An alternative view on boycotting
There
has been a renewed call for a boycott on all companies that are
linked to investments with Israel. One of the problems with
boycotting Israel, however, is that Israel seems to have its finger
in every pie. We’ve no sooner stopped buying something, than we
find out another good is either made in Israel, or produced by a
company supporting it. The decision to boycott becomes a roller
coaster of surprises.
In
the Arab world a boycott on Israel is nothing new. For 50 years Arab
countries - with the exception of Egypt and Jordan since their peace
treaties - have not traded directly with Israel. This did not only
include direct trade, but at one stage also dealing with companies
which had large investments in Israel. Cutting ties with Israel also
constituted academic, cultural and sport boycotts. Until today, an
Israeli lecturer in an Arab university is an unwelcome visitor.
So
what is the point of this renewed call for a boycott? Is it really
going to make Israel stop its aggression? Does Israel actually have
a thriving economy to have a bash at in the first place? We all know
that Israel survives from aid from the U.S. and that without it
would collapse.
Let’s
face it, Israel is America’s darling little baby and it is hardly
going to let it fend for itself amidst all those dangers from the
outside world. If the Arab and Muslim world’s only action is to
strengthen its already existent boycott by using the power as a
consumer not to buy from companies that invest in Israel, well, that
will just be like depriving that spoiled baby from its toys. It will
make it cry for a while, but it knows full well from where it gets
its sustenance.
The
onus seems to be on the general public since governments are
unwilling to ensure justice. But how is that responsibility to be
placed on the general public both in the West and elsewhere? Should
we concentrate our efforts on boycotting companies that invest in
Israel? I don’t believe so, and in explaining why I would like to
divide this question into two categories: those who live in
democratic countries, i.e. the West, and those who live in
non-democratic countries - presuming they are aware of what is going
on in the outside world.
In
the U.K. there is some awareness and call for action. Within the
campaign that was launched in the House of Commons by two members of
parliament there is a call for a boycott on Israeli goods and
tourism. It is terrible that the Palestinians need to go through
Sabra and Shatila, a second Intifada and the recent massacres to
move people enough to act.
So,
I ask, is this the action to be taken? What difference will it make
to the Israeli economy if no one bought their Jaffa oranges or went
to Eilat on vacation? And now, according to lists of blacklisted
companies that invest in Israel, it seems we are expected to scan
every single item in the high street for suspect products. Are the
people of conscience content in thinking that boycotting goods is as
far as their efforts go in bringing Israel to breaking point?
There
has to be more viable ways of teaching this little country that it
must abide by U.N. resolutions. People in democratic countries can
lobby in all areas of public life, including paying for big PR
companies to show the world what is really going on in Palestine.
One only needs to look at how successful the Jews are themselves at
showing the world how much they suffered during the Holocaust. There
is a museum in Geneva (and now another recently opened in Berlin)
commemorating their plight under the Nazis. Although I have not
visited either, I am told that it is impossible not to leave without
crying. I wonder if, one day, there will be a museum depicting the
plight of the Palestinians or Muslims over the past 50 years.
People
should use their democratic right to voice their disgust at Israel
and insist that Israel is considered an illegitimate state,
particularly since it has violated every single U.N. resolution
since the U.N.’s establishment. It is only with an outright
condemnation among the general public through NGO’s, charities,
etc., reflected on their power as voters, that the U.S. and other
countries - including the E.U. - will stop aiding and abetting
Israel.
We
shouldn’t be fooled either. Britain’s recent arms embargo on
Israel is only a token gesture. The E.U.’s decision not to boycott
Israel unless the Arab nations do so first is an absurdity. They
know full well that the Arab governments are not liberated enough -
it is like setting free birds bred in captivity that discover
although they can fly they don’t know how to survive in the wild.
Again, is a consumer boycott on the public level going to change
international foreign policy? I don’t think so.
As
for those living in non-democratic countries, what about that
boycott on companies that invest in Israel? Companies that produce
luxury consumer goods that are recent additions to their cultures? I
think this issue begs the question: what are people in the Arab
world doing making the point of refraining and abstaining from
buying products that are quintessentially Western?
Twelve
years ago, when I first visited Cairo, you’d be lucky to find a
fraction of the products on the boycott list. Nescafe was sold in
small sachets and only available in specialist supermarkets
frequented by the ex-pat community. Potato crisps were made by one
Egyptian company in one flavor (salted) and sold in family size
packets only. The variety of confectionary wouldn’t have filled a
shoebox. As for fast food chains, there were no McDonalds, Kentucky
Fried Chicken or Pizza Hut. The roads were full of Egyptian made
Fiat 126 and old Peugeots were used as taxis.
Today,
the streets of Cairo are another world. Just about every fast-food
outlet lines the major high streets, chains I had never heard of
even in the U.K. All the harmful confectionary, fizzy drinks and
snacks - some of which the West has managed to discontinue due to
the questionable additives - now not only fill grocery shops, but
also encroach the pavements. Many of them have cheap Egyptian
equivalents. Nescafe is now a drink for the upwardly mobile and
heavily advertised on television. The roads are jam-packed with
every model of car under the sun - there is even Egyptian Jaguar for
the really wealthy. The surge in Western goods and the people’s
desire for them has caused a commercial facelift. The same can be
said for many other countries throughout the developing world.
Why
is it that in the Middle East people feel it is the norm to buy
Nestle produce, Coke, etc., and then feel they are achieving
something by boycotting them. They hardly existed 10 years ago. What
sort of challenge is that?
As
for our information on those rouge companies, there is a plethora of
leaflets circulating universities and mosques, and e-mails on the
Internet telling us to boycott just about every American commodity
on the market. There are some grotesque e-mails sent with pictures
of dead Palestinian children next to the Kentucky logo, with a
caption: "Every penny spent on a Kentucky Fried Chicken kills a
Palestinian child." I do not apologize for refusing to conform to
such browbeating tactics.
I
can think of many reasons as to why I should not, and in actual fact
generally do not, buy from McDonald’s, Kentucky Fried Chicken and
others and they do not concern this campaign. But
even in this farcical boycott, people’s targets seem to be
confused. Are American fast-food chains realistic targets in their
campaign when it is unclear if the money, which eventually reaches
the U.S. government through commercial taxes, is assigned to Israel
or not? So not only is the boycott futile, it has lost its bearings.
Turning
now to another tactic used in the Middle East and that is the
attempt by popular musicians and actors to contribute in their
support of the Palestinians. In a way, they see this as their
individual jihad or contribution to the events. I think this is
plausible. Art should be used to relate the events of the moment,
which in time will make history.
One
example that I visited is the play Lan Tuskut al Quds
(Never will Jerusalem fall) performed daily in Cairo for the past
five months in the state theater by actors earning state salaries
(which are incredibly low). The story concerns the plight of the
Palestinians during Crusader times and their attempts to bring
victory in the face of impotent Muslim leaders. The story is
somewhat allegorical of today’s events. This example is meaningful
and, I feel, culturally appropriate.
However,
such performances do not really make the headlines. It is big pop
stars like Kazim Saher, Latifa, Muhammad Fouad, Amr Diab and other
artists who, having recorded songs, that move the people. Some of
the songs are catchy, whimsical, in rhythmic classical Arabic, and
each comes with an accompanying tear-jerking video.
The
whole razzmatazz, however, smacks of a “Band Aid” type approach.
Although the aim of Band Aid was to raise money for the famine
stricken, in the case of the Arab pop stars singing for Palestine,
it is more to pull the people’s emotional strings. Just about
every pop singer worth his street credibility has a video, many of
them making their iconic faces as prominent as the people they are
supposed to be championing.
The
whole charade reminds me of something I read in Ziauddin Sardar’s
excellent book, Postmodernism and the Other:
This
means that the world has been transformed into a theatre where
everything is artificially constructed. Politics is a stage -
managed for mass consumption. Television documentaries are
transformed and presented as entertainment. Journalism blurs the
distinction between fact and fiction. Living individuals become
characters in soap operas and fictional characters assume real
lives. Everything happens instantaneously and everybody gets a live
feed on everything that is happening in the global theatre.
The
shadow of postmodernism and globalization has now found its way to
the Muslim world’s attempts to voice injustice. This does not mean
that anything Western is to the detriment of the developing world
and their cultures. No! The problem is more to do with the
diminishing of indigenous cultures and subsequently being replaced
by a Western one, but only, it is a bad replica.
So
while the people in the Arab World boycott certain
Western products that are supposedly feeding the Israeli regime, we
adopt Western methods of sensitizing the emotions that merely touch
our sentiments and falsely make us feel as if we are living the
anguish of the Palestinians, when all we are doing is sitting in our
living rooms powerless. And as we watch these scenes, I ask, will we
be drinking Pepsi? Or will it be a local imitation?
Instead
of being absorbed by a boycott on everything that is seemingly
American or has ties with Israel, shouldn’t we ask ourselves what
really must be done?
Is
it a matter of “abstention” from certain goods, which have been
imported to the developing world over the last 10 or more years? If
people in the Arab and Muslim world free themselves from the need or
habit of consuming these cultural importations maybe, just maybe,
they will be able to convince their governments that they are ready
for a sacrifice if their governments say enough is enough to Israel.
If Egypt says no more concessions to Israel, the U.S. may well stop
its wheat supplies. If the Gulf States’ governments say no more,
the U.S. may well stop extracting oil. Are the Arab people prepared
for that? God only knows if they are.
What
was it that Gandhi did when he wanted to expel the British - did he
boycott certain British companies and products that were ruling his
country? No, he spun his own thread and made his own garments. This
maybe an extreme example, but it does show that people in the Muslim
World are kidding themselves if they think they are contributing to
the liberty of the Palestinians by picking and choosing where they
buy their Pizza or fizzy drink.
Boycotts,
demonstrations, lobbying and the new use of popular culture are
Western tools in standing for one’s rights. They are fine and well
within a democratic country. In the West, maybe a boycott on Israeli
produce can be used because it is part of the process of awareness,
but that campaign must have farther-reaching aims. Boycotts are
successful in many causes, one of them being South Africa. But
Israel does not survive from its economy. Nor do the companies that
invest in Israel do so because it is economically viable. These
companies are investing there because they have a political and
strategic agenda. Israel lives on handouts.
I
think we all feel powerless with what is going on in Palestine.
Whether we watch these scenes from Manchester, Paris, Jeddah or
Lahore the message is vivid enough. But wherever we are we have to
think long term and act accordingly. Let’s not get bogged down
with a consumer boycott that has all the best intentions but
achieves little, if anything.
[Joanne McEwan embraced Islam in 1987 in her hometown Glasgow,
Scotland. She is now pursuing an MA in medical geography. Her
writing concerns the problems and attitudes of Muslims
that are often accepted as the norm. She hopes that her writing
encourages a rethink on issues so pertinent in this changing world.
She lives in Cairo with her husband and four children.]