Iran: Human rights for Bahai

Human rights violations against Bahai in Iran began in earnest after the Islamist coup of the Ayatollah Khomeini. They continue under President Ahmadinejad.

They include destruction of holy places, hanging of schoolteachers, denial of higher education to Bahai as well as the many rights violations documented below.

Ami Isseroff

Bahai in Iran

Last updated: 28 October 2010

Note: This report is provided as a service to news media and others desiring current information about the Baha'is in Iran. All details have been verified by the Baha'i International Community.

Words in italics have been altered or added since the previous update on 16 September.

The Baha'i community of Iran, numbering about 300,000 people, is the largest non-Muslim religious minority in the country.

---

Summary of latest news

• International Reaction: Governments, organizations and influential individuals around the world are continuing to condemn the harsh prison sentences given to the seven Iranian Baha'i leaders. In a report issued on 14 October, the Secretary General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon expressed strong concern over Iran's ongoing human rights violations, including its persecution of Iranian Baha'is. Britain's most prominent heads of religion have also called for the release of the seven Baha'i leaders. A statement describing the sentencing of the seven as a "gross violation of the fundamental human right to freedom of religion" – was signed by, among others, the Archbishop of Canterbury – who is the head of the worldwide Anglican communion; the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster; the Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth; and the Assistant Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Great Britain. The governments of Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, United Kingdom and United States of America, as well as the European Union and the President of the European Parliament, earlier condemned the sentences received by the seven.

• No formal announcement on reduction of prison sentence: Lawyers representing the imprisoned seven Baha'i leaders were informed orally on 15 September that the 20-year jail terms they had each received had subsequently been reduced to ten years on appeal. Iranian authorities have so far made no formal announcement on either the initial or reduced sentences. 20 year jail terms were initially reportedly handed down to the seven after they faced charges of propaganda activities against the Islamic order and the establishment of an illegal administration, among other allegations, all of which were categorically denied.

• Arrests and convictions: Since August 2004, some 329 Baha'is have been arrested in Iran. There are about 43 Iranian Baha'is currently in prison because of their religion. To date, the cases of some 271 Baha'is are still active with authorities. These include individuals in prison, those who have been released pending trial, those who have appealed their verdicts, those awaiting notification to begin serving prison sentences, and a few who are serving periods of internal exile. Thousands more have been deprived of education, questioned, threatened, denied their pensions, or debarred from earning a livelihood.

Further details

International reaction

Governments, organizations and influential individuals around the world are continuing to condemn the harsh prison sentences given to the seven Iranian Baha'i leaders.

The Secretary General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon expressed strong concern over Iran's ongoing human rights violations, including its persecution of Iranian Baha'is. In a report issued on 14 October, Mr. Ban highlighted his continuing concerns over Iran's use of torture and the death penalty, its poor treatment of women, and repeated violations of due process of law and of freedom of assembly, speech and religion. The report also took note of the trial and reported sentencing of the seven Baha'i leaders, observing that the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has expressed "deep concern" over the absence of international observers and the lack of due process in that trial, which concluded in June. "The High Commissioner voiced grave concern that the criminal charges brought against the above-mentioned individuals appeared to constitute a violation of the Islamic Republic of Iran's obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in particular those of freedom of religion and belief and freedom of expression and association," said the report.

Britain's most prominent heads of religion have also called for the release of the seven Baha'i leaders. A statement by the United Kingdom's religious leaders – describing the sentencing of the seven as a "gross violation of the fundamental human right to freedom of religion" – was signed by, among others, the Archbishop of Canterbury – who is the head of the worldwide Anglican communion; the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster; the Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth; and the Assistant Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Great Britain.

Three of the United Kingdom's most distinguished lawyers also expressed their serious concern about the lack of due process accorded to Iran's seven Baha'i leaders during their trial. Dame Rosalyn Higgins QC, former President of the International Court of Justice, joined Linda Lee, President of the Law Society, and Mark Muller QC, Chair of the Bar Human Rights Committee, in signing a letter published in The Guardian newspaper. "The charges and the sentences appear to be motivated solely by the fact that [the seven] are members of the Bahá'í faith. We urge the authorities to respect Iran's obligations under international law…" the lawyers wrote in the letter.

In Spain, the City Councils of Bailén and Guarromán – in the Spanish province of Jaén –unanimously approved separate institutional declarations stating concern over the deprivation of rights and systematic persecution faced by the members of the Baha'i community in Iran. They called upon the Spanish Government and the institutions of the European Union to urge Iran to ensure that due legal process is applied to the imprisoned seven Bahai leaders jailed solely for their religious beliefs.

Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs said on 17 September, "I note with regret reports that Iranian authorities have decided to continue the imprisonment of seven Baha'i community leaders, while reducing their sentences from 20 to 10 years. Canada maintains that these individuals appear to have been imprisoned because of their religious beliefs and that therefore they should be released unconditionally and reunited with their families as soon as possible."

The governments of Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, United Kingdom and United States of America, as well as the European Union and the President of the European Parliament, earlier condemned the harsh sentences received by the seven. Groups focused specifically on human rights have also launched letter-writing campaigns encouraging supporters to call for justice.

(For details of these and many other statements, see separate section on international reaction. Some of the media reports can be viewed here.)

No formal announcement on reduction of prison sentence

Lawyers representing the imprisoned seven Baha'i leaders were informed orally on 15 September that the 20-year jail terms they had each received had subsequently been reduced to ten years on appeal. Iranian authorities have so far made no formal announcement on either the initial or reduced sentences.

20 year jail terms were initially handed down to the seven after they faced charges of propaganda activities against the Islamic order and the establishment of an illegal administration, among other allegations, all of which were categorically denied.

The seven prisoners were moved from Evin Prison after receiving their sentence. They are now held in Gohardasht prison in Karaj. The move has imposed an added burden on their families, who now have to travel outside Tehran to visit the prisoners.

The trial of the seven began on 12 January after they had been incarcerated without charge in Tehran's Evin prison for 20 months. At the first hearing, they denied all charges against them.

A second appearance on 7 February was concerned mainly with procedural issues. The third session on 12 April, which was a closed hearing, was adjourned after the seven – with the agreement of their attorneys – refused to be party to the proceedings because of the presence of nonjudicial personnel. Three final morning sessions took place from 12 – 14 June.

The names of the seven are Mrs. Fariba Kamalabadi, Mr. Jamaloddin Khanjani, Mr. Afif Naeimi, Mr. Saeid Rezaie, Mrs. Mahvash Sabet, Mr. Behrouz Tavakkoli, and Mr. Vahid Tizfahm. Mrs. Sabet was arrested on 5 March 2008 and the others on 14 May 2008.

Until their imprisonment, the seven Baha'is were part of an ad hoc group called the Friends in Iran that, in the absence of formal Baha'i leadership, helped attend to the needs of the 300,000 Baha'is in that country. The Friends group has now been disbanded, as have smaller groups that assisted Baha'is at the local level.

Arrests and convictions

From August 2004 to 24 October 2010, some 329 Baha'is have been arrested in Iran. There are about 43 Iranian Baha'is currently in prison because of their religion.

To date, the cases of some 271 Baha'is were still active with authorities. These include individuals in prison, those who have been released pending trial, those who have appealed their verdicts, those awaiting notification to begin serving prison sentences, and a few who are serving periods of internal exile. Thousands more have been deprived of education, questioned, threatened, denied their pensions, or debarred from earning a livelihood.

Altogether, so far in 2010, detentions have occurred in Babolsar, Isfahan, Karaj, Kermanshah, Marvdasht, Mashhad, Nazarabad, Parsabad, Sari, Semnan, Shahrekord, Shiraz, Tehran, and Yazd. Other cities where Baha'is were arrested last year included Babol, Bushehr, Delijan, Ghaemshahr, Hamadan, Kashan, Kerman, Khorramabad, Khouzestan, Mahforouzak, Miandoab, Najafabad, Qazvin, Tonekabon, and Yasouj.

Most of the detentions followed the familiar pattern of agents of the Ministry of Intelligence showing up at the homes of Baha'is, searching the premises and confiscating items such as computers and books, then arresting the residents.

One family has been particularly affected in the past year or two. Seven relatives of Mr. Jamaloddin Khanjani – one of the seven imprisoned Baha'i leaders– have been detained in three different cities. Those arrested include a son, nephew, grandnephew, grandson, granddaughter, the granddaughter's husband, and a niece's husband. Most of them have gained temporary release by putting up exorbitant amounts of collateral, mainly property deeds, for bail.

Trumped-up charges against Baha'is are used to justify arrests. A Baha'i woman in Semnan was sentenced to 3½ years in prison for, among other things, "membership in anti-regime groups associated with Baha'is."

The number of Baha'is in detention varies as new people are arrested but others released after posting cash, property deeds, or business licenses as collateral.

Distribution of anti-Baha'i propaganda

In recent years, there has been an increase in false portrayals of the Baha'is in the press, on radio, television and even in scholarly publications. Since 2005, for example, the semi-official Kayhan newspaper has run more than 200 false, misleading or incendiary articles about Baha'i teachings, history and activities – an effort that has been echoed on television and radio. The Kayhan articles engage in a deliberate distortion of history, make use of fake historical documents, and falsely describe Baha'i moral principles in a manner that would be offensive to Muslims.

Recently an anti-Baha'i tract, titled "Supporters of Satan", has been widely distributed in the city of Kerman. The tract purveys the usual misrepresentations of Baha'i history and the Faith's principles, falsely asserting that it was a creation of the British and is intimately linked with Zionism.

Homes demolished in campaign to drive Baha'is out of Iranian village

Homes belonging to some 50 Baha'i families in a remote village in northern Iran were demolished as part of a long-running campaign to expel them from the region. The action occurred in Ivel, Mazandaran, when inhabitants – incited by elements inimical to the Baha'i community – blocked normal access to the village, while allowing trucks and at least four front-end loaders to begin leveling the houses. Amateur video, shot on mobile telephones and posted by Iranian human rights activists on the Internet, showed what appeared to be several buildings reduced to rubble as well as fiercely burning fires. The demolitions are the latest development in an ongoing, officially-sanctioned program in the area which has targeted every activity of the Baha'is.

Most of the Baha'i homes in Ivel have been unoccupied since their residents fled after previous incidents of violence or as a result of official displacement.

Economic pressure

Economic pressure is acute, with both jobs and business licenses being denied to Baha'is. Numerous cases have been reported of long-time shop owners being forced to surrender business licenses under threat of arrest.

Optical shops owned by Baha'is have been particularly targeted. Two such shops in Tehran recently received warning letters from the Opticians' Trade Union to close down. Earlier, optical shops in Khomein and Rafsanjan were forced to close. In Nazarabad, the operator of one of five optical stores owned by Baha'is– shops that were closed by authorities well over a year ago – managed to get a court verdict allowing her to reopen, but the Ministry of Intelligence prevented her from doing so.

Government jobs are denied to Baha'is, and Muslims often are pressured to fire Baha'is in their employ.

Authorities also use the tactic of arresting Baha'is and demanding huge sums of money, or the equivalent in property deeds for bail, as a method of impoverishing the Baha'is.

Cemetery vandalised

The vandalization of Baha'i cemeteries has become commonplace in 2010. Recently, it was reported that, on more than one occasion, truckloads of construction refuse and soil were dumped on graves in the Baha'i cemetery of Boroujerd.

The Baha'i cemetery in Mashhad was vandalized on the night of 29 May by unknown intruders who used a front-end loader and other heavy machinery. The cemetery's walls, the mortuary, and the place where the prayers were recited were severely damaged.

Harassment over Baha'i burials and the desecration of cemeteries are clear indications that the persecution is based solely on religion and not the result of any threat posed by Baha'is, as officials sometimes claim. In the past year or so, Baha'i cemeteries in Tehran, Ghaemshahr, Marvdasht, Semnan, Sari, and Isfahan have been defaced, bulldozed, or in some way blocked to the Baha'i community. In late April, a small Baha'i cemetery in Gilavand with only four graves was desecrated by intruders using a tractor; all four tombs were destroyed. Earlier, in March, a Baha'i family in Najafabad was prevented from burying a loved one in the Baha'i cemetery there, despite their having secured a permit to do so.

Persecution by educational institutions

Bahai school children at all school levels continue to be monitored and slandered by officials in schools. Secondary school students often face pressure and harassment, and some have been threatened with expulsion. Religious studies teachers are known to insult and ridicule Baha'i beliefs. In a few reported cases, when Baha'i students attempt to clarify matters at the request of their peers, they are summoned to the school authorities and threatened with expulsion if they continue to "teach" their Faith.

Recently in Karaj, the parents of a first-year high school student were told that she would be expelled unless they signed an agreement that would force her to take part in the school's political and religious events.

A Ministry of Education policy now requires declaration of religion on the registration form for the entrance exam for schools for gifted students. In the past, Baha'i pupils were allowed to take the entrance exam but any known Baha'i accepted to one of these schools was later denied admission. The new form only allows students to select between Muslim, Christian, Jew and Zoroastrian.

Universities and other institutions of higher education to a large extent remain closed to Baha'i students. In recent years, those who do manage to get admitted generally have been expelled during the course of their first year.

At Tarbiyyat Moallem University in Tehran, two Baha'is were able to get to their eighth semester but in February were finally expelled; one of them was told openly that by law, Baha'is have no right to post-secondary education.

Other recent expulsions have occurred in Semnan, Zanjan, Yazd, Gonbad, Khoramshahr, and Chabahar. There are continuing reports of youth being denied enrollment in high schools and even primary schools, and of students being harassed by teachers and other officials.

Summary of types of persecution

Harassment of Baha'is is pervasive and includes many incidents of all of the following:

• Arrests and detention, with imprisonment lasting for days, months, or years. In cases where the Baha'i is released, substantial bail is often required.
• Direct intimidation and questioning by authorities, sometimes with the use of high-intensity lights and physical mistreatment.
• Searches of homes and business, usually with Baha'i books and other items confiscated.
• School expulsions and harassment of schoolchildren.
• Prohibition on Baha'is attending universities.
• Court proceedings where Baha'is are accused of promoting propaganda against the government "for the benefit of the Bahaist sect."
• Monitoring of the bank accounts, movement, and activities of Baha'is, including official questioning of Baha'is requiring them to give information about their lives, actions, neighbors, etc.
• Denial or confiscation of business licenses.
• Denial of work opportunities in general.
• Denial of rightful inheritances to Baha'is.
• Physical assaults, and efforts to drive Baha'is out of towns and villages.
• Desecration and destruction of Baha'i cemeteries, and harassment over burial rights.
• Dissemination, including in official news media, of misinformation about Baha'is, and incitement of hatred against Baha'is.
• Evictions from places of business, including Baha'i doctors from their offices and clinics.
• Intimidation of Muslims who associate with Baha'is.
• Attempts by authorities to get Baha'is to spy on other Baha'is.
• Threatening phone calls and letters to Baha'is.
• Denial of pension benefits.
• Denial of access to publishing or copying facilities for Baha'i literature.
• Confiscation of property.

Watch out for Saudi Arabia!

Two recent articles discuss the situation in the Saudi monarchy. One says the situation is bad, the other says the situation is much worse than that. A Forbes magazine commentary recently painted the following bleak picture of Saudi Arabia:

Turki bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud, a prominent dissident now in exile in Cairo, issued an open letter to his fellow royals, urging them to abandon their desert fiefdom for greener pastures. According to the prince, the current social compact between the House of Saud and its subjects had become untenable, with the government no longer able to "impose" its writ on the people and growing grassroots discontent at the royals "interfering in people's private life and restricting their liberties." His advice? That King Abdullah and his coterie flee the Kingdom before they are overthrown--and before their opponents "cut off our heads in streets."

...

 

Grassroots prosperity, meanwhile, has headed in the other direction. Since the oil boom of the 1970s, per capita income in Saudi Arabia has constricted precipitously, falling from $28,000 in the early 1980s to below $7,000 in
2001. In other words, average Saudis have experienced a devastating reversal of economic fortune, even as the royal cohort that rules over them has become more numerous, indulgent and bloated.

In contrast a recent Economist article, When kings and princes grow old,  about the Saudi succession, studiously and apparently deliberately ignores Turki Bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud's warning  entirely and paints the following fairly rosy picture:

 

... Its $420 billion economy faces little risk of losing its place as the biggest in the Middle East, given steady oil reserves and production, around $150 billion in annual energy exports and a strengthening world oil market. The country's net foreign reserves still nearly equal its GDP. Economists expect growth to accelerate slowly from around 4% this year, ensuring steadily rising living standards.

 

These are seemingly impressive figures. Indeed, the Saudi economy is expected to grow 3.8% in 2010, but that is evidently in nominal terms. Since there is inflation of 5%, the economy is actually shrinking as the population grows.

 

By any measure, the Saudi GDP is not the largest in the Middle East, as the Economist states. Following are some CIA estimates prices for 2009:

:

Iran:         Real GDP: $876 bil. Exchange Rate GDP: $336 bil. Real Growth:  2.6%

Turkey        Real GDP: $863 bil. Exchange Rate GDP: $608 bil. Real Growth: -5.6%:

Saudi Arabia: Real GDP: $586 bil. Exchange Rate GDP: $384 bil. Real Growth:  0.2%

Israel:       Real GDP: $207 bil. Exchange Rate GDP: $196 bil. Real Growth:  0.5%

Qatar:        Real GDP: $101 bil. Exchange Rate GDP:  $94 bil. Real Growth   9.5%

 

Turkey has a larger economy than Saudi Arabia any way it is measured. Iran has a larger economy in terms of purchasing power. In terms of real per capita GDP, Qatar, with $121,700, is second in the world. Saudi Arabia with a GDP of about $20,000 is ranked 60, but Israel, with only  7.5 billion people, and (until 2010) no developed energy resources, has a GDP of over $200 billion and a per capita real GDP of about $28,400 and is ranked 48 in the world. There are no data on the distribution of wealth in Saudi Arabia. That is probably the most problematic and threatening aspect of Saudi economics. There is evidently a very large income differential between the royal family and the poorest classes (see also this NYT article from 2008).   

 

It may be true, as the Economist notes, that Saudi Arabia sent 200,000 students to study abroad. But that is perhaps because of the highly unsatisfactory state of Saudi universities. Only 85% of males and 70% of females over the age of 15 are literate according to the CIA estimate.  

 

The Economist article does caution that the succession is uncertain, but it claims:

 

Most Saudis expect that their ruling family will, as it usually has, reach quiet consensus on whom to crown, assuming that King Abdullah and Prince Sultan depart in reasonably short order. Aside from the 1992 royal decree tipping the "best qualified" prince to rule (a term that in Arabic can mean either the most virtuous or the most capable), there are some established guidelines. Traditions of Muslim kingship suggest that the line should pass through brothers of one generation in order of age, before descending to the next.

Yet with their unique political system looking increasingly anomalous in the modern world, Saudis are beginning to worry about what might follow if the al-Sauds fail to agree...

Neither analysis mentions some other ominous factors. The specter of Shi'ite Iran has frightened the Saudis, not least because of a restive Shi'ite minority in south-east Saudi Arabia, where its oil reserves are concentrated. Not only Shi'ites threaten Saudi stability. From the first, it seems that the main goal of Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden may have been to overthrow and supplant the Saudi monarchy. Bin Laden's 1996 Fatwa was significantly entitled "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places". In it he writes, among other things,

They stood up tall to defend the religion; at the time when the government misled the prominent scholars and tricked them into issuing Fatwas (that have no basis neither in the book of Allah, nor in the Sunnah of His prophet (Allah's Blessings and Salutations may be on him)) of opening the land of the two Holy Places for the Christian armies...

Both analyses agree that there are problems and signs of increasing instability in Saudi Arabia,. This cannot be good news for the United States, because Saudi Arabia is its prime ally in the Gulf region, and the Americans count on Saudi backing in the war in Afghanistan and in Iraq, though they don't always get such backing.

Someone in the U.S. should be devoting much more time to considering the problem of Saudi Arabia. After there is an Iranian-style revolution there, and U.S. admistration officials will again be "surprised" as they were by the Iranian revolution, it will be much too late.

Ami Isseroff

Let's talk some more about BDS and delegitimation of Israel

A new Reut institute study claims: The BDS Movement Promotes Delegitimization of the State of Israel. Frankly, that's not exactly news. Last March I had ritten "Let's Talk about BDS" that made exactly the same point. But they go into great detail in a very valuable document. Here is the main part of the study:

The origins of the BDS Movement can be traced back to the 2001 'NGO Forum against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Intolerance,' which took place in Durban, South Africa in 2001 and was known as the First Durban Conference....

The NGO Durban concluding statement called for "a policy of complete and total isolation of Israel as an apartheid state...the imposition of mandatory and comprehensive sanctions and embargoes, the full cessation of all links… between all states and Israel." 4 This strategy turned into one of the main pillars of the BDS Movement, which was formally launched in July 2005. In recent years, the Movement has promoted boycotts, divestment measures, and sanctions primarily in the areas of culture, trade,5 and academia.6

The dominant organization in the BDS Movement is the Boycott, Divestments, and Sanctions Campaign National Committee (BNC), which is composed of Palestinian NGOs and whose main internet platform is http://bdsmovement.net. However, the Movement is not organized in a hierarchal structure, and operates as a network that is driven by a few catalysts – individuals or organizations that initiate the movement's activities and drive the trend of Israel's delegitimization.

Since Operation Cast Lead in early 2009, there have been increasing efforts within global civil society to isolate Israel. Among the most prominent examples are the highly publicized failure in April 2010 of the student senate at the University of California, Berkeley, to divest from two U.S. companies that support "war crimes" in the Palestinian territories, based on their ties with Israel, as well as the failure to ban the International Film Festival in Toronto, which presented Israeli films.

Following the flotilla affair on May 31, 2010, the efforts to boycott, sanction, and divest from Israel have increased and escalated. Prominent examples are: the decision of UNITE, the biggest trade union in Britain, to adopt a resolution to divest from Israeli companies and to boycott Israeli, and the wave of cancellations of performances in Israel by international performers.

However, thus far, the BDS Movement can boast few tangible achievements. The Movement has not managed to advance practical academic or consumer boycotts. In recent years, meanwhile, Israel's economy has actually grown and the state was recently accepted into the prestigious group of OECD countries. 7

However, the damage caused by the BDS Movement lies in its promotion of delegitimization towards Israel through creating the comparison – whether implicit or explicit – between Israel and the former apartheid South African regime. Therefore, BDS should be viewed first and foremost as a tool to brand Israel as a 'pariah state' with the ultimate aim of undermining the legitimacy of its political structure.

The BDS Movement Presents Itself as Non-Political

The BDS Movement does not express explicit support for the destruction of the State of Israel, the one-state solution, or any other particular political solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Movement's leaders try to depict it as non-political and liberal, and aim to establish the broadest possible common ground among critics of Israeli policy.

Pretending to be a progressive protest organization

The BDS Movement tries to tie itself to the world of liberal progressive values in Europe and North America, and to enlist wide public support. In fact, it is very probable that many of those who support BDS do not consider themselves as delegitimizers and genuinely strive to protest Israeli policies. Therefore, in defining the goals of the BDS Movement, there is a clear use of universally appealing language regarding international law, human rights, and universal justice:

1. Omar Barghouti, a BDS Movement founder: The BDS Movement "does not adopt a particular political solution to the colonial conflict… The main strategy is based on the principle that human rights and international law must be upheld and respected no matter what the political solution may be." (The Forward, 09/16/09).

   �� Asa Winstanley, journalist and BDS supporter: "The BNC platform (the Palestinian BDS Movement) itself is broad, and does not take any position on specific political plans to resolve the conflict (rendering the one-state vs. two-state debate irrelevant in this context). Instead, the BNC's 2005 United Call document took a rights-based approach." (New Left Project, 05/17/10).

   �� U.S. Campaign to End Israeli Occupation: "The U.S. Campaign does not endorse either a one-state or a two-state solution, but rather upholds the Palestinian right to self-determination." (U.S. Campaign to End Israeli Occupation Web site).

   �� The British Committee for the Universities in Palestine (BRICUP) Web site, one of the leading organizations calling for boycott, asserts that, "At this stage of the long struggle for Palestinian self-determination, an academic boycott is both a personal and a collective act made in solidarity with our Palestinian colleagues whose academic freedom is currently denied. By supporting this important sector of Palestinian civil society BRICUP seeks to help foster a non-violent and just solution in this troubled region." (BRICUP).

Everyone's welcome (even Zionists)

The leaders of the BDS Movement are willing to cooperate with anyone who criticizes Israel, and even with elements that define themselves as Zionist. In this way, the BDS Movement has managed to turn itself into a platform that includes both legitimate critics of Israeli policy and delegitimizers, without the former being aware of the radical values being promoted by the latter:

1. BDS activist
Ahmed Moor argues that, "The movement may be burgeoning but remains too small. Why shouldn't we indulge in ad-hoc partnerships to get things done? Richard Silverstein, Richard Goldstone, and many other self-proclaimed Zionists have done an immeasurably positive amount of work in skinning the Zionist cat…shouldn't they be asked to join the BDS movement? If it came down to it, I'd be happy to work with the racist up the street to get the city to fix a neighborhood pothole." (Mondoweiss, 04/22/10)
2. BRICUP: "Some Israeli supporters of BDS studiously avoid the political framework set by the Palestinian BDS Movement by casting their support for BDS as a strategy to end only the 42 year military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip…While some Israelis do employ the term colonialism or apartheid, they limit these terms' applications to the Palestinian territory occupied in 1967, not to Historic Palestine which now encompasses the State of Israel… we believe that the formulation of the need for BDS in these terms [1967 not 1948] vindicates one aspect of the logic of the BDS movement… whether out of Israeli self interest or based upon a principled commitment to comprehensive Palestinian rights, such Israeli support for BDS cannot be ignored and is to be welcomed." (BRICUP Newsletter, 09/20/09).

In Practice, the BDS Movement Promotes

Delegitimization

In contrast to the BDS Movement's attempt to portray itself as a progressive humanitarian movement, there are clear indications that the BDS Movement catalysts are using the Movement in order to promote an agenda of delegitimizing Israel.

This agenda is reflected in a wide array of statements by the Movement's catalysts that explicitly promote delegitimization. This agenda is being promoted by the Movement implicitly by advancing the 'right of return,' branding Israel as an apartheid state, singling Israel out, and seeking to undermine Israeli-Palestinian cooperation.

BDS Movement catalysts are clear delegitimizers

The official tone expressed by the BDS Movement publicly maintains a careful ambiguity regarding the Movement's agenda vis-à-vis Israel's right to exist and the preferred political outcomes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In contrast, an evaluation of statements indicates that many of the Movement's catalysts seek to undermine the legitimacy of the State of Israel and Zionism, and view BDS as a tool to undercut the political model of the State of Israel:

In an article entitled 'Our South Africa Moment has Arrived,' Omar Barghouti writes that, "The conceptual origins of Israel's unique form of apartheid are found in Zionism, a racist European ideology that was adopted by the dominant stream of the Zionist movement in order to justify and recruit political support for its colonial project of establishing an exclusive Jewish state in historic Palestine." (Scottish PSC, 03/19/09).

Dr. Haider Eid, lecturer at Al Aqsa University in Gaza and activist for the one-state solution ,argues that, "With pressure imposed by the international community through a BDS campaign a la anti-Apartheid campaign which brought Apartheid South Africa to an end, we believe that Israel itself can be transformed into a secular democratic state after the return of 6 million Palestinian refugees who were ethnically cleansed in 1948, a state for ALL of its citizens…therefore, we think that one of the major tools of the struggle towards a secular democratic state is BDS." (Electronic Intifada, 11/18/09).

Ahmed Moor: "So BDS does mean the end of the Jewish state…I view the BDS movement as a long-term project with radically transformative potential… the success of the BDS movement is tied directly to our success in humanizing Palestinians and discrediting Zionism as a legitimate way of regarding the world." (Mondoweiss, 04/22/10).

Writing in the context of Israeli Apartheid Week, Ronnie Kasrils, former activist against the apartheid regime in South Africa and supporter of BDS, argues that "BDS represents three words that will help bring about the defeat of Zionist Israel and victory for Palestine." (Media Monitor Network, 03/17/09).

American academic and supporter of the one-state paradigm and the BDS Movement Virginia Tilley writes that, "A coordinated movement of divestment, sanctions, and boycotts against Israel must convene to contain not only Israel's aggressive acts and crimes against humanitarian law but also, as in South Africa, its founding racist logics that inspired and still drive the entire Palestinian problem." (Scottish PSC, 04/06/09).

The BDS Movement explicitly advances the 'right of return'

The BDS Movement explicitly promotes the 'right of return'8 of 1948 Palestinian refugees to Israel, which clearly entails the end of Israel as a Jewish or democratic state.

The Movement justifies this 'right' on its definition of Israel as a colonialist, racist state that was born in sin by ethnically cleansing its Palestinian residents:

Omar Barghouti: "The most important of all three injustices is without doubt Israel's denial of the right of Palestinian refugees to return. The core of the question of Palestine has always been the plight of the refugees who were ethnically cleansed during the Nakba and ever since. [This issue is] the litmus test of morality for anyone suggesting a just and enduring solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict." (Scottish PSC, 03/19/09).

Sami Hermez, an anti-Zionist academic, writes that "BDS enables a discourse that moves beyond 'ending the occupation' to place demands for the right of return and equal rights for Palestinians in Israel as top priorities." (Electronic Intifada, 10/01/09).

Mohammed Abed, activist in the Al-Awda Movement, which works within campuses to promote the right of return, justifies BDS against Israel in light of "its various crimes, including the ethnic cleansing of 800,000 Palestinians from the areas over which Israel extended its sovereignty in 1948." (Dissent, Fall 2007).

From the Palestinian United Call for BDS against Israel: "Fifty seven years after the state of Israel was built mainly on land ethnically cleansed of its Palestinian owners, a majority of Palestinians are refugees…" Therefore, one of the three main aims of the BDS struggle is "respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194." (Palestinian United Call for BDS against Israel, 06/09/05).

The BDS Movement brands Israel as an apartheid state

The BDS Movement creates a baseless connection between white South Africa and Israeli policies, and advances a false analogy between the illegitimate basis of the apartheid regime and Israel's alleged lack of legitimacy. This connection is strengthened by the intended diffusion of 'apartheid terminology' into discussions about Israel. The use of the apartheid language in a variety of contexts is purposefully undertaken in order to brand it as an apartheid state. The implication, by association, is that Israel's founding principles are unjustifiable and the natural conclusion is that Israel's political model should share the fate of the apartheid regime.

From a founding documents of the BDS Movement: "Inspired by the struggle of South Africans against apartheid… We, representatives of Palestinian civil society, call upon international civil society organizations and people of conscience all over the world to impose broad boycotts and implement divestment initiatives against Israel similar to those applied to South Africa in the apartheid era." (Palestinian United Call for BDS against Israel, 06/09/05).

Canadian writer and intellectual Naomi Klein: "The best strategy to end the increasingly bloody occupation is for Israel to become the target of the kind of global movement that put an end to apartheid in South Africa." (The Nation, 01/07/09).

BRICUP, a leading British organization calling for an academic boycott on Israel, dedicated a whole page to the comparisons between Israel and the South African apartheid regime: "The similarities between apartheid South Africa and present day Israel in the Occupied territories are almost uncanny… broadly the structural similarities in the situations of Israel and apartheid South Africa are profound." (Coalition against Israel Apartheid Web site).

In a critique of a plan by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs to 'brand' Israel, the Canadian organization 'Coalition against Israeli Apartheid' (CAIA) wrote that, "Just as Torontonians rejected attempts in the 1980s to 're-brand' apartheid-era South Africa, CAIA is confident that they will do the same with attempts to normalize Israeli apartheid… the 'Brand Israel' campaign is a testament to the strength and breadth of the growing BDS campaign against Israeli apartheid." (Global BDS Movement Web site, 8/25/08).

The BDS Movement singles Israel out

One of the signs suggesting the BDS Movement is promoting a hidden agenda of delegitimization is in its use of this weapon solely against Israel. BDS consciously and publicly disproportionately criticizes Israel in relation to other countries. The aim is to isolate Israel as a unique international rogue state, which thus demands the adoption of uniquely aggressive measures against it.

There are a variety of excuses as to why BDS should be promoted solely against Israel: Israel's alleged continued flouting of international law, the global influence of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the extent of Western support enjoyed by Israel, and the 'responsibility' of the West for Israel's initial establishment. Within these reasons is the paradoxical argument that due to Israel's democratic nature and close ties with the international community, BDS might actually be a more effective measure against Israel than against other countries.

Naomi Klein: "Boycott is not a dogma; it is a tactic. The reason the BDS strategy should be tried against Israel is practical: in a country so small and trade-dependent, it could actually work." (The Nation, 01/07/09).

In an essay 'Singling out Israel is the right thing to do,' Yaman Salahi former Students for Justice in Palestine activist from Berkeley University writes that, "Today, more than ever, is the time to single out Israel for criticism and boycott – not because it is the only purveyor of injustice in the world, or even necessarily the worst – but because no other international institution has succeeded in stopping the injustices against the Palestinians." (The Berkeley Daily Plant, 04/08/10).

Mike Cushman, a BRICUP leader and an activist in promoting an academic boycott of Israel in the British University College Union (UCU), wrote: "[A]dvocates of consumer, professional and academic boycotts of Israel are asked 'why pick on Israel?'… Israel is not uniquely awful, but then neither was South Africa… Israel is our problem, as was South Africa, in ways other countries are not. Israel was created in response to Europe's inability to live at peace with its Jewish citizens…" (BRICUP Newsletter, 2/25/10).

Mohamed Abed (University of Wisconsin): "Unlike their counterparts elsewhere, Israeli institutions are fully integrated into the Western academic world… This makes Israeli academia more susceptible to outside pressure. In Israel's case, a boycott will be especially (if not uniquely) disruptive and inconvenient. Because the disapproval it expresses would be of great social significance, a boycott of Israeli academia would also instill a sense of cultural isolation and shame in the group at which it is directed." (Dissent, Fall 2007).

The BDS Movement seeks to undermine Israeli-Palestinian cooperation

By encouraging full boycotts of, and severing ties with, Israel, the BDS Movement explicitly aims to undermine Israeli-Palestinian cooperation. This tactic both damages current projects and prevents the development of new cooperative frameworks. Often such policies are implemented in contradiction to actual Palestinian interests.

For many years, the Israeli Histadrut and its Palestinian counterpart, the Palestinian General Federation of Trade Unions (PGFTU), had conducted close relations. Until last year, the heads of Palestinian trade unions had opposed boycotting the Histadrut. However, following a meeting with the British Trade Union Friends of Israel (TUFI), the head of the PGFTU Shahar Saed and the Mayor of Nablus Adel Yaish were pressured by the British BDS Movement to withdraw their traditional position and publicly call for a boycott of the Histadrut. (Global BDS Movement Web site, 11/25/09).

The decision to boycott the 13th International Film Festival taking place in Tel Aviv was generated by people identified with BDS and the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel, despite the fact that one of the main projects of the festival, "Coffee: Between Reality and Imagination," is intended to encourage cooperation between young Israeli and Palestinian film students.

Until 2009, Al-Quds University maintained comprehensive links with Israeli academic institutions, which included close to 60 joint projects worth approximately $5 million. The University's president, Sari Nusseibeh, is a prominent opposer of the boycott. In February 2009, the University administration decided to freeze all joint projects following the position of donors from Arab states. The University's decision received high acclaimfrom the global Palestinian BDS Movement. (The Chronicle of Higher Education, 02/03/09).

Both Full and Partial BDS Serve the End Goal

According to the ideology of the catalyst of the BDS Movement, a partial or targeted boycott also serves the goal of delegitimizing Israel, as it is facilitates the recruitment of critics of Israeli policy and tarnishes Israel's reputation.

In December 2009, the British Government recommended marking products originating in the West Bank. In March 2010, the British Trade Union Congress (TUC) joined a campaign to boycott settlement produce.9 While one could argue with the logic or effectiveness of these actions, there is no doubt that the motivation of the British Government and the TUC General Secretary was not to promote delegitimization against Israel.

However, how is it possible to explain the fact that the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) – one of the organizations most identified with the BDS campaign – praised the British Government decision and was active behind the scenes in the TUC decision, which was seemingly intended to further the Two-State solution?

The answer, it would seem, is that from the perspective of the catalysts of the BDS Movement, even a selective partial boycott tarnishes Israel's reputation and is a milestone on a path towards a comprehensive boycott of Israel. Statements from the leaders of the BDS Movement reflect this logic:

Omar Barghouti views BDS as a "comprehensive boycott of Israel, including all its products, academic and cultural institutions, etc" but shows flexibility for "the tactical needs of our partners to carry out a selective boycott of settlement products, say, or military suppliers of the Israeli occupation army as the easiest way to rally support." (The Forward, 09/16/09).

PSC activist Hugh Lanning writes that "The Palestine Solidarity Campaign is committed to not only build an effective campaign for boycotting settlement goods with the TUC, but also to work to take TUC policy further, together with individual unions, many of which already have policy supporting a full boycott." (PSC Web site).

BDS activist Asa Winstanley contends that "the BDS movement is a broad church, with room for different focuses and tactics. Those uncomfortable with the idea of boycotting "Israel proper" (aka pre-1967 Israel), such as Israeli group Gush Shalom, are free to focus on the boycott of settlement goods instead." (New Left Project, 05/17/10).

4 See Alexander Lambsdorff, NYTimes, 03/08/09 and NGO Monitor, NGO Forum at Durban Conference 2001.

5 In recent years, the BDS movement has been active in promoting a series of decisions that call for boycotts against Israel in British trade unions. In April 2010, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) succeeded in mobilizing a boycott within the TUC of settlement produce. See Jonny Paul, Jerusalem Post, 04/12/10.

6 In recent years, a number of attempts have been made in Britain to promote a comprehensive academic boycott. See Yuval Lidor, NRG, 30/05/07. BRICUP is an example of the focus on the academic arena as a main goal of BDS against Israeli institutions.

7. See Tony Goldstein YNET 11/21/09.

8 Sometimes, the positions of the Movement catalysts are even more radical than UN General Assembly Resolution 194, which is beset by controversy. Clause 11 of 194 determines that "refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date…"

In addition, the clause also mentions two additional options: compensation and socio-economic rehabilitation in the area the refugees inhabit. The term 'right of return' does not appear anywhere in the clause or in any other UN Resolution. The meaning of this clause was argued over by the two sides, with the Arab side claiming it required a comprehensive right of return and Israel disagreeing. Even though Israel did not accept resolution 194, the Israeli side claims that the future of the refugees will be determined via negotiations.

9 See the Jerusalem Post, <>