Monday, August 12, 2019
Elder of Ziyon
The most prominent BDS-related story of the last month is
Congresses 398-17 vote to condemn the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions “movement,”
an overwhelming (and bi-partisan) tally reaffirming a long-standing trend
within the most representative body of American politics (Congress) to support
the Jewish state against efforts to attack it militarily and economically.
In an age of partisan fervor where We vs. They defines most
political commentary, it was natural that this vote be characterized along the
Left-Right axis that colors all our conversations. This included a focus on the most vociferous
voices against the measure (represented by “The Squad” of Democrats who have
generated considerable controversy related to Jewish issues over the last six
months).
While not ignoring the filters that color so many political
conversations, it is important to keep in mind some practical matters regarding
Congress taking such a strong stand against efforts to harm Israel
economically.
First, this vote was one of a series that shores up measures
taken by more than half the US states which impose penalties on companies
participating in anti-Israel boycotts in the form of refusing to do state
business with such companies. While
claims that these anti-BDS state laws were an infringement on free speech
proved impossible to support (unless one is ready to throw out the entire
anti-discrimination legal apparatus), there was a genuine issue regarding
whether states should be allowed to pass measures that imply a role for the
states in America’s foreign policy, given that, constitutionally, foreign
policy is the responsibility of the federal government.
But that same federal government is allowed to specify what
political activity performed by other parts of government are allowed and not
allowed, including ones that relate to interaction with foreign nations. So, with regard to recent Congressional BDS
actions, these votes were meant to declare that state are allowed to apply
anti-discrimination law to those who participate in discrimination against the
Jewish state.
Keep in mind that the federal government has had rules in
place for decades that make it a crime for American companies to participate in
the century-long Arab boycott of Israel.
What made new rules necessary, at both the state and federal level, was
the migration of anti-Israel boycott activity from the Arab states to
non-governmental organizations (notably the UN) over the last several
decades. With the UN and allied
organizations preparing blacklists of Israeli companies that member states
would be asked to comply with, it was only natural that US anti-boycott rules
needed to change to take this changed world into account.
In other words, those who have been advocating for boycott
measures up and down the NGO landscape have only themselves to blame for
America’s natural reaction to their activity.
And by “America” I mean every state and federal representative
body that has voted to condemn BDS as a form of bigotry and punish those who
participate in this discriminatory “movement.”
Several commenters on recent BDS-related votes have described them as
“largely symbolic.” Putting aside the
practical impact of these measures described above, their symbolic value cannot
be ignored – especially in the context of the propaganda wars that BDS is part
of.
To understand what I mean, consider how the BDSers
themselves have treated any attempt to get a representative body to pass one of
their boycott or divestment measures.
The tiniest of successes (like a small district in Scotland
banning Israeli books) or temporary or failed measures to get local governments
to pass divestment measures (as in Somerville)
are treated as staggering triumphs, paving the way to ultimate victory for the
forces of BDS. Given such behavior, one
can only imagine the celebrations that would be exploding across the globe if a
single US state passed anything that could be construed as mildly supporting
this or that BDS talking point.
Yet here we have more than half of the states in the
country, backed up by a Congress representing the country as a whole, joining
in one voice to declare BDS a form of bigotry that must be fought and
sanctioned. If we had the same mindset
as our political enemies, we would spend the next twenty years shoving these
votes into the boycotters’ faces and declaring they represent the opinion of
the nation against their squalid little movement and insisting they recognize
it as such.
For better or for worse, we are not our enemies which means
we are more likely to focus on the 17 representatives who voted against the
recent anti-BDS vote, or engage in arguments on our enemy’s terrain (such as
those involving free speech), rather than demand the boycotters live by their
own rules and recognize their project as a form of bigotry, and a failure.
