BDS and a Peaceful Movement to Solve the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

In Sunday's Philadelphia Inquirer, Electronic Intifada writer Ali Abunimah published an op-ed defended a conference by the Boycott, Divest, and Sanction movement (BDS) at the University of Pennsylvania. His essay was part of a debate with Former CIA Chief R. James Woolsey and Jonathan Schanzer over the conference. Woolsey and Schanzer object to the conference as promoting hate of Israel.

My Gut Reaction: Perhaps Woolsey and Schanzer prefer more violent forms of resistance to boycotts. After all, violence makes shilling for policies that border on apartheid much easier. Not to mention the fact that perpetuating the Israeli-Palestinian conflict keeps Israel dependent on the United States.

Analysis: Abunimah makes a good argument in favor of BDS. He notes that sanctions were what ultimately brought down the apartheid regime, while conservatives such as Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher tried to promote "constructive dialogue" as a sop to South Africa's critics while protecting their Cold War ally. He also notes that state-based negotiations have stalled due to weakness on the part of Western powers.

I think the BDS movement offers a new hope in a Middle East dominated by violence. In their article, Woolsey and Schanzer focus on the advocation of violent jihad by groups such as Hamas. One would think they would welcome a non-violent turn in Palestinian resistance.

Woolsey and Schanzer's article is not persuasive at all, and actually spends little time discussing the BDS movement or its goals. Instead, they whine that the BDS boycott doesn't focus more on violence in places such as Syria, never mind the fact that human rights abuses in Syria already get large amounts of mainstream attention. (One could equally condemn Woolsey and Schanzer for not solely focusing their efforts on human rights abuses by countries the United States has closer relations with, such as the People's Republic of China.)

However, the weakness of their article is predictable when you consider the authors' backgrounds. Woolsey was a shill for the Iraq War and publicly argued that Saddam Hussein was connected to the 9 / 11 attacks. Jonathan Schanzer is part of the Middle East Forum, a Philadelphia think tank set up by Islamophobic fanatic Daniel Pipes. Pipes's main claim to fame is that his writings helped inspire Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik, who posted a video of Pipes speaking on his blog. He also cited Pipes's writings over fifty times in his manifesto, leading to Pipes posting a rather defensive essay on his blog dissociating himself from the mass murderer who so obviously admired him.

Intelligence from an Unexpected Source

As Ben Smith reports on his Politico blog, Republican and Tea Party Senator Rand Paul from Kentucky has called for the ending of foreign aid to Israel and other Middle Eastern countries, arguing on CNN's Wolf Blitzer that continued American aid would only be "funding an arms race on both sides."

My Gut Reaction: Even a broken clock is correct twice a day.

Analysis: Rand Paul's statements cannot be construed as support for the Palestinian cause, or even as a condemnation of Israeli policy. Sen. Paul states that he admires Israel as a democracy, and it is clear from his comments that they stem more from an overall drive to lower federal spending.

Nevertheless, this statement raises some interesting questions in regard to United States policy toward Israel, and the current drive toward cutting federal spending. For all the Republicans' vows to lower the deficit, they seem very reluctant to even bring up the possibility of major cuts to defense spending. When we do hear them bring up defense cuts, they are already one's pre-approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. (Imagine if we had to run education spending cuts by the teachers' union!) Given that most of the aid to Israel falls into the category of military aid, Sen. Paul's comments have potentially broader implications.

Furthermore, Rand Paul lays his finger on an important truth when he notes that we are essentially funding an arms race in the Middle East. Although Sen. Paul makes this point while discussing the Arab nations we fund, it is worth considering how military aid to Israel also perpetuates the Middle East conflict. If the Israeli government did not have the assured backing of the United States and its military resources, Israeli leaders might be more amenable to actually making steps towards peace, such as dismantling settlements.

A Quote that Summarizes the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and the Way Forward

From Bradley Burston of Ha'aretz:

"The fears of Israelis are real. The grievances of the Palestinians are just. If both peoples have one trait in common, it is that they cannot be bludgeoned, bribed, or sweet-talked into supporting a policy which favors only one side."

A Bit of Advice from One of Our Israeli Brethren

An article by the Ha'aretz writer Gideon Levy, republished by the Common Dreams website, contains some interesting advice for the United States government. Levy argues that the Obama Administration needs to take a tougher diplomatic line with the Israeli government, suggesting the use of sanctions to end the growth of settlements.

My Gut Reaction: It's kind of pathetic that we need an Israeli commentator to tell us this.

Analysis: As Levy writes, the United States does not allow itself to be treated with the same level of contempt and disregard by any nation other than Israel without serious repercussions. In many cases, the result is the threat of sanctions and or warfare. Even in the cases of close allies along the lines of Israel, such as France or Germany, the reaction tends to be one of dismissal.

Perhaps the greatest indicator of the level of deference our nation gives to Israel is Levy's mention of opinion polls in Israel showing President Obama having an approval rating of only 6 to 10 percent. If any other country were publishing approval polls about our leader, the typical American patriot would be frenzied with insulted anger. In the case of Israel, however, this is passed over in silence.

Of course, Gideon Levy should not be taken to represent the mainstream of Israeli opinion. Indeed, he has been called the most radical commentator in Israel. Nevertheless, his opinion is worth considering, particularly as it comes from an outsider looking in.

Quit Hating on Jimmy

As Ben Smith reports on his Politico blog, some Jewish Democrats, although certainly not all, are taking offense at Jimmy Carter's willingness to make even a mild critique of Israeli policy. Elliot Abrams, an Iran-Contra indictee, and Ira Forman, executive director of the National Jewish Democratic Council whine about the former President's willingness to point out how big a contribution Israeli settlements have made to continuing the conflict in that region.

My Gut Reaction: Oh, boo-hoo...

Analysis: If one takes even a brief look at their website, it becomes clear what the NJDC is trying to do. As part of their "Stop the Smears" campaign, they are doing their best to present President Obama as Israel's best friend possible. Any comments, however legitimate, that might lead some to doubt the Democratic Party's support for Israel will be condemned, no matter how well-thought out they are.

However, these criticisms ignore the genuine moral claims of Palestinians in the face of Israeli settlers. Furthermore, they ignore the fact that, as a major source of funding for the Israeli government, we have the most control over what they do, and hold responsibility for their actions in the face of the Arab world. If we seek to be taken seriously as peacemakers, we must rein in the Israelis' actions.

Viewing the World Through a Tinted Lens

Over the past week, I have been commenting on a blog called The Victim's Voice. The blog, maintained by Mr. Stephen M. Flatlow, who lost his daughter in a terrorist attack, is largely an apologia for Israel. The majority of the posts, at least that I've seen, focus on defending Israel against accusations of imperialism and racism.

Unfortunately, this defense at times translates into opposition to any sympathy for the Palestinian cause, no matter how measured. For example, the post which provoked my ire attacked a speech by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, who praised the courage of Palestinian refugees who've endured in spite of conflict.

Flatlow contends that rather than praising the refugees, Ki-Moon should be attacking Muslim countries for not integrating the refugees into their own populations. Never mind the fact that the Palestinians as a whole seem to want to return to their original homes.

Flatlow's response to this point is that the Palestinians voluntarily left in order to allow Arab armies to attack Israel. Even if one ignores the general dictates of prudence, which suggest that one should flee an area if a military force is approaching, this ignores the evidence presented by Ilan Pappe, a Jewish Israeli historian, has uncovered evidence that Zionist leaders planned to expel Palestinians before the war started. One commenter on the blog, Shana Maydel (apparently a pseudonym, as shana maydel is a Yiddish phrase for "pretty girl") attempted to discredit Pappe as a bad historian, incidentally throwing in that he is a "Communist" and "anti-Zionist." Though if he was such a bad historian, one wonders why they felt the need to drive him out of the country.

So Much for Free Expression

An article in The Progressive magazine, as well as a blog post on the Mondoweiss blog document the suppression of a Palestinian literary festival by the Israeli army. The Palestinian Festival of Literature, a celebration of Palestinian writing and arts, was deemed subversive by government officials.

My Gut Reaction: It's rather unwise to suppress literary festivals when you promote yourself to your allies as the only real democracy in the Middle East.

Why I Support the Palestinian Cause

A comment by another blogger, Stephen M. Flatow, has led me to examine why I support the Palestinian cause in the first place. Contrary to what Flatow seems to assume, opposition to Israeli policy does not necessarily imply anti-Semitism or opposition to Israel's existence. A deeper examination of my motivations will make this evident.

Perhaps the deepest roots of my support for the Palestinian cause lie in my ethnic heritage. My roots include the Irish, the Polish, and Native Americans. All three groups share one common trait: they have faced violent struggles to free their homelands from foreign domination. To a certain extent, I recognize the Palestinian struggle as analogous to those earlier struggles, a valid effort to assert dominance over one's homeland.

Some will no doubt comment that the Israelis are essentially doing the same thing: struggling for an ancestral homeland. However, I feel it is worth noting that while the Jewish people were largely absent from Palestine for centuries, whereas the Palestinians have been displaced more recently. They have a far greater claim to the land.

Another factor is my concern for human rights in all countries. Flatow comments that he wonders why Caryl Churchill, the author of Seven Jewish Children profiled in an earlier blog post, does not give attention to Sri Lanka, Darfur, or other human rights hot spots. As anyone familiar with my blog can attest, I have a strong concern for human rights, with a particular focus on China. Israeli actions that impact civilian populations naturally draw my attention, as part of my broader concerns.

Notice that none of this translates into anti-Semitism. Flatow claims that anti-Israeli activism derives largely from hatred of Jewish people, citing one instance where an anti-Israel protest in Fort Lauderdale in which there was a pro-Nazi chant. The use of an isolated incident to claim an entire movement is anti-Semitic is simply comical. Indeed, Flatow's treatment of Seven Jewish Children suggests that he looks for anti-Semitism in any expression of opposition to Israeli policy, a trait common to many, if not all, backers of the Israeli occupation.

Seven Jewish Children

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to witness a performance of the controversial new play Seven Jewish Children by Caryl Churchill, produced at a local Unitarian Universalist Church on Morewood Ave. I found it to be a genuinely moving performance, with excellent acting by students from the University of Pittsburgh. The play focuses on the experience of Jewish children ranging from the time of the Holocaust to current day Israel.

Some people have tried to interpret this play as anti-Semitic, claiming that a line referring to blood on children is a throw-back to the old blood libel. Having seen this play myself, I can definitively say this allegation is not true. Those who interpret the play this way have either never seen it, or have deliberately misconstrued it.

The latter interpretation is suggested by the reaction of one woman in a discussion group after the performance. She ranted that the play was biased, "anti-Israeli propaganda." She saw anti-Semitism largely because she was looking for it from the beginning. Her attitude brought to mind the woman in a pre-play discussion who argued that Israel could solve the issue of Palestinian population growth by means of mandatory birth control. Such people are not to be taken seriously.

In all, I highly recommend that anyone who has the chance should see this play.