Tag: BDS

Norway examines the ethics of its Israel investments

Amira Hass | Ha’aretz

28 July 2009

Norway is reexamining its investments in several Israeli companies, in particular Elbit Systems. Two representatives of the Council on Ethics of the Norwegian finance ministry visited Israel at the beginning of June, in the wake of growing criticism of Israel in Norway in the months following last winter’s Israeli offensive in Gaza. The representatives met with, among others, groups of Palestinians and Israelis who claim that Norway invests in businesses directly involved in the Israeli occupation, which, they say, contradicts its commitment to abide by international law and to a just solution for the area.

The Council on Ethics was established to insure that foreign investments by the Norwegian Government Pension Fund-Global meet its ethical guidelines. At the end of 2008, the fund was invested in about 8,000 international companies, to the tune of 2,275 billion kroner, approximately $365 billion, according to this week’s exchange rate.

Of that amount, the Norwegian investment in Israeli companies totaled some 2.67 billion kroner, about $428 million, with another 627 million kroner in bonds, about $100 million. According to the Central Bank of Norway, the investment in Elbit Systems, which manufactures electronic equipment used by military and other security organizations, was 35 million kroner at the end of 2008, about $5.75 million, a little under a third of 1 percent of the company’s stock. The year 2008 saw a significant increase in the number of Israeli companies whose stock the Norwegian fund purchased, from eight in January to 41 by December.

Nearly two-thirds of the 41 companies are involved in development and building in the occupied territories, including the parts that were annexed to Jerusalem after the 1967 war. Another 11 international companies in which the Norwegians invest are also involved in the activities of Israeli companies on the other side of the Green Line, according to the “Who Profits from the Occupation” project of the Coalition of Women for Peace.

Earlier call for boycott

The Council on Ethics does not usually confirm or deny reports on the checks it conducts. But the examination of Israeli investments became known because representatives of the council met with the Israeli ambassador to Norway in Oslo before their visit to Israel. According to newspaper reports, Norwegian Finance Minister Kristin Halverson announced at the height of Operation Cast Lead, in Gaza last winter, that the pension fund was obligated to examine its Israeli investments.

The fund’s chairwoman, Gro Nystuen, told Haaretz that the Norwegian finance ministry itself published an announcement that investments in Elbit were under scrutiny, information that members of the council are themselves not allowed to volunteer. Finance Minister Halverson is a member of the Socialist Left Party, a partner of the Labor and Center parties in the coalition government. In 2005, when her party was in the opposition, Halverson called for a boycott of Israel. But after voicing a similar statement as a member of the government’s ruling coalition, she then recanted, when the government made clear that this was not official Norwegian policy toward Israel. The Socialist Left Party was among the most persistent political forces demanding the implementation of ethical guidelines for government investments.

The representatives’ June visit to Israel was also not a routine one. According to Nystuen, taking into consideration that Norway invests in 8,000 companies around the world, out of a potential 80,000, it is not possible to visit each relevant country. She said that one of the representatives was planning in any case to participate in a conference taking place in Israel, and so the examination, based on existing materials in writing, was combined with an on-site visit.

People who met the council representatives during their visit in the country said two major Elbit products – surveillance systems for the separation barrier and pilotless aerial vehicles (drones), both of them causes of the reexamination – were under special scrutiny, even though the drones are not included in the Norwegian category of forbidden weapons.

Erik Hagen, who works for the independent news service Norwatch, assumes that other Israeli companies are also under scrutiny. Norwatch is monitoring whether Norway’s foreign business investments match its criteria for human rights, workers rights and protection of the environment. Hagen’s previous reports in Norwatch led to the first exclusion recommended by the Council on Ethics – from the American oil-scouting firm formerly known as Kerr-McGee, which was operating in the Sahara, in territory occupied by Morocco.

The Government Pension Fund-Global, originally the Government Petroleum Fund, is meant to insure that Norway’s oil income will be available for the welfare of future generations; it began operating in the 1990s. The Council on Ethics was established in 2004, when the fact became known that – although Norway is party to the international demand for a ban on land mines – the fund was invested in a Singaporean company that manufactured mines, and the subject became a matter of public debate in Norway.

The council’s members include two lawyers, an economist, a biologist and a philosopher. The council’s ethical guidelines do not rule out investment in companies that produce weapons. A prohibition does, however, apply to producers of nuclear or chemical weapons, cluster bombs, land mines, and incendiary weapons of all types, such as napalm.

According to the guidelines, the fund may not invest in companies that “constitute an unacceptable risk of the Fund contributing to serious or systematic human rights violations, such as murder, torture, deprivation of liberty, forced labor, the worst forms of child labor and other forms of child exploitation, serious violations of individuals’ rights in situations of war or conflict, severe environmental damages, gross corruption or other particularly serious violations of fundamental ethical norms.” The council inspects the nature of the company’s products, and does not examine governments’ policies in countries where the Fund invests. Since its establishment, the council has recommended excluding some 30 companies and the Norwegian finance ministry adopted the majority of these recommendations.

The council has examined its holdings in Israel twice before: in 2006, when the fund was invested in only five Israeli companies, and in 2008 and 2009, when investments in Israel Electric Corporation bonds came under scrutiny. At that time the council decided there was no reason to withdraw its holdings, for it found no evidence that the electric company was involved as a company in the withholding of electric supply to the Gaza Strip. The examination and recommendation processes are likely to take many months; sometimes they can take as much as a year. If the recommendation is to exclude a company, and the Norwegian finance ministry adopts it, the decision will be made public only after the stocks are sold.

New Yorkers call for boycott of Motorola over dealings with IDF

Grace Wermenbol | Ha’aretz

23 July 2009

Protesters in the New York borough of Queens held a rally last week to call for a boycott of Motorola over the firm’s business dealings with the Israel Defense Forces.

At the demonstration, which was organized by the New York Campaign for the Boycott of Israel, protestors waved Palestinian flags and signs saying: “Goodbye Moto, Goodbye Apartheid,” and “Boycott Motorola, Free Palestine.”

The group also wrote songs and conducted street theater to draw the attention of passersby.

The organization’s spokesperson, Aaron Levitt, told Haaretz this week that over 300 people have signed a petition for a boycott of Motorola after just four events in New York City.

“Every time we go out to flyer, we meet many people who express support for the campaign and even sign our pledge to boycott Motorola,” said Levitt. His organization has more events planned for the coming month.

In June 2007, the New England United Methodist Church named Motorola as one of a number of firms that supported Israel’s occupation of the West Bank. Who Profits, a project of the Coalition of Women for Peace, also lists the company as profiting from Israel’s activities in the Palestinian territories.

Motorola has been active in Israel since 1964; it currently provides the IDF with a cellular network through a subsidiary, MIRS.

MIRS provided the IDF with a military-encrypted cellular communication system, nicknamed “Mountain Rose,” which is worth $100 million and was especially constructed for field conditions.

The company’s radar detectors’ and surveillance systems have been reportedly installed in West Bank settlements. Both of these systems had a price tag of more than $90 million.

The department responsible for installing these systems was sold in April 2009 to an Israeli company, Aeronautics Defense Systems, after Motorola had come under fire from several groups in the U.S. over its activities in Israel.

Motorola spokesman Rusty Brashear said the sale of the unit was not triggered by the protests, but because “it primarily doesn’t fit in our portfolio.”

The groups the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, the Palestinian National Committee and other organizations worldwide also support a boycott of the phone company.

Motorola was previously boycotted due to its support for the apartheid regime in South Africa. The company supplied South African police with mobile radio transmitters used to suppress demonstrations against the government

Bil’in vs. Green Park

Corporate Watch

24 July 2009

The Green Park construction company is engaged in building illegal settlements in the West Bank, notably, the settlements of Mattiyahu East and Modi’in Illit, which have been built on land annexed from the Palestinian village of Bil’in, by the Israeli apartheid wall.

The village of Bil’in has been struggling against the construction of the wall for over five years, holding weekly demonstrations, first at the construction site and then at the gate in the apartheid wall separating the villagers from their land. The Israeli army has often responded by attacking demonstrations with water cannons, sound bombs, plastic bullets and live ammunition. Bil’in has also been used as a testing site for new weapons. Demonstrators have been subjected to high-pitched screeching and doused with nerve agents, blue dye and, most recently, a foul-smelling ‘skunk’ weapon. In March 2009, an American activist, Tristan Anderson, was critically injured after a new brand of tear gas canister was fired at his head. He remains in a coma. In April 2009, Bassem Ibrahim Abu Rahmah was killed by a plastic coated bullet while demonstrating against the wall. Despite this weekly demonstrations continue unabated and have been successful in saving some of the village’s land.

For years international campaigners from all over the world have been attending the weekly demonstrations in Bil’in. Three international conferences on non-violent resistance to the wall and the occupation have been held in the village. The residents of Bil’in have brought several cases to the Israeli supreme court against the seizure of their land for the construction of the wall. Now the village is extending its resistance from the contractors building the wall and the soldiers protecting it to the international companies profiting from the building of the settlements the wall is designed to benefit.

Last year Bil’in’s village committee, with the help of Israeli human rights group Yesh Din (‘There is Law’ in Hebrew), began work on a case against two Canadian companies linked to Green Park. Green Park International Inc. and Green Mount International Inc. are both registered companies in the Province of Quebec. Lawyers for the village claim both companies are involved in building residential and non-residential units for settlers on land belonging to the village. They further claim that the village is due the protection of the Geneva conventions as it is based in territory subject to military occupation.

In what appears to be a deliberate attempt to evade restriction of its business, Green Park has nominally registered itself in Canada. Green Park has a token Canadian director who has little to do with the company’s operations in Palestine.

The Bil’in committee claims that Green Park International Inc. and Green Mount International Inc. have violated international law and Canadian domestic law and that the village has a right to protection under the Fourth Geneva Convention and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Both statutes prohibit an occupying power from transferring its civilian population into territory that it has occupied as a result of war. Bil’in also relies on the Canadian Geneva Conventions Act and the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, which contain the same prohibition. The acts have jurisdiction over Canadians regardless of where in the world the offence has taken place.

Lawyers for Bil’in are claiming damages as well as attempting to obtain an order for settlement construction to cease. If successful, they plan to try to force the Israeli supreme court to enforce the Canadian court’s order.

Green Park International Inc. and Green Mount International Inc have lodged motions in the court for the claims to be thrown out on the grounds that the court did not have jurisdiction. Bil’in’s Canadian lawyers argue that, as the companies are registered in Canada, the court does have jurisdiction. The judge’s decision is likely to come after September 2009.

The case of Bil’in vs Green Park is similar to the case lodged by the Association France Palestine Solidaritie against Veolia and Alstom, two French companies engaged in building a tramway on illegally occupied territory (see Corporate Watch Newsletter 43 – www.corporatewatch.org/?lid=3400). In that case, it was accepted that the French court did have jurisdiction to hear the case.

Stolen Beauty: the struggle for a just peace in the Middle East coming to a store near you

Code Pink

21 July 2009

As the dust settled on the destroyed homes, schools and lives in the aftermath of Israel’s assault on Gaza earlier this year, mainstream human rights groups from Amnesty International to Physicians for Human Rights/Israel issued reports condemning Israel’s attack and alleging that the Israeli government and the Israeli Defense Forces had committed war crimes and crimes against humanity. The staff of CODEPINK Women for Peace re-opened a discussion of what we could do about Israel’s flagrant flouting of international law and the brutality of the ongoing blockade of Gaza, the occupation of the West Bank and the home demolitions in East Jerusalem. We decided to revisit the idea of a boycott against Israeli products—a boycott that was having more difficulty gaining traction here in the United States than in Europe. But the best way to end an occupation is to make it unprofitable, and one of the best peaceful ways to make something unprofitable is to organize a boycott.

While doing research on the Global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement for Palestine, I came across the web site Who Profits, a project of the Israeli Coalition of Women for Peace. On that site I found a list of Israeli and international companies that are directly involved in and profit from the occupation of the Palestinian West Bank. It seemed strategically and morally important to select for our campaign a corporation whose practices were clearly in contravention to international law. Many of the corporations on the Who Profits list were either unfamiliar to me, discouragingly huge, or didn’t seem like obvious targets for a women’s peace group. But I saw one name that I recognized: Ahava Dead Sea Laboratories. In fact, I knew there was a plastic bottle of Ahava Eucalyptus Mineral Bath Salts sitting on the windowsill next to the tub in my bathroom.

If you take a look at Ahava’s web site, you can read about the company’s environmentally responsible practices: “Our manufacturing processes are non-polluting and environmentally conscious. No animals are involved in testing phases and all of our products are encased in recyclable tubes, bottles and jars.” Ahava’s spokeswoman is fresh-faced Sex & The City actress Kristin Davis, whose commitment to doing good is evidenced by her status as an Oxfam Goodwill Ambassador and her position on the advisory board of The Masai Wilderness Conservation Fund. On the Ahava site, Davis is quoted as saying, “My personal beliefs, which include treating both animals and the environment with respect, are equally important to AHAVA.”

If you navigate around the web site you will see pristine images of the Dead Sea, enticing products with beautifully designed labels, and a photo of a water lily leaf with the caption, “This leaf has nothing to hide.” But, unfortunately, Ahava does have something to hide—an ugly secret about its relationship to a brutal occupation. The Hebrew word “Ahava” means love, but there is nothing loving about what the company is doing in the Palestinian territory of the West Bank. Ahava is an Israeli profiteer exploiting the natural resources of occupied Palestine.

AHAVA Dead Sea Laboratories, an Israeli cosmetics company, has situated its main manufacturing plant and showroom at the Israeli Jewish settlement Mitzpe Shalem in the Occupied Palestinian West Bank near the shores of the Dead Sea. Mitzpe Shalem, built on occupied land in 1970, is an illegal settlement, as are all Jewish settlements in the West Bank. Ahava’s capture of Palestinian natural resources from the Dead Sea is, according to the Fourth Geneva Convention, a patently illegal use by an occupying power of stolen resources for its own profit. To add insult to injury, Ahava’s labels claim that the country of origin of its products is “The Dead Sea, Israel”—this type of labeling has been decried by Oxfam, among other human rights groups, as blatantly misleading.

While we were working on putting together the new AHAVA boycott campaign we called STOLEN BEAUTY, CODEPINK led several delegations to Gaza, one of which never made it into the Strip because the Israeli government wouldn’t let them through the Erez crossing. Several CODEPINK activists decided to take a fact-finding mission to the Ahava plant in the West Bank, corroborating what we had read about the plant’s location and its practices. The women decided to seize the opportunity and—with the avid encouragement of the Israeli Jewish and Palestinian peace activists that they had met—they went to the Ahava store at the Hilton Hotel in Tel Aviv to stage a protest action. Some put on bikinis, wrote on their bodies with mud NO AHAVA/NO LOVE, while others carried signs with slogans such as “There is no love in occupation.” They chanted, sang and made the Israeli evening news.

About a week later, we heard that Kristin Davis was going to be at Lord & Taylor on Fifth Avenue promoting Ahava products and signing autographs. Two of us went to the store to deliver a letter to Davis, requesting she stop letting Ahava use her beautiful face and good name to cover up their crimes. She was less than receptive, and we were escorted out of the store. A week later, the CODEPINK bikini brigade showed up at the “Tel Aviv Beach Party”—part of the Israeli government’s multi-million dollar “Re-brand Israel” campaign—in New York’s Central Park. The bikinis and our anti-occupation message made Fox News.

We recently sent letters to Ahava’s headquarters in Holon, Israel, as well as to Ahava USA and Kristen Davis, giving them notice of our boycott. We sent copies of these letters to Shamrock Holdings, the investment company of the Roy E. Disney family, which owns 19% of Ahava’s shares. On Monday of this week, CODEPINK women showed up in bikinis and mud at the Cosmoprof North America Trade Show in Las Vegas to let Ahava representatives know we were launching our STOLEN BEAUTY campaign.

We have sent letters to over 100 retailers requesting that they stop stocking Ahava products because Ahava helps finance the destruction of hope for a peaceful and just future for both Israelis and Palestinians. In August we’ll be outside a drugstore, department store or mall near you, exposing Ahava’s dirty secrets and showing that real beauty is more than skin deep. You can go to www.stolenbeauty.org to find out how to join our campaign. And you don’t have to wear a bikini to do it.

EU eyes exports from Israeli settlements

Ralf Beste and Christoph Schult | BusinessWeek

14 July 2009

The Israeli settlement known as Maale Adumim sits fortress-like atop a red stone plateau. In the Bible, the road to the plateau was known as the “steep red road.”

As the largest Israeli settlement in the Palestinian-administered areas of the West Bank, Maale Adumim is home to 40,000 people. Bulldozers are clearing lots for new houses on its outskirts. Its population is growing by the week and, in recent years, it has grown faster than any other settlement.

On the edge of the settlement’s industrial zone, there is a factory operated by a company called Soda-Club. The steel gate is painted blue and green to match the company’s curvy, modern-looking logo. A camera records the movements of anyone approaching the gate. The plant produces tabletop devices that add carbonation to flat water, like the ones used in many German kitchens. And for those who prefer a sweeter taste, there’s also syrup coming out of Maale Adumim.

Journalists are not welcome to visit Soda-Club. As marketing director Asaf Snear claims on the telephone, it’s to protect against industrial espionage.

But there’s another reason behind this aversion to media attention: Soda-Club’s products are at the center of a legal dispute with Germany that could significantly intensify the already heated debate over Israel’s settlement policy.

The Hamburg Finance Court must now decide whether Soda-Club devices made in Maale Adumim can be imported into the European Union duty-free, like all other Israeli industrial products. Brussels doesn’t want the company’s products to fall into this category because they are manufactured in Israeli settlements located in the occupied territories.

The real question revolves around whether Maale Adumim is part of Israel. The EU has not formally recognized Israel’s claim to Maale Adumim and other settlements. But, in practice, it has done little to stand in the way of Israeli settlement activities.

But that could now change. The Hamburg court has consulted with the European Court of Justice about obtaining a “preliminary ruling” that would settle the issue in a binding manner for all 27 EU member states. The decision is expected to come down in the coming months. If the court decides that a customs duty can be levied, it will be tantamount to handing down a decision against Israel’s settlement policy. The delicate question at hand is whether Germany and the EU should accept how Israel handles the occupied territories or if they should wield their sharpest sword—economic sanctions.

A ‘Highly Explosive Case’

In formal terms, the judges are merely being asked to reach a decision about €19,155.46. Brita GmbH , a German company, had imported Soda-Club water-carbonating machines and syrup from Maale Adumim. The company also labeled the products as being “Made in Israel” and claimed that they should consequently be exempt from customs duties.

But the main customs office in Hamburg’s harbor refused to allow this policy to continue. German customs agents contacted their Israeli counterparts to find out where exactly the products were made. When the response came, it said that they had been made in an area “under Israeli customs administration.” When the Hamburg agents wrote back, asking whether the products had actually been manufactured in Israeli settlements, they received no response. So the Germans slapped a duty on the products.

Then Brita filed a lawsuit against this decision. The matter quickly made its way to the European Commission, which wants to use the legal dispute over Soda-Club to make an example of Israel. In an internal memo, it has asked EU member states for “support.” The German Foreign Ministry is monitoring the “highly explosive case” with some interest—and a certain amount of sympathy.

The EU is already prepared for confrontation when it comes to Israel’s new nationalist, right-wing government. The 27 EU foreign ministers have temporarily put a planned diplomatic “upgrading” of relations with Israel on hold.

Now Europe hopes to use the customs dispute to apply additional pressure on Israel. The EU is the second-largest market for Israeli goods, after the United States. In 2008, for example, Israeli companies exported €12 billion ($16.8 billion) in goods to Europe. An estimated one-third of these goods are either fully or partially made in the occupied territories. Most apparently reach Europe duty-free, and an Israeli reimbursement fund for exports subject to duties was hardly used at all last year.

In response to EU pressure, Jerusalem signed an agreement in 2005 that requires every Israeli exporter to provide the customs agency with the location and postal code of the factory where any given product was produced. But when Israeli importers deliberately declare an incorrect place of origin, customs agents are powerless to react.

The situation has prompted the British government to urge the other 26 EU member states to agree on a procedure that would allow consumers to see exactly where Israeli goods come from. The proposal makes many Israelis uneasy. Could this mean, they worry, that European governments will soon be telling consumers: “Don’t buy from Jews”?

Given the country’s history, this is understandably a very sensitive issue in Germany. This makes it all the more surprising that the German government has been willing to openly comment on the Soda-Club affair. In response to a parliamentary question from the opposition Green Party, the government has said that there can be no exemption from customs duty for “goods from the occupied territories.”

Meanwhile, the Soda-Club company is doing exactly what many Israelis do when it comes to the Palestinian conflict—ignoring the problem. When asked for Soda-Club’s reaction to people criticizing it for manufacturing its products in a settlement, marketing director Snear says: “Soda-Club is an apolitical company.”

Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan