Scarlet Johannson and canned tuna

 

 

I remember attending a conference some years ago before the BDS non-sense caught wind. The lecturer advocated the boycotting of West Bank goods on the basis that it was morally wrong to buy products from an occupied territory. I recall standing up in the Q&A session and drawing a parable to the speaker:

 

“It is like he is going shopping in the aisles and only buys dolphin friendly tuna. That’s all good for the dolphins, but what about the tuna!?”

 

It is all very well having conscious consumerism but if BDS supporters are really interested in human rights, why not boycott China for its occupation of Tibet or “cashmere” woollen pullovers that come from disputed territories in the Indian sub-continent.  This is double standards to say the least!

 

What takes the cake though is an announcement this week that France’s foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, led a flotilla of 100 French companies rushing to do business with Iran like a prisoner waiting for his 5 minute window for conjugal rights. With the sanctions being lifted during this 6 month easing, European businesses are rushing to Iran to make sure that any future sanctions with the theocratic regime will be irreversible. This comes after US/EU foreign ministers were caught geffufling with Iran’s foreign minister in Switzerland in November last year and agreed to try “dating for 6 months to, you know, see where it goes”.

 

So let’s get this right. A company with an atrocious human rights record, actively pursues nuclear weapons (and reneging on its agreement with the US/EU not to do so), threatens to destroy other countries and is unashamedly a supporter of groups listed as terrorist organisations receives a golden hug from the P5+1 leaders. These same leaders are contemplating, or at least rattling their tails, to impose boycotts on Israel if it continues to expand naturally into Palestinian territories. To put it simply, a bubble-making factory in the middle of a highway to the dead sea is single-handily the biggest threat to world peace. This is what the BDS movement, and its cohorts like Oxfam, are leading the world to believe.

 

The settlements are controversial - granted. It is not called a “disputed land” for nothing. Of course the continuing developments of settlements impedes on the sustainability of a possible viable Palestinian state. Does this mean that there should be a world-wide witch-hunt for Scarlets who endorse a brand that happens to have one of its many factories in an industrial zone in Area C (Israeli controlled area of the West Bank)? Must the entire world’s focus turn to this endearing lady and a tiny production line for all the wrong reasons? While all this time, world leaders are turning the other cheek to soon-to-be conflicts that require serious sanctions. No doubt Kameini, al-Assar and friends are laughing all the way to the (thawing) bank.

 

The Arabs came with armies to defeat Israel and lost. Terrorist gangs came with suicide bombers and rockets but this was contained. Now the only avenue left is the morally hazardous deligitimisation campaign which does not bring engagement to the peace-table. Rather, it adds another reason to delay proper peace negotiations and difficult concessions on both sides.

 

For now, the BDS movement will fail so long as it is run by B-grade or “has been” singers who can only get attention through posing naked awkwardly, adopting cats or fashionably representing a group of people who don’t even like their music. In the other corner, there is Israel with invaluable technology, Scarlet Johannson, Natalie Portman and, most remarkably, miracles of its own survival.

 

It remains a great hope and fear that world leaders do not succumb to this third avenue of demonisation of a conflict which already has too many hands and vested interests in its stew. And if they do boycott Israel, as it inevitably seems so, let’s hope that these countries will have bigger fish to fry and also go after the real threats to the world’s safety by upping the BDS against Iran and Syria.

Primary colours

 

Pundits were wrapping their brains with what the announcement of Mamphela Ramphele as the official presidential candidate of the Democratic Alliance could mean for the political landscape of South Africa. The move, bold and daring, would change the political narrative of South Africa away from racial tensions to something else. Unfortunately for these pundits, these existential questions on the future of South Africa did not have to be answered because the marriage was called off before the engagement party was even over.

 

The “game-changing” moment in South Africa’s post-apartheid journey quickly has become the most embarrassing moment for the DA caught on camera. Ramphele’s surprise announcement of joining the DA removed racial barriers and gave the DA a fighting chance to fight the ANC with a whole new set of rules. It was a milestone of showing the empowerment of black consciousness that would usher in a black-against-black leadership race that potentially could focus on real issues in the country such as the economy.

 

More than that, the move could have shown the political maturity of South Africa’s political spectrum by moving from a 1994 scenario of having a circus of candidates based on ethnicity and fancy names, such as the KISS and SOCCER parties, to a consolidated two or three party system much like in the United States and the United Kingdom. And it was moving that way: Helen Zille and the DA were swallowing up all centre right parties and other parties were consolidating under different colours…no not black and white…but primary colours. The ANC would place itself under the yellow banner of being left of centre, the DA would be the economically conservative blue party and the yet to be tested EFF would be the radical left party in a shade of revolutionary red.

 

That would be the evolution of politics. A progression away from racial colours towards segregation lines based on economic policies.

 

However, the ANC and unions were quick to paint Ramphele and Zilles’ move as nothing more than a rented-face. Perhaps they are right, and maybe South Africa is not yet ready for real change in black empowered. No sooner had Ramphele joined, she was already packing the bags and leaving. With the 2014 election around the corner, the country is back to a melting-pot of parties, an Italian senate bonanza and an ANC with a monopolising hand. Maybe this is the way the country is supposed to be: a multi-party milieu of conflicting views which are truely proportionate and representative of the population.

 

*Maybe I was wrong about all of this and the merger was all a ploy to draw the lines of politics along gender lines with two women up against one big black guy (#contraversialstatements).