By Greg Bouwer on the Israel Institute of NZ website…
Invercargill may not often make national headlines, but last week, its city council made a decision that deserves attention and applause. In the face of pressure from activists to wade into a contentious foreign conflict, the council did what more local governments should: it said no.
On Tuesday (June 24), the Invercargill City Council rejected a motion to amend its procurement policy to exclude companies operating in Israeli settlements — territory that proponents of the motion claimed is “illegally occupied Palestinian land.” The vote was split 6–6, and Mayor Nobby Clark cast the deciding vote to reject the proposal.
That rejection is significant. In doing so, Invercargill refused to adopt the kind of politically selective policy already passed by Christchurch, Nelson, and Environment Canterbury — policies which, under the guise of human rights, single out Israel while ignoring far more serious and widespread global injustices.
The motion in Invercargill was driven by members of the Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa and based on a list published by the UN Human Rights Council — a body well known for its disproportionate focus on Israel. That list excludes companies involved in other occupied territories around the world, including Western Sahara, northern Cyprus, and Crimea. Only Israel is targeted.
In the council debate, those in favour framed the motion as a moral imperative. “We’re not some isolated council,” said Cr Lesley Soper. Cr Darren Ludlow declared that “as pointless as it may seem, there is a point. And that’s leadership.”
Read the full article on the Israel Institute of NZ website HERE.
EDITOR’s NOTE: Environment Canterbury, Christchurch City Council, Nelson City Council, and Dunedin City Council have all voted to amend their procurement policies to exclude companies operating in Israeli settlements. In New Plymouth the council has debated a proposal to adopt similiar policies but the proposal was voted down.
