palestinians, but Britons directly.
As such, opposition to the legislation will not be solely, or perhaps even primarily, based on sympathy with the Palestinian cause. There has already been condemnation from boycott opponents.
The legislation will only affect one aspect of BDS: public bodies, which may be able to find ways to boycott Israel without expressly saying they are doing so. In addition, campaigners have expressed doubt that student unions will be affected because they are registered charities, and so not bound by the same legal frameworks as universities.
Government sources have acknowledged that student union boycotts are a “grey area”. Furthermore, the guidance does not cover private entities and individuals.
Despite Mr Cameron’s platitudes about peace between Israelis and Palestinians, his government’s anti-boycott measures will contribute to Israel’s sense of impunity, which will only undermine a just and lasting peace. However, it is precisely this impunity – and the systematic abuses resulting from it – that gave birth to BDS and will galvanise it further. Rather than hinder the movement, Mr Cameron is giving it added impetus.
Sharif Nashashibi is a journalist and analyst on Arab affairs
