Issuu on Google+

Successes  and  Failures  of  the  BDS  Campaign   Adam  Shay   May  12,  2013     Vol.  13,  No.  11            12  May  2013    A  concerted  and  well-­‐organized  campaign  calling  for  “Boycott,  Divestment,  and  Sanctions”  (BDS)   against  the  State  of  Israel  has  been  in  effect  for  several  years.  In  spite  of  its  constant  use  of  belligerent,   violent,  and  deceitful  tactics,  the  BDS  movement  has  very  little  to  show  in  the  way  of  success   regarding  sanctions  or  divestment.  However,  the  cultural  boycott  is  a  different  story.    In  the  academic  sphere,  while  low-­‐level  bodies  have  declared  their  intention  to  divest  from  companies   invested  in  Israel,  higher-­‐level  and  managerial  bodies  usually  reject  the  idea.  This  same  dynamic  is   manifested  in  boycott  and  divestment  attempts  by  religious  bodies.    The  cultural  field  has  proven  itself  the  most  successful  tier  of  the  boycott  movement,  when   international  artists  cancel  performances  in  Israel.  One  reason  for  bands  canceling  their  scheduled   concerts  is  in  order  to  stop  belligerent  attacks  from  BDS  operatives.  Such  attacks  vary  from   bombarding  the  band’s  website,  Facebook,  and  Twitter  pages  to  the  point  that  the  sites  often  collapse,   to  direct  threats  against  the  artists  personally.  Another  reason  bands  cancel  their  concerts  is  in  order   to  avoid  negative  press  coverage.    The  counter-­‐effort  often  adopted  by  Israelis  and  Israel-­‐supporters  of  engaging  these  operatives  and   attempting  to  debate,  explain,  and  hopefully  reach  some  sort  of  resolution,  is  usually  counter-­‐ productive  and  may  achieve  the  exact  opposite  effect.  Arguing  with  BDS  operatives  online  merely   generates  more  exposure  for  their  cause.    What,  then,  can  be  done?  Counter-­‐BDS  efforts  need  to  focus  on  direct  contact  with  the  performers,   their  producers,  agents,  or  anyone  involved  in  the  decision  to  play  in  a  specific  location.  In  addition,   artists  should  be  encouraged  to  come  to  Israel  and  state  their  opinions,  as  critical  as  they  may  be.  

Few  Successes  on  Sanctions  or  Divestment   A  concerted  and  well-­‐organized  campaign  calling  for  “Boycott,  Divestment,  and  Sanctions”  (BDS)  against   the  State  of  Israel  has  been  in  effect  for  several  years  now.  The  aim  of  this  boycott  is  to  inflict  tactical   damage  to  a  wide  variety  of  academic,  commercial,  and  cultural  interests,  as  well  as  strategic  damage  to   Israel  by  way  of  constant  erosion  of  its  national  and  international  legitimacy.   While  the  movement’s  self-­‐defined  operations  include  boycott,  divestment,  and  sanctions,  this  definition  is   not  an  accurate  one,  since  divestment  is  itself  a  form  of  economic  boycott  and  sanctions  are  an  action   reserved  solely  for  countries.  The  title  BDS  should  therefore  be  regarded  as  a  brand-­‐name  rather  than  a   description  of  the  movement’s  activity.   In  spite  of  its  constant  use  of  belligerent,  violent,  and  deceitful  tactics,  the  BDS  movement  has  very  little  to   show  in  the  way  of  success  regarding  sanctions  or  divestment.  The  cultural  boycott,  however,  has  proven   the  most  efficient  and  effective  channel  for  this  campaign,  due  to  several  unique  characteristics  discussed   below.   There  has  been  very  little  success  in  the  way  of  divestment,  although  the  movement  claims  to  have   brought  about  several  such  acts.  There  is  no  shortage  of  examples  of  the  movement  claiming  responsibility   for  such  acts  despite  the  fact  that  they  never  actually  took  place,  as  well  as  several  so-­‐called  acts  of   divestment  that  had  nothing  much  to  do  with  pressure  exerted  by  the  movement  or  with  political   considerations,  but  were  rather  the  result  of  simple  financial  considerations.   An  example  of  this  dynamic  can  be  seen  in  the  case  of  the  U.S.-­‐based  Teachers  Insurance  and  Annuity   Association  (TIAA-­‐CREF)1  of  2009,  when  BDS  activists  demanded  that  TIAA-­‐CREF  withdraw  from   investments  in  an  Israeli  corporation  –  Africa-­‐Israel.2  Unfortunately,  this  call  to  boycott  coincided  precisely   with  Africa-­‐Israel  entering  a  financial  crisis  and  being  unable  to  meet  its  liabilities  to  bondholders.  Several  

investors  opted  to  withdraw  or  discontinue  investments  while  an  atmosphere  of  uncertainty  prevailed,   among  them  TIAA-­‐CREF.  As  BDS-­‐related  websites  proclaimed  victory,  TIAA-­‐CREF  released  a  statement   saying  that  it  had  discontinued  its  holdings  in  Africa-­‐Israel  due  to  the  company’s  losses  and  the  fact  that  it   had  been  removed  from  the  global  equity  index  that  TIAA-­‐CREF  follows.3  There  was,  in  fact,  no  political   context  whatsoever  to  this  decision,  and  TIAA-­‐CREF  continues  to  hold  stock  in  other  companies  on  the   BDS  “blacklist.”   The  biggest  success  the  movement  has  to  show,  one  it  often  publicizes  and  showcases,  is  the  case  of  the   Veolia  divestment.  Veolia,  a  French  transport  company  that  was  part  of  the  Jerusalem  Light  Rail  Transit   (JLRT)  master  plan  team,  came  under  BDS  pressure  due  to  their  involvement  in  the  project4  and  were   taken  to  court  in  2007  by  the  Association  France  Palestine  Solidarity,  which  sought  the  cancellation  of   Veolia’s  involvement  in  the  project.  The  French  court  found  no  breach  of  law,  either  French  or   international,  in  JLRT  or  Veolia’s  involvement  therein.5However,  in  the  wake  of  continued  pressure,  Veolia   did  eventually  announce  that  it  would  pull  out  altogether  from  the  project  (of  which  it  owned  5  percent  of   the  stock).  Nevertheless,  to  date  it  has  yet  to  do  so.  Veolia  still  operates  bus  lines  that  run  both  alongside   the  Jerusalem  Light  Railway  and  in  other  locations  beyond  the  1949  Armistice  line  (the  so-­‐called  “Green   Line”).  While  the  BDS  movement  declares  this  a  “success,”  it  actually  falls  short  of  an  ideological   agreement  on  the  part  of  Veolia  and  appears  to  be  a  more  expedient  matter  of  the  company  paying  lip-­‐ service  in  order  to  avoid  dealing  with  continued  pressure.  

University  Efforts  at  Boycott  and  Divestment   Several  other  divestment  attempts  originated  from  universities,  mostly  in  the  United  Kingdom.  These  can   be  regarded  both  as  divestment  efforts  –  as  they  were  aimed  at  banning  sales  of  Israeli  goods  by  academic   unions  –  and  as  academic  boycotts  –  because  they  tried  to  exploit  the  academic  community  as  a  platform   for  implementing  a  boycott.   The  overwhelming  majority  of  academic  boycott  or  institutional  divestment  attempts  follow  the  same   recurrent  dynamic,  recognizable  since  the  outset  of  the  current  boycott  movement  in  2004  (PACBI)6  and   through  to  the  latest  attempt  at  the  University  of  Berkeley  California,  according  to  the  following  dynamic:   1.  Low-­‐level  bodies  or  unions  declare  their  intention  to  divest  from  Israel  or  from  companies  invested  in   Israel.  2.  Higher-­‐level  and  managerial  bodies  reject  the  idea.   The  2009  British  University  and  College  Union  (UCU)  divestment  attempt  is  a  clear  example  of  this   dynamic.  At  the  UCU  Congress,  a  resolution  was  passed  to  boycott  Israeli  academics,  academic  institutions,   and  trade  unions.  But  as  soon  as  the  resolution  had  passed,  the  UCU  leadership  declared  it  invalid,  after  a   warning  by  their  own  legal  advisors  that  “a  boycott  of  that  kind  could  trigger  legal  action  against  the   union.”7  The  response  to  the  UCU’s  boycott  activity  was,  in  fact,  so  adamant  that  the  public  debate  around   it  moved  from  whether  or  not  a  boycott  is  a  legitimate  tool,  to  whether  the  UCU  itself  is  anti-­‐Semitic.   As  more  and  more  members  resigned  from  the  union,  citing  anti-­‐Semitism  as  the  reason,  the  union  turned   down  a  motion  opposing  anti-­‐Semitism8  and  eventually  voted  to  disassociate  itself  from  the  EU’s  working   definition  of  anti-­‐Semitism  and  adopted  instead  one  that  allows  for  the  singling  out  of  Israeli  institutions.   This  move  created  outrage  and  generated  condemnations  from  all  Jewish  organizations,  as  well  as  a   statement  from  the  British  Communities  and  Local  Government  Secretary  MP  Eric  Pickles,  who  stated  that   the  UCU’s  “actions  suggest  that  their  true  goal  is  not,  and  cannot  be,  to  secure  freedom  of  speech,  but  to   silence  dissenting  opinion.”9  

BDS  Efforts  by  Religious  Bodies   This  same  dynamic  is  manifested  in  boycott  and  divestment  attempts  by  religious  bodies.  When  the   Toronto  assembly  of  the  United  Church  of  Canada  (UCC)  voted  to  boycott  goods  produced  in  Jewish   settlements  in  the  territories,10  the  national  umbrella  UCC  declined  to  support  a  boycott  and  instead   encouraged  “pro-­‐peace  investment.”  

The  Presbyterian  Church  USA  also  attempted  to  divest  from  Israel  and  Israeli  companies,  only  to  achieve   the  same  result  as  described  above.  In  2005,  the  Committee  on  Mission  Responsibility  through  Investment   (MRTI),  an  important  part  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  hierarchy,  called  for  “voluntary,  selective   divestment  from  companies  that  profit  in  a  significant  way  from  the  Israeli  occupation  of  Palestinian   lands.”11  However,  before  this  statement  could  be  voted  on  by  the  General  Assembly,  the  church’s   Committee  on  Peacemaking  and  International  Issues  toned  down  the  rhetoric  and  replaced  it  with  a   general  call  for  the  church  to  invest  only  in  “peaceful  pursuits”  in  Israel  and  Palestine.  The  committee  also   stated  that  the  call  to  divest  “caused  hurt  and  misunderstanding,”  adding  that  the  church  “grieves  the  pain”   and  accepts  responsibility  for  the  flaws  in  the  process  of  adopting  the  divestment  decision.12  

Boycotts  by  Musical  Performers   Where,  then,  can  the  BDS  movement  claim  any  kind  of  success?   The  cultural  field  has  proven  itself  the  most  successful  tier  of  the  boycott  movement.  This  type  of  success   is  achieved  mostly  by  way  of  bringing  about  cancellations  of  concerts  in  Israel  by  international  artists,   such  as  Roger  Waters,  Venessa  Paradis,  August  Burns  Red,  Pete  Seeger,  Carlos  Santana,  Elvis  Costello,  The   Pixies,  and  many  others.  Such  cancellations  have  attracted  the  international  exposure  and  attention  that   the  BDS  campaign  so  desperately  seeks.  This  field  enjoys  certain  inherent  advantages  over  other  BDS   spheres  of  operation,  as  it  is  based  on  the  artists’  popularity,  rather  than  clear  cost-­‐benefit  and  economic   considerations.   The  relationship  between  the  arts  (in  this  case,  predominantly  music)  and  politics  has  always  been  a  tricky   one.  Since  ancient  times,  music  has  served  as  a  method  of  distribution  for  political  messages  and   ideologies.  It  is  still  used  for  public  mobilization  and  creating  a  “rally-­‐round-­‐the-­‐flag”  sentiment,  which  can   and  often  does  deteriorate  into  a  mob  mentality.  Also  inherent  in  the  arts  is  an  element  of  moral  criticism   and  protest,  making  it  the  ideal  vessel  for  the  BDS  slander  campaign.   Some  musical  acts  possess  an  innate  political  context  and  there  are  specific  musical  genres  that  can  be   generally  associated  with  various  political  ideologies.  Other  such  associations  may  derive  from  the  content   and  icons  identified  with  specific  artists.  The  obvious  association  of  Pink  Floyd’s  “The  Wall”  with  Israel’s   security  barrier  is  a  good  example,  and  the  endorsement  that  BDS  received  from  Roger  Waters,  founding   member  of  Pink  Floyd,  remains  one  of  their  biggest  achievements  to  date.13   However,  a  review  of  the  acts  that  have  performed  in  Israel,  as  well  as  those  that  have  cancelled,  shows  no   correlation  between  a  band’s  level  of  politicization  and  its  willingness  to  play  in  Israel.  Bands  associated   with  radical  left-­‐wing  ideologies,  such  as  British  rockers  Napalm  Death,  have  taken  to  the  stage  in  Israel,   whereas  artists  with  little  to  no  political  context  –  such  as  Mexican  musician  Carlos  Santana14  –  have   canceled  scheduled  concerts  while  releasing  much-­‐celebrated  press  announcements  claiming  ideological   and  conscientious  justification.  

Why  Bands  Really  Cancel  Concerts  in  Israel   However  on  the  basis  of  several  interviews  this  writer  conducted  with  visiting  artists,  such  statements   should  usually  be  regarded  as  nothing  more  than  lip-­‐service.  The  main  reasons  for  canceling  concerts  in   Israel  are  generally  not  empathy  for  the  suffering  of  Palestinians,  ideological  convictions,  or  a  will  to   punish  or  boycott  Israel.   One  reason  for  bands  canceling  their  scheduled  concerts  after  being  approached  or  targeted  by  BDS   campaigners  is  in  order  to  stop  belligerent  attacks  from  BDS  operatives.  In  their  attempts  to  bring  about   cancellations,  these  operatives  carry  out  coordinated,  simultaneous,  and  multi-­‐dimensional  attacks  on  the   band,  its  individual  members,  its  record  company,  its  ongoing  activities  and  scheduled  concerts,  as  well  as   various  fan-­‐sites.   Such  attacks  vary  from  bombarding  the  band’s  website,  Facebook,  and  Twitter  pages  to  the  point  that  the   sites  often  collapse,  to  direct  threats  against  the  artists  personally.  A  good  example  can  be  found  in  the  

courageous  reaction  of  Angela  Gossow,  lead  singer  for  the  Swedish  band  Arch  Enemy,  who,  prior  to   playing  in  Israel  in  2012,  was  attacked  by  BDS  activists:   If  the  constant  threats,  bullying,  and  slander  of  Arch  Enemy  via  email  and  online  does  not  stop  immediately,   we  will  publish  some  of  the  threats  we  have  received  from  your  supporters,  where  they  claim  they  will  come  to   some  of  our  shows  and  threaten  to  attack  us,  both  verbally  and  physically.  I  am  making  Amnesty   International  aware  of  your  criminal  methods  and  your  breach  of  freedoms….It  is  not  yours  to  tell  us  what  to   do  and  to  force  your  will  upon  us….You  make  us  fear  for  our  safety.  SHAME  ON  YOU.15   Another  example  can  be  found  in  the  reaction  of  Christophe  Deghelt,  manager  of  jazz  musician  Jacky   Terrasson,  who  was  scheduled  to  play  the  Red  Sea  Jazz  Festival  earlier  this  year:   We  noticed  that  Erik  and  Jacky’s  Facebook  pages  were  overrun  with  intimidating  comments,  not  from  our   fans  but  from  activists.  Some  of  these  comments  are  really  obnoxious,  rising  to  the  level  of  sheer  harassment   and  blatant  denigration.  Facebook  has  become  a  battleground  for  BDS  campaigners,  our  fans,  Israelis,  and   those  supporting  Israel….Your  attempt  to  railroad  artists  into  a  black-­and-­white  dilemma  is  intellectually   dishonest….Your  activism  and  your  intolerance  are  abominable.  Phony  Facebook  “fans”  have  posted  messages   expressly  asking  our  musicians  not  play  in  Israel.  This  is  sheer  harassment.  Moreover,  it’s  really  quite   surprising  because  these  fans  purporting  to  sway  the  artists  are  not  fans  at  all,  but  simply  your  army  of  little   soldiers  polluting  the  calm  and  positive  spaces  of  our  artists’  Facebook  pages….   What  bothers  me  the  most  about  your  effort…is  your  hatred  of  Israel,  a  pathological  hatred,  blind  and  most   assuredly  hidden  behind  a  veil  of  “political  correctness.”  Your  actions  don’t  demonstrate  a  love  or  defense  of   Palestinians  but  rather  a  hatred  for  Israelis….It’s  not  by  advocating  violence  (both  intellectual  and  verbal)   and  intolerance  that  you’ll  help  Palestine.16   Another  reason  bands  cancel  their  concerts  is  in  order  to  avoid  negative  press  coverage.  BDS  operatives   publicize  the  scheduled  concert  in  a  negative  context:  Artists  booked  to  play  in  Israel  will  immediately  be   accused  of  ignoring  the  suffering  of  the  Palestinians  and  supporting  institutional  Israel  and  its  policies  –   sweepingly  summed  up  by  the  slanderous  term  “apartheid.”  This  can  be  seen  in  the  titles  of  most  web   pages  urging  a  specific  artist  to  boycott  Israel.  See,  for  example,  “Moby  –  Please  don’t  play  for  Apartheid   Israel,”17  or  the  campaign  to  cancel  Alicia  Keys’  concert  in  Israel,  titled,  “Alicia  Keys:  Don’t  be  Fallin’  for   Apartheid,  Cancel  Israel.”18   In  short,  the  motive  for  concert  cancellations  and  the  source  of  BDS  success  in  the  field  of  cultural  boycott   does  not  appear  to  be  hostility  towards  Israel  on  the  part  of  the  artists,  but  rather  concerns  due  to  explicit   threats  of  harm  to  their  persons  and/or  income.  

How  Not  to  Respond  to  BDS  Attacks   Given  that  it  is  not  ideological  empathy  that  prompts  these  cancellations  but  rather  practical   considerations,  the  response  must  be  constructed  accordingly.  Entering  into  a  substantive,  content-­‐based   debate  with  a  BDS  operative  is  usually  an  exercise  in  futility.  These  operatives  do  not  enter  into  dialog  (be   it  on  online  chat  forums,  Facebook  and  Twitter  pages,  picketing  venues,  or  disrupting  concerts)  for  the   purpose  of  discussion.  They  are  not  there  to  be  convinced.  For  the  most  part  such  operatives  are  ignorant   of  the  actual  issues  between  Israel  and  the  Palestinians  and  incapable  of  conducting  a  substantive  debate.   The  counter-­‐effort  often  adopted  by  Israelis  and  Israel-­‐supporters  of  engaging  these  operatives  and   attempting  to  debate,  explain,  and  hopefully  reach  some  sort  of  resolution,  is  usually  counter-­‐productive.   While  the  intention  may  be  to  prevent  a  concert  from  being  cancelled,  it  actually  has  the  power  to  achieve   the  exact  opposite.  Every  post  countering  a  BDS  comment  will  usually  be  met  with  multiple  talkbacks,   mostly  based  on  the  BDS  “Key  Term”  check  list  (apartheid,  ethnic  cleansing,  illegal,  racist,  etc.)19  and  linked   to  relevant  BDS/anti-­‐Israel  websites.  The  more  that  comments  countering  or  challenging  BDS  comments   are  posted,  the  further  the  discussion  will  deteriorate  until  it  becomes  nothing  more  than  a  slander-­‐fest.   Also,  the  more  talkbacks  a  comment  receives  online,  the  higher  the  rating  that  the  site/webpage  will  have   and  therefore  the  greater  the  number  of  people  who  see  it.  Arguing  with  BDS  operatives  online  merely   generates  more  exposure  for  their  cause  and  arguments.  

This  is  not  to  say  there  is  no  room  for  mass  online  activism  by  Israel  supporters  or  people  disagreeing  with   the  BDS  cause  and  tactics.  It  simply  means  that  this  should  be  done  selectively  and  cautiously,  preferably   through  a  comprehensive  campaign  empowering  and  utilizing  activists.  Any  such  discussion  should  not   take  place  in  locations  –  virtual  or  otherwise  –  where  the  BDS  campaigners  hold  the  upper  hand.  

How  to  Respond  to  Attacks  Against  Performers   There  is  a  need  to  redefine  the  objective  of  counter-­‐BDS  efforts,  specifically  in  the  field  of  the  cultural   boycott.  The  aim  of  such  efforts  should  not  be  simply  to  claim,  explain,  or  protest  that  “Israel  is  right  and   BDS  is  wrong.”  However  true  this  claim  may  be,  it  is  not  one  that  will  win  the  battle.  The  aim  of  such  efforts   needs  to  be  avoiding  cancellation  of  concerts.  A  cancelled  concert  is  a  BDS  victory.  Every  concert  cancelled   endangers  future  concerts,  as  it  puts  the  burden  of  proof  on  the  band/artists  and  requires  them  to  justify   and  explain  why  they  choose  to  play  where  others  have  chosen  not  to.  Along  the  same  logic,  every  concert   that  goes  ahead  eases  future  pressure  on  the  next  scheduled  concert  and  the  next  boycott  battle.   What,  then,  can  be  done?   There  is  a  need  for  a  comprehensive  campaign  aimed  at  emphasizing  specific  values  that  speak  to  the   heart  of  the  artistic  community.  This  campaign  should  not  be  aimed  at  educating  and  convincing  the  public   at  large,  but  rather  should  be  tailored  to  suit  the  interest  of  the  artistic  community  and  demonstrate  how   those  values  are  fulfilled  in  Israel.  In  order  to  accomplish  this,  there  is  a  need  for  a  study  identifying  these   values,  determining  their  priorities,  and  connecting  them  to  relevant  and  specific  Israeli  examples.   Counter-­‐BDS  efforts  need  to  focus  on  direct  contact  with  the  performers,  their  producers,  agents,  or   anyone  involved  in  the  decision  to  play  or  not  to  play  in  a  specific  location.  These  efforts  should  not  be   carried  out  by  the  public  at  large,  but  rather  by  professional  policy  analysts  familiar  with  BDS  operations   and  methods,  who  can  put  BDS  slander  in  perspective  and  present  an  unbiased  picture  of  reality.    Creative   Communities  for  Peace,  a  U.S.-­‐based  civic  action  group  consisting  of  pro-­‐Israel  media  and  music  industry   personnel,  is  doing  something  similar  to  what  is  suggested  here,  with  mostly  positive  results.  CCFP  utilizes   personal  and  professional  relations  in  order  to  get  its  message  through  to  the  relevant  artists  or  decision-­‐ makers.   The  truth  may  not  generate  a  loud  and  public  debate  –  such  as  the  one  conducted  online  by  BDS  operatives   –  but  it  stands  a  greater  chance  of  prevailing  when  explained  directly  to  someone  who  is  actually  willing  to   listen.  There  is  an  impressive  cadre  of  think  tanks  and  research  institutions  in  Israel  that  have  studied  BDS   activity  as  part  of  a  greater  anti-­‐delegitimization  effort.  Many  of  these  bodies  would  gladly  put  themselves   or  their  personnel  at  the  disposal  of  such  a  worthy  cause.   Outside  of  Israel,  such  a  task  might  perhaps  be  entrusted  to  the  Israeli  Cultural  Attache  at  the  embassy   closest  to  the  artist’s  residence.  However,  it  cannot  be  assumed  that  artists  would  be  enthusiastic  about   communicating  with  official  Israeli  institutions,  especially  if  they  come  under  BDS  attack.  In  any  case,  the   State  of  Israel  needs  to  be  alert  to  the  problem  and  the  methods  of  dealing  with  it,  and  be  willing  and  able   to  support,  as  well  as  recommend,  both  official  and  unofficial  advocates  on  its  behalf.   It  is  inadvisable  for  Israeli  producers  and  concert  promoters  to  try  and  tackle  this  problem  by  themselves,   or  even  put  out  a  public  appeal  to  Israeli  fans  to  counter-­‐attack  the  BDS  websites  or  boycott  pages.  Their   time  and  energy  would  be  better  spent  consulting  with  professional  analysts,  people  closely  acquainted   with  the  relevant  professional  discourse  and  terminology,  as  well  as  BDS  activities  and  tactics.   Artists  should  be  encouraged  to  come  to  Israel  and  state  their  opinions,  as  critical  as  they  may  be.  Israel   enjoys  a  free  press  and  freedom  of  expression,  elements  that  are  crucial  to  the  artistic  community  and  that   provide  them  with  a  dignified  and  more  constructive  alternative  to  boycotting  Israel.  Many  artists  have   used  the  performance  stage  in  Israel  to  release  critical  political  statements,  and  have  received  applause  for   it.          

*          *          *     Notes     1.  Since  this  fund  serves  teachers,  this  instance  could  have  been  addressed  both  as  an  academic  boycott   and  a  financial  one.   2.­‐s-­‐pension-­‐fund-­‐giant-­‐confirms-­‐divestment-­‐from-­‐israel-­‐firm-­‐1.8029   3.­‐   4.­‐continues-­‐veolia-­‐and-­‐alstom-­‐halt-­‐light-­‐rail-­‐ project/8665   5.­‐on/jlrt.htm   6.   7.­‐union-­‐votes-­‐to-­‐boycott-­‐israeli-­‐ universities-­‐academics   8.­‐conference-­‐votes-­‐down-­‐amendment-­‐to-­‐ investigate-­‐antisemitism-­‐related-­‐resignations/   9.­‐and-­‐debate/comment/51002/ucus-­‐chilling-­‐vote   10.­‐united-­‐church-­‐group-­‐on-­‐boycott-­‐of-­‐israel-­‐friendly-­‐ companies/   11. ctive_divestment_from_Israel.htm   12.   13.­‐abunimah/we-­‐stand-­‐you-­‐pink-­‐floyds-­‐roger-­‐waters-­‐announces-­‐ palestine-­‐solidarity-­‐forum-­‐brazil   14.,7340,L-­‐3841916,00.html   15.   16.  Original  in  French,  translated  by  Creative  Communities  for  Peace.   17.­‐moby-­‐please-­‐dont-­‐play-­‐for-­‐apartheid.html   18.   19.  


Successes and Failures of the BDS Campaign