Last night, Brooklyn College hosted a forum on the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement – a non-violent initiative targeting Israel’s suppression of basic political rights for Palestinians, particularly those occupied in the West Bank.
In the weeks preceding the forum, Brooklyn College was under intense pressure to cancel the event, pressure spearheaded by Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz, who curiously chose to argue against the concept of academic freedom by claiming the forum would be a “propaganda hate orgy” and should not be allowed.
New York City Council members soon followed, threatening to cut off funding to the college if the event proceeded, with Assemblyman Alan Maisel stating, “We’re talking about the potential for a Second Holocaust here.”
Thankfully, champions of academic freedom stepped in to push back against such bombastic claims, including Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who bluntly told the City Council:
“If you want to go to a university where the government decides what kind of subjects are fit for discussion, I suggest you apply to a school in North Korea.”
Eventually, political pressure against the event relented and it went on as planned, an event at which UC Berkley professor Judith Butler eloquently explained the BDS movement:
The Boycott Divestment and Sanctions movement is, in fact, a non-violent movement; it seeks to use established legal means to achieve its goals; and it is, interestingly enough, the largest Palestinian civic movement at this time. That means that the largest Palestinian civic movement is a non-violent one that justifies its actions through recourse to international law. Further, I want to underscore that this is also a movement whose stated core principles include the opposition to every form of racism, including both state-sponsored racism and anti-Semitism.
Butler also explored and, ultimately, expertly rejected accusations that the BDS movement was inherently anti-Semitic:
But still, it is left to us to ask, why would a non-violent movement to achieve basic political rights for Palestinians be understood as anti-Semitic? Surely, there is nothing about the basic rights themselves that constitute a problem. They include equal rights of citizenship for current inhabitants; the end to the occupation, and the rights of unlawfully displaced persons to return to their lands and gain restitution for their losses…why would a collective struggle to use economic and cultural forms of power to compel the enforcement of international laws be considered anti-Semitic? It would be odd to say that they are anti-Semitic to honor internationally recognized rights to equality, to be free of occupation and to have unlawfully appropriated land and property restored. I know that this last principle makes many people uneasy, but there are several ways of conceptualizing how the right of return might be exercised lawfully such that it does not entail further dispossession.
[…]
If the Jew who struggles for justice for Palestine is considered to be anti-Semitic, if any number of internationals who have joined thus struggle from various parts of the world are also considered anti-Semitic and if Palestinians seeking rights of political self-determination are so accused as well, then it would appear that no oppositional move that can take place without risking the accusation of anti-Semitism. That accusation becomes a way of discrediting a bid for self-determination, at which point we have to ask what political purpose the radical mis-use of that accusation has assumed in the stifling of a movement for political self-determination.
Omar Barghouti, founding committee member of the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel, spoke in more populist tones, but was clear in reiterating that the BDS movement rejects all forms of discrimination, including anti-Semitism, and is focused on one thing: ending the dehumanization of Palestinians and delivering to them dignity, basic human rights and political self-determination.
In the end, the event was peaceful, cordial and level-headed. A far cry from the small group of protesters outside who yelled that the next slaughter of the Jews was beginning at Brooklyn College.
Follow me on Twitter @David_EHG
More claptrap. The author cares more for the “academic freedom” to advocate elimination of Israel than for individuals intimidated into silence for fear of retribution when their department takes this political stand. The latter is what truly constitutes denial of academic freedom.
If the situation was reversed, however, you can bet the author would be in line to deny pro-Israel advocates what he demands for the haters of Israel. Such is the history of this author, for anyone that cares to scrutinize his writings.
It tickles me to see my right-wing critics from Daily Kos make an appearance here at Tikkun. I hope you enjoy your stay. And again, please peruse the many amazing articles here.
Ah, and yes, as for your “the elimination of Israel” comment, you didn’t have to disqualify yourself as reasonable so quickly and effortlessly. Next time, ease yourself into it. Make us believe for a moment you’re balanced and rational before diving off the deep end.
It makes for better drama. 🙂
I am not a right wing critic from Daily Kos, nor close to as arrogant as you appear to be. I would stack my liberal credentials against yours any day. I can actually tell who the bigots and racists are.
Of course you would fawn over Judith Butler who seeks “understanding Hamas, Hezbollah as social movements that are progressive, that are on the Left, that are part of a global Left, is extremely important.”
These groups only wish to exterminate every Jew on the planet, including you. Some liberal the two of you are, who support the Jew haters of the earth.
It is a sign of progress that this debate took place at an academic institution, especially in New York City, with its large Jewish population and plethora of establishment Jewish organizations. Whereas formerly the very idea of articulating BDS was enough to stigmatize a person or an organization, that tactic seems to be less convincing, except to diehards, such as “oldschooltwentysix.”
While it is certainly possible to disagree on the legitimacy of such tactics (I know there is such disagreement within the ranks of the Tikkun community), the very fact that the disagreement is more and more being discussed rationally should be seen, from an historical point view, as a step forward.
More and more, name-calling is no longer the end of the discussion. Who knows? We may even be approaching the point when the name-calling itself will come to be seen as a forlorn substitute for an argument.
Maybe soon we in this country will be able to discuss the various Israel/Palestine issues, in all their dimensions, as openly as they are debated in Israel itself.
Except, Gene, where was the “debate.?” It was a one sided affair of “diehards” that advocated for a position to the exclusion of any other voice, with the approval of a department where students with different views will now be chilled from their academic freedom. 20% of the students are Jews and NONE should have to be concerned to express their views. That is the wrong. It is sad that some people cannot see it.
Finkelstein called out the deception of BDS. To pretend that it is not for the destruction of Israel, which Barghouti admitted and Butler seeks, or that this was a debate, is equally a deception. To me, it takes a lot of ignorance not to see that befriending people that would commit genocide is wrong, irrespective of the real issues that surround the occupation, it cause, and the way to reach peaceful solutions.
So much for debate and academic freedom for all, Gene.
http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/02/08/efforts-to-shut-down-dissent-at-anti-israel-brooklyn-college-event-reported/
Dear Oldschool:
I don’t intend to get into a back and forth with you; if others want to do that, that’s fine with me.
But you asked a calm, straightforward and legitimate question: “where was the ‘debate?'” And I’d like to address that question. Here’s my response.
It’s only possible to have a debate if more than one side of a question is heard. In the mainstream media, and in such forums as the Hagel confirmation hearing circus, only one side of the question is tolerated — the side that says that the Israeli government’s position must be defended at all cost. In this environment, the BDS viewpoint is not spoken or heard, and, even if it is, it is not tolerated.
Thus, for that viewpoint to be both tolerated and heard in any forum is a step forward, precisely because it widens the parameters of the discussion. It’s not that people must agree with the BDS viewpoint; but if they hear it and consider it, their minds are expanded. That, I believe, is all to the good.
People do not need to hear multiple sides to a question at the same forum, or even in the same place or at the same time. But they do need to hear multiple sides to a question. Only then can they consider what position, if any, makes sense to them. So what I’m calling for is free, open and honest discussion. The more points of view that are expressed, the better. And, of course, free, open and honest discussion means that there be no name-calling, since name-calling only clouds the atmosphere.
C’mon Gene. You called what occurred a debate, when it was anything but, then called me a diehard because I favor actual discourse, not the deception of the BDS that does not expand minds, but manipulates.
The fact is that BDS not only seeks the elimination of Israel, but would shut down the free expression of others at the drop of a hat. In fact, it seems that they did at this very “debate.”
Are you aware of Barghouti’s claim that I stated, or what Finklestein said in a moment of candor, or that Butler believes that Hezbollah and Hamas are legitimate progressive organizations? Do you approve?
Do you think that a deceptive approach to advocacy opens or closes peoples’ minds?
I do not disagree with the theory of what you say, but the reality is much different. BDS proponents get heard all the time. So do those who push the hateful Israel Apartheid Week. To say that only the Israel narrative is heard is absurd, especially on college campuses and among the “intelligentsia.” To me, it is certainly not a step forward when people call for the elimination of others and exercise a double standard that shows intolerance for Israel and Jews, but not to others who act far worse.
The BDS position is almost never expressed in my local newspapers in Upstate New York.
to support the Boycott is not to hate Israel. To suggest that Israel is not treating Palestinian
peoples with respect and fairness is not Israel bashing. we need to speak truth to power.
The only question I have is this. Will opponents of BDS be allowed to enter the forum and present the views, or is this a oe sided affair? Also will opponent of BDS be a allows to disrupt speakers at the forum in the name of the freedom of speech the same Palestinian activists have done when Israelis speakers address an audience at a university? These are important questions of equal rights.
Sammy, read the story I linked to above. The only ones denied were the pro-Israel Jews that were removed from the audience.
Freedom for me, but not for thee.
When someone writes an paragraph he/she keeps the plan of a user in his/her mind that
how a user can be aware of it. Therefore that’s why this piece of writing is great. Thanks!
I do not want one single Israeli to die.
I do not want one single Palestinian to die.
I want both Israeli and Palestinian to have manna for today (food, home, safety, love, education, justice, land)
How do we move from hatred to tikkun?
How do we process painful wounds without transmitting them?
What is wrong with us! How long will this continue?
Rabbi Rosenberg and his ‘interfaith’ efforts for peace – Winds …
sheikyermami.com/2013/02/10/rabbi-rosenberg-and-his-interfaith-efforts-for-…
4 days ago … Organizers to vote on restoring ‘Hatikva’ to interfaith program … be omitted during the area’s interfaith Holocaust commemoration, because, … of his position, Rosenberg is now calling for a boycott of the event he helped found, …
HATIKVAH WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE PROGRAM.
I propose a logic of commensality to solve the problem of Israel/Palestine. This is an ethics of sustenance and joy for both peoples living on this tiny, holy land.
See my essay: http://justpeacetheory.com/files/The_Sabeel_Conference_1.pdf
Also see the section on Israel/Palestine in my book Just Peace Theory Book One: Spiritual Morality, Radical Love, and the Public Conversation.
Peace,
Valerie
HATIKVAH has been included in every service since I created interfaith holocaust services in 1974 with no objection. N0 ONE HAS EVER WALKED out, sat down OR OBJECTED until recently. With Israel and Jews being attacked throughout the world, I PERSONALLY will and have fought to keep it in. We are living in a world where anti-SEMITISM is rampant especially in Europe where JEWS ARE FLEEING IN MASS to Israel and other countries. Everyone is entitled to their OWN opinion , I stand by mine. Another Holocaust is on the horizon. A nuclear extremist muslim regime would like nothing better than the complete destruction of Israel and if you listen to Morsi all Jews should perish.
I will be the keynote speaker at another Holocaust event that evening. I refuse to compromise my beliefs or allow the Hatikvah to be disgraced. I am taking my highway to what I believe in. Rabbi DR. BERNHARD ROSENBERG
Pertinent and interesting email bulletin recently distributed by Maurice Ostroff:
“Did you know that BDS leaders oppose the Palestinian Authority?
Well-intentioned supporters of BDS will be shocked to learn the real attitude of BDS organizers to the Palestinian Authority.
Omar Barghouti is a founder and leader of BDS and this is how he described the PA in a 2004 article in The Electronic Intifada:
<>
On October 2009 he wrote in Electronic intifada:
<>
And did you know that BDS opposes the two-state solution?
Many well-intentioned people believe the BDS movement is worthy of support because they mistakenly believe that BDS advocates the common goal to which the UN, the US, the EU and Russia as well as Israel all subscribe, namely two states, Israel and Palestine, existing side by side within agreed borders. But these supporters will be shocked to learn that in reality the BDS organizers actually oppose the two state solution.
Click here for the full article:
http://blogs.jpost.com/content/what-bds-organizers-should-have-told-us-didnt
(end)”
(Reposted because the quotes did not appear. Sorry.)
Pertinent and interesting email bulletin recently distributed by Maurice Ostroff:
(Start)
Did you know that BDS leaders oppose the Palestinian Authority?
Well-intentioned supporters of BDS will be shocked to learn the real attitude of BDS organizers to the Palestinian Authority. Omar Barghouti is a founder and leader of BDS and this is how he described the PA in a 2004 article in The Electronic Intifada:
“In the West Bank you have a largely quisling [traitor] government that is completely supporting Israel in anything it wants to do. They get immediate support from the Palestinian Authority (PA) in Ramallah, which is an unelected authority imposed by an American general.”
On October 2009 he wrote in Electronic intifada:
“The PA government there has illegally appropriated the PLO’s authority to conduct Palestinian diplomacy and set foreign policy, conceding Palestinian rights and acting against Palestinian national interests, without worrying about accountability to any elected representatives of the Palestinian people”.
And did you know that BDS opposes the two-state solution?
Many well-intentioned people believe the BDS movement is worthy of support because they mistakenly believe that BDS advocates the common goal to which the UN, the US, the EU and Russia as well as Israel all subscribe, namely two states, Israel and Palestine, existing side by side within agreed borders. But these supporters will be shocked to learn that in reality the BDS organizers actually oppose the two-state solution.
Click here for the full article:
http://blogs.jpost.com/content/what-bds-organizers-should-have-told-us-didnt
(end)