Boycott. Divestment. Sanctions. These three terms are at the heart of the current campaign led by Students Against Israeli Apartheid (SAIA) Carleton. BDS is a campaign that seeks to impose broad boycotts of Israeli products and initiate divestment against Israel, until Israel meets the demands of the movement.
As a believer in a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, two states for two peoples, I strongly disagree with the fundamental values associated with the BDS campaign. Prior to delving into the factors that influence my opinion on the subject, I would like to state clearly that the position I have taken is not compelled by a desire to protect Israel from criticism. Instead my objection to the BDS movement is driven by my belief in the art of dialogue both in the Middle East and on campus, an element which is not tangible in advocating BDS.
SAIA is calling on the Carleton University Board of Governors and Pension Fund Committee to develop a socially responsible investment (SRI) policy which would divest from the following companies: Motorola, BAE Systems, Northrop Grumman, L-3 Communications and Tesco. SAIA has suggested that these companies support Israel through investments in the production of weaponry used in warfare and therefore violate human rights and possibly break international law.
The BDS campaign ignorantly attempts to reduce the intricacies of the conflict to a simplistic notion of bad guy versus good guy, as it explicitly disregards the suffering and loss encountered by both Israelis and Palestinians. The establishment of this over simplistic dichotomy vilifies Israel alone and is therefore inconsistent with a vision of a future peace.
The promotion of an imbalanced perspective, which asserts a disproportionate amount of blame on Israeli action, will not surmount to a peaceful solution as such a solution to the Middle East conflict will only be born from diplomacy. Radical agendas merely serve to further agitate an already explosive situation as polarization is furthered via the hardening of opinions caused by punitive action.
A willingness to criticize both actors is an essential step in the reconciliation process. Instead of committing to divestments, we should invest in a vision of peace via support for co-existence and peace building initiatives, which remain central to creating a diplomatic peace. The BDS campaign does not seek to attain peace in the region with a vision of a two-state solution; instead it evidently seeks the ultimate destruction of the state of Israel and is therefore not a formula for peace. Much like in the playground, blaming one party alone for a misdemeanour will not get to the root of the original problem, which in reality was most likely caused by both parties. BDS deems Israel the sole bearer of responsibility for the perpetuation of instability within the conflict, distorting the realities of the complex conflict at hand and evoking further division.
The extreme dichotomy of victim versus villain established by the BDS campaign hinders progress within the region and on campus, as one party is vilified while the other is victimized. The constant tug of war for claim to victimization of the other will not bring peace to the region; instead, the status quo will persist and a two-state solution will never come to fruition.
As opposed to promoting co-existence, the BDS campaign reinforces the perceived “mutual exclusivity” associated with being pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian. This perception is deeply flawed and unreflective of the true reality.
I believe that the current BDS campaign led by SAIA Carleton remains incongruent with a desire for peace, and will merely serve to further exacerbate growing tensions and dislike for the superficial “other” as the formulation of peace grows distant.