Some BDS Critics Are Playing The Race Card

From California to Las Vegas To Florida and finally to Israel, the word on some streets is that supporting BDS is now  racism, anti-Semitism to be precise. And the same goes for opposing Zionism and even offering any criticisms of Israel. Engaging in such actions can subject some to official sanctions at California's state universities. Otherwise, the worse that can happen thus far is that your name will be dragged through the mud by being labeled a racist. And this is what we see some who oppose BDS. They play the race card to gain an advantage over their adversaries  And the question we have to ask is whether describing people who oppose Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories by supporting sanctions that are meant to motivate Israel to end the Occupation as racists is right. We also must ask the same question of those who criticize the Israeli government and/or who oppose today's Political Zionism.

Before we go on, we should note that BDS stands for Boycott, Sacntions, and Divestment.  And what that specifically refers to here is the global movement to get all sorts of institutions and even states to boycott, pass sanctions on, and divest from Israeli businesses in order to pressure the Israeli government into ending its occupation against the Palestinian people.

The case for using the race card on BDS starts with a working group report prepared by the regents of California's state universities (click here for Appendix 1). As with many reports, there are good and bad parts. The strength of the report is the concern over and intent to act because of actual harassment experienced by Jewish students in the California state universities. Such includes acts of vandalism, anti-Semitic dialogue, 'social exclusion,' 'stereotyping,' and attempts at intimidating Jews. Now some of these complaints are too ambiguous, especially with regard to the final opinion of the report, to comment on. For if voicing disagreement with Zionism is anti-Semitic, then the bar for anti-Semitism is set dangerously low to the extent that criticizing Israel's policies is now considered to be racist. Such can an equation can be the result of opportunism or of overreacting. One can look at the following part of the introduction to see for oneself:

In particular, opposition to Zionism¹ often is expressed in ways that are not simply statements of disagreement over politics and policy, but also assertions of prejudice and intolerance toward Jewish people and culture.

Anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism and other forms of discrimination have no place at the University of California.

 The report uses State Department documents as references (click here). And note how our own State Department defines anti-Semitism with regard to statements made about Israel

DEMONIZE ISRAEL:

Using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism to characterize Israel or Israelis

Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis

Blaming Israel for all inter-religious or political tensions

DOUBLE STANDARD FOR ISRAEL:

Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation

Multilateral organizations focusing on Israel only for peace or human rights investigations

DELEGITIMIZE ISRAEL:

Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, and denying Israel the right to exist

Thus,  the regents' working group report that classifies anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism is not saying anything that our government has not said. But such does not imply that racism has actually occurred when even Israel or its right to exist as a Jewish nation are challenged. All the above shows is the government's position regarding how one is allowed to talk about Israel.

Finally, one of the telling weaknesses in the part of the report referred to here, and such was probably true for those who wrote the State Department's statements on anti-Semitism, is the lack of input from Jewish groups who oppose Israel's Occupation and even Zionism itself. There are a number of Jewish organizations that oppose Zionism itself. One of them is an orthodox branch of Judaism called the Neturei Karta (click here). Another possible group, I say possible because I am not sure of their relationship to the Neturei Karta, ar the True Torah Jews (click here). So how should we square the equation of anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, as expressed by both the regents in California and the State Dempartment with the existence of Jews who oppose Zionism? 

But the California state universities are not the only ones who are targeting BDS and criticisms of Zionism. So is business leader Sheldon Adelson who not only owns Tribune Publishing Company, he is the Chairman of the Las Vegas Sands Corporation. The person Adelson whom has left in charge to battle BDS, David Brog, has said the following about it (click here):

‘BDS’ is a catch-all for various efforts to demonize and delegitimize the State of Israel. Even if you could ban BDS activities on campus, the problem wouldn’t go away. The battle is bigger than BDS, so our effort has to be bigger.”

Here, we should note what follows his description of BDS: it tries to 'demonize' and 'delegitimize' Israel and its existence. And what follows that description is a statement of intent to silence BDS. And that banning their activities on college campuses is not enough. So not only does Brog engage in some demonizing of BDS itself, he says that he intends to eliminate it. 

From here, we can go to Florida and Governor Rick Scott's signing of a bill that challenges BDS. Only instead of focusing on the law he signed, we need to listen to what he says about BDS and those who do not agree today's Zionism (click here for the article).

The BDS movement, which claims to seek peace between Israelis and Palestinians, is not a peace movement at all. In fact, it is an insidious form of economic warfare that must not be permitted to grow.

Omar Barghouti, a leader of the movement, has stated the aim of BDS is not a two-state solution, but rather a Palestinian state next to a Palestinian state. In other words, the goal of the BDS movement has nothing to do with the welfare of the Palestinian people, but the destruction of the Jewish state of Israel. We must keep this in mind and call out the movement for what it is — a hateful anti-Semitic form of warfare, which must not be tolerated in our state or our country, or among those who value freedom and democracy.

Here, we should note how not only does Scott paint the BDS movement as a monolith that is 'hateful' and 'anti-Semitic,' he takes the sentiments of the leader, Omar Barghouti, and assumes that they are the objectives of everyone in the group including Jews such as Jewish Voice For Peace (click here) and Jeff Halper's group Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (click here). The links provided here clearly show that Scott has tried to say too much against BDS. 

But not only that, we should note that what he calls economic warfare is simply the same strategy used to battle Apartheid in South Africa. Would Scott call that effort economic warfare to destroy South Africa when the end of apartheid meant the end of the use of boycotts, sanctions, and divestments? 

We should also note that Scott continues to say that the suffering of the Palestinian people is solely because of the Palestinian Authority and Hamas. He seems to deny that Israel has visited any suffering, let alone injustices, on the Palestinian people.

Finally, we go to Israel and an op-ed to the Jerusalem Post written by Benjamin Kerstein (click here). In that op-ed, Kerstein states that because of Israel's exceptional place in history and its current circumstances., all criticism of it must be regarded as anti-Semitic whether racism is intended or not. To disagree with Kerstein's assertion requires that one disagrees with the exceptional predicament Israel finds itself. And then he goes on to say the following:

Nonetheless, these circumstances are not complex, nor are they numerous. They are simply these: A large portion of the world, West and East, has come to believe that Arabs and Muslims have earned the right to murder Jews.

Do we get a picture of SOME of the defensive reactions that exist to BDS? Who in BDS is believes that Arabs have the right to murder Jews? It's not that those in BDS have no faults. The California state regents were reacting to wrongful behaviors exhibited by BDS follows as well as those who oppose Zionism. Though their reaction goes too far, they are reacting to real anti-Semitism. Vandalism, threats, intimidation, scapegoating, and trying to close events (click here for one such attempt not related to what the California state university regents were reacting to) that support or appear to support Zionism are anti-Semitic as well as anti-democratic. But BDS cannot be reduced to these acts and behaviors because the people involved are too diverse. Not all in BDS exhibit, let alone support, such acts and behaviors.

In addition, what is left out of the picture is the object of the BDS protest. What we don't hear about is the daily violence and humiliation forced on the Palestinian people by Israel's Occupation and why the Palestinians were right not to agree to past Israeli offers (click here and there and there and there again). So regardless of what one could say about whether Israel was targeting civilians in their military operations, civilian life is very much targeted by the Occupation itself. Such was not included in Bernie Sanders' references to disproportionate responses by Israel when it sees fit to invade or attack. Israel's disproportionate responses were cited in the Goldstone Report on 'Operation Cast Lead' as well as the UN Report on Israel's 'Operation 'Protective Edge' (click here). One only needs to visit the B'Tselem webpages on statistics to understand where the disproportion is (click here). For further information, we could refer to the number of UN Resolutions Israel has or is violating (click here for up to the year 2010 and there for a more up to date list) as well as the number of ceasefires they have broken (click here).

Finally, as for the destruction of Israel, what is implied in the use of the terminology is a physical war with carnage and murder. But what is actually meant by people like Omar Barghouti who is the founder of BDS, is far different. What many in BDS who oppose Zionism want is a democracy that includes the return of Palestinian refugees. The end of Zionism, as seen by those BDS supporters who oppose Zionism,  is a prerequisite to ending the Occupation--remember that ending the Occupation is the stated goal of BDS. Allowing Palestinian Refugees to return would, under a democracy, "destroy" the Jewish state by demographics rather than by force and violence. So what is actually destroyed here is not a democracy, but a Jewish majority within a partial democracy.

So note what Zionism stands for so we can understand what kind of anti-Semitism is being denounced. Zionism stands for Israel's right and ability to maintain a Jewish majority in a nation that depends on democratic processes to select its government leaders  This is an important point because we are often reminded that Israel is the only "liberal democracy" that is like us in the Middle East. 

But what if the US passed laws that would guarantee that Whites would remain the majority race in our nation or that Conservative Christians would always be in control of the government? Could we then call ourselves a democracy with a straight face? And yet, that is what Israel, whose current Zionists roots started with the emigration of European Jews because they suffered horribly under an anti-Semitism without even counting the Holocaust. Zionism says that these descendants of former immigrants are allowed to make laws that guarantee that they will be the vast majority of people so that they have control over their democracy. And to oppose that kind of Zionism is now being called racism.

Certainly, this post has excluded much information. It has not included the horrible atrocities visited on the Israeli people by the Palestinians. It has not included the sensitive time period when, not too long ago, Israeli public opinion was beginning to become more sympathetic to the Palestinian plight only to be derailed by Palestinian terrorism. And there is a good reason for this exclusion. It is because many people here in the West use a mental filter that blinds them from Israeli atrocities so that the decision to support Israel in all that it does becomes a simple and sentimental decision to support the good guys wearing the white hats. And this prevents the Palestinian side of the story from being told.

Certainly BDS is about the necessary end of Israel's Occupation against the Palestinians. But we should now see is that, for some, there is also a BDS vs Zionism conflict. That conflict is about who will control the demographics of a nation that relies on democratic processes to pick its leaders. And though I support BDS, equating control of the majority population in order to benefit from democratic processes with Democracy shows a wholly inadequate understanding of Democracy. Such shows a commitment to the appearance of Democracy, but not its spirit. 

For the spirit of Democracy, at least to Israeli activist Jeff Halper, is one that says regardless of which group has the most people, there is an equal sharing and owning of the country among all groups. That without that equal sharing, what we have is some kind of partial democracy, which he calls an 'ethnocracy' in Israel's case. Thus, the oligarchy we see in the US could be called a 'classocracy.' And what we see in these partial democracies is that the group(s) that feel entitled to rule become more and more able to rationalize the visiting of all sorts of controls and even atrocities on others  in order for them to obtain or retain the supremacy they believe they deserve.

Truth And Opportunism In Associating BDS With Anti-Semitism

For those who do not know what BDS is, it refers to the use of boycotts, divestments, and sanctions to pressure Israel into ending its brutal occupation against the Palestinians. The person who first explained this strategy to me was an Israeli activist who opposes the Occupation. 

In yesterday's ONIM post (click here), I listed 5 links that referred to stories about equating either opposing today's Zionism or supporting BDS with anti-Semitism. Why is there such an association? One reason could be because acts of anti-Semitism have been increasing on college campuses. But there is a problem with some of the reports on anti-Semitism. The problem has to do with the definition of anti-Semitism itself. For some have listed support for BDS as an act of anti-Semitism. The article about anti-Semitism on the UC Davis campus provides such an example as it lists support for BDS with the drawing of swastikas on buildings. BTW, swastikas have also been drawn on vehicles as well and, as a result, some Jewish students feel intimidated from fully expressing their Jewish identity and heritage.

So there is real anti-Semitism being expressed on at least some campuses and that must not be tolerated. However, why would supporting BDS and opposing Zionism be counted with acts intended to strike fear into people? Perhaps it is because talk that explains opposition to Zionism and support for BDS might stir up so much anger at the Israeli government in some that their anger spills over and causes them to target people including those who have nothing to do with Israel's policies. 

But the above is not the only reason for the association of anti-Zionism and support for BDS with anti-Semitism. That pairing can also be the result of political opportunism by those who defend Israel's treatment of the Palestinians and Israel's right to exist as a Jewish State. In other words, the pairing of anti-Zionism and BDS with anti-Semitism is a way of intimidating and even silencing those who hold to various sets of objectionable political views. And with the latter group, what we find is that it is politically advantageous to associate anti-Zionism and BDS with anti-Semitism. 

Personally, I oppose today's version of Modern Zionism and I support BDS. But I do so with this caveat, that I do must do all I can to avoid the tribalism trap that comes with standing against what I believe are grave injustices practiced by a particular group. The tribalism trap causes people who are very incensed over a given set of injustices to judge the morality of actions by who does what to whom. So here, injustices practiced against Israel or actual acts of anti-Semitism against individual or groups of Jewish people are condoned while legitimate acts of justice practiced by Israel against Palestinians are condemned because of the anger one might have for policies of Israel's government. Again, tribalism causes us to judge the morality of actions by the criteria of who does what to whom. Thus, tribalism passionately embraces moral relativism.

If those of us who oppose today's verion of modern Zionism and support BDS are going to successufully fight off the conflation of opposing Israeli policies with anti-Semitism, then we have to start doing something that we didn't originally think was part of the package we bought into. We have to fervantly speak out against both terrorist acts performed against Israel and anti-Semitic acts and words directed and Jewish individuals and groups. And we have to do so as much as we oppose agaisnt todays Modern Zionism and Israel's brutal occupation. Why? It is because we must see that the valid complaints we raise about today's version of Zionism and Israel's brutal occupation can easily be misconstrued by some so that they build up too much anger and that they direct it at the wrong parties. Again, the purpose of BDS was to end the Occupation, not to punish and seek revenge. 

In addition, we have to speak out against real anti-Semitism by laying the blame for the Israeli government's sins at the feet of the proper party. For Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is not due to the Israeli leaders being Jewish. Rather, when those who have been oppressed oppress others, their oppression of others, as wrong as it may be, must be considered to be a human reaction. History demands this of us. And we can see another illustration of this point from our own American history. For what did many American colonists who came here seeking freedom of religion first do? They banned the religion of others. Oppression and violence leads to oppression and violence. It is a human trait, not the trait of a particular group or set of groups.

Unless enough  of us speak out against both Palestinian terrorism and real anti-Semitism exercised in our hearing, we will have chosen to be silently complicit not just with those political opportunists who zealously seek to discredit us by conflating opposition Israel's acts of injustice against the Palestinians with hatred of Jews, but with those who practice terrorism or exercise real anti-Semitism as they threaten, seek to intimidate, and actually attack people because of their Jewish heritage or ties as well. And in being silently complicit with them, we will have become just as guilty as they are.