Monday, December 04, 2017
Elder of Ziyon
During my semi-monthly foray into Twitter, I noticed an
activist friend discussing a familiar dilemma that arose (again) in the context
of the recent New
School outrage where anti-Semites like Linda Sarsour took it upon
themselves to publically define anti-Semitism to exclude all of the bigoted
things they say and do to make Israelis (but just the Jewish ones) seem like
monsters.
The discussion was not over the event itself, but how to
react to it since going after the panelists or the New School faculty that
decided such an event was a great idea would inevitably trigger accusations against
Israel’s supporters of censorship.
This situation is yet another example of the strategy Israel’s
defamers use to put their opponents in lose-lose situations where we are faced
with either protesting their latest outrages - making us vulnerable to
accusations that we are attacking free speech - or doing nothing and letting
our foes get away with whatever they want.
There is a simple and a complicated answer to how to respond
to provocations knowing that accusations of censorship are inevitable if we use
our free speech rights to speak the truth or defend against BDS BS.
Starting with the simple, years ago a grizzled veteran of
professional politics taught me that you’re going to get whacked just as hard
for “buying the election” if you raise and spend $5 or $500,000 to defeat an
opponent. Given that, why not live with
accusations and a half-a-million-dollar war chest vs. the same accusations and
a pittance?
Over my decade and a half in the BDS game, I’ve learned that
our side will always be characterized as enemies of free speech, whether we
organize a massive protest or simply write a subdued letter to the editor. So there is really nothing to be gained from
shying away from trying to bury the other side. In fact, strategies that might
seem like overkill (such as passing state and national legislation against a
BDS program that has yet to gain any purchase in the US) communicate to
opponents that (1) we take their accusations of censorship as seriously as they
take our accusations of hypocrisy and bigotry; and (2) we are willing to do
what it takes (and then some) to defeat them.
A different issue the New School event brought up has to do
with who has the initiative. Are we
destined to have to wait until our opponents commit the next outrage, and then
be left with no options other than to respond?
This gets us to the more complex answer to the original
question of what to do when the next anti-Israel grotesque shows up in our
face, a question that boils down to the whole “offense vs. defense” debate that
tends to paralyze the Jewish community when dealing with BDS and similar
issues.
As I’ve
discussed a number of times, the pro-Israel community is subject to regular
fights over whether or how we can “go on the attack” and force our opponents to
respond to us, rather than “playing defense” by responding to their
provocations and campaigns time and time again.
The problem with this line of reasoning is that it presumes
our only options are to respond to
our enemy’s vicious assaults or become
our enemies by launching our own assaults that force Israel’s enemies to
respond to our (true) accusations (such as accusations of bigotry, sexism,
homophobia and totalitarianism directed at the Arab world), or shaming
opponents by pointing out their ties to terrorism or hypocrisy vis-à-vis human
rights.
While there is enormous satisfaction in “turning the tables”
on your foes, there are a number of reasons why this never tends to work for
us, all of which boil down to issues of asymmetry. Specifically, while Israel’s enemies are at
war with the Jewish state and its supporters, we are not at war with them. We do not, for example, want to see our
opponents destroyed, and thus will never be able to build and sustain
decades-long campaigns to vilify Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims in the way
those groups have sustained their decades-long attack on the nation they want
eradicated.
So are we left with no options then to get into a defensive
crouch and hope those that hate us will eventually see the error of their ways
and leave us alone?
The answer to that question is too long to include in a pair
of summarizing paragraphs (although my complete response can be read here). But to sum these arguments up in a few quick
sentences: the whole offense-vs-defense argument demonstrates a lack of historical
understanding of the nature of warfare which leaves us unfamiliar with the kind
of war – a siege war – we are
actually fighting.
For a siege (like the one we find ourselves in) is a form of warfare, regardless of
which side of the siege line your find yourself on. And fighting a siege war involves all the
martial values of courage, cleverness, steadfastness and creativity since both
the besieger and besieged have strengths and weaknesses that can be capitalized
on or exploited. Understand this and you
are well on your way to understanding our options when the next outrage hits.
