| When Push Comes to Shove: Civil Society and the Promise of Peace | | Print | |
Bookmark:
|
Page 2 of 2 Until now, Palestinian calls for an Israeli boycott have received great attention but shaky support. In 2005, a vote in favor of the boycott by the British Association of University Teachers was later rejected at a special meeting. Furthermore, calls for the boycott were vociferously attacked by Israelis and Jewish organizations linking it to anti-Semitism. Suffice it to say that, for the last 2 years, the boycott has remained a persistent albeit thorny issue amongst the world's academic community. But the UCU's recent vote signifies a favorable shift both for the boycott and for the conflict in general. At the most basic level, it indicates that the debate is still open. Whether or not one agrees or disagrees with the boycott, the choice is becoming increasingly important and perhaps inescapable. Put another way, fences aren't the best places to sit and, like Apartheid South Africa, it appears that the time to pick a side is near. At a more general level, the UCU's decision also suggests that civil society is no longer willing to sit idly by and wait for politicians to take the lead. For the last 7 years, neither Bush nor Blair has shown a hair's worth of interest in pushing through a meaningful change in the status quo. On the contrary, the US and Britain have ensured Israel's impunity both with regards to Palestine and Lebanon. Furthermore, the so-called international quartet remains impotent in the face of US pressure to move the conflict towards a more equitable or durable situation. With these facts on the ground, there seems to be little promise of any political solution. Indeed, the peace process is dead. It wasn't long ago that Palestinians took the world by surprise and launched the 1st Intifada. As a popular revolt, it used stones and collective resistance to spur the world into recognizing that the occupation was no longer tolerable. Neither the PLO nor Israel was ready for the challenge. Now, with the passing of the Intifada, the buck has been passed to the international community. Thus the UCU and other international organizations working for boycotts, sanctions, and divestment are embracing the idea that civil society, not governments, can play an integral role in causing change. Taken apart, the UCU's decision and Amnesty's reports represent little more than two independent efforts to make one basic statement: the occupation must end. But seen together, these two events mark a critical moment for the true international community: the people. Boycotts, human rights reports, the recent march in Washington DC, or Roseanne Barr's call to end the occupation all point to the growing importance of civil society in ending the conflict. 40 years after Israel's war, the UCU and Amnesty International are the agents of a new era in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict that has the promise of hope and solidarity in their call for justice. Let's not loose this historic opportunity. MICHAEL VICENTE PEREZ is Senior Editor of Islamica Magazine |