Reykjavík Grapevine - 25.09.2015, Síða 10

ON BEING
THE GOOD
GUYS:
10
The Reykjavík Grapevine
Issue 15 — 2015
Politics | Bright?News | International
The reaction was, in part, based on a
misunderstanding of what the proposal
entailed. It was not, as many believed, a
national boycott, nor did it prohibit Reyk-
javík residents from buying products
from Israel. Rather, it was a “purchasing
policy” for the offices of Reykjavik City;
it would exclude products made in Israel
from being bought by city offices. How-
ever, even those who understood the true
nature of the proposal were critical of it,
and that criticism came from abroad as
much as it came from other Icelanders.
BACKLASH?
The European Jewish Congress and the
World Jewish Conference were among
those who harshly criticised the pro-
posal, but having more impact than their
press releases were the businesses in the
tourist industry, such as hotels and air-
lines, who complained that they were
looking at many cancellations over the
proposal.
In a strange twist, an Icelandic bank
even got involved. Arion Bank CEO
Höskuldur H. Ólafsson forwarded an e-
mail to Mayor Dagur B. Eggertsson that
was originally written by Eggert Dagb-
jartsson, one of the investors behind the
building of a Marriott hotel next to the
Harpa Concert Hall. In the email, Eggert
warned that “many of the top people at
Marriott are [J]ewish as well. Further-
more, most major US Hotel Companies—
such as Starwood, Lowes, etc. are either
owned or controlled by [J]ewish Ameri-
cans.”
Both Prime Minister Sigmundur
Davíð Gunnlaugsson and Finance Min-
ister Bjarni Benediktsson also cautioned
that the proposal was putting a number
of Icelandic projects in jeopardy, without
naming any specifics. Many called, and
still call, for Dagur to resign as mayor.
SURPRISE!
“I was surprised,” Björk told the Grape-
vine, discussing the backlash. “I didn't
imagine that the Israelis and the Zionists
in the USA would accuse us in the City
Council of anti-Semitism and hate. We
were described as ‘a volcano of hate’ [by
Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesperson
Emmanuel Nahshon]. I have never felt
that hate—only a desire for peace and
love. But I blame Israel's government.
My opinion is that they are the worst en-
emy of the Jewish people, because many
people do not understand the difference
between Judaism and Zionism. But there
is a big difference between them. One is
a faith, Judaism, and the other, Zionism,
is a political ideology that’s produced the
Israeli apartheid policy.”
Within days, Dagur announced that
the proposal was going to be rescinded
and revised. The new proposal was es-
sentially the same, but it limited the pur-
chase prohibition to products made in
Israeli-occupied territories in Palestine.
In fact, opposition party MPs for the Ice-
landic parliament submitted a comple-
mentary proposal, which would require
products that come from these territories
to be labeled as such.
WHALING?
Still, the criticism wasn’t letting up; not
least of all from within City Council itself.
“I voted against it,” Independence
Party head for City Council Halldór
Halldórsson told Grapevine. “I believe
it should have been debated. We have
seen Icelandic water being removed from
store shelves in the US over this, as well
as the cancellations in the tourist indus-
try.”
When asked if he felt the concerns
over Iceland’s international image are
also applied to whaling, Halldór said,
“You can be an Icelander and still be for
or against whaling. But the city’s propos-
al was not consistent with our national
foreign policy.”
NAZIS?
Things arguably came to a head at a City
Council meeting last Tuesday, which—
like most Council meetings—was open
to the general public and could also be
watched online. In the gallery above the
council hall, both Icelandic supporters
and critics alike could be seen—some
holding signs calling for the liberation of
Palestine, others Israeli flags.
Before this audience, members of City
Council made their cases. At this point,
though, everyone—even the mayor—was
in agreement that the original proposal
was poorly thought-out and needed to be
rescinded. So the main topic of discussion
revolved around Dagur, and whether or
not he should resign.
Independence Party councilperson
Kjartan Magnússon in particular harshly
criticised the mayor, saying that Dagur
was not only wrong but also gave no
forewarning to the opposition about the
proposal. “This is why the mayor needs to
minimise the damage and this is why the
mayor needs to resign,” he said.
Another Independence Party coun-
cilperson, Áslaug Friðriksdóttir, kicked
things up a notch by calling the proposal
“populism of the worst sort.” She added
that it tarnished the image of Icelanders,
making us look racist, and that import
bans on countries are unethical.
“Let’s say the Nazis came to power
and they decided to put a ban on specific
things,” she said. “You are actually doing
that, but you don’t consider yourselves
Nazis because you’re the good guys.”
Áslaug later apologised for her re-
marks, while contending that she was not
comparing anyone to Nazis.
DAMAGES?
Social Democrat councilperson Hjálmar
Sveinsson pointed out that no one had
been able to demonstrate that any con-
crete damage had been done by the pro-
posal, while Bright Future councilperson
Björn Blöndal added that he felt that may-
or had responded to the backlash “with
humility” and that calling for his resigna-
tion was “overreaching.” In addition, he
put the proposal in the context of similar
foreign policy actions taken by Iceland—
namely, the city’s criticism of China’s
treatment of dissenters, and cutting ties
with Moscow over anti-LGBT legislation.
Dagur had cited these two examples
himself in his weekly e-mail newsletter.
“I have noticed this has been called
an embargo, which it isn’t, and a testa-
ment to anti-Semitism, which is of course
ridiculous,” he wrote in the newsletter.
“Reykjavík is a city of human rights. We
have protested against China’s infringe-
ments on freedom of expression and the
government’s oppression of dissenters,
we have protested against the Russian
government’s treatment of homosexuals
and their allies by cutting ties with Mos-
cow. The approved proposal is the logical
extension of this.”
Of course, many Icelanders had sup-
ported the proposal, but so had a number
of voices from abroad—including some
Israelis. Israeli Citizens For BDS (which
stands for “boycott, divestment and sanc-
tions”) published an open letter to the
Reykjavik City Council, urging them to
stand by the original proposal.
“In recent years, Israel has taken
many legislative steps to criminalize hu-
man rights activities, such as providing
information about the occupation and
calling for boycott of the state and war-
profiteering corporations,” they wrote.
“Merely writing this letter to you is an
illegal act under Israeli civil torts law
and we hereby proudly violate this law.
We therefore ask you, first and foremost,
to support the indigenous Palestinian
people whose very existence has been
curtailed and criminalized under a co-
lonial supremacist regime. Secondly, we
ourselves ask for your support, since our
mere and symbolic opposition to such
inhumane policies has been deemed il-
legal.”
But the damage to the idea had al-
ready been done, and shortly after the
meeting, Dagur made it clear that a re-
vised proposal would not be submitted.
“That makes me very sad, but I forgive
my colleagues,” Björk told us. “They had
no other option because they were not
prepared for this brutal backlash from
Israel, the USA and the Zionist lobby.
Councillors have admitted that this has
caused problems. But the message is
coming through. The discussions that
dominated Iceland’s political life over the
last ten days have raised the profile of the
BDS movement, and I think the people in
Iceland are now very much aware of the
Zionist apartheid system in Israel against
the Palestinian people, and will now
more than ever boycott Israeli goods.”
Countering Björk’s view in a Kven-
nablaðið article entitled “Of Course Da-
gur Should Resign,” leftist journalist Atli
Þór Fanndal says that the ill-thought out,
ill-prepared motion coupled with the
mayor’s “spineless” response has pro-
vided Israel with a model on how to suc-
cessfully disparage any motions towards
BDS. Dagur should of course resign, Atli
contends, and those responsible for pass-
ing the motion—including Björk—should
be ashamed of themselves.
Dagur has not announced any plans to
resign at the time of this writing, and did
not respond to requests for a comment on
this story. Whatever the situation in City
Council will be once the smoke clears, the
story is a testament to both the sensitiv-
ity of politicians and bankers to even a
perceived threat to Iceland’s bottom line,
and to how political efforts with even the
best intentions can backfire spectacular-
ly.
Last week, an outgoing Reykjavík City Councilperson for
the Social Democrats, Björk Vilhelmsdottir, submitted
a proposal to City Council that would prohibit the city
from buying products made in Israel. The City Council
majority passed the measure, and almost immediately,
Iceland was assailed with an international backlash.
Words by Paul Fontaine
“I didn't imagine that the
Israelis and the Zionists
in the USA would accuse
us in the City Council of
anti-Semitism and hate.
We were described as ‘a
volcano of hate’. I have
never felt that hate—
only a desire for peace
and love.”
Reykjavík’s Ill-Fated Proposal
To Ban Purchases From Israel