BDS: Bollocks, Distortion and Slanders

The acronym BDS officially stands for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, a campaign targeted at the State of Israel for its alleged violations of international law.

A common slogan refers to Israel’s “illegal occupation”. This and other outlandish claims made by proponents of BDS, such as the suggestion that Israel practices a form or apartheid, or that the modern State of Israel is a reincarnation of the third Reich may be short on factual or logical underpinnings but they appear to make for good political point scoring (something which incidentally should be thoroughly unimpressive to anyone who is genuinely interested in notions of justice or truth). 

However, much to the chagrin of the BDS crowd, a recent ruling by the French Court of Appeal has shown that propaganda is no substitute for law. A case brought by the PLO/PA against Veolia Transport, Alsthom Transport and Alsthom, was dismissed, with the justices in the process awarding costs against the PLO/PA to the tune of €90,000.

The crux of the Palestinian complaint was that in constructing the Jerusalem light rail project, which extends into the eastern suburbs of the city (areas claimed by the PLO/PA to be occupied Palestinian territory), Veolia and its partners were in breach of international law.

Accordingly, the PLO/PA sued in the French courts seeking damages, citing various clauses of the Geneva and Hague conventions, specifically article 49 of the 4^th Geneva Convention which states that “the Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies”.

The French court, setting aside propaganda and basing their judgement solely on what the law says told us that;

1)      The occupation by Israel does not of itself violate any international law. Rather, even under the terms of the laws of occupation, Israel is the lawful authority in civilian matters in East Jerusalem.

2)      The relevant international treaties place obligations and prohibitions on States, not on individuals or companies. In addition, the PLO/PA is not a state and so it has no basis for a claim under these conventions.

3)      Furthermore, the international treaties relate to high contracting parties, i.e. signatories of the conventions. As neither the PLO or PA has signed these conventions they have no basis for claiming under their respective terms.

Make no mistake, this is a severe blow to proponents of BDS and a victory for the State of Israel in the face of PA/PLO threats to bring Israel before international legal bodies. So the next time you hear the phrase “Israel’s illegal occupation", or that Israeli settlements are in breach of international law, just remember what BDS really stands for.

The original report (for French speakers) is here