History should mark March 18, 2012 as an important date on the road to a just and peaceful resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict. That was the date on which an impeccably-Zionist American Jew -- Peter Beinart -- had an op-ed in the New York Times calling on American Jews to boycott the Israeli government colonization enterprise in the West Bank, a boycott campaign he dubbed "Zionist BDS"
The purpose of this campaign is to rescue the two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict, because the Israeli government colonization project in the West Bank is an existential threat to the two-state solution, and if there is no external change in the situation -- an external change that increases pressure on the Israeli government to change course -- the clear trend is that the colonization project will destroy the two-state solution.
Beinart wasn't messing around. He didn't just call for American Jews to join in the consumer boycott of commodities (like Ahava cosmetics) produced in Israeli settlements in the West Bank, as the impeccably-Zionist Americans for Peace Now called for in July 2011. Beinart called on American Jews to "lobby to exclude settler-produced goods from America's free-trade deal with Israel," and to "push to end Internal Revenue Service policies that allow Americans to make tax-deductible gifts to settler charities."
As Beinart noted, American Jews who adopt "Zionist BDS" would simply be joining a campaign that Israeli peace advocates have already adopted. Prominent Israeli writers like David Grossman, Amos Oz and A. B. Yehoshua, Israeli actors, directors, and playwrights, and Israeli teachers are boycotting the Israeli government's colonization project in the West Bank.
In a thoughtful piece this week in The Atlantic, former Israeli official Daniel Levy of the New America Foundation praises Beinart for opening debate on the issue in the American Jewish community, and refutes arguments that have been advanced against Beinart's call.
In particular, Levy highlights the crux of the issue: Beinart's call gives American Jews the opportunity to choose sides against "two state posing." Since the two state solution isn't likely to happen without pressure against the West Bank colonization project, to claim support for two states while opposing pressure is to support a goal while opposing the means necessary to get there.
But Levy stops short of endorsing Beinart's call, saying: "Zionist BDS alone is unlikely to change Israeli policy."
That is no doubt true, but it overlooks a key point. The main point of Zionist BDS is to be an organizing tactic for public education and mobilization, especially in the Jewish community: an organizing hook for a "long march through the Jewish institutions," as Herbert Marcuse might have put it.
Polls have long shown that the majority of American Jews support the establishment of a Palestinian state. But that majority opinion has not yet been translated into action in Washington, because there is no Jewish political infrastructure yet capable of effecting the translation. There are no Jewish institutions with broad reach which are poised to effectively help American Jews "lobby to exclude settler-produced goods from America's free-trade deal with Israel," nor to "push to end Internal Revenue Service policies that allow Americans to make tax-deductible gifts to settler charities." If we went tomorrow to our representatives in Congress and asked for support for these measures, our representatives might well say: who's backing this campaign? As of this moment, in Washington political terms, we wouldn't have a very compelling answer. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try -- we have to start somewhere, and no such campaign is likely to be victorious on the first ask. It does mean that it makes sense also to think in terms of intermediate steps.
So on our way to demanding that settler-produced goods be excluded from the U.S.-Israel FTA, and that financial support of settler groups no longer be subsidized by U.S. tax dollars, we should consider some intermediate battles to build capacity, and to show Members of Congress that there is organized American Jewish support for U.S. government policies that put pressure on the West Bank colonization project.
The first step is to open debate. We need a broad, open debate in the American Jewish community on Zionist BDS, because that's a key step to getting the progressive edge of American Jewish opinion to start adopting it.
And Passover is the perfect time to start this debate, because Passover is a time for reflection and discussion on the obligations that Jewish history imposes on Jews to act effectively for social justice today. Is it righteous for an American Jew to purchase Ahava cosmetics, when this purchase supports the West Bank colonization enterprise that is blocking the two state solution? That's a question that every American Jew should be considering.
On Passover, we eat matzoh, the "bread of affliction," a symbol of slavery, but also a symbol of liberation. The transformation from oppression to liberation is a universal human story. Wouldn't it be wonderful if in the year to come we had a credible basis for celebrating the coming transition of the Palestinian people from oppression to liberation? Chag sameach!
Follow Robert Naiman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/naiman
John Feffer: Creating the Muslim Manchurian Candidate
Peter Beinart's problematic 'Zionist BDS' proposal | Jane Eisner ...
Response to 'Zionist BDS' - Israel Opinion, Ynetnews
Debate Continues to Rage Over 'Zionist B.D.S.' - by Marc Tracy ...
Beinart's 'Zionist BDS' can only help entrench the occupation
"Zionist BDS" is Not the Way to Save Israel - The Daily Beast
They are much less entitled to try to mobilize mass efforts in, and from, the safety and security of their own countries to act in concert, eventually to try to convince their own governments to enact policies, which the Israeli electorate has determined are inimical to their security, existence and survival.
To intimate that their Jewish roots provide an added bona fides to their positions detracts from, rather than enhances the justification of their cause, which would be much better served were they to move to Israel, preach to and convince their countrymen over there, and take on and accept the same risks and consequences to the decisions the democratically elected government there is forced to make, by casting their legitimate votes.
Failing that, they are, at best, whimpering cowards; at worst.....
Indeed, I realize the amazing contributions of Jewish scientists from Einstein on extolled for their many impressive contributions to the world of science and technology. The world is a vastly greater place for their contributions,
What I have yet to hear is a mother stating how proud she is that her son is a part of pushing Palestinians off their land to create more land and wealth for a real estate developer son or daughter.
I don't know about you, but this tells me something.
Zionism is first and foremost the affinity of the Jewish people as a people, and that of each member of the people, to Zion, also known as Jerusalem. This strong affinity has been in existence ever since the Jewish king, King David, set up Zion/Jerusalem more than 3,000 years ago as the spiritual and the administrative center of the Jewish kingdom, and has included the city of Jerusalem as well as the country at the center of which Zion is located.
In the 19th century, Zionism has taken an added dimension: 1) The ingathering of those Jews not residing in Eretz Israel (Land of Israel) back home. 2) The re-instituting of Jewish sovereignty in Eretz Israel. 3) The re-vitalizing the civilization of the Jewish people, Judaism.
The above three goals were to be achieved peacefully through the use of the powers and the laws that are, and with as much cooperation of the local non-Jewish population. In this sense, Zionism has transformed itself into the non-violent (not pacifist, mind you!!) national liberation movement of the Jewish people.
Zionism has indeed achieved the in-gathering of most Jews back to the Jewish people’s homeland of Eretz Israel. It has succeeded in the re-establishment of Jewish sovereignty in the Jewish people’s homeland whose character is not only the nation-state of the Jewish people but also a liberal democratic one. And, it has managed to make a great contribution to the revitalizing of Jewish civilization.
http://www.mythsandfacts.com/conflict/mandate_for_palestine/mandate_for_palestine.pdf
Is the Jewish people's right to its homeland not appropriate...??
Do you realize what you have posted here applies to the Palestinians/Arabs more than it does to Israelis?
Now selective BDS, aimed at the illegal settlements exploitation of West Bank land a resources is different because they clearly violates the Fourth Geneva Conventions.
Just came from a beautiful Seder dinner with my friends and it was enlightening and inspiring. I learned that Moses is histories most profound labor organizer. If one considers the archeological evidence contained in Egyptian records, carved in stone and available which gives it some advantages over suppositions about Biblical accounts, the people led by Moses were 1) not slaves but contract laborers and 2) only a minority of the Exodus participants were practicing Jews as known today.
Hark! There are several important lessons in these poignant realities.
1) Refer to no less a a Jewish authority than Emma Goldman who said again and again that wage servitude is slavery and;
2) All people of faith and the more enlightened otherwise are beholden to Moses for his inspirational call to freedom and goodness for all, Reasonable minds might have a difference of opinion as to the role of God in all this, but the fact remains that when Moses, who stated he was acting on authorization of the Almighty proclaimed "Let My People Go," She was talking about all of us.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqjwLKdg9ro&feature=youtu.be
And what's up with Mr. Naiman not knowing to identify that acronym as soon as he introduced it in the essay, just as a matter of entry level composition?
Unpardonably amateurish all around.
The BDS in "Zionist BDS" stands for Boycott - Divestment - Sanctions.
that might be used for war"
Is this why Israel disallowed such items as chocolate and potato chips from entering Gaza?
Until very recently also, the only 3 items that Gaza was allowed to export were strawberries, carnations and tomatoes. This is an occupation.
Occupation? Hamas has fired rockets at civilians
Occupation? Hamas has targetted Israel civilians with sucide bombers.
Occupation? Hamas fires these rockets near their own civilian areas making
their own civilians targets just so they can any collateral casualties can be used for propaganda purposes
Whatever measures Israel takes to defend its population from murderers
is proper. Other countries would probably take even stronger methods
If you're concerned about strawberrys and chocolate then go to Gaza and demonstrate
against the deliberate targetting of innocent Israeli civilians.
But of course you can't because if you did you'd be killed
"It is time for any Israeli with an enlightened self-image to look at the mirror and see Avigdor Lieberman staring back. It is time to stop the procrastination over the question whether Israel can be both Jewish and democratic ... It is time to stop fidgeting, and to admit that mono-ethnicism cannot be a framework for liberal values ... It is time to rethink Zionism."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/16/israelandthepalestinians-israeli-elections-2009
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/26/israel-labour-binyamin-netanyahu-ehud-barak
Probably the best article on this issue that I have seen is by Ben Ehrenreich:
“The problem is fundamental: Founding a modern state on a single ethnic or religious identity in a territory that is ethnically and religiously diverse leads inexorably either to politics of exclusion (think of the 139-square-mile prison camp that Gaza has become) or to wholesale ethnic cleansing. Put simply, the problem is Zionism.”
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/03/16-2
Setting aside my feelings on this issue, the courage of those like Mr. Beinart, Ms. Baram, and Mr. Ehrenreich, who see the crisis of Zionism and are willing to engage in what must be an obviously difficult reevaluation of it, is commendable to say the least.
"...Israel itself is one of the world's prolific boycotters. Not only does it boycott, it preaches to others, at times even forces others, to follow in tow.
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/boycotting-the-boycotters-1.290573
2. For those who believe that "both sides" are to blame for lack of peace, they need to take a serious look at what the Palestine Papers show:
"The Palestinian Authority accepted Israel’s position on nearly every key point: borders, Jerusalem, settlements, refugees.
"On no major issue did the PA hold the line. None. The Palestinians offered Israel nearly everything and Israel still said ‘no’ with the backing of the United States.
“We pretend that the Palestinians still need to make concessions for peace when there are none left to make..."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenberg/what-the-al-jazeera-block_b_812951.html
and
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/01/26-8
3. Sanctions are therefore necessary to modify such behavior.
"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/
We cannot lecture the dispossessed about non-violent alternatives, and in return propose to do nothing more than “stay the course.”
1. It's inaccurate to call it's control of Gaza's borders a boycott.
2. The Palestinian Papers reflect the negotiations with Livni, which took place a full year before Olmert took over the negotiations and made an offer based on those principles. why did abbas walk away and never even respond to the offer.
1. A blockade is even worse than a boycott. Further, also see the Israeli calls for boycotts of Sweden, Turkey, Iran, etc. For a nation that regularly calls for boycotts against others, it is hypocritical to complain when it becomes the target of one.
2. Hundreds of pages documenting the PA's near total capitulation on nearly every major issue, but in the opinion of Israelis, the Palestine Papers vindicate them because the Palestinians did not make a counter offer? Really?
Setting aside whether such a counter offer was made or not (and who it was that should have been making the "counter offer" in the first place, as it was the Israelis who were rejecting all of these major concessions), since the PA had already exceeded Palestinian consensus on nearly every issue in a desperate effort to reach an agreement and still been told "no," what "counter offer" could they have made short of surrender?
If all Israelis got out of the Palestine Papers was the lack of a "counter offer," I respectfully submit that they missed a few pages.
Happy Easter
The central argument of the piece is correct: You can support the settlements or you can support a two-state solution, but you cannot really support both.
I doesn't really matter if it is direct negotiations while preserving the status quo, or while not, or imposed by outside forces, or worldwide pressure -- all that ultimately matters is that it is fair, because if its not fair, it will not last.
Now don't take that to mean that I want Egypt to invade Israel, or want violence to be meted out on the Palestinains or the Israelis... or anyone, merely that, in the long run, the process of reaching an agreement matters much less than the substance of the agreement.
Nonsense. Israel is going to keep some of the settlements in any peace deal. Virtually everyone acknowledges that. Other settlements will be abandoned. Thus it is not an "either or" proposition.
Why don't we cease to be lazy and examine the legal right of Jews to move in and reside at will in the areas discussed? And, perhaps, if we are open minded, we may change our minds about this baseless mantra:
http://www.mythsandfacts.com/conflict/mandate_for_palestine/mandate_for_palestine.pdf
Why should Arabs be allowed on both sides of the Green Line, but Jews on only one side?
A war was launched against Israel from that land but Israel prevailed.
End of story.