Another Progressive Says 'No' to BDS

Dr. Stephen Scheinberg, a Chicago native and dual US-Canadian citizen, is Emeritus Professor of History at Montreal’s Concordia University. Professor Scheinberg currently serves as co-chair of Canadian Friends of Peace Now. The following is adapted from his debate in Sept. 2009 with BDS movement leader Omar Barghouti at St. Michael's College in Winooskie, Vermont, and an updated version that was published in the Sept./October 2010 issue of Canadian Jewish Outlook  (my one point of respectful disagreement is that, yes, singling out Israel above all other violators of human rights is unfair and ill-informed, but in itself, not necessarily proof of antisemitism*):

Boycotting is a legitimate tactic given the right context. I boycotted grapes to support Caesar Chavez and California farm workers, and certainly never knowingly purchased products from apartheid South Africa. By the same token, I have heeded  the voices of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, who call for boycotting goods produced in the West Bank settlements. Abbas also proclaims “We are not boycotting Israel because we have relations and we import” their products. I prefer to take their prescription rather than those who claim to be speaking in the name of a rather amorphous Palestinian civil society. 

It is disappointing that general, rather than settlement-focused, boycotting of Israel has been subscribed to by some progressives. They seem to be motivated by several factors.  First, there are those who have given up hope on a two-state solution and believe that a boycott will begin the process of the dissolution of Israel. Second, there are some who believe that Israel was conceived in sin, in 1948, and is therefore not worthy of salvation.  Third, it is more satisfying to some on the left to identify totally with the victim and adopt a tactic favored by some Palestinian militants. Whatever the combination of these motivating factors, I believe that it is not only a misguided tactic but one that is harmful to both Israelis and Palestinians.

I want to make four basic points: First, any progressive program must be in accord with universally accepted and applied standards of human rights.  The application of such standards only to Israel and not to the Palestinians or other nations of the Middle East, or other nations generally, not only lacks credibility but, to my mind, rightly gives rise to the charge of antisemitism.  This is certainly not to say that all criticisms of Israel are by definition antisemitic, but criticism that singles out Israel in isolation from other, often more egregious, human rights violators will and should be regarded as antisemitic.*

Second, I believe that many boycott leaders are not peace advocates but rather hope to turn Israel into the principal international pariah, and that the Zionist state will crumble. Third, if the goal is peace, we should work for the revival of a strong Israeli peace movement to make common cause with Palestinian advocates of two states. But the boycott policy is almost sure to force Israelis to the right, because it feeds their widely shared perception that the entire world is against the Jews. Fourth, the United States is still the most essential player in the Middle East and now there is a President who has reengaged his country with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  Boycotts will, however, feed the power of rightist elements of the Israel lobby. Those of us who hope that President Obama can move the peace process to fruition, must work against boycotts.

Israel is a complex country that is both marvelous and infuriating, on the cusp of science and technology and the arts but politically enslaved to fundamentalist rabbis and benighted settlers. It is home to near-fascist figures, such as Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, but is also the home of Amos Oz, Yossi Beilin and other great fighters for peace and justice.  I have seen the barrier the Israelis have erected, not only for security, but in some places clearly to grab land. I am all too keenly aware of an occupation that oppresses the Palestinians and undermines the fabric of Israeli democracy.

Still, universal standards of human rights must be applied across the board.  Those who single out Israel and are silent on Palestinian violations of human rights are not credible and certainly not progressive. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch point out that both Hamas and Fatah have been killing, maiming and torturing their perceived opponents. Both have closed down opposition media and detain their enemies in violation of any due process
                                          
One-State vs. Two States
I want to address the boycotter’s goals as enunciated by Omar Barghouti, one of the principal boycott leaders, and his associates in PACBI (Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel).  He is an advocate of a one-state solution, meaning a Palestinian-majority nation. His movement calls for action to end the “oppression of the Palestinian people, including their expulsion from their homes … (1948) and persistent denial of the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and lands.” The assertion of the so-called “right of return” is a non-starter in any peace process, as much as an Israeli rightist call for an indivisible Jerusalem under Jewish  rule.  Barghouti may separate the act of boycotting from particular solutions.  But I think the act flows directly into his preferred outcome. 

A Canadian who espouses BDS puts it this way: “BDS will be an effective tactic if it is clearly linked to its strategic goal: the overthrow of the Zionist regime and its replacement by a regime of equality, one that permits the refugees to return”; hence, the end of Israel, of the only Jewish state in the world, is the goal and boycott only a tactic. PACBI significantly opposes dialogue, as practiced by Seeds for Peace and other such projects, that seeks to cultivate mutual understanding. Apparently dialogue as a method of humanizing “the other” is to be eschewed because it is better to regard all Israelis, other than anti-Zionists, as the enemy.

A one-state solution sounds appealing to the North American ear. We are multicultural societies and abhor the mixture of religion and state. But the Middle East is filled with Islamic republics, which I hear few progressives questioning.  More important, do my fellow progressives believe that Jewish Israelis will soon give up their state? How many years of struggle will you condemn Israelis and Palestinians to endure―10, 20, 50?  Because Israelis, like most people, will defend their state.  If Gaza  resists the terrible boycott that Israel has inflicted not only on Hamas but on its entire population, would it be surprising that Israel would also resist?  Such resistance would perpetuate conflict rather than resolve it. 

Most Israelis and Palestinians endorse a two-state solution.  In one of the more recent polls, 51 percent of Israelis opt for two states, 28 percent supporting the status quo and among Israel’s Palestinian citizens, two-thirds want a two-state outcome. In the occupied territories 55 percent support two states and only 21 percent support a bi-national outcome. Thus, the support of a boycott, which is strongly linked to the one-state solution, runs contrary to the wishes of majorities among both Israelis and Palestinians. 

My third point is that we should give all the support that we can to the Israeli peace movement. Boycott advocates give short shrift to the many academics, writers, and film makers who support it.  Shalom Achshav (Peace Now) was founded in 1978 by former soldiers, but it reached a high point in the wake of the first Lebanon War, when 400,000 Israelis (one-tenth of the nation) protested Israel’s resort to war and especially its complicity in the massacres of Sabra and Shatilla.

It, along with other peace groups (Gush Shalom, the Geneva Initiative, etc.) has waxed and waned in the past 30 years, but truly suffered after the plague of Palestinian suicide bombers helped to drive Israelis to the right. But even at this low point, the leader of the Israeli opposition, Tzipi Livni, refused to join a government which did not endorse the two-state principle. Most sitting Labor Party members are in the peace camp, even perhaps their leader, Ehud Barak.  The few remaining leftist Meretz members of the Knesset are all dedicated to peace. Israel’s leading literary figures Amos Oz, A.B. Yehoshua and David Grossman are all devoted to Peace Now.

I cannot imagine a successful negotiation which does not gain the support of a majority of Israelis.  The vision of Israel as a South Africa crumbling from the siege of boycotts is not only defective as history or sociology but, to my mind, an illusion. The peace forces in Israel are weak today, yet with pressure from the Quartet and especially from the US, this can change. Most Israelis believe that their country’s relationship to the United States is more important to their security than settlements.

Yet the general boycott movement is having some success. The decision by Elvis Costello to cancel planned concerts in Israel is being hailed by the BDS movement. 

Other stars, such as Paul McCartney and Leonard Cohen, did not cancel. Cohen announced that the proceeds from his Israel tour would go to Israeli and Palestinian peace organizations, with the largest share going to the Parents Circle, a group formed by Palestinian and Israeli families bereaved by the conflict.

Authors Margaret Atwood and Amitav Ghosh both came to Tel Aviv to collect literary awards, despite the efforts of boycotters. Ghosh argued that “institutions of culture and learning must in principle be regarded as autonomous of the state.”  Atwood supported her colleague, rejecting “the all-inclusive nature of the boycott we were ordered to join. It is specifically cultural boycotts we decline to do.” 

A restricted boycott of settlement produced products is being promoted by the leadership of the Palestinian Authority. It is, after all, absurd for Palestinians to give financial support to those who oppress them, steal their land and would use their profits to expand settlements. There is evidence that this focused boycott is already promoting tremors in the Israeli establishment. This boycott is not an attack on the legitimacy of Israel, and is certainly deserving of support.

BDS sympathizers on various California university campuses have tried unsuccessfully to push resolutions to withdraw “financial and moral support from corporations that fund conflict.”  These campus efforts are extremely divisive and often turn liberal Jewish students into stalwart defenders of Israel.

Stanford University students seem to have come up with an answer. There the would-be boycotters turned to collaborative efforts with the Stanford Israel Alliance, including joint educational efforts and “on-the-ground relief work in the region.” This is a far more productive stance than confrontations over boycotts and divestment.