Peter Beinart's op-ed in the New York Times (March 19), entitled "To Save Israel, Boycott the Settlements," crossed a red line. More than that: it is an offense against liberalism itself.
1. Boycott
The call to boycott Israel -- even the lame effort to distinguish between boycotting Israel within the Green Line and boycotting Israel beyond the Green Line -- is troubling, in and of itself.
It is also hopelessly naïve. How one would actually mount such a boycott; how one could limit it to products beyond the Green Line; how it would end at the Green Line and not become a boycott of Israel -- these are interesting questions for an academic thesis. It is hardly a serious political proposal.
But it is even worse than that: It is immoral because it gives aid and comfort to Israel's worst enemies -- those who seek to destroy the Jewish state. By using the word "boycott" Beinart has granted legitimacy to the delegitimizers of Israel. "Boycott" is the language of Israel's enemies. "Boycott" means to most people: destroy Israel through international diplomacy and economic strangulation. It is an extreme position.
While thousands are being butchered by the Syrian dictator as the world stands by impotently; at a time when Americans should be devoting as much attention as possible to ensuring a democratic Egypt; at a time when Iran is rapidly developing nuclear capability; and at a time when the Palestinian national movement shows no interest or desire to engage in peace talks, and they are hopelessly divided amongst themselves -- now, at this moment, American liberal Jews should be devoting our financial and political resources to boycotting democratic Israel? Really?!
Peter Beinart wrote in his op-ed: "It is time for a counter-offensive ... and that counter-offensive must begin with language." And his solution is to use the language of the BDS (Boycott, Divesment, Sanctions) crowd -- a group of extremists, Israel-bashers (and some anti-Semites) who spend their lives trying to persuade the world to boycott, divest from and sanction Israel?!
I much prefer George Orwell's view on language to Peter Beinart's. Orwell wrote: "If thought corrupts language, language also corrupts thought. Political language ... is designed to make lies sound truthful ... and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."
2. Settlements
Beinart is right to point out the risks to both Israeli democracy as well as its national security as long as the Israel-Palestinian dispute remains unresolved. But there are two grievous offenses in Beinart's blanket "boycott-all-the-settlements" proposal:
First, what he calls a settlement -- any Jewish apartment beyond the 1967 borders -- is not understood as such by practically every Israeli and most fair-minded international observers. Many so-called settlements are considered neighborhoods of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. Most of the people who live beyond the Green Line live in proximity to the Green Line, and all two-state solutions that have been discussed assume that these areas will be within the new borders of Israel proper.
Second, there is not one word in Beinart's piece about the role and responsibility of the Palestinians. Many Israeli settlements are still there because the Palestinians have still not demonstrated a politically-realistic willingness for peace.
Even if you were to concede that Israel has made mistakes, surely it is not Israel's fault alone that there is no peace. After all, it takes at least two to make peace. You cannot make peace only with yourself. Often people talk about how Israel should do this and Israel should do that as if it is in Israel's power alone to shape events.
Most Israelis are desperate for peace. Is it that Israelis like sending their children to fight and die in wars? Surely, there is some fault on the other side as well, no? Are the Palestinians potted plants -- mere decoration -- as the Jews argue among ourselves how we should entice the Palestinians to do what we believe is in their national interest?
Maybe they don't believe it. Half of the Palestinian national movement makes no effort to hide the fact that they don't believe it. They say they want to destroy Israel. The other half has rejected three Israeli peace proposals in the past12 years, and, at present, refuses even to sit down with Israeli negotiators.
The West Bank is the West Bank. It is not, as Beinart describes, "non-democratic Israel." It is not Palestine. It is disputed territory. In the past four decades Jordan, Egypt (Gaza), Israel and the Palestinian national movement have all claimed parts of it. If anything, during the past two decades, Israel has relinquished control over ever-larger tracts of the West Bank. If peace can be achieved, many of the settlements will be absorbed into democratic Israel; the rest will be dismantled.
3. Liberalism
I am a liberal. I worry about liberals. Some in our camp have become unhinged when it comes to Israel. I worry about Reform rabbis, too. And I worry about our rabbinical students who represent the future leadership of much of American Jewry.
It is fashionable in some liberal quarters today to bash Israel as the latest litmus test of liberalism. We see it on campus as well. "We'll let you into the club but show us your anti-Israel credentials first."
It is actually the opposite: Israel is the ultimate test of liberalism; the testing grounds of theory and practice. Can we develop a liberalism that relates to the world as it is, not as we would want it to be? Do we offer a compelling vision of the future or just stale liberation theories? Are we prepared to make hard moral choices or shall we be satisfied with easy moralizing slogans?
In our new world, where democracies engage insurgents who hide among civilian populations and use them as shields; where terrorists store weapons in, and fire from, hospitals, houses of worship, ambulances and universities -- can we develop a liberalism that fights injustice justly? That is the question.
Peter Beinart was once at the vanguard of this school of liberalism that is so desperately needed today. But observing his dash to the extremes of liberal theory over the last decade, I worry about us. If, in less than a decade, Peter Beinart moved from centrist liberalism to calling for a boycott of Israelis, what does that portend for so many others in our camp? And what does that say about the future of liberalism in the United States and in the Jewish community?
Peter Beinart's counter-offensive is morally offensive. Israel is a noisy, argumentative, thrillingly pluralistic society, an oasis of liberty within the unrelenting desert of Middle East oppression. It is not a perfect democracy. There are many fissures and unresolved constitutional questions that need to be addressed. But Israel is a thriving democracy, conceived and developing under the most adversarial conditions of war.
Have we become so befuddled in liberal circles that of all the authoritarian regimes and brutally anti-democratic groups operating in the Middle East, we should single out the one Western democracy -- Israel -- as a target of economic boycott?
I am reminded of the poem of Natan Alterman, one of Israel's greatest poets, who was troubled by our propensity for excessive self-criticism of Israel. He wrote:
Then Satan said: How can I subdue him?
For he has the courage and the ability,
The weapons, the resourcefulness and the wisdom.
And he said: I will not weaken him,
Nor curb nor bridle him,
Nor inspire fear in him,
Nor soften him as in days gone by.
I will only do this:
I will dull his mind,
And he will forget that his is the just cause.
MJ Rosenberg: Why Peter Beinart's Book Is Driving the "Pro-Israel" Establishment Crazy
" four rabbis, all members of the rabbinical council of Jewish Voice for Peace, urging Christian denominations to pass measures divesting from corporations serving the Israeli occupation."
http://mondoweiss.net/2012/04/four-rabbis-urge-christian-churches-to-divest-from-occupation.html
Liberalism is not anti-Israel. It's anti-Conservative. It just so happens that Israel has been highjacked by conservatives and right-wing fanatics.
Not that conservatism does not have a place in Israeli politics, it certainly does.
It's just that Likud, Shas and other dangerous right-wing groups have been remarkably good at positioning their expansionist, pseudo-religious narrative as the ONLY acceptable narrative about Israel. Hence any criticism of Likud automatically becomes proof of "liberal" anti-semitism, or derangement.
Israelis need to make a choice in their elections coming up later this year. who do they want as custodians of their nation? war-hawk bullies who will burn bridges in their attempt to shout down or drown out all opposition, or people who will maintain relations with their allies, and improve their relations with their neighbors?
And this is supposed to be viewed as anti-israel?
I'm assuming since the author of this article is so upset at the voluntary boycott of Israel and its colonies that he must really be mad over the manditory embargo on Gaza.
Like apartheid South Africa, BDS will work.
“I support the BDS strategy for Israel because ... it cuts to the heart of something that is so important to so many Israelis. And that is the idea of normalcy, the idea that Israel is really an honorary adjunct to North America and Europe—even though it happens to be located in the Middle East.
"At the moment, it is possible to lead a very comfortable, very secure, very cosmopolitan life in most parts of Israel—despite the fact that Israel is at war with neighbors. I don’t think Israel has a right to simultaneously rain bombs and missiles on Gaza, to attack Lebanon in 2006, to massively expand the settlements, and also have this state of normalcy within its borders. For justice to come, the status quo will have to first become uncomfortable.
"When concerts are canceled in Tel Aviv, when tourists don’t come to Israel, then, I believe, many Israelis will start putting pressure on their political leaders to finally negotiate a lasting peace."
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/4311/to_boycott_israelor_not/
BDS, while imperfect, appears to be the only viable non-violent answer to continued Israeli intransigence.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/01/26-8
We cannot lecture the dispossessed about non-violent alternatives, and in return propose to do nothing more meaningful than “stay the course.”
"BDS does mean the end of the Jewish state"
-Ahmed Moor
"BDS represents three words that will help bring about the defeat of Zionist Israel and victory for Palestine"
-Ronnie Kasrils
"Going back to the two state solution, besides having passed its expiration date, it was never a moral solution to start with."
-Omar Barghouti
And here's Norman Finkelstein saying the same thing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iggdO7C70P8
They seem to feel that "liberals" have abandoned them, and cannot understand why.
What has happened is that "liberals" now see through many of the myths that make up the Zionist narrative, and its exclusive focus upon the good intentions in creating Israel, without any mention whatsoever of the indigenous population it displaced.
This intentional amnesia (about the displacement that is the very crux of the issue) involves one of its most pernicious myths (in this instance, a subconscious reaffirmation of the Zionist myth about "a people without a land, a land without a people.)"
Many (including "liberals") can no longer ignore the injustice visited upon Palestine's indigenous population by the Zionist Project (notwithstanding its good intentions in providing Jews a safe haven and escaping horrible persecution).
What people now realize is that past persecution does not provide a blank check to take and/or partition other people's land, and that obscuring such displacement with myths is not conducive to finding a just and lasting peace.
Again, this is not to say that Israel should not exist, but to properly frame the conflict. The proffering of a narrative that intentionally ignores (or belittles) the displaced does nothing to further the cause of peace.
Especially if you think, like me, that they need to give it all back and just move somewhere else. That was one of the original Zionist objections to moving back to the "holy land," that there were already people living there. I think that south America was suggested, because at least most of the people had been killed off previously :/
Never mind the fact that these Apartments, these racially exclusive apartments, are built for Jews on non-Jewish land. No, they arent built for Israelis, because arabs are also considered Israeli. They are built for JEWS ONLY, with the intent that these will become permanent for JEWS ONLY in a JEWISH-ONLY country. These apartments bring to life what we used to read in history books, which filled our minds with notions of colonialism, apartheid and equality.
They are Colonies being built to realize a dream of a Jerusalem without the mess of Christians and Muslims, but with the aid of American tax dollars. These colonies represent the basic notion behind exceptionalism and inferiority, all supported by the government of Israel.
The Boycott needs to spread to Israel as well, for Israel is the creator, implementer and security for these racially-exclusive colonies.
Boycott ISRAEL till they start abiding by international law...or at least their own 10 Commandments---i can name several broken commandments that are violated by these disgusting excuses for apartment neighborhoods...
That's not a fact.
Did he major in mind-reading? Or, more likely, is he trying to squeeze in the buzzword du jour: "legitimacy"?
The original call to boycott was not very dainty. It ran, "Burn everything English except their coal". So calling for people to refrain from buying products made by Israeli companies inside the West Bank is pretty precise and pretty mild. Nonetheless, let's push the "emergency" button and see what happens, eh?
For my part, I think boycotts are a pretty blunt instrument as the damage is often done beyond the primary target. But they spring up when people feel powerless to change a situation in any other way. If there was a credible peace process, there would be no boycott. And I would remind Rabbi Hirsch that Abbas' people provided the Israeli cabinet with precise proposals for security and border issues only a few weeks ago. The ball is actually in the Israeli court right now. No one is expecting miracles from either side, but given that there are also talks of more flytillas this summer, this might be the right time to soften the stance.
-Ahmed Moor
"BDS represents three words that will help bring about the defeat of Zionist Israel and victory for Palestine."
-Ronnie Kasrils
"Going back to the two state solution, besides having passed its expiry date, it was never a moral solution to begin with."
-Omar Barghouti.
Once again, the actual BDSers are more honest by far than their so-called "supporters."
No, he is just parrotting what the self-deluding Pro-Israelists are peddling lately: That anything a single person in a massive, diverse group advocates o believes is wrong, then it taints the entire enterprise. In this context, because a very small proportion of people who generally support BDS have also state that they support a single, democratic state, or because they support the RoR, they therefore want to destroy Israel.
On that basis alone, they thereby tar ANYONE who supports even a sliver of BDS as an anti-semite who wants to destroy all of Israel -- whioch is especially duplicitous when applied to Beinart, who has expressly rejected a general boycott on Israel.
Of course, it is the worst kind of pandering to Israel's right, and the worst kind of intellectual dishonesty, but in the face of a legitimate, non-violent and tempered social movement for equality and peace, they must demonize the other side, because Israel no longer holds the moral high ground.
Ultimately, however, this logical paradyme is, in addition to being dishonest and flawed, counter-productive for Israel.
CONT
It may look absurd to Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch to see Jewish intellectuals opposing Zionism, but its only way to save Israelis self destruction policy
The "occupation" was a direct result of a failed war of annihilation started on that front by Jordan (after Israel urged Jordan to stay out of the conflict) and the blockade was a direct result of the thousands of rockets Hamas fired at Israeli towns (after Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza, ostensibly giving the Palestinians exactly what they wanted).
The Palestinians are not completely innocent "victims" and must take responsibility for their ongoing role in the situation.
http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/4797/the-problem-of-privilege
http://www.corporatewatch.org/?lid=4103