Debating what happened, why, and what it says about Olympia
By Matthew Green, 9/22/10
Two months ago, the Board of Directors of the Olympia Food Co-op approved a boycott of Israeli-made products. Explicitly proclaiming themselves to be following a legacy of historic boycotts, including the Montgomery bus boycott and the boycott against South Africa over Apartheid, the board declared that the co-op was joining a movement “to compel Israel to follow international law and respect Palestinian human rights.”
The reaction overwhelmed the co-op, literally, as hundreds of phone calls and emails per day flooded in for a week. Most of these messages were angry, some were violent, including death threats. Many included anti-Semitic or anti-Arabic language, according a statement released by the co-op. And nearly all came from outside the Olympia area. “It was very hard to determine what the local community felt when we were inundated by calls from out of state,” says co-op spokesperson Jayne Kaszynski.
“I knew that there was going to be people upset about it. I had no idea of the national and international attention – the threats, the calls, hundreds per day, the emails,” says boardmember Rob Richards. For example, “I got Facebook messages that called me Hitler, from people in Philadelphia.”
Locally, protesters and counter-protesters rallied outside the two co-op stores, on Rogers Street in west Olympia and Pacific Avenue in east Olympia, alternately assailing and celebrating the board’s action. Supporters and opponents handed out flyers, collected signatures on petitions, wrote letters to the editor, and organized community meetings. Board members stood in front of each store for hours, seeking to personally explain their decision to members. Some co-op members canceled their membership in protest, while other people bought new memberships to show their support.
On August 12, over 300 people attended a forum hosted by the co-op, with much emotional testimony, but no violent confrontations. “A lot of the board were really afraid what might happen,” says Richards. They had heard about another co-op that had to hire private security due to threats of violence during a similar debate. However, “the worst was one member who got upset, shouted something, and walked out. Nobody was really disrespectful. So it was successful from that standpoint.”
The conflicts between Israelis and Palestinians have been going on for decades (or millenia, depending on who you ask), and will not be recounted here. The call by Palestinian civil groups for a boycott of Israel started in 2005. The first suggestion that the Olympia Food Co-op join that boycott came from a staffer about two years ago.
In May, after informal discussion by staff, the idea was presented to the co-op board. Citing the co-op’s boycott policy, the board directed it back to staff to prepare a formal proposal and seek staff consensus. That policy says that boycott proposals will be presented “to the staff who will decide by consensus whether or not to honor a boycott.” (The co-op has about 75 paid staff, plus many working members who volunteer. In this context, “staff” includes only paid staff.)
The co-op has supported many boycotts in the past, including against Norway, Colorado, and green grapes, and currently against China and Coca-Cola. None of them generated anything like the current controversy.
This time, for the first and only time anyone can remember regarding a proposed boycott, staff were unable to reach consensus. Or to be precise (as activists on this issue like to be), some members of the staff said they would block consensus
if it came to a meeting. (Under the co-op’s consensus-based decision making process, any one participant can block any decision.) So, staff decided not to hold an official consensus-seeking meeting at all. Instead, staff feedback for and against a boycott was collected, compiled, and presented back to the board along with the formal proposal.
At the board’s July 15 meeting, according to the meeting minutes, “the board was surprised to find thirty or so community members gathered at the meeting in support of the boycott.” Staff and boycott supporters gave presentations to the board. The board discussed the option of holding a member vote, but decided against it.
The co-op had earlier received the language of the boycott proposal and some supporting materials from a pro-boycott advocacy group. Also, some individual staff and board members informally researched the issue. Beyond that, however, the co-op did not seek further information, such as from advocates for either side or from co-op members, prior to their decision.
“The board shared concern for the staff and [co-op] members that are opposed to the boycott,” say the meeting minutes (though neither the minutes nor co-op staff say when or how the board heard any concerns from co-op members). “After a thorough discussion of the above concerns,” the board approved the boycott proposal as presented. Immediately after, they directed staff to prepare a public statement – and also to begin work on revising the boycott policy, and to organize a forum where co-op members could “share their opinions and concerns.”
The boycott policy says the co-op “will honor nationally recognized boycotts which are called for reasons that are compatible with our goals and mission statement.” As its justification for approving this boycott, the board cited language in its mission statement that says the co-op will “strive to make human effects on the earth and its inhabitants positive and renewing and to encourage economic and social justice” and will “support efforts to foster a socially and economically egalitarian society.”
“This is an economic response to an economic problem, so I thought it was fitting,” says Richards, the boardmember. “Even if it’s purely symbolic, even if it never goes anywhere or does anything, I still thought this is important to do.” (OP&L sent an invitation to all boardmembers, via co-op staff, to interview for this article. None responded. Richards agreed to speak with us, however, when we encountered him at a coffeeshop.)
Rochelle Gause knew and was inspired by Rachel Corrie, and has visited Gaza in support of the Palestinians several times since Corrie’s death. Phan Nguyen has been an activist on Palestinian issues for about nine years. Matt Lester got involved in the issue because, he says, “As a Jewish person, I felt it was very important to be in solidarity with Palestinians.” All are members of the Olympia Food Co-op.
One time while shopping there, Gause noticed a product from Israel on the shelves, one that financially supports a Jewish organization she associates with the occupation of Palestine. She wrote to co-op staff, asking them to remove it. (They did, separate from the current boycott.) In the process, she learned about the co-op’s boycott policy and that the suggestion of boycotting Israeli products had been raised previously but not resolved.
Gause, Nguyen, Lester, and others formed Olympia BDS (which stands for boycott, divest, and sanction) to organize in support of a boycott. They say that the movement has gained momentum in the last year, mostly in Europe. Locally, last year, Evergreen students voted to pass two campus initiatives related to sanctions against Israel. Thus, “people have become more informed about the issue, so we thought it was a good time” to seek a boycott, says Nguyen.
Another thing that seems to have led them to pursue a boycott, as opposed to other tactics, is that a boycott is personal and direct. “This is something people can get involved in regardless of what our government is doing,” says Nguyen. To Gause, though she has been an activist for some time, the boycott “is the first thing that I feel has an actual impact.”
In addition, the co-op already has a boycott policy to build from and is “very deliberate in the items they stock,” says Nguyen, presumably making it easier to approach than a private business.
Gause, Nguyen, Lester and other members of Olympia BDS provided information to co-op staff that was used to write the boycott proposal, some of it drawn from the international BDS movement, including the wording of the conditions for ending the boycott. They also were among the boycott supporters who attended the board meeting when the boycott was approved.
Nina Berenfeld, whose father survived the Holocaust and then grew up in Israel, has been to Israel many times and says she has studied its history as well as “how to separate anti-Semitism from criticism of Israel,” but doesn’t consider herself an activist. David Scherer Water says “I am a Zionist. I believe that there should be a Jewish state in Israel.” Both are members of the Olympia Food Co-op.
Neither knew that the co-op was considering a boycott until after it passed. “I started getting a lot of phone calls and emails about this,” says Berenfeld, from friends asking for advice on how to respond. Scherer Water says, “my initial reaction was sort of positive” because he thought the boycott might call for “action against the oppressive mistreatment of Palestinians,” but he was disappointed when he read the details.
Shortly thereafter, Berenfeld, Scherer Water, and others formed a group called It’s Our Co-op to organize a response against the boycott.
The Israel/Palestine debate in the context of the Olympia Food Co-op has generated much more attention and emotion than the same debate in other local contexts, such as the student votes at Evergreen and a recent proposal to the Olympia City Council to establish a sister city relationship with Rafah in the Gaza Strip (a proposal that did not pass). Even veterans of those debates were surprised. “I don’t think anyone expected the amount of backlash,” says Nguyen.
Among national and international reactions, this boycott seems to be seen as a significant precedent. Other co-ops in the United States have considered boycotts of Israel, but the Olympia co-op was the first co-op – and the first major organization in the US other than a college – to approve one.
Locally, however, the reason for the greater controversy seems to have if it came to a meeting. (Under the co-op’s consensus-based decision making process, any one participant can block any decision.) So, staff decided not to hold an official consensus-seeking meeting at all. Instead, staff feedback for and against a boycott was collected, compiled, and presented back to the board along with the formal proposal.
At the board’s July 15 meeting, according to the meeting minutes, “the board was surprised to find thirty or so community members gathered at the meeting in support of the boycott.” Staff and boycott supporters gave presentations to the board. The board discussed the option of holding a member vote, but decided against it.
The co-op had earlier received the language of the boycott proposal and some supporting materials from a pro-boycott advocacy group. Also, some individual staff and board members informally researched the issue. Beyond that, however, the co-op did not seek further information, such as from advocates for either side or from co-op members, prior to their decision.
“The board shared concern for the staff and [co-op] members that are opposed to the boycott,” say the meeting minutes (though neither the minutes nor co-op staff say when or how the board heard any concerns from co-op members). “After a thorough discussion of the above concerns,” the board approved the boycott proposal as presented. Immediately after, they directed staff to prepare a public statement – and also to begin work on revising the boycott policy, and to organize a forum where co-op members could “share their opinions and concerns.”
The boycott policy says the co-op “will honor nationally recognized boycotts which are called for reasons that are compatible with our goals and mission statement.” As its justification for approving this boycott, the board cited language in its mission statement that says the co-op will “strive to make human effects on the earth and its inhabitants positive and renewing and to encourage economic and social justice” and will “support efforts to foster a socially and economically egalitarian society.”
“This is an economic response to an economic problem, so I thought it was fitting,” says Richards, the boardmember. “Even if it’s purely symbolic, even if it never goes anywhere or does anything, I still thought this is important to do.” (OP&L sent an invitation to all boardmembers, via co-op staff, to interview for this article. None responded. Richards agreed to speak with us, however, when we encountered him at a coffeeshop.)
Rochelle Gause knew and was inspired by Rachel Corrie, and has visited Gaza in support of the Palestinians several times since Corrie’s death. Phan Nguyen has been an activist on Palestinian issues for about nine years. Matt Lester got involved in the issue because, he says, “As a Jewish person, I felt it was very important to be in solidarity with Palestinians.” All are members of the Olympia Food Co-op.
One time while shopping there, Gause noticed a product from Israel on the shelves, one that financially supports a Jewish organization she associates with the occupation of Palestine. She wrote to co-op staff, asking them to remove it. (They did, separate from the current boycott.) In the process, she learned about the co-op’s boycott policy and that the suggestion of boycotting Israeli products had been raised previously but not resolved.
Gause, Nguyen, Lester, and others formed Olympia BDS (which stands for boycott, divest, and sanction) to organize in support of a boycott. They say that the movement has gained momentum in the last year, mostly in Europe. Locally, last year, Evergreen students voted to pass two campus initiatives related to sanctions against Israel. Thus, “people have become more informed about the issue, so we thought it was a good time” to seek a boycott, says Nguyen.
Another thing that seems to have led them to pursue a boycott, as opposed to other tactics, is that a boycott is personal and direct. “This is something people can get involved in regardless of what our government is doing,” says Nguyen. To Gause, though she has been an activist for some time, the boycott “is the first thing that I feel has an actual impact.”
In addition, the co-op already has a boycott policy to build from and is “very deliberate in the items they stock,” says Nguyen, presumably making it easier to approach than a private business.
Gause, Nguyen, Lester and other members of Olympia BDS provided information to co-op staff that was used to write the boycott proposal, some of it drawn from the international BDS movement, including the wording of the conditions for ending the boycott. They also were among the boycott supporters who attended the board meeting when the boycott was approved.
Nina Berenfeld, whose father survived the Holocaust and then grew up in Israel, has been to Israel many times and says she has studied its history as well as “how to separate anti-Semitism from criticism of Israel,” but doesn’t consider herself an activist. David Scherer Water says “I am a Zionist. I believe that there should be a Jewish state in Israel.” Both are members of the Olympia Food Co-op.
Neither knew that the co-op was considering a boycott until after it passed. “I started getting a lot of phone calls and emails about this,” says Berenfeld, from friends asking for advice on how to respond. Scherer Water says, “my initial reaction was sort of positive” because he thought the boycott might call for “action against the oppressive mistreatment of Palestinians,” but he was disappointed when he read the details.
Shortly thereafter, Berenfeld, Scherer Water, and others formed a group called It’s Our Co-op to organize a response against the boycott.
The Israel/Palestine debate in the context of the Olympia Food Co-op has generated much more attention and emotion than the same debate in other local contexts, such as the student votes at Evergreen and a recent proposal to the Olympia City Council to establish a sister city relationship with Rafah in the Gaza Strip (a proposal that did not pass). Even veterans of those debates were surprised. “I don’t think anyone expected the amount of backlash,” says Nguyen.
Among national and international reactions, this boycott seems to be seen as a significant precedent. Other co-ops in the United States have considered boycotts of Israel, but the Olympia co-op was the first co-op – and the first major organization in the US other than a college – to approve one.
Locally, however, the reason for the greater controversy seems to have probably been the most productive way to” educate people about Israel and Palestine, says Gause. Good things are coming from the many resulting conversations, supporters insist, especially among the Jewish community. One of these good things, according to Lester, is that even supporters of Israel “are having to preface their statements with saying they are opposed to the occupation” of Palestine.
Boycott opponents describe a very different Olympia, one already fundamentally in agreement on three key issues: ending the mistreatment of Palestinians, ending the occupation, and ensuring the safety of Israel. Both Berenfeld and Scherer Water say, without prompting, that they and most members of It’s Our Co-op were opposed to the occupation of Palestine long before the boycott debate started. Berenfeld says she’s “not confused about the government and military harshly oppressing the Palestinians.” “The idea that there is so much discord (over this issue in Olympia) is born from misunderstanding,” says Scherer Water. “You’d have to have a heart of stone to support the oppression of Palestinians or to oppose the existence of Israel.” To him, the boycott was a “dramatic” and “exciting” stunt for supporters, but a lost opportunity to unite people around countering oppression. He says that had there been a real dialog attempted before the boycott passed, he would have taken part, but “critical dialog is nearly impossible at this point” because any support for Israel is now interpreted as an attack on the rights of Palestinians.
Both supporters and opponents of the boycott say they will continue to organize around this issue, but for very different ends. Supporters say that while they’re “taking a breath” right now, they plan to push ahead. “The boycott was just the beginning of the campaign,” says Nguyen, “I’d like to see a whole bunch more businesses join in,” says Gause. They report that people in other communities have asked them for advice on how to pursue a boycott. Opponents say they’re focused on healing the community’s wounds from this episode. “The way the co-op board handled this boycott didn’t remind us of who we are as people,” says Scherer Water. “Instead it tore us apart as people… We’re no longer debating whether the co-op should boycott Israel or not. We’re debating whether Olympia comes together or not.”
The co-op has its own plans.
The board raised the possibility of a full member vote on the issue, though it has not commited to holding one. Supporters resist that notion. “I’m comfortable with the board being an elected body making the decision,” says Gause, though in the same conversation she and other supporters note that there is always the opportunity for members to initiate a vote and that Olympia BDS had considered doing just that if the board had decided against the boycott. Opponents are skeptical too. Scherer Water says that, even if a majority votes for something, that doesn’t make it right. He and Berenfeld instead emphasize the need for education and communication. In a position statement from It’s Our Co-op, they call upon the board to rescind the boycott in order to allow for that communication, and then to reconsider it after community review.
Mostly, the board’s plan is to review the process and the policy that brought them here. At the very same meeting when the board approved the boycott, they asked staff to start work on writing a new boycott policy. In a later statement, the co-op board wrote “We believe that we were operating within the letter of co-op policies when we approved this boycott proposal. After listening to member concerns we agree that these policies could be improved.”
“The way it was presented to me was that it had been proposed two years ago, giving me the impression that everyone knew about it,” says boardmember Richards. “After the fact, I learned that’s not true. Many staff and members were still in the dark about it.”
In its statement, the board also wrote “We acknowledge that some of the wording of the boycott can be interpreted in more than one way. We recognize the right of all people, including Israelis & Palestinians, to live in peace and security. We commit to working with members on clarifying the boycott proposal to be explicit with these goals.”
However, rescinding the boycott entirely is “unlikely,” according to Kaszynski, the co-op spokesperson, because that too would require a unanimous consensus of the board.
OP&L will continue to track events surrounding this issue. ◙
The Olympia Food Co-op has posted information about its boycott of Israeli products on its website at www.olympiafood.coop. Olympia BDS can be contacted via their website at www.olympiabds.org. It’s Our Co-op is preparing a website; look for it soon.