Also last week, the African National Congress (ANC), the South African ruling party, which led the struggle against apartheid, convened an international conference in Pretoria, attended by delegates from more than 100 countries from around the world.

At the conference, The ANC declared its support for the boycott campaign. The conference’s final declaration called upon the delegates to condemn the “continuous occupation of Palestinian territories by the Israeli government” and reiterated its support for a Palestinian state within the 1967 lines, with occupied eastern Jerusalem as its capital.

The South African boycott, divestment and sanctions movement delivered a message at the conference. The message called upon all South Africans “to support the programmes and campaigns of Palestinian civil society in their pursuit of justice, freedom and equality”.

Although the international community has repeatedly condemned Israeli denial of the Palestinian people’s fundamental rights of freedom, equality and self-determination, the Palestinian people continue to be subjected to collective punishment, dispossession and oppressive occupation. Countless UN resolutions remain unheeded and even 20 years of negotiations for a peaceful settlement of the conflict have produced no result.

In 2005, Palestinian civil society called on their international counterparts and “people of conscience all over the world” to launch a campaign for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. Seven years later, the global BDS campaign has become more widespread and more diverse, receiving support from trade unions, professional associations, artists’ and citizens’ organisations from around the world.

But has it become more effective? Its strategy continues to be to “further isolate Israel as a world pariah, just as South Africa was under apartheid”. But Israel has been isolated for years and the vote on various resolutions on Palestine at the UN General Assembly regularly remind Israel of how isolated it has become, but Israel seems to have concluded that as long as it enjoys Washington’ unqualified support, nothing else matters.

Further, the comparison with South Africa and the role the boycott and embargo played in helping end apartheid is frequent, but not useful. This for at least two reasons that readily come to mind:

(A) The boycott and the UN embargo against South Africa enjoyed virtually universal support, with the exception of Israel, which continued to help the racist regime in South Africa, especially in the military and nuclear field;

(B) the moral repugnance of racism in South Africa was clear and non-controversial.

Consider the case of Israel. It is virtually unthinkable that Washington could in the foreseeable future allow the UN Security Council to decree an embargo or impose sanctions against Israel. In fact, the contrary has been happening. In the early 1970s, a UN resolution equated Zionism with racism. A few years ago, the George W. Bush administration managed to get the UN to rescind that resolution.

A more appropriate test of effectiveness is to measure the stated objectives of BDS against its achievements. The stated objectives of BDS is to continue the boycott against Israel until it meets its obligations under international law by

(A) ending the occupation and colonisation;

(B) recognising the right of the Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality before the law;

(C) recognising the right of the Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties.

By this measure, the effectiveness of the movement has been virtually non-existent. It may be that the organisers ought to rethink their assumptions and strategies. Instead of focusing on isolating Israel, which is already a reality, they ought to think about Washington’s support for Israel, which allows Israel to overcome the paradox of being both isolated and defiant.

It is relatively easy to see the battle lines.

Consider Washington’s vehement and incensed reaction to the report by Falk, which basically said little that has not been said before. US Ambassador Susan Rice called Falk “highly biased” and his appeal for a boycott “irresponsible and unacceptable … Mr Falk’s recommendations … poison the environment for peace…”