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