On the eve of the passing of the anti-boycott bill in the Israeli Knesset today by a majority of 47 to 38, a debate on cultural boycott was held at the London Literature Festival in the Southbank Centre, initiated by Naomi Foyle of British Writers in Support of Palestine (BWISP). The debate motion was: "Where basic freedoms are denied and democratic remedies blocked off, cultural boycott by world civil society is a viable and effective political strategy; indeed a moral imperative."
Supporting the motion, Omar Barghouti, founding member of PACBI, and Seni Seneviratne, British-Sri Lankan poet and performer; opposing, Jonathan Freedland, columnist for The Guardian and the Jewish Chronicle, and Carol Gould, expatriate American author, film maker, and 'a vocal critic of what she sees as increasing anti-Americanism and antisemitism in Britain'.
Although the chair referred to the Palestinian call to boycott Israel as a 'model boycott', the debate was in theory not specific to I/P. Seneviratne, who is very knowledgeable about the South African experience, opened with a poem of Brecht's, "When evil-doing comes like falling rain", and addressed the history of cultural boycott, arguing that it is up to the oppressed people to decide what they can, and cannot, endure. She emphasised that the Israeli state strategy to co-opt culture showed it understood art was not beyond politics, the same way other countries have feared and murdered intellectuals and banned the work of cultural producers. Otherwise the debate was entirely focused on I/P.
As expected from those opposing the motion, there was much 'whataboutery': "look at Syria, Sri Lanka, Saudi Arabia", as well as misrepresentation: "you will be shunning the dissenters, individual artists, writers, scholars", and outright lies: "there was not a consensus in Palestinian society on BDS." Perpetrating the myths of liberal Zionism was Freedland, who began smugly as the Voice of Cultural Sensitivity, Dialogue & Coexistence and ended up tetchy and defensive in the face of polite demands from the other side for moral consistency and the reminder that no state committing the crimes of Israel is "welcome in the Western club of democracies".
Given that Freedland is still under the intentional illusion that this a conflict between two nations, rather than a case of settler colonialism, his empty rhetoric was not surprising. He might have wished for someone less morally compromising on his team, however. Carol Gould 'judaized the debate' as Barghouti put it, and to a repulsive degree. One particularly shocking statement of hers was that Israel's industry 'emerged from the ashes of the Holocaust'. She concluded with an extraordinary defense of 'dovish' Israeli president Shimon Peres's order to shell the UN compound in Qana, Lebanon in 1996, which resulted in the deaths of over 100 civilians.
Barghouti and Seneviratne made a strong team and while their approaches to the subject matter were different, the message was the same: 'We will never convince the colonial masters to give up their privileges', so boycott is a legitimate tactic.
Pro-boycotters were in the majority that night, and the motion passed easily.
In the audience was Tony Greenstein, and over at his blog there is a good summary of the debate: Debate At South Bank – For or Against the Cultural Boycott of Israel. He spoke directly to Gould's insistence that 'boycott is a poisonous word in Jewish history', and the bizarre spin on her clearly belligerent position that she 'held no grudges' against her perceived enemies, unlike boycott advocates. Greenstein elaborates on Jewish history and boycotts here:
the only Boycott in the Nazi era was the boycott of German goods organised by the Jewish unions and the international labour movement. The so-called boycott of Jewish shops on April 1st 1933 by the SA [Sturm Abteilung Nazi stormtroopers] was nothing of the kind – it was an armed siege, just as Gaza today experiences an armed siege. But even more pertinent, the SA intended the ‘boycott’ to last indefinitely. Hitler called it off after one day after Goring and the German capitalists panicked at the effects of the Jewish Trade Union Boycott of German goods. In late March Goring called the German Jewish leaders to see him and they said they had no influence. But also invited, after lobbying, was the German Zionist Federation which openly stated that it opposed the Boycott as an ‘unZionist’ way to do things. Unsurprisingly because the Zionist movement was intent on laying their hands on German Jewish wealth (this was openly stated). They therefore concluded Ha’varah, The Transfer Agreement between Nazi Germany and Jewish Palestine (Yishuv)! 60% of capital investment in the Yishuv between 1933-39 came from Nazi Germany! But what benefitted Zionism did not benefit Jews. The Jews able to take advantage of Ha’avarah were wealthy German Jews who could have got out anyway. What it did was seal the fate of ordinary and poor German Jews for whom no other weapon was available. For those interested, read Edwin Black’s book ‘The Transfer Agreement’.
The “whataboutery” mentioned is tired old canard and easily dismissed,this is how I do it:sarcasm-”oh I see I must first address world poverty and find a cure for AID before I tackle Israeli crimes”and then more pointedly ” I do not accept that you give a flying f… about the poor benighted Tibetans or the huddled masses of Sri Lanka or any other human rights issue,your question is a pitifull and transparent effort to divert the discussion away from the most egregious human rights abuses of the last half century”.
You cannot sweep this issue under the carpet. When you have an organization like HRW which monitors basically the whole world, then it is no surprise whatsoever that it also criticizes Israel. However, when you take British universities, who’s main function is teaching and research, and they propose boycott only of Israel then this is a relevant question. Of all the problem spots and countries in the world, why do the British universities want to focus only on Israel? If they had a list of countries they boycott, that would begin making sense. If they by random picked Israel to boycott out of many other possibilities, that would make sense. But only Israel, in all the world? Something is fishy.
No, you do not need to tackle AIDs or anything else before you tackle Israeli “crimes”. Tackle whatever you want. But you do have to answer the question why you chose only to tackle Israeli crimes if you want to be taken seriously. And so far the answer has been extremely unconvincing.
Of all the problem spots and countries in the world, why do the British universities want to focus only on Israel?
because the palestinian refugee issue is the longest running humanitarian crisis in the world still in existence today. because it threatens dismantling international human rights standards without enforcement if laws pertaining to those standards are not enforced. because it potentially threatens the human rights of every living human and/or our future descendants.
Annie,
What you write is unconvincing and in fact is just sensationalist. Especially the parts about “one little country” defying international law. Clearly, it is the permanent members of the UNSC that hold the key to international law: Russia, China, USA, France and the UK. It is just obvious that any work motivated by international law consideration should be targeted at them, and not Israel.
And by the way, if occupation is humanitarian crisis, than the one in Tibet is longer. But the fact is, there is no humanitarian crisis in Palestine as even the UN attests.
When China or Russia or North Korea abuses human rights, no one blames the United States, because we had nothing to do with it. But when Israel abuses human rights the rest of the world sees the United States as complicit–as indeed we are. Without the United States continually enabling Israel the mideast wouldn’t be in the mess its in. The moral authority of the United States wouldn’t be in the gutter in the eyes of the entire world. We wouldn’t be hated, mocked and disrespected.
The other reason we watch Israel so closely is that it alone has the potential for instantly involving us in yet another war. All Netanyahu has to do is attack Iran–something he’s threatened to do many times–and the United States would be involved a war which would destroy our economy, plunge us into a decades long depression and guarantee that what might have been my comfortable retirement will vanish in the night, not to mention any hopes I have for a good life for my children.
So yes, you’re right. We do focus on Israel. We’d be insane not to.
From the UCU (British lecturers’ union) website:
For some reason, the Palestine motion got the most criticism and media attention. No one outside the union has even heard of the other motions, or countries mentioned.
Shmuel,
You know very well that the UK effort was targeted just at Israel, despite this one example you give. I credit Sally Hunt with being a little more objective but the movement was almost completely based on boycotting Israel. The resolutions that were nationally voted on included only Israel.
You know very well that the UK effort was targeted just at Israel, despite this one example you give. I credit Sally Hunt with being a little more objective but the movement was almost completely based on boycotting Israel. The resolutions that were nationally voted on included only Israel.
3e,
I know very well that the Palestine motion was the only one that aroused controversy. I did not give “one example”, but rather, if I am not mistaken, the specific case to which you were referring.
There is no denying that Israel gets a disproportionate amount of attention in the Western media and imagination. Israel and its supporters wouldn’t have it any other way. This does result in Israel’s being singled out – for the good as well as the bad – although not nearly as much as it would seem, due to the over-reporting of Israel-related issues. It’s a vicious cycle.
You asserted that the UCU (again, I presume that is the union you were referring to, as you did not specify) “of all the trouble spots in the world focuses only on Israel”. This is not true – although neither you nor I had ever heard of their other international solidarity motions or the broader context of their consideration of the requests of Palestinian trade unions.
Of course Sudan, Zimbabwe and Burma are already treated like … well, Sudan, Zimbabwe and Burma. They are subject to various forms of international sanctions, while Israel seems to get away with everything. Besides, an academic boycott of Israel in the countries it needs and respects most (such as Britain), might actually have an effect. On Burma not so much.
Shmuel,
Motion 30 of the UCU singled out Israel. Maybe I am missing something but the resolution was only about Israel. So maybe they discussed other boycotts but voted only on Israel.
Sudan is treated very well but Arab countries. Zimbabwe and its leader are supported by South Africa. Burma is supported strongly by China. They are all treated well by some countries and less by others, just like Israel. You know very well that there are many countries one cannot go to with an Israelis passport.
3e,
The document I cited refers to “a series of motions”. The fact is that the UCU does not “focus only on Israel”, as you incorrectly stated. The union is actually concerned with freedom and specifically freedom of education and freedom to organise in various parts of the world – including Palestine.
If Israel, Zimbabwe, Sudan and Burma are all treated more or less the same – “well by some countries and less by others” – why not trade places with one of the them for a while (only as an intellectual exercise of course)? I don’t think you would like it very much. But you knew that already.
Shmuel,
Motion 30 only deals with Israel, why? No other motion against any other country was brought to vote. Am I wrong about this? So maybe they talked about other countries, but voted only about Israel. Why?
3e,
Motions are by definition proposals put to vote. The summary of the congress (the full record is available only to UCU members) states that “A series of motions called for greater links and solidarity with trade unionists from Darfur, Zimbabwe, Palestine and Burma.” Do you have any specific source for your rather odd assertion that all of the motions except the Palestine one were tabled and then withdrawn before being brought to vote, other than the fact that the latter was the only one reported (and widely maligned)?
Your first assertion was that “British universities want to focus only on Israel”. You then argued that the “UK effort was targeted just at Israel”, that I had merely provided “one example” (as opposed to the the context of the very motion in question), and that the Palestine motion was the only one that was voted on “nationally” (whatever that is supposed to mean at a national congress). Next, you suggested (without any basis) that “maybe they discussed other boycotts but voted only on Israel”, followed by a more decisive “No other motion against any other country was brought to vote”, qualified with a semi-cautious “Am I wrong about this?” and a “maybe they talked about other countries, but voted only about Israel.”
You have a theory based on what appears to be a false premise. Prove it or give it a rest. An apology to British teachers would also be nice, but I won’t hold my breath.
btw, i notice you chose not to address this questions to you in the thread from my last link to you eee.
Annie,
What about the Tibetans? It seems to me they are under occupation much longer.
Yes, Israel is at war with the Palestinians until a peace agreement is signed. How long will that take? Not more than 20-30 years in my opinion.
Let’s suppose tomorrow Israel grants the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza citizenship and then proceeds to treat them like China or Russia or most Arab countries treat minorities. Would that make things better for you? Would it then become an “internal” problem and you would be happy? Again, your focus on Israel is completely unjustified and unreasonable. So to your question, yes it is happening all over the globe everywhere, you just won’t acknowledge it.
tibetans do not lack citizenship eee. they are not stateless people. i’m not defending the chinese government for their treatment of tibetans but it is a different ball of wax. for a people to remain stateless in their own land is atrocious.
Let’s suppose tomorrow Israel grants the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza citizenship and then proceeds to treat them like China or Russia or most Arab countries treat minorities.
last i heard my tax dollars were not funding china and russia in the oppression of their citizens.
Annie,
So you conveniently forget about my question about what happens if Israel gives Palestinians citizenship and treats them like Russia or China treat minorities.
Regarding your tax dollars, if the US stopped funding Israel, you would stop focusing on the Palestinian cause? Really? And what excuse do the Europeans who focus on the Palestinian cause have?
eee, if the US stopped funding israel and ended the tax shield for people funding israel and criminalized funding the illegal settlements there would be no occupation. so it’s rather a moot point. israel is neither china nor russia, they are a little 2 bit nation massively supported by the world’s superpower and a set of cajons bigger than their collective brains. without that support they wouldn’t be able to oppress millions of people. they wouldn’t be able to treat them like china or russia treats it’s citizens because they have neither the money or power to do so without US support. without US support they would actually have to deal with their neighbors responsibly.
i’ve had it with this little arrogant pompous apartheid bully. we’re on a roll and there’s nothing you can do to stop it. NOTHING. screaming anti semite is going to get you no where. the entire reason this went on so long without much pushback fron the international community is because we didn’t know about it which is a testament to the fact we weren’t even looking, iow not jew watching. we weren’t out looking to pick a fight with jews. if that had been the case we would have been out there in the 50′s, 60′s 70′s and 80′s. most of us weren’t. myth game over, reality time is here. this is apartheid and we’ve got our foot in the door. there’s no reason to stop now. you want us to look at tibet? go start a movement and see if you can drag away critics of israel. it won’t work. end of discussion. take the last word.
ciao
Annie,
There are many, many countries less rich than Israel that brutalize and mistreat minorities. And yes, I don’t think I can take away your fixation with Israel, just show that it is irrational.
Let me repeat the questions you conveniently ignored:
So you conveniently forget about my question about what happens if Israel gives Palestinians citizenship and treats them like Russia or China treat minorities.
Regarding your tax dollars, if the US stopped funding Israel, you would stop focusing on the Palestinian cause? Really? And what excuse do the Europeans who focus on the Palestinian cause have?
“What about the Tibetans?”
++++ Problem with Tibet is out of UN jurisdiction.
Why is that?
eee, wake up. palestinians are not a minority wrt the population the israel government rules and i didn’t ignore your question, you just didn’t like the answer.. open your ears. i addressed it directly said it was a moot point and i explained why in the first paragraph.
end of discussion.
Annie,
Again, there are so many examples of poor countries oppressing their people that your point that without the 3 billion from the US Israel would not be able to do it does not stand. You just do not want to address the point. What will happen if Israel “internalizes” the Palestinians and then oppressed them? End of story for you?
it’s more than 3 billion eee. the entire settlement enterprise was built with american money, one way or another.
RE: “the German Zionist Federation…openly stated that it opposed the Boycott [of German goods] as an ‘unZionist’ way to do things.” – Greenstein
THE ‘CHURCH LADY’ SEZ: “Well, isn’t that SPE-CIAL?”
Isn’t that Special (VIDEO, 00:06) – link to youtube.com
Brass tacks. Unless there is some form of struggle (violent or non-violent), Palestinians will always be limited to Israeli leaders’ “most generous offers” (“honestly” brokered by US presidents) – which have never and will never come anywhere near recognising their basic rights. ’67 borders (with or without territorial exchange) are no compromise at all to Israelis like Yossi Beilin and Ami Ayalon who have no vested interests in the settlements, and an impossibility for others (Revisionists, territorial-messianists, immigrants and other recipients of Israel’s Palestinian-subsidised welfare system).
The truth of the matter is that Jonathan Freedland (a classic PEPer) simply doesn’t care about Palestinian rights. It’s not about the efficacy of boycott, or the absence of Palestinian consensus, or the progressives who may be harmed, or the lack of absolute moral consistency, or sick, irrelevant and manipulative associations with the Holocaust, but about the goals of BDS: Palestinian rights.
If you oppose violent struggle and you oppose non-violent struggle, you oppose struggle, and if you oppose struggle, you oppose human rights – because ‘We will never convince the colonial masters to give up their privileges’.
Good answer, Shmuel. That middle paragraph is a zinger.
Freedman is a guardian columnist and his decade long defence of Israeli politics can be read as a series via the search function. He has a positive spin on everything Israeli, even the choice of Lieberman as FM. Because ultimately you have to have faith in Israel, don’t you . They are really good people underneath all that hatred and cruelty , trust me.
I felt rather sorry for Jonathan Freedland as it would have taken a debating genius to overcome the handicap of Carol Gould on the team.
Gould is so extreme, dumb and obnoxious she can’t even hang on to a gig at Pijamas Media or FrontPage!
This is what Carol Gould said in London on the “Why Boycott Culture?” meeting.
Please, ms Gold, stop torturing me with your reasoning. I’ll buy everything you tell me to, and visit every cultural Israeli sponsored festival, but stop that wordboarding. Please!
her argument is weak. Added all the emotional baggage she prefaces with is part of her problem. She’s using it as a shield.
I really enjoy how she arrives at the conclusion that billions of people owe their lives to Jews. Oh, really?
From the seed of these immigrants came Leonard Bernstein, Barbra Streisand, Arthur Miller, Stephen Spielberg and hundreds of other performers, producers, composers and writers, not to mention Drs Jonas Salk and Albert Sabin, whose polio cure changed the world. Billions of people across the world owe their lives to these men.
You can also listen to the podcast of the debate here: Omar Barghouti, Jonathan Freedland, Carol Gould & Seni Seneviratne | Why Boycott Culture? link to soundcloud.com
Ay, is what I wanted to avoid! No more Gould please (incidentally, I should have spelled “Gould” — funny how I misspell when I feel like drowning).
Promise me, Eleanor Kilroy, if you keep her video away from internet, I’ll promise … to talk Mooser into making aliyah on a winged bike. Deal?
Thanks eGuard, this is really useful. After her vile presentation, and in response to questions from the floor, she made comments that were further evidence of her extreme form of racism and historical blindness.
Her published text does not match the audio (25:00+).
Isabel Kershner
“The law’s defenders said it was a necessary tool in Israel’s fight against what they called its global delegitimization.”
The Knesset fail to see the irony of their own actions.
Laws like this are plainly fascist.
Civilians are often told “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.”
Hey, Israel, if you don’t have an illegal occupation (among other illegal and immoral things) to hide, you have nothing to fear from boycotts.
Ooops! 8-o