I’ve frequently compared BDS to a virus that preys upon civic
organizations unfamiliar with its tactics and ultimate propaganda goals. But
like a virus, BDS has created its own antibodies that contribute to its
rejection within whole categories of civic institution after a troubling
infection breaks out and then is cured.
We’ve seen this play out at different stages with colleges and
universities over the years. In the
early 2000s, for instance, petition-driven divestment campaigns were big news
when they cropped up at high-profile schools like Harvard and MIT, leading to their
replication at schools across the country.
But once these campaigns sprang up, so did counter-campaigns to resist
them. These consisted of anti-divestment petitions that outpolled pro-BDS ones
10:1, as well as sound arguments for rejecting divestment.
When those arguments became accepted universally by schools
administrators (all but blocking off genuine divestment at colleges and
universities), the battle moved to student government. At first, BDS debates at schools like
Berkeley became so ugly and divisive that other schools avoided similar fights
since they tended to alienate students from their representatives, as well as
invite condemnation from administrators, alumni and the media. But, as time went on, the BDSers found a
solution to representatives refusing to speak in the name of those they
represented on controversial international issues: replacing them with new leaders
who were BDS activists first, student representatives second (if at all).
While calls to have BDS motions passed by student government are
still rare, and the boycotters lose more often than they win, new antibodies
continue to spring up to protect the organism (the campus as a whole) from the
BDS infection. Most importantly, pro-Israel
students have mobilized to ensure that no BDS call goes unanswered, with
support from on-campus resources such as local Hillels.
BDS excess, especially with regard to shouting down pro-Israel
speakers and bullying pro-Israel students, has also led to the involvement of
responsible adults in the debate. The
University of California system’s adoption of a definition of anti-Semitism that recognizes
anti-Zionism as a form of Jew hatred was a huge step forward, as was this recent report from the American Council of Trustees and Alumni
(ACTA) on the threat BDS poses to campus discourse,
freedom of speech and inquiry.
As in the early 2000s, the most powerful contribution groups like
UC leaders and ACTA have made are intellectual ones. For by providing a sound set of arguments for
why BDS is not just one more form of legitimate protest, and focusing those
arguments not on the Arab-Israeli conflict but the threat BDS activity poses to
core values of academia, they have created a foundation others can build on to
continue the fight against boycott, divestment and sanctions projects.
Years ago, another institutions (food cooperatives) immunized
themselves from the BDS threat by creating similar arguments that showed how
boycotting Israeli goods ran counter the founding principles of the Coop movement as a whole (called the Rochdale Principles) as well as showing how boycotts
might run afoul of anti-discrimination law.
As a result, today boycotts are all but dead in the coop movement.
The number of BDSholes involved with the campus branch of the
global anti-Israel propaganda campaign is larger than those involved with the
ultimately failed effort to turn food cooperatives into their latest weapons of
war. But our side too is mobilized and
is fighting back, not with shouts and manipulative rhetoric, but with sound
arguments – strongly and confidently presented – that continue to win the day.