What suddenly became crystal clear from the pro side is that the Palestinian call for BDS, which they fully support, has Israel's demise as its goal. This is articulated as follows:
... non-violent punitive measures [will] be maintained until Israel meets its obligation to recognize the Palestinian people's inalienable right to self-determination and fully complies with the precepts of international law by:The "wall" or separation/security barrier is problematic because of the Palestinian land it traverses and divides, but it also has some genuine legitimacy as a defensive measure. Still, for the most part, any progressive Zionist can accept points 1 and 2 (although #2 is really about the internal makeup of Israel and should be outside the scope of bilateral negotiations for a peace agreement between a sovereign Israel and a newly sovereign Palestine). Number 3, however, a full right of return to what is now Israel by the refugees of 1948 and their descendants, is a complete non-starter, a denial of the right of national self-determination to the Jewish people, and a rejection of the 1947 United Nations decision for separate Jewish and Arab states in Palestine.
1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall;
2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and
3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194.
As maintained by JJ Goldberg, this is a movement that is not aimed at securing peace with an agreed-upon two state solution, because Israel cannot accept this third demand without ensuring its doom. This would guarantee that the conflict continue for decades, if not generations to come, with much suffering by both sides. Instead, Goldberg offered the example of the Geneva Initiative (also known as the Geneva Accord).
Despite this, the vast majority of this left-wing audience were receptive to the BDS message. Israel's position as a military powerhouse against the weak Palestinian underdog, often coming across as a bully--with the flotilla incident and Operation Cast Lead as the most recent glaring examples--guaranteed this outcome. To argue that the peace process failed because of a variety of complex factors involving the wrongs and shortsightedness of both sides, would not have carried much weight with this crowd.
Ms. Peratis began her argument on the anti side by praising BDS for at least being a non-violent strategy. Yet it was never a consideration for supporters of BDS that the ongoing ravages of what remains of the occupation have anything at all to do with the violence of the intifada, or the role of Hamas in Gaza. (Btw, Peratis indicated that she would support a boycott targeting only the settlements.)
Sadly, Yonaton Shapira, the former Israeli air force officer, had no notion as to why Israel was legitimately created as a refuge for Jews. Nor could he even understand the concept of Jews as a people, apart from adherents of the Jewish religion. But he was sure that the Meretz party, which he explicitly mocked as representative of the Israeli left, has supported "every war." This is a gross distortion of Meretz positions, as this statement on the Gaza war attests.
Gil Kulik, a retired US State Department official who is now an activist for J Street's local New York chapter, made the following observations:
- The pro-BDS people, especially Hannah Mermelstein, were quite unabashed in acknowledging that the logical outcome of implementation of their platform would be the demise of Israel as a Jewish state. For her, it was simply a matter of "justice" for dispossessed Palestinians, because Israel should never have been created in the first place. In her view, a two-state solution in which Palestinian refugees would be permanently settled in the Palestinian state or Jordan was no solution to the "refugee problem," which could only be resolved by mass repatriation of Palestinians to their original homes. The fact that adhering to "right of return" guaranteed that BDS would remain a marginal phenomenon, at least in the United States, was of no consequence to her.
- J Street was cited several times, mostly unfavorably, as an organization that really lacked the courage of its convictions or was just "Israel Lobby light."
- Despite the palpably anti-Israeli proclivities of the audience, the forum was conducted with decorum and civility.
8 comments:
As well-meaning as Meretz, Ameinu, and similar liberal Zionist organizations are, this essay demonstrates that in the end even moderate efforts by Palestinians, such as the non-violent BDS tactic, are seen as an existential threat to Israel as reflexively as by the far right.
What struck me was that the two sides spoke different languages. The "Pros" were highly personal and moralistic. The "antis" spoke the language of policy wonks and attempted to be rational. They also preached mostly to their own choirs. If there were neutrals in the room, the pros might have done a better job. Once you concentrate on demonizing Israel without the opposition being ready to offer a nuanced counter-analysis, advocating BDS is rather tame and emotionally satisfying. You also use the occasion to rally your own troops. My observations have little to do with my own allegiances.
Hannah is probably even more extreme than she was in mixed company on the UWS. Yonatan is very Israeli and as such, unsophisticated. He exchanged his Israeli cocoon for the comfort of acceptance among a herd of true believers. Being nuanced would be much more lonely and painful for him.
The moderator was, excluding her introductory remarks, reasonably even-handed.
I am also skeptical about the utility of such dialogues. If the debate is about how to influence mutually-identified policies and conduct, then there may be room for dialogue. If, on the other hand, the discussion is about the most effective ways to demonize and dismantle Israel than "we" should not fall into the trap. If any of your friends co-sponsored the event, then they were suckered.
Itzhak
Very interesting, well written article.
Made it clear that the boycott crowd is not for a two state solution.
What does Hannah Mermelstein see in its place, realistically? Does she get specific?
Hello:
good summary. I thought the debate was not about the BDS platform but on methodologies to get Israel to get out of the West Bank.
certainly lobbying [J Street] is one avenue. economic pressure [BDS] is another.
one audience member said we should do both.
as far as the 'right of return' we can accept that if counterbalanced by other rights 'right of self determination' and the 'right to stay' for the israelis. Just because there is a right of return does not mean that all refugees would return. Palestianians have said the implementation of this right is negotiable. -- so I think we can fine tune this.
p.s. why are we discussing ultimate goals instead of current means -- to end the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza?
Ralph: it doesn't surprise me at all that the advocates of BDS support the dissolution of Israel. See my earlier article
"A Case Study of Ethnic Stereotyping: The Campaign for an Academic Boycott of Israel" by Philip Mendes, Australian Journal of Jewish Studies, Volume 20, 2006, pp.141-168
Best,
Philip Mendes
Boycotts are double-edged swords that work against everyone's best interests, producer's and consumers (especially). The latter forego products they need or want or pay higher prices.
Those who advocate for the "right of return" for generations of Palestinian "refugees" are inviting a bloodbath of both Israeli Arabs as well as Jews, and will have dire consequences for the entire Middle East and beyond.
The WWII Holocaust was not only of the destruction of more than 6,000,000 Jews, but several tens of millions of others. Can those who favor this "right of return" call themselves advocates of peace or humanitarians?
As I said at the outset, even liberal Zionists see BDS as an existential threat. What surprises me especially is the insistence that BDS and a One State solution go together like beans and franks. Some of us like BDS *AND* a Two State solution.
Post a Comment