Showing posts with label Divest This. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Divest This. Show all posts
Monday, September 09, 2019
- Monday, September 09, 2019
- Elder of Ziyon
- analysis, Divest This
Last week, the BDS “movement” suffered another in a string
of defeats within academic associations when the American
Political Science Association rejected efforts to start the ball rolling on
a boycott of Israeli scholars.
This defeat took place at an early stage in the BDS playbook
during which partisans within the association organized “discussions” of
boycotting the Jewish state in an attempt to set the stage for an actual
boycott vote at subsequent meetings.
Historically, these one-sided propaganda exercises (announced
as “conversations”) take place outside public view, and given how few people
are aware that groups like the American Political Science Organization even
exist (and how few members participate in annual meetings), infiltrating a
committee is often the best way to get BDS on the agenda unnoticed. Unfortunately (for the boycotters) their
efforts to subvert academic associations over the last several years has put
their once-furtive efforts on the opposition’s radar.
The BDSers generally focus on one category of target for
several years before moving on, and given the number of eggs they’ve placed in
the academic boycotts basket over the last five years, it’s safe to say this
continues to be their priority. Their
optimism with regard to academic associations is based on having gotten the American
Studies Association to come on board several years ago which triggered hope
that academic boycotts would go mainstream.
As noted here,
however, no major group has followed ASA’s lead: not the American Historical
Association, not the American Anthropological Association, not the Modern
Language Association (which actually voted to stop the boycott propaganda
activity that had been forced on the group year after year after year).
One can look at this week’s victory for our side in different
ways.
If you’re inclined towards the half empty, you could point
out that exercises in academic boycotts are simply a feint, designed to
inject anti-Israel poison into academic discourse, regardless of whether a
boycott gets voted on or not.
If you’re more of a glass-is-more-than-half-full kind of
person, you could describe this string of BDS fails as the result of the Jewish
community rousing itself to fight back through groups like the Academic Engagement Network (AEN)
which has responded to attacks and helped rally members of targeted
associations to reject attempts to politicize their disciplines.
While I tend to favor the optimistic latter vs. pessimistic
former interpretation, I believe what we are seeing might represent another
example of a branch of civil society immunizing itself against the BDS
virus.
As just mentioned, BDSers tend to run to wherever they think
they can find success, often anchoring years of effort in one victory within a
category of institution. For example,
many years ago a single food coop in Olympia Washington (fondly referred to as
“Oly”)
announced that it had decided to boycott Israeli products which led to efforts by
Israel haters across the country to get other food coops to follow suit.
But even as the boycotters were fanning out to demand other
coops follow Olympia’s lead, chaos was breaking out back at Oly as members
revolted against a pollical move that had been made without their knowledge
(much less involvement or consent) in the dead of night behind closed
doors. The mayhem that ensued, which has
gone on ever since, sent a powerful message that countered BDSers’ claim that
joining a boycott was a simple, uncontroversial idea aligned with the (usually
progressive) ethos of the coop movement.
One coop, which actually held their debate on the issue in
the light of day, also performed research that convinced them such a boycott
would run counter to the very principles
the coop movement was founded upon.
With “Oly” as an example of what can happen when anti-Israel politics
gets injected into a community, and more and more coops justifying rejection of
boycotts on well-thought-out grounds provided by those who had previously rejected
BDS, the entire food coop movement eventually became immunized from further BDS
infection. And thus a category of civic
groups the BDSers placed their hopes on for nearly a decade translated to years
of wasted effort.
One can look at the American Studies Association playing a
similar role within the category of academic associations that Olympia played
for food coops. In the years since the ASA
boycott was passed, some members resigned, others sued, and many began to
question the wisdom of allowing the organization to fall into disrepute, just to
allow a handful of partisans to attack the academic freedom of fellow
scholars. To make matters even worse,
the ASA boycott call was never acted upon with the number of American Studies
departments at universities implementing the boycott standing at zero six years
later, meaning all the damage was caused so that a few partisans could pretend
a boycott was in place.
With this “shining example” of what happens to an academic
association that embraces BDS so vivid, groups like AEN, allied with scholars
who don’t want to see their field politicized for the aggrandizement of a few
radical hacks, have the vaccine they need: arguments that highlight that
boycotts damage not Israel, but the organizations that participate in them.
It’s too early to say whether BDS is dead within academic
associations since, as the head of AEN pointed out, the boycotters will be back
given that they are always the last to realize how much they overplayed their
hand.
But even with this victory, we need to keep in mind that
academic boycotts, like BDS as a whole, is simply the propaganda wing of a
wider war against the Jewish state. This
means boycott and divestment tactics will never disappear until those who
started that war call it off. Since
that’s not us, we will continue to have to man the walls until those who believe
another century of warfare is worth it change their minds.
Monday, September 02, 2019
- Monday, September 02, 2019
- Elder of Ziyon
- Divest This, Opinion
Rhetoric – Outrage
One of the most interesting things about the rhetoric used by the BDS
“movement” and similar Israel-disliking organizations is that the BDSers’ life
on the psychological extreme means that the rhetorical tactics they employ also
tend towards the extreme.
When one is dealing with a “normal” political situation, there have
traditionally been forces that keep discussion within general bounds of
civility. Until recently, candidates primarily
dropped innuendos about their opponent’s inadequacy for the job, while
surrogates got much more specific and accusatory. But the simple fact that most of those
running for office still feel the need to be perceived as even-tempered and
fair implies an understanding that public discourse needs to follow certain
civilized rules.
The public is also interested in variety, which means using the same
tactic over and over again is likely to bring diminishing returns, especially
if that tactic is perceived as controversial or extreme. And one of the rhetoric tactics that tends to
wear out its welcome fast is Argumentation from Outrage.
Argumentation from Outrage is considered in informal fallacy, that is a
fallacy not based on breaking any formal logical rules (such as All Dogs are
Animals, All Cats are Animals, therefore all Dogs are Cats – a formal fallacy
which is wrong even if you substitute letters, imaginary animals or nonsense
words for Cats, Dogs and Animals). But with
an informal fallacy, the actual content of the argument is relevant or, in the
case of Argumentation from Outrage, how that content is presented.
Argumentation from Outrage is usually brought up in discussions of
cable TV or radio political talk show hosts who seem to be able to break into a
screaming fit at the slightest provocation, although in our current political
culture it has travelled from this venue to the candidates themselves (at least
as of now).
In the contexts of shock-political media, Argumentation from Outrage is
meant to short circuit reasonable debate by raising the temperature to such a
degree that the only choices an opponent to the screamer has are to (1) capitulate;
or (2) begin screaming back (usually a losing proposition for a talk show guest
inexperienced at public howling who does not control the microphone or editing
booth). And while such a tactic may play
well to a talk show’s fan base which gathers to watch their hero put
wrong-minded guests in their place, most people who play in politics put the
brakes on such tactics (especially when playing before a mixed audience of friends,
foes and undecideds).
But as we have seen, people playing the BDS game have no such brakes
for the simple reason that “the audience” for them are not real people, but
simply props in a fantasy-laden drama going on in the boycotters own
heads. Which is why if you point out the
inconsistencies in their arguments, they’ll fly into a rage. If you point out their hypocrisy of snoozing
while Hamas missiles fly but rousing themselves into righteous fury when Israel
shoots back, they’ll fly into an even bigger rage. If you point out that their “movement” draws
its strength from being aligned with the needs and goals of wealthy and
powerful states, they will burst a blood vessel.
In fact, doing or saying anything that challenges their self-perception
as courageous and virtuous human-rights champions speaking truth to power means
it’s just a matter of seconds before someone’s face is two inches from yours
shrieking abuse and spewing saliva (either literally or virtually – although
without the saliva when this dynamic plays out in online debate – as it
inevitably does).
The point of Argumentation from Outrage is to raise the discomfort
level so high that people will avoid further attacking (or even questioning)
the person having the tantrum. Most
normal people, after all, don’t like being in situations where emotions are
running red hot. And a boycotter losing
an argument knows this, which is why they tend to explode so readily in hope of
making it impossible for normal debate to continue.
This helps to explain why anti-Israel “dialog” tends to be so
shrill. I have occasionally teased
certain anti-Israel writers for starting their writing in a snit and then
working themselves into frenzy of accusation and fury. But if you think about it, starting an
argument in a state of outrage is yet another way of avoiding a debate you know
you cannot win.
The trouble (for the BDSers anyway) is this perpetual outrage is used
to justify all kinds of behavior that tends not to play well with a general
audience which does NOT like to be patted down on the way to class by a bunch
of Israel haters dressed up in Israeli soldier costumes during some campus protest,
does NOT like to have their concerts or theatre performances interrupted by
people shrieking slogans and waving banners, and does NOT trust people who seem
to be shouting, even when the situation doesn’t warrant it.
The good news is that the boycotters’ outrage tactic has done little to
further their cause. The bad news is
that they have help mainstream Argumentation from Outrage to the point where it
is now becoming the tactic of choice for people on all ends of the political
spectrum, an outcome that puts in peril the normal human deliberation upon
which democracy depends.
Thanks guys!
Monday, August 26, 2019
- Monday, August 26, 2019
- Elder of Ziyon
- analysis, Divest This
Lose-Lose
In any type of conflict, an ideal strategy is one that
places your opponent in a lose-lose situation.
In military combat, this might involve trapping your enemy
so that his army has only two choices: advance and be decimated, or retreat and
get cut down while racing away in disordered flight. In the first Gulf War, General Norman
Schwarzkopf successfully shattered the Iraqi army not just through superior
firepower, but through maneuvers that left his opponent no choice that did not
involve annihilation.
Tactics that place your foe in a lose-lose situation are
also common in other sorts of combat, such as the propaganda warfare carried
out daily against Israel. For example, a
rhetorical maneuver proponents of BDS like to use is the claim that the fight
against them demonstrate their own success, leading to questions like “Why
would Israel’s supporters put so much effort into fighting BDS is it wasn’t
effective?”
The brilliance of this maneuver is that it places Israel’s
friends in a lose-lose situation: either fight against BDS and be used as
evidence of enemy strength, or ignore it – which effectively hands the field
over to that enemy to do as they like.
The recent flare-up over two BDS-supporting Congresswomen
visiting Israel put the Jewish state into a similar lose-lose situation: either
bar the pair and have condemnations rain down or say “Yes” to the visit and
allow your foes to travel the region ginning up hatred. While many pro-Israel activists helped blunt
the effectiveness of this propaganda attack (by, for example, exposing the
anti-Semitic nature of the organization that was sponsoring their Israel trip),
that represented after-the-fact repair work in a situation where the enemy had
already set the terms of engagement.
Unfortunately, I can’t think of many situations when Israel
and her friends were able to perform this same trick. Perhaps this is because our opponents can
count on a pliant media to parrot their messages while treating anything our
side says with skepticism. Or maybe we lack
the cynicism reflected in the other side’s willingness to use the suffering of
others (including one Congresswoman’s own grandmother) to further their
cause.
Israel’s limited options also reflects the power dynamic of
the war against the Jews. While huge
investment has been made in portraying Israel as powerful (and privileged), that
has been done to mask the fact that the world’s sole Jewish state has had to do
battle with 20+ Arab states allied with several dozen more Muslim ones who
control not just half the world’s oil reserves, but also major international
organizations like the UN. Given this, the majority of Israel’s energies must
be invested in manning the siege walls, a
defensive strategy that limits offensive choices that could pin down our foes
in a lose-lose situation.
And then there is the reality that while Israel’s enemies
are at war with the Jewish state, the reverse is not true. As mentioned previously,
the dream come true for nearly every Israeli (and every Israeli supporter) is
to see the nation living at peace with her neighbors. This is a worthy goal, but does not lend
itself to the sorts of propaganda tactics used by enemies who want to see
Israel become an object of hatred and ultimately destroyed.
That said, it is possible to isolate and brand an enemy
(such as the BDS “movement”) that doesn’t necessarily require us to ferment
hatred against those we ultimately want to live in peace with. The fact that most people on our side refer
to BDS as anti-Semitic has already gone a long way to freeze that project and
define it in our own terms. We might
also be able to do a little Jiu jitsu at their expense, insisting that the very
existence of their program demonstrates that Israel must be fabulously
successful and beloved (otherwise, why run boycotts and divestment campaigns against
it?).
The only trick with any techniques to place our opponents in
a lose-lose situation in a propaganda war of their own making is to repeat our
talking points incessantly, never replying to the other side’s charges and
ignoring anything the other side tries to say in their own defense. This is
obviously not the stuff of dialog, but dialog only takes place between people
playing the same game and if the BDSers want to continue their propaganda
warfare incessantly, our response should be an even more incessant
counterattack.
Monday, August 19, 2019
- Monday, August 19, 2019
- Elder of Ziyon
- Divest This, Opinion
When I first got into the game of fighting against BDS in
the early 2000s (simply called “divestment” back then), I became fairly
dogmatic regarding the superiority of political victories over legislative and
judicial ones.
This was largely due to the nature of boycott and divestment
activity at the time, which consisted of anti-Israel organizations seeking to
get a civic institution, such as a college, municipality, church or business,
to boycott or divest from the Jewish state through strategies that tended to
involve trickery (like getting organizational leaders to pass anti-Israel
motions before members knew what was going on) and moral blackmail.
Back then, members of such organizations tended to get
enraged once they realized what was about to be done in their name. This meant the most effective ways to counter
BDS votes was to activate those members and help them organize to defeat
unwanted political measures. While conflicts
generated by turning divestment into a political matter (usually accompanied by
an organizational vote) gave the boycotters the public show trials they craved,
their inevitable defeat left BDS looking more and more like a loser.
In many cases, ongoing defeat within a category of
institution helped immunize other organizations from the BDS virus. For example, food coops are no longer
targeted by boycott activists since a string of defeats helped establish the
fact that the coop movement should not be taking political stands on
controversial issues unrelated to their missions. In contrast, when wronged members of the
still-only boycott-embracing food coop decided to challenge that boycott in
court, they nearly faced
catastrophe in the form of harsh court-ordered punishments against them
(which have fortunately since been overturned).
Over the course of many years, however, I’ve been convinced
by other activists that legal remedies are sometimes warranted, given the
changing nature of boycott-related activism.
For example, Kenneth Marcus (now
in a position to do something about rising levels of bigotry directed against
Jews and Israel supporters on campuses) pointed out how Israel haters engaging
in brutish campaigns against their opponents use their own lawyers to scare
administrators away from punishing students who engage in gross violations of
campus rules. Under such circumstances,
it would be malpractice if our side didn’t challenge those same administrators
with better lawyers insisting schools enforce their own rules for civil
behavior.
Similarly, anti-boycott legislation at the state and federal
level serve two important purposes: (1) demonstrating that, far from being
widespread, support for BDS is marginal compared to support for Israel demonstrated
by the votes of overwhelming numbers of democratically elected representatives;
and (2) creating a counterweight to BDS activity taking place way above the
level that can be challenged effectively by local, grassroots activists (such
as attempts by the UN to create and implement a blacklist of Israeli
companies).
But even if some circumstances warrant legal/judicial and
legislative activities, I continue to be circumspect about how quickly our side
should reach for those arrows. Going to
court is tricky, with decisions creating precedents that can be
long-lasting. It is also time consuming,
and by the time matters are resolved by a judge or jury, the battle may have
moved to entirely different ground.
Laws passed to fight BDS can also be double-edged
swords. To take a high-profile example,
Israel’s law to bar BDS activists from visiting the country has generated bad
press for the Jewish state that needs to be compared to the damage that might have
occurred had those activists been allowed into the country. Legislators tend to be motivated by a desire
to do something in the face of perceived crises and be less concerned with the
consequences of the measures they vote in once enacted. Recent controversy
generated by banning two anti-Israel congresswomen from Israel also shows how
the worthy fight against BDS can get entangled with domestic politics, both in
Israel and in the US.
Given the growing and increasingly dangerous anti-Israel
project, its continued attempts to take over major institutions and its support
by powerful actors (such as national governments and major non-governmental
institutions), counting on grassroots activists to save the day is
unrealistic. But where and when to
appeal to higher authority (such as a judge or legislative body) needs to be
thought through and risks balanced against rewards before a strategy is
pursued.
If we consider grassroots activism, lawsuits, and
legislation as just three of many weapons we have at our disposal, then the
issue boils down to how to choose which one(s) to use and how they will be deployed
to help us achieve our goals. In other
words, it requires us to cultivate not a political or legal mindset, but a military
one appropriate when someone else has been waging war against you for over
a century.
Monday, August 12, 2019
- Monday, August 12, 2019
- Elder of Ziyon
- Divest This, Opinion
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.
Monday, July 22, 2019
- Monday, July 22, 2019
- Elder of Ziyon
- analysis, Divest This
It dawned on me that all of Israel’s friends and defenders
have been wasting our time over the last several decades.
Instead of writing thoughtful essays that provide facts and perspectives
while making the case for the Jewish state, or organizing talks, educational
programs or other campaigns that present arguments in favor of our cause or
against our foes, we could all have spent that time doing something much
simpler, so simple that it requires almost no thought.
So what could we have been doing, rather than bombarding the
world with longwinded explanations based on facts and logic?
The answer is simplicity itself, and so easy to
implement. For all it would involve
would be to never use the term Palestine or Palestinian without first prefixing
it with the string of pejoratives titling this piece.
We would not have to be mindless robots uttering the same
phrase over and over again. Certainly
whenever we find ourselves in debate, we would make sure the words “racist,
sexist, homophobic, reactionary, totalitarian” precede the use of any reference
to Palestine, Palestinians, the Palestinian Authority and Hamas (and maybe
their friends and allies throughout the Middle East). But we could get creative with the ways we
slip those words into the discussion over and over and over again. For instance:
Comparative: Yes, there is a difference between the
racist, sexist, homophobic, reactionary, totalitarian, corrupt Palestinian
authority and the racist, sexist, homophobic, reactionary, totalitarian,
religious fanatics in Hamas. But the two
have important things in common: they’re both racist, sexist, homophobic,
reactionary totalitarians.
Generous: You
are free to support all the racist, sexist, homophobic, reactionary,
totalitarian political movements you like, including the racist, sexist,
homophobic, reactionary, totalitarian Palestinian movement. Just don’t also demand to be considered
progressive, much less tell us you get to decide who is anti-racist and who
isn’t.
Voltairian: I will fight to the death for your right
to scream your support for the racist, sexist, homophobic, reactionary,
totalitarian Palestinian movement, and any other racists, sexists, homophobes,
reactionaries and totalitarians you like.
That is your right, just as it is my right to point out your choice to
give racism, sexism, homophobia, and reactionary totalitarians your
full-throated support.
Nostalgic: In my era, progressive politics meant
being against racism, sexism, homophobia, reaction and totalitarianism, so
forgive me if I choose to cling to those principles and fight against the evils
you have decided to embrace.
And on and on (so long as on and on means fusing our five
mantras to any mention of Israel’s enemies and their supporters).
Needless to say, actual political discourse, compromise or
the search for peace would have to be abandoned if this were our strategy. For the purpose of making the name
“Palestinian” synonymous with the worst sins of modernity is to reduce others
to objects of disgust and loathing, with no concern over the consequences.
This is, in fact, the strategy Israel’s enemies have
embraced for decades with their “Israel = Apartheid” smear, one they unleash in
every discussion, regardless of the topic under consideration. So the strategy outlined above is the most
straightforward way to fight fire with fire.
Now we would have to be willing to keep this up for not just
a few weeks or months, but for years and decades and we would have to put great
effort into getting others to follow our lead, or condemn them for their own
refusal to fight against racism, sexism, etc.
In short, we would have to be just as (if not more) ready and willing to
poison politics in order to try to get our rivals to be perceived as utterly
beyond the moral pale.
If both sides started playing the same game, victory would
go to those who could shout the loudest, ignore critics more thoroughly, and be
ready to shut down voices not willing to adhere to our vocabulary (by any means
necessary).
Perhaps it is our general wussiness that keeps us on the
course of dialog, discussion, argument, persuasion and compromise, rather than
jumping into the sewer with those who have made it their life’s work to see the
world’s one Jewish state dismantled.
Although given the state of Israel and the Jewish world – vulnerable
though it might be – versus the hell on earth Israel’s enemies have constructed
for themselves, perhaps hanging on to our humanity is a wise strategic, as well
as a moral choice.
Monday, July 15, 2019
- Monday, July 15, 2019
- Elder of Ziyon
- analysis, Divest This
One of the benefits of being an on-campus Israel hater is
that you never have the pay the price for the damage you cause.
Take the case of Williams College, back in the news after
the school settled a complaint by the Department
of Education that it had discriminated against pro-Israel Jewish students
on campus. This complaint did not arise
due to anything the college or its administration had done. Rather, it was the result of irresponsible
(and all too typical) behavior of students.
Earlier this year, a group of Williams students organized a
new pro-Israel group called Williams Initiative for Israel (WiFi). As with any new group on campus, the
organization was required to follow a set of procedures for becoming a
recognized campus club that could receive funding from the elected student
government. Those procedures were
straightforward, and WiFi followed them to the letter. But still they were rejected.
Why? Because
anti-Israel students who dominated the student council decided that their
political positions – i.e., the legitimate opinions they wanted to advocate for
– were inadmissible on campus. So after
a debate in which “Israel-is-always-wrong” proponents not involved with student
government were given the floor to rail against the Jewish state and its
supporters, the council rejected Wifi’s request 13-8.
Breaking with even more rules they were elected to live by
and enforce, the council did all they could to avoid taking personal
responsibility for their votes, not livestreaming the council meeting (which
would otherwise be normal procedure) or including names of speakers on a
transcript. Given the contents of that
transcript, which revealed staggering levels of ignorance and bigotry, one can
understand why some students did not want to take responsibility for what they
had said and done.
That responsibility fell to the grownups on campus,
specifically the president of the college who immediately condemned
the vote and worked out a procedure whereby WiFi would receive official
recognition, despite the student council vote.
Some students protested
the president’s move, but to her credit she held fast to the principles the
school she led was built upon.
This did not prevent a discrimination complaint being lodged
with the Department of Education which took up the case and proceeded to
investigate the charges. It was this investigation that led to the settlement just
announced this week.
Note that it was not the students who had acted in such an
irresponsible and discriminatory way that had to navigate government
investigators in order to avoid the whole situation being referred to the
Department of Justice as a violation of federal law. Rather, it was (once again) someone else who
had to pay the price (in this case, the adults who led the college.)
This is typical BDS behavior: causing mayhem in one
community after another and leaving it to others to clean up the mess. In theory, the student council could have
changed the rules under which they operated in order to allow discrimination
based on political opinion. Such a move
would likely have faced procedural and administrative hurdles, and would have
been widely controversial (and may have failed). But at least it would have represented an act
of honesty on the part of student representatives who decided their real
constituency was the BDS movement.
It is likely no accident that the whole matter was settled
once summer began and the students who demanded the right to shred the rules
they were elected to live by in order to discriminate against fellow students
who did not share their political opinions were safely off campus.
As in many, many other situations where the BDSers ask an
institution to do their dirty work, once consequences rain down on the
institution that has done its bidding, the boycotters have already moved on to
their next target, leaving it to others to deal with the wreckage.
Let’s hope this is a lesson for the next organization considering
inviting the BDS vampire through the front door.
Monday, July 08, 2019
- Monday, July 08, 2019
- Elder of Ziyon
- Divest This, Opinion
“Any man's death
diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to
know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee.”
While the final words of John Donne’s seventeenth-century poem
are more well-known than the first, the
complete quote captures my response to news of the suicide death of Simone
Burns, the Irish anti-Israel activist who was caught on video in 2018
screaming racial taunts at the crew of an Air India flight that refused to
serve her more alcohol.
While I made a brief comment about the incident in this piece about BDSers
behaving badly, that was the extent of the time-of-day dedicated to the
story (although I will admit she popped into my head whenever I contemplated what
boycotters would sound like if they generally let their masks slip).
Apparently Burns was arrested after her tirade and sentenced
to six months in prison. During her time
behind bars, the video of her crazy behavior went viral, turning her into a
punchline for strangers, an embarrassment to allies, and a stand-in for everything
wrong with those who pretend their anti-Israel animus is actually a crusade for
human rights.
Since the soul of other living beings is ultimately
inaccessible to outsiders, there is no telling if Burns took her life out of
guilt over her misbehavior, embarrassment at having her bigotry communicated across
the planet, abandonment of former friends and allies, hate-Tweets from
ideological enemies, pain from long-term skin cancer treatments, depression,
alcoholism or (most likely) some combination of the above.
In retrospect, what came off originally as the BDS mindset
taken to its logical extreme now seems like the ravings of a staggeringly lost
soul, someone who – like all of us – desperately wanted her life to mean
something. The fact that she found that
meaning in the objectification and negation of a people, then found a community
ready to celebrate her “bravery” in doing so, are two early steps that likely
led to her final fate.
Burns’ fervency in promoting the anti-Israel cause can be
seen in the energy she devoted to it professionally, as well as her demands
that complete strangers on an airplane give her the respect she clearly felt
she deserved. Yes, alcohol (and likely
other factors) contributed to her Air India breakdown which ultimately led to
her demise, but I wonder if all of this tragedy could have been avoided had she
not fallen into a community built on turning an entire people (Israelis –
although just the Jewish ones) into the kind of one-dimensional caricatures
that Burns saw herself become on social media.
As far as I can tell, Burns became a non-person among “friends”
after that Air India video became a global phenomenon, although it sounds like
there has been some effort to blame
critics (especially the more irrational and threatening among them) for
tormenting her into the grave.
Personally, this rational critic feels more sadness and
regret than contempt (much less joy) over the news that a political opponent
chose to end her life. Perhaps this is a
sign of weakness, although the disastrous track record of those who celebrate
the demise of opponents (as well as recruit the mentally disturbed to their
cause) gives practical value to the moral choice of not treating anyone (even
someone who hates you) as a thing.
Monday, July 01, 2019
- Monday, July 01, 2019
- Elder of Ziyon
- Divest This, Opinion
While I have occasionally critiqued specific people and
policies connected to a political party or wing of the political spectrum, I’ve
made it a point to try to illuminate what’s behind the Left-Right divide on
Israel, rather than contribute to it.
With that as backdrop, the following critique of someone
running for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States should
not be seen as an endorsement of anyone else in that race, nor support (or
condemnation) of those who don’t have a (D) after their name.
But the rise and (likely) fall of US Senator Cory Booker
should be a cautionary tale for those who think they can betray their
principles, then “pivot” back to integrity after the damage has been done.
Booker has been on my radar ever since I attended my first AIPAC event where the
young and rising political star gave what was possibly the most powerful and
inspiring speech on Israel I ever heard. His talk drew from his experience
interacting with the Chabad community while he was a Rhodes Scholar in Oxford, notably
how his relationship with their Rabbi Shmuley Boteach helped him appreciate
both Judaism and the centrality of Israeli to Jewish life.
Since then I’ve kept track of Booker’s rise of the cursus honorum,
hoping for the opportunity to vote for the man I saw all those years ago for
President. Unfortunately, now that the
chance to do so has arrived, the person I was so impressed with is no longer
there.
I suspect that the turning point for Booker came when he had
the opportunity to vote against President Obama’s Iran deal, a vote that might
have eventually earned him a Profiles in Courage award, but which would
have cost him support of a popular president and the enmity of the most
powerful people in his party at a time when a presidential run was clearly in
his future. Sadly, Booker took the
expedient route and voted for something he probably knew was not right. Even more sadly, in justifying that vote, had
had to justify moving away from all he said – and I suspect believed – as a
younger, wiser man.
Given the dynamics of the current presidential race, where
dozens of candidates have to go to extreme measures to stand out from the
crowd, Booker seems to be playing the game of saying the right things to the
Jewish community, while acting against Israel’s interests (by, among other
things, voting against federal anti-BDS legislation) and justifying those
choices with stale talking points I can’t believe he really buys.
Booker’s path has cost him the support (although not the
friendship) of his old friend Boteach,
and his current two-step regarding whether or not he will meet with Louis
Farrakhan simply illustrates more of the same triangulation calculated to
signal to Left wing primary votes that he is one of them, while trying not to
alienate the Jewish community so much that he loses their long-term support.
Unfortunately for him, all of this calculated pandering does
not seem to have budged him in the polls. Part of this is the sheer difficulty
breaking through all of the noise, especially with the most aggressive members
of the Democratic pack out-Lefting him at every turn. But I also suspect that primary voters with
little involvement or even interest in Jewish or Middle East issues recognize
inauthenticity when they see it.
The sad thing is that even Booker’s switch to a “balanced”
position between Israel and her would-be destroyers has not earned him
substantial or lasting support from Israel haters who are only too ready to not
just abandon but punish
anyone who deviates even an angstrom degree from their ever-changing list of
demands.
Demands for fealty by the BDS crowd stands in sharp contrast
to large swaths of the Jewish community not ready to abandon Booker even when
he acts against their interests. Perhaps
this longing for friendship (especially by a rising African American political
star) represents weakness on our part, although it could also represent hope
that the man who spoke so eloquently at AIPAC way back then is the real Cory
Booker, who is just playing the cards he’s been dealt in a strange political
era.
Maybe they are right and in five years we’ll be watching
Cory Booker accept the nomination of his party for a second term in
office. But I suspect that what we are
really watching is a man sacrificing both his soul and his dreams by walking
away from what he believes in order to achieve what he wants.
If Cory ends up an also-ran, with nothing to show for all
he’s sacrificed, that should serve as a lesson not for just him, but all of
us. In ways large and small, we are
asked to (and often make) compromises to get through life, but our integrity –
that which makes us truly us – is something that must never be put up for
auction. Living an inauthentic life has
a high cost, which Booker is currently paying.
But his sacrifice might have value if it teaches the rest of us not to
make the same mistake.
Monday, June 24, 2019
- Monday, June 24, 2019
- Elder of Ziyon
- analysis, Divest This
Some bad news hit Oberlin College recently in the form of a $33,000,000 judgement against the school for libel ($11M in compensatory damages, $22M in punitive), a bill that might go higher if the school has to cover the legal fees of the plaintiff.
Legal Insurrection covered (and continues to cover) the Gibson’s Bakery vs. Oberlin case, so I suggest you head over there to get the details of what happened. I bring up the story now not because BDS was specific to events that led to the suit, but because it reminded me that Oberlin might be the third example of the gods punishing bad choices in strange and unexpected ways.
The first example is Evergreen College in Washington State, ground zero in the Northwest for the boycott and divestment “movement.” Evergreen was the school Rachel Corrie attended when she was recruited by activists from the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) and taught how to sneak into Israel, find her way into a conflict area, and protest by putting herself in harm’s way.
Her death during one of those protests triggered and then anchored anti-Israel activities at the school and beyond for years. As BDS hardened into dogma on that campus, it became clear that anyone with interest in identifying with or supporting the Jewish state should apply elsewhere, and so campus political life became more homogenized and radical.
In fact, the ability to say and do what they wanted without fear of challenge (much less punishment) turned the students of Evergreen into strange sorts of monsters who have been on a rampage in recent years, attacking professors and administrators who do not accept and embrace ever-enlarging lists of required beliefs and associated demands.
Behavior that once turned off any Jewish student who did not adhere to the BDS party line now seems to have turned off anyone not interested in going to a college where they might get threatened with baseball bats for saying or thinking the wrong thing. Understandably, Evergreen’s enrollment plummeted and budgets were cut to make up for the shortfall. In an era when colleges that can’t make ends meet are closing their doors, it is a very real possibility that Evergreen might one day have to decide whether to continue or close up shop.
One famous school already facing that stark choice is Hampshire College in Massachusetts. BDS-followers will remember Hampshire as the place where modern BDS project got kicked off after the school’s Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) chapter created the momentum for campus divestment by claiming the school was the first college to divest from the Jewish state, a hoax the boycotters continue to spread today.
In the case of Hampshire, the school did the right thing by denying that divestment had taken place and chastising the students spreading that lie. But that wise choice did not prevent leaders at the school from allowing SJP to make the lives of Israel-supporting students (mostly Jewish) hell for years afterwards.
One amusing element of the whole Hampshire debate was that the school has always had one of the smallest endowments of any college, meaning there was very little to divest in the first place. But that small endowment became less of a joke once the school hit financial difficulties and had no cushion to fall back on. While the demise of Evergreen is speculative, the end of Hampshire is a very real possibility with the current entering class consists of just fifteen students hoping the school figures out a way to bail itself out of the current crisis, possibly through a merger with another institution.
Again, Hampshire’s current crisis has nothing to do with BDS, although I do wonder if the school might have had more good will to draw upon in seeking a partner to save them had they not earned a reputation for thoughtless radicalism through the “heroic” efforts of SJP years earlier.
Which gets us to Oberlin. Like Evergreen and Hampshire, anti-Israel forces have been in the ascendant at that college for years, driving supporters of the Jewish state underground (or causing them to apply elsewhere) and this success may have emboldened students towards even greater radicalism. All of the pathologies we have seen on college campuses: accusations of systematic bigotry (targeting a school that was at the forefront of abolition and civil rights movements no less) and demands for ever more subservience to the radicals have been turned up to eleven at Oberlin, which may explain how the college ended up looking down the wrong end of a nine-figure legal settlement.
While it is impossible to read minds or Tardis our way into the past to attend meetings where decisions were made, it seems likely that administrators at the school thought the most effective way to diffuse student attacks against them as being bigots was to deflect student fire towards an innocent small business that some students were accusing of racial profiling after an African American undergrad was arrested for shoplifting at the store.
That seems to be the storyline that won over the jury, and while the college continues to insist it did nothing wrong, there seems to be no acceptance that the school has a responsibility to use its voice to prevent students from harming others (in this case, harming a hundred-year-old small business that had to suffer days of protests – participated in by both and at least one college administrator – where the family that owned the store was condemned as racists).
The world is too complex to draw a direct line between tolerating intolerance towards one group (Jewish supporters of Israel) to tolerating intolerance generally, but it certainly makes sense that once you have decided to throw one group to the wolves that the wolves might take that as an open invitation to demand more food.
In the case of Oberlin, the food bit back and it remains to be seen if other places where BDS reigns supreme will suffer similar fates as Evergreen, Hampshire and Oberlin, now that we know even seemingly permanent institutions (including colleges and universities, academic associations, even centuries-old churches) might not last forever.
Monday, June 17, 2019
- Monday, June 17, 2019
- Elder of Ziyon
- Divest This, Opinion
In the zero-sum world of BDS politics, last month’s
Eurovision Song Contest could not be perceived as anything but a massive defeat
for the boycotters. Their extreme
efforts to get the program moved from Israel, their strong-arming of artists to
now show up, and their incessant calls for boycott could not prevent the
thousands of people who visited Israel for the event or millions watching the
song contest on TV from seeing the actual Israel, rather than the dystopia of
BDS fantasies and *gasp* making up their own minds, rather than let the BDSers
think for them.
The one bright spot for the boycotters were the antics of
the Islandic band Hatrio Mun Sigra which did not misbehave during their
performance, but did engage in politics by sneaking out a Palestinian flag
during the announcement of the winner (it wasn’t them, BTW).
What little heat their “reveal” generated was soon forgotten,
except for some BDSers looking for a fix and the Icelandic government which may
punish the band for not playing by the rules.
But I got re-interested in the controversy when this
piece appeared in Tablet revealing that – for all their goth, outsider posing,
the members of Hatrio Mun Sigra are part of a hereditary caste of Iceland’s
elite – the sons of diplomats and bankers – playing at punk while demonstrating
their wokeness in the way all European aristocrats do these days: by dissing
the Jewish state.
One need only look at the pale, scrawny members of the band
to combine their appearance and background into a single well-worn phrase:
white privilege. In fact, if that term
had any meaning among the people who use it the most, one might be led to think
that anti-Zionism is the touchstone of the most melanin-deprived elite.
This fits nicely with the concept of Palestinian privilege
that titles this piece. For example,
sixty million of the world’s refugees (including those from Syria for whom the
world shows such concern) is supported by the United Nations High Commissioner
for Refugees (UNHCR) whose budget is comparable to the money spent on a UN
agency, UNWRA, dedicated solely to not solving the problem of five million
Palestinian “refugees.”
Many commentators describe Palestinian behavior such as refusing
tax revenue from Israel unless it includes sums they have committed to pay
those who killed Israelis or doing everything possible to derail an economic
conference dedicated to their economic improvement as the acts of “spoiled
children.” But another way to look at those choices is as the acts of an
outraged elite doing everything in their power to preserve their wealth, power
and position in society.
The poverty such choices might cause the average Palestinian
might seem to counter any discussion of privilege, but keep in mind that the
elite making these decisions are not impacted by them. The wealth they have skimmed off foreign
donors is not likely to be seized, and their positions of power is not
threatened by those below them (unless the masses organize under the rule of a new
elite of fanatical Islamists). Similarly, the privileged Palestinian elite
has no fear that parents of members of Hatrio Mun Sigra or their pals in the
European diplomatic core will hold Palestinian members of their caste to
account.
The privilege model also helps explain why members of this
elite in “Palestine” are so quick to lash out at fellow Arab tyrants who seem
to be distancing themselves from “the sacred cause.” After all, with dozens of Arab nations allied
with even more Islamic ones within the halls of the United Nations, having
their way internationally has been taken as a given by Abbas and Company. So condemning Arab leaders for not sacrificing
their own interests is the equivalent of the rich and powerful condemning
President Roosevelt as a traitor to his class.
Given how much our own intersectional elite demands they get
to decide who gets to speak and who does not based on their own ever-changing
ranking of privilege, it’s interesting how the power relationships described
above: where European hereditary castes prove their progressive bone fides by
embracing the anti-Israel cause, all in support of the least progressive
regimes on the planet, is not mentioned (or shouted down when someone else
brings it up).
Interesting, but not surprising. After all, rank does have its privilege.
Monday, June 03, 2019
- Monday, June 03, 2019
- Elder of Ziyon
- Divest This, Opinion
While I have written occasionally on American electoral
politics in the context of BDS and the US-Israel relationship, I don’t think
I’ve ever made any statements – besides the occasional aside – about an Israeli
election.
This is not just because I don’t subscribe to the fantasy
that a lone US blogger can have an impact on international affairs. Rather, this omission is likely the result of
being part of the overwhelming consensus within the pro-Israel community that
appreciates Israelis – and Israelis alone – carry the burden of citizenship and
thus should not be hectored (especially by those who bear no responsibility for
electoral outcomes) over whom they should vote for.
But the latest election tumult in the Jewish state does cry
out for analysis, albeit one that hopefully sheds light versus casts
aspersions.
Especially since the person at the center of the tumult,
long-time Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has not just helmed the Jewish
state for so long, but that his tenure in many political roles makes him an
historic figure, one worthy of being considered Israel’s third founder.
The first founder was Theodor Herzl, the
Austro-Hungarian writer and journalist who initially created an imaginary Jewish
state in his fiction, then worked tirelessly to turn that dream into
reality. While Herzl’s political
organization and advocacy made him a controversial figure in his day, the fact
that he never became the leader of an actual state meant he did not face the
awesome challenge of rule which requires hard choices and trade-offs, some of
them with life-and-death consequences.
Israel’s second founder was Ben-Gurion, Israel’s
first Prime Minister who set in motion nearly all of the policies that define
the Jewish state to this day: ingathering of exiles, standing firm against
enemies while also holding out hope for peace, and creating and building
institutions of statehood. Like all of
the Prime Ministers who succeeded him, Ben Gurion made his share of mistakes
and his ruthless approach to political enemies helped cement political fault
lines that have yet to heal. But like
Herzl, Ben-Gurion had a vision of a strong and independent Israel that served
as his North Star, a vision that helps explain both his good and bad choices.
The leaders who succeeded Ben-Gurion includes impressive
figures like Golda Meir, Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Rabin and Arial Sharon, all of
whom shaped Israeli history in their own way.
But, ignoring their successes and blunders (some of them – like the Oslo
fiasco – monumental) each of these leaders played cards they were dealt, rather
than inventing an entirely new game.
Netanyahu’s long-term vision, and his success at achieving
it, pushes him past this pantheon into the tiny category of “founders,” i.e.,
leaders who transformed a nation, rather than just managing its affairs or
navigating it through crises.
While no single person can be credited with turning the Jewish
state into an economic powerhouse whose brain-based industries put it on par
with the oil wealth of Israel’s enemies, Netanyahu’s decades-long commitment to
liberalizing the Israeli economy – freeing it from the shackles of Ben-Gurion’s
state socialism – was one of the prime factors leading to Startup Nation.
Other Israeli leaders have caved in to pressures (internal
and external) or hubris to “do something” vis-à-vis the Arab-Israeli conflict,
leading to fiascos like the Gaza withdrawal and the aforementioned Oslo
disaster. But Netanyahu’s vision of a
Jewish state with enough economic, military and diplomatic strength to stand on
its own – despite its diminutive size and limited resources – served as his North Star, which helps explain Netanyahu’s
ability to shape domestic politics and withstand foreign pressures (especially
during an era when a hostile US administration required extraordinarily deft
navigation) leading to the strong, wealthy, diplomatically successful Israel we
know today.
Yes, Bibi has made his share of blunders, as have all his
predecessors (and everyone else who has ever taken on the responsibility to
lead a nation). But I suspect that the
pathological hatred of him outside of Israel is the result not of his prickly
personality but of his success. For if
you look at what the Israel haters despise most (including Netanyahu, AIPAC and
Israel itself) you see a list of those entities most effective at keeping the
Jewish people safe, free and secure.
With that having been said, the title of this piece will
ring a warning bell to those who know their Roman history. For the “Third Founder of Rome” was an
informal title given to Gaius
Marius, the general who saved the Republic from destruction by foreign enemies
that had threatened the nation for years, in the process reforming Rome’s
military in ways that turned it into the most powerful in the ancient world.
Having saved the state and serving five times in the top
executive position of Consul, Marius’ star faded as a new generation of
military and political leaders rose to power. Bitter at being left out to
pasture, Marius threw in his lot with political radicals, giving him a sixth and
seventh Consulship but leading directly to the first of many civil wars that
would eventually destroy the Republic.
In bringing up Marius’ story, I am in no way suggesting that
any politician hanging in there past their sell date must lead to
catastrophe. But if Marius ended up
being the historic poster child for what happens when a political hero fails to
know when to step back, another Roman – Cincinnatus
– continues to serve as archetype for the democratic leader who knows when to
call it a day.
Legend has it that after Cincinnatus was given supreme power
to defeat Rome’s enemies, and after succeeding in doing so, voluntarily gave up
the heights of leadership to return to his farm. One need only visit our nation’s capital
where a marble
statue of George Washington in toga, handing the sword he was given back to
the people, demonstrates the impact Cincinnatus’ story has had on democracy
ever since.
Given his incomparable skill in outwitting political
enemies, Netanyahu might emerge from the second Israeli election this year more
powerful than ever before. But despite
that spot of bother the Jewish people had with the Roman Empire way back when, Roman
history provides powerful archetypes that can – or should – inform the choices
of even the most powerful men and women today.
Unfortunately, many have forgotten lessons we should have
learned from Roman folly – such as the consequences of trying to prosecute our
political enemies, rather than defeat them democratically (one of the
motivations for Julius Caesar to finally draw down the curtain on the
Republic). But if we want more
Cincinnatuses and fewer Mariuses in our political lives, we must find ways to
give those who dedicate themselves to the nation a way to retire with the honor
they (including their egos) deserve.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)