The Boston Globe published a groundbreaking editorial in support of Stephen Hawking’s decision to boycott the Israeli President’s Conference. I analyze its meaning and potential impact at Lobelog.
Archive for the ‘BDS’ Category
Hawking in Palestine
Posted in BDS, tagged Achille Lauro, apartheid, BDS, Benjamin Netanyahu, Cambridge University, Carlo Strenger, Hamas, Hezbollah, Israel, Jewish, Jimmy Carter, Noam Sheizaf, Palestinians, Ronald Reagan, Shimon Peres, South Africa, Stephen Hawking, Syria on May 10, 2013 | 1 Comment »
Stephen Hawking unleashed a storm this week by pulling out of an Israeli conference. I explore the response to the boycott movement more broadly at Souciant this week.
Brooklyn College Faculty Union Speaks Out in defense of BDS Event
Posted in BDS, Free speech, tagged Alan Dershowitz, BDS, Brooklyn College, free speech, Judith Butler, Karen Gould, Omar Barghouti on February 6, 2013 | 3 Comments »
The absurd events at Brooklyn College continue to roll along. The thought police, led by the great promoter of anti-Semitism (through his ceaseless efforts to dehumanize
Judith Butler and Omar Barghouti, the speakers whose appearance at Brooklyn College has sparked controversy
Palestinians), Alan Dershowitz insist that any and all programs involving the Israel-Palestine conflict must present Israel’s point of view. One cannot miss the fact that they show no such concern when only the Israeli view is represented, as happens often on campuses and community centers across the country. And, to be sure, there is nothing wrong with that view being presented. But neither is the view of those who are working in support of the Palestinian civil society call for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against Israel due to its 45-year old occupation.
That this issue even arises shows the absurdity of the debate on this issue in the United States. The fact that some New York City politicians are actually threatening to cut Brooklyn College’s funding should send a chill up anyone’s spine who believes in free speech and democracy, whatever their views of Israel, Palestine and BDS. But the university president is holding fast to the view that an institution of higher learning, whether privately or publicly funded, has a first duty to present a diversity of views and not every such presentation needs to be in a debate format. And she is being defended by her staff, in the form of their union.
Pasted below is the letter the union sent to a long list of cowardly, clueless or bigoted politicians who are trying to shut down a legitimate, non-violent Palestinian view from being heard. It doesn’t matter what you think of BDS, or which side, if any, your heart lies on with regard to the Israel-Palestine conflict. This is about free speech and academic freedom. And for that, a hearty BRAVO to Brooklyn College’s president, Karen Gould, and the union, as represented by Dr. Barbara Bowen. (more…)
What J Street’s Gotta Do
Posted in BDS, Christians, tagged AIPAC, Americans for Peace Now, BDS, Divestment, J Street, Jewish Voice for Peace, Jews, MJ Rosenberg, Peace Now, Presbyterian Church USA, the New York Times on July 16, 2012 | 1 Comment »
Last week, in a piece on Open Zion, Peter Beinart defended J Street from MJ Rosenberg and myself, and our criticism of its decision to strongly oppose the Presbyterian Church’s targeted divestment initiative. I respond on Open Zion here.
Power Concedes Nothing Without Demand–and Neither Will Israel
Posted in BDS, tagged AIPAC, Americans for Peace Now, Barack Obama, Camp David, CUFI, Frederick Douglass, Israel Lobby, J Street, Jerusalem, Mitt Romney, MJ Rosenberg, Presbyterian Church USA, Right of Return, Settlements, settlers, water, West Bank on July 12, 2012 | 3 Comments »
I wrote a piece last week criticizing Americans for Peace Now for their stance on the Presbyterian divestment motion. But my criticism was as nothing compared to MJ Rosenberg’s, and he has now written a few piecesexploring this topic.
Protests against the Gaza War/Operation Cast Lead, in 2009
One difference between myself and MJ is that I spend little time worrying about the stance of J Street on this issue. I’m glad J Street is there; it’s a useful organization and I support it for what it does. But that’s not very much.
J Street is unalterably opposed to any sort of pressure on Israel. They are under the mistaken belief that if they prove they represent the majority of American Jews (compared to AIPAC, they do, but that majority is largely apathetic or lukewarm at best on Israel, while AIPAC’s backers, and those farther right, are zealously passionate and have a LOT more money devoted to their cause), this will convince Israel to change its policies. That’s well-intentioned, but naïve doesn’t begin to describe that view, one which is also completely insulated against political realities and, yes, pragmatism.
APN has a more nuanced approach, but as I pointed out, they still resist any real pressure on Israel, and ultimately, this is a strategy that has no hope to make the slightest dent in either US or Israeli policy regarding the Palestinians.
I must point out here that APN issued a clarification of their statement on the Presbyterian vote. I still think they have it wrong, but it does at least acknowledge that APN recognizes that the Presbyterians were trying to carefully target the occupation and not Israel as a whole.
I have no doubt that MJ is right in saying that keeping their donors from sending their dollars elsewhere is a big factor for APN. But I think there’s more here. I think there is truly a dedication to the notion that by publicizing the spread of Israeli settlements and of their impact; and by raising a Jewish, and Zionist, voice against them that they can get Israel to change its behavior.
To me, this stems from a basic misunderstanding of the words of Frederick Douglass, who said: “Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”
There are important truths in Douglass’ statement, but also some misleading wording.
By using the word “tyrant,” Douglass allows his American, and later Israeli, listeners to believe he is talking about some other people, not our own Liberal, democratic governments whom we love. He also equates “words” and “blows,” a grave error for inspiring social change, implying that words alone might be sufficient to make “power concede.” Doesn’t happen that way, I’m afraid. (more…)
Feedburner
Speaker
Follow me on Twitter
Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.
Categories
Archives
Meta
-
Recent Posts
