Saturday, January 28, 2012
PennBDS - Community Coalition Building
Friday, January 27, 2012
PennBDS – The Academic Boycott
On a couple of previous occasions, I’ve mentioned some name changes to items in the PennBDS agenda, mostly as by-the-by asides. But in this instance, it’s worth highlighting the fact that a session once entitled “Debate on the Academic Boycott” is now simply called “The Academic Boycott.”
Now it may be that this is a simple name change and that the speakers for this event represent the strongest voices the PennBDS folks could find on either side of the issue, which means the audience will be exposed to a genuine debate over what the conference organizers consider to be a subject of great importance.
But if this name change represents a decision by these organizers to eliminate any part of their program that would even pretend that two sides of an issue existed, that would fit their choice to avoid debate at all cost, despite their constant assertions that they are dying for dialog with their opponents.
When BDS advocates have organized “debates” in the past, their preference is to choose choose both sides (usually recruiting a Jewish “anti-BDS” speaker who can be assured to laud the goals of the BDS “movement” but simply question their methods, with general agreement over the “Israel = Apartheid” propaganda message known in advance). But if even a contrived, lopsided debate of this type is too much for the PennBDS cru to accept, I think we can all guess where they are coming from.
And if someone was to give them a real debate over “The Academic Boycott,” it would have to begin by pointing out that of all the boycott, divestment and sanctions activities advocated by PennBDS speakers and organizers, none is more loathed and despised than calls for international academics to boycott their Israeli colleagues which would involve refusing to invite them to conferences (or to attend their conferences), refusing to publish their papers, engage in joint research projects or even talk to them (lest you be found guilty of “normalizing” the Jewish condition - whoops! I mean “The Occupation”).
Consumer boycotts probably come in a close second with regard to the amount of disgust they generate, especially in the US where people don’t take kindly to being told what they can and cannot buy. But even if arguments have been found that take on product boycotts on principle (Davis Food Co-op’s highlighting that such boycotts would represent a betrayal of the Rochdale Principles upon which the co-op movement was founded springs to mind), the principle of academic freedom is woven into the fabric of every educational institution and (with a few exceptions) everyone who educates others for a living.
To cite a few examples of how these principles have motivated action, when the leadership of a UK teacher’s union proposed a boycott of Israeli universities several years ago, the reaction of college and university presidents around the world was to declare that for the purpose of any boycott, their institutions should be considered Israeli universities and also boycotted. It was a noble gesture, but ultimately unnecessary since the union’s membership (which was never consulted on this boycott decision – par for the course with regard to BDS “victories”) revolted upon hearing what was being said in their name and the boycott resolution was quickly withdrawn.
It’s interesting to note that it was Columbia University which spearheaded this campaign, the very Columbia that has been accused in the past of allowing teachers to inappropriately politic in the classroom, the Columbia that provided a platform for Iranian President Ahmadinejad to spew his bile to the community. But when the question of a boycott came up, academic freedom easily trumped all other considerations. Similarly, San Francisco State College has historically been one of the worst campuses in the country for pro-Israel activists, with an environment where this lovely poster (not to mention a near riot) didn’t rouse the administration to action. But when faced with calls for an academic boycott, the President of SF State issued a resounding denunciation.
While BDS advocates highlight the few hundred American instructors who signed a petition calling their fellow academics to boycott their Israeli colleagues, they never mention that the 1.5 million strong American Federationof Teachers union that made it abundantly clear what they thought of calls for an academic boycott of Israel (which is not much, beyond hostility to it).
Those in favor of academic boycotts like to highlight the plight of students at Palestinian universities to make arguments that it is their position that represents true calls for academic freedom. Needless to say, the fact that these very universities were built by Israel during the dreaded “Occupation” and only faced problems once they had been turned into cesspools of propaganda and violence after they came under PA administration during the Oslo years will never cross the boycotter’s lips.
But even with this history all but forgotten, the vast majority of academics react viscerally to the notion of shunning their Israeli colleagues, even with BDS advocates incessantly claiming that this is their only moral choice.
With Israeli academics winning Nobel Prizes and American and European colleges and universities fighting to create joint programs with Israeli institutions, it’s curious why the BDSers continue to press for academic boycotts, rather than putting their energy into efforts like their TIAA-CREF divestment campaign that (while failing) at least don’t come tinged with an assault on academic freedom.
The reason for this has to do with boycotters’ insistence that anyone joining their “movement” must sacrifice all to prove their devotion. In the case of the churches, it’s not good enough for the Presbyterians or Methodists to make moral statements on secular political issues. Rather they are asked to stake their positions on “Christian Witness,” declaring (in effect) that their political statements represent the will of God.
Academic boycotts follow a similar pattern, asking educators to place what they hold most sacred (academic freedom) on the sacrificial alter. And this makes sense once you realize that someone making a simple political decision can always change his or her mind. But someone who has been maneuvered to sacrifice all they believe in for the sake of someone else’s cause can never turn back.
Now that’s something worth debating!
Thursday, January 26, 2012
PennBDS – The Zionist Response
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
PennBDS: BDS and Community
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
PennBDS: BDS Mind, Beginner’s Mind
Regular readers may have picked up on my fondness for words. And while I’ve sometimes been (legitimately) teased for using more words than may be necessary to make a point, it’s often the case that a single word is all that’s needed to clarify an important issue. And for the PennBDS program event entitled “Talking to Beginners About BDS, Israel and Zionism,” the key word worth discussing is “Beginners.”
It’s easy to understand why college campuses are the places that BDS (and similar propaganda efforts) are so easy to create, revive or continue. For unlike institutions such as Mainline Protestant churches (where the same people tend to hear the same arguments year in and year out), in college and universities at least 25% of the population is turning over each year, and 100% will come and go within 4-5 years (generally).
This perpetual turnover means there will always be a new group of “Beginners” towards whom local BDSers can target their message (that Israel is an “Apartheid State,” alone in the world at deserving economic punishment). And while kids coming out of high school and entering higher ed are quite sharp and accomplished, they are not likely to be as worldly at the beginning of their college career as they will be by the end of it.
It is exactly this kind of “Beginner” audience that the boycotters hope will be attracted to their simple-minded, black-and-white storylines of Israeli villainy and pristine Palestinian innocence. And while pro-Israel groups are increasingly trying to counter anti-Israel propaganda with accurate portrayals of the Middle East, they are limited by their (appropriate) choice to tell the truth. And since the truth is more complicated than an immorality tale of Israeli witches and Palestinian virgins, there will always be some “Beginners” who prefer a simple falsehood to a complex and morally ambiguous reality.
But while willingness to ruthlessly push a simplistic, easily-absorbed storyline works to the boycotters’ advantage in some cases, the BDSers run into problems elsewhere when trying to recruit “Beginners” into their fold (even if they only plan to use them as “loose change”).
One of their biggest challenges is that among the 90% of students who enter college without strong opinions (or any opinions) regarding the Middle East conflict, there is a general feeling that dialog is good, with those perceived as being interested in dialog looked upon more favorably than those who are not. This raises a challenge for those pushing BDS who – as the PennBDS conference proves – are ready to talk at an audience, but not particularly interested in talking with them.
I harp a lot about the fact that pro-BDS organizations scrupulously avoid allowing comments on their Web sites, even as the people who run those sites routinely comment at places like Divest This where comments are open and uncensored. In fact, I’ve even provided a place at this site where the PennBDS folks (or their supporters from anywhere in the world) are free to post a response to each and every one of my critiques of the items on their agenda.
Now I understand that people are not obliged to maintain comments on their web sites, and I certainly don’t feel that PennBDS (or anyone else) owes me a debate (or even a response). But it is telling that even when given open access to take on someone who has made the effort to discuss each and every issue they have identified as important – point by point – that their response is to simply pretend that such arguments do not exist.
The obvious reason behind this type of behavior is that, despite claims by groups such as PennBDS or Jewish Voice for Peace that they hunger for dialog (especially with their critics) in fact they will go to almost any length to avoid genuine discussion, preferring instead to talk just to each other, and to find “Beginners” who may not be aware that alternative opinions are out there.
Interestingly, even pretending to be in favor of dialog rubs a number of BDS-types the wrong way, as attested by this weird comic in which the Israel-dislikers take it upon themselves to depict both sides of the “debate,” drawing and writing themselves as dedicated, thoughtful and thin (natch) and their opponents as bloated, doltish and manipulative.
Putting aside the infantilism such a “work” represents, it certainly highlights the BDSers strong preference to be allowed to select or represent both sides of what they consider to be a “genuine” discussion or debate. This dynamic reached absurd heights in thislist of “normalization” demands which translates roughly to “only after you agree to everything we have said, say, or will say in advance will we consider you ‘pure’ enough to engage with in ‘normal’ dialog with us.”
Back to the original point of how to “Talk to Beginners about BDS, Zionism and Israel,” (why do I suspect the word “Israel” is going to disappear from that title before the conference begins), if history is any guide, the way attendees at PennBDS will be directed to engage in such “Talk” is to:
(1) Accuse Israel of every imaginable (or simply imagined) crime;
(2) Pretend alternative viewpoints and arguments don’t exist;
(3) Accuse Israel’s supporters of trying to stifle or “muzzle” debate whenever they try to contribute to it;
(4) Flush all information that contradicts the BDS world view down the memory hole;
(5) Accuse student or university leaders who don’t agree with you of being in the back pocket of the Zionists;
(6) Ignore or deflect any efforts dedicated to genuine (vs. faux) dialog; and
(7) Accuse, accuse, accuse.
The gang at PennBDS (and any of the BDS luminaries who will be speaking at their event) are more than welcome to tell me if I got anything wrong. And given that they have ample opportunities to respond to this analysis directly, let’s all assume that silence = assent.