Editor's note: We try to be fair in these parts, and to promote a debate between parties that have rarely addressed one another. The other day we ran a critique of the Reut Institute and Israel Studies by Ben White. Reut's Eran Shayshon asked for space to respond. He's got it.
In his article Battle of the trenches: academic boycott versus… ‘Israel Studies' Ben White slams the "expansion" in Israel studies at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in London, saying it is propaganda. White uses documents and blog posts that were written by the Reut Institute to argue that the initiative at SOAS constitutes part of a bigger rebranding strategy. The description of Reut as a powerful puppeteer is indeed flattering, but the reality is very different from the conspiracy theory that White seeks to promote.
We at Reut argue that it is critically important to make a clear distinction between the assault on Israel's right to exist and criticism of Israeli policy, harsh as it may be. We argue that the assault on Israel's right to exist is being promoted by a relatively small number of organizations worldwide, which are loosely coordinated, and which can only be found on the political periphery in most places.
Why then, is there so much resentment for Israel? Many Palestinians, who visit London, comment that the hostility towards Israel evident on UK campuses simply does not exist in Ramallah. I believe that ideological zeal to see Israel's destruction is not the basis for this phenomenon, in most cases.
Rather, a very small number of radical ideologues is effectively blurring the lines between legitimate criticism over Israeli policy and the assault on Israel's legitimacy by engaging wider audiences in 'acts of delegitimization', such as the BDS Movement. While the stated goals of the movement are peace and justice, key activist and leaders of this movement openly admit, in the past even on this very blog, that "BDS does mean the end of the Jewish state."
The result is that many fail to grasp the complexity of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and no matter the circumstances, refuse to accept any justification for Israeli action. Everything is interpreted as an Israeli-Jewish conspiracy. This is why no Israeli government is ever taken as sincere when expressing its desire for peace, and the Israeli society's tolerant approach towards the LGBT community is labeled 'pinkwashing'. In this light, it is no wonder that a local British initiative to establish Israel studies at SOAS becomes a propaganda tool.
I do believe that a center for Israel studies is a good idea, but not because it will make students pro-Israel. I believe a center for Israel studies is a good idea because as an academic endeavour it will convey to students the nuance, the complexity, and the shades of grey that are the cornerstones of academic education. Such a center will shed light on an imperfect Israel, where there are social and economic gaps, and where tensions exist between several sectors of society. It may even show that not at all times Israel succeeds in upholding the standards set. But I am sure it will show that Israel is first and foremost a normal country, a democracy that is struggling for its survival in an impossible reality.
Lately it would seem that it is a custom for UK universities to receive funds from Islamic totalitarian regimes. Indeed, SOAS itself has been accused in the past of accepting a donation from a charity closely linked to the Iranian government. Did White see it necessary to condemn this? Not really, and in fact he made an effort to defend the Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust denial. Did White condemn the Libyan regime's support for the London School of Economics that was recently exposed and repudiated? Of course not, but a local initiative to establish centre for Israel studies must be a conspiracy.
What is it about an effort to offer our children an education based upon intellectual rigour that White feels so threatened by? What is it about an attempt to ensure that our children hear from both sides that White feels must be shut down? What is it about a center that seeks to educate rather than indoctrinate that White so opposes? Is it anti-Semitism? No, according to White, who argued that while he does not consider himself an anti-Semite, he "can also understand why some are."
Eran writes:
While the stated goals of the movement are peace and justice, key activist and leaders of this movement openly admit, in the past even on this very blog, that “BDS does mean the end of the Jewish state.”
Is there anyone at Mondoweiss who would like to refute that statement? Would be interesting to run a post titled: “BDS is compatible with Israel’s future flourishing.” That is, if anyone thinks that might be true.
BDS helped South Africa.
“… “BDS does mean the end of the Jewish state.”
Is there anyone at Mondoweiss who would like to refute that statement?”(Clenchner)
If you mean the end of Israel, speaking for myself I’d refute that statement.
If you mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state, I wouldn’t because the way Israel is heading, it will end up as a Palestinian state.
As to Eran’s position, any criticism of Israeli actions are automatically construed as an attack on its legitimacy, therefore a lose-lose situation for anyone that opens his mouth about either Israel or its policies. It’s in line with the logic that determines a criticism of Israel is an act of antisemitism.
Eran’s not playing fair and his message is more f the “pity poor Israel” kind.
Don’t you guys get nauseated with all this self-pity stuff you keep peddling? Israel is “de-legitimizing” itself by its own hand and Reut’s campaign from last year’s blitz on the subject is being bought only by the converted; nobody is trying to de-legitimize Israel, we just want the damn occupation to end.
Taken from Reut’s recommendation and campaign:
“The Delegitimization Challenge: Creating a Political Firewall
This report analyzes and provides a conceptual response to the erosion in Israel’s diplomatic status over the past few years, which reached its peak with the Goldstone report . This attack possesses strategic significance, and may develop into a comprehensive existential threat within a few years. Click here for the full document.
Executive Summary: Background and Introduction
1. In the past few years, Israel has been subjected to increasingly harsh criticism around the world, resulting in an erosion of its international image, and exacting a tangible strategic price. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict serves as the ‘engine’ driving this criticism, which peaked with and around the Goldstone report on Operation Cast Lead. In some places, criticism has stretched beyond legitimate discourse regarding Israeli policy to a fundamental challenge to the country’s right to exist…”
For full summary on the how-to:
link to reut-institute.org
Actually Gellian, Eran selectively quotes, and not so skillfully. Ahmed Moor also wrote, in the same article Mondoweiss article [my emphasis]:
I’d like to respectfully correct the misconceptions of any Jews and Palestinians who do not think that granting civil equality to Palestinian Israelis means the end of the Jewish state. Today, in the Jewish democracy, 1 out of every 5 citizens is not Jewish. In a truly equal society, any one of those people can hold a senior governmental post. What happens to ‘Jewish self-determination’ when the prime minister of Israel is a woman named Diana Buttu? In America, the proportion of black to non-black people is less than that of Palestinian Israeli to Jewish Israeli. Yet, white Americans and others elected a black man. That’s because the principle of ‘white self-determination’ is a discredited orthodoxy in American civil discourse. That’s because it’s racist.
Clearly, when Moor writes that “BDS does mean the end of the Jewish state” he is talking about the end of religious/ethnic supremacism in Israel, rather than the end of Israel itself. Moor’s example of the significance of Obama’s election is excellent, but if you need more:
• WW2 meant the end of the Third Reich (Aryan supremacism) in Germany, but not the end of Germany.
• the dismantling of the White Australia policies in the decades leading to the 1970s meant the end of blatantly racist immigration policies (a form of white supremacism), but not the end of Australia.
• the collapse of South African apartheid in the 1990s meant the end of white supremacism, but not the end of South Africa.
I’ve written more than once (as have others) about BDS being a rights-based movement, rather than one predicated on promoting particular political frameworks (ie. one- or two-states) in which Palestinians human rights are to be respected. By not engaging in arguments about one- or two-states, and by keeping out of inter-Palestinian factional conflicts (a comment on MW a few days ago was claiming BDS was illegitimate because it refused to oppose Hamas), BDS truly seeks to represent ALL Palestinians: those living in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, those that are citizens of Israel, and those Palestinians who were forced or chose to live outside their homeland. The three goals of the BDS Movement correspond directly to these population groups. These goals can be achieved in either a one- or two-state resolution, and that includes right of return.
Thanks for posting this. It makes more sense to me than the original.
“‘acts of delegitimization’ [of the state of Israel], such as the BDS Movement.”
The government of Israel and its friends have chosen to take BDS this way. They like to blow things up — people, populations, towns, houses, and issues.
In fact, BDS “delegtitimizes” only the illegitimate — illegal acts; BDS merely asks Israel to act lawfully. While this request is not a small one, and not untroubling for Israel which has acted unlawfully from its formation, this request is not a request that Israel self-destruct. That is merely the (blown up) “take” of some Israelis.
When the UNGA proposed a friendly and JOINT enterprise, by Arabs and Jews, to form two countries, in 1947, the UNGA did not suggest population transfers and did not promise the Jews a permanently Jewish-majority country. Neither did the UNGA propose that the Jews create any sort of state at all by warfare. Now Israel says it will not be a majority-Jewish state (they say, it will not be a “Jewish state”) if (as I understand BDS demands) they allow return, to a life within the territory if Israel, of people who would have been living in Israel as early as 1950 had the refugees been allowed to return (as the UNGA demanded, and as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights propounds as a “norm” of civilized life).
This may be the destruction of a dream (a bad dream for many, including Jews, as we are seeing these days with particular clarity), but it is not destruction of any country (i.e., Israel) and it does not “delegitimize” Israel, only its illegal doings.
Could Israel “flourish” after a “return” of the Palestinian refugees of 1948 and their progeny? Absolutely! Does the USA flourish? (Well, not so well recently, as it has undertaken a world-wide military empire, a very expensive and unpopular undertaking, but it used to be a fine place. It is still a fine place for Jews where — generally, perhaps even in NYC where I live — Jews are not a majority.) Why should Israel not “flourish” with a mixed population, including those who have eaten felafel for many generations and those newcomers who have come to it recently — and like it!
“a centre for Israel Studies is a good idea because…it will show that Israel is…a normal country…”
Yet the Reut document linked to, “Building a Political Firewall against the Assault on Israel’s Legitimacy: London, a Case Study” describes in its introducton the situation for Israel as akin to that of the Soviet Union and apartheid South Africa. It references a “Delegitimization Network” and the “assault on its political and economic model which aims to precipitate its implosion”.
Neither the Soviet Union or apartheid South Africa were political and economic models which deserved continued existence. In its current form, Israel is a monstrous entity causing tremendous harm to a vast swathe of the population it has control over, despite the fact that there will be various islands of seeming “normality” just as there were in the former Soviet Union or in apartheid South Africa. If the aim of “Israel Studies” courses is to promote Zionist centric views of Israel, without honestly seeing what the reality is, then it is inherently wrong.
Eran,
Excellent analysis.
My view is that many leftists do wish to dismantle Western states. You can feel the yearning for a complete overhaul of the US coming from these pages and even for its demise. There are also a few anarchists and people that preach outright for revolution. I think that these people believe that Israel is the weakest link and therefore are going after it.
In fact, from the more reasonable people here admit that they would BDS the US if they thought it would work. Because of pragmatic issues, they only BDS Israel. All we have to do to get our point across is show that people that are against Israel, are in fact also against the US.
I know there are many her who will read this waiting to pounce on every word and sneer at it, but I found it even-handed and eloquent.
“Many Palestinians, who visit London, comment that the hostility towards Israel evident on UK campuses simply does not exist in Ramallah.”
This is something I have tried to get across in some of my comments but it falls on deaf ears.
Thank you to the editors for allowing this response to be published.
deaf ears
Riiight, because we’re so consumed with jew-hatred we refuse to acknowledge the truth.
“… “Many Palestinians, who visit London, comment that the hostility towards Israel evident on UK campuses simply does not exist in Ramallah.”
Isn’t that where Abbas and his merry men have their offices? Isn’t that where Fayyad said the Palestinian economy was booming and on which Netanyahu based his bogus economic report that he presented to the Europeans a few years back to pull a fast one and to propose his absurd “economic peace plan”?
Are the people in Ramallah being rewarded for not being hostile to Israelis, maybe with fewer checkpoints?
I guess the fact that a number of the organizations that helped found the BDS movement are in Ramallah is ignored…
Not to mention during the 2nd intifada, Ramallah being a base, among others, of armed resistance. What a silly comment.
GuiltyFeat: At a minimum, I hope you’ve spent a lot of time in Ramallah to be making claims like that.
I am sure it will show that Israel is first and foremost a normal country, a democracy that is struggling for its survival in an impossible reality
It’s not really accurate to describe Israel as first and foremost a normal democracy struggling in an impossible reality. It’s a “Jewish democracy” struggling to preserve privilege for one ethnic-religious group in a land where that privilege could be established – and can be maintained – only through massive force against the non-privileged majority. The impossibility of the reality in which it finds itself is a function of that abnormal basis for its “normality” and “democracy”.
surviving my ass, they are expanding.
diane – thanks for your comment to which i agree with.. i think the impossible reality is the desire for a jewish democracy or any idea of democracy where one particular ethnic group is considered more valued that another… israels actions display the many parallels others have articulated with apartheid south africa… in spite of this, or perhaps given this, we can expect this conflict to continue until the jewish community openly acknowledge they are doing to palestine what they would never like to see done to themselves… the historical parallels are ironic..
Everything is interpreted as an Israeli-Jewish conspiracy.
But a far-flung clique of “peripheral” anti-semites is seeking the downfall of the “Jewish State”?
I am quite curious about “hostility towards Israel evident on UK campuses simply does not exist in Ramallah”. I am sure I will read more by Reut about the climate of tolerance that is flourishing under the auspices of PA. This climate is a part and parcel of “impossible reality”, I presume, as in “a democracy that is struggling for its survival in an impossible reality”. This is one of the problems an eclectic propagana shop like Reut: how to choose a “reality”. Solution: pick and match. Here, London is a more hostile environment for Israel than bucolic West Bank.” Luckily, Israel does not need to find peace with contumly British students but with good natured Palestinians.
The Palestinians are a remarkably generous people, but it is very hard to believe this author’s claim that “Many Palestinians, who visit London, comment that the hostility towards Israel evident on UK campuses simply does not exist in Ramallah.” Perhaps the author is talking about the corrupt functionaries and collaborators of the P.A.? Most Palestinians, as the author must know, are prevented by Israel from traveling; they can’t even leave to study at universities around the world. My own children, who have benefitted so much from their university and graduate studies, would have been absolutely crushed if they had been prevented by an occupying government from going to the universities that had given them scholarships. It is very amazing that Palestinians don’t mind having their lives and dreams destroyed.
The story that follows this one on mondoweiss.net is about Israeli “settlers” destroying almost all of a Palestinian farmer’s olive trees. Every day there are news stories about the brutality of the IDF and the marauding “settlers.” No Palestinian “resentment” for more than 60 years of ethnic cleansing, murder, torture, cruelty, and theft of land and resources? Somehow I doubt it, but if somehow the author is correct, this is truly wonderful, and means that Israel can stop fearing the inevitable one-state it will become, with equal rights for Jews and non-Jews alike! Wonderful news!!!!!
And who could believe academic “Israel Studies” centers would be able to show that Israel “is first and foremost a normal country, a democracy that is struggling for its survival in an impossible reality”? Maybe Israel would have been deemed “normal” during the Age of Colonialization, but that Age ended well before the illegal establishment of Israel. Israel’s “impossible reality” is that apartheid and ethnic cleansing are not acceptable to most of the world. What people in my community are beginning to realize is that Israel not only is not a “normal country,” it is not even a legitimate country, because it is predicated on the dispossession of the Palestinians who were already living there, and the ongoing oppression of the Palestinians who remain.
Israel’s strategy of conflating criticism of Israel’s gross human rights abuses with antisemitism no longer works so well (and, in fact, has cheapened the immense suffering of the Holocaust), so now Israel is crying “delegitimization!” The problem with this strategy is that it makes people everywhere think about whether or not Israel IS a legitimate state. And for anyone who cares about human rights, the answer is a resounding NO!
Academic departments and studies should be based on truth, not propaganda, which is why the any legitimate “Israel Studies” centers would seriously disappoint and offend supporters of Israel.
Yeah, the self-contradictions here are getting a little ridiculous. As you say, if Palestinians on the West Bank are really so accepting of Israel, that pretty much demolishes the fear (which I shared until I read this post) that a one state solution might not work because of mutual hatreds. Well, maybe I’m still right, but all the hatred is coming from the Israeli side. Plus those nasty people in London. Maybe they should be kept out.
“All we have to do to get our point across is show that people that are against Israel, are in fact also against the US.” eee
Hasbarists at work!
*****
From the leaked report of the 2009 Global Forum against Anti-Semitism:
AGENDA FOR THE BDS WORKING GROUP MEETING
These were some of the questions we addressed – although it was difficult to cover them all, let alone answer them adequately in two short sessions. Still, we include them as food for thought for future conferences.
I. Should this “working group” evolve into an ongoing task force – if so, what is its mandate, what are its goals, who will participate, what can it hope to achieve?
II. Have we effectively explained why BDS crosses the line from legitimate criticism to historically-laden, anti-Semitic messaging (failing both the 3-D, Demonization, Double Standards, and Delegitimization, and 2-E, Essentialism and Exceptionalism, tests?)
III. If there is to be a “war room” – who should run it? where should it be? who should participate? who will pay for it? what are its goals?
IV. How can we best harness the comparative strengths of different institutions/communities in order to achieve the most effective response? Where specifically do the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Global Forum fit in?
V. In strategizing regarding the BDS movement, how do we keep the messaging positive – while motivating normally apathetic students, etc?
VI. Who can make the case to Israelis that some of the discourse in Israel is harmful – and how can it be done in an effective manner?
VII. If the idea of a broader anti-BDS/pro-Israel movement makes sense – who will run with it, how do we make that happen? Can we work in some cooperative fashion or will multiple organizations insist on doing it their way with little or no coordination?
VIII. What other ideas do we have for “Going on Offense”: and which ones do we wish to make priorities?
Reply
Report this comment
Funny how Eran Shayshon spouts propaganda straight out of the hasbara handbook in defense of the Israel studies program. Why is the legitimacy of Israel not a legitimate subject for academic debate, in an honest and unbiased Israel studies program? Yet Shayshon’s program will only take ones side.
“This is why no Israeli government is ever taken as sincere when expressing its desire for peace,”
No. The reason for that is that no Israeli government has tried to make peace. The actions give the lie to the words.
” and the Israeli society’s tolerant approach towards the LGBT community is labeled ‘pinkwashing’. ”
The reason it is labelled ‘pinkwashing’ is because that tolerant approach is used as propaganda. “Let us get away with killing and persecution of Arabs because we don’t kill and persecute homosexuals.”
Israel is not a normal stae. and how can we deligiatmize something that is not legimate. you can not take something away that an entity does not have.
What is it about an effort to offer our children an education based upon intellectual rigour that White feels so threatened by? What is it about an attempt to ensure that our children hear from both sides that White feels must be shut down? What is it about a center that seeks to educate rather than indoctrinate that White so opposes? Is it anti-Semitism?
There are several basic problems with this statement. I’ll take a crack at one. In the United States, the Israel Studies programs are taking funds and resources away from Jewish Studies. Israel studies are effectively cannibalizing Jewish studies. Instead of Israel helping Judaism, Israel is weakening Judaism.
As Jews we should vigorously resist Reut’s attempt to politicize Judaism and to weaken our universities’ Jewish Studies programs.
Reut and its masters care nothing for the world’s Jews and for Judaism. They ask only what Jews can do for them.