Monday, December 24, 2018
Elder of Ziyon
I’ve become a big fan of Jonathan Haidt, co-author of the
best-selling Coddling
of the American Mind and a social-science researcher committed to
bringing political balance and reasoned discourse back into academia and
everyday political life.
Haidt is a scholar who practices what he preaches, including
one of the key virtues of a truly free and independent thinker: the ability to
say “I’ve changed my mind,” especially about something he once believed
deeply.
In Haidt’s case, he revised his thinking about the role
intuition plays in human reasoning between his first best-selling book (The Happiness Hypothesis) and one I just
finished reading (The Righteous Mind).
Given that Happiness
Hypothesis put Haidt on the map as a public intellectual, I can only
imagine what it took to put into print an admission that that book contained a
thesis the author no longer buys. But
the ability to both change your mind and admit you have done so has strategic
as well as intellectual benefits.
For instance, when I first got into the fight against BDS, I
repeatedly argued against turning to authority figures (such as lawmakers,
courts or college administrators) to deal with demonization/delegitimization
campaigns targeting the Jewish state.
This stance was based on the fact that, back then, BDS was
largely taking place within civic organizations, such as colleges and
universities, churches, municipalities and food coops, with anti-Israel
activism driven by small groups of insurgents within individual institutions. Since the majority of members of these institutions
were either hostile or indifferent to the boycotters’ political agenda, the
best strategy was to help that majority organize and find its voice so it could
effectively beat back BDS (which they did again and again over the course of
more than a decade).
Yes, the Israel haters are relentless which meant they kept
coming back those organizations again and again to demand a revote, refusing to
take “no” for an answer. But such behavior
meant that, by the time a handful student governments or church votes started going
the BDSers way, the public had internalized how unrepresentative or corrupt such
votes were, which meant the boycotters either lost or – at worst – acquired
tainted victories no one took seriously.
Given how effective grassroots politics was at turning back
BDS, I saw turning to authorities as a less effective and riskier
short-circuiting of more effective, democratic processes. But as the fight moved from these small communities
to large and powerful institutions, such as the United Nations, I’ve had to
revise my thinking regarding the best course of action to take in response new
forms of the BDS threat.
As most readers know, the UN’s Orwellian Human Rights
Commission is preparing a blacklist of companies doing business in Israel, the
publication of which will put pressure on those companies to sever ties with
the Jewish state. Given that this
blacklist effort is driven by wealthy and powerful states that dominate the UN
and have subverted it to their will, local activists have no way to influence
what happens in the halls of that body.
Understanding this reality, the most effective
counter-measure to a UN blacklist is the anti-BDS legislation passed or on the
way to being passed in most US states and the federal government. If one ignores partisan hyperbole regarding
such legislation, these laws simply update rules that have been in place since
the 1970s that make it illegal for US companies to participate in the Arab
Boycott that goes back to the 1920s now that those same boycotters have
hijacked the United Nations to give this age-old form of partisan warfare a
veneer of global legitimacy.
Once anti-boycott laws are passed, companies (especially
those more concerned with the large Arab market vs. the small Israeli one)
considering participating in a UN-led boycott will have another factor to take
into account: the impact such a choice will have on their relationship with the
large US market. We’ve already seen what
happened to one corporation (AirBnB) that thought it would face no consequences
for joining the latest version of the Arab boycott. Given that companies are generally
conservative, turning to US state and national legislators to add a
counter-weight to the UN blacklist is not just a last resort, but our best choice.
In science, there is a principle which says you should try
to understand a problem in terms of the right level of scale. For example, while the weather can be studied
at the atomic level, there is more insight to be gained by studying the subject
at a macro vs micro scale.
Similarly, grassroots fights are still the way to go when
the battle is taking place at a local food store or student government. But when powerful forces are arrayed against
you, it is best to marshal equally powerful forces to counter them.
Sticking with an old formula when new situations require new
tactics tends to lead to calcification and failure. This is why I have changed my mind about enrolling
authority figures in our fight, but only in situations where that option makes
the most strategic sense.
