Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions: The Global Struggle for Palestinian Rights

Summary

Omar Barghouti, a founding figure of the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) as presented in this book’s argument, makes the comprehensive case for the Palestinian civil society Call for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) issued on July 9, 2005: a rights-based, nonviolent, Palestinian-led global movement, inspired by the South African anti-apartheid struggle and the United States civil rights movement, that insists on three irreducible rights for the three main segments of the Palestinian people — ending the 1967 occupation and colonization and dismantling the wall, full equality for the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel, and the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194 — and that refuses to prescribe a one-state or two-state formula (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions: The Global Struggle for Palestinian Rights, PDF p.17-19, p.59, p.61). Part 1, read here, comprises the front matter and praise, the whole Introduction — which argues that Israel, at the peak of its power, has become vulnerable as its regime combining “military occupation, colonization, ethnic cleansing, and apartheid” is exposed, its facade of democracy collapses, and BDS wins academic, cultural, trade-union, church, pension-fund and state-level victories — the whole of Chapter 1, “Why Now?”, which presents Israel’s siege and 2008–9 war on Gaza, documented through the Goldstone Report, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and soldiers’ testimonies, as slow genocide making comprehensive boycott “not only a moral obligation but also an urgent political necessity”, and the whole of Chapter 2, “Why BDS?”, which traces the road from Oslo’s marginalization of Palestine through Durban, the 2004 ICJ advisory opinion and PACBI to the 2005 BDS Call and the 2008 formation of the BDS National Committee (BNC). Chapter 3, “The South Africa Strategy for Palestine”, begins at PDF p.72 and continues in part 2. Part 2, read here, comprises the rest of Chapter 3 — representative samples of oppression of the three sectors (occupation, refugees, citizens of Israel), the BDS Call quoted in full, and rebuttals of the main arguments against BDS keyed to moral consistency — the whole of Chapter 4, a critique of the AAUP’s position on academic boycotts, the whole of Chapter 5, on intellectuals under colonial oppression, the whole of Chapter 6, with Lisa Taraki, on the British academic boycott and the complicity of Haifa and Hebrew Universities, the whole of Chapter 7, on the cultural boycott and Brand Israel, and the opening of Chapter 8, an open letter with Haidar Eid to Nadine Gordimer. Part 3, read here, comprises the rest of Chapter 8 — which recalls that Gordimer and Said lobbied Susan Sontag to reject the Jerusalem Prize — the whole of Chapter 9, with Jacqueline Sfeir, accusing UNESCO of double standards over its support for the Israeli-Palestinian Science Organization, the whole of Chapter 10, answering the anti-boycott arguments that BDS is counterproductive, undermines an Israeli “peace movement” and promotes anti-Semitism, the whole of Chapter 11, on the campaign to derail Veolia and Alstom over the Jerusalem Light Rail, the whole of Chapter 12, an interview with Ali Mustafa in which Barghouti distinguishes Israel’s apartheid from South Africa’s and rejects binationalism in favour of a secular democratic state, the whole of Chapter 13, arguing a settlement-products boycott is a tactic and cannot be the strategy, the whole of Chapter 14, “Our South Africa Moment Has Arrived”, and the opening of Chapter 15, on BDS after the May 31, 2010 Freedom Flotilla attack. Part 4, read here, comprises the rest of Chapter 15 — the UCU severing links with Histadrut, LO Norway’s divestment call, the Oakland port blockade, and the post-flotilla cultural cancellations — the whole of Chapter 16, an interview with Maxine Kaufman-Lacusta on leadership, the BDS Call as reference, and the two PACBI conditions against normalization, the whole Conclusion, “If Not Now, When?”, with its twelve campaign priorities, Appendices 1-4 in full (the PACBI academic and cultural boycott call, the BDS Call with its endorser lists, and PACBI’s revised 2010 academic and cultural boycott guidelines), and the Notes for the Introduction and Chapters 1-6 in full and Chapter 7 in part (Notes, PDF p.253-287).

What the file is

• The book: Omar Barghouti, Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions: The Global Struggle for Palestinian Rights (Haymarket Books, Chicago, Illinois, as given on the title page, PDF p.12, read from the original). The copyright page, printed at the end of the book in this eBook, gives ”© 2011 Omar Barghouti” and “First published by Haymarket Books in 2011”, eISBN 978-1-608-46115-8 (accounted for in full in the final part).
• Contents (PDF p.6-7): Introduction; 16 chapters — 1. Why Now?; 2. Why BDS?; 3. The South Africa Strategy for Palestine; 4. Academic Boycott; 5. Just Intellectuals?; 6. Freedom Versus “Academic Freedom”; 7. Reflecting on the Cultural Boycott; 8. Fighting Apartheid in South Africa, Celebrating Apartheid in Israel; 9. Between South Africa and Israel; 10. What We Really Need!; 11. Derailing Injustice; 12. “Boycotts Work”; 13. Boycotting Israeli Settlement Products; 14. Our South Africa Moment Has Arrived; 15. After the Freedom Flotilla Atrocity: BDS Takes Off; 16. Leadership, Reference, and the Role of Israeli Anticolonialists; Conclusion; Appendix 1, Call for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel; Appendix 2, BDS Call; Appendix 3, PACBI Guidelines for the International Academic Boycott of Israel; Appendix 4, PACBI Guidelines for the International Cultural Boycott of Israel; Notes; Acknowledgements; Index; About Haymarket Books; Also from Haymarket Books; About the Author; Copyright Page.
• The eBook is licensed, with the licence line repeated through the file: “This eBook is licensed to Joshua Dunlap, joshuaphilipdunlap@gmail.com on 10/20/2023” (PDF p.7 and passim). No printed page numbers are visible in PDF p.1-73, so locators are PDF pages only.
• PDF p.1 and p.3 are the cover image in the original, blank in the text copy; PDF p.5 is an image-only Haymarket Books leaf; PDF p.12 is the image-only title page; PDF p.2, p.4 and p.11 are blank leaves. The cover and title page were read from the original.
• The text copy intermittently breaks words and sentences into spaced fragments (notably the Ali Abunimah praise at PDF p.10, the “unelected, unrepresentative, unprincipled, and visionless” Palestinian leadership at PDF p.20, the Veolia campaign name at PDF p.38-39, the Netherlands and Spain passages at PDF p.40, passages at PDF p.53, p.55-56, p.60, p.68, p.72 and the Falk, delegitimization and United Nations passages at PDF p.27-28 and p.48). Passages are reassembled in reading order in the reading notes and noted where they occur.
• The chapters carry numbered notes, the texts of which are printed at the back of the book under Notes. Part 1 records each note marker and what the running text attributes to it; the note texts themselves are accounted for in the final part.

Section by section

• Cover (PDF p.1, p.3, read from the original): BDS / BOYCOTT DIVESTMENT SANCTIONS / THE GLOBAL STRUGGLE FOR PALESTINIAN RIGHTS / OMAR BARGHOUTI, a Palestinian flag held by a silhouetted figure, and a Tutu quotation at the top. Title page (PDF p.12, read from the original): BDS: BOYCOTT, DIVESTMENT, SANCTIONS / THE GLOBAL STRUGGLE FOR PALESTINIAN RIGHTS / OMAR BARGHOUTI / Haymarket Books, Chicago, Illinois.

• Praise (PDF p.8-10): Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who has witnessed “the racially segregated housing and the humiliation of Palestinians at military roadblocks”, recalls that South Africans “could not have achieved our freedom without the help of people around the world using the nonviolent means of boycotts and divestment”; Mairead Maguire (1976 Nobel Peace Laureate) commends a book that challenges the international community to support BDS “until the entire Palestinian people can exercise their inalienable rights to freedom and self-determination and until Israel fully complies with its obligations under international law”; John Berger: “It is like an engineer’s report, not a sermon. Read it, decide, and then act.”; Ken Loach: “When powerful governments will not act, ordinary people must take the lead….”; Ronnie Kasrils: “The ABC for internationalist support for Palestine is BDS.”; Judith Butler: “There is no more comprehensive and persuasive case than his for boycott, divestment, and sanctions to end the Israeli occupation and establish the ethical claim of Palestinian rights.”; Ali Abunimah and Phillip Weiss close the praise.

• Introduction (PDF p.14-45): epigraphs from Mahmoud Darwish (“Besiege your siege … there is no other way.”), Paulo Freire and Mahatma Gandhi, and an opening parable of a battered woman who, after the ruffian removes the goat he brought to crowd her shack, remembers her abduction into slavery, realises she has “rationalized and internalized the battering as part of surviving, as the lesser evil”, and wants “nothing less than her freedom—unmitigated, unconditional”, so “she sets out to resist and calls out for support” (PDF p.14-15). For “more than six decades Israel has enjoyed the best of both worlds”: a free hand for “its extremist colonial agenda of ethnically cleansing as many indigenous Palestinians from their homeland and grabbing as much of their land as possible” and a “deceptive, mythical reputation for democracy and enlightenment”, shielded by Western guilt over the Nazi genocide — Tutu: “The penance is being paid by the Palestinians.” The Soviet collapse, the United States as sole superpower, the neoconservative “cabal” and the Oslo “peace process” from 1993 maximised Israel’s gains and markets (PDF p.15-16). “Ironically, at the peak of its military, nuclear, economic, and political power, Israel started becoming more vulnerable”: the “war on terror”, called “the mother of all terror”, cracked the iron wall of United States support; John Mearsheimer is quoted that Israel’s “gradual transformation into an apartheid state creates significant problems for the United States”, that Biden and Petraeus said Israeli policy undermines United States security, and that Mossad head Meir Dagan told the Knesset “Israel is gradually turning from an asset to the United States to a burden” (PDF p.16-17). Grassroots reaction to Israel’s suppression of the second intifada gave fertile ground for a nonviolent citizens’ movement. “On July 9, 2005, Palestinian civil society launched” the BDS Call: “More than 170 Palestinian civil society groups, including all major political parties, refugee rights associations, trade union federations, women’s unions, NGO networks, and virtually the entire spectrum of grassroots organizations”, called on people of conscience to “impose broad boycotts and implement divestment initiatives against Israel similar to those applied to South Africa in the apartheid era”; since 2008 the movement “has been led by the largest coalition of Palestinian civil society organizations inside historic Palestine and in exile, the BDS National Committee (BNC)” (PDF p.17). Under the heading “Peace, Justice, and Rights”, Ngugi wa Thiong’o’s “cultural bomb” from Decolonising the Mind is quoted — imperialism’s weapon to “annihilate a people’s belief in their names, in their languages, in their environment, in their heritage of struggle, in their unity, in their capacities and ultimately in themselves” — and his answer, “to confront this threat with the higher and more creative culture of resolute struggle”; BDS is “among the most important forms of such “resolute struggle””. The Call “adopts a comprehensive rights-based approach”: Israel must end its three forms of injustice by “1. ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands [occupied in 1967] and dismantling the wall” “2. recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality” “3. respecting, protecting, and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties, as stipulated in UN Resolution 194” (PDF p.18-19). Tutu: “I want the full menu of rights.” Against this, Israel, the United States, the European Union and complacent Arab “leaders” have tried since Oslo to redefine the Palestinian people as only those in territory occupied in 1967, reducing Palestine to a dispute over “contested” territory and excluding the majority’s UN-sanctioned rights; the wall and settler colonies were “both declared illegal by the International Court of Justice in 2004”; the Palestinian people include the 1948 Nakba refugees and the Palestinian citizens of Israel living “under a regime of legalized racial discrimination”. The endorsed settlement formula — ending the discernible occupation while keeping the largest colonial blocs “with the most fertile lands and richest water resources”, relinquishing return, and accepting Israel as an apartheid state — is acquiesced to by an “unelected, unrepresentative, unprincipled, and visionless Palestinian “leadership.”” (PDF p.19-20). The JTA report As Israel’s Image Sinks, Whither Israeli PR? and a Haaretz journalist are quoted on Israel’s collapsing image: “David Ben-Gurion called us a light unto the nations and we stood tall and said, we, little David, would stand strong and righteous against the great evil Goliath. … But then came the occupation, which turned us into the evil Goliath, the cruel oppressor, a darkness on the nations. And now we are paying the price of presenting ourselves as righteous and causing disappointment: boycott.” (PDF p.20-21) Lebanon 2006, the Gaza bloodbath of 2008–9 and the siege — in which Israel allowed only the “minimum calorie intake needed by Gaza’s million and a half inhabitants, according to their age and sex” (BBC, May 2010) and barred candles, medicines, books, crayons, clothing, shoes, blankets, pasta, tea, coffee, chocolate and musical instruments from “the world’s largest open-air prison”, a “prison camp” in David Cameron’s words — transformed world opinion; phosphorus bomb images from Operation Cast Lead triggered boycotts and divestment across economic, academic, athletic and cultural fields, and endorsers from Father Miguel D’Escoto Brockmann and Tutu to trade unions, churches and student groups convinced many “our “South Africa moment” has finally arrived” (PDF p.21-22). The delegitimization fear is documented from its Israeli side: JTA on “a growing tide of delegitimization that, if unchecked, could pose an existential threat”, and AIPAC executive director Howard Kohr in May 2009 warning BDS was “laying the predicate for abandonment [of Israel]” and seeking “pressure to change its essential nature”. The Israel lobby “has largely failed, to date, to quell the spread of support for BDS on US campuses” and has resorted to “naked bullying, intimidation, and other increasingly McCarthyesque measures”; Peter Beinart: “For several decades, the Jewish establishment has asked American Jews to check their liberalism at Zionism’s door, and now, to their horror, they are finding that many young Jews have checked their Zionism instead.” Mearsheimer: “defending an apartheid state in the liberal West is not going to be easy. Once it is widely recognized that the two-state solution is dead and Israel has become like white-ruled South Africa—and that day is not far off—support for Israel inside the American Jewish community is likely to diminish significantly.” “The most consequential achievement of the first five years of the BDS movement was indeed to expose the “essential nature” of Israel’s regime over the Palestinian people as one that combines military occupation, colonization, ethnic cleansing, and apartheid.” (PDF p.22-23) The September 13, 2010 Time cover story “Why Israel Doesn’t Care about Peace” is “maybe the most prominent indicator yet” that Israel “has no interest in peace, particularly given that it is has not yet been compelled to pay a serious price” [as printed] (PDF p.24). Inside Israel, “fascism” is increasingly used by prominent figures: the Supreme Court sanctioned three Jews-only apartment buildings in Jaffa’s Ajami; hundreds signed a “Declaration of Independence from Fascism” after the “loyalty oath” amendment requiring “non-Jews” seeking citizenship to pledge allegiance to Israel “as a Jewish democratic state”; Michael Ben-Ari: “Twenty years have passed since the assassination of Rabbi Kahane, and today Likud admits he was right.” Kahane’s Kach was banned in 1988 for incitement of racism; his proposals included “revoking Israeli citizenship from non-Jews and banning Jewish-Gentile marriages or sexual intercourse”, and “mainstream Israeli parties today have adopted several of his most extreme positions” (PDF p.24-25). Gavriel Solomon compares Israel to Germany in 1935 — “There were no camps yet, but there were racist laws” — Sefi Rachlevsky to 1944–45, and Uri Avnery warns “Israel’s very existence is threatened by fascism” and, after the Knesset moved toward criminalising boycott calls, that “Kahanism—the Israeli version of fascism—has moved from the margin to center stage”; David Landau called for boycotting the Knesset. Avigdor Lieberman’s calls, even from the UN General Assembly podium, for ethnically cleansing Palestinian citizens of Israel accelerated the pariah view (PDF p.25-26). “The facade of democracy, not democracy itself, is what is truly collapsing in Israel, as democracy has never existed in any true form —nor could have existed—in a settler-colonial state like Israel.” BDS has intensified Israel’s public fear of becoming a world pariah as South Africa was; Netanyahu on the August 2010 Israeli artists’ boycott of the colonies: “The State of Israel is under an attack of delegitimization by elements in the international community.” The Tel Aviv “think tank” behind the term called the boycott “increasingly sophisticated, ripe and coherent”, a “strategic threat”, even a “potentially existential threat”, and its report to the government prescribed ending control over the Palestinians and equality for Arab citizens to fight delegitimization — an implicit admission of what is being delegitimized. “Indeed, BDS strives to delegitimize Israel’s settler-colonial oppression, apartheid, and ongoing ethnic cleansing of the indigenous Palestinian people, just as the South Africa boycott was aimed at delegitimizing apartheid there.” The scare’s most far-reaching claim is that BDS aims to “supersede the Zionist model with a state that is based on the ‘one person, one vote’ principle”. Richard Falk is quoted for a “legitimacy war, similar to the [South African] anti-apartheid campaign in the late-1980s and 1990s” (PDF p.26-28). Under “Besieging Israel’s Siege”: “BDS is perhaps the most ambitious, empowering, and promising Palestinian-led global movement for justice and rights.” Tutu, Jimmy Carter and former Israeli attorney general Michael Ben-Yair have described Israel as practicing apartheid; the charge “does not attempt to equate Israel with South Africa under apartheid” but rests on the UN definition in the 1973 Apartheid Convention and the 2002 Rome Statute: apartheid is “inhumane acts … committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime”, a definition that “has nothing to do with majorities and minorities” (PDF p.28-29). By prescribing no particular political formula, the Call “insists on the necessity of realizing the three basic, irreducible rights of the Palestinian people in any just solution” and “unifies Palestinians everywhere in the face of accelerating fragmentation”; the period after the 2008–9 Gaza massacre and the May 2010 Freedom Flotilla bloodbath saw the most BDS achievements since July 2005, as people “crossed a threshold in challenging Israel’s impunity through effective pressure, not appeasement or “constructive engagement.””. Darwish’s “Besiege your siege” acquires a new meaning: ““besiege” Israel though boycotts, raising the price of its siege and apartheid” [though as printed] (PDF p.29-30). Under “Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel Takes Off”: Sigmund Freud in February 1930 refused Zionist leaders’ request to condemn the 1929 Palestinian riots, conceding “that the baseless fanaticism of our people is in part to be blamed for the awakening of Arab distrust”; British academics Hilary and Steven Rose’s April 2002 Guardian petition for a moratorium on EU research funding with Israel, with 130 signatures, gave “birth to a new form of solidarity”; BRICUP followed PACBI’s call; USACBI (established 2009) announced five hundred academic endorsements; Norwegian, European (EPACBI), Indian and South African campaigns followed, the September 2010 South African petition to the University of Johannesburg over Ben Gurion University, endorsed by 250 including Tutu, stating: “While Palestinians are not able to access universities and schools, Israeli universities produce the research, technology, arguments and leaders for maintaining the occupation.” Tutu: “It can never be business as usual. Israeli Universities are an intimate part of the Israeli regime, by active choice.” and “Palestinians have chosen, like we did, the nonviolent tools of boycott, divestment and sanctions.” South African artists under “Artists Against Apartheid” undertook “not to avail any invitation to perform or exhibit in Israel” nor accept funding from institutions linked to Israel’s government; in Canada, SAIA pioneered Israeli Apartheid Week in 2005; Iain Banks, Alice Walker and Henning Mankell endorsed the boycott; Elvis Costello, Gil Scott-Heron, Carlos Santana, The Pixies and Faithless cancelled concerts, Meg Ryan cancelled a visit, and Jean-Luc Godard, the Yes Men and Mike Leigh stayed away — Leigh: “And now we have the Loyalty Oath. This is the last straw—quite apart from the ongoing criminal blockade of Gaza”; John Berger, Naomi Klein, Arundhati Roy, Ken Loach, John Greyson and Judith Butler had supported BDS earlier; in September 2010 more than 150 United States and British artists, in a Jewish Voice for Peace initiative joined by Frank Gehry, supported the cultural boycott inside Israel of Ariel and the settlements, “a watershed” breaking “a long-held taboo in the United States against calling for any pressure, let alone boycott” against Israel. Abe Hayeem of Architects and Planners for Justice in Palestine answers the “above politics” exemption: “Architecture and planning are instruments of the occupation and constitute part of a continuing war against a whole people” and their practice “can be classified as participation in war crimes” (PDF p.30-35). Under “Sanctions, Divestment, and Economic Impact”: opponents who call BDS “largely symbolic” repeat the economic-unfeasibility argument used against South Africa; Ronnie Kasrils in the Guardian: “When Chief Albert Luthuli made a call for the international community to support a boycott of apartheid South Africa in 1958, the response was a widespread and dedicated movement that played a significant role in ending apartheid.” Patrick Bond (Ramallah, September 26, 2010) warned against the “insincere argument” of Israel’s economic invincibility. BDS “has started to bite”: the British Trades Union Congress, “representing more than 6.5 million workers, unanimously passed a motion in September 2010” for boycott and divestment from occupation-profiteering companies; SAMWU sought “apartheid Israel free zones”; dockworkers in Sweden, India, Turkey, South Africa and the United States acted on the Palestinian unions’ and BNC’s flotilla appeal; the Israel Manufacturers Association reported in April 2009 that “21% of 90 local exporters who were questioned had felt a drop in demand due to boycotts, mostly from the UK and Scandinavian countries” (PDF p.35-37). Campus divestment (Hampshire College, 2009), Adalah-NY, and CodePink’s Stolen Beauty campaign against AHAVA follow; the California “Divest from Israeli Apartheid” ballot initiative would require CalPERS and CalSTRS to divest from corporations providing equipment and services used in violations including the “Separation Wall” and settlements; JVP’s TIAA-CREF campaign, endorsed by the BNC, targets the pension fund manager; “perhaps the most economically significant international BDS campaign to date” targets Veolia and Alstom over the Jerusalem Light Rail — since the Derail Veolia/Alstom campaign launched in November 2008 in Bilbao, “Veolia in particular has lost contracts worth billions of dollars”; the Irish campaign targets “blood diamonds”, Israel being “the world leader in exporting polished diamonds, with revenues reaching almost $20 billion in 2008”; Palestinian Queers for BDS (launched June 27, 2010) called on LGBTQI communities to adopt BDS “until the latter has ended its multi-tiered oppression of the Palestinian people, in line with the 2005 Palestinian civil society call for BDS”, and campaigns opposed “pink-washing” (PDF p.37-39). State-level measures: Venezuela and Bolivia severed diplomatic relations; Chile’s parliament voted in September 2010 to boycott settlement products; the Netherlands cancelled an Israeli mayors’ tour including settlement representatives and PFZW, “which has investments totaling 97 billion euros, has divested from almost all the Israeli companies in its portfolio”; Spain in September 2009 excluded an Ariel college team because “The Government of Spain is obliged to respect the international agreements under the framework of the European Union and the United Nations regarding this geographical area”; the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled settlement products “do not qualify for preferential customs treatment under the EC-Israel Agreement”; Norway’s government pension fund sold its Elbit Systems shares in September 2009 and in August 2010 divested from Africa Israel and Danya Cebus, banned German submarine testing for Israel in Norwegian waters — foreign minister Jonas Gahr Støre: “we don’t export materials or services to states at war or in which there is a danger of war” — a Swedish fund eschewed Elbit, Danske Bank divested from Elbit and Africa Israel in January 2010, and Deutsche Bank sold its 2 percent Elbit stake in 2010, its chair Josef Ackermann telling shareholders “Deutsche Bank is out of Elbit” while denying the bank had ever held shares against NASDAQ figures showing it the fifth largest investor at March 31, 2010; a Haaretz economics reporter: “The sums involved are not large, but their international significance is huge. Boycotts by governments give a boost to boycotts by non-government bodies around the world.” (PDF p.39-41) Under “Anticolonial Israeli Support for BDS”: the Call invites “conscientious Israelis to support this Call, for the sake of justice and genuine peace”; named Israeli partners include Ilan Pappé, the late Tanya Reinhart, Rachel Giora, Haim Bresheeth, Moshe Machover, Oren Ben-Dor, Anat Matar, Michael Warschawski, Kobi Snitz, Shir Hever, Dalit Baum, Yael Lerer and Jonatan Stanczak; Boycott from Within (since 2009) “has fully adopted the Palestinian BDS Call”, holding that progressive Israelis should work within “the colonial oppressors” rather than on “coexistence” gestures; the Alternative Information Center, ICAHD and Who Profits from the Occupation? endorsed the Call, Who Profits? maintaining the database at www.whoprofits.org used to select BDS targets. Against this, parts of the Zionist “left” now flirt with BDS — “If you can’t beat it, hijack it!” — reducing it to “Boycott the occupation, not Israel”, whereas “BDS targets Israel as a colonial state that violates international law and Palestinian rights but not the Israeli people per se” would be accurate. “While the BDS movement is not an ideological or centralized political party, it does have a Palestinian leadership, the BNC”; “Ending Israel’s occupation, ending its apartheid, and ending its denial of the right of refugees to return together constitute the minimal requirements for justice and the realization of the inalienable right to self-determination. Endorsing BDS entails accepting these irreducible rights as the basis for a just peace. Moreover, BDS is categorically opposed to all forms of racism and racist ideologies, including anti-Semitism.” “Context sensitivity is the overriding principle for planning and implementing successful BDS campaigns.” (PDF p.41-44) The Introduction’s Conclusion quotes Edward Said on the intellectual’s corrupting habits of avoidance — “Nothing in my mind is more reprehensible than those habits of mind in the intellectual that induce avoidance, that characteristic turning away from a difficult and principled position which you know to be the right one, but which you decide not to take” and “the truth deserves to be spoken, represented by an unafraid and compassionate intellectual” — and closes: “Heeding Said’s memorable words, this book is an attempt to speak truth to power, to encourage others to speak truth to power, and to make a humble analytical, conceptual, and informative contribution to the most effective effort to date aimed at ending Israel’s impunity and realizing Palestinian rights: the global BDS movement.” (PDF p.44-45)

• Chapter 1, “Why Now?” (PDF p.46-58): “grim reality on the ground in occupied Palestine makes a comprehensive boycott of Israel and its complicit institutions not only a moral obligation but also an urgent political necessity—first and foremost to avert genocide, and second, for those who may be oblivious to the moral argument and subscribe to what they perceive as a realpolitik approach, to head off a meltdown of the geopolitical system in the entire Arab / Middle Eastern region.” The UN and dominant states “have not only failed to hold Israel accountable to its obligations under international law but afforded it immunity, practically turning it into a state above the law of nations. This chapter focuses on the most serious of Israel’s crimes against the Palestinian people and why BDS promises to be an effective and potentially decisive response to them.” The Gaza siege’s most stringent phase started in June 2007, after Hamas took over “power” from “a US-Israeli-backed faction of Fatah”, against “the 1.5 million Palestinians cramped in what was accurately described as the world’s largest open-air prison”. Richard Falk in 2007 is quoted: “Is it an irresponsible overstatement to associate the treatment of Palestinians with [the] criminalized Nazi record of collective atrocity? I think not.” and the pattern is “a holocaust-in-the-making”, an appeal to act “to prevent these current genocidal tendencies from culminating in a collective tragedy”, the case where the ethos of “a responsibility to protect” would apply; Barghouti reads Falk as “predicting the slow genocide that has transpired as a result of the blockade and the December 2008–January 2009 Israeli war of aggression that aggravated it” (PDF p.46-47). The Goldstone Report is quoted by paragraph: para. 1688, the destruction of food supply installations, water sanitation systems, concrete factories and residential houses “was the result of a deliberate and systematic policy by the Israeli armed forces” and was “not carried out because those objects presented a military threat or opportunity but to make the daily process of living, and dignified living, more difficult for the civilian population”; para. 1689, “an assault on the dignity of the people” through human shields, unlawful detentions, vandalizing, graffiti and racist slogans amounting to “humiliation and dehumanization of the Palestinian population”; para. 1690, the operations were “carefully planned in all their phases” with legal advice throughout and “almost no mistakes”, concluding “what occurred in just over three weeks at the end of 2008 and the beginning of 2009 was a deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population, radically diminish its local economic capacity both to work and to provide for itself, and to force upon it an ever increasing sense of dependency and vulnerability”; paras. 1755-1756, “The Mission is firmly convinced that justice and respect for the rule of law are the indispensable basis for peace. The prolonged situation of impunity has created a justice crisis in the OPT that warrants action”, and Israel’s investigation system has “major structural flaws” making it “inconsistent with international standards”. “The necessity of holding Israel accountable by referring it to the International Criminal Court is the only logical conclusion one can reach from the above.” (PDF p.47-49) Water and health: Maxwell Gaylard, UN resident and humanitarian coordinator, on the “severe and protracted denial of human dignity”; Amnesty International (2009): “In Gaza,” the report affirms, “90–95 per cent of the water supply is contaminated and unfit for human consumption.”; UNEP on nitrate levels “far above the WHO accepted guideline” inducing the “blue babies” phenomenon, methemoglobinaemia, whose symptoms in Gaza infants include “blueness around the mouth, hands and feet”, “episodes of diarrhea and vomiting” and “loss of consciousness”, and “Convulsions and death can occur”; the New Weapons Committee study: “The 2006 and 2009 Israeli bombings on Gaza left a high concentration of toxic metals in soil, which can cause tumours, fertility problems, and serious effects on newborns, like deformities and genetic pathologies”; Human Rights Watch’s Rain of Fire on white phosphorus “repeatedly exploded white phosphorus munitions in the air over [densely] populated areas, killing and injuring civilians, and damaging civilian structures, including a school, a market, a humanitarian aid warehouse and a hospital”, its use indicating “the commission of war crimes”; Al Dameer (December 20, 2009) on Israel’s use of “proscribed radioactive and toxic materials”, the “dramatic” increase in cancer “especially among children”, birth defects and miscarriages “particularly, in Jabalya, Biet Lahia, and Biet Hanoun as these areas witnessed the fiercest Israeli aggression” [as printed], the “impact on men’s fertility”, and effects that will “plague the future generation” (PDF p.49-51). Soldiers’ testimonies are presented as products of “a culture of impunity, racism, and genocidal tendencies that has overtaken Israeli society”, their weight underscored because the army is a “people’s army” and “the country’s foremost melting pot”: “From above they said it was permissible because anyone who remained in the sector and inside Gaza City was in effect condemned, a terrorist, because they hadn’t fled”; the killing of an elderly woman, “I simply felt it was murder in cold blood”, explained as “That’s what is so nice, supposedly, about Gaza: You see a person on a road, walking along a path. He doesn’t have to be with a weapon, you don’t have to identify him with anything and you can just shoot him”; the sharpshooter who killed a mother and her two children — “The lives of Palestinians, let’s say, [are] something very, very less important than the lives of our soldiers.” Gideon Levy: “To do this without any unnecessary moral qualms we have trained our soldiers to think that the lives and property of Palestinians have no value whatsoever. It is part of a process of dehumanization that has endured for dozens of years, the fruits of the occupation.” (PDF p.51-52) Fundamentalist Zionist rabbis urged soldiers to “show no mercy”, citing fanatic interpretations of Jewish law justifying genocide against Gentiles in a “war of revenge” or “necessary war”; Israel Shahak was among the first to expose this. “It is crucial to note that fundamentalist interpretations of the Halacha, or Jewish law, openly justify massacres, even genocide (as in mass murder of “non-Jewish” civilians, including children)”; the only allowed limit is injury to the Jewish community in retribution; such teachings “have become dominant among the religious Zionist community in Israel and beyond”; every Israeli war has been perceived by the absolute majority of Israeli Jews, including the traditional “peace movement”, as a “war of necessity”, the pattern breaking in Lebanon 2006 only when Israeli army losses outweighed the “benefits”. “Gaza was different, though. Palestinian armed resistance could hardly put up a fight” (PDF p.53-54). Army T-shirts are quoted from Haaretz: “Better use Durex” beside a dead Palestinian baby; the Givati Shaked battalion’s pregnant woman with a bull’s-eye, “1 shot, 2 kills”; blown-up mosques; a soldier raping a Palestinian girl captioned “No virgins, no terror attacks”; sociologist Orna Sasson-Levy: “There is a perception that the Palestinian is not a person, a human being entitled to basic rights, and therefore anything may be done to him.” Against the Zionist “left” claim that occupation “morally corrupted” Israel, Barghouti argues selective amnesia: Israel’s establishment resulted from “massive ethnic cleansing, massacres, rape, wanton destruction of hundreds of villages”; the Nakba campaign, as Ilan Pappé has shown, “was premeditated, meticulously planned years in advance by Zionist leaders, including David Ben-Gurion, and executed systematically, brutally, and without compunction”; “over 800,000 Palestinians were dispossessed and uprooted and more than five hundred Palestinian villages were methodically destroyed to prevent the return of the refugees”; Badil (end of 2008): “at least 67 percent (7.1 million) of the entire, worldwide Palestinian population (10.6 million) were forcibly displaced persons. Among them were at least 6.6 million Palestinian refugees and 455,000 internally displaced persons (IDPs)”; settlers have always viewed the natives as “relative humans”; Meron Benvenisti (2003): “the basic story is that of natives and settlers. It’s the story of natives who feel that people who came from across the sea infiltrated their natural habitat and dispossessed them.” (PDF p.54-56) Gaza’s population is “80 percent refugees”. Article II of the 1948 Genocide Convention is quoted — acts “committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part …” — and applied: “Clearly, Israel’s hermetic siege of Gaza, designed to kill, cause serious bodily and mental harm, and inflict conditions of life calculated to bring about partial and gradual physical destruction, qualifies as an act of genocide, if not yet all-out genocide.” Babies “born disfigured, “blue,” or otherwise condemned to stunted growth, anemia, and a short, tormented life”, contaminated soil and water, denied sustenance, dying chronic patients, continuing displacement in and around Jerusalem and in the Naqab (Negev), and escalating fragmentation follow. “In short, Palestinians cannot wait. Israel is no longer “just” guilty of occupation, colonization, and apartheid against the people of Palestine; as the evidence above suggests, it has embarked on what seems to be its final effort to literally disappear the “Palestinian problem.” And it is doing so with utter impunity. The world cannot continue to watch. Thus BDS. Thus now.” (PDF p.56-57) The chapter closes with the response: in February 2009 the South African Transport and Allied Workers Union “made history when it refused to offload an Israeli ship in Durban”; in April the Scottish Trade Union Congress followed COSATU and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions in adopting BDS; in May 2009 the University and College Union, “representing some 120,000 British academics, called for organizing an interunion BDS conference”; and Falk’s March 23, 2009 oral statement to the UN Human Rights Council: the reaction “amounts to waging “a legitimacy war” against Israel on the basis of its failure to treat the Palestinian people in accord with international human rights law and international humanitarian law” (PDF p.57-58).

• Chapter 2, “Why BDS?” (PDF p.59-71): “The BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) Call, launched in July 2005, was endorsed by an overwhelming majority of Palestinian civil society unions, political parties, and organizations everywhere. Rooted in a long tradition of nonviolent popular resistance in Palestine against Zionist settler-colonialism and largely inspired by the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa, it adopts a rights-based approach that is anchored in universal human rights, just as the US civil rights movement did. It resolutely rejects all forms of racism, including anti-Semitism and Islamophobia.” The three rights are restated as ending the 1967 military occupation of Gaza, the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) “and other Arab territories in Lebanon and Syria”, ending racial discrimination against Palestinian citizens, and ending denial of the refugees’ rights “particularly their right to return to their homes and to receive reparations”; “Calling Israel an apartheid state does not imply that its system of discrimination is identical to apartheid South Africa’s”, the UN definition having been “adopted in 1973 and went into effect in 1976” (PDF p.59). Peace efforts failed because Israel and successive United States governments exploit “the current massive power imbalance to impose a peace devoid of justice and human rights”, and Western collusion fed Israel’s “incomparable impunity”. The term nonviolence carried negative connotations among Palestinians for two reasons: its lavishly covered advocates vilified armed resistance, presented nonviolence as its substitute, and advocated “only a minimal set of Palestinian rights, usually excluding or diluting the internationally recognized right of Palestinian refugees to repatriation and compensation, as well as ignoring the rights of Palestinian citizens of Israel”; and nonviolent campaigns were often funded or directed by Western organisations with agendas conflicting with the PLO’s national agenda, entrenching an association “between nonviolence and a minimalist and seemingly “imported” political program”, while “armed resistance has been largely linked to a maximalist political program” (PDF p.59-60). Barghouti’s own position is stated on a separate track: “While I firmly advocate nonviolent forms of struggle such as boycott, divestment, and sanctions to attain Palestinian goals, I just as decisively, though on a separate track, support a unitary state based on freedom, justice, and comprehensive equality as the solution to the Palestinian-Israeli colonial conflict.” “If Israel is an exclusivist, ethnocentric, settler-colonial state, then its ethical, just, and sustainable alternative must be a secular, democratic state, ending injustice and offering unequivocal equality in citizenship and individual and communal rights both to Palestinians (refugees included) and to Israeli Jews. Only such a state can ethically reconcile the ostensibly irreconcilable: the inalienable, UN-sanctioned rights of the indigenous people of Palestine to self-determination, repatriation, and equality in accordance with international law and the acquired and internationally recognized rights of Israeli Jews to coexist—as equals, not colonial masters—in the land of Palestine.” But “the BDS movement as such does not adopt any specific political formula and steers away from the one-state-versus-two-states debate”; “most networks, unions, and political parties in the BNC still advocate a two-state solution outside the realm of the BDS movement” (PDF p.61). The marginalization history follows: the Soviet collapse, the first intifada’s premature end (1987–1991), Madrid-Oslo; Edward Said is quoted on the “peace process” — settlement figures “according to RISOT, 110,000 Jews lived in illegal settlements in Gaza and the West Bank before Oslo; the number has since increased to 195,000, a figure that doesn’t include those Jews—more than 150,000—who have taken up residence in Arab East Jerusalem” — and “Has the world been deluded or has the rhetoric of “peace” been in essence a gigantic fraud?” The UN General Assembly’s 1991 repeal, under United States pressure, of its 1975 “Zionism Is Racism” resolution removed “a major obstacle on the course of Zionist and Israeli rehabilitation”; PLO recognition transformed Israel’s image into a state “merely engaged in a territorial dispute”; the PA was established, “primarily, from Israel’s perspective, to relieve Israel’s colonial burdens in the West Bank and Gaza and to cover up its ongoing theft of Palestinian land to build Jewish-only settlements”; Israel multiplied diplomatic relations “from a few dozen before Oslo to more than 160 at present”, its former enemies “convinced that the road to the US Congress passed through Tel Aviv” (PDF p.61-63). Bush’s 2000 election brought Zionist influence in the White House to “unprecedented heights”; in September 2000 the second intifada broke out; Israel’s crushing of it, in means Amnesty International and others described as war crimes, reopened the question of just peace with “a colonial, ethnocentric, and expansionist Zionist state”; Durban 2001 revived the debate — the official assembly was blocked by United States and European threats, but “the NGO Forum condemned Zionism as a form of racism and apartheid” — confirming grassroots support was robust “if not yet channeled into effective forms of solidarity” (PDF p.63). Divestment spread on United States campuses; Tutu was among the earliest renowned supporters; coordination produced the Palestine Solidarity Movement and the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, “a broad coalition of over three hundred groups working to change US foreign policy in favor of a just peace”; United Kingdom boycott calls intensified after the spring 2002 reoccupation (PDF p.63-64). By 2004 mainstream churches joined; “the precedent-setting decision of the Presbyterian Church USA (PCUSA) in July 2004, in a resolution that was adopted by a resounding majority of 431 to 62, to start “a process of phased selective divestment in multinational corporations doing business in Israel.”” could not be dismissed as “symbolic”, though PCUSA in 2006 dropped the term for “investment in peace” under lobby threats. The ICJ advisory opinion of July 9, 2004 condemned “as illegal both Israel’s wall and the colonies built on occupied Palestinian land”; “Ironically, the PLO scored this momentous political, legal, and diplomatic victory at a time when it was least prepared to build on it”; the 1971 Namibia opinion had triggered “the world’s largest and most concerted campaign of boycotts and sanctions” against apartheid, while the wall ruling “did fuel a revival of principled opposition” (PDF p.64-65). “Days before the ICJ ruling, the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI), formed in April 2004, issued a call” endorsed by some sixty organisations to boycott Israeli academic and cultural institutions as a “contribution to the struggle to end Israel’s occupation, colonization, and system of apartheid”; “on the first anniversary of the ICJ ruling, when more than 170 Palestinian civil society organizations and unions, including the main political parties, issued the Call for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel “until it fully complies with international law.””; “After fifteen years of the so-called peace process, Palestinian civil society reclaimed the agenda” [fifteen years as printed], and the Call issued from all three segments — refugees, citizens of Israel, and those under the 1967 occupation — and directly “invited” conscientious Israelis (PDF p.65). “Where is your ANC?” is answered: “The PLO, in total disarray for years, has remained largely silent. The PA, with its circumscribed mandate and the constraints imposed upon it by the Oslo accords, is inherently incapable of supporting any effective resistance strategy, especially one that evokes injustices beyond the 1967 occupation. Indeed, with rare exceptions, the PA’s role has actually been detrimental to civil society efforts to isolate Israel.” Fatah’s Sixth Conference in 2009 adopted popular nonviolent struggle as the main form of resistance, and the Fatah-dominated PA belatedly adopted boycotting settlement products — “too little, too late”, five years after the comprehensive call, yet a vindication underlining consensus. A tiny minority of NGOs declined, some citing the return clause as “too radical” “(despite the fact that it is “stipulated in UN Resolution 194”)”, some fearing charges of anti-Semitism; the largest factions, focused on armed struggle, at first could not recognise civil resistance’s role in “the unique—and certainly very different from South Africa’s—colonial conditions of siege”, becoming “addicted to the armed model”, but “all major Palestinian political parties signed on to the BDS Call, widening the circle of consensus around it”. The PLO “must be resuscitated and remodeled to embody the aspirations, creative energies, and national frameworks of the three main segments of the Palestinian people” through bottom-up, inclusive, proportional democracy, and Palestinian strategy must be transformed into a progressive program connecting with the international social movement (PDF p.66-67). “The most effective and morally sound strategy for achieving these objectives is one based on gradual, diverse, context-sensitive, and sustainable campaigns of BDS—political, economic, professional, academic, cultural, athletic, and so on—and other forms of popular resistance, all aimed at bringing about Israel’s comprehensive and unequivocal compliance with international law and universal human rights.” BDS thereby joins the global challenge to “neoliberal Western hegemony and the tyrannical rule of multi/transnational corporations” and the struggle against “injustice, racism, poverty, environmental devastation, and gender oppression”; John Pilger, connecting BDS with the 2009 Copenhagen climate summit, writes “And the best news comes from Palestine” and quotes Mandela that justice for the Palestinians is “the greatest moral issue of the age”, the July 9, 2005 Call “in effect reconvening the great, non-violent movement that swept the world and brought the scaffolding of [South] African apartheid crashing down” (PDF p.68). The struggle must challenge “not just Israel’s military occupation and denial of refugee rights” but “the wider Zionist-Israeli system of racist exclusivism”; “successful nonviolent resistance requires transcending the fatally ill-conceived focus on the occupation alone to a struggle for justice, equality, and comprehensive Palestinian rights”; “The indisputable Palestinian claim to equal humanity should be the primary slogan raised”; caution is urged against “soft” Zionists assuming BDS leadership in the West and “lowering the ceiling of its demands beyond recognition”, while principled Jewish voices help shield the movement from anti-Semitism charges (PDF p.68-69). Tactics are local: supporting all segments’ rights “does not, however, entail adopting BDS tactics that necessarily target all Israeli institutions”; Adalah-NY and CodePink endorse the comprehensive Call yet run targeted campaigns on companies implicated in violations in the occupied territory, as does France’s Coalition against Agrexco-Carmel; initiatives should be guided by “inclusion, diversity, gradualness, and sustainability”; the West “remains the main battleground”, but BDS “has yet to take root in China, India, Malaysia, Brazil, and Russia”, where Zionist influence is weaker (PDF p.69-70). The chapter closes on the BNC: “With the formation of the Palestinian BDS National Committee, BNC, in 2008, it became the reference and guiding force for the global BDS movement”; the BNC is “a broad coalition of the leading Palestinian political parties, unions, coalitions, and networks representing the three integral parts of the people of Palestine: Palestinian refugees; Palestinians in the occupied West Bank (including Jerusalem) and Gaza Strip; and Palestinian citizens of Israel”, calling for the campaign “to be sustained until the entire Palestinian people can exercise its inalienable right to freedom and self-determination and Israel fully complies with its obligations under international law”. “BDS is not only an idea. It is not merely a concept. It is not just a vision. It is not all about strategy. It is all those, for sure, but also much more. The Palestinian Civil Society Campaign for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against Israel is above everything else a deeply rooted yet qualitatively new stage in the century-old Palestinian resistance to the Zionist settler-colonial conquest and, later, Israel’s regime of occupation, dispossession, and apartheid against the indigenous people of Palestine.” Its rights-based discourse “exposes the double standard and exceptionalism” with which the United States and most Western states have treated Israel since its establishment in the 1948 Nakba, and drags Israel and its lobby “into a confrontation on a battlefield where the moral superiority of the Palestinian quest for self-determination, justice, freedom, and equality neutralizes and outweighs Israel’s military power and financial prowess. It is the classic right-over-might paradigm” (PDF p.70-71).

• Chapter 3, “The South Africa Strategy for Palestine”, opening (PDF p.72-73; chapter continues in part 2): Chris McGreal’s 2006 Guardian exposé of “the deep military and economic partnership, the shocking similarities, and the unmistakable sense of common destiny between Israel and apartheid South Africa” is quoted: “Many Israelis recoil at the suggestion of a parallel because it stabs at the heart of how they see themselves and their country… Some staunch defenders of Israel’s policies past and present say that even to discuss Israel in the context of apartheid is one step short of comparing the Jewish state to Nazi Germany, not least because of the Afrikaner leadership’s fascist sympathies in the 1940s and the disturbing echoes of Hitler’s Nuremberg laws in South Africa’s racist legislation. Yet the taboo is increasingly challenged.” “Whether it is legally accurate or politically astute to describe Israel as a state guilty of the crime of apartheid against the Palestinian people is of unquestionable importance and consequence”, because international law considers apartheid a crime against humanity inviting sanctions like those imposed on South Africa; what must be proved is how Israel’s “institutionalized and legalized system of racial discrimination, its denial of Palestinian refugee rights, and its twotiered legal system in the occupied Palestinian territory constitute apartheid, among other serious crimes” [twotiered as printed]. “The fact that Israel’s regime of oppression is in fact worse than apartheid, as it encompasses ethnic cleansing, siege, and prolonged military occupation should not mitigate the need to also charge Israel with apartheid. If a proven serial rapist is also accused of a far more difficult to prove and more serious crime, like murder, forgoing the rape charge would be beyond irresponsible; it would be irrational. Winning a conviction on the easier-to-prove charge should help, not undermine, the case for the more elusive charge.” [easier-to-prove hyphenated differently in the text copy] But “proving that Israel is guilty of apartheid is not necessary; it is not required” for BDS: without “the “South African treatment” of global boycotts from outside supporting mass struggle inside, there is little hope of holding a state as powerful, belligerent, and increasingly fanatic as Israel accountable to international law”, and Israel is now seen by majorities in many countries, including most of the West, as “the world’s worst—or second worst—menace to international peace and security”. The chapter then announces “representative samples of Israeli oppression of the three main sectors of the Palestinian people (under occupation, in exile, and in Israel)” (PDF p.72-73).

• Chapter 3, “The South Africa Strategy for Palestine”, remainder (PDF p.74-91): under “Israel’s Occupation”, the wall built mostly on occupied Palestinian territory in defiance of the ICJ’s July 2004 opinion is set against Israeli concern for its ecology — former environment minister Yehudit Naot on severed ecological corridors and a Nature and Parks Authority spokesperson on animals’ genetic diversity — while sharpshooters targeted Palestinian children’s eyes and knees, documented by Physicians for Human Rights and Tanya Reinhart, and Chris Hedges describes troops in Gaza provoking children playing in the dunes near Khan Younis in order to shoot them: “I have never before watched soldiers entice children like mice into a trap and murder them for sport.” Before the 2008–9 Gaza massacre, “more than 1,440 Palestinians, predominantly civilians (of whom 431 were children)” were killed in that war as the chapter gives it. Under “Israel and Palestinian Refugee Rights”: Israel evades responsibility for the Nakba, “the world’s oldest and largest refugee problem”, denying that the state was created through destruction of “more than 500 Palestinian villages” and ethnic cleansing of “more than 800,000 Palestinians”; its rejection of return and reparations under UN Resolution 194, premised on maintaining a dominant Jewish character “regardless of international law”, is contrasted with successful Jewish campaigns for Holocaust restitution, including return, and the World Sephardic Federation’s pressure on Spain over Jews expelled from Andalusia more than five centuries earlier; refugees form an absolute majority of the Palestinian people, so recognition of their rights is “the litmus test of morality” (PDF p.74-77). Under “Palestinian Citizens of Israel—Institutionalized Racism”: citizens are viewed as a demographic threat and reminders of the “original sin”; advocating full equality is “tantamount to sedition, if not treason”, and a High Court justice is quoted that it is “necessary to prevent a Jew or Arab who calls for equality of rights for Arabs from sitting in the Knesset”; the June 2001 Health Ministry cancer map for 1984–1999 excluded all Arab communities except Rahat on “budgetary problems”, and between 1980 and 2010 malignant-disease rates rose 97.8 percent among Palestinian men and 123 percent among women in Israel against 39.8 and 24.4 percent for the Jewish population; walls separate Jews and Palestinians in Lydda, Ramleh, and Caesaria [as printed]; Ronnie Kasrils and Victoria Brittain: the minority “has for decades been denied basic equality in health, education, housing and land possession, solely because it is not Jewish”; Michael Ben-Yair (2002): “In effect, we established an apartheid regime in the occupied territories immediately following their capture.”; Shlomo Gazit: “Democracy has to be subordinated to demography.”; Reserve Colonel Yoav Gal during Operation Cast Lead: “Dresden! Dresden! The extermination of a city!”; demographer Arnon Soffer on closed-off Gaza: “we will have to kill and kill and kill. All day, every day… If we don’t kill, we will cease to exist.” Tutu, Roman Bronfman, Shulamit Aloni, Esther Levitan, the Jewish South African Not in Our Names Declaration (authored by Kasrils and Max Ozinsky) and Knesset speaker Reuven Rivlin are quoted drawing the apartheid parallel or recording the inequality (PDF p.77-82). Under “What’s to Be Done, Then?”, Tutu: “If apartheid ended, so can the occupation, but the moral force and international pressure will have to be just as determined.” The October 2004 South African boycott call (endorsed by COSATU and others) preceded the July 9, 2005 BDS Call, quoted in full: “We, representatives of Palestinian civil society, call upon international civil society organizations and people of conscience all over the world to impose broad boycotts and implement divestment initiatives against Israel similar to those applied to South Africa in the apartheid era.” The Call was modelled on PACBI’s; the British AUT’s April 2005 boycott of selected Israeli universities, overturned in May after “an intensive and extraordinary intimidation and bullying campaign”, shattered the taboo: “From now on, it will be acceptable to compare Israel’s apartheid system to its South African predecessor.” As a consequence, the statement also says, “proposing practical measures to punish Israeli institutions” for their role in the state’s racist and colonial policies “will no longer be considered beyond the pale”. Under “Main Arguments against BDS”, rebuttals keyed to “the principle of moral consistency”: (1) Israel is a democracy — which assumes Israel is essentially a democratic country with “a vibrant and mostly progressive civil society and a thriving peace movement”, so that Israeli society “deserves to be supported, not boycotted” — Tony Judt calls it a “dysfunctional anachronism”, I. F. Stone (1967) a “moral schizophrenia in world Jewry”, and Henry Siegman: when denial of rights becomes permanent on ethnic grounds “that state ceases to be a democracy”; Israeli academic institutions’ claimed opposition is “a fraud”, research showing their complicity, and the oppressors’ majority opinion cannot decide sanctions. (2) Boycott is counterproductive — the United States, Israel’s main sponsor, is itself tied by the lobby’s “Israelization” of its foreign policy, witness the Netanyahu government’s humiliating rebuffs of the Obama administration over the settlement “freeze”, so BDS is the grassroots vehicle; Gideon Levy: the absence of significant protests during Cast Lead indicates “there is no left to speak of”; the argument patronizes the Palestinian majority that supports BDS, and Tutu recalls universities refusing to divest from South Africa because “it will hurt the blacks”. (3) Boycott is anti-Semitism — Étienne Balibar: “Israel should not be allowed to instrumentalize the genocide of European Jews to put [itself] above the law of nations”; the Call “does not target Jews, or even Israelis qua Jews”. Under “How We Work—and Do Not Work—Together for Just Peace”: joint projects are not precluded if they recognize Palestinian rights and aim to end colonial oppression; “Peace without justice is equivalent to institutionalizing injustice”; dialogue projects omitting oppression are “clinically delusional or dangerously deceptive” (PDF p.83-91).

• Chapter 4, “Academic Boycott: Moral Responsibility and the Struggle Against Colonial Oppression” (PDF p.92-103): epigraphs from UDHR Article 29(2) and Human Rights Watch’s Second Class (September 2001) — Palestinian Arab students face “a series of sieves with sequentially finer holes”. A background note recounts the AUT’s April 2005 boycott of Bar Ilan and Haifa Universities, the AAUP’s condemnation in the name of “the freest possible international movement of scholars and ideas”, and the February 2006 Bellagio debate scuttled after lobby pressure on its sponsors, its papers then published in Academe. Barghouti’s contribution critiques the AAUP Committee A report “On Academic Boycotts” on conceptual, functional (headed “Operational Inconsistency”) and ethical grounds. Conceptually, the AAUP’s threat model covers only intrastate governmental policy, leaving out colonialism and occupation, where Judith Butler’s “material and institutional foreclosures” bar subjects from the discourse of rights; privileging academic freedom contradicts the 1993 World Conference on Human Rights — “All human rights are universal, indivisible … interdependent and interrelated” — and the UN definition under which academic freedom “carries with it obligations, such as the duty to respect the academic freedom of others”, as the AAUP’s own 1915 Declaration’s “correlative obligations” also held; Barghouti calls this rights-obligations equation “the general underlying principle of international law in the realm of human rights”, the 1915 Declaration tied those obligations to furthering the “integrity” and “progress” of scientific inquiry, and without such obligations academic bodies have little traction to discourage bigoted, hateful or incendiary acts or views; Haifa’s David Bukay, exonerated by his rector while the deputy attorney general ordered an investigation “on suspicion of incitement to racism”, and Arnon Soffer’s praised “Judaization of the Galilee” work test the notion. Operationally, the AAUP condemned the AUT for Israeli scholars’ interaction rights while reducing Palestinian injustice to “what some see as the Israeli occupation’s denial of rights to Palestinians”, never censured Israel’s closures of Palestinian universities and schools in the late 1980s and early 1990s or its wall, roadblocks and “Israeli-only” roads, and in South Africa justified sanctions “against apartheid” in general where here it restricted its interest to academic freedom; PACBI attributed the AUT’s reversal after thirty-four days to intimidation, one-sided media and misinformation. Ethically, UN norms are the closest approximation to objective criteria, and where persistent denial of basic rights is recognized, “the ethical responsibility of every free person and every association of free persons, academic institutions included, to resist injustice supersedes other considerations” about academic freedom. Under “Misunderstanding the PACBI Call”: the 2004 Call’s exclusion clause for “any conscientious Israeli academics and intellectuals opposed to their state’s colonial and racist policies” was omitted after criticism, having been meant only to nuance institutional versus personal capacity; PACBI targets institutions for complicity — military-intelligence research, tolerating racist speech and research, institutionalized discrimination, suppressing Nakba research (here “more than 750,000 Palestinians” displaced and “more than four hundred villages” destroyed), and building campuses in occupied territory as Hebrew University has — so the boycott “is not merely a means to an end but rather a part of that end”; economic boycotts endorsed by the AAUP also injure innocents, and Kasrils and Brittain argue boycotts “ultimately helped liberate both blacks and whites in South Africa”. Recommendations, written in 2006 and standing in 2011: the AAUP should censure Israel, consider divestment from companies prolonging occupation on the South Africa model, and revamp its notion of academic freedom to international standards (PDF p.92-103).

• Chapter 5, “Just Intellectuals?” (PDF p.104-109): a New York editor’s request to make an essay on art and oppression “less ‘intellectual,’ less analytical, and more personal” opens a critique of the North/South dichotomy and of Israeli “leftist” academics who felt “betrayed” by the “ungrateful” Palestinians, arrogated “the exclusive right to arbitrate every issue dealing with the Palestinians”, and became instruments of intimidation and defamation; their categorical rejection of boycott has since collapsed into endorsing boycotts of settlement institutions for “saving Israel from itself”. Against separating thinkers from doers, and against “positive engagement” through funded dialogue and joint projects — which, in Simone de Beauvoir’s words, change the consciousness of the oppressed, not the situation which oppresses them — the chapter argues oppression forces itself on intellectual work, whose choice is to passively reflect it or actively transcend it; asymmetric communication without agreed principles of justice is negotiation, not dialogue, and can exploit the weaker side. Striving for peace divorced from justice is, in the chapter’s phrase, as good as institutionalizing injustice. Intellectuals under colonial oppression “cannot be just—or mere—intellectuals”; to be just intellectuals they must be immersed in activism (PDF p.104-109).

• Chapter 6, Freedom Versus “Academic Freedom”: Debating the British Academic Boycott, with Lisa Taraki (PDF p.110-119): the AUT reversed its boycott on May 26, 2005; the academic-freedom claim is biased (only Israeli freedom counts) and privileges a super-value over the right to live and freedom from subjugation, a trade-off the international community accepted against South African academics in the late apartheid era; what is defended in Israel is also material and symbolic privilege. In Israel academic freedom is “so elastic as to include the freedom to propound racist theories and incite to hatred, ethnic cleansing, and worse”, where in democratic societies Holocaust denial and incitement draw discipline. Under “Israel Boycott”: Israeli academic institutions are government-funded and complicit; Ilan Pappé calls the academy part of “the official Israeli propaganda”; most academics serve in the reserves; Oren Ben-Dor argues the boycott can “provide a means to transcend the publicly-sanctioned limits of debate”, such freedom being “precisely what is absent in Israel”; Baruch Kimmerling, though opposed to the boycott: “I will be the first to admit that Israeli academic institutions are part and parcel of the oppressive Israeli state that has … committed grave crimes against the Palestinian people” Under “Haifa University: Institutional Racism”: Arnon Sofer [spelled Soffer in this chapter], prophet of the “Arab demographic threat”, takes credit for the wall’s route — “This is exactly my map” — advocates “voluntary transfer” and repeats the closed-off Gaza “kill and kill and kill” prediction; the Mitzpim Project “Judaizing” the Galilee, whose pamphlet Haifa distributes in high schools, was designed in Avraham Dor’s words “to drive wedges between the blocs of Arab settlements”, Haaretz commenting that discrimination was “not a systemic failure but a deliberate intention”; Haifa’s rector blessed a May 17, 2005 conference on “The Demographic Problem and Demographic Policy in Israel” timed to the Nakba’s fifty-seventh anniversary, at which Rafael researcher Yitzhak Ravid claimed “the delivery rooms in Soroka Hospital in Be’er Sheva have turned into a factory for the production of a backward population”; and the rector exonerated David Bukay despite the attorney general’s investigation on Mossawa’s complaint, the Anti-Defamation League’s Ken Jacobson was “shocked”, and the university pursued a disciplinary process against the student who accused Bukay. Under “Hebrew University: Colonial Land Grab”: the Palestinian Federation of Unions’ indictment to the AUT records that in 1968 the occupation authorities confiscated 3,345 dunums of Palestinian land under the Land (Acquisition for Public Purpose) Ordinance 1943 (Gazette no. 1425), much of it given to Hebrew University, and that in 1973 the Israeli court ruled for the university and the state; legal experts hold the deal illegal in occupied East Jerusalem, and moving Israelis onto the land violates Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention: “The occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” (PDF p.110-119)

• Chapter 7, “Reflecting on the Cultural Boycott” (PDF p.120-136): Elvis Costello (May 15, 2010): “merely having your name added to a concert schedule may be interpreted as a political act”. Objections rest on a wrong premise: PACBI has consistently called for an institutional boycott only, unlike South Africa’s blanket boycott, with no political testing or blacklisting; the 1965 American Committee on Africa declaration (“We say no to apartheid”) and the 1964 Irish playwrights’ declaration are recalled, as is Enuga S. Reddy of the UN Centre against Apartheid (1984) — performers must be persuaded “to stop entertaining apartheid, to stop profiting from apartheid money” — and the UN General Assembly’s December 1980 resolution on the cultural boycott of South Africa. Under “Brand Israel”: the government campaign launched in 2005 presents “an Israel filled with innocence, humor, and Ideals” (Isaac Zablocki, Israel Film Center); the Other Israel Film Festival (“It is not about the conflict—it is not about taking sides”) is held by PACBI to be “a form of whitewashing Israel’s colonial and apartheid reality, regardless of intentions”; Forward reported the plan to improve Israel’s image “by downplaying religion and avoiding any discussion of the conflict”; Nissim Ben-Sheetrit: “We are seeing culture as a hasbara [propaganda] tool of the first rank, and I do not differentiate between hasbara and culture.”; Arye Mekel: “This way you show Israel’s prettier face”. The state-funding contract revealed by Yitzhak Laor in Haaretz obliges artists as “service providers” to promote “the policy interests of the State of Israel via culture and art, including contributing to creating a positive image for Israel”, and PACBI’s guidelines treat events under official Israeli sponsorship as complicity deserving boycott. Under “Dancing around Apartheid”: Adalah-NY and Artists against Apartheid protested Batsheva’s September 2010 New York performance, attended by President Shimon Peres — protesters yelled “You’re dancing around apartheid” — though artistic director Ohad Naharin said in 2005, “I continue to do my work, while 20 km from me people are participating in war crimes.” Under “Hurting the Victims of Apartheid?”: Jonathan Demme of Filmmakers United against Apartheid answers that ANC leaders “fervently want a boycott”. Under ‘Out of Israel’ and into Complicity: PACBI and the Palestinian NGO Network’s 2008 International Herald Tribune advertisement “No Reason to Celebrate Israel at 60”, endorsed by Mahmoud Darwish, John Berger, Ken Loach, Roger Waters, Judith Butler and others, holds that celebrating Israel at 60 “is tantamount to dancing on Palestinian graves”; the Joyce Theater and 92nd Street Y Israeli dance programs that year partnered in rebranding; no Israeli dance company has publicly condemned the occupation; Barghouti states his own position — indiscriminate violence by either side is morally unjustifiable, while denying any parity, and international law “never condones deliberate or criminally negligent attacks against civilians” — quoting Paulo Freire: “Never in history has violence been initiated by the oppressed.” Under “So You Think You Can Dance?”: in September 2008 Lydda (Ben-Gurion) Airport security forced Alvin Ailey dancer Abdur-Rahim Jackson to perform twice to prove he was a dancer and suggested he change his name; Barghouti describes his own sticker number 6 at the airport against Israeli Jews’ usual 1; the Ailey company performed as scheduled and did nothing substantial to protest, violating the 2004 call, while Faithless’s Maxi Jazz refused: “I feel deeply that I should not be sending even tacit signals that this is either ‘normal’ or ‘ok.’” (PDF p.120-136)

• Chapter 8, “Fighting Apartheid in South Africa, Celebrating Apartheid in Israel: Open Letter to Nadine Gordimer”, with Haidar Eid, opening (PDF p.137-138; chapter continues in part 3): Gordimer, the liberal Jewish South African Nobel laureate who vehemently opposed apartheid, insisted on participating in a writers’ festival largely sponsored by the Israeli government. The letter, dated April 28, 2008, answers her claim that peace must begin with “both sides talking to one another” by asking whether talking replaced resistance in South Africa; Palestinian writers in the occupied territory are denied freedom of expression, travel and conference access, and some are imprisoned, injured or killed. Her assertion that she was “not invited to Israel by the Israeli Government” is answered: the International Writers Festival is primarily funded, promoted and sponsored by Israeli government sources, takes no stand against occupation, racism and apartheid, and its inviting Israeli writers are “virtually all Zionists” endorsing discrimination, denial of return and aspects of occupation, especially in East Jerusalem — as with a writer accepting an Afrikaner invitation to a festival in apartheid South Africa that took no public position against discrimination (PDF p.137-138).

• Chapter 8, remainder (PDF p.139): the letter recalls how Gordimer and the late Edward Said lobbied Susan Sontag to reject the Jerusalem Prize, on the logic that state involvement — Shimon Peres as a judge of the “literary” prize at the time — meant writers should not participate. Her promise to visit a Palestinian university or a Ramallah venue is an insulting attempt to “balance” complicity: “Was visiting a bantustan ever a moral or rational excuse for participating in a largely pro-apartheid gathering in South Africa?” Her participation violates the 2004 Palestinian Call for Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel, and its timing serves the “Israel at 60” celebrations: taking part in an occasion that ignores that Israel came into existence through the Nakba, dispossessing and expelling “more than 750,000 Palestinians”, is collusion in whitewashing Israel’s seminal crime, at a time when Israel is committing war crimes and “acts of genocide”, as Richard Falk characterizes them, in occupied Gaza (PDF p.139).

• Chapter 9, “Between South Africa and Israel: UNESCO’s Double Standards”, with Jacqueline Sfeir (PDF p.140-143): Palestinians can no longer accept some UN organizations dealing with Israel “as if it were just another liberal democracy, not the world’s last surviving colonial bastion”. UNESCO’s support for the Israeli-Palestinian Science Organization (IPSO) puts it at odds with the Palestinian Council for Higher Education, which has repeatedly rejected “technical and scientific cooperation between Palestinian and Israeli universities”, and with the boycott call endorsed by dozens of unions and organizations including the Federation of Unions of Palestinian Universities’ Professors and Employees. Joint projects claiming to be “apolitical” are “often the most blatantly politicized”, disregarding colonial oppression and substituting “transient, superficial gestures of peace for the real struggle needed to achieve a just and lasting peace”; “Normal relations between peoples can flourish only after oppression has ended, not before and not as a prelude to it”, and a sincere joint project must at minimum be based on equality and rejection of military occupation and racial discrimination, both “glaringly absent” from IPSO. Against apartheid South Africa UNESCO promoted sanctions and boycott, organizing no fewer than eight international conferences and seminars, after the ICJ’s 1971 Namibia opinion; after the ICJ’s similar July 9, 2004 opinion on Israel, UNESCO instead supports joint projects ignoring occupation. Tutu, the World Council of Churches (2005, urging “economic measures” and praising PCUSA’s “selective divestment”), universities and British parliamentarians are cited as endorsing measures; UNESCO ought immediately to withdraw support for IPSO and similar efforts until Israel complies with international law, failing which is “further proof of UNESCO’s double standards” (PDF p.140-143). The IPSO dispute is treated at IPSO.

• Chapter 10, “What We Really Need! A Response to Anti-Boycott Arguments” (PDF p.144-150): some Western Palestine solidarity organizations have stood firmly against the BDS Call since July 9, 2005, on three grounds taken up in turn. (1) Counterproductive: “Who is to judge?” A call signed by more than 170 Palestinian parties, unions, NGOs and networks across occupation, Israel and the Diaspora cannot be counterproductive unless Palestinians are not rational enough to know their interest; the argument “smacks of patronization and betrays a colonial attitude”, and BDS has proved among the most effective forms of civil resistance, moving, South African comrades say, at a faster pace than theirs ever did. (2) Undermining the Israeli “peace movement”: “What Israeli peace movement? There is no such creature.” The Zionist left seeks to preserve Israel as a “Jewish” exclusivist state and opposes refugee return — A. B. Yehoshua and Amos Oz: “We shall never be able to agree to the return of the refugees to within the borders of Israel, for the meaning of such a return would be the elimination of the State of Israel”; Shlomo Ben-Ami offered “justice or peace” as mutually exclusive; Danny Rabinowitz proposed “dropping the definite article ‘the’” before “right of return” and limiting return to some 200,000 pre-1948-born refugees; Uri Avnery proposed an “annual quota of 50,000 for ten years”. Moshe Machover is quoted: the “peace activists” image is symmetric — two sides over disputed turf — whereas “The key to a proper understanding of the conflict is that it is an extremely asymmetric one: between settler-colonisers and the indigenous people. It is about dispossession and oppression.” Most Israelis serve in the occupation army and know its crimes; BDS is institutional, not a blanket boycott of individuals; dialogue groups have produced no shift, while Israeli-Jewish opinion shifts right toward “transfer”. Groups supporting only a subset of BDS for tactical reasons “are still our partners”; the common denominator is ending the three forms of injustice. (3) Anti-Semitism: the charge is “patently misplaced and is wielded as a tool of intellectual intimidation”; the calls target Israel as a colonial power, not Jews, and characterizing them as anti-Semitic itself assumes Jews are monolithic and collectively responsible, an assumption “criminalized at Nuremberg”; “It hardly matters what faith your oppressors belong to, really—whether they are Jewish, Christian, Muslim, or Hindu is irrelevant!” Steadfastness projects are crucial but alone cannot end occupation and apartheid; “There is no better way to achieve just peace in Palestine and the entire region” (PDF p.144-150).

• Chapter 11, Derailing Injustice: Palestinian Civil Resistance to the “Jerusalem Light Rail” (PDF p.151-164): epigraph, Ariel Sharon (August 2005), that anything strengthening Jerusalem “as the capital of the Jewish people and the united capital of the State of Israel, should be done”. Under “Realizing Herzl’s Vision”: the Jerusalem Light Rail’s professed goals are traffic and renewal, but its route, connecting the colonies of Atarot, Neve Ya’kov, Pisgat Ze’ev, Ramot, Har Ha-Tzofim and Gilo into “Greater Jerusalem”, reveals its objective “to irreversibly entrench the “Judaization” of Jerusalem” — “the third most important fact on the ground, after the 1948 Nakba” and the 1967 occupation; a “secret plan” of the prime minister’s office and the mayor, exposed in Haaretz in 2009, aims at Israeli “hegemony” around the Old City, and the Master Plan 2020 aims at a “70:30 ratio of Jews to Palestinians” by ethnically cleansing Palestinian communities through the Wall and revocation of identity papers; since Oslo the settler population in the OPT has almost doubled. Under “Perpetuating Injustice”: projects serving the colonies are illegal by extension of the Fourth Geneva Convention, UN resolutions and the ICJ’s July 9, 2004 opinion; the JLR “may amount to a war crime” and participating companies can be regarded as “aiding and abetting”; the PLO’s Negotiation Support Unit, citing Hague Convention IV (1907): “As an occupant, Israel has no sovereign rights or title to the OPT, including East Jerusalem.” The PLO and AFPS sued Veolia and Alstom at Nanterre in 2007; in April 2009 the court declared jurisdiction and ruled Israel, as an occupying power, could not claim sovereign standing over the disputed contracts. In the United Kingdom, Daniel Machover invokes EU Directive 2004/18/EC article 45 — exclusion of an operator guilty of “grave professional misconduct” — against Veolia. Under “Derailing Veolia and Alstom”: the BNC’s October 2008 Bilbao conference and the Bilbao Initiative made the campaign a top priority; an appeal urged Saudi Arabia not to award Alstom a $2.5billionpower-plantcontract,unanswered,whileAlstomjoineda$1.8 billion consortium for the Makkah-Madinah Haramain Express — “a bitter irony”; the Palestinian Authority complained officially. ASN Bank (Netherlands) divested from Veolia Transport in November 2006; Stockholm’s council announced Veolia had lost the metro contract for the next eight years, worth 3.5 billion euros (approximately $4.5billion),afterthe"GiveVeoliatheRedCard"eventofNovember15,2008;Swede{n}^{\prime }sAP7fund($15 billion) then excluded Alstom explicitly over the JLR; Sandwell Council dropped Veolia’s bid for a contract worth about $1.5billionovertwentyyears;Bordeauxawardeda$1 billion contract to Veolia’s competitor. Under “Artistic Resistance”: Van Thanh Rudd’s Melbourne installation Economy of Movement: A Piece of Palestine exhibits a stone thrown at an IDF tank protecting Veolia (Connex) and Alstom. Under “Recent Developments”: Haaretz reported Veolia “abandoning” the JLR and “trying to sell its 5% stake in Citypass”, citing “political pressure” and loss of “major projects in Europe” as the “real reason”; Veolia’s survey of East Jerusalem Palestinians was described as racist even by Israeli government members, municipal director general Yair Maayan writing “We were flabbergasted to see how a private commercial consortium dared to address these subjects”; Shuafat resident Mahmoud al-Mashni lost 2,000 square meters to the project, a ticket costing 15 shekels against a 4-shekel bus; a JLR operations job required “full military/civic service”; CityPass spokesperson Ammon Elian: both groups “will not meet on the train, because of their different life patterns”; Veolia Transport operates gender-segregated bus 322 from Tel Aviv to Ashdod — Tel Aviv council chair Yael Dayan: “It’s the return of the Middle Ages”. Tehran’s mayor scrapped Veolia’s role in the city’s transport system; Dublin City Council resolved unanimously on May 10, 2010 not to sign or renew Veolia contracts; Swansea Council on June 17, 2010 voted to exclude Veolia, a United Kingdom precedent. The campaign continues until both companies sever links with all violating Israeli projects, including Veolia’s settlement bus services and the Tovlan landfill in the occupied Jordan Valley. “What initially seemed like a desperate swim against the tide to reach the shores of justice is increasingly looking like a great wind that may well cause the tide itself to be reversed” (PDF p.151-164).

• Chapter 12, “Boycotts Work”: Omar Barghouti Interviewed by Ali Mustafa (PDF p.165-177): on apartheid: “we don’t have to prove that Israel is identical to apartheid South Africa in order to deserve the label apartheid”; Israel’s is “an evolved form” — South Africa’s was “rudimentary, petty, primitive”, while Israel’s is hidden by a deceptive image of “democracy”; Palestinian citizens can vote, “a huge difference”, but are discriminated against by law in every other vital domain and may vote only for a system enshrining apartheid, parties calling for a state of all its citizens being barred from the Knesset; US State Department reports condemn Israel’s “institutional, legal and societal discrimination”. There is no recognized “Israeli” nationality, only “Jewish nationality”; Chris McGreal: “Israeli governments reserved 93% of the land—often expropriated from Arabs without compensation—for Jews”, against 87 percent reserved for whites in South Africa. South Africa sought to exploit blacks, not expel them, and never bombed bantustans with F-16s. On the academic boycott: called by PACBI in July 2004, it is institutional; Israeli universities are in “full, organic partnership with the security-military establishment” — weapons development, colonization projects, the wall’s idea and design — and nearly all academics serve in the reserve army “for three months each year”; “If our boycott is were focused on individuals, it would be McCarthyist” [as printed]. On dialogue: since Oslo it became a “peace industry” producing “absolutely nothing on the ground”, premised on symmetry between equivalent parties, whereas without a common basis of justice there is no bridge but “only a ladder where you go up or down not across” — “the master-slave type of coexistence”. Inspiration comes primarily from a hundred years of Palestinian civil resistance — strikes, demonstrations, tax boycotts, women’s and trade union organizing — “even before the inspiration of Gandhi, King, and Mandela”. On academic freedom: the claim privileges Israeli freedom; “We never heard those same liberal voices protest when Israel shut down Palestinian universities during the first intifada—Birzeit University, for example, was shut down for four consecutive years”; Judith Butler’s “material and institutional foreclosures” are quoted; Oren Ben-Dor: the boycott can “provide a means to transcend the publicly sanctioned limits of debate”, “Such freedom is precisely what is absent in Israel”. On Hamas’s rockets: the West Bank’s Palestinian Authority “acts mainly as a subcontractor for the Israeli occupation” and has stopped nothing — the wall, settlements, “more than six hundred roadblocks and checkpoints”, demolitions; “with or without Hamas, Israel’s multifaceted colonial oppression hardly changes”; no settler regime — Northern Ireland, Algeria, South Africa — gave up power voluntarily. On the solution: “Not a binational state! I am completely against “binationalism” in our context. A secular, democratic state yes, but not binational”, because binationalism assumes two nations with equal competing claims; his model is “one person, one vote—regardless of ethnicity, religion, nationality, gender”, based on return. The BDS movement itself “takes no position on the shape of the political solution”. The two-state solution is both impossible and immoral, addressing “a mere one-third of the Palestinan people” [as printed]; polls show 25–30 percent support in the West Bank and Gaza for a secular democratic state, two 2007 polls two-thirds for a single state “in all flavors”, and higher support in exile. On “international consensus”: the Gaza siege is also such a consensus, of hegemonic powers — “an international conspiracy of complicity and silence; it is a war crime, indeed a crime against humanity”; East Timor is the counter-example (PDF p.165-177).

• Chapter 13, “Boycotting Israeli Settlement Products: Tactic versus Strategy” (PDF p.178-184): 2008 reports of companies leaving the OPT risk mistaking a tactic for the strategy; a settlement-products boycott as the ultimate goal “would be in direct contradiction with the stated objectives of the Palestinian boycott movement”. Assa Abloy moved its Mul-T-Lock factory from Barkan after Church of Sweden appeals, following Barkan Wineries to Kibbutz Hulda — part of which sits on the ethnically cleansed village Khulda, unmentioned by its accusers, raising questions about selective application of international law. The British government, per the Independent, decided to “crack down on exports from Israeli settlements”; Britain charges “Israeli companies located in settlements try to get around the agreement by registering company offices within the Green Line”. Practically, most organic Israeli products are produced in the colonies but labeled as products of Israel, final packaging done inside Israel; the reason Israel has got away with violating the EU-Israel agreement is “shameful—and, unfortunately, quite typical—EU official complacency”. Politically, boycotting only settlement products supports rights of “a mere one-third of the Palestinian people”: “Was there ever a movement calling for boycotting the bantustans alone in South Africa?” Legally, Richard Falk is quoted at length: “to single out the settlements has no particular relevance from the perspective of international law”, the Gaza blockade and demolitions being collective punishment under Geneva Convention IV Article 33, and it is “politically and morally appropriate, as well as legally correct, to accord maximum support to the BDS campaign”. “Why should anyone punish the settlements and not Israel?” “Holocaust guilt cannot morally justify European complicity” in prolonging Palestinian suffering. Settlement boycott should be “only a first, relatively easy step toward a full boycott of all Israeli products and services. It cannot be the final goal” (PDF p.178-184).

• Chapter 14, “Our South Africa Moment Has Arrived” (PDF p.185-197): Israel’s shift to the fanatic racist right (2009 elections) and gradual ethnic cleansing to “Judaize” Jerusalem, Jaffa, Hebron, the Jordan Valley and the Naqab accompany a turning point in civil society’s view of Israel as a pariah; Qalqilya is suffocated by the wall, Nablus besieged, and Acre’s Palestinians suffered in October 2008 “one of the worst pogroms witnessed by Palestinians inside Israel in recent memory”. Gaza is “the test of our common humanity”: the official West, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the PA leadership and the “obsequious UN leadership” were willing accomplices. Robert Kagan is quoted on United States power in an “anarchic Hobbesian world”; BDS is the answer, a progressive, antiracist (note 5), “sophisticated, sustainable, moral, and effective form of civil nonviolent resistance”. Under “Gaza: The West’s Complicity in War Crimes”: Falk called the siege a prelude to “genocide” and “a Holocaust in the making”, expressing “a deliberate intention on the part of Israel and its allies to subject an entire human community to life-endangering conditions of utmost cruelty”; Sara Roy accuses the EU and United States of complicity in “de-development”, providing “tangible benefits such as higher income and improved infrastructure” to buy concessions — “The logic of international law was abandoned in the interest of maintaining a failed political process”. The siege since 2006: more than 80 percent of Gaza’s 1.5 million people in poverty and dependency, more than 95 percent of factories shut, forty thousand students denied UN school enrollment for 2010–11, hundreds of critical patients dead; WHO figures: anemia in more than two-thirds of children aged one and younger, stunted growth reaching 30 percent in parts of northern Gaza; sonic booms caused, per a UN report, “anxiety attacks, bedwetting, muscle spasms, temporary loss of hearing and breathing difficulties”, a senior Israeli intelligence source calling the policy “intended to break civilian support for armed Palestinian groups”. UNRWA’s Karen Koenig AbuZayd: “Gaza is on the threshold of becoming the first territory to be intentionally reduced to a state of abject destitution with the knowledge, acquiescence and—some would say—encouragement of the international community”. Shulamit Aloni (2003): “we do not have crematoria and gas chambers. Is anything less than that consistent with Jewish ethics?” Operation Cast Lead killed more than 1,400 Palestinians, approximately 83 percent civilians, including more than 430 children, destroying thousands of homes, forty-five mosques, the Legislative Council and ministries, schools, a Red Crescent Hospital and thousands of factories; the ICRC accused Israel “in an unusually sharp tone” of impeding medical relief; Israel first violated the June 2008 ceasefire on November 4, killing six fighters; Gerald Kaufman, Noam Chomsky and Holocaust survivor Hajo Meyer drew Nazi comparisons, and a Guardian letter and the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network compared Gaza to the Warsaw Ghetto. Under “Israel’s Other Colonial and Apartheid Policies”: the three forms of oppression are restated, refugee return being “the litmus test of morality”; Michael Ben-Yair (2002): “In effect, we established an apartheid regime in the occupied territories”. Apartheid is a generalized UN crime, not a South African trademark: the 1976 Convention and the Rome Statute definitions are quoted, and the 2008 BNC position paper is cited for Israel’s origins in political Zionism — “a land without a people” — and the displacement of “between 750,000 and 900,000 Palestinians” from late 1947, destroying hundreds of villages in “cleaning the landscape” until 1960. Four features are enumerated: “Jewish nationality” distinct from citizenship, the Supreme Court refusing an “Israeli” nationality, and the 1950 Law of Return; the 1952 Citizenship Law’s two-tier system, Palestinian citizens holding only citizenship with Jews holding “firstclass rights” [as printed]; the 1952 Status Law authorizing the World Zionist Organization / Jewish Agency and the Jewish National Fund to control most land for Jews alone, the CESCR in 1998 calling the confiscations institutionalized discrimination; and the prevention of refugee and IDP return, refugees “denationalized” under the 1952 law, the approximately 150,000 who remained placed under military regime (1948–66). Palestinians cannot buy or rent land in about 93 percent of state lands; the vote is “almost a formality, a tokenism”. Israel acts as an uncontrollable “mad dog”, an image advocated by Moshe Dayan and endorsed by Martin Van Creveld. Israel’s “state terrorism in Gaza”, enabled by virtually unlimited US and Western support, led advocates of Palestinian rights “to feel that our South Africa moment has finally arrived”, Israel now being widely perceived at a grassroots level as an international pariah (PDF p.196). Post-Cast Lead spread: CUPE Ontario’s university workers endorsed academic boycott, Quebec’s Fédération autonome du collégial joined, SATAWU refused to offload an Israeli ship in Durban, Hampshire College divested from six companies, Cardiff University divested, and French academics endorsed BDS. The chapter, based on a 2009 Israeli Apartheid Week presentation at Canadian universities, closes with Henk van Randwijk’s “Message to the Living” and Gaza’s children walking to damaged schools on January 24, 2009: “BDS empowers Palestinians and supporters of just peace worldwide to nourish and eventually realize that hope” (PDF p.185-197).

• Chapter 15, “After the Freedom Flotilla Atrocity: BDS Takes Off”, opening (PDF p.198-203; chapter continues in part 4): Moshe Dayan: “Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother”. The May 31, 2010 bloodbath on the flotilla was “not only categorically immoral and patently illegal but undeniably irrational too”, and the months following it saw more BDS achievements than any period since July 9, 2005. Israel’s announced “easing” of the siege met universal skepticism; an ICRC report urged lifting it completely, and Israel’s June 25 seizure of Norwegian-donated oxygen machines for Gaza and West Bank hospitals is cited. The attack on civilian ships in international waters killed and injured dozens, among the activists a Nobel laureate, a Holocaust survivor, parliamentarians and a former senior US diplomat. Darwish’s “Besiege your siege” now means besieging Israel through BDS. Henry Siegman in Haaretz: “A million and a half civilians have been forced to live in an open-air prison in inhuman conditions for over three years now, but unlike the Hitler years, they are not Jews but Palestinians” and “the essential moral issues are the same”. Jeff Halper: the government imposed “counting calories”, “as little as 850 calories a day, less than half the recommended daily intake”; Dov Weisglass joked: “It’s like a meeting with a dietitian. We need to make the Palestinians lose weight, but not to starve to death”. Ben Saul, from the 1988 Rome Convention on maritime navigation: “One cannot attack a ship and then claim self-defence if the people on board resist the unlawful use of violence” and forces illegally capturing a ship “are treated no differently than other criminals”; British scholars in the Times and Dutch professors in NRC Handelsblad agreed. The UN Human Rights Council voted 32–3 to condemn Israel and open a probe, only Italy and the Netherlands joining the United States against; Ban Ki-Moon condemned the attack. Richard Falk: “The worldwide campaign of boycott, divestment, and sanctions against Israel is now a moral and political imperative”. Nicaragua suspended relations, South Africa and Turkey recalled ambassadors, Turkey’s parliament voted unanimously to “revise the political, military and economic relations with Israel” — Turkey being the second largest importer of Israeli weapons, after India — and Norway’s Kristin Halvorsen called on states to “follow the Norwegian position which excludes trading arms with Israel”. The BNC’s June 1 statement: “Israel’s impunity is the direct result of the international community’s failure to hold it accountable”, its violations “recently rewarded when the OECD voted unanimously to accept its membership”; the BNC and the Palestinian trade union movement called on dockworkers to “block Israeli maritime trade”. SATAWU called on members “not to allow any Israeli ship to dock or unload”; Swedish dockworkers blockaded Israeli ships from June 23, Indian and Turkish unions followed; COSATU urged “all South Africans to refuse to buy or handle any goods from Israel”; SAMWU endorsed “Apartheid Israel free zones”; Unite unanimously passed a boycott motion, Unison adopted similar measures including suspending ties with Histadrut, and the UCU condemned the attack (PDF p.198-203).

• Chapter 15, remainder (PDF p.204-208): the UCU “made BDS history when it voted by an overwhelming majority to sever all links with Histadrut”; LO, Norway’s largest trade union federation, called on the state pension fund to divest from all Israeli companies, and a poll showed “more than 42 percent of all Norwegians supporting a comprehensive boycott of Israeli goods”; Oakland union members and activists blocked the offloading of an Israeli ship for twenty-four hours; the United Methodist Church’s Northern Illinois Conference and Evergreen State College (79.5 percent student support) voted divestment. In culture: Martin Rowson’s Guardian Noah’s ark cartoon; Iain Banks — the best way to “convince Israel of its moral degradation and ethical isolation” is “simply by having nothing more to do with this outlaw state” — endorsed by Stéphane Hessel; Henning Mankell called for South Africa-style sanctions; Alice Walker called BDS a moral duty, drawing on Rosa Parks and the Montgomery bus boycott; the Klaxons, Gorillaz Sound System, the Pixies and Devendra Banhart cancelled after the attack, following Elvis Costello, Gil Scott-Heron and Carlos Santana; a Forward music insider had approached more than 15 artists in recent months and none had agreed despite “extreme, big numbers”. The chapter closes on the bill by twenty-five Knesset members to criminalize supporting the boycott: “This sign of desperation, more than anything else, proves beyond a shadow of doubt that Israel fears the global reach and effectiveness” of BDS, confirming the “South Africa moment” has arrived (PDF p.204-208).

• Chapter 16, “Leadership, Reference, and the Role of Israeli Anticolonialists” (PDF p.209-215): Omar Barghouti interviewed by Maxine Kaufman-Lacusta, who reports her Refusing to Be Enemies interviewees all agreed BDS was among the most important forms of support for internationals. Barghouti: “Context sensitivity is a key principle of the BDS movement”; the BNC leads it, the 2005 Call “is the reference for the global BDS movement”, and its three rights are “the minimal requirements for realizing the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination”; allies active in specific campaigns without fully endorsing the Call are allies but “not yet full strategic partners”, while a partner adopting the Call and targeting “Israeli tomatoes only” is a strategic partner — CodePink, endorsing the Call and focusing on AHAVA, is the example; groups that try to set the movement’s goals on Palestinians’ behalf show “a colonial and patronizing attitude”. On joint struggle: the Israel-centric “save Israeli apartheid” view is rejected — ending occupation alone, without refugee return and without ending discrimination against Palestinian citizens, maintains apartheid and seeks to strengthen it by “demographically getting rid of some four million Palestinians (in the OPT)”; the struggle is not symmetrical, and only ending oppression permits “ethical coexistence”. Normalization is defined and the two PACBI conditions adopted since November 2007 are stated (see Normalization): such projects and relations, “by definition and by effect, attempt to normalize the abnormal: Israel’s colonial and racist oppression”; “Nothing in the boycott criteria opposes” a project meeting the conditions, and whether Israeli involvement is welcome or useful is a pragmatic question that “has nothing to do with whether the project is itself a violation of the boycott criteria”. On noncooperation within Israel: at first the colonial society bands together, but when inside and outside struggle raises the price of oppression “this seemingly invincible or garrison-oriented unity starts to crack”; sustainable BDS leading to comprehensive UN sanctions would make ordinary Israelis rethink “living by the sword”, and “Collapse of the multitiered Israeli system of oppression then becomes a matter of time” (PDF p.209-215).

• Conclusion, “If Not Now, When?” (PDF p.216-224): opens with Paulo Freire — oppression is “domesticating”, and liberation requires “the praxis: reflection and action upon the world in order to transform it”. The campaign has “almost all the ingredients for success”: a comprehensive rights-based approach rooted in a century of struggle and enjoying solid consensus; a morally compelling, antiracist message anchored in equality and international law; an empowering nonviolent strategy; and a massive coalition with near consensus. The overlooked invitation to conscientious — anticolonialist, antiracist, “that is, anti-Zionist” — Israelis is stressed, against the Zionist “left” voices diverting BDS to occupation or settlements alone under a “save Israel” agenda; genuine solidarity “recognize[s] and follow[s] the lead of the oppressed”, whose reference is the BNC. Operational principles are “context sensitivity, gradualness, and sustainability”, followed by twelve campaign priorities: (1) general boycott of Israeli and complicit companies; (2) boycott of complicit academic, cultural, athletic and tourist institutions and funded/whitewashing events, with crossing “the Palestinian BDS picket line” denounced as playing Sun City was; (3) divestment from Israeli bonds and complicit financial institutions; (4) boycott of and divestment from named companies — Elbit Systems, Veolia, Alstom, Eden Springs, Agrexco-Carmel, AHAVA, Lev Leviev Diamonds, Motorola, Northrop Grumman and Caterpillar; (5) expulsion of Israel and complicit institutions from international forums including the Olympics and FIFA; (6) ethical pilgrimage benefiting Palestinian providers; (7) ostracizing the Jewish National Fund and denying it tax-exempt “charitable” status; (8) barring companies guilty of “grave misconduct” from public contracts; (9) an arms embargo, heeding Amnesty International’s call despite its “morally and legally untenable equation between the occupying power and the people under occupation”; (10) suspension of free-trade and preferential agreements; (11) legal accountability and full compensation for wanton destruction, “especially the 2009 war on Gaza”; (12) implementation of the Goldstone Report recommendations and prosecution of accused war criminals. BDS demands no higher or lower standards than for any other state, only an end to Israel’s exceptionalism; Palestinians “bear no responsibility whatsoever for the Holocaust” and should not pay for Europe’s conscience, “Never again!” meaning “never again to anyone”; Western responsibility rests on complicity and common interest, not Holocaust guilt alone. John Dugard (2007) is quoted: Palestine “has become the litmus test for human rights”. The book closes: “Our South Africa moment has finally arrived!” (PDF p.216-224)

• Appendix 1, “Call for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel” (PDF p.225-227): the PACBI call is printed in full. Its preamble lists Israel’s colonial oppression — denial of responsibility for the Nakba, occupation and colonization since 1967, and “the entrenched system of racial discrimination and segregation against the Palestinian citizens of Israel, which resembles the defunct apartheid system in South Africa” — and the complicity of Israeli academic institutions and the vast majority of Israeli academics. “We, Palestinian academics and intellectuals, call upon our colleagues in the international community to comprehensively and consistently boycott all Israeli academic and cultural institutions”, by refraining from cooperation, advocating a comprehensive boycott including suspension of funding, promoting divestment, pressing for condemnation resolutions, and supporting Palestinian institutions directly without requiring Israeli partnership. Endorsers (2004) are listed, from the Palestinian Federation of Unions of University Professors and Employees to the Palestinian Lawyers’ Association “and tens of other Palestinian federations, associations, and civil society organizations”.

• Appendix 2, “BDS Call” (PDF p.228-236): the July 9, 2005 Call is printed in full, with its preamble (one year after the ICJ opinion; thirty-eight years of occupation; fifty-seven years after the state was built “mainly on land ethnically cleansed of its Palestinian owners, a majority of Palestinians are refugees, most of whom are stateless”), its appeal — “impose broad boycotts and implement divestment initiatives against Israel similar to those applied to South Africa in the apartheid era”, pressure states for embargoes and sanctions, and invite conscientious Israelis — and its three demands, worded as at PDF p.230. The endorser lists follow in full: 30 unions, associations and campaigns; 35 refugee rights associations and organizations; and 108 organizations, from the Council of National and Islamic Forces in Palestine, PNGO, PGFTU and PACBI to BADIL, Al-Mezan, MIFTAH, the YMCA–East Jerusalem and the Zakat committees (PDF p.230-236).

• Appendix 3, “PACBI Guidelines for the International Academic Boycott of Israel (Revised August 2010)” (PDF p.237-245): the guidelines rest on the premise that Israeli academic institutions are complicit — the academy is “part of the ideological and institutional scaffolding of the Zionist settler-colonial project in Palestine” — and on the Palestinian Council for Higher Education’s call for non-cooperation. The general rule: “all Israeli academic institutions, unless proven otherwise, are complicit in maintaining the Israeli occupation and denial of basic Palestinian rights”; their activities and sponsored events, and events involving individuals explicitly representing them, must be boycotted, while “mere institutional affiliation to — as opposed to representation of — the Israeli academy is therefore not a sufficient condition for applying the boycott”. Twelve categories follow: Israeli-convened or co-sponsored academic events; institutional cooperation agreements (EU Framework programmes, the EU-Israel Association Agreement and its Erasmus Mundus and Tempus schemes are named, Israel being in violation of the agreement’s article 2); study-abroad schemes in Israel; addresses by official representatives; special honours; Palestinian/Arab-Israeli collaborative research; government-framework R&D (the US-Israel Binational Science Foundation, 1972; the Eureka Initiative, 1985); corporate R&D at Israeli universities; institutional membership in world bodies; publishing in or refereeing for journals based at Israeli universities; granting use of copyrighted material; and refereeing hiring, promotion and Israeli funding decisions (PDF p.237-245).

• Appendix 4, “PACBI Guidelines for the International Cultural Boycott of Israel (Revised October 2010)” (PDF p.246-252): the guidelines recall the 2006 appeal by a decisive majority of Palestinian cultural workers, John Berger’s statement, and the May 8, 2008 “No Reason to Celebrate” advertisement, and quote Enuga S. Reddy (1984) against the freedom-of-expression argument. The general rule: “virtually all Israeli cultural institutions, unless proven otherwise, are complicit”; their products and sponsored events must be boycotted, and “balancing act” visits to Palestinian institutions assume “parity between justice and injustice”. Five categories follow: (1) products commissioned by an official Israeli body or a Brand Israel effort are boycottable; (2) products funded by an official body without political strings are not per se boycottable, nor are products receiving state funding as a tax-paying citizen’s entitlement; (3) events sponsored by an official or complicit body constitute complicity — the Foreign Ministry contract binding funded cultural workers “to promote the policy interests of the State of Israel via culture and art, including contributing to creating a positive image for Israel” is quoted; (4) absent official sponsorship, “the individual product of an Israeli cultural worker per se is not boycottable, regardless of its content or merit”; (5) events promoting false symmetry or “balance” are strong candidates for boycott (PDF p.246-252).

• Notes (PDF p.253-287, in this part): the Notes for the Introduction (notes 1-116), Chapter 1 (notes 1-28), Chapter 2 (notes 1-26), Chapter 3 (notes 1-50), Chapter 4 (notes 1-21), Chapter 5 (notes 1-8), Chapter 6 (notes 1-18) and Chapter 7 (notes 1-19) are printed here. Most are citations — Freire, Said’s Representations of the Intellectual, the Goldstone Report, Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, UNEP and the Badil 2008 survey among them — and the substantive notes are recorded in the reading notes: the at-least-twenty discriminatory laws note (Introduction note 17), the BNC position-paper passage on political Zionism and “a land without people” (Introduction note 114), the distinction from Mearsheimer and Walt on the lobby and the “military-oil-security complex” (Introduction note 76), the Chapter 1 note that systematic Israeli leaders’ threats “can be regarded as consistent declarations of intent” for genocide (Chapter 1 note 25), the Chapter 2 note on Nadia Hijab and armed resistance as “the least effective source of power” (Chapter 2 note 18), the Chapter 3 Adalah passage and Beit-Hallahmi’s “original sin” passage (Chapter 3 notes 17, 19), the four quoted samples of David Bukay’s utterances (Chapter 6 note 13), and the Chapter 6 notes quoting Geneva Convention IV article 47 and Security Council Resolutions 252 and 478 in full (Chapter 6 notes 17-18). The remaining Notes, from Chapter 7 note 20 onward, are accounted for in the final part.

Key passages

• “Besiege your siege … there is no other way.” —Mahmoud Darwish, epigraph to the Introduction (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions: The Global Struggle for Palestinian Rights, PDF p.14)
• “I am not interested in picking up crumbs of compassion thrown from the table of someone who considers himself my master. I want the full menu of rights.” —Desmond Tutu, quoted in the Introduction (PDF p.19)
• “The most consequential achievement of the first five years of the BDS movement was indeed to expose the “essential nature” of Israel’s regime over the Palestinian people as one that combines military occupation, colonization, ethnic cleansing, and apartheid.” (PDF p.23)
• “The facade of democracy, not democracy itself, is what is truly collapsing in Israel, as democracy has never existed in any true form —nor could have existed—in a settler-colonial state like Israel.” (PDF p.26)
• “Indeed, BDS strives to delegitimize Israel’s settler-colonial oppression, apartheid, and ongoing ethnic cleansing of the indigenous Palestinian people, just as the South Africa boycott was aimed at delegitimizing apartheid there.” (PDF p.27)
• “BDS is perhaps the most ambitious, empowering, and promising Palestinian-led global movement for justice and rights.” (PDF p.28)
• “In short, Palestinians cannot wait. Israel is no longer “just” guilty of occupation, colonization, and apartheid against the people of Palestine; as the evidence above suggests, it has embarked on what seems to be its final effort to literally disappear the “Palestinian problem.” And it is doing so with utter impunity. The world cannot continue to watch. Thus BDS. Thus now.” (PDF p.57)
• “While I firmly advocate nonviolent forms of struggle such as boycott, divestment, and sanctions to attain Palestinian goals, I just as decisively, though on a separate track, support a unitary state based on freedom, justice, and comprehensive equality as the solution to the Palestinian-Israeli colonial conflict.” (PDF p.61)
• “If apartheid ended, so can the occupation, but the moral force and international pressure will have to be just as determined.” —Desmond Tutu, quoted in Chapter 3 (PDF p.83)
• “We are seeing culture as a hasbara [propaganda] tool of the first rank, and I do not differentiate between hasbara and culture.” —Nissim Ben-Sheetrit, quoted in Chapter 7 (PDF p.125)
• “BDS is not only an idea. It is not merely a concept. It is not just a vision. It is not all about strategy. It is all those, for sure, but also much more.” (PDF p.71)
• “Normal relations between peoples can flourish only after oppression has ended, not before and not as a prelude to it.” —Chapter 9, with Jacqueline Sfeir (PDF p.141)
• “The key to a proper understanding of the conflict is that it is an extremely asymmetric one: between settler-colonisers and the indigenous people. It is about dispossession and oppression.” —Moshe Machover, quoted in Chapter 10 (PDF p.147)
• “Not a binational state! I am completely against “binationalism” in our context. A secular, democratic state yes, but not binational. There is a big difference.” —Chapter 12 interview (PDF p.174)
• “Was there ever a movement calling for boycotting the bantustans alone in South Africa?” —Chapter 13 (PDF p.182)
• “Gaza is on the threshold of becoming the first territory to be intentionally reduced to a state of abject destitution with the knowledge, acquiescence and—some would say—encouragement of the international community.” —Karen Koenig AbuZayd, quoted in Chapter 14 (PDF p.189)
• “The worldwide campaign of boycott, divestment, and sanctions against Israel is now a moral and political imperative, and needs to be supported and strengthened everywhere.” —Richard Falk, quoted in Chapter 15 (PDF p.201)
• “Context sensitivity is a key principle of the BDS movement that the movement’s leadership, the Palestinian BDS National Committee (BNC), takes to heart.” —Chapter 16 (PDF p.210)
• “Normalization in the Arab — including Palestinian — context is defined as joint relations and projects with an Israeli side that give the false impression of normalcy despite the continuation of colonial oppression.” —Chapter 16 (PDF p.213)
• “One of the gravest obstacles to the achievement of liberation is that oppressive reality absorbs those within it and thereby acts to submerge human beings’ consciousness.” —Paulo Freire, quoted at the opening of the Conclusion (PDF p.216)
• “Our South Africa moment has finally arrived!” —the Conclusion’s closing line (PDF p.224)
• “all Israeli academic institutions, unless proven otherwise, are complicit in maintaining the Israeli occupation and denial of basic Palestinian rights” —Appendix 3 (PDF p.240)

Evidence the work relies on

• The BDS Call of July 9, 2005 and the PACBI call of April 2004, as Barghouti presents them: the three demands, the more than 170 endorsing organisations, PACBI’s some sixty endorsing unions, organisations and associations, and the BNC formed in 2008 (PDF p.17, p.59, p.65, p.70).

• The Goldstone Report, quoted by paragraph number (paras. 1688-1690, 1755-1756), with its findings of deliberate and systematic destruction, assault on dignity, careful planning and structural flaws in Israel’s investigation system (PDF p.47-49).

• UN, agency and rights-group reports as cited: a May 2010 BBC report on Gaza’s minimum calorie intake (PDF p.21); Maxwell Gaylard, UN resident and humanitarian coordinator (PDF p.49); Amnesty International’s 2009 water report and the UNEP nitrate study it cites (PDF p.49-50); Human Rights Watch, Rain of Fire: Israel’s Unlawful Use of White Phosphorus in Gaza (PDF p.50); the New Weapons Committee study of toxic metals in Gaza soil (PDF p.50); Al Dameer Association for Human Rights, position paper of December 20, 2009 (PDF p.50-51); Badil Resource Center’s survey of forcibly displaced Palestinians at the end of 2008 — 7.1 million of 10.6 million, including 6.6 million refugees and 455,000 IDPs (PDF p.55).

• Israeli soldiers’ testimonies from the Gaza war, Haaretz reporting on army T-shirts, and Israeli commentary as quoted: Gideon Levy, Orna Sasson-Levy, Gavriel Solomon, Sefi Rachlevsky, Uri Avnery, David Landau and Meron Benvenisti (PDF p.51-52, p.54, p.25-26, p.55-56).

• The apartheid definition in the 1973 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid and the 2002 Rome Statute, and Article II of the 1948 Genocide Convention, both quoted (PDF p.29, p.56).

• The ICJ advisory opinion of July 9, 2004 on the wall and colonies, and the 1971 Namibia opinion as precedent (PDF p.64-65).

• Movement and market evidence as cited: the Israel Manufacturers Association’s April 2009 survey (21 percent of 90 exporters), NASDAQ figures for Deutsche Bank’s Elbit holding at March 31, 2010, the Veolia/Alstom contract losses, PFZW’s 97 billion euros in investments, and Israeli diamond export revenues of almost $20 billion in 2008 (PDF p.37, p.41, p.38-39).

• Writings and statements of others, each credited in place: Desmond Tutu, Mairead Maguire, John Berger, Ken Loach, Ronnie Kasrils, Judith Butler, Ali Abunimah and Phillip Weiss (praise, PDF p.8-10); Ngugi wa Thiong’o, Decolonising the Mind (PDF p.18); John Mearsheimer and Peter Beinart on the Israel lobby (PDF p.16-17, p.22-23); the JTA reports and AIPAC’s Howard Kohr (PDF p.20, p.22); Richard Falk in 2007, in the Introduction’s quotation, and in his March 23, 2009 UN Human Rights Council statement (PDF p.28, p.47, p.58); Sigmund Freud’s February 1930 letter (PDF p.30); Edward Said, quoted in the Introduction’s Conclusion and in Chapter 2 on the “peace process”, including settlement figures attributed to RISOT (PDF p.44-45, p.61-62); Chris McGreal’s 2006 Guardian exposé (PDF p.72); John Pilger on Copenhagen and Mandela (PDF p.68).

• Movement texts and precedents as presented in part 2: the BDS Call quoted in full (PDF p.84); the October 2004 South African boycott call and its endorsers (PDF p.83-84); the AUT’s April–May 2005 boycott and reversal and PACBI’s statements on it (PDF p.84-85, p.97, p.110); the 1965 American Committee on Africa and 1964 Irish Anti-Apartheid Movement declarations, Enuga S. Reddy (1984) and the UN General Assembly’s December 1980 cultural-boycott resolution (PDF p.122-123).

• Health and demographic figures as cited in Chapter 3: the June 2001 Health Ministry cancer map (1984–1999) and the 1980–2010 malignant-disease increases (97.8 percent Palestinian men, 123 percent women, 39.8 percent Jewish men, 24.4 percent Jewish women) (PDF p.78); the Gaza war toll as given at PDF p.74 (more than 1,440, of whom 431 children).

• Institutional records as presented in Chapter 6: the Haifa conference of May 17, 2005, the Mossawa complaint and the deputy attorney general’s March 13, 2005 letter on David Bukay (PDF p.116-117), and the Hebrew University land record — 3,345 dunums confiscated in 1968, Gazette no. 1425, the 1973 court ruling, and Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (PDF p.118-119).

• Brand Israel materials as quoted in Chapter 7: the Forward report, statements by Isaac Zablocki, Nissim Ben-Sheetrit and Arye Mekel, and the state-funding “service provider” contract excerpts from Yitzhak Laor’s Haaretz article (PDF p.124-127).

• Legal materials as presented in part 3: Hague Convention IV (1907) as argued by the PLO’s Negotiation Support Unit, the Nanterre court’s April 2009 jurisdiction ruling, and EU Directive 2004/18/EC article 45 as argued by Daniel Machover (PDF p.154-155); the Apartheid Convention article 2 and Rome Statute definitions (PDF p.192-193); Israel’s 1950 Law of Return, 1952 Citizenship Law and 1952 Status Law, and the CESCR’s 1998 statement (PDF p.194-195); Ben Saul’s analysis under the 1988 Rome Convention on maritime navigation (PDF p.200-201).

• Campaign records as presented in part 3: the Bilbao Initiative and BNC analysis of October 2008 (PDF p.155-156); ASN Bank’s November 2006 divestment, Stockholm’s metro contract (3.5 billion euros), AP7’s exclusion of Alstom and its $15billionfundsize,Sandwel{l}^{\prime }s$1.5 billion contract decision, and the Dublin (May 10, 2010) and Swansea (June 17, 2010) resolutions (PDF p.157-159, p.163-164); the BNC’s June 1, 2010 statement and the union responses to the flotilla attack, including the UN Human Rights Council’s 32–3 vote (PDF p.201-203).

• Gaza siege and Cast Lead figures as cited in Chapter 14: more than 80 percent of 1.5 million people in poverty, more than 95 percent of factories shut, forty thousand students denied enrollment for 2010–11, WHO malnutrition figures (anemia in more than two-thirds of one-year-olds, stunting reaching 30 percent in northern Gaza), and the Cast Lead toll of more than 1,400 Palestinians, approximately 83 percent civilians, including more than 430 children (PDF p.187-190).

• Primary movement documents as printed in part 4: the PACBI Call for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (2004) in Appendix 1 (PDF p.225-227); the BDS Call of July 9, 2005 in Appendix 2, with its complete endorser lists — 30 unions, associations and campaigns, 35 refugee rights associations and organizations, and 108 organizations (PDF p.228-236); PACBI’s Guidelines for the International Academic Boycott of Israel, revised August 2010, in Appendix 3 (PDF p.237-245); and PACBI’s Guidelines for the International Cultural Boycott of Israel, revised October 2010, in Appendix 4 (PDF p.246-252).

• The Notes printed at PDF p.253-287 supply the citations behind the Introduction and Chapters 1-7 as the text presents them, including the Goldstone Report (September 25, 2009), Amnesty’s Troubled Waters (October 2009), the UNEP Gaza assessment (September 2009), Human Rights Watch’s Rain of Fire (March 2009), the Badil 2008 survey summary, and the BNC’s October 2008 position paper United against Apartheid, Colonialism and Occupation.

• Statements of others, each credited in place in part 3: A. B. Yehoshua and Amos Oz, Shlomo Ben-Ami, Danny Rabinowitz, Uri Avnery and Moshe Machover on the Zionist left (PDF p.145-147); Ariel Sharon on Jerusalem (PDF p.151); Yair Maayan and Ammon Elian on the light rail (PDF p.161-162); Chris McGreal on the 93 percent of land reserved for Jews (PDF p.167); Richard Falk on settlements and BDS legality (PDF p.182-183) and on the flotilla (PDF p.201); Sara Roy on “de-development” (PDF p.187); Shulamit Aloni (2003) and Michael Ben-Yair (2002) on genocide and apartheid (PDF p.189, p.192); Henry Siegman, Jeff Halper and Dov Weisglass on Gaza (PDF p.200).

Analysis

• The book’s method in this part is advocacy built as a brief: the Introduction assembles the movement’s record — endorsements, campaigns, divestments, state measures — as evidence that BDS is already working, and Chapters 1 and 2 supply the two premises, the gravity of Israel’s crimes (Chapter 1) and the failure of every other route since Oslo (Chapter 2), from which comprehensive boycott is drawn as the conclusion.
• Barghouti keeps his own one-state advocacy explicitly “on a separate track” from the BDS movement, which “does not adopt any specific political formula and steers away from the one-state-versus-two-states debate” (PDF p.61); the Call’s authority is made to rest on rights and international law rather than on a constitutional outcome.
• The apartheid charge is argued legally, from the UN definition, and expressly not as identity with South Africa: “despite the many similarities, no two oppressive regimes are identical” (PDF p.28-29). Chapter 3’s opening adds that proving apartheid is not a precondition for BDS (PDF p.73).
• Limits in this part: the evidence for Israeli crimes in Gaza is drawn from sources Barghouti selects and quotes at length (the Goldstone Report, rights groups, soldiers’ testimonies); Israeli government responses appear mainly as objects of criticism (Netanyahu on delegitimization, Ackermann’s denial), not as counter-evidence weighed; figures such as the Badil displacement totals, the RISOT settlement figures quoted through Said, and the diamond and contract-loss figures are given as the cited sources present them, with the underlying note texts printed at the back of the book and accounted for in the final part.
• Part 4 is the book’s documentary core: Chapter 16 and the Conclusion restate the movement’s architecture (Palestinian reference, context sensitivity, the twelve priorities) in programmatic form, and the four appendices print the founding documents and the operative boycott guidelines themselves, so the criteria applied in the earlier chapters can be checked against the texts the movement issues. The Notes in this range are overwhelmingly citations; the few substantive notes (for example Introduction notes 76 and 114, Chapter 1 note 25, Chapter 3 notes 12, 17 and 44) extend the running text’s arguments rather than supporting them with new evidence.
• Part 3’s chapters are occasional pieces — an open letter (2008), a co-authored protest at UNESCO, a response to solidarity-movement critics, a campaign case study, an interview, and two position essays (one a 2009 conference presentation) — and the argument is cumulative rather than new: each piece restates the three rights and the apartheid analysis, then applies them to its occasion. Chapter 11 is the book’s most concrete evidence chapter, documenting contract losses by named companies with dates, values and deciding bodies; its causal claims rest on campaign reports and press accounts, and the deciding councils in Stockholm, Sandwell and Bordeaux are all recorded as insisting their decisions were commercial, a qualification the chapter reports and argues around rather than removes.

People, organizations, places and events

Omar Barghouti, Desmond Tutu, PACBI, Haifa University, Hebrew University, American Association of University Professors, Association of University Teachers, Nadine Gordimer, Michael Ben-Yair, Lisa Taraki, Haidar Eid, Shulamit Aloni, Arnon Sofer, Baruch Kimmerling, BDS National Committee, Boycott from Within, John Mearsheimer, Ronnie Kasrils, Ali Abunimah, Richard Falk, Richard Goldstone, Goldstone report, Edward Said, Mahmoud Darwish, Benjamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak, Ilan Pappe, Israel Shahak, Meron Benvenisti, Nelson Mandela, Jimmy Carter, Gaza, Freedom Flotilla, International Court of Justice, UN General Assembly Resolution 194, UN General Assembly Resolution 3379, Palestine Liberation Organization, Palestinian Authority, Fateh, First Intifada, Second Intifada, Oslo Accords, Jacqueline Sfeir, Ali Mustafa, Moshe Machover, UNESCO, Veolia, Alstom, Jerusalem Light Rail, Assa Abloy, Amos Oz, Uri Avnery, Theodor Herzl, Arik Sharon, Moshe Dayan, John Dugard, Histadrut, Jewish Agency, Jewish National Fund, World Zionist Organization, Operation Cast Lead, Gaza Siege, Law of Return, Citizenship Law (1952), Apartheid Convention, IPSO, Maxine Kaufman-Lacusta, Paulo Freire, Alice Walker

Concepts

BDS movement, Apartheid, Academic boycott, Cultural boycott, Brand Israel, Normalization, Judaization, Demographic problem, Genocide, Delegitimization, One-state solution, Secular Democratic State, Right of Return, Settler Colonialism, Ethnic Cleansing, Nakba, Self-determination, Legitimacy struggle, Responsibility to Protect, Two-state solution, Universal jurisdiction, Zionism, Eretz Israel

How it relates to other sources

• Barghouti gives the BDS movement’s own programmatic account of the campaign that Palestine: The Legitimacy of Hope treats as the main arena of the Legitimacy struggle; Barghouti quotes Falk’s “legitimacy war” formulation with approval in the Introduction (PDF p.28) and in Chapter 1 quotes Falk’s March 23, 2009 Human Rights Council statement to the same effect (PDF p.58), while Falk’s account dates the originating coalition’s call to 2004 where Barghouti dates the PACBI call to April 2004 and the BDS Call to July 9, 2005 (see Open questions).

• With Palestine Inside Out: An Everyday Occupation: both present BDS as Palestinian civil society’s coordinated answer and both argue for a single secular democratic state, but Barghouti keeps that solution as his separate personal track while the movement itself prescribes no formula (PDF p.61), and Makdisi’s Epilogue presents the one-state outcome as the movement’s implied destination.

• With The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine: Chapter 1 relies on Pappe’s account of the Nakba as premeditated and meticulously planned, and on his figures of over 800,000 dispossessed and more than five hundred villages destroyed (PDF p.55).

• With The Question of Palestine: Barghouti quotes Said’s later writing on the Oslo “peace process” as a “gigantic fraud” and on the intellectual’s duty to speak truth to power, framing the book itself as heeding Said (PDF p.44-45, p.61-62).

• With Palestine Inside Out: An Everyday Occupation on Arnon Sofer: Barghouti quotes the same 2004 Jerusalem Post closed-off Gaza passage Makdisi quotes in his Coda (“we will have to kill and kill and kill”), Barghouti at PDF p.81 and again in Chapter 6 at PDF p.115, in the Jerusalem Post interview setting Makdisi also gives.

Open questions

• Falk’s Cairo speech in Palestine: The Legitimacy of Hope dates the civil society campaigns’ originating call to 2004 (PDF p.217, p.220 of that source); Barghouti distinguishes the PACBI call (April 2004) from the BDS Call (July 9, 2005) (PDF p.65). The two accounts are kept as each source gives them.

• Chapter 2 says the BDS Call came “After fifteen years of the so-called peace process” (PDF p.65), while the Introduction and Chapter 2 date the Oslo launch to 1993 and the Call to July 2005, twelve years later; the figure stands as printed.

• Chapter 2 gives the BDS demand as ending the occupation of Gaza, the West Bank (including East Jerusalem), “and other Arab territories in Lebanon and Syria” (PDF p.59), while the Introduction’s statement of the three demands speaks of “all Arab lands [occupied in 1967]” (PDF p.18); both formulations are recorded as printed.

• The spelling “though” for “through” at PDF p.30, “it is has” at PDF p.24 and the missing hyphenations “twotiered” (PDF p.73) and “wellfinanced” (PDF p.71) stand as printed in the text copy; whether they are the book’s own typographical errors or text-copy artefacts can be checked against the printed page in a later part.

• The note texts for the Introduction and Chapters 1-3 are printed at the back of the book; they were read in part 4 (Notes, PDF p.253-279) and are recorded in the reading notes there, with the substantive notes summarised in the Notes entry in Section by section. The Notes from Chapter 7 note 20 onward are accounted for in the final part.

• Chapter 4 gives the Nakba as “more than 750,000 Palestinians” displaced and “more than four hundred villages” destroyed (PDF p.101), while Chapter 1 gives “over 800,000 Palestinians” and “more than five hundred Palestinian villages” (PDF p.55) and Chapter 3 repeats the higher figures (PDF p.76); all stand as printed.

• The demographer of Haifa University is spelled “Arnon Soffer” in Chapters 1, 3 and 6 (PDF p.56, p.81, p.114-116) and “Arnon Sofer” in Chapter 4 (PDF p.96); the existing entity page uses Arnon Sofer. Both spellings stand as printed.

• Chapter 6’s byline in the text copy prints the co-author as “Lisa Tarakia” (PDF p.110), while the book’s notes and index elsewhere give “Lisa Taraki”; both stand as printed in their places.

• Chapter 3 quotes Soffer predicting the effects of a closed-off Gaza on “2.5 million people [sic]” (PDF p.81), the “[sic]” being the book’s own marker; the figure stands as printed.

• The Hebrew University passage prints “the Hebrew University land confiscation deal is is illegal” (PDF p.118), with the duplicated word as printed.

• Chapter 14 gives the Cast Lead toll as “more than 1,400 Palestinians, approximately 83 percent of whom are civilians” and “More than 430 Palestinian children” (PDF p.189-190), while Chapter 3 gives the same war as “more than 1,440 Palestinians, predominantly civilians (of whom 431 were children)” (PDF p.74); all stand as printed.

• Chapter 14 gives the Nakba displacement as “between 750,000 and 900,000 Palestinians” (PDF p.193), a range spanning the figures given elsewhere in the book: “more than 750,000” (PDF p.101, p.139) and “over 800,000” (PDF p.55, p.76); all stand as printed.

• Chapter 12 dates the PACBI academic boycott call to July 2004 (PDF p.168), while Chapter 2 and the Introduction date PACBI’s formation to April 2004 and its call to days before the ICJ ruling of July 9, 2004 (PDF p.65); both stand as printed.

• The Introduction dates the launch of the Derail Veolia/Alstom campaign to November 2008 in Bilbao (PDF p.38), while Chapter 11 dates the BNC’s Bilbao conference, which made the campaign a top priority, to October 2008 (PDF p.155); both stand as printed.

• Slips as printed in the text copy in this part: “If our boycott is were focused on individuals” (PDF p.169), “one-third of the Palestinan people” (PDF p.175), “firstclass rights” (PDF p.194); whether they are the book’s own errors or text-copy artefacts can be checked against the printed page in a later part.

• The Shuafat landowner in Chapter 11 is spelled “Mahmoud al-Mashni” and then “al-Mashi” within two pages (PDF p.161-162); both stand as printed.

• Chapter 15, in the range read here, gives no death toll for the May 31, 2010 flotilla attack, speaking of “the murder and injury of dozens of humanitarian relief workers and civilian activists” (PDF p.199); Palestine: The Legitimacy of Hope gives nine deaths on the Mavi Marmara. The two accounts are kept as each source gives them.

• Chapter 9’s co-author byline prints “Jacqueline Sfeirc” and Chapter 12’s interviewer byline prints “Ali Mustafad” in the text copy (PDF p.140, p.165), the trailing letters apparently note markers, as with “Lisa Tarakia” (PDF p.110) and “Eidb” (PDF p.137); the names are given as Jacqueline Sfeir and Ali Mustafa on the pages created for them.

• Chapter 7’s note 1 dates Elvis Costello’s cancellation statement to May 5, 2010 (Notes, PDF p.286), while Chapter 7’s running text dates Costello’s cancellation statement to May 15, 2010 (PDF p.120); both stand as printed.

• Karl Vick’s Time article “Why Israel Doesn’t Care about Peace” is dated September 13, 2010 in the Introduction and its note 29 (PDF p.24, p.257) and described in Chapter 3’s note 46 as “a September 2, 2010, cover article in Time” (Notes, PDF p.278); both stand as printed.

• Chapter 2’s note 20 cites an Alternative Information Center item dated May 27, 2009 for a Channel 10 news report said to have aired on May 24, 2010, about the Carmel Academic Center cancelling a course (Notes, PDF p.271); the dates stand as printed.

• The notes’ cross-references for the apartheid definition point to chapter 13 (Chapter 2, note 7, PDF p.270) and to chapter 14 (Chapter 3, note 18, PDF p.275); both stand as printed.

• Slips as printed in the text copy in this part: “Assocation Najdeh” (PDF p.234), “Al-Doha Chilren’s Cultural Center” (PDF p.233), “Al-Taghrid Sociey” (PDF p.233), “Bethlehen” in the Zakat Committee entry (PDF p.236), and the misplaced closing quotation mark after the word symmetry in Appendix 3 (PDF p.240); whether they are the book’s own errors or text-copy artefacts can be checked against the printed page in a later part.

• Appendix 3 dates “the first Palestinian Call for Boycott” to October 2003, issued by Palestinian academics and intellectuals in the diaspora and the occupied territory, with PACBI’s own Call following in Ramallah in 2004 (PDF p.238); the Introduction and Chapter 2 date PACBI’s formation and call to April 2004 (PDF p.65). Both stand as printed.

Coverage

PDF p.1-287 of 341, read in parts 1-4 of 5. Remaining: part 5, PDF p.288-341.