David Collier: NYU, SJP and a response to ‘the 10 Common Misconceptions About BDS’
NYU and the ‘ten common misconceptions about BDS’JCPA: The Sky Is Not Falling in Washington: The U.S. Mid-Term Elections
‘Washington Square News‘, is an ‘Independent Student Newspaper’ at NYU. Three days ago they published an article written by SJP ‘Students for Justice in Palestine’. It was titled ‘10 Common Misconceptions About BDS‘ and set out to reassure the reader that the boycott movement against Israel (BDS) is a legitimate, credible, successful and ethical tool with which to bring peace to Israel and the Palestinians. I thought I’d take a look:
1 BDS is antisemitic
This is an easy one. BDS is clearly antisemitic. SJP argue that ‘BDS targets the nation-state of Israel, not any religious or ethnic group’, which is half-true, but they fail to address the lies and hypocrisy inherent in the movement. In their argument they bring up historical Jewish anti-Zionism in the shape of the Labour Bund. The logic is this – if some Jewish people were against the formation of Israel in the 1900-1940’s, it is okay to oppose Zionism today. That’s pretty twisted. The Bundists opposed Zionism because they believed Europe could provide safe haven in the shape of Jewish autonomous regions. They were wrong and Bundism burnt in the fires of Auschwitz. SJP are cynically using Holocaust victims to shield criticism of an attack against Jews.
Yet the real issue with BDS is in its selectivity. Notice how BDS ‘target’ Israel. Why not Lebanon? Inside Lebanon are descendants of the 1948 Israel /Arab conflict, perpetually held under a real Apartheid system. These ‘refugees’ are explicitly referenced by BDS, yet BDS does not target those guilty of oppressing them. Why not? If human rights of Palestinians is key here, then BDS should cross borders, but it doesn’t. This shows that promoting the ‘human rights’ of Palestinians is an excuse. BDS is a movement set up to exclusively target the ‘Jewish state’ for reasons beyond those officially stated. Picking exclusively on Jews sounds pretty antisemitic to me.
2 BDS is too extreme
The SJP article doesn’t even put forward arguments to oppose this statement, it just suggests that such a label can be used against any movement. The extremist label ‘is just a convenient way to shut down all avenues of resistance’. This is merely a deflections that doesn’t address the issue. Of course BDS is too extreme. There is one nation in the whole of that region that provides all of its citizens with a voice, protects its minorities and has a respected judicial system. It has 9 million citizens. BDS seeks to destroy that nation. How is that not ‘too extreme’?
3 The way forward is through dialogue, not boycotts.
‘This is not an issue of communication, but of violent occupation’. Even if true that only explains away 33% of BDS (BDS have three goals, the 1967 ‘occupation’ is only one of them). Unless of course they wish to suggest *ALL* of Israel is ‘occupied’, which they don’t like doing because it exposes the extremism of the movement (see misconception number two). If you read the SJP response, it suggests dialogue is a negative thing. This is the core pillar upon which the case for Israel is silenced. They don’t want people to talk because they know their lies, hypocrisy and inconsistency will be exposed – hence – no to dialogue. What type of justice movement doesn’t give the ‘accused’ an opportunity to defend itself?
Despite the habitual Jewish gevalt expressions of anxiety, the results of the 2018 U.S. elections do not foretell any change in congressional policy toward Israel, the Middle East, and Iran.
2. Do the elections of Arab Americans and progressives augur bad times for Israel?
An Emphatic No.
- I have watched Arab-American and progressive Members of Congress over the last 50 years. Some were often strong critics of Israel, but their impact was negligible, and their national parties tended to limit their exposure. Examples of Arab-Americans include Senators James Abourezk and James Abdnor, and Representatives Nick Rahall, John Sununu, and Mary Rose Oakar.
- Muslims: At least two were elected on November 6, 2018: in Michigan, Rashida Tlaib, a Palestinian-American, and Ilhan Omar, a hijab-wearing Sudanese-American in Minnesota. Tlaib had been endorsed by J Street, but the Left-wing organization took the unprecedented step of rescinding its endorsement after she came out in favor of a one-state solution. Omar takes the place of Keith Ellison, the first Muslim in Congress, who won the race for Minnesota’s Attorney General. Leaving Washington and the limelight is probably good for Ellison, who faced domestic abuse allegations.
- Progressives and anti-Israel Members of Congress: Don’t forget that the progressives in the Democratic Party have been active for years. Jesse Jackson and Arab-American leader Jim Zogby were frequent speakers before the party’s platform committee, where they criticized support for Israel. The only flag that flew at the last Democratic Convention in 2016 was the Palestinian flag after it was decided no American flags would fly because they bothered some delegates.
- There have always been anti-Israel members of Congress (political correctness requires us to say “critical of Israel”), such as Senators William Fulbright and George McGovern (Democrats), and Representatives Paul Findley and Paul “Pete” McCloskey (Republicans). Despite McGovern winning the Democratic Party nomination for President in 1972, none was particularly influential in their parties or the Congress.