Efforts by Israel’s supporters to silence nonviolent Palestinian advocacy does not promote peace

On November 8th, I organized an academic panel at Harvard University to discuss the tactics of The Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement as part of the Harvard Arab Weekend – the largest Arab conference in the United States. BDS is a nonviolent decentralized effort to pressure Israel into complying with international law—specifically UN resolutions 194 and 242. The discussion revolved around a recent Op-Ed debate and included Dr. Noam Chomsky of MIT and Dr. Yousef Munayyer of The Jerusalem Fund. With more than 400 in attendance, it was the most-attended panel in the history of the conference. People wanted to hear about BDS.

As any pro-Palestine advocate would expect, the event did not pass without being described as anti-Semitic and advocating the destruction of Israel. These accusations are not new to college campuses that hold any discussion over BDS and seem to be a reiteration of Netanyahu’s address to AIPAC annual policy conference earlier this year. Apart from implied racism and a deep misunderstanding of the stance of BDS on the issue of the two-state solution, the muddled logic of those accusations is in fact paranoid. Boycotting an Israeli product [let’s say Sabra hummus] will bring back Palestinian refugees, ending the Jewish ethno-superiority, which will cause the only Jewish state to implode demographically–and therefore it is anti-Semitic. Let me articulate this logic in simpler terms: refusing to buy a brand of hummus is anti-Semitic! It is hard to take this absurd logic seriously, especially in light of the multi-layered, systemic oppression Palestinians live through daily. It is this oppression that is precisely what the BDS is attempting to end.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0Vt5wyTZTI

This is not to say that the concept of anti-Semitism is paranoia. Anti-Semitism is unfortunately strong and well and should be confronted and isolated. As a progressive member of an oppressed group (the Palestinians), it is part of the larger struggle. However, the induction of anti-Semitism in an academic debate over BDS is misplaced and a clear product of paranoid political thinking.

This rise in political paranoia within the pro-Israel camp is telling. They are losing control of issues they dominated not long ago as the question of Palestine has become in effect a centralist/liberal issue on US campuses. Wide campus coalitions between Palestinian groups and minority/oppressed groups have been central to the passing of many pro-Palestine resolutions in student governments. There has also been a noticeable shift in the views of younger American Jews away from Zionism. But most importantly, Israel is losing the arguments. Just few weeks ago, the UCLA student government passed a divestment recommendation almost unanimously despite coordinated attempts to silence and discredit their efforts.

So how are pro-Israel groups responding? Instead of engaging directly in these debates, which carries with it the possibility of adjusting their stance on the occupation, settlements, and the Gaza blockade, they decide to control who holds the microphone. Instead of joining the discussion, they decide that the discussion is altogether unnecessary. While this strategy is also employed by some Palestinian groups, it is far less effective due to their limited resources and connections. Nonetheless, eliminating discussion is a dangerous strategy that will undoubtedly backfire regardless of who is doing it.

During the panel I moderated, the anti-BDS students, who sat in the front row, did not engage in the Q&A session and were satisfied with contacting the sponsors and decrying anti-Semitism. I for one was hoping that they would stand up and engage in the BDS debate – that would have been more courageous than attempting to prevent an open forum of discussion from occurring at an academic institution. Pro-Israel students on US campuses should confront the systemic oppression of the Palestinians instead of sheltering themselves from it. Silencing ‘the other’ will only lead to misunderstanding and thus does not promote peace.