Andrew Pessin: How to Be Pro-Palestinian on Campus Without Being An Antisemite
The times may be a changing, in the campus wars over Israel: the idea that the anti-Israel movement is fundamentally antisemitic appears to be gaining traction. The evidence? In recent weeks several U.K. universities cancelled “Israeli Apartheid Week” events, at least one of which—the University of Lancashire—was explicitly motivated by the U.K.’s December adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism. On that definition, certain forms of anti-Israelism are deemed antisemitic, and “Israeli Apartheid Weeks,” scheduled to occur on many campuses in Europe and North America this spring, often include events that appear to fulfill those conditions. Similar winds are blowing in the United States, where the U. S. State Department definition of antisemitism is able to do the same work, famously classifying as “antisemitic” actions that “delegitimize, demonize, or apply double standards to” the State of Israel. Already pro-Israel activists at schools such as Columbia University lobbied hard to cancel “Apartheid Week” events scheduled there starting three weeks ago, invoking the State Department definition and citing the Lancashire precedent. That effort failed, but what is significant is that the effort was made in the first place.Fred Maroun Linda Sarsour is only the symptom of a much bigger illness
Some campus anti-Israelists are perhaps motivated by antisemitism. But many, perhaps the large majority, sincerely deny they are, and so there is much ongoing and tortuous debate over precisely when anti-Israel activism becomes antisemitism. Can you attack the legitimacy of the Jewish State without being an antisemite? (What if you sincerely believe, on the basis of your historical research, that it was founded illegitimately?) Is it antisemitic to accuse Israel of demonic behavior, if you sincerely believe, on the basis of evidence, that it is guilty of such? (The media is filled with such reports, is it not?) And anyway, what precisely constitute “delegitimization” and “demonization”? Israel’s supporters regularly accuse anti-Israelists of antisemitism; anti-Israelists claim Israel-supporters use that label only to silence their legitimate criticism of Israel. And the debate goes on.
“We are not antisemites,” campus activists proclaim, “we are merely fighting for the welfare and rights of the Palestinian people.” Being “pro-Palestinian” is wonderful, of course; but campus activism sometimes looks more “anti-Israel” than “pro-Palestinian,” and that’s where the trouble begins. On the surface, at least, being “anti-Israel” (or “anti-Zionist”) is not very wonderful: opposing the nation state of the Jewish people, or denying the Jewish people’s right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland—which often involves denying Jewish history and even peoplehood—surely looks and sounds like antisemitism, even if it is honorably motivated by pro-Palestinian intentions.
Ayaan stood up to Sarsour, calling her “a fake feminist”. Yet instead of honouring Ayaan, a true hero of feminism and human rights, for defending Western values through this stand and many others, we demonize her. Brandeis University cowardly revoked plans to give Ayaan an honorary degree. The Southern Poverty Law center shamefully listed Ayaan as an Anti-Muslim Extremist.BDS, Martin Luther King Jr. and Existentialism
The Sarsour phenomenon indicates that the West has lost the ability to defend its own values. We appease and even glorify the enemies of our values rather than confront them. This phenomenon also uncovers the West’s (particularly the Western left’s) “racism of lower expectations” (in the words of Ayaan). It explains why we give Sarsour a position of leadership and why we praise her when we would never do the same for a person of European descent who held the same beliefs.
We insist on remaining blind to the need for Islam to reform, and we treat Islam with even more deference than we treat other religions that have already undergone the reformation that Islam badly needs.
We refuse to integrate Muslim immigrants into our culture. Instead, we throw them into a society that they often do not understand, and we expect them to swim. If they do not drown, we hold them up as some sort of miracle, ignoring that they survived only thanks to Islamic extremists within their community, to which they now owe their existence.
If we do not take ownership of this problem, there will be many more Sarsours and many more appeasers among us in the future. Instead of imparting our liberal values to the world, we will find ourselves drowned by the radical Islam that we invited into our home.
So the reason behind King’s careful engineering of confrontations — such as marches chosen at locations likely to generate harsh responses that would play out on the nightly news — was not to rub white America’s nose in its own bigotry, but rather to create an unnerving contradiction between people’s self-characterization of goodness with ugly images of violence and repression in the name of those same “good people.”
When faced with such a disturbing contradiction, an individual has two choices: change his self-perception to embrace (or at least find room for) justifications of violence and repression, or change the world in order to eliminate the source of that disturbance. King banked on the fact that, as hard as it might be to change the world, changing self-perception — especially one of virtue — is even harder. And thus his brilliantly chosen tactics, dangerous though they were to him and his supporters, were aligned with the internal psychological “flow” of the people he wanted to reach.
Lack of this sort of existential empathy might explain the limited impact projects such as Black Lives Matter have had within the wider culture, since they seem to be more interested in generating feelings of guilt and self-disgust among large segments of the public. And even if you agree that America’s attitudes towards race have been and continue to be shameful, who wants to be involved with a project offering shame vs. one offering uplift?
Insights derived from the belief system that powered King’s movement can help us better understand the BDS project, and inform the best ways to fight against it. And it is to that first item — the BDSers’ existential strategy of destruction — that we will turn to next time.