Editors of ‘Assuming Boycott’ anthology speak out against anti-Semitism controversy at Queens Museum

The recent controversy over the Queens Museum’s handling of an event sponsored by the Israeli Mission to the UN has been condemned on the grounds of anti-Semitism. The evidence provided for this charge of anti-Semitism is that the director of the Queens Museum, Laura Raicovich, edited a book entitled “Assuming Boycott: Resistance, Agency and Cultural Production.” As co-editors of this anthology we wish to address that charge.

Cover of “Assuming Boycott: Resistance, Agency and Cultural Production.” published by Or Books.

First of all, the book focuses on cultural boycotts in many different situations – boycott campaigns and acts of protest past and present, from the anti-apartheid struggle to contemporary movements to end the abuse of migrant workers in the United Arab Emirates and the detention of asylum seekers forbidden from entering Australia. It seeks to analyze and contextualize the recent rise of such activism among artists and cultural producers, and to reframe debates surrounding censorship and self-censorship, and tensions between local and transnational activism. Advocates for the Israeli government frequently criticize activists because they “single out Israel,” as Ambassador Danon accused Raicovich of doing. Far from singling out Israel, the book amounts to an engaged, passionate, and plurivocal conversation among thinkers with varying perspectives and sometimes contradictory insights, and we hope it will be read for the quality of historical and political arguments rather than its adherence to the officially sanctioned views of any government.

Laura Raicovich (Photo: Art in America)

Second of all, the BDS movement is a nonviolent, international human rights campaign modeled on the global struggle to end apartheid in South Africa. Called for by scores of civil-society organizations in the occupied Palestinian territories, it urges people around the world to use economic pressure in support of three essential Palestinian demands: an end to Israel’s military occupation of Arab lands, equal rights and full citizenship for all Palestinian citizens of Israel, and the UN-recognized right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homeland. Sincere people can and should debate the implications of these demands for Jewish citizens of Israel and Palestinians who are under siege in Gaza, subject to Israeli military rule in the occupied West Bank, facing dozens of discriminatory laws within Israel’s 1949 borders, or exiled in refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria. But it is utterly disingenuous to equate nonviolent actions carried out with ethical concern and solidarity for an oppressed population with the bigotry of neo-Nazis, Ku Klux Klan members, and all manner of apologists for slavery and Jim Crow segregation. It is like comparing those courageous activists who took part in the Montgomery bus boycott and the Freedom Rides with those who beat them bloody in the streets.

In addition to being an accomplished editor and published author, Laura Raicovich is also a seasoned, enormously respected museum professional. She has shepherded the Queens Museum through an extraordinary period of growth leading to deep local engagement and new international recognition. The rigorous, beautiful and immensely popular programs of the museum are evidence of her sure hand in creating opportunities for informed genuine encounters of different people through art. It is absurd to insinuate that her decisions are motivated by anything other than profound commitment to the mission of the museum.

21 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

As a general comment Israel would not be “singled out” if it had nothing to hide. The fact it fights so much against being “singled out” proves the contrary.

Secondly, the fact that Israel always pulls the antisemitism card, and in this case also the comparison with the bigotry of neo-Nazis, Ku Klux Klan members, and all manner of apologists for slavery and Jim Crow segregation, means it has absolutely NO real, fact-based arguments against BDS. In fact, I have thus far never heard 1 single sensible argument/explanation as to what makes BDS antisemitic. Even vociferous Israel critics, such as Noam Chomsky & Norman Finkelstein, who are anti-BDS have not put forward a single coherent such explanation.

So, keep up the good BDS work !!

A few comments. Not to discuss. Only a fool discusses with zealots of any religious or political persuasion.
The writers of this article do not refute the argument that Ms Raikovich’s support for BDS was the reason for her cancellation of the historic commemoration of the state of Israel’s founding.
Instead, they maintain that her actions were not antisemitic, extol the virtues of BDS and imply that Israel is an Apartheid state like South Africa used to be.
They do mention that one of the goals of BDS is the “right of return” of Palestinian refugees but forget the, “and their descendants”.
In practice this would mean the destruction of the state of Israel and a Palestine from the river to the sea.
BDS wants the state of Israel to commit suicide. Therefore, it is a non-violent movement.

Now, a trigger warning. The following may be upsetting to some.
I do not think that the arguments in this article will help Ms Raikovich much.
Her museum is dependent on public funding. This is from the museum’s site:

“The Queens Museum is housed in the New York City Building, which is owned by the City of New York. With the assistance of the Queens Borough President and the New York City Council, the Museum is supported in part by public funds from the New York City Department of Cultural Affairs. Additional funding is provided by the New York State Council on the Arts..”

Your friends and all the internet sites you visit may agree with Ms Raikovich’s support for the “peaceful” destruction of the state of Israel. However, the public at large does not.
Their political representatives are aware of this.
A policy of discrimination on grounds of nationality is reasonable grounds for cessation of the public funding of the museum.

Oddly, although he is in favour of a boycott of Israel, Kareem has a Facebook page, even though Facebook employs thousands of people in Israel.

That’s a bit hypocritical.

He doesn’t call for a boycott of Palestine, even though it is permissible to murder Gays and to carry out “Honour” killings there, either.

Very amusing.

Kind of blowing my own horn here a bit, but this is why I wrote that piece about BDS and antizionism being equated with antisemitism.

In short, advocates of Palestinian rights have got to stop playing defense on this subject. The accusations are blatantly racist against Palestinians because it assumes they have no right to use nonviolent protest methods against the government or ideology that strips them of their rights. It assumes that anyone who supports BDS must be motivated by hatred against Jews, the clear implication being that Palestinian rights are too trivial a matter to be worth supporting and so you must really be a Nazi.

Too many articles in this subject adopt the defensive position, which gives the casual observer not directly involved the impression that it is people concerned in good faith about antisemitism on the one side vs people who are accused of antisemitism in the other. But the shoe should be on the other foot here– the accusers are the ones who are racist and they aren’t challenged on this so long as we stay within the framework of the accusers.

Now there can be antisemites on the pro Palestinian side, but you need actual evidence of this before making the accusation in good faith and support for BDS is not that evidence. Rather the reverse– people who make that accusation simply because someone supports BDS are unknowingly exposing their own bigotry or at best, their own ignorance of the implications of what they are saying.

I feel like someone should make this point over and over again until it becomes a well known meme in itself. People who attack BDS as antisemitic are racist. People who say antizionism is antisemitism are racist.

I suppose that Ms. Raicovitch thinks it contrary to the best interests of the museum for it to be associated with a celebration of dispossession and hideous killing. That would not really make it the decision of a museum professional concerned with the museum world, as Estefan and Kuoni rather tend to present it, but the decision of someone prepared to risk her career by making a political protest. I’m sorry that the New York political authorities are not prepared to grant the relevant degree of autonomy to its cultural institutions. If some such institutions wanted to put on something stridently Zionist I wouldn’t want them stopped in such a high-handed way. But we must register this as another refutation of the idea that Israel’s public and political position is seriously weakened.