The Boycott Debate is Back *Update on TIAA-CREF*

In late August, in the waning days of summer, Neve Gordon, a left-wing Israeli and tenured professor at Ben Gurion University made an impassioned plea in an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times to implement a boycott of his country. Gordon argued that “outside pressure is the only answer” to achieve a two-state solution and “stop the apartheid state.” He wrote:

It is indeed not a simple matter for me as an Israeli citizen to call on foreign governments, regional authorities, international social movements, faith-based organizations, unions and citizens to suspend cooperation with Israel. But today, as I watch my two boys playing in the yard, I am convinced that it is the only way that Israel can be saved from itself.

In response to the op-ed, Ben-Gurion University President Rivka Carmi wrote that rather than "save Israel from itself” as Gordon asserts, a boycott:

Would destroy the very fabric of the society that he claims to want to protect. Instead of investing in activities that promote coexistence, this "call for a boycott" is already being used to isolate Israel.

The squabble between colleagues at Ben Gurion University is just one indication of a growing trend—the boycott debate is back. 

Whether boycott campaigns achieve much more than irking Israelis and brief media exposure is highly questionable. The longstanding Arab League boycott, existent since 1948, underlines this point. What is undeniable is that recent weeks and months have witnessed a surge in renewed and intensified boycott attempts. 

Last month, the editor of the Egyptian newspaper Al Ahram’s monthly magazine, Democracy, held a meeting with Israel’s Ambassador to Egypt. According to the Israeli daily Ma’ariv, the meeting was arranged to discuss holding a conference on “the question of whether the Egyptian public boycott of contact with Israeli figures has truly helped promote the Palestinian issue.” In response, the Egyptian Journalists Association threatened to distribute ‘black lists’ of members of the media who interviewed or interacted with Israelis. To save face, Al Ahram went one step further, rejecting its previous stance of engaging Israelis in dialogue by issuing an official statement advocating a total boycott of Israelis and the non-participation in seminars and conferences where Israelis are present.

As demonstrated in the Gordon-Carmi debate, in academia, the free flow of ideas not encumbered by discriminating factors is an accepted custom and practice. Yet also last month Ariel University in the West Bank was disqualified from the bi-annual Solar Decathlon taking place in Spain. The Director General of the decathlon, Sergio Vega, said, “Ariel University is located in occupied territory in the West Bank and the government of Spain is obligated to respect the international agreement regarding this area.”

In another sign of the increased tension within academia concerning Israel, in June the Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association (TIAA-CREF) one of the largest financial services companies in the US, divested its exposure in Africa-Israel Group, a company involved in the real estate, construction/infrastructure, and energy sectors. According to Adalah - the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel – this was a result of Africa-Israel business interests in the West Bank. Ma’ariv reported that TIAA-CREF acted after receiving an “open letter… published by 60 academics who were invested in the company and called on it to divest from Africa-Israel because of its activity in the territories.” Apparently, no one wrote TIAA-CREF on behalf of Africa-Israel Group.

In another divestment effort, the Norwegian government pension fund pulled its investments in Elbit, an Israeli defense-electronics company in September as a result of a recommendation from the Norwegian Finance Ministry’s Council on Ethics. Amira Hass in Ha’aretz reports the Council reasoned that Elbit “developed equipment used specifically in the construction of the separation barrier.”

While divestment was an effective component of the South African boycott, it has had minimal impact when employed against Israel. Perhaps none have tried harder than UK based unions. In the latest attempt to shun Israel, at its September Annual Conference, the UK Trades Union Congress encouraged a ban on Israeli imports produced in settlements, as well as the sale of weapons to Israel.

In response to these developments, Israel is threatening not to allow British firefighters to participate in the next International Fire Fighters Unions Alliance to be hosted in Israel. As Yoav Gadasi, chairman of the Israeli National Firefighters' Organization put it, they “are focusing on politics instead of on rescuing lives.” 

In Israel, the boycotts reinforce the perception that the international community is largely biased and cannot be trusted. Therefore, it should not be surprising that Israelis respond to the rejection of boycotts with still more rejection of their own. For example, Israel’s recent refusal to participate in the Goldstone report’s investigations is in large part due to institutionalized skepticism of all-things United Nations in Israel. 

In the same way, boycotts are hardening Israel’s positions—not softening them. This is especially true when boycotts are seemingly targeting Israeli society’s art and culture as a whole.

When the Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF) chose Tel Aviv to launch its “City to City” program showcasing films from cities around the world, there were several films withdrawn from the competition amid calls for a boycott of Israel. Artists and commentators signed a declaration dedicated to “No Celebration of Occupation,” claiming the choice of Tel Aviv was coordinated to celebrate Tel Aviv’s one hundredth anniversary and Israeli government efforts to improve its cultural image within Canada. The festival’s organizers rejected the criticism, stating:

We will continue to screen the best films we can find from around the world. This is our contribution to expanding our audiences’ experience of this art form and the worlds it represents.

TIFF was supported from an unlikely source. British actress Vanessa Redgrave, an ardent pro-Palestinian activist and critic of the Israeli government, defended the festival on the grounds that the “Tel Aviv creative community… should be applauded and encouraged” in its artistic efforts regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

On September 24^th, Leonard Cohen, one of the most highly lauded artists of our age, played his first-ever concert in Israel to much fanfare. According to Ha’aretz, a planned subsequent concert in Ramallah was canceled due to pressure from “boycott activists, many from the UK.”  

In a poetic move, Cohen turned the tables on the boycotters. He dedicated his concerts to reconciliation, donating the proceeds to Israel and Palestine-based groups working toward that goal. Ha’aretz later reported that many Palestinians were appalled by the outcome, especially after “the boycott proponents succeeded in getting Amnesty International to cancel its plans to play a role in fostering the distribution of the proceeds.”

It is not uncommon for musical groups and artists that play in Israel to be boycotted. Recent concerts by Madonna, Depeche Mode and Paul McCartney all underwent the same treatment—and all came to Israel with great fanfare anyway.

All of this begs the question: are the Israel boycotts working?

If their aim, as Gordon’s op-ed in the Los Angeles Times argued, is to generate pressure that will push the parties to a two state solution, the answer is a clear no. Gordon’s view that “nothing else has worked” represents the frustration on the Israeli left due to a lack of movement in the peace process. But boycotts meant to ostracize Israel are making Israelis less receptive to such reconciliation, not more. Those who boycott Israel are only delaying and even reducing the chances of the peaceful settlement that is so critical to the futures of Israelis and Palestinians alike.

*Correction*

We have been contacted by a spokesperson from TIAA-CREF who informs us that this investment position was sold in June as part of a portfolio rebalance relating to emerging markets and this sale has nothing to do with the subsequent letter of September referenced in our post.

Click here for an official explanation from TIAA-CREF.