While fears of a large Israeli invasion of Gaza mount and representatives of Hamas threaten not to “back down,” there is much frustration and weariness with the lack of any positive developments coming out of Washington. Despite President Obama’s inaction, there is growing awareness that the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the intense blockade of Gaza are serious impediments to peace and that US military and political support make this all possible. At the same time we have a cautious president, not willing to expend his newly earned capital on this morass, a fractious Congress, and an increasingly belligerent Benjamin Netanyahu, threatening to extract a “heavy price” if Palestinians renew their bid for observer status at the UN, as he also seeks reelection.
One positive development in this evolving catastrophe is the growing citizen activism that is turning to grassroots organizing, merging socially responsible investing, food justice, and peace activism to create another voice that offers a way forward. Universities, businesses, investors, and citizens are increasingly interested in their social responsibilities, from investments to grocery shopping. Consumers are beginning to understand that supporting a corporation that not only makes cell phones but also high level security apparatus, makes the consumer complicit in the use of that equipment and its consequences.
Comments
Gosh, can anyone play this game Alice? In which case, the fact that Sabra's growth (the company now owns over 50% of the US hummus market) must mean that the American public "voted with their pocketbooks" to declare they are in complete agreement with everything the company does (including support for the Evvillll Israelis you describe). Otherwise, your interpretation of the fact that a food coop in Cambridge no longer stocks this particular brand (while continuing to sell other Israeli products and also sell Sabra in their other location) might be interpreted as your own self-serving explanation for someone else's business decision. When Ms. Rothchild declares that the co-ops refusal to put Ms. Rothchild's pet peeve to a co-op wide referendum was decided in a "less-than-open process" what she means is that they made a decision she did not like (since their decision-making was based on the needs of the members of the organization, rather than what the boycotters declared to be the only moral yardstick they were allowed to use). As with the Presbyterian and Methodist churches Rothchild cites, the Harvest Food Coop made the specific decision to REJECT a boycott (just as the churches rejected divestment - for a fourth time in the case of the Presbyterians). And even the Quakers can only be construed to have made a political statement vis-a-vis Israel if you only read the self-serving interpretation of those decisions thoughtfully provided to you by Rothchild's BDS-supporting colleagues (vs. actual statements made by actual decisionmakers within the church). The problem for Rothchild and her like-minded colleagues is after almost twelve years of pushing boycott and divestment resolutions in every forum in the land, they have virtually nothing to show for themselves. Which is why they are reduced to inventing stories about other people's choices based on nothing but their own guesswork regarding third-party motivation, all to avoid stating the obvious: that their odious little program has been rejected by the very progressive organizations (colleges and universities, churches, municipalities and retailers) they have lobbied tirelessly for over a decade.