Two nights ago in Westchester at an event called Getting to the Tipping Point, Rebecca Vilkomerson of Jewish Voice for Peace described two important organizing lessons she learned in her work for boycott, divestment and sanctions.
De-privilege Jews.
The first lesson came after a failed effort to get the Berkeley student senate to pass a divestment resolution in 2010. The debate went on for many hours, and it devolved into a “Jews versus Jews situation,” Vilkomerson said– the Jews who are uncomfortable with divestment and the Jews who aren’t, talking to each other. The JVP team that was organizing during that campaign realized that Jews have a privileged voice in this debate and that was inappropriate.
“The Palestinian voice needs to be kept at the center of the conversation.”
During the recent failed Methodist divestment initiative in Tampa in April, Palestinian voices were far more central. And Jews played a vital role by clearing the space, Vilkomerson said. One thing Jews are very important for is certifying that it is not anti-Semitic to have such a debate. To make it kosher.
We’re not trying to get everyone to agree with us.
The second lesson involves the issue of consensus. Today no one is for apartheid in South Africa, and people will brag about when they worked against it. But gaining that consensus actually took forever. The African National Congress was founded in 1912. The boycott movement in South Africa was 30 years in the making.
The lesson holds for Israel and Palestine. “We’re not waiting for consensus,” Vilkomerson said. The fight for civil rights in South Africa was contested, and it is being contested now in Palestine. “People did not agree” and the people who opposed the status quo sometimes died for doing so.
“We’re not looking to turn everyone. We’re looking to turn a few people.” She cited the case of Rabbi Mordechai Liebling, who went from opposing church divestment to supporting it. He was one of about three dozen rabbis to sign a letter supporting divestment in Tampa. That letter was up against a letter of 1200 rabbis opposing divestment. But the fewer rabbis somehow neutralized the more popular letter, just by holding their ground. It wasn’t about numbers.
Getting sucked into acknowledging a framework that says there are 2 sides to the Israeli oppression of the Palestinians is a waste of time. It’s equivalent to saying that there is a Jewish/Zionist narrative of the oppression that is valid. There isn’t. The other great intellectual crock is that there are 2 narratives with which to look at the land -“Jews say it is disputed, palestinians say it is occupied”. There is no room for discussion on this. The land is occupied and what Israel is doing constitutes a total moral collapse. There is no nuance. No formula of words that can justify the occupation.
/One thing Jews are very important for is certifying that it is not anti-Semitic to have such a debate./
That’s called being a fig leaf.
“The Law in These Parts” (http://www.thelawfilm.com/eng ) shows clearly that the original Israeli legal term for the post-’67 West Bank and Gaza was “occupied territory”, which was changed a few years later to “held territory”, and subsequently to “disputed territory”.
Yes, seafoid is right, of course. While we dithered, Israel shifted the term from “occupy”, which has a clear sense of a asymmetric agency, to “dispute”, which has an equally clear sense of symmetry. The term is still shifting.
The speakers are a step ahead of the listeners. They’re focused. We’re just starting to see it.
The Palestinian lady in the picture is a tireless advocate for her people’s rights. She posts here sometimes. It would be interesting to have her share her take (if she was willing to do so) on the whole “Jews discussing how much of a role Palestinians should have in this effort” conversation (FTR, that is not a sarcastic characterization.).
There’s also a counter discussion starting to percolate on “Palestinians discussing how much of a role Jews should have in this effort” as observed by Jeff Halper. This is based on the inherent contradiction between the need to have Jewish allies to solve this problem and the very limiting effect that has on the intensity, “polarity,” and therefore the effectiveness of the advocacy.
It is solely Jews (though absolutely not all Jews) who are routinely depriving Palestinians of their life and livelihood. But when this is pointed out, angrily, Palestinians are told to “tone it down.” Similarly, and practically, when full-Israel BDS efforts are advocated (there can be little doubt at this point that Israel and the Occupation are seamless, see UNICEF entertaining the notion of using Israeli companies to rebuild Gaza), a lot of the active Jewish support goes tepid (I’ve seen this play out privately).
I guess my question is can even well meaning and otherwise resilient Jews (to their own community’s insults) handle the anger directed at their community (but not at them personally) from outside and still support the people voicing that anger? Halper implied that it would be difficult. Given his tireless work at ICAHD, that has to be taken seriously.
Jeff Halper (h/t Talkback):
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/04/2012428124445821996.html
I don’t know The Answer.
I really, really, really like Vilkomerson.
And this is dead right ……’One thing Jews are very important for is certifying that it is not anti-Semitic to have such a debate. To make it kosher”
There is now a treasure trove of various Jew’s statements on I/P….so it’s hard to say non Jewish critics just want Israeli destroyed if they say the same thing.