News

Attacks on BDS sharpen as it gains traction in the Jewish community

A BDS logo
A BDS logo

The other day we ran a piece on liberal Zionists’ role in opposing BDS, boycott, divestment and sanctions. Donna Nevel addressed similar themes in a piece at Tikkun titled “Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) and the American Jewish Community.” She gave us permission to republish here. –Ed.

Many American Jewish organizations claim to be staunch supporters of civil and human rights as well as academic freedom. But when it comes to Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel, they make an exception. In their relentless opposition to BDS, they leave even core principles behind.

The Palestinian-led call for BDS, which began in 2005 in response to ongoing Israeli government violations of basic principles of international law and human rights of the Palestinian people, is a call of conscience. It has strengthened markedly over the last few years among artists, students, unions, church groups, dockworkers, and others. Media coverage of endorsers of the boycott has gone mainstream and viral. Recent examples include Stephen Hawking’s refusal to go to Jerusalem for the Presidential Conference, the successful campaign surrounding Scarlett Johansson’s support for Soda Stream and its settlement operation, and the American Studies Association (ASA) resolution that endorsed boycott of Israeli academic institutions.

Alongside BDS’s increasing strength have come increasingly virulent attacks on, and campaigns against it. These attacks tend to employ similar language and tactics – as if the groups are all cribbing from the same talking points – including tarring BDS supporters as “anti-Semitic” and “delegitimizers.”

These attacks simply don’t address or grapple with the core aspirations or realities of BDS. As described by Hanan Ashrawi, executive committee member of the PLO, in a recent letter in the New York Times, BDS “does not target Jews, individually or collectively, and rejects all forms of bigotry and discrimination, including anti-Semitism.” She goes on to explain that “B.D.S. is, in fact, a legal, moral and inclusive movement struggling against the discriminatory policies of a country that defines itself in religiously exclusive terms, and that seeks to deny Palestinians the most basic rights simply because we are not Jewish.”

The use of name-calling like “anti-Semites” and “delegtimizers” is problematic for a number of reasons, not only because its claims are untrue, but also because it takes the focus off the real issue at hand – whether and how Israel is, in fact, violating international law and basic human rights principles – and, instead, recklessly impugns the characters of those advocating for Israel to be held accountable.

Criticisms, even extremely harsh ones, of the Israeli state or calls to make a state democratic and adhere to equal rights for all its citizens are not anti-Semitic. Rather, anti-Semitism is about hatred of, and discrimination against the Jewish people, which is not anywhere to be found in the call for BDS, and these kinds of accusations also serve to trivialize the long and ugly history of anti-Semitism.

Most recently, the anti-BDS effort has moved to the legislative front. A bill, introduced in the New York State Assembly last month, would have trampled academic freedom and the right to support BDS in its quest to punish the ASA and deter any who might dare to emulate its endorsement of the academic boycott. Those supporting the bill were opposed by a broad coalition of education, civil rights, legal, academic, and Palestine solidarity organizations, as well as Jewish social justice groups. The bill was withdrawn, but a revised version has been introduced that is designed, like the original, to punish colleges that use public funds for activities related to groups that support boycotts of Israel, including mere attendance at their meetings.

The Jewish Community Relations Council (JCRC) worked closely with the sponsors of the New York bill.

Like the JCRC, rather than engaging in substantive debate about the issues raised in relation to BDS, the Israeli government and many Jewish communal organizations choose, instead, to try to discredit and derail the efforts of those supporting BDS.

For example, as recently reported by Ha’aretz, the Israeli Knesset is debating how to continue to counter BDS efforts across the globe, that is, “whether to launch an aggressive public campaign or operate through quieter, diplomatic channels.” It is also considering what the role of AIPAC might be in introducing anti-boycott legislation and how to best bolster military surveillance–which has significant funding behind it–against supporters of BDS.

American Jewish communal organizations have also expended massive resources and energy in their campaigns to demonize endorsers of BDS. The Israel Action Network (IAN)–which describes itself as “a strategic initiative of TheJewish Federations of North America, in partnership with the Jewish Council for Public Affairs (JCPA), created to counter assaults made on Israel’s legitimacy”–has funded the anti-BDS effort to the tune of at least six million dollars over a three-year period.

The IAN website characterizes supporters of BDS as “delegitimizers”and says that, in order to gain support from “vulnerable targets,” which include “college campuses, churches, labor unions, and human rights organizations,” delegitimizers utilize Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) tactics, “the same tools used to isolate and vilify apartheid South Africa, Iran, or Nazi Germany. BDS activists, IAN continues, “present distortions, fabrications and misrepresentations of international law in an attempt to paint Israel with the same brush.”

In another example of name-calling without any substance, the Anti-Defamation League’s (ADL’s) July 2013 report attacked Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), featuring ad hominem accusations (JVP “intentionally exploits Jewish culture”), rather than discussing JVP’s actual positions. (A JVP report on the ADL points out that the ADL not only targets JVP but is well-known for its long history of spying on Arabs and supporters of the Palestinian movement.)

On the charge of anti-Semitism, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, in its call to fight the BDS movement, urges it supporters to “learn the facts behind this hypocritical and anti-Semitic campaign,” and the ADL’s Abe Foxman echoed those same sentiments: “The BDS movement at its very core is anti-Semitic.” And most recently, in his speech to AIPAC, Prime Minister Netanyahu, after shamelessly drawing upon classic anti-Semitic imagery of Jews to speak of supporters of BDS, says: “So you see, attempts to boycott, divest and sanction Israel, the most threatened democracy on earth, are simply the latest chapter in the long and dark history of anti- Semitism.”

The demonization of BDS is not only the domain of the Israeli government and the mainstream Jewish community. The self-declared liberal J-Street, in its seemingly relentless quest to stay under the Jewish “tent,” has also jumped on the anti-BDS bandwagon, sometimes in partnership with the IAN, which (precisely because J Street is positioned as a peace group) proudly documents its relationship with J Street in fighting BDS. Discussing how J Street is gaining acceptance in the mainstream Jewish community, JCPA’s CEO Rabbi Steve Gutow points to “its role in pushing back against the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement…”

Further, the refusal of both liberal land mainstream Jewish groups to discuss substantive issues around Israel’s actions or BDS also reveals itself in language that admonishes BDS as being “beyond the pale.” Recently, for example, as reported by the director of JVP in an op-ed in the Forward, the director of the JCRC of Greater Boston, who has a history of involvement in liberal organizations, explained that “any organization that supports BDS…doesn’t belong at the communal table.” In fact, he was referring specifically to Jewish Voice for Peace. He even argued that opening the public conversation to BDS is roughly akin to welcoming the Ku Klux Klan.

This attempted silencing of those simply discussing BDS plays out even in seemingly minor local skirmishes. For example, last year, the liberal rabbi of a large New York City synagogue cancelled the synagogue’s facilities-usage contract with a group of Jews who, he feared, might, on his premises, discuss BDS. That, he said, would be “beyond the pale.”

These attacks against BDS appear to be an almost desperate reaction to the increasing successes of BDS, not only in the world at large, but also within the broader Jewish community itself. Respected members of the liberal Jewish community as well as a few liberal Zionist groups that were vehemently anti-BDS are now calling for boycotts against products made in the settlements and are engaging with the issue publicly. Further, the mission and vision of groups like Jews Say No and Jewish Voice for Peace – “a diverse and democratic community of activists inspired by Jewish tradition to work together for peace, social justice, and human rights” – are resonating with increasing numbers of Jews who support BDS as a natural outgrowth of their commitments. And that movement is growing in partnership with the broader Palestinian-led movement for justice.

How should the rest of the Jewish community respond? Ad hominem attacks on BDS just will not do. It is time for BDS opponents to take a deep breath. Consider this: BDS is a principled response to Israel’s actions and behavior as an occupier. It is a profound call by Palestinians – and supporters world-wide–for justice. It is not BDS that should be opposed, but, rather, the very policies and practices that have made BDS necessary.

Donna Nevel, a community psychologist and educator, is a long-time organizer for peace and justice in Israel/Palestine. She was a co-coordinator of the 1989 landmark Road to Peace Conference that brought PLO officials and Knesset members together to the US for the first time. More recently, she was a founding member of Jews Say No!, is a member of the board of Jewish Voice for Peace, and is on the coordinating committee of the Nakba Education Project, U.S.

51 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

“These attacks against BDS appear to be an almost desperate reaction ”

wa nuss

Completely incoherent. Nothing to say so they go all out on the offensive and flail around with insults but no response.

Obama, Biden, and Kerry have all referred to ‘deligitimizers’ or ‘deligitimization’ in speeches. Does anyone have a link to Hillary Clinton ever using this term? I wouldn’t be surprised if she has.

How can you delegitimize something that was never legitimate? The term we should be using with regard to Israel is illegitimate, apartheid regime.

the emperor has no clothes and they are bereft of a counter argument, hence the strategy, originally developed by the reut institute in the aftermath of the mavi marmara is to simply designate supporters of bds as anti semitic via the label deligitimizers.

2010: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704515704575282670417642484

A recent report by the Reut Institute, a Tel Aviv-based think tank that provides strategic-thinking support to the Israeli government, warned the deligitimization effort “has already gained strategic significance and may evolve into an existential threat.” It said that Israel’s freedom to act militarily against perceived threats has been limited as a result of the campaign.

The report criticized Israeli leaders for having “no coherent conceptual response” to push back against global critics. It panned an Israeli security doctrine that military might alone would ensure Israel’s defense and has historically considered international opinion to be a peripheral security concern.

later, this morphed into reut’s “big tent-red lines” report. http://reut-institute.org/Publication.aspx?PublicationId=4042

Background
The concepts of ‘broad tent’ (initially framed as ‘open tent’) and ‘red lines’ were created by the Reut Institute in response to our diagnostics of the strategy of the assault on the State of Israel’s legitimacy (hereinafter ‘delegitimization’), and particularly of the BDS movement. Reut understood that one of the secrets of their success, in spite of their radical anti-Israel views, which deny Israel’s right to exist

basically, it’s simply applying the #1 hasbara tool, accusations of anti semitism, to israel’s critics. it’s intellectually lazy and morally vacuous.

and it does not surprise me that j street has fallen in line with reut’s ‘red lines.’ they want to be in the tent and they one’s those lines were drawn, j street followed the rules and did not cross them. they are not allowed to say apartheid either.

and look at this, it is not supposed to appear they have fallen in line, it’s supposed to appear “grassroots”:

Reut also believes that delineating such red-lines must be a grass-roots community based exercise, and cannot be imposed top-down by the Government of Israel or by Jewish community institutions. There is great value in local communities, synagogues, communal organizations and grassroots organizations grappling with the question, because such red lines are often contextual. Such a debate is essential in order to form an ideologically diverse coalition that will credibly and effectively confront the delegitimization of Israel, and may, in fact, create an opportunity to reconnect across the dividing lines within our communities, and to re-engage with Israel in new ways.

but reut to came up w/the strategy for the government of israel.

Ha ha, hopper wants to steal the emperor’s clothes. Economic cooperation you say? How precisely does that work, in the light of Israel’s attack on the Palestinian economy, its strangulation of free movement, its destruction of power plants, factories and farms? Just saying you support some vague idea of 2SS is pathetic when you can’t even acknowledge the continual destruction of this possibility by Israel. So exactly what clothes do you have to wear, because based on your vacuous claims, it looks like the same as the emperor’s – support the ethnic cleansing, the obliteration of any meaningful 2SS solution, and the dispossession of the indigenous people, and then claim you support them with entirely empty meaningless token phrases you call ‘counter arguments’. Farcical, empty, false twaddle. Combine it with the smug and false characterisation of BDS, which you display a woeful lack of understanding about, despite it being laid out very coherently here – I can only assume you didn’t bother to read it, or you have very real comprehension issues, since you just jump in with your already stale phrasebook. Repeating the same old lame cliches. Like all ziobrats you love to argue with an entirely false, conveniently fabricated travesty of the facts arraigned against your weak position, while ignoring what people actually say, and what actually happens. Repeat, rinse, spin.. How predictable.