Cutting your nose to spite your face

DAVID SAKS

Sales figures do not merely show that it has had minimal impact. If anything, it would seem to have boosted sales, partly, one assumes, because those opposed to the boycott made a point of buying from Woolworths, but also because of the welcome free advertising that saw Woolworths name being liberally splashed about in print, electronic and online media.

All this was despite the overt support for the BDS initiative displayed by the latter, as well as by senior representatives of the ruling party, most notably Secretary-General Gwede Mantashe. Nor did the aggressive, in-your-face tactics of BDS achieve anything.

Few Woolworths patrons were impressed by such stunts as “till jamming” (piling goods on trolleys, having them rung up by the cashier and then refusing to pay), “die-ins” (screaming and then lying on the floor, blocking the aisles, and feigning death) and preventing customers from entering or moving freely inside the stores. In the end, Woolworths attained a court order prohibiting BDS from “organising, co-ordinating or encouraging harassment, intimidation and/or the causing of psychological harm of Woolworths employees or customers, or engaging in any form of protest action inside Woolworths stores”.

BDS has vowed to continue the boycott, but that is just face-saving rhetoric. The organisation is, of course, notoriously adept at putting a positive spin on things, and know well that the media will largely go along with it.

In other areas, unfortunately, BDS has made genuine advances, particularly through senior ANC, and even government members explicitly endorsing their platform. The way things are going, boycotting Israel is set to become official ANC policy at its next major conference a few years hence, and should that happen, it is only a matter of time before it is adopted as the policy of the South African government.

What are the implications of South Africa going this route? Realistically speaking, it would appear that whereas only limited harm would result for Israel, South Africa would suffer fairly substantially.

According to department of trade and industry statistics, the trade relationship between the two countries is heavily skewed in favour of South Africa, which annually exports about R6 billion worth of goods (mainly coal and diamonds) to Israel, while importing perhaps half of that. That being the case, boycotting Israel would mean a net loss of several billion rands in trade revenue, a not insubstantial amount.

Moreover, how would perennially cautious international investors view the prospects of a country willing to undermine its own economy in order to further what is essentially a Jihadist platform? It is always dangerous when governments put ideological concerns before practical ones, as Mugabe’s systematic destruction of Zimbabwe shows.

There are other likely losses that would ensue from a boycott. Among other things, it would inevitably impact negatively on foreign donor support (Jewish expatriates constitute, among other things, a high proportion of big-hitting donors to universities) and very likely see a drop in Israeli tourism to South Africa (currently, Israel is the number one source of tourism from the Middle East).

It would also put paid to the many agricultural and humanitarian projects that Israel runs in this country, while local agriculture would suffer substantially were it to be deprived of the technological resources it currently sources from Israel.

The fact that boycotts are disadvantageous to South Africa does not, however, mean that they will not be implemented. We have already seen how the introduction of an internationally approved method of circumcision has been held up by Cosatu because it originates in Israel.

This effectively means that South Africans are being allowed to die unnecessarily, and in substantial numbers, in order to appease the Israel haters. Perhaps the progressive disintegration of Cosatu will ultimately see this grotesque situation rectified, but it does show how easily the blind prejudice and ideological fanaticism of a few can trump the practical needs of the many.

Expectations that a boycott of Israel by South Africa will persuade other countries to follow suit in light of South Africa’s supposed standing as a human rights beacon are also, surely, misplaced.

This, after all, is a country that has three times in five years refused a visa to the Dalai Lama while rolling out the red carpet for a gruesome array of world dictators and terrorists. In truth, South Africa post-Mandela has been something of a disappointment to those genuinely concerned with advancing global human rights. Also, nobody likes a hypocrite.

Pressure to sever ties with Israel will most likely increase, given that progress on the Middle East peace front has come to a standstill and with Hamas once more replenishing its military arsenal ahead of launching its next made-for-television war.

Every effort will have to be made to resist it, which in turn must include educating the public as to the cost of a boycott to South Africa as against its minimal impact on Israel. Ultimately, all South Africans, and not just Jews, should fear a boycott being implemented against Israel, not because they should support Israel, but because it would imperil their own future in a country whose current long-term prospects are far from certain.