On November 9th 2015, Nadia Abu El-Haj posted an ‘open letter’ to me, “Let’s Get our Facts Straight about BDS,” in response to an op-ed piece I published in Haaretz a few days earlier. Here is my brief response to her.
On Edward Said: I never claimed that had Said been alive he would have been opposed to BDS. I know that Noam Chomsky, who shared many of Edward’s views, recently spoke against BDS. But I cannot tell what Edward’s position would have been, so I did not. I did say that BDS slammed Said’s Diwan, the Israeli-Palestinian youth orchestra project that remains an important part of his good legacy.
On anti-semitism: Abu El-Haj paraphrases me correctly when she invokes my observation that BDS is not being honest about the endgame it seeks. What I find bewildering is her claim that by indexing this I ‘raise the specter of anti-semitism‘. I never thought BDS to be anti-semitic, and am not inclined to change my mind if an odd anti-semite occasionally jumps on its band wagon. I do insist that BDS is duplicitous. My article attempts to shed some light on the political agenda which drives this doubletalk, spiraling BDS (and Anthroboycott behind it) into all kinds of contradictions and confusion.
On economic sanctions against Israeli companies: I never claimed they do not happen. I argued that BDS’s leadership, which focuses almost exclusively on academic boycott, does very little to promote them. My article suggests an explanation for this bizarre strategic choice.
On Israeli universities: I never claimed that ‘Israeli universities are overwhelmingly in favor of dialogue and compromise’ as Abu El-Haj misquotes me. I did say that Israeli universities are ‘inhabited by individuals who, like Said in his time, are overwhelmingly in favor of dialogue and compromise’. When it comes to the distinction between individuals and institutions, Abu El-Haj, like most protagonists of academic boycott, seems to become confused.
On BDS’s endgame: Abu El-Haj returns to this in her last paragraph, promising to refute my assertion about BDS’s real intentions and ‘get our facts straight’. I read that paragraph, then read it once again. I am thankful for the illustration it provides of my main argument in Haaretz. QED.
On Syntax: Letters can be significant and moving because they use the second person, directly addressing their recipients. Nadia Abu El-Haj’ and I have had our conversations and collaborations in the past. We know each other personally. I notice now however that even as she writes a text she calls ‘a letter’ to me, she cannot bring herself to address me in the customary second person. Being an individual and not an institution, I wonder: do protocol-abiding boycotters need approval from a yet to be perfected clause in a future sub-section of one of PACBI handbook’s convoluted chapters before they can engage in direct public dialogue with someone like me?
On boycott and personal relations: Anthroboycott insists that it targets institutions, not individuals. I and other Israeli anthropologists obviously have personal acquaintances amongst anthroboycottists. When the campaign to boycott us began we expected those of them who identify themselves publicly as supportive of a boycott to reach out, at least on personal communication channels, and put our minds at ease. We are still waiting. Is distinguishing the personal from the institutional and the political proving to be impossible so early in the day? Where will we all be AFTER our colleagues have passed a boycott resolution against ‘our institutions’?
This response to Nadia Abu El-Haj’s article is not convincing at all. Dan Rabinowitz is simply saying everything Nadia said is a lie without actually providing evidence why. Nadia’s article and criticism is actually pretty convincing.
Dan’s argument that BDS’ is being duplicitous is rebutted by Nadia pointing to BDS’ stated goals. Dan provide no further argument aginst Nadia.
Dan’s claim of BDS focusing on academics is also rebutted by Nadia. Dan provides no argument to disprove Nadia’s assertions.
Dan wants his colleagues to consult him about the boycott. I feel this is ridiculous. Dan is not some authority on whether wants to boycott. Palestinians do not need permission to boycott. Dan’s statement reeks of elitism and patronizing. He attempts to usurp Palestinian goals to conform them to an interest that is more comfortable to his privileges.
In sum, all Dan does in the article is issue a general denial and claim he needs to be consulted by Palestinians before taking action.
This is a very weak rebuttal.
I sympathize with Mr. Rabinowitz, but I think he’s still missing something. PACBI does not boycott individuals, but it equally does not promote contacts with professors at Israeli universities. I could understand if boycotteers failed to invite Israeli professors to their own conferences, but PACBI does not call upon them to do so.
As to the endgame, Rabinowitz seems confused. He says he is sympathetic with the three goals of BDS (which include PRoR) but then seems to say that BDS must specify its real goals more clearly and also the mechanism or pathway for getting there.
Seems to me that the three goals are clearly stated and require nothing more. As to mechanism, BDS hopes (I have no doubt) that civilian actions, protests, boycotts, calls for divestment, etc., will bring about governmental actions — sanctions such as trade sanctions against all of Israel — that will be sufficiently painful for all Israelis that they will prefer to end the sanctions in exchange for acquiescing on the three goals.
And acquiescing on PRoR together with non-discrimination within (whatever territory turns out to be from time to time) “Israel” would necessarily mean a very different Israel from today’s. All this is clear. What is it he doesn’t understand?
No-one expects Israelis, generally, to wish to grant the three demands of BDS. Certainly not! That’s why enforcement (persuasion) mechanisms are designed into BDS.
I’d say to Prof. Rabinowitz that, IMO, a heavy stone, if induced to roll downhill, may roll slowly downhill at first but may well roll faster as time goes by. BDS’s first task is to get the “stone” of sanctions rolling at all. So far very little has happened, maybe nothing. The recent EU divestment and product labelling are so slight as to be, IMO, negligible. But if the EU or UN or anyone else ever gets the “stone” of sanctions rolling, the political feeling and opinion in such a country is likely to have become so changed, so energetic, that the “stone” may soon roll quite a bit faster. A word to the wise.
Dan Rabinowitz accuses BDS of wanting to , “Demonize and De legitimize Israel out of existence. Here are his own words.
“Hansen rightly notes that sanctions were essential in bringing down the Apartehid regime in SA, but greatly overrates the role of the academic boycott in that struggle. It was governments applying economic sanctions, not academics ostrecizing others, that made the change. This oversight perhaps explains Hansen’s misrecognition of the true nature of PACBY and its supporters, including anthropologists. One type of boycott (call it type A) sets clear, realistic benchmarks for the boycotted entity to reach, stipulating that once they are met the boycott will be terminated. The second type of boycott (call it type B) strives to terminate the very existence of the boycotted entity. Deep down PACBY is type B: it seeks to boycott Israeli moderates, including academics, as part of a concerted effort to essentialize, demonize and deligitimize Israel out of existence. Its public face, meanwhile, is a clumsy attempt to pass as type A. Weingrod and Rosen successfully highlight some of the more embarrassing contradictions that stem from this duplicity.”
http://www.anthropology-news.org/index.php/2015/09/22/two-views-on-anthropologists-and-boycotts/
Sounds to me like , the Professor is attempting to de legitimize BDS out of existence and leave Apartheid Israel to do as it will. Doesn,t sound like a person , the Late Edward Said would consider a close friend .Reminds me of , “Keep you friends close but keep your enemies even closer.
Nadia Abu El-Haj wrote:
Rabinowitz:
and yet you fail to articulate what ” all kinds of contradictions and confusion” are. let’s see then, they are your original strawmen:
so, are we to believe Rabinowitz doesn’t think calling israel the “radically essentialized epitome of evil” doesn’t raise the specter of anti-Semitism???? please!!!!!
and here’s your article attempting to “shed some light” on an alleged political agenda which drives “doubletalk”:
you claimed this: “BDS’ disinterest in economic sanctions”
where on earth do you think bds is not interested in economic sanctions? they didn’t think the EU went far enough, that’s not double talk hiding their true agenda. read this: http://www.bdsmovement.net/2015/eu-labelling-of-israeli-colonies-products-is-hardly-enough-to-bring-about-european-compliance-with-international-law-13277
no, they do not focus almost exclusively on the academic boycott. that would be PACBI. (do a little googling, better yet go to the bds website http://www.bdsmovement.net/ and check out the drop down menu for “campaigns”)
oh please. so what! you could dialogue til the cows come home, it won’t end the occupation. and what power do you have to “compromise” with the state if you’re unwilling to put your job on the line. or are you under some illusion a so called overwhelming “compromise” between your university colleagues and palestinians will end the occupation? you’re a citizen of the state, if you’re so into compromise try pressuring the state or your university to end complicity in war crimes.
it’s irrelevant if universities cannot, must not and do not state institutional positions on political issues if they continuously collaborate with the state to empower the occupation, which they do!
and for a university professor i found this part particularly daft:
israeli universities will undoubtedly end their complicity with the injustices inflicted on the Palestinians when israel stops inflicting injustices on palestinians — and the occupation ends! now this “new procedural quagmire” might seem particularly challenging, but you might find comfort in the idea the ” indefinite” occupation is actually much more than a “procedural quagmire” for palestinians. it’s been decades. maybe you can learn something about sumud from them. hang in there. whatever it is you and your colleagues are “indefinite[ly]” enduring, in comparison to palestinian suffering it can’t be that bad. besides, while it may seem very difficult for some people to determine (decide) when the occupation ends, palestinians will just know. one clue is that the occupation army will no longer be enforcing the occupation.
my suggestion would be, instead of banging your head against the wall focusing all your energy opposing the bds movement, you take their advice, stop undermining Palestinian civil resistance, and (as an individual) call on Israel to end its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands occupied in June 1967 and dismantling the Wall; Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194.
have a conversation with the state, your colleagues and israeli citizens. as an individual and in your capacity as a professor influence those around you to stop all complicity between the university and the state that furthers and empowers the occupation.
why? why would you expect that? you are not being targeted as an individual. you can still, as an individual, engage in personal communications. just call the people you want to call if you have something to say.
what chutzpa! you write an insulting public diatribe in haaretz throwing the book at the movement and then complain about how you’re addressed. you need to get you’re not running this show nor do you make the rules. you owe Nadia Abu El-Haj an apology.
here’s something Rabinowitz authored from the anthroantiboycott website (pdf) https://anthroantiboycott.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/dan-rabinowitz-on-bds-and-the-future-of-israel.pdf
it contains segments of his argument from haaretz but less mean spirited. assuming he’s going to be reading the comments i thought i might clarify a few more things for him.
this belies a fundamental misunderstanding of the movement, which is huge.
#1. with so many “moving in BDS’s orbits” Rabinowitz is simply not in a position to speak for what the “overwhelming majority” of boycotters think. besides, it is not the “overwhelming majority” of boycotters who will be accepting or not accepting an eventual resolution it will be palestinian society (who do overwhelmingly support the boycott). and the “overwhelming majority” of palestinian society, last i heard, are not are “staunchly opposed to two states”.
i, myself for example, am definitely not “staunchly opposed to two states”, in fact i am not opposed to 2 states at all. i simply don’t think given the ‘facts on the ground’ that 2 states are possible anymore. a lot of people have come to this realization/conclusion. and whether the anthroantiboycott movement still believes 2 states is possible is really not the issue here. the issue is the (apparent) fact that after decades the gov of israel will not allow 2 states. at the last negotiations they would not even offer a proposal. it’s always pushed down the road as a final status issue — delayed — which serves a purpose of entrenching the settlements and occupation in any further.
#2 but, that reality (or belief) is what has driven many people away from this pie in the sky 2SS dream, not (contrary to Rabinowitz’s assertions) “a deep conviction that any progress hinges on undoing it [israel] as a political entity.”
the deep conviction is the structure of zionism — the regime of zionism — which thus far, after decades, have remained an oppressive discriminatory ideology no matter how many good people may believe in it, which requires undoing. now, if it doesn’t, if it could be reformed somehow, it certainly doesn’t require palestinians to reform it. that’s not something they can do and from all accounts it doesn’t appear the israeli “left” or “moderates” can do it either.
so now we’re left with Rabinowitz’s strawman. once he’s argued his hypothesis (which is clearly misguided as i am sure if he asked the boycotting anthropologists the vast overwhelming majority would not be boycotting if israel agreed to 2 states and equality for palestinians right now — in fact a huge portion of the movement would shrivel up and dissipate) he goes on to accuse the bds movement of ‘doubletalk’ and launches into theory from this point.
let’s be clear. (a) the problem in Israel/Palestine is Israel, obviously. bds is not a political party. it’s a movement to pressure israel. it is not required to issue any “blueprint for a detail resolution” or “political solution” other than what its stated goals are (equality – end the occupation etc). it’s a strategy to pressure the israeli government and isolate israel until they comply with international law and standards of human rights. and the hypocrisy of blatantly referencing a lack of accountability of the bds movement for not having a ‘blueprint’ plan for a resolution when the very gov who is imposing this nightmare has not even produced one (for 2SS) after decades! Rabinowitz’s writes it’s hard to tell what “DBSniks” really want as an endgame. why? it’s spelled out quite clearly.
bummer. what can i say. cat calls kettle black? there’s absolutely nothing israelis are facing that they have not blithely and cruelly imposed on palestinians for decades. is this supposed to somehow stave off a call for palestinian rights? so israelis can maintain their privilege gained off the land and blood of another people? this is your problem w/bds. not something that can be solved by dialogue with palestinians or american anthropologists. because israelis will not give up their privilege willingly, it won’t happen.
cataclysmic disruption of a political, economic, social, cultural and personal realities of an entire people is the backbone of zionism. that’s the mother’s milk of the founding of the state and continues to this day. what can i say? it must be very difficult to face yourself, like looking in a mirror, but this cataclysmic disruption is something palestinians have to live with daily so i’m not really understanding why israeli feelings are supposed to be protected here. nothing will change without cataclysmic disruption. it will only remain the same. dialogue has not improved life for palestinians. good intentions aside, it has not worked.
we know the demise of zionism is a hard sell. but no one is embellishing that. it’s you who are embellishing your privilege by claiming it will be the demise of israel if your society can’t keep it. because it doesn’t have to be — in the same way south africa survived apartheid. it’s merely regime change, something israelis should be familiar with since their government promotes it all over the region.
refine zionism? is this a joke? palestinians can’t refine zionism and why would they want to? refine it yourself if you think it will help. the ostracization and isolataion of israel is designed to pressure the state and the people to comply. one way to do that is to go after its academic and cultural institutions. on the bright side, no one is advocating bombing them to smitheriens so that their people will reject the government (that’s the israeli grass mowing technique). no one is bombing the literature department at your university.
i think you completely miscalculates the power in the movement. the strength of the movement doesn’t come from the leadership, the strength comes from the global community (take a look at this and keep scrolling: https://mondoweiss.mystagingwebsite.com/2014/07/worldwide-protest-israeli ). the strength of the movement comes from gross violations of human rights carried out indefinitely (permanently) so you can live the way you’re living. that’s where the strength comes from, it drives the movement. this is not supposed to feel good, it’s supposed to be effective. it’s supposed to be a catalyst for change. don’t take it personally. i’ve been to israel and know there are a lot of wonderful people there. but this is not about them. it’s about freedom for palestinians. if you can’t join the movement move out of the way because we’re growing and unfortunately that growth is inevitable because the zionist regime is cavernous and has an insatiable appetite for land and inflicting pain. but again, if you think dialogue can make effective change, go dialogue with your government and citizens. ‘refine’ your society and change from within, then we won’t have to isolate and boycott you.