The 2005 call by more than 170 Palestinian organizations, both within Palestine and without, to boycott Israeli products and services, divest from companies that support and sustain Israel and sanction the Israeli state and its agencies is one of the most important and potentially one of the most effective strategies to end the injustices perpetrated against the Palestinian people as a result of the creation of a Zionist state and by Zionist actions even before.<\/p>\n
Nothing in this article is intended to criticize or undermine BDS as a strategy.\u00a0 On the contrary, BDS should be encouraged and pursued as vigorously as possible.\u00a0 I am among those that believe that the only way to end the injustices is to end the state itself, but the participants in BDS need not agree about this in order to undertake BDS actions.<\/p>\n
Recently, I and others have expressed concern<\/a> about an apparently unauthorized change in the wording of the 2005 BDS call, posted on the BDS National Committee (BNC) website, www.bdsmovement.net<\/a>.\u00a0 <\/em>\u00a0This is also not a criticism of the strategy or of the movement, but rather of the actions of unknown parties that appear to have committed a breach of trust with the signatories of the 2005 call, by altering the wording of that call without consulting them.<\/p>\n Some have argued that the change of wording is insignificant and that the meaning remains unchanged.\u00a0 This is absurd.\u00a0 Why bother to change the wording if there is no change in meaning?\u00a0 That change in wording is important to someone.\u00a0 But to whom?\u00a0 And why?\u00a0 And by what protocol (if any) was the change made?\u00a0 Has this action been accountable in any way?<\/p>\n Arab land and the Custodian of Absentee Property<\/strong><\/p>\n The change in question concerns the first of three objectives articulated by the BNC and endorsed by the signatories to the call.\u00a0 As already indicated, one may participate in BDS without being a signatory or endorsing the specific BNC objectives. \u00a0Criticism of the BNC wording change of its BDS objectives is therefore not a criticism of BDS per se<\/em>.<\/p>\n The original statement of the objective reads \u201cThe call urges various forms of boycott against Israel until it meets its obligations under international law by: 1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands<\/strong> and dismantling the Wall\u201d (emphasis added).\u00a0 That is how it reads at http:\/\/www.bdsmovement.net\/call<\/a>.\u00a0 Unfortunately, that part of the website is historical, and not what the statement is today<\/em>, <\/strong>which is found at http:\/\/www.bdsmovement.net\/bdsintro<\/a>, and reads:\u00a0 \u201cThe call urges various forms of boycott against Israel until it meets its obligations under international law by: 1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands occupied in June 1967<\/strong> and dismantling the Wall\u201d (emphasis also added).<\/p>\n The questions surrounding this are:\u00a0 When did this wording change?\u00a0 By what procedure was it amended?\u00a0 Were the endorsers consulted or even notified about the change?\u00a0 What was the reason for the change?\u00a0 Who is accountable for making the change?<\/p>\n Although the argument that the change is not substantive is irrelevant to the breach of trust implied by not consulting the endorsers, I would like to put this nonsense to rest.\u00a0 In the first incarnation of the statement, what is meant by \u201cArab land\u201d?<\/p>\n \u2026such property is equal to at least 80% of the pre-1967 territory held by the state of Israel.[i]<\/a><\/p>\n Those who think that the change is insignificant will argue that the territories occupied prior to June, 1967 are not \u201cArab land\u201d and that those occupied in June, 1967 are.\u00a0 This is an astonishing assertion, given that one of the first acts of the newly created Zionist state in 1948 was to appoint a \u201cCustodian of Absentee Property\u201d to oversee the lands and property of Palestinian Arab refugees fleeing the new state.\u00a0 According to the holder of that office, as interviewed by journalist Robert Fisk in 1980, such property is equal to at least 80% of the pre-1967 territory held by the state of Israel.[i]<\/a><\/p>\n For those of us who agree that this is Arab land (including, by implication, the state of Israel), the difference between the original 2005 call and the later revised one is huge.\u00a0 The amended version amounts to an abandonment of millions of dunums of land that even Israel agrees belongs to Arabs.\u00a0 Let us please therefore set aside the claim that there is no substantive difference between the two wordings.<\/p>\n The interesting thing about the 2005 wording is that it permits different interpretations, which is a useful means of achieving consensus among groups or individuals that wish to form a strategic alliance but do not necessarily agree on definitions.\u00a0 Who therefore insisted upon the disambiguation in the unauthorized amended version?\u00a0 And why and how was this amendment implemented without the concurrence of the endorsers?<\/p>\n Fixing the problem<\/strong><\/p>\n The simplest way to fix this problem is to remove and amend the offensive wording.\u00a0 This would permit the person(s) who made the change to save face.\u00a0 However, if an overt change is made while maintaining an under-the-table agreement with a wink of the eye, such a correction is meaningless.\u00a0 It is therefore important to conduct a fact-finding inquiry and accounting in order to determine what has or has not been agreed and what procedures have or have not been followed.\u00a0 The outcome of the investigation must be an assurance that the statement signed in 2005 has not been altered and that no secret agreements have been made that compromise the possible interpretations of the statement without the consent of its signatories.\u00a0 This should be undertaken as soon as possible so as to restore confidence and put this chapter behind us.<\/p>\n