(h/t Ofer Neiman and Sofia)
Aluf Benn is a veteran Ha'aretz columnist. Don't mistake him as an anti-Occupation maverick like Amira Hass or Gideon Levy; Aluf Benn embodies the Israeli consensus.
During the 2006 Lebanon war, for example, he sucked up to then-PM Olmert so bad, it hurt. After Olmert's war-opening speech, Benn wrote (quoting from memory): "today a politician has turned into a statesman." Ya.
In short, Aluf Benn is not the type of Israeli columnist you'd expect to write this:
Only one thing does bother the Israelis, according to the polls: fear of a diplomatic embargo and an international boycott.
...as long as relations with the rest of the world are satisfactory, Israelis see no reason to emerge from indifference and listen to the president of the United States.
This (perhaps unintentional?) bombshell comes amidst a run-of-the-mill tripe about how Obama doesn't understand I-P. Funny, how all these geniuses like Benn failed to see that Bush didn't understand I-P either. In fact, it's arguable that Obama digs I-P at the start of his term more than Bush, or even Clinton, ever will. Never mind. side point.
(amusing cultural note: the Hebrew original is titled "Obama is perceived as a busybody, and therefore fails to bring peace to I-P". The front-page teaser to the Hebrew article says "truth be told, Obama can't do anything." English translation?
"What Obama needs to do for Mideast peace"
. Poor Americans, always try to find the bright angle for everything.)
By contrast to his lack of ability to understand Obama, Aluf Benn is quite insightful about the dynamics inside Israeli society:
The Israeli political center, which stretches from ...Limor Livnat and Education Minister Gideon Sa'ar of the Likud party, through MKs Tzipi Livni and Shaul Mofaz of Kadima to ... Defense Minister Ehud Barak of Labor, in effect accepts the assessment of Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman that a solution to the problem is not possible, that the Arabs will never recognize a Jewish state and that Israel's only strategic option is deterrence backed by the use of force.
This is something many Americans still fail to understand. Since fall 2000 there are no real right or left camps in mainstream Israeli politics. There is only right-wing, which Benn calls "center" but which he admits really accepts the basic wingnut view of reality. Why? A topic for a different diary (in short: "terrorism" is the wrong explanation, because this shift preceded the 2001-2002 terror wave rather than follow it).
What is interesting here, are the practical implications Benn draws. Here is the full quote of the relevant passage:
Only one thing does bother the Israelis, according to the polls: fear of a diplomatic embargo and an international boycott. The Goldstone Report and the International Court of Justice in The Hague are arousing concern and interest, far more than Obama's peace speeches. However, as long as relations with the rest of the world are satisfactory, Israelis see no reason to emerge from indifference and listen to the president of the United States.
This is important for two reasons. One, is that a longstanding debate in Israel's anti-Occupation camp, is whether sanctions against Israel would work. The balance is gradually shifting towards supporting the Palestinian-led BDS movement - or at least quietly hoping that it succeeds - but the old guard, such as longtime analyst and activist Uri Avnery, still claims it won't. The old guard's arguments vary, but revolve around one main line: sanctions will deepen Israelis' inherent sense of siege, and will make them more united and determined to cling to the Occupation.
Now, here comes someone who is not anti-Occupation, not by a long shot, and perhaps inadvertently admits (what is well-known inside Israel, but not so much abroad) that personal convenience is really all Israelis care about nowadays.
If what disrupts this convenience are terror attacks, then the public pressures the military to "do something about it" (e.g., crackdowns, Barrier, etc.) - as indeed has happened repeatedly during this decade. But if the convenience is disrupted by an international economic boycott - then what? Call an air force strike on Madrid? Israelis have already attempted counter-boycotts to such threats, which is perhaps the response closest in its nature to a military strike. Another well-known Israeli secret is that many Jews in mixed Jewish-Arab regions have enacted a very painful boycott on Arab businesses, ever since the fall 2000 riots. However, counter-boycotts are becoming harder and harder as the "targets" multiply and become less convenient.
After Turkey's PM butted heads in public with Shimon Peres during the Gaza operation, many Israelis boycotted Turkey - where they are a key element in the tourism business of certain regions. But the boycott was half-hearted and has already dissipated. More recently, after a Swedish tabloid published an unsubstantiated story about IDF trading Palestinian organs in the black market, Israelis again wanted to strike back against Sweden. What to do? A brilliant idea was floated: boycott IKEA. You probably don't understand how funny this idea is, knowing mainstream Israel. The biggest constant weekend traffic jam in Israel is on the roads surrounding the country's only IKEA store in Netanya. Present-day Israelis cannot boycott IKEA any more than they can stop breathing.
So this is one reason why Benn's story is important: he lays bare the self-evident truth, that Israel's soft belly is the convenience of the Occupation-based status-quo. Since the 1970's, Israelis have been sold on the idea that "it doesn't really matter either way, and therefore we can push off the decision". Make it matter for the common Israeli's life, and you'll see a sudden sense of urgency.
The other reason is that Benn is extremely well-connected. What he lets slip here is not just what he thinks; it's what the Israeli political powers-that-be think. This is their greatest fear. Not Iran, not some resurgence of a Palestinian uprising. Rather, they fear presiding over a pariah state that is kicked out of respectable global society. For one thing, they know how unpopular they will become with their own public if this happens under their watch.
In short, Benn presents us with the key to a nonviolent end to the Occupation. As the BDS movement states, and as Naomi Klein has repeatedly, patiently and eloquently explained, and as Maya Wind, a young Israeli woman whom I've heard here in Seattle, and who had sat in military jail rather than serve the Occupation, said:
This is not about punishing or branding an entire nation. This is about making the Occupation stop being so damned convenient.
At the very least, stop buying settlement products (link is to a list run by Gush-Shalom; Barkan wines and Beigel&Beigel products can be found in many American supermarkets and Ahava Dead Sea is found in nearly every mall - but there are many more).
----------------------
UPDATE: To those commenters who wondered why the US govt. should "bully an ally" via sanctions etc. over such tiny things as "a few new housing units":
Besides pushing empty rhetoric probably originating in the Israeli foreign ministry (a 42-year regime which is formally against US policy, but in effect has been funded and sponsored by the US, is not a tiny thing from a US perspective) - you are totally missing the point.
As things around I-P currently stands, governments will be followers not leaders. You are lucky to live in a democracy. You don't need your government to tell you what to do about your local grocer, who is supported by your daily business, stocking settlement wine. You don't need the government to tell you what to do, when you discover your supposedly "socially conscious" mutual-fund invests in Occupation-profiteering companies. And so forth.
Another important source which I forgot to add: WhoProfits.org, a site run by Israel's Women's Coalition for Peace, which - together with other similarly-themed sites and stories, just won #11 on Project Censored's top 25 censored stories for 2010.