The World's Conscience or Reflection?

I was planning to write something on flash-mobs and bus ads next, but then again I had also planned to have been on a plane back home two days ago before 12-18 inches of snow decided to intervene.

With the latter problem solved, I’m going to postpone mobs and busses for one more entry in order to take part in an increasingly interesting conversation started in the comments section of previous postings.

I mentioned recently that someone who took part in a BDS project in California last Spring has been asking some serious questions and making some important points, most recently with regard to how Israel’s supporters can justify Israel’s actions, given the wide condemnations that routinely pour out from international bodies (such as the United Nations and International Court of Justice) directed at the Jewish state.

“Can the whole world be wrong?” was a question former UN leader Kofi Annan asked years ago when Israel challenged the legitimacy of some of the actions of the body Annan led. And this question rings out today, not just from partisans, but also from idealists who greatly desire there to exist an international system to check the excesses of the nation state and eventually (they, like many, hope) will lead to a global government which rules by international law.

Now one commenter with experience in international legal matters made an equally valid point that votes taken at organizations like the UN bear little resemblance to votes taken within various democratic parliaments upon which the UN General Assembly and other bodies were modeled. Most notably, the “voters” in the General Assembly are not elected leaders responsible and answerable to a particular constituency, but nation-states themselves. And if a majority of those nation states are not free or democratic, then the majority of votes taken within these world bodies are cast by the ruling class of each country, with no distinction between a vote by a democracy, a dictatorship or something in between.

This leaves open the possibility, indeed the likelihood, that votes to condemn Israel – far from representing the planet’s conscience – actually represent the political decisions of nation states, i.e., the very national power that international law was created to limit. So does the UN spend a majority of its energy condemning just one member (Israel) because Israel is the greatest human rights abuser on the planet? Or does a UN focus on Israel instead of far greater human rights abusers and occupiers (such as Syria and China) in order to serve the needs of the latter at the expense of not just Israel but of the entire international law/human-rights enterprise?

Here we come to a much deeper challenge for those who truly believe that international law overseen by international bodies (the UN, NGOs) and a global court should be entrusted with more responsibility than they have today. For what if the condemnation of Israel (easy to achieve in any of these organizations thanks to the numerousness of Israel’s foes) is actually the means whereby corrupt or vicious nation states are pushing their nation’s interests at the expense of other nations and of the global order itself?

If a powerful nation such as China, or nations that are part of huge voting blocs such as Syria can ensure that they are never subject to serious scrutiny by the human rights community or international agencies by insisting that Israel be the Alpha and Omega of for condemnation by the “international community,” then what has this international community become beyond a tool for tyranny, yet one additional method for wealthy and powerful states to get their way?

In other words, those who have high hopes for some new global order are particularly obliged to examine the way these institutions have actually behaved over the years (rather than judge groups like the UN and ICJ based on their theoretical perfection), especially with regard to the question of whether hugely lopsided attacks on one country represent international justice or the monumental corruption of everything international justice is supposed to stand for.

Something Must be Done

A few months back, I talked about numbers, pointing out that in campus debates regarding the Middle East members of the “pro- and anti-Israel camps at most universities never tops more than 5-10% of the student population, with the other 90%+ viewing activists on both sides as mostly engaged with talking to themselves or shouting at each other.”

Actually, I would go even further than that and say that within the 5% of the population choosing to take a side, just a small percentage of those activists are what I would call “hardcore.” The rest (possibly the majority) are people who feel an injustice is being done (Palestinians are suffering or Israel is being attacked) and – as idealists – they don’t feel they can sit idly by and do nothing.

A very thoughtful commenter who joined a discussion on this site recently highlighted that this is why she took a stand in favor of BDS at UC Davis earlier this year, not because BDS is a cause to which she has dedicated her life but because in the face of so much suffering in the Middle East she felt that at least those pushing divestment were offering a way of doing something that stood a chance, she hoped, of making the situation better.

Now I could make this the shortest posting ever written on this blog (don’t get your hopes up) and say that the solution for people with this burning desire to “do something” is to participate in one or more of the many organizations dedicated to peace and reconciliation between Jews and Arabs in the Middle East, or development in the West Bank via micro-loans and other investment vehicles. In fact, my visitor responded very well to suggestions that she follow this route – as well she should since these options represent good uses of time and effort in and of themselves.

But I fear if we leave things there it will give the impression that BDS is just one of a number of reasonable alternatives for improving the situation in the Middle East, possibly louder and more aggressive than helping to start small businesses on the West Bank or contributing to summer camps for Arab and Israeli kids, but still a peaceful alternative to conflict (i.e., violent conflict).

Needless to say, I reject this characterization and completely reject the notion that the BDS self-characterization as being the heirs to Gandhi, King and the struggle against Apartheid. For if Israel is NOT such a loathsome place that it (and it alone) deserves to be boycotted and if Israel is NOT the sole (or even primary) reason why there is no peace in the Middle East, then BDS is a means to characterize it as these negative things, even if these characterizations are not true (which they are not).

And why portray Israel in this light by making it a target of BDS? In order to create the impression that it IS loathsome and Apartheid-like, that it IS the main (possibly the one and only) reason why there is no peace, even though those accusations, as I said, are false. In other words, BDS is a combat technique, one that involves propaganda (a crucial part of any war strategy, going back to the Persian Wars). It is designed to create the impression that one party to the conflict is getting what it deserves when the violent “arm” of the movement springs into action (which it does routinely) and to de-legitimize any violence Israel takes in response (characterizing it, for example, as a “war crime”).

If, as Einstein said, you cannot both work for peace while preparing for war; you cannot simultaneously be part of a non-violent, peaceful movement and a propaganda effort. As a supporter of Israel, I have no problem battling against those who declare themselves to be Israel’s enemies who want to see it weakened or even destroyed. After all, they have honestly identified where they stand (as have I).

But I do object to those who dress up their propaganda campaign as something other than the warlike effort that it truly is, and I especially loath the fact that they use this inaccurate characterization of themselves to lure in idealists, good people, with promises that BDS offers a way of helping others when, in fact, is dedicated to doing just the opposite.

So I guess I would advise people like my visitor to learn more (from people on both sides of the conflict, as well as from “neutral” observers – yes, they do exists) before taking a political stand either anti-Israel (such as BDS) or pro-Israel (such as the work I do here). I don’t know where you’ll come out at the end of such a journey, but at least the road will be mapped out with more information than comes out of a BDS fight. And I have yet to meet someone who has truly taken such a voyage who came out with the kind of one-sided view of the world that characterizes any divestment debate.

Absent that (or possibly in addition to or as a result of that journey), committing to help smaller-scale reconciliation and development efforts is a fine way to go, both as a way of doing good in a troubled part of the world, and as a way to make a contribution to truly peaceful activities (activities BDS proponents often attack as part of their “de-normlization” efforts, BTW). In addition to contributing to the greater good (albeit in small increments), it also provides a way to avoid doing harm either inadvertently or by being manipulated by people who ultimately do not have the interest of Israel, the Palestinians or you in mind when they try to recruit you to their cause.

Tactics – Metaphors

For the first time, I’m stacked up with two promised essays. This one closes off the discussion of tactics from last week. And Sandy – I promise some thoughts before the holidays on your situation regarding what to do when you feel you must do something about problems in the Middle East.

So wrapping up a discussion of tactics, one thing that makes tactical decisions easier is when there is a model or metaphor within which to envision your choices.

In the case of BDS, their metaphor is clearly “Apartheid,” or more specifically the struggle against Apartheid in the 1980s. While Israel’s defenders would strongly object to this characterization for a variety of legitimate reasons, this does not diminish the Apartheid metaphor’s power to frame debate. Such a metaphor also simplifies the selection of language (use terminology from previous Apartheid campaigns) and tactics (do similar things to what was done in the 1980s). As an aside, the Apartheid metaphor also provides BDS activist a framework for social bonding (a topic for another time).

I’ve talked about the metaphor of the siege, largely as a way to help Israel’s defenders (Jew and non-Jew alike) think past the stale debate of “offense vs. defense” which frequently adds up to nothing more than the argument between compromise and zealotry that has characterized Jewish politics for centuries. I won’t repeat the significance of the siege metaphor except to point out that while it gives Israel’s defenders a useful framework to select effective strategies and tactics, it does not supply the content needed to counter the Apartheid metaphor that is the basis of BDS.

For an additional metaphor, I am indebted to Charles Jacobs whose recent thoughts on Jewish susceptibility to any sort of accusation can be found here. But I am particularly purloining from Professor Ruth Wisse whose recent work brings up an image that has been stuck with me since hearing her speak some months ago: the metaphor of The Trial.

I capitalize those words not just to highlight the Kafkaesque nature of Israel’s experience in the dock over the last several decades, but to also point out that “The Trial” like “Apartheid” are both real and metaphorical concepts. Apartheid, as noted above, has been at the heart of the BDS project for its entire existence, but so has the nature of the trial, with Israel as the defendant and her accusers acting as both prosecutor and judge.

But in a real trial, one side does not get to hog the stage for day after day, year after year, decade after decade with the other side limited simply to object here and there until a decision is ultimately made. In any trial, eventually, the other side gets to take center stage and present its case while the first side is forced to sit and listen. (You’ll see in a minute why I’m avoiding the terms “prosecution” and “defense.”)

Now Israel’s accusers have had the floor for over six decades now, and have certainly refused to yield the stage during the BDS decade. And thus it is more than fair to say that the time has finally come for them to grab a chair, sit down and let someone else make their case.

In other words, it is now our turn to turn from defendant to prosecutor and force Israel’s foes to answer our questions for once, not simply dismiss any issues we bring up with a scoffing laugh or an insistence that they are a distraction from “the real issues” which consist solely of the accusations they want taken at face value. These critics have had years, decades, to make their case stick and if they have not succeeded in doing so yet (testified by the failure of BDS over the last ten years), that does not entitle them to continue their case for another six decades until they finally have their way.

So now, finally, it is our turn as prosecutor and someone else’s turn to be in the dock. Fairness, the underpinning behind both real court justice and the trial as a metaphor, demands nothing less.

As exchanges in my last posting’s comments section will attest, Israel’s critics will fight tooth and nail to resist relinquishing the prosecutor/judge role they demand for themselves, but this is their problem not ours. For after 60+ years, the time has finally come us to say: “Good point, Mr. BDSer, but you’ve been making the same point for decades. We’re all familiar with it, you’ve made yourself clear, we get it. And now is the time for you to answer our questions for a change.”

Tactics – Surprise, Surprise, Surprise

One of the things that continually surprised me about BDS battles within a university or other institution is how unsurprising they are.

BDS itself generally has but one tactic: to find a progressive institution and (often working behind the scenes) to convince them that their principles leave them no choice other than the embrace the BDS agenda. So no surprise there. But it’s kind of startling to see how debate tends to unfold thereafter with the regularity of a Noh drama.

This déjà vu is most pronounced when a boycott or divestment battle comes to a head, often unfolding in a series of intense meetings (always three in number for some reason). Whether those meetings take place within Berkeley’s student government chambers, Somerville City Hall or the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, all parties immediately assume their assigned roles.

In the case of the boycotters, this involves presenting an endless stream of gut-wrenching (and context-free) images of Palestinian suffering with an unwavering accusation of the one and only party responsible for this presented woe: Israel (and/or “The Occupation” or “The Settlements” presented as near metaphysical entities).

The performance of Israel’s defenders also tends towards the familiar, even if it’s a familiarity of inconsistency. For unlike the boycotters, Israel’s friends are not united on their goals or approach. Some want to lash out and attack their critics (bringing up the human rights catastrophe that is Gaza and the Arab world, for example). Some want to focus on peace, reconciliation and ways to work together. Still others zero in on the pain an divisiveness that BDS battles always cause, with everyone frequently invoking the “complexity” of the Arab-Israeli conflict (in contrast to the simple-minded storyline that characterizes Israel’s accusers).

Now the endless failure of BDS would seem to indicate that this is a winning presentation, even if it is seems somewhat confused and predictable. Which presents the question of why criticize a winning tactic? To which I would respond that in any type of conflict (from a political battle to an actual war) it’s never the best idea to be in a position where you opponents know exactly what to expect from you well in advance.

Two stories provide some perspective on what happens when people don’t act according to their assigned roles. Starting in the US, a group of San Francisco pro-Israel activists decided to use the tactics of the BDS organization Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) against them.

You may recall that JVP was the group that chose to disrupt a speech Prime Minister Netenyahu gave in New Orleans last month, using a tactic of repeated interruptions that’s become popular within West Coast universities as a means of muzzling pro-Israel speakers. This time, however, it was JVP’s turn to be on the receiving end of their own medicine (at a meeting celebrating the Young, Jewish and Proud Netenyahu-interrupters no less) where pro-Israel forces jumped up repeatedly to read from Hertzl and other Zionist texts.

Now some of you may wonder why this “sauce for the gander” approach is not taken more often (a subject for another time), but in the case of the Young Jewish and Proud event the JVP crowd was caught completely off guard. So stunned were they at the very notion that their tactics could be used against them that violence ensued, starting with a JVP assault on an elderly activist, leading to a pepper spraying, leading to JVP calling the cops on their opponents. Putting aside attempts to propagandize this kerfuffle to advantage, the real lesson is how disorienting it can be to Israel’s foes when its friends do not act in ways they are told they must.

The other story did not involve pepper spray or cops, but was no less educational with regard to the effectiveness of surprise. By now, many of you will have read about the student who took part in the umpteenth Oxford Union debate over the Middle East, this one set up to debate the subject of whether or not “Israel is a rogue state.”

Usually when these events take place, everyone lines up along predictable patterns, each party plays its assigned role, a vote takes place and no one remembers the results. But in this case, Gabriel Latner (in support of the assertion that Israel IS a rogue state) brilliantly redefined “rogue” to provide an accurate illustration of why Israel is unique among the nations.

Needless to say, Israel’s critics cried foul that the sides did not line up as they were supposed to. But in this case there was no “cheating” involved. For the Oxford Union is meant to challenge people, to address a particular issue given the full range of rhetoric tools at the disposal of opponents to an issue. And unlike the many now-forgotten debates over Israel’s perfidity (debates designed to package the same dreary propaganda message in the garb of Oxford robes), this story has lived on to become the stuff of lore, simply because one bold individual decided to surprise the world by not doing exactly what was expected of him (a lesson we would all do well to learn).

The Fight Against BDS

I just had a few words on the subject published. You can check them out at:

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=199028

Jon

Tactics – Language

Continuing on the topic of tactics (hey! alliteration!), one of the main elements of the “even-when-we-lose-we-win” tactic of the BDS “movement” is their declaration that even when they lose (which is always), they have actually “won” because the subject of their choice (Israel’s guilt) has become a topic of conversation within the community or organization upon which they have inflicted themselves.

Putting aside any value judgments one might make about such behavior, as a political tactic this way of operating has some merit. For if the long-term propaganda goal of BDS is to brand Israel the new Apartheid South Africa, what better way to accomplish this than refusing to talk about anything else?

Anti-boycotters have seen the effectiveness of this tactic whenever they have tried to put BDSers on the defensive by bringing up issues such as Hamas rocket fire, repression, or the general human rights quagmire of Israel’s neighbors, especially with regard to the treatment of minorities (both religious and racial), women and homosexuals.

But hopes to use such accusations to put the divestniks on notice that two can play the accusation game inevitably runs into the problem of the BDS cru absolutely refusing to listen to matters outside their agenda, much less respond to them. Thus, accusations against Hamas, the PA or the Arab states are either ignored, dismissed with a scoffing laugh or insincerely accepted and then immediately met with another broadside of accusations against the Jewish state.

This same tactic is used when Israel’s friends and supporters, or even just people seeking reconciliation between conflicting parties, try to find common ground between warring factions in a BDS war dragged into a college campus or other civic institution. This behavior reached a perverse highlight at Columbia University where petitions calling for dialog were met with a refusal by Columbia Students for Justice in Palestine (CSJP) to engage in any dialog that does not begin with an acceptance of all of their arguments regarding who is right and who is wrong in the Middle East conflict.

In one sense, it is a risk for organizations like CSJP to be perceived (accurately) as refusing to participate in attempts to find common ground. But the value of maintaining control of the language is so valuable that BDS advocates will go to almost any length to avoid having to acknowledge that another point of view even exists, much less has merit.

This leaves us with an interesting challenge of what tactics to pursue that must take into account that BDS champions, as part of their founding principles, will never allow other opinions into the conversation. Is there a way to gain control of the language in such a situation?

Perhaps… (to be continued).

Tactics - Doing Stuff

I had meant to post a couple of entries on the subject of tactics last week, but the Great Hummus Wars and a couple of other side projects delayed that a bit.

So let’s kick things off today with some tactical considerations drawn from BDS and anti-BDS activities that have been taking place since school kicked off in September.

On the BDS front, it’s clear that boycott, divestment and sanctions remains top priority for the “Israel-disliking” community. At nearly every Israel-related event I’ve gone to that’s been big enough to draw protestors, signs blaring “BDS” are held aloft (interesting in and of itself since it implies a tactic so well known – at least to the protestors – that the acronym alone is all that is needed to identify it).

Despite its continuation as a high priority, however, a lack of potential targets seems to be making it difficult for the BDSers to choose appropriate tactics for getting their way. After the Hampshire hoax, school administrators are no longer taking their phone calls, and Israel-supporting students on campuses are on high alert for divestment resolutions getting snuck into student councils as they were at Berkeley last year. Attempts to spread boycotts at food co-ops fell flat before the Autumn kicked in, and even attempts at boycott hoaxes are being called out within hours, preventing them from turning into major media stories.

Perhaps this is why prominent BDS organizations are calling for repeats of boycotts that have already failed (yet another Ahava protest is scheduled for Boston this weekend) or asking supporters to “dance for Palestine” (which indicates that the only area where BDS remains strong is as a project designed to generate social bonding among the protestors themselves).

On our side, the happiest trend seems to be the growing awareness that BDS is not an existential or even overwhelming threat, but simply just another tactic for smearing the Jewish state (and not a particularly successful on at that) that needs to be dealt with.

Ben Cohen’s exposure of the Dutch retirement fund BDS hoax or the reversal of the Strauss Group’s temporary erasure of support for the Golani Brigade from its web site share something in common: they both occurred because a single activist decided to pick up the phone and do something. And lo and behold, all it took was one round of communication to get these BDS “successes” exposed or reversed.

To a certain extent, last week’s Hummus Wars at Princeton, as ridiculous as they were in some respects, represents a new willingness to challenge BDS wherever it rears its ugly head. The Princeton Tigers for Israel group could have easily sat out the debate and lived with the consequences (which were always destined to be small). But instead, they picked up the gauntlet thrown down by the boycotters at their school and – lo and behold – won what turned out to have been an easy victory.

The dirty little secret of battling against BDS is that it’s not all that hard. For a “movement” built on frauds and shouting and dancing and smearing mud on one another is just not that difficult to defeat with a little initiative, occasional ridicule, calm presentation of our side of the story (i.e., the truth) and an unwillingness to take the ongoing challenges posed by the boycotters sitting down.

Ethan Felson from JCPA encapsulates this spirit perfectly in his call for the Jewish community to give BDS a well-deserved kick in the pants by buying Israel this holiday season and focusing on all of those things BDS is against: reconciliation, civility, promotion of peace and willingness to listen to one another.

As more and more people are catching on that the divestment emperor has no clothes, the pleasure I’ve kind of been hogging of exposing this nakedness seems to be going mainstream. And what could be a better holiday gift than that?

Princeton [hearts] Israel

This week at Princeton University, history – no History – was made when students overwhelmingly demonstrated their undying support for Israel, a campus-wide devotion to Zion that can be traced back to the founding of the university by Thurston and Lovey Princeton in the 1420s, a passion that is likely to continue until the stars themselves burn out in the heavens.

Don’t worry! That was simply my impression of the Evil Divest This Blogger from The Enemy Within (Episode 5), the one where a trasporter accident inadvertently mingled my DNA with that of a BDSer, causing me to inflate the most trivial, irrelevant decisions regarding Israeli (and even non-Israeli) products into events of monumental significance.

As noted previously, the boycott and divestment crew, despairing of ever getting a college or university to divest a single dollar from Israeli companies, has turned its attention to snack food. But even here they can’t bring themselves to actually speak honestly about their goals (which are always the same: to get their Israel=Apartheid message to come out of the mouth of a famous institution like Princeton). And so the ever-boasting, but always losing BDS “movement” had to contend itself with calling a campus-wide vote on whether or not the school cafeteria should stock two rather than one brand of hummus.

You see their current brand, Sabra, while made by an American company (and produced in Queens) is half owned by The Strauss Group, an Israeli conglomerate which (in addition to owning a lot of other food companies) does a fair amount of charitable work, including contributing to the well-being of Israeli soldiers. And since Israeli soldiers are eevvilll, Strauss group is pronounced guilty, which means Sabra Hummus is rendered traif (by BDS standards), meaning Princeton students should be given a choice between evil and non-evil hummus, meaning… getting confused…growing weary…cannot keep my eyes open…

Whoops! Sorry about that. Now where was I? Oh yes, Princeton.

Well anyway, even this non-sensical, third-hand attempt to put Israel in the dock on the Princeton campus couldn’t muster anything more than a nearly two-to-one trouncing at the polls. Which basically translates to the latest boycott fad (Sabra Hummus seems to be the flavor of the month regarding BDS targets) being just as big a zero as every other campaign they’ve had in the decade since BDS became priority numero uno for the “Israel is always wrong” community (the same decade when Israel’s economy doubled in size – go figure).

As Palestinian iconoclast Hussein Ibish said after the Berkeley student council divestment bill went down to defeat in the Spring: “The bottom line is this: if you can't get divestment through UC Berkeley, you're done.” But just how “done” (or “well done”) does the BDS “movement” have to be if it can’t even manage to pull off a third-hand, bait-and-switch, sort-of boycott motion masquerading as a way to let college students eat more stuff?

Food Fight

BDSers never seem to have much luck when they take their fights to the food aisles. Perhaps it is the necessity of food coupled with the pleasure it brings that highlights the fact that boycotters are threatening the former and completely lacking in the latter whenever they wave their fists at a package of Israeli couscous or, now, non-Israeli hummus.

The Battle of Coucous was waged last year when BDSers declared a Day of Rage directed at Trader Joe’s for daring to refuse to strip Israeli foods from their shelves, just because the boycotters demanded they do so. The Internet buzzed with threats that hundreds of protestors would descend on Trader Joe’s stores nationwide to picket and “deshelve” the hated Israeli couscous in protest of the store following its own conscience, rather than the will of the boycotters. But by the time the smoke cleared, the only activity the threatened boycott managed to gin up was thousands of Israeli supporters buying out Trader Joe’s Israeli stock across the country.

Today, the battle has turned to hummus, not hummus produced in Israel but Sabra hummus produced in the US. While not my personal favorite brand (although I did buy a bunch of it on Buy Israeli Goods Day yesterday), Sabra is owned by the Strauss Group, an Israeli food conglomerate that does a fair amount of charitable work within Israel in areas such as education, sports and health. In addition, they make donations of money, sports equipment and recreation facilities to two units of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF).

“Foul!” cried the BDSers who, while spending morning noon and night claiming that their boycotts are only aimed at “The Occupation” (albeit with an infinitely elastic definition of that term), decided to go after an Israeli company selling an American-made product for supporting soldiers in their own country (the equivalent of attacking the Girl Scouts for providing cookies to US troops out of hostility to the US war in Iraq).

The first front opened up when someone contacted the Strauss Group to complain that they were offended by the company highlighting its support for the Israeli Golani Brigade that led (for some inexplicable reason) to that support being temporarily removed from the Strauss Web site. Whether this was just an over-eager response to a customer complaint or something else, the Internet was yet again ablaze with “We Win Again!” boasting by those perennial BDS losers.

Fortunately, all it took was one phone call by a West Coast Israel activist to clarify the situation, getting get the company’s Golani support back on the Strauss site. [Note to activists: It’s that easy to effect change – just pick up the phone!]

But according to the “momentum theory” of BDS whereby any single, tiny, irrelevant and temporary victory must instantly be capitalized upon, the hummus wars have moved onto campuses. The divestniks are still as far from getting a single college or university to divest from Israel as they were ten years ago, but by God they can try to get Sabra hummus removed from the cafeteria at Princeton!

Well not really. For you see, while their desire is to somehow get their complaints against Israel to appear to come out of the mouth of a prominent institution like Princeton, the final question they have posed to students in a ballot measure on the issue is whether or not to stock an additional brand alongside Sabra for hummus lovers who want to strike a pose without having to sacrifice their favorite snack.

Now I’m as much into a good BDS fight as anyone, but somehow I just can’t get myself worked up over whether or not a vote to stock two vs. one brand of condiment is going to amount to a hill of chickpeas, (even if it passes). After ten years of embarrassing failures at colleges and universities, churches, cities and towns, et al, the fact that the boycotters have been reduced to bait-and-switch ballot measures involving bean spread is the most telling detail of this whole chapter of an ongoing effort to pretend that boycott, divestment and sanction represents the opinion of anyone beyond a narrow-minded, joyless minority.