On October 3, 2002, Jean-Claude Fernand Willem, who was acting mayor of his municipality in France began to implement a boycott of Israeli products in protest against the anti-Palestinian policies of the Israeli Government. He was then prosecuted for provoking discrimination on national, racial and religious grounds*. Mr Willem was acquitted by the Lille Criminal Court but sentenced on appeal on September 11, 2003, and fined 1,000 euros. This case has a wide impact today. With a growing number of Boycott, Divestment and Sanction (BDS) actions taking place across the globe, we have to question the integrity of such a charge. Boycotting Israel will obviously have an impact on Palestinians too, which is a point that those who oppose BDS tend to sing from the rooftops. But you know times have to be desperate if the oppressed (or at least a vast number of them) are asserting the boycott as opposed to war. The hypocrisy of such a criticism, however, is often overlooked. To condemn, for example, Hamas’s violence is hypocritical if with the same breath you condemn the BDS campaign. The point is that BDS is not a quick-fix solution – haven’t we had enough of those. Quick-fix political solutions only come in one form- violence. A boycott would also be beneficial for Israel; it is in their interest to end not only the conflict but also Palestine’s economic dependency upon them. 60 years have taught us that we cannot depend upon diplomatic leaders to straighten out the conflict. On a good day they struggle with straightening up their ties. This is why the responsibility falls upon us. There would be no need for BDS were the external parties, that is, the global consumers not complicit in the occupation through preferential trade agreements. It is our countries that perpetuate the violence so it falls on our shoulders, as citizens to halt this complicity. Every nation is entitled to resist an occupation: the only non-violent option that remains to be carried out for Palestinians is BDS. Unfortunately the BDS campaign only works with solidarity from the outside world. This brings us to the case of the French mayor: If BDS is racist, what race does it discriminate against exactly? The Jewish race perhaps? Being Jewish and being Israeli is not the same, as many “Israeli Arabs†will attest, along with the large number of Jews who deplore Israel. If BDS is anti-Semitic, why did hundreds of Jewish scholars and artists call for its implementation?  Is it, then, that the actions of Mayor Willem are seen as discrimination against Israel as a state? Perhaps, but surely the hundreds of UN declarations criticizing Israel’s disregard for human life are more important than a few oranges at Marks and Spencer? Not that this justifies biased treatment, but I’m certain that those who support the Palestinians would welcome charges of discrimination if it meant that Israel too would be charged for its trespasses. Perhaps the move by Mayor Willem was a boisterous one, but certainly not racist. There is a danger that the Freedom of Press act of 1881 (under which the charge was filed) would restrict the liberty of any single person calling for a boycott. Indeed, the aim of this law’s establishment was to strike a balance between press freedom and the protection of individuals. Surely then, any French journalist writing in favor of a boycott could face similar charges? This is perhaps an oversimplification, but certainly conveys the preposterous nature of the case in question. If Mayor Willem was held accountable for his actions, as they “contravene†French domestic law, then so too should Israel. Settlements are illegal under Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Last I heard, France was supposed to adhere to said laws. There is no way- absolutely no way -that anyone can argue the legitimacy of Israeli settlement produce when the settlements themselves are illegal. Gordon Brown has more of a chance of convincing Britain to actually elect him as Prime Minister, than Israel or France -or anyone else- proving that settlement produce is legal. If the French government has a responsibility to charge Mayor Willem, then they have a responsibility to, at the very least, investigate the legality of Israeli settlement produce. So chapeau-s off to the Mayor. Whether you agree with him or not, you can’t deny it was a pretty brave action. In fact, Willem a goddamn hero; he can be my mayor any day. God knows he’d be an improvement on Mayor of London Boris Johnson, or as he is affectionately known, our resident bumbling buffoon. Mot BM *under Articles 23 and 24 of the French Freedom of Press Act of 29 July 1881
