"Zero tolerance"
May 11, 2015 7:43 AM Subscribe
Canadian government signals intent to use hate speech laws against Israel boycott. Canada is not alone. In France, "more than 20 have been convicted" of hate speech for boycott advocacy. This apparently reflects a diplomatic push from the Israeli government. In addition, last month, the Israeli high court upheld a law allowing businesses to sue boycott advocates for lost sales, on the grounds that boycotts may be "political terror."
Well this is insane. While I'm generally an Israel supporter, if free speech is sacrificed in Canada to aid Israel, it's far too high a price.
Citizens need to be able to participate individually and collectively in BDS and other such activities. Even if I don't like their goals, they must have the right to express their politics and vote with their dollars as they wish.
posted by theorique at 7:47 AM on May 11, 2015 [28 favorites]
Citizens need to be able to participate individually and collectively in BDS and other such activities. Even if I don't like their goals, they must have the right to express their politics and vote with their dollars as they wish.
posted by theorique at 7:47 AM on May 11, 2015 [28 favorites]
> And it would almost certainly be challenged under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, civil liberties groups say.
I suspect this is the play with shit like this and C51. Pass a bunch of laws they know will be challenged or struck down and send fundraising letters to their base: "We're TRYING to fight the terrorists, but the courts and activists have our hands tied. Money and votes, please!"
posted by The Card Cheat at 7:51 AM on May 11, 2015 [12 favorites]
I suspect this is the play with shit like this and C51. Pass a bunch of laws they know will be challenged or struck down and send fundraising letters to their base: "We're TRYING to fight the terrorists, but the courts and activists have our hands tied. Money and votes, please!"
posted by The Card Cheat at 7:51 AM on May 11, 2015 [12 favorites]
So in the context of this story, I learned that advocating boycotts against Israel has been illegal in France for more than a decade. Same deal for boycotts against Iran.
As I understand it, the US is something of an outlier in its strong free speech protections.
posted by escabeche at 7:51 AM on May 11, 2015 [7 favorites]
As I understand it, the US is something of an outlier in its strong free speech protections.
posted by escabeche at 7:51 AM on May 11, 2015 [7 favorites]
Israel is the new Singapore.
posted by grumpybear69 at 7:52 AM on May 11, 2015
posted by grumpybear69 at 7:52 AM on May 11, 2015
It's always saddening to be reminded that the state of Israel agrees with anti-semites that Israel and Judaism are one and the same.
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:54 AM on May 11, 2015 [76 favorites]
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:54 AM on May 11, 2015 [76 favorites]
As I understand it, the US is something of an outlier in its strong free speech protections.
In this one area at least, America truly is exceptional. The logic of this other thing makes my head swim.
posted by echocollate at 7:56 AM on May 11, 2015 [9 favorites]
In this one area at least, America truly is exceptional. The logic of this other thing makes my head swim.
posted by echocollate at 7:56 AM on May 11, 2015 [9 favorites]
This country cannot turn orange fast enough.
posted by Sys Rq at 8:03 AM on May 11, 2015 [20 favorites]
posted by Sys Rq at 8:03 AM on May 11, 2015 [20 favorites]
Your favorite band is hate speech.
posted by Naberius at 8:05 AM on May 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Naberius at 8:05 AM on May 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
So in the context of this story, I learned that advocating boycotts against Israel has been illegal in France for more than a decade. Same deal for boycotts against Iran.
As I understand it, the US is something of an outlier in its strong free speech protections.
Very true. In various parts of Europe, people have been jailed for their speech in the past - for things such as Holocaust denial or disparaging Moslems. Even the famous are not immune - the actress Brigitte Bardot was fined a few times for anti-Moslem remarks.
Israel is the new Singapore.
The difference is that Singapore is authoritarian within its own boundaries. It doesn't pretend to influence what people in other parts of the world say about it. The situation there always seemed to be "you do it your way, we'll do it ours, leave us alone".
Frankly, this kind of law being passed is terrible for Israelis and Jews worldwide. It gives fuel to the knuckle-dragging conspiracies about "DUH JOOZ RULE TEH WORLD" (after all, how else would Canada be influenced to pass such a specific law?)
posted by theorique at 8:05 AM on May 11, 2015 [19 favorites]
As I understand it, the US is something of an outlier in its strong free speech protections.
Very true. In various parts of Europe, people have been jailed for their speech in the past - for things such as Holocaust denial or disparaging Moslems. Even the famous are not immune - the actress Brigitte Bardot was fined a few times for anti-Moslem remarks.
Israel is the new Singapore.
The difference is that Singapore is authoritarian within its own boundaries. It doesn't pretend to influence what people in other parts of the world say about it. The situation there always seemed to be "you do it your way, we'll do it ours, leave us alone".
Frankly, this kind of law being passed is terrible for Israelis and Jews worldwide. It gives fuel to the knuckle-dragging conspiracies about "DUH JOOZ RULE TEH WORLD" (after all, how else would Canada be influenced to pass such a specific law?)
posted by theorique at 8:05 AM on May 11, 2015 [19 favorites]
> the US is something of an outlier in its strong free speech protections.
And people are falling all over themselves to give those protections up. Bad people are hiding behind them to say bad things.
posted by jfuller at 8:06 AM on May 11, 2015 [16 favorites]
And people are falling all over themselves to give those protections up. Bad people are hiding behind them to say bad things.
posted by jfuller at 8:06 AM on May 11, 2015 [16 favorites]
If they can go after boycotts as "Political Terror", does that mean we can go after banks and debt collectors for "Economic Terror", or after lawyers for "Economic Terror"? That only makes sense, right?
posted by Jefffurry at 8:09 AM on May 11, 2015 [29 favorites]
posted by Jefffurry at 8:09 AM on May 11, 2015 [29 favorites]
And once again we are friends and allies with Israel why? I have also tried to discover how the traditionally left-wing mainstream Jewish-American culture feels about Israel morphing into a right-wing cause. But it's not an easy question to ask or answer I guess.
posted by umberto at 8:09 AM on May 11, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by umberto at 8:09 AM on May 11, 2015 [5 favorites]
The difference is that Singapore is authoritarian within its own boundaries. It doesn't pretend to influence what people in other parts of the world say about it.
Not so much.
posted by grumpybear69 at 8:12 AM on May 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
Not so much.
posted by grumpybear69 at 8:12 AM on May 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
I have also tried to discover how the traditionally left-wing mainstream Jewish-American culture feels about Israel morphing into a right-wing cause
Here you go.
posted by griphus at 8:13 AM on May 11, 2015 [4 favorites]
Here you go.
posted by griphus at 8:13 AM on May 11, 2015 [4 favorites]
Speaking out against apartheid is now hate speech, oh the irony it burns.
But I'd sure like to know the details of the quid pro quo for the Canadian government. Doubtful this is just a principled stand.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 8:23 AM on May 11, 2015 [14 favorites]
But I'd sure like to know the details of the quid pro quo for the Canadian government. Doubtful this is just a principled stand.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 8:23 AM on May 11, 2015 [14 favorites]
if free speech is sacrificed in Canada to aid Israel, it's far too high a price. - theorique
Though I understand what you mean, that's a strange thing to say. With the killings of thousands of Palestinian civilians last year, the displacement of many times that number, an incredibly debilitating embargo, extreme and oppressive restraints on the movements and rights of Arabs, and the continued annexation of Palestinian land, one might say that all these things were too high a price.
posted by splitpeasoup at 8:39 AM on May 11, 2015 [26 favorites]
Though I understand what you mean, that's a strange thing to say. With the killings of thousands of Palestinian civilians last year, the displacement of many times that number, an incredibly debilitating embargo, extreme and oppressive restraints on the movements and rights of Arabs, and the continued annexation of Palestinian land, one might say that all these things were too high a price.
posted by splitpeasoup at 8:39 AM on May 11, 2015 [26 favorites]
Harper has always been utterly pro-Israel. He sees some political benefit, but I'd argue his main reasoning is not only or even mostly that. He's a committed Evangelical. I have always assumed that this, as well as his crypto- islamophobia, is not just political, but comes primarily from his own religious views.
Having government policy for the last decade dictated by a particular sect's theology is not something that has ever made me comfortable.
posted by bonehead at 8:41 AM on May 11, 2015 [8 favorites]
Having government policy for the last decade dictated by a particular sect's theology is not something that has ever made me comfortable.
posted by bonehead at 8:41 AM on May 11, 2015 [8 favorites]
How can it be that words to encourage somebody to engage in a lawful act are themselves unlawful? This is worse than illiberal, it is nonsensical. Indeed, hate speech which does not itself otherwise constitute a crime should not be unlawful, which is maybe where the confusion began.
posted by Thing at 8:44 AM on May 11, 2015 [17 favorites]
posted by Thing at 8:44 AM on May 11, 2015 [17 favorites]
Frankly, this kind of law being passed is terrible for Israelis and Jews worldwide. It gives fuel to the knuckle-dragging conspiracies about "DUH JOOZ RULE TEH WORLD" (after all, how else would Canada be influenced to pass such a specific law?)
It is a grave misstep: if grassroots sanctions are bad, then no country should be allowed to do it to any group for the same reason. This gambit is tyranny and the optics alone are very troubling.
If they can go after boycotts as "Political Terror", does that mean we can go after banks and debt collectors for "Economic Terror", or after lawyers for "Economic Terror"? That only makes sense, right?
Or go after taxation departments for economic terror and governments for political terror against their own citizens. How about police departments for racial terror? We got terror coming out of our wazoos. Just how many shackles until the collective "Enough!" explodes?
I always get this feeling we have governments that live to tempt fate by wagging their fingers with their scary likely stories until one day, something real happens because those politicians thought of every trick, feint, distraction, and misdirection imaginable not to do real work and that's why problems get out of hand.
posted by Alexandra Kitty at 8:47 AM on May 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
It is a grave misstep: if grassroots sanctions are bad, then no country should be allowed to do it to any group for the same reason. This gambit is tyranny and the optics alone are very troubling.
If they can go after boycotts as "Political Terror", does that mean we can go after banks and debt collectors for "Economic Terror", or after lawyers for "Economic Terror"? That only makes sense, right?
Or go after taxation departments for economic terror and governments for political terror against their own citizens. How about police departments for racial terror? We got terror coming out of our wazoos. Just how many shackles until the collective "Enough!" explodes?
I always get this feeling we have governments that live to tempt fate by wagging their fingers with their scary likely stories until one day, something real happens because those politicians thought of every trick, feint, distraction, and misdirection imaginable not to do real work and that's why problems get out of hand.
posted by Alexandra Kitty at 8:47 AM on May 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
I have also tried to discover how the traditionally left-wing mainstream Jewish-American culture feels about Israel morphing into a right-wing cause. But it's not an easy question to ask or answer I guess.
It's not that difficult, really. The debate over Israel's government and much of the control over policy is being dominated more and more by conservative, evangelical Christian, old white dudes:
It's not that difficult, really. The debate over Israel's government and much of the control over policy is being dominated more and more by conservative, evangelical Christian, old white dudes:
Nearly two-thirds of evangelicals want the United States to lean toward Israel, compared with about one-fifth of non-evangelicals. When it comes to how the Israeli-Palestinian issue ranks among U.S. interests, significantly more evangelicals than non-evangelicals (36 percent vs. 18 percent, respectively) rank it as the single-most issue or among the top three issues. On more concrete issues, the attitudes of this group tend to be even stronger than those of Jewish Americans. Nearly half of evangelicals favor the “Jewishness” of Israel more than its democracy, compared to only about one-third of Jewish American respondents.posted by zombieflanders at 8:55 AM on May 11, 2015 [14 favorites]
Less than half of evangelical respondents would support the United States voting in favor of the establishment of Palestinian statehood in the United Nations or abstaining from a vote, whereas 60 percent of Jewish Americans would support these measures. Furthermore, on the issue of how the United States should react to continued Israeli settlement building, the number of evangelicals who want the United States to do nothing is about 10 percentage points higher than their Jewish American counterparts. Interestingly, evangelicals seem to feel an even closer religious or ethnic tie to the issue than Jewish Americans. When asked why they would want the United States to lean toward Israel, 38 percent of evangelicals said they felt it was their “religious or ethnic duty to support Israel,” while only 24 percent of Jewish Americans responded this way. Still this is only part of the story.
"As I understand it, the US is something of an outlier in its strong free speech protections."
It's a fetish. Invoking the sanctity of free speech among Americans causes otherwise sensible people to become frothing lunatics. It's simpleminded and dumb and is a product of indoctrination. People argue for the most amazingly stupid things with regard to free speech -- that somehow speech is effective and vital while also somehow being utterly unlike action. Citizens United is a natural consequence of this mindless elevation of free speech to a categorical good above all others. The unthinking, reflexive absolutism about 1st Amendment speech is precisely parallel to the unthinking, reflexive absolutism about 2nd Amendment guns -- they're both ahistorical and so internalized into American consciousness that both free speech and guns are ubiquitously held to be inherently virtuous even within the private contexts that these legal protections don't apply (you can't delete my comment, that's a violation of free speech!, you can't keep me from carrying my gun into your restaurant, that's a violation of my right to carry a gun!)
Meanwhile, Canada, like most everyone else, understands free speech as an important democratic value among other important democratic values, not preeminent, and subordinate when necessary to the overall community welfare.
Hate speech is often ambiguous and, as we've seen here on MetaFilter, the issue of antisemitic speech is also ambiguous. When there is a legitimate grievance against a marginalized group (or against an institution associated with or dominated by the marginalized group, such as Israel), then bigots will seize the opportunity to veil their hate speech as being something other than what they intend it to be, they will utilize this plausible deniability. And then we have to make judgment calls. We will try to examine motivations, but mostly we will examine effects -- how much of the effect of this speech is within the realm of addressing that legitimate grievance, and how much of it is to further vilify that group and to inflame the latent animus that has caused this marginalization? Context and audience matters.
I'm strongly inclined to see, within the context of Canada, advocacy of a boycott of Israel to fall well within the realm of legitimate political advocacy and not hate speech. But that it might be considered hate speech and thus prohibited is not absurd.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 9:00 AM on May 11, 2015 [33 favorites]
It's a fetish. Invoking the sanctity of free speech among Americans causes otherwise sensible people to become frothing lunatics. It's simpleminded and dumb and is a product of indoctrination. People argue for the most amazingly stupid things with regard to free speech -- that somehow speech is effective and vital while also somehow being utterly unlike action. Citizens United is a natural consequence of this mindless elevation of free speech to a categorical good above all others. The unthinking, reflexive absolutism about 1st Amendment speech is precisely parallel to the unthinking, reflexive absolutism about 2nd Amendment guns -- they're both ahistorical and so internalized into American consciousness that both free speech and guns are ubiquitously held to be inherently virtuous even within the private contexts that these legal protections don't apply (you can't delete my comment, that's a violation of free speech!, you can't keep me from carrying my gun into your restaurant, that's a violation of my right to carry a gun!)
Meanwhile, Canada, like most everyone else, understands free speech as an important democratic value among other important democratic values, not preeminent, and subordinate when necessary to the overall community welfare.
Hate speech is often ambiguous and, as we've seen here on MetaFilter, the issue of antisemitic speech is also ambiguous. When there is a legitimate grievance against a marginalized group (or against an institution associated with or dominated by the marginalized group, such as Israel), then bigots will seize the opportunity to veil their hate speech as being something other than what they intend it to be, they will utilize this plausible deniability. And then we have to make judgment calls. We will try to examine motivations, but mostly we will examine effects -- how much of the effect of this speech is within the realm of addressing that legitimate grievance, and how much of it is to further vilify that group and to inflame the latent animus that has caused this marginalization? Context and audience matters.
I'm strongly inclined to see, within the context of Canada, advocacy of a boycott of Israel to fall well within the realm of legitimate political advocacy and not hate speech. But that it might be considered hate speech and thus prohibited is not absurd.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 9:00 AM on May 11, 2015 [33 favorites]
If you support laws that can stifle speech, you shouldn't be too surprised when those laws are turned around to stifle your speech for some silly reason. You can go back through years of MeFi threads that seem to divide the US/non-US crowd on First Amendment lines -- just imagine those folks saying "Told ya so!" now.
To me, at least, it seems that people that support what I think are bad laws, such as those about stifling free speech for reasons of inciting hatred, always assume that those with their political mindset will be the ones in power. I always assume bad laws will be used against me and those like me, and that's why I find them suspect ...
posted by barnacles at 9:00 AM on May 11, 2015 [25 favorites]
To me, at least, it seems that people that support what I think are bad laws, such as those about stifling free speech for reasons of inciting hatred, always assume that those with their political mindset will be the ones in power. I always assume bad laws will be used against me and those like me, and that's why I find them suspect ...
posted by barnacles at 9:00 AM on May 11, 2015 [25 favorites]
something something make protest impossible something something make revolution inevitable.
Oh well, it wasn't like we were really that into the supposed values of Western liberal democracy to begin with.
Everything's terror these days. Disobey a police officer? That's anti-authoritarian terror. Question state surveillance? You're terrorizing the NSA. Protest? How dare you terrorize those who terrorize you. Meaningless word, terror. But I digress...
posted by LeRoienJaune at 9:05 AM on May 11, 2015 [4 favorites]
Oh well, it wasn't like we were really that into the supposed values of Western liberal democracy to begin with.
Everything's terror these days. Disobey a police officer? That's anti-authoritarian terror. Question state surveillance? You're terrorizing the NSA. Protest? How dare you terrorize those who terrorize you. Meaningless word, terror. But I digress...
posted by LeRoienJaune at 9:05 AM on May 11, 2015 [4 favorites]
The patent idiocy it takes to simultaneously believe in prophecy and also that you can do something to hasten it or 'bring it about' is staggering.
posted by signal at 9:05 AM on May 11, 2015 [9 favorites]
posted by signal at 9:05 AM on May 11, 2015 [9 favorites]
It is so disheartening to be a Jewish, activist queer, three identities which would have landed me in a death camp had I been born in a different time and place, and to have my critiques labeled as anti-Semitic. The stranglehold that the pro-Israel agenda holds over the conversation is infuriating.
posted by latkes at 9:09 AM on May 11, 2015 [54 favorites]
posted by latkes at 9:09 AM on May 11, 2015 [54 favorites]
if free speech is sacrificed in Canada to aid Israel
Canada does not have "free speech" like they do in the States (almost nobody has freedom of speech like they do in the States).
Without getting into an argument about whether Canadian traditions are right or wrong, there have always been limits on freedom of speech in Canada, so this latest move by the Canadian government is not "sacrificing" anything, in that nothing has changed.
I think what's new here is the willingness of the State to bring to bear the full resources of the State to promote - or quash - a particular point of view.
While the Supreme Court may eventually rule on this decision, it will be financially ruinous for any group who wants to boycott Israel or Jewish businesses etc to take on the Harper government.
So it's more of a SLAP if you ask me.
posted by Nevin at 9:09 AM on May 11, 2015 [5 favorites]
Canada does not have "free speech" like they do in the States (almost nobody has freedom of speech like they do in the States).
Without getting into an argument about whether Canadian traditions are right or wrong, there have always been limits on freedom of speech in Canada, so this latest move by the Canadian government is not "sacrificing" anything, in that nothing has changed.
I think what's new here is the willingness of the State to bring to bear the full resources of the State to promote - or quash - a particular point of view.
While the Supreme Court may eventually rule on this decision, it will be financially ruinous for any group who wants to boycott Israel or Jewish businesses etc to take on the Harper government.
So it's more of a SLAP if you ask me.
posted by Nevin at 9:09 AM on May 11, 2015 [5 favorites]
Boycotts are supposed to be the cleanest and most painless form of political expression. To have that taken away only fuels the fringe. It's also simple minded bullshit.
posted by Beholder at 9:10 AM on May 11, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by Beholder at 9:10 AM on May 11, 2015 [6 favorites]
No Canadian rights are absolute, and none is primary over any others. Speech isn't privileged over the equal rights to security of person (especially genocide) or cultural and religious freedom. Canadians can't, say advocate for the mass killing of another group, religions being the most common example.
What advocating "Political Terror" means isn't really clear. I doubt the courts will support this, but that will take years to happen and a lot of folks will be caught in the gears in the meantime. Imagine that: the Harper Government being on the wrong side of a Charter Right challenge.
posted by bonehead at 9:12 AM on May 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
What advocating "Political Terror" means isn't really clear. I doubt the courts will support this, but that will take years to happen and a lot of folks will be caught in the gears in the meantime. Imagine that: the Harper Government being on the wrong side of a Charter Right challenge.
posted by bonehead at 9:12 AM on May 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
Classifying non-violent action as "terror" is quite Orwellian.
posted by thelonius at 9:13 AM on May 11, 2015 [29 favorites]
posted by thelonius at 9:13 AM on May 11, 2015 [29 favorites]
As I understand it, the US is something of an outlier in its strong free speech protections.
In this one area at least, America truly is exceptional.
Or not.
In this one area at least, America truly is exceptional.
Or not.
The antiboycott provisions of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) apply to the activities of U.S. persons in the interstate or foreign commerce of the United States...posted by one more dead town's last parade at 9:14 AM on May 11, 2015 [24 favorites]
Conduct that may be penalized under the TRA and/or prohibited under the EAR includes: Agreements to refuse or actual refusal to do business with or in Israel or with blacklisted companies...
The EAR requires U.S. persons to report quarterly requests they have received to take certain actions to comply with, further, or support an unsanctioned foreign boycott.
When there is a legitimate grievance against a marginalized group (or against an institution associated with or dominated by the marginalized group, such as Israel), then bigots will seize the opportunity to veil their hate speech as being something other than what they intend it to be, they will utilize this plausible deniability.
And I think that's part of the problem. When the Quakers support BDS, I don't doubt that they are sincere, well meaning, and not hateful. When ANSWER holds BDS rallies with speaker after speaker getting up and saying shitty things about Israelis and Jews, I...shall we say doubt their purity of purpose?
And if you believe in hate speech law, then the fact that that hate may be influenced by political actions cannot be a reason to allow it.
posted by corb at 9:14 AM on May 11, 2015 [4 favorites]
And I think that's part of the problem. When the Quakers support BDS, I don't doubt that they are sincere, well meaning, and not hateful. When ANSWER holds BDS rallies with speaker after speaker getting up and saying shitty things about Israelis and Jews, I...shall we say doubt their purity of purpose?
And if you believe in hate speech law, then the fact that that hate may be influenced by political actions cannot be a reason to allow it.
posted by corb at 9:14 AM on May 11, 2015 [4 favorites]
I doubt the courts will support this, but that will take years to happen and a lot of folks will be caught in the gears in the meantime.
Regardless of how the courts will rule, there will probably be a lot of folks in Canada who will walk away from the BDS movement, unwilling to face legal sanctions (and understandably so).
Outside of legal consequences, there are many folks that would be horrified to be accused of a hate crime, or associated with the idea of supporting 'economic terrorism'.
So regardless of how the courts rule, this may well have the intended effect of squelching political activism and speech.
posted by el io at 9:17 AM on May 11, 2015 [4 favorites]
Regardless of how the courts will rule, there will probably be a lot of folks in Canada who will walk away from the BDS movement, unwilling to face legal sanctions (and understandably so).
Outside of legal consequences, there are many folks that would be horrified to be accused of a hate crime, or associated with the idea of supporting 'economic terrorism'.
So regardless of how the courts rule, this may well have the intended effect of squelching political activism and speech.
posted by el io at 9:17 AM on May 11, 2015 [4 favorites]
Another thing that's frustrating to see is the articles talking about how terrible it is that "national origin" was added to hate speech law. "We don't like hate speech, unless it's against THOSE GUYS."
posted by corb at 9:18 AM on May 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by corb at 9:18 AM on May 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
Canadian hate-speech legislation is quite narrow. See: hate propaganda from the Criminal Code.
posted by sfred at 9:21 AM on May 11, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by sfred at 9:21 AM on May 11, 2015 [3 favorites]
Say what you will about SCOTUS, I still think they got these right:
Brandenburg v. Ohio
National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie
R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul
Snyder v. Phelps
posted by enjoymoreradio at 9:28 AM on May 11, 2015 [5 favorites]
Brandenburg v. Ohio
National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie
R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul
Snyder v. Phelps
posted by enjoymoreradio at 9:28 AM on May 11, 2015 [5 favorites]
So regardless of how the courts rule, this may well have the intended effect of squelching political activism and speech.
I 100% agree, and I think this is actually the strategy. They've cynically put forward a law they know will fail, but will have the short-term chilling effect they want.
posted by bonehead at 9:29 AM on May 11, 2015 [4 favorites]
I 100% agree, and I think this is actually the strategy. They've cynically put forward a law they know will fail, but will have the short-term chilling effect they want.
posted by bonehead at 9:29 AM on May 11, 2015 [4 favorites]
I recently had to complete a "trade compliance" course at work. The first section was all about the terrible consequences for trading with a sanctioned nation such as Iran, how you can be held accountable if you trade with a company that goes on to trade with Iran, etc.
The second section was all about the terrible consequences for refusing to trade with Israel, how you can be held accountable, etc etc. See here.
One man's lawful sanctions are another's unlawful boycott. Economic warfare at its finest.
posted by Acey at 9:34 AM on May 11, 2015 [20 favorites]
The second section was all about the terrible consequences for refusing to trade with Israel, how you can be held accountable, etc etc. See here.
One man's lawful sanctions are another's unlawful boycott. Economic warfare at its finest.
posted by Acey at 9:34 AM on May 11, 2015 [20 favorites]
Meanwhile, elsewhere in the first world: Religion is Fair Game in Norway After Blasphemy Law Repealed. (reposting from here.)
posted by progosk at 9:43 AM on May 11, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by progosk at 9:43 AM on May 11, 2015 [4 favorites]
Excellent news from Norway—I can only hope that Denmark will follow suit (though the blasphemy laws haven’t been used any more here than in Norway). There is, after all, nothing sacred about religion.
posted by bouvin at 9:50 AM on May 11, 2015
posted by bouvin at 9:50 AM on May 11, 2015
"It's a fetish. Invoking the sanctity of free speech among Americans causes otherwise sensible people to become frothing lunatics. It's simpleminded and dumb and is a product of indoctrination."
Thanks for reminding me to renew my ACLU membership, Ivan Fyodorovich.
posted by Guy Smiley at 9:54 AM on May 11, 2015 [32 favorites]
Thanks for reminding me to renew my ACLU membership, Ivan Fyodorovich.
posted by Guy Smiley at 9:54 AM on May 11, 2015 [32 favorites]
This country cannot turn orange fast enough.
Well, that's his fear, and we shouldn't forget that Harper is a master of distraction.
A previously impenetrable Conservative stronghold falls to the NDP, leading to questions about how unshakeable the Conservatives' ostensibly unshakeable base of support really was/is.
"Hey everybody, look over there! Israel! Hate speech! Free speech! Boycotts! Terrorism! Wee! Fight! Fight! Fight!"
This isn't some outlandish conspiracy theory - this is the Harper Conservatives being pragmatic and changing the channel when the questions about the electability of another federal Conservative majority get too uncomfortable.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 9:55 AM on May 11, 2015 [4 favorites]
Well, that's his fear, and we shouldn't forget that Harper is a master of distraction.
A previously impenetrable Conservative stronghold falls to the NDP, leading to questions about how unshakeable the Conservatives' ostensibly unshakeable base of support really was/is.
"Hey everybody, look over there! Israel! Hate speech! Free speech! Boycotts! Terrorism! Wee! Fight! Fight! Fight!"
This isn't some outlandish conspiracy theory - this is the Harper Conservatives being pragmatic and changing the channel when the questions about the electability of another federal Conservative majority get too uncomfortable.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 9:55 AM on May 11, 2015 [4 favorites]
It's a fetish. Invoking the sanctity of free speech among Americans causes otherwise sensible people to become frothing lunatics.
Given what has happened in Europe to people who transgressed verbal and written boundaries (some of which I mentioned upthread), I'd rather be a so-called "frothing lunatic" in the USA than an obedient Euro-sheep for whom certain discussions of certain topics have been deemed absolutely off limits.
"Reasonable limits" to free speech tend to be a weapon that gets increasingly powerful in the hands of politicians and vocal interest groups. And those limits somehow never seem to get rolled back, only increased.
posted by theorique at 10:00 AM on May 11, 2015 [24 favorites]
Given what has happened in Europe to people who transgressed verbal and written boundaries (some of which I mentioned upthread), I'd rather be a so-called "frothing lunatic" in the USA than an obedient Euro-sheep for whom certain discussions of certain topics have been deemed absolutely off limits.
"Reasonable limits" to free speech tend to be a weapon that gets increasingly powerful in the hands of politicians and vocal interest groups. And those limits somehow never seem to get rolled back, only increased.
posted by theorique at 10:00 AM on May 11, 2015 [24 favorites]
Not only is this not legal, I find it inconceivable that anybody would ever be charged in connection with BDS. In order for hate speech to be banned, in Canada, it has to either a) advocate genocide, or b) be likely to incite a breach of the Queen's peace. Not buying Israeli products fits neither criterion.
Now, as far as I know, the government can't just arrest people. They have to ask the police to do it, which means they have to convince the cops that Quakers abstaining from Israeli products might lead to violence. I don't think Canadian police would do such a thing.
And even if they did, the government can't just charge people. The CPS has to do that, and in order to do that they have to determine that there's a reasonable chance of prosecution. Could you imagine at CPS lawyer pondering the question of whether a Canadian jury would convict the Moderator of the United Church for selling shares in an Israeli company?
And even if a prosecutor genuinely thought that a boycott of Settlement products was really hateful, and tended to create hatred against Israelis, and even if they thought this would somehow make people rise up and start smashing things, there are clearly written exemptions in the law for matters pertaining to the public interest and for views arising out of religious belief. You really want to risk your career taking a church to court with the argument that their pacifism didn't arise out of religious belief?
So, in short, there is no way that this idea fits within Canadian law. I have no idea why the Tories would strike such a political posture, nor why the media didn't report it under the headline: "Government Claims Law Irrelevant: 'We don't know how to read' says Conservative spokesperson"
disclaimer: IANAL. I am, though, an anti-BDS, lefty Jew
posted by Dreadnought at 10:08 AM on May 11, 2015 [8 favorites]
Now, as far as I know, the government can't just arrest people. They have to ask the police to do it, which means they have to convince the cops that Quakers abstaining from Israeli products might lead to violence. I don't think Canadian police would do such a thing.
And even if they did, the government can't just charge people. The CPS has to do that, and in order to do that they have to determine that there's a reasonable chance of prosecution. Could you imagine at CPS lawyer pondering the question of whether a Canadian jury would convict the Moderator of the United Church for selling shares in an Israeli company?
And even if a prosecutor genuinely thought that a boycott of Settlement products was really hateful, and tended to create hatred against Israelis, and even if they thought this would somehow make people rise up and start smashing things, there are clearly written exemptions in the law for matters pertaining to the public interest and for views arising out of religious belief. You really want to risk your career taking a church to court with the argument that their pacifism didn't arise out of religious belief?
So, in short, there is no way that this idea fits within Canadian law. I have no idea why the Tories would strike such a political posture, nor why the media didn't report it under the headline: "Government Claims Law Irrelevant: 'We don't know how to read' says Conservative spokesperson"
disclaimer: IANAL. I am, though, an anti-BDS, lefty Jew
posted by Dreadnought at 10:08 AM on May 11, 2015 [8 favorites]
Having government policy for the last decade dictated by a particular sect's theology is not something that has ever made me comfortable.
The tricky part is that it's so hard to see exactly how and where religion fits into Harper's thinking. He doesn't talk about it. I think it's pretty deliberate on his part, as well as the great pains he's taken to prevent new debates on abortion or gay marriage.
The Vancouver Observer article wasn't too enlightening. It quoted Jimmy Swaggart as if that means anything about Harper and his church, it drew inferences on what Harper thinks by quoting his minister, and claimed, without any evidence, that Harper equates Muslims with the Antichrist- all pretty weak stuff.
posted by beau jackson at 10:09 AM on May 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
The tricky part is that it's so hard to see exactly how and where religion fits into Harper's thinking. He doesn't talk about it. I think it's pretty deliberate on his part, as well as the great pains he's taken to prevent new debates on abortion or gay marriage.
The Vancouver Observer article wasn't too enlightening. It quoted Jimmy Swaggart as if that means anything about Harper and his church, it drew inferences on what Harper thinks by quoting his minister, and claimed, without any evidence, that Harper equates Muslims with the Antichrist- all pretty weak stuff.
posted by beau jackson at 10:09 AM on May 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'm not sure either "frothing lunatic" or "obedient Euro-sheep" are phrases that represent nuanced positions in addressing a difficult subject.
posted by maxsparber at 10:10 AM on May 11, 2015 [24 favorites]
posted by maxsparber at 10:10 AM on May 11, 2015 [24 favorites]
Insulting police online banned by Granby, Que., bylaw
Insulting a police officer or municipal official on the internet has been made illegal in the town of Granby, Que., after the council voted unanimously tonight in favour of beefing up an already controversial bylaw.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:15 AM on May 11, 2015
Insulting a police officer or municipal official on the internet has been made illegal in the town of Granby, Que., after the council voted unanimously tonight in favour of beefing up an already controversial bylaw.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:15 AM on May 11, 2015
Citizens United is a natural consequence of this mindless elevation of free speech to a categorical good above all others.
What a load of nonsense. Citizens United is the consequence of miscategorizing corporations as people.
posted by Edgewise at 10:20 AM on May 11, 2015 [19 favorites]
What a load of nonsense. Citizens United is the consequence of miscategorizing corporations as people.
posted by Edgewise at 10:20 AM on May 11, 2015 [19 favorites]
What a load of nonsense. Citizens United is the consequence of miscategorizing corporations as people.
Not to mention miscategorizing money as speech.
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 10:23 AM on May 11, 2015 [18 favorites]
Not to mention miscategorizing money as speech.
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 10:23 AM on May 11, 2015 [18 favorites]
Is a boycott speech? Or is it financial punishment? Is financial punishment a form of money speech? If I do business with someone specifically because I like their politics, is that speech? If I don't do business with someone specifically because of politics, is that? I'm honestly finding this incredibly confusing.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:37 AM on May 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Drinky Die at 10:37 AM on May 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
It's a fetish. Invoking the sanctity of free speech among Americans causes otherwise sensible people to become frothing lunatics.
Citizens United represents a major shift in the definition of "speech" by the Roberts court. You'll find opposition to it from Americans of all political persuasions. My feeling (my hope) is that speech-as-money represents an overreach that will eventually be corrected through the normal political process.
What most Americans understand about political expression is that its regulation by government is highly susceptible to politicization. And yes, this is a distinctly American point of view on both the left and the right. It's an important value that deserves the strictest protections. That it protects speech we may find morally or politically abhorrent is kind of the point.
posted by echocollate at 10:38 AM on May 11, 2015 [8 favorites]
Citizens United represents a major shift in the definition of "speech" by the Roberts court. You'll find opposition to it from Americans of all political persuasions. My feeling (my hope) is that speech-as-money represents an overreach that will eventually be corrected through the normal political process.
What most Americans understand about political expression is that its regulation by government is highly susceptible to politicization. And yes, this is a distinctly American point of view on both the left and the right. It's an important value that deserves the strictest protections. That it protects speech we may find morally or politically abhorrent is kind of the point.
posted by echocollate at 10:38 AM on May 11, 2015 [8 favorites]
I'm honestly finding this incredibly confusing.
Advocating for a boycott is speech. That is what this is about.
posted by Sys Rq at 10:39 AM on May 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
Advocating for a boycott is speech. That is what this is about.
posted by Sys Rq at 10:39 AM on May 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
> I have also tried to discover how the traditionally left-wing mainstream Jewish-American culture feels about Israel morphing into a right-wing cause.
Heartbroken. Have fun gloating.
posted by benito.strauss at 10:39 AM on May 11, 2015 [3 favorites]
Heartbroken. Have fun gloating.
posted by benito.strauss at 10:39 AM on May 11, 2015 [3 favorites]
that it might be considered hate speech and thus prohibited is not absurd.
No, it really is absurd.
"I hate them" might be hate speech. "Those guys are an insidious threat to all that is good in the world, and we should kill them all" might be hate speech. More veiled and ambiguous language disguised as acceptable speech while actually conveying the same message of hate, that might be hate speech. To suggest that "let's boycott Isreal" does anything like that is absurd.
posted by sfenders at 10:49 AM on May 11, 2015 [5 favorites]
No, it really is absurd.
"I hate them" might be hate speech. "Those guys are an insidious threat to all that is good in the world, and we should kill them all" might be hate speech. More veiled and ambiguous language disguised as acceptable speech while actually conveying the same message of hate, that might be hate speech. To suggest that "let's boycott Isreal" does anything like that is absurd.
posted by sfenders at 10:49 AM on May 11, 2015 [5 favorites]
It's especially absurd considering it's predicated on roughly the sort of denialism Canada's hate speech restrictions were originally created for.
Israel has done and is doing some pretty heinous shit. Harper & Co would apparently prefer that you didn't know that.
posted by Sys Rq at 10:55 AM on May 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
Israel has done and is doing some pretty heinous shit. Harper & Co would apparently prefer that you didn't know that.
posted by Sys Rq at 10:55 AM on May 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
It's... odd... to me that there's such a struggle to try to separate "Islam" as a religion from "Islamic" political groups. While Israel seems to be so determined to not allow a differentiation between Israel as a political entity and the Jewish religion.
Add into that mix that there are a fair number of Israeli businesses NOT OWNED BY JEWS and the whole mess overwhelms my monday-brain.
Imma go find some cat videos or something.
posted by ghostiger at 11:01 AM on May 11, 2015
Add into that mix that there are a fair number of Israeli businesses NOT OWNED BY JEWS and the whole mess overwhelms my monday-brain.
Imma go find some cat videos or something.
posted by ghostiger at 11:01 AM on May 11, 2015
I 100% agree, and I think this is actually the strategy. They've cynically put forward a law they know will fail, but will have the short-term chilling effect they want.
Harper has long since memorized the Teapublican handbook--indeed, the handbook being used by right-wing revanchists around the world. He knows full well that this law won't last more than thirty seconds inside a courtroom. That's not its intent--nobody is going to actually be convicted under this law.
The true point of this law is twofold:
1) Squelch dissidence by making it scary to speak out
2) Provide a useful election strategy to rile up the base
No judge in Canada would allow this law to stand. I don't know (paging Lemurrhea) if they can throw out the law as unconstitutional on its face when presented with someone, or whether there would need to be a conviction to be overturned on appeal. (Or, perhaps? Suing for false arrest under an unconstitutional law).
What a load of nonsense. Citizens United is the consequence of miscategorizing corporations as people.
Yeah that's cool and all but we're talking about Canada here and it would be really really awesome if yet again a discussion about Canada weren't derailed into a discussion of the United States instead of Canada, eh?
We are, in fact, a different nation with our own laws and our own identity and just once it would be really nice to talk about us.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:09 AM on May 11, 2015 [13 favorites]
Harper has long since memorized the Teapublican handbook--indeed, the handbook being used by right-wing revanchists around the world. He knows full well that this law won't last more than thirty seconds inside a courtroom. That's not its intent--nobody is going to actually be convicted under this law.
The true point of this law is twofold:
1) Squelch dissidence by making it scary to speak out
2) Provide a useful election strategy to rile up the base
No judge in Canada would allow this law to stand. I don't know (paging Lemurrhea) if they can throw out the law as unconstitutional on its face when presented with someone, or whether there would need to be a conviction to be overturned on appeal. (Or, perhaps? Suing for false arrest under an unconstitutional law).
What a load of nonsense. Citizens United is the consequence of miscategorizing corporations as people.
Yeah that's cool and all but we're talking about Canada here and it would be really really awesome if yet again a discussion about Canada weren't derailed into a discussion of the United States instead of Canada, eh?
We are, in fact, a different nation with our own laws and our own identity and just once it would be really nice to talk about us.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:09 AM on May 11, 2015 [13 favorites]
The smart thing for Canadian activists to do might be to start a "Buy Palestinian" campaign instead. Helps the economy in the occupied territories, and hurts no one.
posted by Pallas Athena at 11:11 AM on May 11, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Pallas Athena at 11:11 AM on May 11, 2015 [3 favorites]
The smart thing for Canadian activists to do might be to start a "Buy Palestinian" campaign instead. Helps the economy in the occupied territories, and hurts no one.
So should I buy a SodaStream or not? I'm so confused!
(Just kidding. It's a terrible product wherever it's made.)
posted by Sys Rq at 11:13 AM on May 11, 2015 [5 favorites]
So should I buy a SodaStream or not? I'm so confused!
(Just kidding. It's a terrible product wherever it's made.)
posted by Sys Rq at 11:13 AM on May 11, 2015 [5 favorites]
It's a fetish. Invoking the sanctity of free speech among Americans causes otherwise sensible people to [...]
Can I just say I vigorously defend your right to say this, no matter how noxious and abhorrent, irrational and wrongheaded I find it to be in a remarkable number of particulars? If I truncate it it's only because I don't find it worth repeating, not because I would censor it in the first instance. But I'd go even further, even saying that I see real value in the fact that you have said it. Such beliefs should be on full display where they exist, not hidden or suppressed.
posted by George_Spiggott at 11:17 AM on May 11, 2015 [21 favorites]
Can I just say I vigorously defend your right to say this, no matter how noxious and abhorrent, irrational and wrongheaded I find it to be in a remarkable number of particulars? If I truncate it it's only because I don't find it worth repeating, not because I would censor it in the first instance. But I'd go even further, even saying that I see real value in the fact that you have said it. Such beliefs should be on full display where they exist, not hidden or suppressed.
posted by George_Spiggott at 11:17 AM on May 11, 2015 [21 favorites]
Since we bought the Mastrad soda maker, I haven't touched the Sodastream. Unlike the sodastream you can do almost anything in it, including fruit juices and wine.
posted by bonehead at 11:18 AM on May 11, 2015
posted by bonehead at 11:18 AM on May 11, 2015
So should I buy a SodaStream or not? I'm so confused!
(Just kidding. It's a terrible product wherever it's made.)
PISTOLS at DAWN, sir!
You may take many things from me, but not my Sodastream!
posted by corb at 11:25 AM on May 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
(Just kidding. It's a terrible product wherever it's made.)
PISTOLS at DAWN, sir!
You may take many things from me, but not my Sodastream!
posted by corb at 11:25 AM on May 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
I don't want it. I'm not going to take it from you.
Nor those pistols you're so fond of.
posted by Sys Rq at 11:33 AM on May 11, 2015 [9 favorites]
Nor those pistols you're so fond of.
posted by Sys Rq at 11:33 AM on May 11, 2015 [9 favorites]
I'd suggest seltzer bottles, paces optional, pants mandatory.
posted by bonehead at 11:39 AM on May 11, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by bonehead at 11:39 AM on May 11, 2015 [6 favorites]
As I understand it, the US is something of an outlier in its strong free speech protections.
While not forbidden, you will have adverse US tax consequences if you "participate" in an "international boycott."
posted by melissasaurus at 11:41 AM on May 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
While not forbidden, you will have adverse US tax consequences if you "participate" in an "international boycott."
posted by melissasaurus at 11:41 AM on May 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'd suggest seltzer bottles, paces optional, pants mandatory.
This is going to be a most unusual international incident.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 11:44 AM on May 11, 2015 [6 favorites]
This is going to be a most unusual international incident.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 11:44 AM on May 11, 2015 [6 favorites]
I believe that as the challenged individual, the choice of pants or not should be my esteemed opponents'.
posted by corb at 12:03 PM on May 11, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by corb at 12:03 PM on May 11, 2015 [6 favorites]
I have also tried to discover how the traditionally left-wing mainstream Jewish-American culture feels about Israel morphing into a right-wing cause.
Heartbroken. Have fun gloating.
Why would anyone gloat about that? It's seems a difficult position to be in.
posted by umberto at 12:23 PM on May 11, 2015
Heartbroken. Have fun gloating.
Why would anyone gloat about that? It's seems a difficult position to be in.
posted by umberto at 12:23 PM on May 11, 2015
Congress Votes Against European Boycotts of Israeli Settlements
While the language of the amendment does not directly specify punitive action toward countries that boycott Israel, the implication is that U.S.-E.U. free trade relations are conditional upon European countries abstaining from the BDS movement.Indiana Senate passes anti-BDS resolution
Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), the author of the amendment, first offered the anti-BDS language as a separate bill, which he announced at AIPAC’s annual policy conference in March.
Cardin was one of the top recipients of funding from pro-Israel political action committees during the 2012 Senate race. According to Open Secrets, a nonprofit that tracks the influence of money in U.S. politics, Cardin received just shy of $218,000 during the campaign cycle.
Resolution 74, adopted earlier this week, makes Indiana’s legislature the second in the United States to pass a resolution condemning BDS, or the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign. Tennessee passed a similar appeal last month.posted by RobotVoodooPower at 12:25 PM on May 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
It's a fetish. Invoking the sanctity of free speech among Americans causes otherwise sensible people to become frothing lunatics.
Restrictions on speech are sensible only to people of authoritarian temperament who don't trust the populace with the power of thought.
posted by jayder at 12:45 PM on May 11, 2015 [9 favorites]
Restrictions on speech are sensible only to people of authoritarian temperament who don't trust the populace with the power of thought.
posted by jayder at 12:45 PM on May 11, 2015 [9 favorites]
> Invoking the sanctity of free speech among Americans causes otherwise sensible people to
> become frothing lunatics. It's simpleminded and dumb and is a product of indoctrination.
Just so you know, Ivan, saying things like that should be against the law. And it's entirely possible that one day within your lifetime you will look around and hey whoops it is.
> Heartbroken. Have fun gloating.
Not Jewish but color me heartbroken and not in the least inclined to gloat.
posted by jfuller at 12:56 PM on May 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
> become frothing lunatics. It's simpleminded and dumb and is a product of indoctrination.
Just so you know, Ivan, saying things like that should be against the law. And it's entirely possible that one day within your lifetime you will look around and hey whoops it is.
> Heartbroken. Have fun gloating.
Not Jewish but color me heartbroken and not in the least inclined to gloat.
posted by jfuller at 12:56 PM on May 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
If we're going to lecture people in the thread that we're discussing Canada, not America, can we limit ourselves to discussing Canadian attitudes toward freedom of speech, rather than the intractable absolutist American standards?
posted by maxsparber at 12:57 PM on May 11, 2015 [12 favorites]
posted by maxsparber at 12:57 PM on May 11, 2015 [12 favorites]
No, and that's exactly the lunacy that Ivan is talking about. Hate speech does exist, and I'm glad we have laws against it. That's not authoritarianism, that's society exercising its duty to protect minorities.
Thinking and speech/action are totally different things. There are literally no laws criminalizing thought; conflating restrictions on speech with restrictions on thought is, again, the frothing lunacy that Ivan was alluding to.
Plus, speech isn't actually unrestricted, including in the USA. Which makes the usual absolutism trotted out here even more bloody tiresome. Child pornography, classified military information, uttering death threats, harrassment, libel, slander, defamation of character--these are all illegal. In Canada, we draw the line in a different place; we say that certain forms of speech that promote hatred against minorities are also illegal. Believe whatever bigoted antediluvian things in the privacy of your own skull that you want to. What you don't get to to is say that all queers should be killed, or say the Holocaust never happened and Jews are lying (see: Ernst Zundel), or that people of colour are inferior. Because certain forms of speech/action are absolutely terrorism designed to frighten minorities.
Harper is using a blatantly unconstitutional law to stifle dissent and wind up the base. Exactly as right-wingers are doing all over the world. That doesn't make laws against hate speech bad things.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:58 PM on May 11, 2015 [27 favorites]
Thinking and speech/action are totally different things. There are literally no laws criminalizing thought; conflating restrictions on speech with restrictions on thought is, again, the frothing lunacy that Ivan was alluding to.
Plus, speech isn't actually unrestricted, including in the USA. Which makes the usual absolutism trotted out here even more bloody tiresome. Child pornography, classified military information, uttering death threats, harrassment, libel, slander, defamation of character--these are all illegal. In Canada, we draw the line in a different place; we say that certain forms of speech that promote hatred against minorities are also illegal. Believe whatever bigoted antediluvian things in the privacy of your own skull that you want to. What you don't get to to is say that all queers should be killed, or say the Holocaust never happened and Jews are lying (see: Ernst Zundel), or that people of colour are inferior. Because certain forms of speech/action are absolutely terrorism designed to frighten minorities.
Harper is using a blatantly unconstitutional law to stifle dissent and wind up the base. Exactly as right-wingers are doing all over the world. That doesn't make laws against hate speech bad things.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:58 PM on May 11, 2015 [27 favorites]
Je suis Charlie*
je me souviens
*charlie — noun — 1. (British, informal) a silly person; fool —
Collins English Dictionary
posted by fredludd at 12:59 PM on May 11, 2015
je me souviens
*charlie — noun — 1. (British, informal) a silly person; fool —
Collins English Dictionary
posted by fredludd at 12:59 PM on May 11, 2015
(that was initially in response to jayder; works as a response to jfuller too)
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:59 PM on May 11, 2015
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:59 PM on May 11, 2015
Woke up to this posted by my friend on facebook with the comment "come and get me."
She is a lawyer, and Jewish, and would love to be the Palestinian rights activist who takes this down.
I love her.
posted by chapps at 1:06 PM on May 11, 2015 [4 favorites]
She is a lawyer, and Jewish, and would love to be the Palestinian rights activist who takes this down.
I love her.
posted by chapps at 1:06 PM on May 11, 2015 [4 favorites]
Mod note: One comment deleted. Back off the personal stuff, everybody. Discuss positions on the issues, fine, but drop the personalized "you people are like this" stuff.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 1:08 PM on May 11, 2015
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 1:08 PM on May 11, 2015
> That's not authoritarianism, that's society exercising its duty to protect minorities.
When the definition of hate speech changes to include things you say, it will be society doing that too.
posted by jfuller at 1:36 PM on May 11, 2015 [3 favorites]
When the definition of hate speech changes to include things you say, it will be society doing that too.
posted by jfuller at 1:36 PM on May 11, 2015 [3 favorites]
To me, at least, it seems that people that support what I think are bad laws, such as those about stifling free speech for reasons of inciting hatred, always assume that those with their political mindset will be the ones in power. I always assume bad laws will be used against me and those like me, and that's why I find them suspect ...
**standing ovation***
Beware the "just society" you believe you're creating when you pass laws like this. Because the people you like least will find a way to use those laws against you.
"But that's not what I meant!" And by then, it's too late
posted by kgasmart at 1:38 PM on May 11, 2015 [3 favorites]
**standing ovation***
Beware the "just society" you believe you're creating when you pass laws like this. Because the people you like least will find a way to use those laws against you.
"But that's not what I meant!" And by then, it's too late
posted by kgasmart at 1:38 PM on May 11, 2015 [3 favorites]
When the definition of hate speech changes to include things you say, it will be society doing that too.
Restricted speech in all nations already includes things you say.
"I am going to kill you" - illegal; death threat (I have actually had to have a roommate arrested for doing exactly this--it was a credible threat)
"This person abuses their spouse" - (if untrue) illegal; libel/slander/defamation depending on the venue of communication
"The military's CockReplacer2000 can fire 100 TinyDicks per second" - illegal; disclosing state secrets
"All Jews should be killed" - illegal in Canada; hate speech.
This is why the absolutism is so tiring; speech is already restricted everywhere. And yet Americans like to pretend it isn't, and then like to waltz into threads about totally other countries and tell us we're doing it wrong. Clean your own house first, please.
More to the point, most of the time the people who complain about hate speech laws are the people who are never, ever subject to hate speech. It's privilege rearing its ugly head again. If you're white and cis and male and heterosexual and not Jewish, the overwhelming likelihood is that in Europe and North America--or, to bring it back to what this thread is actually about, Canada--you will never, ever be subjected to hate speech. So naturally you're (that's the general 'you') able to stand on principles, because it will literally never ever affect you.
Those of us who are queer or Jewish or of colour--or, for that matter, women whether cis or trans; I'm unaware of any hate speech rulings in Canada regarding treatment of women; there may be some however--are very much affected by hate speech. And we view the laws as necessary not just for our own protection in a very literal sense, but also for our ability to interact with society in a full manner, without fear. Without having to hide who we are.
So maybe, just maybe, it might be worth re-examining the free speech absolutism in light of:
1) We are a different country with different beliefs that actually work for us, notwithstanding the slimy gormless weasel currently in charge;
2) Hate speech laws protect minorities from having to live in fear;
3) Speech is already restricted everywhere, including the USA.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:52 PM on May 11, 2015 [20 favorites]
Restricted speech in all nations already includes things you say.
"I am going to kill you" - illegal; death threat (I have actually had to have a roommate arrested for doing exactly this--it was a credible threat)
"This person abuses their spouse" - (if untrue) illegal; libel/slander/defamation depending on the venue of communication
"The military's CockReplacer2000 can fire 100 TinyDicks per second" - illegal; disclosing state secrets
"All Jews should be killed" - illegal in Canada; hate speech.
This is why the absolutism is so tiring; speech is already restricted everywhere. And yet Americans like to pretend it isn't, and then like to waltz into threads about totally other countries and tell us we're doing it wrong. Clean your own house first, please.
More to the point, most of the time the people who complain about hate speech laws are the people who are never, ever subject to hate speech. It's privilege rearing its ugly head again. If you're white and cis and male and heterosexual and not Jewish, the overwhelming likelihood is that in Europe and North America--or, to bring it back to what this thread is actually about, Canada--you will never, ever be subjected to hate speech. So naturally you're (that's the general 'you') able to stand on principles, because it will literally never ever affect you.
Those of us who are queer or Jewish or of colour--or, for that matter, women whether cis or trans; I'm unaware of any hate speech rulings in Canada regarding treatment of women; there may be some however--are very much affected by hate speech. And we view the laws as necessary not just for our own protection in a very literal sense, but also for our ability to interact with society in a full manner, without fear. Without having to hide who we are.
So maybe, just maybe, it might be worth re-examining the free speech absolutism in light of:
1) We are a different country with different beliefs that actually work for us, notwithstanding the slimy gormless weasel currently in charge;
2) Hate speech laws protect minorities from having to live in fear;
3) Speech is already restricted everywhere, including the USA.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:52 PM on May 11, 2015 [20 favorites]
In Canada, we draw the line in a different place; we say that certain forms of speech that promote hatred against minorities are also illegal.
Not just minorities—any identifiable group.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 1:56 PM on May 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
Not just minorities—any identifiable group.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 1:56 PM on May 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
The thing is, I don't think that criminalization of the economic means of holding the companies that fail to reform the Israeli Government accountable (boycotts) is even similar to laws preventing hate speech against Jews. The laws themselves are wonderful, the abuse of the law in this manner needs to be prevented in some way, however.
posted by mikelieman at 1:57 PM on May 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by mikelieman at 1:57 PM on May 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
2) Hate speech laws protect minorities from having to live in fear
Really? Minorities in countries with hate speech laws don't live in fear because of those laws?
Tell that to the Jewish people living in Paris (for example).
posted by el io at 1:58 PM on May 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
Really? Minorities in countries with hate speech laws don't live in fear because of those laws?
Tell that to the Jewish people living in Paris (for example).
posted by el io at 1:58 PM on May 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
True, omdtlp, though I doubt it would be possible to bring successful hate speech prosecution against e.g. women saying "kill all the men." Whether it should be possible is neither here nor there; I just don't think anyone would look at that and think it's a good idea.
Sadly, however, I suspect if a bunch of First Nations people started saying "Kill whitey," they'd be in jail PDQ, which is a terrible double standard. Our treatment of First Nations people is our national shame.
Really? Minorities in countries with hate speech laws don't live in fear because of those laws?
We live in the knowledge that, theoretically at least, people will be punished for terrorizing us. Creates a higher bar to entry, which helps reduce fear.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 2:02 PM on May 11, 2015
Sadly, however, I suspect if a bunch of First Nations people started saying "Kill whitey," they'd be in jail PDQ, which is a terrible double standard. Our treatment of First Nations people is our national shame.
Really? Minorities in countries with hate speech laws don't live in fear because of those laws?
We live in the knowledge that, theoretically at least, people will be punished for terrorizing us. Creates a higher bar to entry, which helps reduce fear.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 2:02 PM on May 11, 2015
I wish there was some sort of an index or assessment of the situation with free speech in different countries, so we could compare it with that country's legislation. It's obviously a difficult thing to measure, so as a result there only seem to be things like the Free Press Index. And at least according to this particular proxy measure, US is not doing that great.
The Estonian (where I live) constitution has a rather limited free expression clause down in paragraph 45*, yet is 11th in the freedom of the press index, while the US is 46th.
* - "Everyone has the right to freely disseminate ideas, opinions, beliefs and other information by word, print, picture or other means. This right may be restricted by law to protect public order, morals, and the rights and freedoms, health, honour and good name of others."
posted by Pyrogenesis at 2:05 PM on May 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
The Estonian (where I live) constitution has a rather limited free expression clause down in paragraph 45*, yet is 11th in the freedom of the press index, while the US is 46th.
* - "Everyone has the right to freely disseminate ideas, opinions, beliefs and other information by word, print, picture or other means. This right may be restricted by law to protect public order, morals, and the rights and freedoms, health, honour and good name of others."
posted by Pyrogenesis at 2:05 PM on May 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
"I'm unaware of any hate speech rulings in Canada regarding treatment of women; there may be some however..."
Significantly, R v Butler [1992], an obscenity case (which is also unprotected speech in the US) which interpreted the notional obscenity within the context of likening the degradation of women by pornography to a hate crime.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 2:06 PM on May 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
Significantly, R v Butler [1992], an obscenity case (which is also unprotected speech in the US) which interpreted the notional obscenity within the context of likening the degradation of women by pornography to a hate crime.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 2:06 PM on May 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
Thinking and speech/action are totally different things. There are literally no laws criminalizing thought; conflating restrictions on speech with restrictions on thought is, again, the frothing lunacy that Ivan was alluding to.
It would be impossible to outlaw thought for the simple reason that we cannot, as yet, show that somebody thinks (or believes) any given thing without them saying it. But if the simple utterance of a thing formed as a thought were to be unlawful, then the line between that and thought would be thin indeed.
You also rightly point out that speech itself is not unrestricted, even in the US. In Common Law, you can assault a person simply by making them apprehend violence. I remember, maybe ten years ago now, being told by a young man in the street, "we don't want to see you around here again batty boy, you understand?". He added a flourish of forming a pistol with his fingers and pointing it at me. Those were just words and gestures, but constituted common assault (or worse) regardless of the hate speech aspect.
I reported that as a crime partly because it happened near where I lived and I wanted some reassurance of feeling safe. There was never any outcome, which I more or less expected. But I do not think, at least now if not then, that I would have been satisfied were the person in question to have been prosecuted as simply making a homophobic comment. He committed a crime by threatening violence, not by insulting or offending my (supposed) sexuality. Were he to have threatened me on any other basis—being a Lib Dem voter, a meat eater, a teetotaller, being from the countryside, or indeed anything—I would also wish to see him prosecuted.
Yet there used to be, some years ago, a woman who stood outside the market railing against unChristian sins with her small posters stuck to the wall or wielded as she spoke. She often seemed to be speaking about homosexuality, for the little attention I paid to her. But I never thought she was going to hurt me then, or later. I felt not the slightest threat from her presence, even were I to stand within armslength of her. I don't know where she went to (maybe she died?) but it saddens me to think that maybe the law shut her up, when it never was needed.
More to the point, most of the time the people who complain about hate speech laws are the people who are never, ever subject to hate speech.
So now, if you think that, you've had another thought coming.
posted by Thing at 2:18 PM on May 11, 2015 [4 favorites]
It would be impossible to outlaw thought for the simple reason that we cannot, as yet, show that somebody thinks (or believes) any given thing without them saying it. But if the simple utterance of a thing formed as a thought were to be unlawful, then the line between that and thought would be thin indeed.
You also rightly point out that speech itself is not unrestricted, even in the US. In Common Law, you can assault a person simply by making them apprehend violence. I remember, maybe ten years ago now, being told by a young man in the street, "we don't want to see you around here again batty boy, you understand?". He added a flourish of forming a pistol with his fingers and pointing it at me. Those were just words and gestures, but constituted common assault (or worse) regardless of the hate speech aspect.
I reported that as a crime partly because it happened near where I lived and I wanted some reassurance of feeling safe. There was never any outcome, which I more or less expected. But I do not think, at least now if not then, that I would have been satisfied were the person in question to have been prosecuted as simply making a homophobic comment. He committed a crime by threatening violence, not by insulting or offending my (supposed) sexuality. Were he to have threatened me on any other basis—being a Lib Dem voter, a meat eater, a teetotaller, being from the countryside, or indeed anything—I would also wish to see him prosecuted.
Yet there used to be, some years ago, a woman who stood outside the market railing against unChristian sins with her small posters stuck to the wall or wielded as she spoke. She often seemed to be speaking about homosexuality, for the little attention I paid to her. But I never thought she was going to hurt me then, or later. I felt not the slightest threat from her presence, even were I to stand within armslength of her. I don't know where she went to (maybe she died?) but it saddens me to think that maybe the law shut her up, when it never was needed.
More to the point, most of the time the people who complain about hate speech laws are the people who are never, ever subject to hate speech.
So now, if you think that, you've had another thought coming.
posted by Thing at 2:18 PM on May 11, 2015 [4 favorites]
But I do not think, at least now if not then, that I would have been satisfied were the person in question to have been prosecuted as simply making a homophobic comment. He committed a crime by threatening violence, not by insulting or offending my (supposed) sexuality.
In Canada, he committed two crimes--the threat of violence and a hate crime. Hate crimes are an enhancement, not a substitution.
If someone kills me, that's a crime. If someone kills me for being gay (in a way that makes their motivation clear), they have committed murder and a hate crime. The point of hate crimes legislation is that hate crimes terrorize entire groups, not just the individual. If my dead body is found with e.g. "die faggot" spraypainted around me, it's not just me that suffers; it's every queer person around who now has to add another level of fear to their day to day activities, not knowing if they're targeted next.
More to the point, most of the time the people who complain about hate speech laws are the people who are never, ever subject to hate speech.
So now, if you think that, you've had another thought coming.
Which would be why I said "most" and not "all."
She often seemed to be speaking about homosexuality, for the little attention I paid to her. But I never thought she was going to hurt me then, or later.
If she wasn't counselling violence or genocide, or inciting hatred, then under Canadian law she wasn't committing a hate crime. So your concern is likely misplaced.
"I believe all homosexual acts are a sin and you shouldn't do them" - not a hate crime
"I believe all homosexual acts are a sin and all homosexuals should be put to death" - is a hate crime
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 2:29 PM on May 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
In Canada, he committed two crimes--the threat of violence and a hate crime. Hate crimes are an enhancement, not a substitution.
If someone kills me, that's a crime. If someone kills me for being gay (in a way that makes their motivation clear), they have committed murder and a hate crime. The point of hate crimes legislation is that hate crimes terrorize entire groups, not just the individual. If my dead body is found with e.g. "die faggot" spraypainted around me, it's not just me that suffers; it's every queer person around who now has to add another level of fear to their day to day activities, not knowing if they're targeted next.
More to the point, most of the time the people who complain about hate speech laws are the people who are never, ever subject to hate speech.
So now, if you think that, you've had another thought coming.
Which would be why I said "most" and not "all."
She often seemed to be speaking about homosexuality, for the little attention I paid to her. But I never thought she was going to hurt me then, or later.
If she wasn't counselling violence or genocide, or inciting hatred, then under Canadian law she wasn't committing a hate crime. So your concern is likely misplaced.
"I believe all homosexual acts are a sin and you shouldn't do them" - not a hate crime
"I believe all homosexual acts are a sin and all homosexuals should be put to death" - is a hate crime
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 2:29 PM on May 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
"I am going to kill you" - illegal; death threat
Which is why there are so many Gamergators currently in police custody... oh, wait.
The only justification I can come up with for absolutism in "Freedom of Speech" is to allow the evil, the hateful, the terroristic to feel comfortable exposing themselves publicly before they take action, whch SHOULD save the Massive American Security Apparatus the need to do so much datamining of private communications.
But somehow, the voices of the evil, the hateful, the terroristic are AMPLIFIED by this "Freedom of Speech", especially on the Free Internet, drowning out almost anything reasonable. That's why I ONLY participate in forums that are Moderated by people I have learned to trust (LIKE HERE) and where there is no assumption of Absolute Freedom of Speech. (And I'd like to thank the Moderators here for MOST of the times they've deleted my comments... MOST of them really deserved it, and if not all of them, hey, nobody's perfect.)
The First Amendment was never meant to be interpreted the way it is, any more than The Second Amendment. The Founding Fathers (who I don't see much more reason to respect than any political ruling class ) knew that Freedom of the Press only belongs to someone who can afford to own one and Freedom of Religion only applies until you choose one, then your Freedom is yielded to the Church's currently living Authorized Interpreters of God's Will. Citizens United is totally in keeping with the 'Original Intent' of the Constitution, which was never meant to allow the slaves as much right to speak as the slaveowners. And that's what is wrong with it.
BTW, in the name of Freedom of Speech, wouldn't it be perfectly legal in the U.S. to advertise for products you acquired in violation of the U.S. Government's own boycotts of products from Cuba, Iran, North Korea, etc.? Boycotts are only speech, right?
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:40 PM on May 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
Which is why there are so many Gamergators currently in police custody... oh, wait.
The only justification I can come up with for absolutism in "Freedom of Speech" is to allow the evil, the hateful, the terroristic to feel comfortable exposing themselves publicly before they take action, whch SHOULD save the Massive American Security Apparatus the need to do so much datamining of private communications.
But somehow, the voices of the evil, the hateful, the terroristic are AMPLIFIED by this "Freedom of Speech", especially on the Free Internet, drowning out almost anything reasonable. That's why I ONLY participate in forums that are Moderated by people I have learned to trust (LIKE HERE) and where there is no assumption of Absolute Freedom of Speech. (And I'd like to thank the Moderators here for MOST of the times they've deleted my comments... MOST of them really deserved it, and if not all of them, hey, nobody's perfect.)
The First Amendment was never meant to be interpreted the way it is, any more than The Second Amendment. The Founding Fathers (who I don't see much more reason to respect than any political ruling class ) knew that Freedom of the Press only belongs to someone who can afford to own one and Freedom of Religion only applies until you choose one, then your Freedom is yielded to the Church's currently living Authorized Interpreters of God's Will. Citizens United is totally in keeping with the 'Original Intent' of the Constitution, which was never meant to allow the slaves as much right to speak as the slaveowners. And that's what is wrong with it.
BTW, in the name of Freedom of Speech, wouldn't it be perfectly legal in the U.S. to advertise for products you acquired in violation of the U.S. Government's own boycotts of products from Cuba, Iran, North Korea, etc.? Boycotts are only speech, right?
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:40 PM on May 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
I'm not at all surprised by this. Unlike other forms of protest speech, boycotts are actually effective, and target countries and businesses where it hurts; the pocketbook. After the success of the anti-apartheid boycotts, there is no way that governments would allow this method of protest to contribute.
I'm actually anticipating some time in the near future for a reviewer to get shut down for stating their opinions on whether someone should buy the latest Orson Scott Card book.
posted by happyroach at 2:45 PM on May 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
I'm actually anticipating some time in the near future for a reviewer to get shut down for stating their opinions on whether someone should buy the latest Orson Scott Card book.
posted by happyroach at 2:45 PM on May 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
In Canada, he committed two crimes--the threat of violence and a hate crime. Hate crimes are an enhancement, not a substitution.
I'm talking about hate speech law, not hate crime. Hate crime consideration as part of sentencing is acceptable to me, or at least not obviously wrong. Hate speech is where the hate itself, merely communicated, can be considered a freestanding crime. This is a basic distinction.
"I believe all homosexual acts are a sin and all homosexuals should be put to death" - is a hate crime
I do not understand why saying this should be criminal if it does not reach the level for prosecution as incitement to murder (or whatever the equivalent is in a jurisdiction). And were it to do so, there is no need for a separate law except the possibility, admitted above, that increased sentencing as a hate crime (rather than prosecution as hate speech) may apply.
posted by Thing at 2:45 PM on May 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
I'm talking about hate speech law, not hate crime. Hate crime consideration as part of sentencing is acceptable to me, or at least not obviously wrong. Hate speech is where the hate itself, merely communicated, can be considered a freestanding crime. This is a basic distinction.
"I believe all homosexual acts are a sin and all homosexuals should be put to death" - is a hate crime
I do not understand why saying this should be criminal if it does not reach the level for prosecution as incitement to murder (or whatever the equivalent is in a jurisdiction). And were it to do so, there is no need for a separate law except the possibility, admitted above, that increased sentencing as a hate crime (rather than prosecution as hate speech) may apply.
posted by Thing at 2:45 PM on May 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
BTW, in the name of Freedom of Speech, wouldn't it be perfectly legal in the U.S. to advertise for products you acquired in violation of the U.S. Government's own boycotts of products from Cuba, Iran, North Korea, etc.? Boycotts are only speech, right?
Commercial speech can be restricted more tightly than can individual speech. I'd have to brush up on the case law, but I bet Congress could make that illegal.
posted by enjoymoreradio at 2:49 PM on May 11, 2015
Commercial speech can be restricted more tightly than can individual speech. I'd have to brush up on the case law, but I bet Congress could make that illegal.
posted by enjoymoreradio at 2:49 PM on May 11, 2015
I'd suggest that you go and start from the Wikipedia link I provided. This and this are also useful to read.
Hate speech is where the hate itself, merely communicated, can be considered a freestanding crime.
Speech is an action.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 2:49 PM on May 11, 2015
Hate speech is where the hate itself, merely communicated, can be considered a freestanding crime.
Speech is an action.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 2:49 PM on May 11, 2015
Another good (wikipedia) primer to hate speech laws in Canada can be found here.
This article has me agreeing with the critique given by the National Post (what?).
But as far as freedom of press goes, Canada is rated higher than the US by Reporters Sans Frontières (as is El Salvador and many many other countries).
posted by el io at 3:00 PM on May 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
This article has me agreeing with the critique given by the National Post (what?).
But as far as freedom of press goes, Canada is rated higher than the US by Reporters Sans Frontières (as is El Salvador and many many other countries).
posted by el io at 3:00 PM on May 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
Glenn Greenwald:
Canadian Government Says Free Speech is for Offending Muslims — Not Opposing Israel
Email Exchange Between CBC and Public Safety Department Spokesperson on BDS Prosecutions
> I have also tried to discover how the traditionally left-wing mainstream Jewish-American culture feels about Israel morphing into a right-wing cause.
When liberal Zionists' liberalism and Zionism conflict, usually liberalism is sacrificed. See: history of Israel, Democratic Party, pro-Israel university campus activism, J Street, etc. Maybe that's changing, however.
> When ANSWER holds BDS rallies with speaker after speaker getting up and saying shitty things about Israelis and Jews
Not really sure what you're talking about here, but the last ANSWER Palestine rally I went to prominently featured Jewish speakers, so... not sure why they would attend if what you claim is the case actually happens.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 3:11 PM on May 11, 2015 [4 favorites]
Canadian Government Says Free Speech is for Offending Muslims — Not Opposing Israel
Email Exchange Between CBC and Public Safety Department Spokesperson on BDS Prosecutions
> I have also tried to discover how the traditionally left-wing mainstream Jewish-American culture feels about Israel morphing into a right-wing cause.
When liberal Zionists' liberalism and Zionism conflict, usually liberalism is sacrificed. See: history of Israel, Democratic Party, pro-Israel university campus activism, J Street, etc. Maybe that's changing, however.
> When ANSWER holds BDS rallies with speaker after speaker getting up and saying shitty things about Israelis and Jews
Not really sure what you're talking about here, but the last ANSWER Palestine rally I went to prominently featured Jewish speakers, so... not sure why they would attend if what you claim is the case actually happens.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 3:11 PM on May 11, 2015 [4 favorites]
So I take it the song, "American Woman"is a criminal offense now, in Canuckland, eh?
posted by Oyéah at 3:40 PM on May 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Oyéah at 3:40 PM on May 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
I appreciate the defense of Canada's unique laws, and think all should heed the call to not confuse the U.S.A. with the rest of the world, but does anyone really think this is a free speech issue?
posted by cell divide at 3:54 PM on May 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by cell divide at 3:54 PM on May 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
Our laws aren't that unique, though.
And no, of course it's not a free speech issue really; it's a campaign issue for energizing the PC base. (PC = Progressive Conservative, not Politically Correct). Which is yet another reason I hate this fixed election date thing--historically in Canada, campaigning of any sort is not allowed until a writ of election is dropped, which only gives a maximum of six weeks until the election must be held. We're slowly creeping into permanent campaigning status and it is terrible.
Harper's just going to use this as a bludgeon, since Trudeau took away his ability to use C-51 (The Canadian PATRIOT Act, essentially) as one. I'm sure he gives no fucks if anyone is convicted under this law, since nobody with more than a grade 6 education could possibly think this was legal.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 4:07 PM on May 11, 2015
And no, of course it's not a free speech issue really; it's a campaign issue for energizing the PC base. (PC = Progressive Conservative, not Politically Correct). Which is yet another reason I hate this fixed election date thing--historically in Canada, campaigning of any sort is not allowed until a writ of election is dropped, which only gives a maximum of six weeks until the election must be held. We're slowly creeping into permanent campaigning status and it is terrible.
Harper's just going to use this as a bludgeon, since Trudeau took away his ability to use C-51 (The Canadian PATRIOT Act, essentially) as one. I'm sure he gives no fucks if anyone is convicted under this law, since nobody with more than a grade 6 education could possibly think this was legal.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 4:07 PM on May 11, 2015
I don't know (paging Lemurrhea) if they can throw out the law as unconstitutional on its face when presented with someone, or whether there would need to be a conviction to be overturned on appeal. (Or, perhaps? Suing for false arrest under an unconstitutional law).
Relatively certain that the way it would work is:
During the trial process (technically before the trial, after they set bail and all that jazz), the accused would notify the prosecutor/Crown that they were going to argue the law, as applied, is unconstitutional. That would be an aspect of the trial. Then the judge would make some rulings on it. Whichever party lost would probably appeal at least one level up. So yes, it could indeed be thrown out, no conviction ever entered. Alternatively and perhaps more likely, a public interest group would bring a civil suit against the Feds for a declaratory statement that the law cannot be applied in that type of situation.
I agree with everyone who says that this is a political ploy. It's the standard Conservative playbook - pass shitty laws, let the judges knock them down, rile up their base. So it goes - and that's not to advocate complacency, because before the law gets shot down it'll have a huge chilling effect.
posted by Lemurrhea at 4:10 PM on May 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
Relatively certain that the way it would work is:
During the trial process (technically before the trial, after they set bail and all that jazz), the accused would notify the prosecutor/Crown that they were going to argue the law, as applied, is unconstitutional. That would be an aspect of the trial. Then the judge would make some rulings on it. Whichever party lost would probably appeal at least one level up. So yes, it could indeed be thrown out, no conviction ever entered. Alternatively and perhaps more likely, a public interest group would bring a civil suit against the Feds for a declaratory statement that the law cannot be applied in that type of situation.
I agree with everyone who says that this is a political ploy. It's the standard Conservative playbook - pass shitty laws, let the judges knock them down, rile up their base. So it goes - and that's not to advocate complacency, because before the law gets shot down it'll have a huge chilling effect.
posted by Lemurrhea at 4:10 PM on May 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
Can someone bring suit if nobody has (yet) been harmed? Or do they only have to show potential harm via chilling effects?
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 4:13 PM on May 11, 2015
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 4:13 PM on May 11, 2015
It's entirely likely that the Harper regime's attitude towards Jews in Israel will abruptly change when the Temple is rebuilt and Jesus shows up.
posted by Jessica Savitch's Coke Spoon at 5:35 PM on May 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Jessica Savitch's Coke Spoon at 5:35 PM on May 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
I can't imagine any coherent formula that says it's OK to tell people not to buy from Israelis, but wrong to tell them not to buy from Jews (and gays and blacks &c). Even in the USA it's illegal to actually refuse to do business with Jews; I can't see why incitement to hate crimes ought to be protected when the crime itself is prohibited.
As a practical matter, BDS doesn't just attack Israelis: it attacks people's commercial, educational, and cultural ties with Israel. For instance, activists at UCLA last year asked student candidates to commit to refusing Birthright and similar trips to Israel. Non-Jewish candidates had no problem signing that commitment, of course. Similarly, the Tricycle Theater in London refused to let last year's annual Jewish Film Festival go ahead after the Festival declined to return some small amount (£1,400 I think) it had received from the Israeli embassy. It's worth pointing out that no similar demands were made in connection with any other festival, any other cultural group, or any other nation. Somewhere between a third and half the world's Jews are Israeli; I suppose most Jews consequently have substantial connections with it. Even if there were no anti-Semitic motive behind these demands, they effectively punish Jews for their familial, religious, and/or cultural links to the Jewish State.
Another example of Jewish vulnerability to BDS is the availability of kosher food products, many of which come from Israel. Orthodox Jews depend on these; a campaign against Sabra houmous may remove the only kosher food that's readily available on campus. And it's not as if BDS protestors or the people they intimidate can be relied upon to make nice distinctions: last year an English supermarket removed all its kosher products in response to a BDS demonstration. The supermarket chain apologised later, but it would be naive to think that this doesn't have a chilling effect on businesses that carry kosher products.
Even left-wing cultural and educational groups that profess support for BDS often end up being explicitly anti-Semitic. Here's a story about an Australian theatre that refused to rent its premises to a Jewish student group; and a few months ago at UCLA (again) a Jewish candidate for a student position was quizzed for forty minutes (!) about whether she could be "unbiased", given her religion. Eventually a faculty member stepped in to rule that no, being Jewish was not in itself a conflict of interest.
Finally, even people who think that BDS is justified discrimination need to recognise that it uses the same tactics and arouses the same emotions as actual hate crimes. BDS demonstrations are often violent in themselves and frequently spill over into riots against Jewish businesses or cultural institutions. BDS isn't a new thing; it's a direct continuation of anti-Jewish boycotts from the 1920s through to the present day. It is discriminatory by its very nature and it has repeatedly been the justification and excuse for blatant anti-Semitic bigotry. I have no idea whether this proposed legislation will go through or whether it will work, but I profoundly hope it does.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:47 PM on May 11, 2015 [4 favorites]
As a practical matter, BDS doesn't just attack Israelis: it attacks people's commercial, educational, and cultural ties with Israel. For instance, activists at UCLA last year asked student candidates to commit to refusing Birthright and similar trips to Israel. Non-Jewish candidates had no problem signing that commitment, of course. Similarly, the Tricycle Theater in London refused to let last year's annual Jewish Film Festival go ahead after the Festival declined to return some small amount (£1,400 I think) it had received from the Israeli embassy. It's worth pointing out that no similar demands were made in connection with any other festival, any other cultural group, or any other nation. Somewhere between a third and half the world's Jews are Israeli; I suppose most Jews consequently have substantial connections with it. Even if there were no anti-Semitic motive behind these demands, they effectively punish Jews for their familial, religious, and/or cultural links to the Jewish State.
Another example of Jewish vulnerability to BDS is the availability of kosher food products, many of which come from Israel. Orthodox Jews depend on these; a campaign against Sabra houmous may remove the only kosher food that's readily available on campus. And it's not as if BDS protestors or the people they intimidate can be relied upon to make nice distinctions: last year an English supermarket removed all its kosher products in response to a BDS demonstration. The supermarket chain apologised later, but it would be naive to think that this doesn't have a chilling effect on businesses that carry kosher products.
Even left-wing cultural and educational groups that profess support for BDS often end up being explicitly anti-Semitic. Here's a story about an Australian theatre that refused to rent its premises to a Jewish student group; and a few months ago at UCLA (again) a Jewish candidate for a student position was quizzed for forty minutes (!) about whether she could be "unbiased", given her religion. Eventually a faculty member stepped in to rule that no, being Jewish was not in itself a conflict of interest.
Finally, even people who think that BDS is justified discrimination need to recognise that it uses the same tactics and arouses the same emotions as actual hate crimes. BDS demonstrations are often violent in themselves and frequently spill over into riots against Jewish businesses or cultural institutions. BDS isn't a new thing; it's a direct continuation of anti-Jewish boycotts from the 1920s through to the present day. It is discriminatory by its very nature and it has repeatedly been the justification and excuse for blatant anti-Semitic bigotry. I have no idea whether this proposed legislation will go through or whether it will work, but I profoundly hope it does.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:47 PM on May 11, 2015 [4 favorites]
I can't imagine any coherent formula that says it's OK to tell people not to buy from Israelis, but wrong to tell them not to buy from Jews
For the exact same reason it's okay to tell people to not buy from Iran, and wrong to tell people to not buy from Iranians. Or South Africa/South Africans, which is probably a much closer example. I feel like that question is highly disingenuous.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 5:52 PM on May 11, 2015 [10 favorites]
For the exact same reason it's okay to tell people to not buy from Iran, and wrong to tell people to not buy from Iranians. Or South Africa/South Africans, which is probably a much closer example. I feel like that question is highly disingenuous.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 5:52 PM on May 11, 2015 [10 favorites]
I support Israel's right to exist and therefore oppose the boycott (although the boycott is also grandstanding, but ineffectual), but I think this move by Harper and company is odious in the extreme.
posted by Nevin at 5:53 PM on May 11, 2015
posted by Nevin at 5:53 PM on May 11, 2015
Even in the USA it's illegal to actually refuse to do business with Jews; I can't see why incitement to hate crimes ought to be protected when the crime itself is prohibited.
Ha ha, no. As an individual I am free to refuse to do business with Jews.
posted by jayder at 5:55 PM on May 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
Ha ha, no. As an individual I am free to refuse to do business with Jews.
posted by jayder at 5:55 PM on May 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
As an individual I am free to refuse to do business with Jews.
I suppose that's a bit broad. You're not free to refuse to do business with Jews if your business is one of a very great number that are covered by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or one of the very many other Federal and State acts that prohibit discrimination against Jews and other members of protected classes, as well as those that require certification or accreditation that can be lost when people breach their professional standards by behaving in a discriminatory way, and as well as businesses whose licenses that may be denied or revoked if the applicant behaves in a discriminatory way. Other than those - and there are exceptions - you're quite right.
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:15 PM on May 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
I suppose that's a bit broad. You're not free to refuse to do business with Jews if your business is one of a very great number that are covered by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or one of the very many other Federal and State acts that prohibit discrimination against Jews and other members of protected classes, as well as those that require certification or accreditation that can be lost when people breach their professional standards by behaving in a discriminatory way, and as well as businesses whose licenses that may be denied or revoked if the applicant behaves in a discriminatory way. Other than those - and there are exceptions - you're quite right.
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:15 PM on May 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
BDS isn't a new thing; it's a direct continuation of anti-Jewish boycotts from the 1920s through to the present day.
This is just completely wrong. BDS is a response to Israel's almost 50 year military occupation of Palestine and the result of the failure and illegitimacy of alternatives (the peace process, war, terrorism, etc.) to end that occupation. It only started in 2005 with goal #1 being "Ending [Israel's] occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall."
Also, if BDS is anti-Jewish, how come so many Jews -- or, really, any -- support it? That would make no sense.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 6:38 PM on May 11, 2015 [6 favorites]
This is just completely wrong. BDS is a response to Israel's almost 50 year military occupation of Palestine and the result of the failure and illegitimacy of alternatives (the peace process, war, terrorism, etc.) to end that occupation. It only started in 2005 with goal #1 being "Ending [Israel's] occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall."
Also, if BDS is anti-Jewish, how come so many Jews -- or, really, any -- support it? That would make no sense.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 6:38 PM on May 11, 2015 [6 favorites]
@Joe In Australia wrote: I have no idea whether this proposed legislation will go through or whether it will work, but I profoundly hope it does.
Joe in Australia: I kindly ask that you take some time to reflect on the idea of laws that criminalize dissent. This is a dangerous and double-edged sword that you're swinging quite cavalierly.
posted by whisk(e)y neat at 7:10 PM on May 11, 2015 [4 favorites]
Joe in Australia: I kindly ask that you take some time to reflect on the idea of laws that criminalize dissent. This is a dangerous and double-edged sword that you're swinging quite cavalierly.
posted by whisk(e)y neat at 7:10 PM on May 11, 2015 [4 favorites]
I can't imagine any coherent formula that says it's OK to tell people not to buy from Israelis, but wrong to tell them not to buy from Jews (and gays and blacks &c).
By this logic, it was a hate crime not to play Sun City. Little Steven's got a lot of 'splainin' to do!
posted by Atom Eyes at 7:22 PM on May 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
By this logic, it was a hate crime not to play Sun City. Little Steven's got a lot of 'splainin' to do!
posted by Atom Eyes at 7:22 PM on May 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
@Joe In Australia wrote: I have no idea whether this proposed legislation will go through or whether it will work, but I profoundly hope it does.
Speaking as someone who lives in the country in question, I profoundly hope it does not. It's an affront to free speech, and a twisting of our hate crimes legislation--that would be legislation put in place specifically to protect Jews (and other minorities). This usage of it is horrifying.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:26 PM on May 11, 2015 [3 favorites]
Joe in Australia:
Thanks for your well-articulated rundown of the arguments against BDS. Indeed, these are many of the reasons that I think it's a wrong-headed strategy. Those opposed to bad behaviour of the Israeli right would be much better advised to engage with, and strengthen, the Israeli left.
Having said that, I don't think your argument against BDS is flawless, nor does it articulate, in my view, a coherent set of reasons likening BDS to hate speech. Other people have already said that the idea that BDS is a continuation of 1920's-era antisemitic boycotts is inaccurate: most people who support BDS are not antisemites. For example, my shul holds its high holiday celebrations in a big United church (our regular building is too small). The United Church of Canada supports BDS, and yet they throw open their doors to a Jewish congregation. That's not the action of antisemites.
But the biggest problem with your argument, as set forth, is that it can't distinguish between a 'hateful' boycott and a legitimate one. For example, let's say that an environmental group wants to divest from the oil industry because of fears about climate change. I don't think anybody would argue that such a move would be motivated by irrational hate. Even so, most of your arguments would apply equally well:
- most Jews have ties with Israel or Israelis. True. Most Canadian Jews also have ties with people who work in oil and gas, however tenuous. I have friends and relatives in the oil industry. Both of my parents once worked for an oil company. And yet a boycott of the oil industry doesn't feel like an attack on me.
- Not buying from Israelis is essentially inextricable from not buying from Jews. Similarly, boycots of Israeli institutions tends to spill over into boycotts of Jewish groups who take money from them. What about the countries whose governments and economies are tied up with the oil industry? Surely, divesting from oil is going to disproportionately hit Saudis, Norwegians, etc. At any rate, the premise is flawed. Nobody is saying that they should not buy from Israelis, but rather that they shouldn't directly send money/prestige to either Israel (in some cases) or the settlements specifically (in most cases). It really would be illegal to boycott Danny's Falafel Shop because Danny is from Tel Aviv. Refusing to import olives from an Israeli West Bank settlement, on the other hand, is not discrimination against a person or group, but a form of legitimate political action.
- Orthodox Jews rely on Kosher products from Israel. By that same token, lots of people rely on the oil industry to get around, heat their houses, etc. Surely diminishing the power of the oil industry reduces the flow of those necessary products. Of course we can all see that the idea is not to attack commuters, but to change that pattern of economic activity. At any rate, your premise is again flawed. I'm not Orthodox, but I sure as hell rely on kosher products. Looking around my kitchen, the vast majority of these are produced right across the boarder in the good ol' USA. Cutting out Israeli products might make my life marginally more expensive, but it's not going to stop me from buying Matzah or kosher grape juice. Indeed, it equally well might strengthen some of the Diaspora kosher producers who are currently suffering from competition with Israeli firms.
- Undergraduates say intemperate and poorly thought through things in student elections. So firstly, yeah... undergraduates. I think it's probably a bad idea to base one's judgement of, say, a major church or university, or whatever, on the words and behaviour of student politicians who probably have no connection to them. Having said that, would you have the same objections to similar demands being made with connection to the oil industry. "Do you pledge to refuse oil industry money?" is an easy 'yes' for a philosophy major, less so for an industrial chemist.
I think that if you want to argue that this boycott is tainted and unacceptable, you really need to come up with arguments that distinguish it from acceptable (if not universally supported) boycotts. Also, it would be helpful, for everyone, if we could distinguish between the very real antisemitism of some critics of Israel, and the innocent (even idealistic) motives of the vast majority of critics of Israeli policy on the Canadian political scene.
posted by Dreadnought at 8:04 PM on May 11, 2015 [12 favorites]
Thanks for your well-articulated rundown of the arguments against BDS. Indeed, these are many of the reasons that I think it's a wrong-headed strategy. Those opposed to bad behaviour of the Israeli right would be much better advised to engage with, and strengthen, the Israeli left.
Having said that, I don't think your argument against BDS is flawless, nor does it articulate, in my view, a coherent set of reasons likening BDS to hate speech. Other people have already said that the idea that BDS is a continuation of 1920's-era antisemitic boycotts is inaccurate: most people who support BDS are not antisemites. For example, my shul holds its high holiday celebrations in a big United church (our regular building is too small). The United Church of Canada supports BDS, and yet they throw open their doors to a Jewish congregation. That's not the action of antisemites.
But the biggest problem with your argument, as set forth, is that it can't distinguish between a 'hateful' boycott and a legitimate one. For example, let's say that an environmental group wants to divest from the oil industry because of fears about climate change. I don't think anybody would argue that such a move would be motivated by irrational hate. Even so, most of your arguments would apply equally well:
- most Jews have ties with Israel or Israelis. True. Most Canadian Jews also have ties with people who work in oil and gas, however tenuous. I have friends and relatives in the oil industry. Both of my parents once worked for an oil company. And yet a boycott of the oil industry doesn't feel like an attack on me.
- Not buying from Israelis is essentially inextricable from not buying from Jews. Similarly, boycots of Israeli institutions tends to spill over into boycotts of Jewish groups who take money from them. What about the countries whose governments and economies are tied up with the oil industry? Surely, divesting from oil is going to disproportionately hit Saudis, Norwegians, etc. At any rate, the premise is flawed. Nobody is saying that they should not buy from Israelis, but rather that they shouldn't directly send money/prestige to either Israel (in some cases) or the settlements specifically (in most cases). It really would be illegal to boycott Danny's Falafel Shop because Danny is from Tel Aviv. Refusing to import olives from an Israeli West Bank settlement, on the other hand, is not discrimination against a person or group, but a form of legitimate political action.
- Orthodox Jews rely on Kosher products from Israel. By that same token, lots of people rely on the oil industry to get around, heat their houses, etc. Surely diminishing the power of the oil industry reduces the flow of those necessary products. Of course we can all see that the idea is not to attack commuters, but to change that pattern of economic activity. At any rate, your premise is again flawed. I'm not Orthodox, but I sure as hell rely on kosher products. Looking around my kitchen, the vast majority of these are produced right across the boarder in the good ol' USA. Cutting out Israeli products might make my life marginally more expensive, but it's not going to stop me from buying Matzah or kosher grape juice. Indeed, it equally well might strengthen some of the Diaspora kosher producers who are currently suffering from competition with Israeli firms.
- Undergraduates say intemperate and poorly thought through things in student elections. So firstly, yeah... undergraduates. I think it's probably a bad idea to base one's judgement of, say, a major church or university, or whatever, on the words and behaviour of student politicians who probably have no connection to them. Having said that, would you have the same objections to similar demands being made with connection to the oil industry. "Do you pledge to refuse oil industry money?" is an easy 'yes' for a philosophy major, less so for an industrial chemist.
I think that if you want to argue that this boycott is tainted and unacceptable, you really need to come up with arguments that distinguish it from acceptable (if not universally supported) boycotts. Also, it would be helpful, for everyone, if we could distinguish between the very real antisemitism of some critics of Israel, and the innocent (even idealistic) motives of the vast majority of critics of Israeli policy on the Canadian political scene.
posted by Dreadnought at 8:04 PM on May 11, 2015 [12 favorites]
All hummus is kosher - it's vegan! Seriously, why do vegan products even need a hechsher? It's not traditional - no one hechshered veggies in the Middle Ages.
Also: everyone should make their own hummus. We need to support the food processor industry.
posted by jb at 8:14 PM on May 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
Also: everyone should make their own hummus. We need to support the food processor industry.
posted by jb at 8:14 PM on May 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
Not all hummus is vegan. Or...advisable to make.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:17 PM on May 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 8:17 PM on May 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
BDS [...] only started in 2005 with goal #1 being "Ending [Israel's] occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall."
No, really. The Palestine Arab Congress boycott of Israel started in 1922. The Arab League boycott started in 1945. It had mostly petered out by 2005, which is why the "BDS" one was launched.
Also, if BDS is anti-Jewish, how come so many Jews -- or, really, any -- support it? That would make no sense.
I suppose Jewish supporters can feel virtuous by avoiding any appearance of bias. The real question is why anyone supports BDS or, indeed, other things that are racist-in-effect.
posted by Joe in Australia at 8:17 PM on May 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
No, really. The Palestine Arab Congress boycott of Israel started in 1922. The Arab League boycott started in 1945. It had mostly petered out by 2005, which is why the "BDS" one was launched.
Also, if BDS is anti-Jewish, how come so many Jews -- or, really, any -- support it? That would make no sense.
I suppose Jewish supporters can feel virtuous by avoiding any appearance of bias. The real question is why anyone supports BDS or, indeed, other things that are racist-in-effect.
posted by Joe in Australia at 8:17 PM on May 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
It's not traditional - no one hechshered veggies in the Middle Ages
Hate to break this to you, but (according to Rabbi Wikipedia) the earliest hechshers date to 700 BCE, and they're mentioned in the Babylonian Talmud.
posted by Dreadnought at 8:21 PM on May 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
Hate to break this to you, but (according to Rabbi Wikipedia) the earliest hechshers date to 700 BCE, and they're mentioned in the Babylonian Talmud.
posted by Dreadnought at 8:21 PM on May 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
The real question is why anyone supports BDS or, indeed, other things that are racist-in-effect.
Boycotting Israel is about sending a message to the Israeli government. It is not about hating Jews.
Same way that boycotting South Africa a few decades ago was about sending a message to the South African government, and was not about hating any individual South Africans.
The conflation of the Israeli government with Judaism is a serious problem, one that renders any criticism of the former--e.g., calling for boycotts over the treatment of the Palestinian people--impossible. That is problematic on so many levels I don't even know where to begin.
I'm only nominally Jewish, and still I've learned: one of the core defining characteristics of Jews around the world is the idea that one always questions oneself, one's relationships to others, and one's relationship to G-d. And everything else under the sun. The deep questions must be explored, or what is the point of living? (Perhaps, it's true, I've spent my life around Jews of a more intellectual and leftist bent, so maybe this isn't a universal trait. Still, it's what I've observed and been told.)
When one makes criticism of the actions of the Israeli government--which is not the same as questioning the existence of Israel--into the same thing as criticism of Judaism as a whole, when one makes any action in opposition to that government out to be anti-Semitism, I can only feel that long and beautiful tradition of questioning and digging is being tarnished.
Boycotting Israel is no more racist in effect than boycotting South Africa was. Please stop pretending that it is.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:51 PM on May 11, 2015 [19 favorites]
Boycotting Israel is about sending a message to the Israeli government. It is not about hating Jews.
Same way that boycotting South Africa a few decades ago was about sending a message to the South African government, and was not about hating any individual South Africans.
The conflation of the Israeli government with Judaism is a serious problem, one that renders any criticism of the former--e.g., calling for boycotts over the treatment of the Palestinian people--impossible. That is problematic on so many levels I don't even know where to begin.
I'm only nominally Jewish, and still I've learned: one of the core defining characteristics of Jews around the world is the idea that one always questions oneself, one's relationships to others, and one's relationship to G-d. And everything else under the sun. The deep questions must be explored, or what is the point of living? (Perhaps, it's true, I've spent my life around Jews of a more intellectual and leftist bent, so maybe this isn't a universal trait. Still, it's what I've observed and been told.)
When one makes criticism of the actions of the Israeli government--which is not the same as questioning the existence of Israel--into the same thing as criticism of Judaism as a whole, when one makes any action in opposition to that government out to be anti-Semitism, I can only feel that long and beautiful tradition of questioning and digging is being tarnished.
Boycotting Israel is no more racist in effect than boycotting South Africa was. Please stop pretending that it is.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:51 PM on May 11, 2015 [19 favorites]
When even Finkelstein and Chomsky don't want to have anything to do with you, it's time to rethink your choices.
posted by gertzedek at 8:57 PM on May 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by gertzedek at 8:57 PM on May 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
The real question is why anyone supports BDS or, indeed, other things that are racist-in-effect.
I am a Jewish American who opposes the Israeli Government because it rejects the core democratic values that make me, in the US demonstrably safer than Jews than Israel. Since the US protects me in the Diaspora better than Israel, they're a solution to a problem I don't have and are causing more problems than they resolve.
If opposing the Israel Government for legitimate issues **appears to be** bigotry against Jews, it's another clear benefit of our core democratic value, "Separation of Church and State", since it prevents governments acting in bad-faith from hiding behind a religious group.
As a Jew, it's be a lot better for all concerned if the Mogen David was removed from their flag. The don't represent ME and they don't represent a lot of other Jews I know...
posted by mikelieman at 9:59 PM on May 11, 2015 [11 favorites]
I am a Jewish American who opposes the Israeli Government because it rejects the core democratic values that make me, in the US demonstrably safer than Jews than Israel. Since the US protects me in the Diaspora better than Israel, they're a solution to a problem I don't have and are causing more problems than they resolve.
If opposing the Israel Government for legitimate issues **appears to be** bigotry against Jews, it's another clear benefit of our core democratic value, "Separation of Church and State", since it prevents governments acting in bad-faith from hiding behind a religious group.
As a Jew, it's be a lot better for all concerned if the Mogen David was removed from their flag. The don't represent ME and they don't represent a lot of other Jews I know...
posted by mikelieman at 9:59 PM on May 11, 2015 [11 favorites]
Mod note: A few comments deleted. Please don't make it personal. Thanks.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 10:00 PM on May 11, 2015
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 10:00 PM on May 11, 2015
"Questioning the existence of Israel" is a red-herring. They have nukes and they're not afraid to use them. They're not going anywhere.
posted by mikelieman at 10:02 PM on May 11, 2015
posted by mikelieman at 10:02 PM on May 11, 2015
"I can't imagine any coherent formula that says it's OK to tell people not to buy from Israelis, but wrong to tell them not to buy from Jews (and gays and blacks &c)."
Hey, the next time we have an anti-Semitism MeTa and people are like, "Come on, no one is seriously conflating criticism of Zionism and Israel with anti-Semitism — that's just a rhetorical dodge!"
You can't imagine any coherent formula? To tell Jews from Israelis? To separate Jews from Israeli policy? Any? Not even if you try? How about "Not all Jews are Israeli, and many Jews oppose Israel's occupation of Palestine."
"As a practical matter, BDS doesn't just attack Israelis: it attacks people's commercial, educational, and cultural ties with Israel. "
All boycott and sanction arguments have similar effects on their targets. The most salient example being South Africa.
" It's worth pointing out that no similar demands were made in connection with any other festival, any other cultural group, or any other nation."
… Iranian artists regularly face hardship because of their state's actions. Is it only theater you care about? There are also international boycott movements for countries like Burma, China, Russia, and tons of Olympic countries.
"Another example of Jewish vulnerability to BDS is the availability of kosher food products, many of which come from Israel. Orthodox Jews depend on these; a campaign against Sabra houmous may remove the only kosher food that's readily available on campus. And it's not as if BDS protestors or the people they intimidate can be relied upon to make nice distinctions: last year an English supermarket removed all its kosher products in response to a BDS demonstration. The supermarket chain apologised later, but it would be naive to think that this doesn't have a chilling effect on businesses that carry kosher products. "
Wait, because a non-Jewish organization can't tell the difference between Israeli food and kosher food, people shouldn't boycott Israel? If the boycott of Israeli products has a deleterious effect on Orthodox Jews and Israel notionally can't be separated from Judaism (by your formula), wouldn't that be something that the policy-makers of Israel would take into account?
This is all objecting to economic sanction with the complaint that it hurts. Yes, sanctions and boycotts are supposed to inflict economic harm, and in order to get a boycott broad enough that it has any policy effect, the effect will be similarly broad. There are plenty of people inside Israel right now working for a peaceful solution — and even some of them have published boycott lists.
"Even left-wing cultural and educational groups that profess support for BDS often end up being explicitly anti-Semitic. Here's a story about an Australian theatre that refused to rent its premises to a Jewish student group; and a few months ago at UCLA (again) a Jewish candidate for a student position was quizzed for forty minutes (!) about whether she could be "unbiased", given her religion. Eventually a faculty member stepped in to rule that no, being Jewish was not in itself a conflict of interest. "
Sorry, that's a classical ad hominem argument. That an Australian group may have been anti-Semitic in a knee-jerk rejection of Hillel, that doesn't mean they're alone in reading Hillel as Zionist. The UCLA situation shows an explicit risk in the argument you're making, conflating Jewish identity with involvement in Israeli politics.
"Finally, even people who think that BDS is justified discrimination need to recognise that it uses the same tactics and arouses the same emotions as actual hate crimes. BDS demonstrations are often violent in themselves and frequently spill over into riots against Jewish businesses or cultural institutions. BDS isn't a new thing; it's a direct continuation of anti-Jewish boycotts from the 1920s through to the present day. It is discriminatory by its very nature and it has repeatedly been the justification and excuse for blatant anti-Semitic bigotry. I have no idea whether this proposed legislation will go through or whether it will work, but I profoundly hope it does."
Uses the same tactics as actual hate crimes? Well, here we are at the ad hominem again. A police officer and a criminal shooting at each other may use the same tactics, but we recognize a difference in intent and in justification. And arguing that the boycotts are a direct continuation of the anti-Semitic boycotts of the '20s on would mean that one of Israel's most outspoken peace groups is what — an anti-Semitic front?
There are very ugly elements of the BDS movement. When my wife mentioned that Canadian law might treat BDS support as a hate crime, my first response was, "Well, I've seen plenty BDS stuff that would qualify." But that's not an argument against BDS's goals or an argument for treating all of BDS activism as tantamount to a hate crime, which is what you are doing.
And that knee-jerk, over-broad declaration is exactly what people critical of Israel complain about, and what you swear up and down in MeTa doesn't happen.
posted by klangklangston at 10:40 PM on May 11, 2015 [31 favorites]
Hey, the next time we have an anti-Semitism MeTa and people are like, "Come on, no one is seriously conflating criticism of Zionism and Israel with anti-Semitism — that's just a rhetorical dodge!"
You can't imagine any coherent formula? To tell Jews from Israelis? To separate Jews from Israeli policy? Any? Not even if you try? How about "Not all Jews are Israeli, and many Jews oppose Israel's occupation of Palestine."
"As a practical matter, BDS doesn't just attack Israelis: it attacks people's commercial, educational, and cultural ties with Israel. "
All boycott and sanction arguments have similar effects on their targets. The most salient example being South Africa.
" It's worth pointing out that no similar demands were made in connection with any other festival, any other cultural group, or any other nation."
… Iranian artists regularly face hardship because of their state's actions. Is it only theater you care about? There are also international boycott movements for countries like Burma, China, Russia, and tons of Olympic countries.
"Another example of Jewish vulnerability to BDS is the availability of kosher food products, many of which come from Israel. Orthodox Jews depend on these; a campaign against Sabra houmous may remove the only kosher food that's readily available on campus. And it's not as if BDS protestors or the people they intimidate can be relied upon to make nice distinctions: last year an English supermarket removed all its kosher products in response to a BDS demonstration. The supermarket chain apologised later, but it would be naive to think that this doesn't have a chilling effect on businesses that carry kosher products. "
Wait, because a non-Jewish organization can't tell the difference between Israeli food and kosher food, people shouldn't boycott Israel? If the boycott of Israeli products has a deleterious effect on Orthodox Jews and Israel notionally can't be separated from Judaism (by your formula), wouldn't that be something that the policy-makers of Israel would take into account?
This is all objecting to economic sanction with the complaint that it hurts. Yes, sanctions and boycotts are supposed to inflict economic harm, and in order to get a boycott broad enough that it has any policy effect, the effect will be similarly broad. There are plenty of people inside Israel right now working for a peaceful solution — and even some of them have published boycott lists.
"Even left-wing cultural and educational groups that profess support for BDS often end up being explicitly anti-Semitic. Here's a story about an Australian theatre that refused to rent its premises to a Jewish student group; and a few months ago at UCLA (again) a Jewish candidate for a student position was quizzed for forty minutes (!) about whether she could be "unbiased", given her religion. Eventually a faculty member stepped in to rule that no, being Jewish was not in itself a conflict of interest. "
Sorry, that's a classical ad hominem argument. That an Australian group may have been anti-Semitic in a knee-jerk rejection of Hillel, that doesn't mean they're alone in reading Hillel as Zionist. The UCLA situation shows an explicit risk in the argument you're making, conflating Jewish identity with involvement in Israeli politics.
"Finally, even people who think that BDS is justified discrimination need to recognise that it uses the same tactics and arouses the same emotions as actual hate crimes. BDS demonstrations are often violent in themselves and frequently spill over into riots against Jewish businesses or cultural institutions. BDS isn't a new thing; it's a direct continuation of anti-Jewish boycotts from the 1920s through to the present day. It is discriminatory by its very nature and it has repeatedly been the justification and excuse for blatant anti-Semitic bigotry. I have no idea whether this proposed legislation will go through or whether it will work, but I profoundly hope it does."
Uses the same tactics as actual hate crimes? Well, here we are at the ad hominem again. A police officer and a criminal shooting at each other may use the same tactics, but we recognize a difference in intent and in justification. And arguing that the boycotts are a direct continuation of the anti-Semitic boycotts of the '20s on would mean that one of Israel's most outspoken peace groups is what — an anti-Semitic front?
There are very ugly elements of the BDS movement. When my wife mentioned that Canadian law might treat BDS support as a hate crime, my first response was, "Well, I've seen plenty BDS stuff that would qualify." But that's not an argument against BDS's goals or an argument for treating all of BDS activism as tantamount to a hate crime, which is what you are doing.
And that knee-jerk, over-broad declaration is exactly what people critical of Israel complain about, and what you swear up and down in MeTa doesn't happen.
posted by klangklangston at 10:40 PM on May 11, 2015 [31 favorites]
klang... I have not enough favourites.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:46 PM on May 11, 2015
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:46 PM on May 11, 2015
When even Finkelstein and Chomsky don't want to have anything to do with you, it's time to rethink your choices.
If you're going to appeal to Finkelstein, do him and everybody else the courtesy of using a non-cherry-picked edit.
posted by flabdablet at 10:51 PM on May 11, 2015 [4 favorites]
If you're going to appeal to Finkelstein, do him and everybody else the courtesy of using a non-cherry-picked edit.
posted by flabdablet at 10:51 PM on May 11, 2015 [4 favorites]
You can't imagine any coherent formula? To tell Jews from Israelis?
Here's what I actually said:
If the boycott of Israeli products has a deleterious effect on Orthodox Jews and Israel notionally can't be separated from Judaism (by your formula), wouldn't that be something that the policy-makers of Israel would take into account?
Half of what you write is a misapprehension; the other half is shocking. Do you really suggest that Israel is to be blackmailed by threatening Jews in the diaspora? Not only would that be very wrong, but in case you meant to advocate it: it would probably not work.
posted by Joe in Australia at 11:41 PM on May 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
Here's what I actually said:
I can't imagine any coherent formula that says it's OK to tell people not to buy from Israelis, but wrong to tell them not to buy from Jews (and gays and blacks &c).Surely you understand that I can distinguish between Israelis and Jews and gays and blacks, despite the fact that many Israelis are Jewish, gay, or black. By "incoherent" I mean that discrimination against people because of their race, religion, national origin, or sexual identity is wrong; a formula that purports to say "it's OK to discriminate in this one case" is probably not making a moral distinction, just begging the question.
If the boycott of Israeli products has a deleterious effect on Orthodox Jews and Israel notionally can't be separated from Judaism (by your formula), wouldn't that be something that the policy-makers of Israel would take into account?
Half of what you write is a misapprehension; the other half is shocking. Do you really suggest that Israel is to be blackmailed by threatening Jews in the diaspora? Not only would that be very wrong, but in case you meant to advocate it: it would probably not work.
posted by Joe in Australia at 11:41 PM on May 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
By "incoherent" I mean that discrimination against people because of their race, religion, national origin, or sexual identity is wrong
It's not discrimination against people, and you know this; it is pressuring a government to stop making such horrible choices.
South Africa. 80s. Same thing.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:57 PM on May 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
It's not discrimination against people, and you know this; it is pressuring a government to stop making such horrible choices.
South Africa. 80s. Same thing.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:57 PM on May 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
South Africa. 80s. Same thing.
Israel certainly has been consistent about their opposition to boycotts and sanctions. In the late 1980s they were the only nation still supporting South Africa and were instrumental in the long drawn out survival of apartheid, with which they seem to have some affinity.
posted by JackFlash at 12:23 AM on May 12, 2015 [8 favorites]
Israel certainly has been consistent about their opposition to boycotts and sanctions. In the late 1980s they were the only nation still supporting South Africa and were instrumental in the long drawn out survival of apartheid, with which they seem to have some affinity.
posted by JackFlash at 12:23 AM on May 12, 2015 [8 favorites]
In the late 1980s they were the only nation still supporting South Africa and were instrumental in the long drawn out survival of apartheid...
South African here. No, just no.
The Apartheid government received much more support from the Regan led US and Thatcher led UK, under the guise of anti-Communism then it would ever hope to get from Israel.
Also more than half the world's gold reserves lie underneath Johannesburg, and a whole bunch of diamonds and platinum elsewhere. That helped a whole bunch to keep the whole thing going.
posted by PenDevil at 1:06 AM on May 12, 2015 [6 favorites]
South African here. No, just no.
The Apartheid government received much more support from the Regan led US and Thatcher led UK, under the guise of anti-Communism then it would ever hope to get from Israel.
Also more than half the world's gold reserves lie underneath Johannesburg, and a whole bunch of diamonds and platinum elsewhere. That helped a whole bunch to keep the whole thing going.
posted by PenDevil at 1:06 AM on May 12, 2015 [6 favorites]
Responding to a question after a recent lecture, Norman Finkelstein offers an opinion on whether objecting to Israeli policy on Palestine amounts to antisemitism, and on what he thinks of attempts to suppress speakers supporting BDS.
posted by flabdablet at 1:45 AM on May 12, 2015
posted by flabdablet at 1:45 AM on May 12, 2015
The BDS efforts in SA have been pretty bad. Besides singing 'Shoot the Jew', appropriating the Apartheid era protest song 'Shoot the Boer', at a protest against an Israeli jazz quartet they also placed a pig's head in a store amongst (what they thought, incorrectly it turned out) was the kosher meat section.
posted by PenDevil at 1:50 AM on May 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by PenDevil at 1:50 AM on May 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
Yes, there was also this story a few months ago: Outrage in South Africa as Durban student leaders urge expulsion of Jews from university
Also: Line between anti-Israel activism and anti-Semitism thins in Johannesburg
posted by Joe in Australia at 2:14 AM on May 12, 2015
Also: Line between anti-Israel activism and anti-Semitism thins in Johannesburg
posted by Joe in Australia at 2:14 AM on May 12, 2015
It seems to me that reasonable people ought to be able to agree that the deplorable acts of the fuckwits on both sides of any long-drawn-out conflict ought to be publicly and loudly deplored, most helpfully by those in whose name those fuckwits purport to act.
Even if your worst fuckwits are more fucked up than my worst fuckwits, that ought not to let any of my fuckwits off the hook.
posted by flabdablet at 2:35 AM on May 12, 2015 [10 favorites]
Even if your worst fuckwits are more fucked up than my worst fuckwits, that ought not to let any of my fuckwits off the hook.
posted by flabdablet at 2:35 AM on May 12, 2015 [10 favorites]
I feel like when I see situations like this I have to accept that I don't need to take a side.
This is exactly what upset right-wing white dudes claim is oppressing them in their insatiable desire to use the N word and only work with other right-wing white dudes. It kind of makes sense, then, that this is what the righty-whiteys come up with when authoring something that tries to look like social justice.
I dunno, it's sort of a THIS IS WHAT RACISTS ACTUALLY BELIEVE about hate-crime laws.
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 3:39 AM on May 12, 2015
This is exactly what upset right-wing white dudes claim is oppressing them in their insatiable desire to use the N word and only work with other right-wing white dudes. It kind of makes sense, then, that this is what the righty-whiteys come up with when authoring something that tries to look like social justice.
I dunno, it's sort of a THIS IS WHAT RACISTS ACTUALLY BELIEVE about hate-crime laws.
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 3:39 AM on May 12, 2015
Boycotting Israel is no more racist in effect than boycotting South Africa was. Please stop pretending that it is.
The root of the issue is kind of similar, although people still debate whether these actions are "racist" or whether a better word could be used to describe what we mean.
Objections to SA were based, at their core, in objections to a White ethno-state in Africa (and the consequent draconian policies required to maintain such a state as White in a Black-majority continent).
Similarly, objections to Israel are based on objections to a Jewish ethno-state in the Holy Land (and, likewise, to the conflicts that gave birth to the nation and continue to this day).
posted by theorique at 3:41 AM on May 12, 2015
The root of the issue is kind of similar, although people still debate whether these actions are "racist" or whether a better word could be used to describe what we mean.
Objections to SA were based, at their core, in objections to a White ethno-state in Africa (and the consequent draconian policies required to maintain such a state as White in a Black-majority continent).
Similarly, objections to Israel are based on objections to a Jewish ethno-state in the Holy Land (and, likewise, to the conflicts that gave birth to the nation and continue to this day).
posted by theorique at 3:41 AM on May 12, 2015
Similarly, objections to Israel are based on objections to a Jewish ethno-state in the Holy Land (and, likewise, to the conflicts that gave birth to the nation and continue to this day).
One can object to Israeli policies without objecting to Israel, though.
posted by Etrigan at 4:20 AM on May 12, 2015 [3 favorites]
One can object to Israeli policies without objecting to Israel, though.
posted by Etrigan at 4:20 AM on May 12, 2015 [3 favorites]
It's worth noting that objections to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem are distinct from objections to Israel itself, that both are distinct from antisemitism, and that BDS has supporters motivated by various combinations of all three.
posted by flabdablet at 4:21 AM on May 12, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by flabdablet at 4:21 AM on May 12, 2015 [5 favorites]
Any comparison between Israel and South Africa under Apartheid are just crazypants. Israel just had an election. The official overseeing it was an Arab. Arab citizens, living among citizens of other backgrounds, were free to vote for the candidate of their choice. There was an Arab List, made up of five Arab parties, at least one of which is actually Islamist. They secured thirteen seats, making them the third-largest party in the Knesset. Three other Israeli Arabs were elected from other party lists - Meretz, Zionist Union, and Likud. (Likud?) (Yes, Likud.)
In comparison ... well, there just is no comparision, because Apartheid excluded "blacks" and "colored" from politics entirely. So let's compare Arab representation in Israel to African-American representation in the USA!
The Knesset has 120 members, of whom 16 are Arab Israelis. That makes 15%. The US Congress has 435 members, of which 44 (my count) are African-American. That makes just over 10%. I understand that there are currently two African-American US senators, which is twice as many as have ever served concurrently in the history of the USA. Well done. That makes 2%. Plus, you have your President, who - all jokes aside - certainly counts for a lot.
So let's look at Israel's neighbours. Number of Jews in their legislatures ... none. In fact, number of Jews: very close to none. Because they were ethnically cleansed. So Israel is mostly Jewish, yes, but its neighbours are practically scoured clean of Jews. The only place Jews can live is in Israel. Those are the states which practice something resembling Apartheid; those are the states behind BDS (if you count "the State of Palestine"?); those are the ones you might direct your attention to. That is, once you get something resembling racial equality in the US of A.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:27 AM on May 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
In comparison ... well, there just is no comparision, because Apartheid excluded "blacks" and "colored" from politics entirely. So let's compare Arab representation in Israel to African-American representation in the USA!
The Knesset has 120 members, of whom 16 are Arab Israelis. That makes 15%. The US Congress has 435 members, of which 44 (my count) are African-American. That makes just over 10%. I understand that there are currently two African-American US senators, which is twice as many as have ever served concurrently in the history of the USA. Well done. That makes 2%. Plus, you have your President, who - all jokes aside - certainly counts for a lot.
So let's look at Israel's neighbours. Number of Jews in their legislatures ... none. In fact, number of Jews: very close to none. Because they were ethnically cleansed. So Israel is mostly Jewish, yes, but its neighbours are practically scoured clean of Jews. The only place Jews can live is in Israel. Those are the states which practice something resembling Apartheid; those are the states behind BDS (if you count "the State of Palestine"?); those are the ones you might direct your attention to. That is, once you get something resembling racial equality in the US of A.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:27 AM on May 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
That is, once you get something resembling racial equality in the US of A.
Yeah, thankfully Israel doesn't have any racial inequality problems.
It looks like the government is backpedalling while claiming that they never intended to go after BDS activists.
posted by Lemurrhea at 5:19 AM on May 12, 2015 [4 favorites]
Yeah, thankfully Israel doesn't have any racial inequality problems.
It looks like the government is backpedalling while claiming that they never intended to go after BDS activists.
posted by Lemurrhea at 5:19 AM on May 12, 2015 [4 favorites]
This thread has sent me down a complete Norman Finkelstein rabbit hole.
In part 8 of a wide ranging set of interviews he explains the distinction between "boycotts, divestment and sanctions" and "the BDS movement". I suspect the rest of this thread will feature less talking past each other if we try to remain mindful of that distinction.
posted by flabdablet at 5:43 AM on May 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
In part 8 of a wide ranging set of interviews he explains the distinction between "boycotts, divestment and sanctions" and "the BDS movement". I suspect the rest of this thread will feature less talking past each other if we try to remain mindful of that distinction.
posted by flabdablet at 5:43 AM on May 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
Arab citizens, living among citizens of other backgrounds, were free to vote for the candidate of their choice.
It really isn't the Israeli treatment of Arab citizens that the BDS people are complaining about (which is actually pretty bad but, you know, glass houses...) -- it's the treatment of Palestinians in the occupied territories. We all know of the terrible abuses heaped upon that long-suffering population.
And no, the argument that "those despotic regimes over there are also bad/worse" doesn't cut it. That's a low bar, and I think we get lazy jumping over it all the time. We need to hold Israel to a high standard.
posted by Dreadnought at 5:45 AM on May 12, 2015 [6 favorites]
It really isn't the Israeli treatment of Arab citizens that the BDS people are complaining about (which is actually pretty bad but, you know, glass houses...) -- it's the treatment of Palestinians in the occupied territories. We all know of the terrible abuses heaped upon that long-suffering population.
And no, the argument that "those despotic regimes over there are also bad/worse" doesn't cut it. That's a low bar, and I think we get lazy jumping over it all the time. We need to hold Israel to a high standard.
posted by Dreadnought at 5:45 AM on May 12, 2015 [6 favorites]
Joe, Israeli democracy is hardly a shining example of minority inclusion. The election you mentioned was marred by openly racist agitation against Arabs by the sitting (and subsequently reelected) prime minister. The Arabs in the Knesset face repeated legal (and otherwise) harassment, Haneen Zoabi being a case in point. There are high ranking members of the government that openly call for genocide against Palestinians, including the new justice minister (!) and the deputy speaker. If you want to compare the US and Israel's democracy, while I don't have many nice things to say about the US government, at least the rhetoric doesn't stoop to this abysmal level.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 6:03 AM on May 12, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 6:03 AM on May 12, 2015 [4 favorites]
Yeah, the new Israeli government sucks. I wouldn't go around quoting that article from The Electronic Intifada, though, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, The Electronic Intifada is nearly or actually a hate site. But secondly, Moshe Feiglin isn't a member of the Knesset, let alone Deputy Speaker. He went off to start his own party but (reportedly) couldn't get his act together.
However! Do you really think that in the USA "rhetoric doesn't stoop to this abysmal level"? I think it probably does, during wartime, which is when those remarks were made. But if rhetoric is bad, actions are worse. Your country is involved in wars in how many countries right now? Do you even know, or is that a state secret?1 How many Iraqis have died as a consequence of the US invasion? That's another thing that nobody knows! Who else has been targeted for death by drone recently? You don't know. So maybe you need to try holding your own country to the same standard you expect from Israel.
1 actually it is a state secret and you don't know
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:38 AM on May 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
However! Do you really think that in the USA "rhetoric doesn't stoop to this abysmal level"? I think it probably does, during wartime, which is when those remarks were made. But if rhetoric is bad, actions are worse. Your country is involved in wars in how many countries right now? Do you even know, or is that a state secret?1 How many Iraqis have died as a consequence of the US invasion? That's another thing that nobody knows! Who else has been targeted for death by drone recently? You don't know. So maybe you need to try holding your own country to the same standard you expect from Israel.
1 actually it is a state secret and you don't know
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:38 AM on May 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
Hate to do this again but could we maybe not make this about the USA since this about actions in Canada thanks
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 6:43 AM on May 12, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 6:43 AM on May 12, 2015 [8 favorites]
Israel just had an election. The official overseeing it was an Arab. Arab citizens, living among citizens of other backgrounds, were free to vote for the candidate of their choice.
Which the winner of that election tried to thwart via some disgusting pre-election fearmongering.
There was an Arab List, made up of five Arab parties, at least one of which is actually Islamist. They secured thirteen seats, making them the third-largest party in the Knesset.
And "Independents" are the third-largest party in Congress. The Arab List has about as much chance of influencing power as Bernie Sanders does of nationalizing the banks.
In comparison ... well, there just is no comparision, because Apartheid excluded "blacks" and "colored" from politics entirely.
It's worth noting that the current Prime Minister of Israel has been pushing a "Jewish nationality" bill that intends to make the 20% of Israelis that aren't Jewish into second-class citizens. Meanwhile, the recently-appointed Minister of Justice, who was one of the original supporters of the bill, who has posted quotes suggesting that Palestinians be subjected to ethnic cleansing. Say what you will about Obama and Holder, but they never told white Christians that all those blacks and Jews voting were part of a conspiracy by the Nation of Islam and Israel to subvert the voting process, or proposed laws to begin repealing the Civil Rights Acts and Voting Rights Act, or publicly quoted the KKK as a roundabout way of saying protesters of police violence should all be eliminated based on the color of their skin.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:50 AM on May 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
Which the winner of that election tried to thwart via some disgusting pre-election fearmongering.
There was an Arab List, made up of five Arab parties, at least one of which is actually Islamist. They secured thirteen seats, making them the third-largest party in the Knesset.
And "Independents" are the third-largest party in Congress. The Arab List has about as much chance of influencing power as Bernie Sanders does of nationalizing the banks.
In comparison ... well, there just is no comparision, because Apartheid excluded "blacks" and "colored" from politics entirely.
It's worth noting that the current Prime Minister of Israel has been pushing a "Jewish nationality" bill that intends to make the 20% of Israelis that aren't Jewish into second-class citizens. Meanwhile, the recently-appointed Minister of Justice, who was one of the original supporters of the bill, who has posted quotes suggesting that Palestinians be subjected to ethnic cleansing. Say what you will about Obama and Holder, but they never told white Christians that all those blacks and Jews voting were part of a conspiracy by the Nation of Islam and Israel to subvert the voting process, or proposed laws to begin repealing the Civil Rights Acts and Voting Rights Act, or publicly quoted the KKK as a roundabout way of saying protesters of police violence should all be eliminated based on the color of their skin.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:50 AM on May 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
Mod note: Folks, maybe we could drop the US vs Israel "who is more racist?" argument and stick a bit more to the post topic?
posted by taz (staff) at 6:54 AM on May 12, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by taz (staff) at 6:54 AM on May 12, 2015 [3 favorites]
it's so hard to see exactly how and where religion fits into Harper's thinking.
My impression is that it's just cover for his socially conservative party members, and they draw many of their supporters from various Billy Graham-type mega-churches. I still think his agenda is mainly economic, and his religion is Neoliberalism.
posted by sneebler at 8:03 AM on May 12, 2015 [2 favorites]
My impression is that it's just cover for his socially conservative party members, and they draw many of their supporters from various Billy Graham-type mega-churches. I still think his agenda is mainly economic, and his religion is Neoliberalism.
posted by sneebler at 8:03 AM on May 12, 2015 [2 favorites]
Harper is definitely courting "Jewish voters" in Canada, especially since the NDP is so overtly hostile to Israel, and the Liberal Party of Canada no longer connects with "urban minorities" and so on.
Former Justice Minister and generally insightful parliamentarian Irwin Cotler has remained silent (at least on Twitter) about the "hate speech" issue. And C-51.
posted by Nevin at 9:55 AM on May 12, 2015
Former Justice Minister and generally insightful parliamentarian Irwin Cotler has remained silent (at least on Twitter) about the "hate speech" issue. And C-51.
posted by Nevin at 9:55 AM on May 12, 2015
Hey, the next time we have an anti-Semitism MeTa and people are like, "Come on, no one is seriously conflating criticism of Zionism and Israel with anti-Semitism — that's just a rhetorical dodge!"
What Joe actually said is that these boycotts can lead to discrimination against Jews, because the people being boycotted against are Jews. Whether that is an effective argument against the boycotts is questionable.
However, it's still a logical conclusion with discussing, even if it will ultimately be dismissed on evidence. I happen to think that the purposes of any BDS boycott are also worth examining, because quite a few people have raised concerns that the movement's ultimate goal is to create a one-state solution for Israel and Palestine, thus eliminating the Jewish majority. Worth noting that a vocal number of people think this would be a positive end goal.
So we talked about how antisemitism and antizionism can be distinguished from each other in the MetaTalk post you reference. And one of the things I did there was link to an educational document from the Yad Vashem which talked about antisemitism and Israel. It discussed what rhetoric could reasonably be considered antisemitic and what can't. One of the concerns it raises (see page 18) is that denying the Jews their own state and by extension the ability to self-determination seems to be motivated by antisemitism.
Criticizing Israeli policies is fine with me. Not antisemitic. But I am concerned that the BDS movement crosses a line. So I personally question whether its underlying motives are antisemitic. And even if not, whether the boycotts further the goals (even inadvertently) of antisemites.
posted by zarq at 10:27 AM on May 12, 2015 [6 favorites]
What Joe actually said is that these boycotts can lead to discrimination against Jews, because the people being boycotted against are Jews. Whether that is an effective argument against the boycotts is questionable.
However, it's still a logical conclusion with discussing, even if it will ultimately be dismissed on evidence. I happen to think that the purposes of any BDS boycott are also worth examining, because quite a few people have raised concerns that the movement's ultimate goal is to create a one-state solution for Israel and Palestine, thus eliminating the Jewish majority. Worth noting that a vocal number of people think this would be a positive end goal.
So we talked about how antisemitism and antizionism can be distinguished from each other in the MetaTalk post you reference. And one of the things I did there was link to an educational document from the Yad Vashem which talked about antisemitism and Israel. It discussed what rhetoric could reasonably be considered antisemitic and what can't. One of the concerns it raises (see page 18) is that denying the Jews their own state and by extension the ability to self-determination seems to be motivated by antisemitism.
Criticizing Israeli policies is fine with me. Not antisemitic. But I am concerned that the BDS movement crosses a line. So I personally question whether its underlying motives are antisemitic. And even if not, whether the boycotts further the goals (even inadvertently) of antisemites.
posted by zarq at 10:27 AM on May 12, 2015 [6 favorites]
"Surely you understand that I can distinguish between Israelis and Jews and gays and blacks, despite the fact that many Israelis are Jewish, gay, or black. By "incoherent" I mean that discrimination against people because of their race, religion, national origin, or sexual identity is wrong; a formula that purports to say "it's OK to discriminate in this one case" is probably not making a moral distinction, just begging the question."
It's not my fault you don't understand your argument. Under your formulation, any economic sanctions are "incoherent." Since that's absurd — sanctions are a legitimate form of public policy — we can understand that the coherent rationale distinguishes "national origin" by asking if there's a legitimate interest in affecting the politics of that nation, in which case while individuals are (under your arguably over-broad formulation) discriminated against, it's not because of their national origin per se, but rather due to the political policies of the nation to which they belong.
As others have pointed out, there is no way for you to support sanctions or boycotts against South Africa (or Iran) without also discriminating based on national origin. Hence, your argument of "incoherence" is either hypocritical or absurd.
"Half of what you write is a misapprehension; the other half is shocking. Do you really suggest that Israel is to be blackmailed by threatening Jews in the diaspora? Not only would that be very wrong, but in case you meant to advocate it: it would probably not work."
Blackmailed? Please keep your dudgeon in your pants. Either the availability of kosher foods for diaspora Jews is a separate question from Israeli politics, in which case people who desire kosher foods can be encouraged to seek local solutions and the effects on them are unfortunate but unconnected with the thrust of BDS, or they are the same question, in which case it is the responsibility of the Israeli state to take into account the effects of their policies upon the Jews of the diaspora.
"Any comparison between Israel and South Africa under Apartheid are just crazypants. Israel just had an election. "
Are you confusing your opinion with facts again?
"That is, once you get something resembling racial equality in the US of A."
Legitimate question: Do you consider "Jewish" to be a race? Rather than an ethnicity?
posted by klangklangston at 11:13 AM on May 12, 2015 [7 favorites]
It's not my fault you don't understand your argument. Under your formulation, any economic sanctions are "incoherent." Since that's absurd — sanctions are a legitimate form of public policy — we can understand that the coherent rationale distinguishes "national origin" by asking if there's a legitimate interest in affecting the politics of that nation, in which case while individuals are (under your arguably over-broad formulation) discriminated against, it's not because of their national origin per se, but rather due to the political policies of the nation to which they belong.
As others have pointed out, there is no way for you to support sanctions or boycotts against South Africa (or Iran) without also discriminating based on national origin. Hence, your argument of "incoherence" is either hypocritical or absurd.
"Half of what you write is a misapprehension; the other half is shocking. Do you really suggest that Israel is to be blackmailed by threatening Jews in the diaspora? Not only would that be very wrong, but in case you meant to advocate it: it would probably not work."
Blackmailed? Please keep your dudgeon in your pants. Either the availability of kosher foods for diaspora Jews is a separate question from Israeli politics, in which case people who desire kosher foods can be encouraged to seek local solutions and the effects on them are unfortunate but unconnected with the thrust of BDS, or they are the same question, in which case it is the responsibility of the Israeli state to take into account the effects of their policies upon the Jews of the diaspora.
"Any comparison between Israel and South Africa under Apartheid are just crazypants. Israel just had an election. "
Are you confusing your opinion with facts again?
"That is, once you get something resembling racial equality in the US of A."
Legitimate question: Do you consider "Jewish" to be a race? Rather than an ethnicity?
posted by klangklangston at 11:13 AM on May 12, 2015 [7 favorites]
In case it's helpful to anyone here: The BDS platform.
The West Bank? Okay, I think that's entirely reasonable. I'm in favor of ending the Settlements and Occupation. But that's not how Hamas would define Israeli occupation and colonization of Arab lands. They have stated repeatedly that the entire state of Israel occupies Arab land, to the shores of the Mediterranean. One could argue that the Hamas definition doesn't apply, because the platform still defines Israel as an entity. But there's no specificity here. '48 borders? '67 borders? Has the BDS movement done so anywhere? Because when I went searching, I couldn't find an official statement on the matter.
Let's assume good faith and say that for the purposes of this discussion that the first point refers only to the Settlements in the West Bank and the freeing of Gaza's interaction with the outside world from Israel's control. Reasonable.
Dismantling the Wall is also something of a reasonable request. The Wall has proven necessary in reducing/preventing suicide bombers, but it's still a causing problems.
The second point is a no-brainer, and Israel is on paper pretty much all the way there, but not necessarily in practice. On paper the only real difference between Jewish-Israel and Arab Israeli citizenship is mandatory military service. In practice, there is still discrimination against Arabs by Jews in Israel. However, that has been improving slowly -- mostly since the Or report cast a spotlight on the problem.
If the first two points were the only elements of the BDS platform, that would probably be okay. Difficult to accomplish but I don't think anyone but hard right-wing zionists would be offended by it.
Point number three is the sticky bit. Because fulfilling it would revamp Israel into a Jewish-minority state -- an end to Israel as it now exists. Which I discussed above.
posted by zarq at 11:19 AM on May 12, 2015
These non-violent punitive measures should 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 first part of the first point is disturbingly vague. What constitutes "Arab lands"?
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.
The West Bank? Okay, I think that's entirely reasonable. I'm in favor of ending the Settlements and Occupation. But that's not how Hamas would define Israeli occupation and colonization of Arab lands. They have stated repeatedly that the entire state of Israel occupies Arab land, to the shores of the Mediterranean. One could argue that the Hamas definition doesn't apply, because the platform still defines Israel as an entity. But there's no specificity here. '48 borders? '67 borders? Has the BDS movement done so anywhere? Because when I went searching, I couldn't find an official statement on the matter.
Let's assume good faith and say that for the purposes of this discussion that the first point refers only to the Settlements in the West Bank and the freeing of Gaza's interaction with the outside world from Israel's control. Reasonable.
Dismantling the Wall is also something of a reasonable request. The Wall has proven necessary in reducing/preventing suicide bombers, but it's still a causing problems.
The second point is a no-brainer, and Israel is on paper pretty much all the way there, but not necessarily in practice. On paper the only real difference between Jewish-Israel and Arab Israeli citizenship is mandatory military service. In practice, there is still discrimination against Arabs by Jews in Israel. However, that has been improving slowly -- mostly since the Or report cast a spotlight on the problem.
If the first two points were the only elements of the BDS platform, that would probably be okay. Difficult to accomplish but I don't think anyone but hard right-wing zionists would be offended by it.
Point number three is the sticky bit. Because fulfilling it would revamp Israel into a Jewish-minority state -- an end to Israel as it now exists. Which I discussed above.
posted by zarq at 11:19 AM on May 12, 2015
"Criticizing Israeli policies is fine with me. Not antisemitic. But I am concerned that the BDS movement crosses a line. So I personally question whether its underlying motives are antisemitic. And even if not, whether the boycotts further the goals (even inadvertently) of antisemites."
I wanted to address this comment separately so it didn't get lost in a longer reply to mostly Joe.
I think that many actions from BDS supporters are explicitly anti-Semitic. But the proposed Harper enforcement of "zero tolerance" toward BDS activities, which would include folks like the Quakers and Gush Shalom, serves to highlight that there is a substantial amount of BDS that is not anti-Semitic and that lumping them in is explicitly an unfair attempt to use the cudgel of anti-Semitism to prevent legitimate political action.
Anything that harms Israel in any way inadvertently furthers the goals of anti-Semites. If Israel nuked Iran, reprisals would further the goals of anti-Semites but would also be entirely justified.
"that the movement's ultimate goal is to create a one-state solution for Israel and Palestine, thus eliminating the Jewish majority. Worth noting that a vocal number of people think this would be a positive end goal. "
Netanyahu abandoned the two-state solution in his recent round of electoral pandering, then grudgingly walked it back.
More to the point, I have really mixed feelings about ethnic nationalism as a justification for statehood, which was a huge driver for most of the wars of the 20th century. I think I was more skeptical prior to the general collapse of the post-invasion Iraq and emergence of a semi-autonomous Kurdistan, but the combination of religious justification and colonialist behavior should invite more scrutiny of a nation's policies.
"One of the concerns it raises (see page 18) is that denying the Jews their own state and by extension the ability to self-determination seems to be motivated by antisemitism. "
It's a bit more nuanced than that gloss (and I want to thank you again for posting it; I do think it's a valuable resource), in that it specifically discusses it as disproportionate anti-nationalism applied to Israel in contrast to other ethnic nationalist states (and even then, I think there's a significant difference given the breadth of the diaspora — in 100 years, it might be a lot harder to support an independent Tibet with the pre-1951 boundaries).
And one of the ironies is that the creation of Israel, and even more the post-'67 ongoing occupation, is largely responsible for the creation of a Palestinian nation and nationalism.
"Okay, I think that's entirely reasonable. I'm in favor of ending the Settlements and Occupation. But that's not how Hamas would define Israeli occupation and colonization of Arab lands."
As part of Hamas's efforts to transition into a legitimate political organization, they have said they would abide by the PLO recognition of Israel.
"Point number three is the sticky bit. Because fulfilling it would revamp Israel into a Jewish-minority state -- an end to Israel as it now exists. Which I discussed above."
Likely, it will involve a massive reparations payment to displaced Palestinians. But it highlights a big problem with ethnic nationalism — if the constitution and institutions of Israel are rightly established, Jewish majority status shouldn't be necessary to protect Jewish interests. No state can count on an ethnic majority for identity in perpetuity, and at some point Israel will have to shift to conceiving itself as an Israeli nation with inclusive Israeli interests rather than as an ethnically Jewish nation with ethnically Jewish interests. To argue otherwise is to treat Israel differently than other modern states.
posted by klangklangston at 12:23 PM on May 12, 2015 [2 favorites]
I wanted to address this comment separately so it didn't get lost in a longer reply to mostly Joe.
I think that many actions from BDS supporters are explicitly anti-Semitic. But the proposed Harper enforcement of "zero tolerance" toward BDS activities, which would include folks like the Quakers and Gush Shalom, serves to highlight that there is a substantial amount of BDS that is not anti-Semitic and that lumping them in is explicitly an unfair attempt to use the cudgel of anti-Semitism to prevent legitimate political action.
Anything that harms Israel in any way inadvertently furthers the goals of anti-Semites. If Israel nuked Iran, reprisals would further the goals of anti-Semites but would also be entirely justified.
"that the movement's ultimate goal is to create a one-state solution for Israel and Palestine, thus eliminating the Jewish majority. Worth noting that a vocal number of people think this would be a positive end goal. "
Netanyahu abandoned the two-state solution in his recent round of electoral pandering, then grudgingly walked it back.
More to the point, I have really mixed feelings about ethnic nationalism as a justification for statehood, which was a huge driver for most of the wars of the 20th century. I think I was more skeptical prior to the general collapse of the post-invasion Iraq and emergence of a semi-autonomous Kurdistan, but the combination of religious justification and colonialist behavior should invite more scrutiny of a nation's policies.
"One of the concerns it raises (see page 18) is that denying the Jews their own state and by extension the ability to self-determination seems to be motivated by antisemitism. "
It's a bit more nuanced than that gloss (and I want to thank you again for posting it; I do think it's a valuable resource), in that it specifically discusses it as disproportionate anti-nationalism applied to Israel in contrast to other ethnic nationalist states (and even then, I think there's a significant difference given the breadth of the diaspora — in 100 years, it might be a lot harder to support an independent Tibet with the pre-1951 boundaries).
And one of the ironies is that the creation of Israel, and even more the post-'67 ongoing occupation, is largely responsible for the creation of a Palestinian nation and nationalism.
"Okay, I think that's entirely reasonable. I'm in favor of ending the Settlements and Occupation. But that's not how Hamas would define Israeli occupation and colonization of Arab lands."
As part of Hamas's efforts to transition into a legitimate political organization, they have said they would abide by the PLO recognition of Israel.
"Point number three is the sticky bit. Because fulfilling it would revamp Israel into a Jewish-minority state -- an end to Israel as it now exists. Which I discussed above."
Likely, it will involve a massive reparations payment to displaced Palestinians. But it highlights a big problem with ethnic nationalism — if the constitution and institutions of Israel are rightly established, Jewish majority status shouldn't be necessary to protect Jewish interests. No state can count on an ethnic majority for identity in perpetuity, and at some point Israel will have to shift to conceiving itself as an Israeli nation with inclusive Israeli interests rather than as an ethnically Jewish nation with ethnically Jewish interests. To argue otherwise is to treat Israel differently than other modern states.
posted by klangklangston at 12:23 PM on May 12, 2015 [2 favorites]
In the last piece I linked above, Finkelstein points out that all of the victories claimed by the BDS movement to date have been due to support from organizations whose spokespeople specifically state that (a) they recognize Israel's right to exist and (b) are protesting Israel's illegal settlements. And he goes on to point out that these are victories not for the BDS platform as a whole, support for which he sees as limited largely to a smallish group that he repeatedly characterizes as a "cult", but for those aspects of it that agree with international law.
He also points out repeatedly that the return of all persons displaced during the creation of Israel would indeed be tantamount to the dismantling of the Jewish state - a state whose existence is recognized under international law - and that it is therefore completely disingenuous for anybody to make a serious call for such a return while claiming to be "neutral" on the question of Israel's existence as a Jewish state.
It seems to me that disingenuousness, even to the point of self-delusion, does not in and of itself automatically constitute "hate speech", that the selective use of boycotts to protest against ongoing and egregious violations of international law cannot reasonably be described as "terrorism", and that gaming hate speech and anti-terrorism laws by driving an armored bulldozer constructed of lobbyists and lawyers through them will do nothing to advance the cause of peace in the Middle East.
Unlike free speech, the right way to deal with disingenuousness is not more disingenuousness.
posted by flabdablet at 12:27 PM on May 12, 2015 [3 favorites]
He also points out repeatedly that the return of all persons displaced during the creation of Israel would indeed be tantamount to the dismantling of the Jewish state - a state whose existence is recognized under international law - and that it is therefore completely disingenuous for anybody to make a serious call for such a return while claiming to be "neutral" on the question of Israel's existence as a Jewish state.
It seems to me that disingenuousness, even to the point of self-delusion, does not in and of itself automatically constitute "hate speech", that the selective use of boycotts to protest against ongoing and egregious violations of international law cannot reasonably be described as "terrorism", and that gaming hate speech and anti-terrorism laws by driving an armored bulldozer constructed of lobbyists and lawyers through them will do nothing to advance the cause of peace in the Middle East.
Unlike free speech, the right way to deal with disingenuousness is not more disingenuousness.
posted by flabdablet at 12:27 PM on May 12, 2015 [3 favorites]
klangklangston: I think that many actions from BDS supporters are explicitly anti-Semitic.
Agreed.
But the proposed Harper enforcement of "zero tolerance" toward BDS activities, which would include folks like the Quakers and Gush Shalom, serves to highlight that there is a substantial amount of BDS that is not anti-Semitic and that lumping them in is explicitly an unfair attempt to use the cudgel of anti-Semitism to prevent legitimate political action.
I think the proposed enforcement is idiotic and stupid. I also think it's inappropriately wide-reaching, but let's face it, it really shouldn't ever have been put forth in the first place. I believe it's illegal under Canadian law too, but I am not so well-versed.
I agree that people are being lumped in who shouldn't be. I don't know if a list of those being targeted by the enforcement reveals beyond a doubt that "a substantial amount" of BDS are not antisemitic. That wouldn't surprise me, tho.
I agree with you that antisemitism is being used a cudgel. But some of us who worry about BDS' goals really do have legitimate concerns. I truly believe it's worth examining whether people who are involved in the movement are being swept along to dangerous ends.
Netanyahu abandoned the two-state solution in his recent round of electoral pandering, then grudgingly walked it back.
Yes, and I've spoken about this in at least one other thread. What he did was despicable and horrifying. And I think in that moment he revealed something that many of us in the diaspora suspected, but were hoping wasn't true.
More to the point, I have really mixed feelings about ethnic nationalism as a justification for statehood, which was a huge driver for most of the wars of the 20th century.
Some of my family and my wife's family were executed in the camps. That sort of experience tends to sober one to the realities of having a state power devoted to defending your people. I mention this not to stifle your opinions in any way. You're entitled to have and express them. But the reasoning behind Israel's founding was less a matter of maintaining a sense of ethnic Jewish nationalism than it was making sure that Europe's remaining Jews could survive in their own state without being wiped out. And I do wonder if that could still happen.
It's a bit more nuanced than that gloss (and I want to thank you again for posting it; I do think it's a valuable resource), in that it specifically discusses it as disproportionate anti-nationalism applied to Israel in contrast to other ethnic nationalist states (and even then, I think there's a significant difference given the breadth of the diaspora — in 100 years, it might be a lot harder to support an independent Tibet with the pre-1951 boundaries).
Agreed. And you're welcome.
Perhaps Israel as a Jewish state will eventually not be necessary. I don't think the world is there yet, but it would be nice.
And one of the ironies is that the creation of Israel, and even more the post-'67 ongoing occupation, is largely responsible for the creation of a Palestinian nation and nationalism.
Yes.
I strongly believe the Palestinians deserve their own state. I think they should absolutely have the right to govern themselves, build a nation free of interference by any other nation, and take control of their own destinies. I'd just like to see Israel survive, too.
As part of Hamas's efforts to transition into a legitimate political organization, they have said they would abide by the PLO recognition of Israel.
The only news report I ever saw about this online was about a legislator whose opinion wasn't backed by Hamas' leadership. If you know of a different report, I'd be happy to be proven wrong. Don't know how much I trust Hamas, but it would be good to see an on the record statement to that effect.
Likely, it will involve a massive reparations payment to displaced Palestinians.
Yes. And probably aggressive rebuilding efforts in formerly-occupied territories, if possible.
But it highlights a big problem with ethnic nationalism — if the constitution and institutions of Israel are rightly established, Jewish majority status shouldn't be necessary to protect Jewish interests.
I think that for the moment, this is an ideal goal that isn't achievable. Yet.
No state can count on an ethnic majority for identity in perpetuity, and at some point Israel will have to shift to conceiving itself as an Israeli nation with inclusive Israeli interests rather than as an ethnically Jewish nation with ethnically Jewish interests. To argue otherwise is to treat Israel differently than other modern states.
Perhaps someday this will be the case, but right now Israel isn't just an average state, it's an active refuge for Jews fleeing persecution in Africa, Europe, Asia, the Middle East and elsewhere. I don't know if it can conceivably be both that and a purely Israeli nation.
posted by zarq at 1:59 PM on May 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
Agreed.
But the proposed Harper enforcement of "zero tolerance" toward BDS activities, which would include folks like the Quakers and Gush Shalom, serves to highlight that there is a substantial amount of BDS that is not anti-Semitic and that lumping them in is explicitly an unfair attempt to use the cudgel of anti-Semitism to prevent legitimate political action.
I think the proposed enforcement is idiotic and stupid. I also think it's inappropriately wide-reaching, but let's face it, it really shouldn't ever have been put forth in the first place. I believe it's illegal under Canadian law too, but I am not so well-versed.
I agree that people are being lumped in who shouldn't be. I don't know if a list of those being targeted by the enforcement reveals beyond a doubt that "a substantial amount" of BDS are not antisemitic. That wouldn't surprise me, tho.
I agree with you that antisemitism is being used a cudgel. But some of us who worry about BDS' goals really do have legitimate concerns. I truly believe it's worth examining whether people who are involved in the movement are being swept along to dangerous ends.
Netanyahu abandoned the two-state solution in his recent round of electoral pandering, then grudgingly walked it back.
Yes, and I've spoken about this in at least one other thread. What he did was despicable and horrifying. And I think in that moment he revealed something that many of us in the diaspora suspected, but were hoping wasn't true.
More to the point, I have really mixed feelings about ethnic nationalism as a justification for statehood, which was a huge driver for most of the wars of the 20th century.
Some of my family and my wife's family were executed in the camps. That sort of experience tends to sober one to the realities of having a state power devoted to defending your people. I mention this not to stifle your opinions in any way. You're entitled to have and express them. But the reasoning behind Israel's founding was less a matter of maintaining a sense of ethnic Jewish nationalism than it was making sure that Europe's remaining Jews could survive in their own state without being wiped out. And I do wonder if that could still happen.
It's a bit more nuanced than that gloss (and I want to thank you again for posting it; I do think it's a valuable resource), in that it specifically discusses it as disproportionate anti-nationalism applied to Israel in contrast to other ethnic nationalist states (and even then, I think there's a significant difference given the breadth of the diaspora — in 100 years, it might be a lot harder to support an independent Tibet with the pre-1951 boundaries).
Agreed. And you're welcome.
Perhaps Israel as a Jewish state will eventually not be necessary. I don't think the world is there yet, but it would be nice.
And one of the ironies is that the creation of Israel, and even more the post-'67 ongoing occupation, is largely responsible for the creation of a Palestinian nation and nationalism.
Yes.
I strongly believe the Palestinians deserve their own state. I think they should absolutely have the right to govern themselves, build a nation free of interference by any other nation, and take control of their own destinies. I'd just like to see Israel survive, too.
As part of Hamas's efforts to transition into a legitimate political organization, they have said they would abide by the PLO recognition of Israel.
The only news report I ever saw about this online was about a legislator whose opinion wasn't backed by Hamas' leadership. If you know of a different report, I'd be happy to be proven wrong. Don't know how much I trust Hamas, but it would be good to see an on the record statement to that effect.
Likely, it will involve a massive reparations payment to displaced Palestinians.
Yes. And probably aggressive rebuilding efforts in formerly-occupied territories, if possible.
But it highlights a big problem with ethnic nationalism — if the constitution and institutions of Israel are rightly established, Jewish majority status shouldn't be necessary to protect Jewish interests.
I think that for the moment, this is an ideal goal that isn't achievable. Yet.
No state can count on an ethnic majority for identity in perpetuity, and at some point Israel will have to shift to conceiving itself as an Israeli nation with inclusive Israeli interests rather than as an ethnically Jewish nation with ethnically Jewish interests. To argue otherwise is to treat Israel differently than other modern states.
Perhaps someday this will be the case, but right now Israel isn't just an average state, it's an active refuge for Jews fleeing persecution in Africa, Europe, Asia, the Middle East and elsewhere. I don't know if it can conceivably be both that and a purely Israeli nation.
posted by zarq at 1:59 PM on May 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
flabdablet, sorry, I didn't read the Finkelstein interview. Will look. Thanks for clarifying.
The last I had read from Finkelstein about BDS attacked the movement for not taking a public stand on whether Israel had a right to exist.
posted by zarq at 2:06 PM on May 12, 2015
The last I had read from Finkelstein about BDS attacked the movement for not taking a public stand on whether Israel had a right to exist.
posted by zarq at 2:06 PM on May 12, 2015
Perhaps someday this will be the case, but right now Israel isn't just an average state, it's an active refuge for Jews fleeing persecution in Africa, Europe, Asia, the Middle East and elsewhere. I don't know if it can conceivably be both that and a purely Israeli nation.
The problem is that this argument is hard to square with how Israel has limited the right of return to non-Ashenkazi Jews, especially in recent years (the case of how they have treated Ethiopian Jewish refugees being a particularly prominent and recent example.)
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:36 PM on May 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
The problem is that this argument is hard to square with how Israel has limited the right of return to non-Ashenkazi Jews, especially in recent years (the case of how they have treated Ethiopian Jewish refugees being a particularly prominent and recent example.)
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:36 PM on May 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
NoxAeturnum, I don't think that's true. Can you provide some citations for this limit of the Right of Return? And you do know that "Ashkenazi" and "not Ethiopian" are not synonyms, right?
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:55 PM on May 12, 2015
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:55 PM on May 12, 2015
The problem is that this argument is hard to square with how Israel has limited the right of return to non-Ashenkazi Jews, especially in recent years (the case of how they have treated Ethiopian Jewish refugees being a particularly prominent and recent example.)
I'm not an expert on this subject, but my understanding is that Ethiopian Jewish refugees were brought to Israel and their right to return was not limited or restricted? The only Ethiopian group (as far as I know) whose return was questioned were the Falash Mura (not sure of the spelling?) who had been forcibly converted to Christianity from Judaism. But that latter group was officially granted right of return in the early 2000's, IIRC.
Ethiopian Jews did face racism and bigotry once they had settled in Israel. There have been a number of disturbing incidents, including blood from their donations being trashed by Magen David Olam.
posted by zarq at 3:58 PM on May 12, 2015
I'm not an expert on this subject, but my understanding is that Ethiopian Jewish refugees were brought to Israel and their right to return was not limited or restricted? The only Ethiopian group (as far as I know) whose return was questioned were the Falash Mura (not sure of the spelling?) who had been forcibly converted to Christianity from Judaism. But that latter group was officially granted right of return in the early 2000's, IIRC.
Ethiopian Jews did face racism and bigotry once they had settled in Israel. There have been a number of disturbing incidents, including blood from their donations being trashed by Magen David Olam.
posted by zarq at 3:58 PM on May 12, 2015
NPR did a story on the issue of the Ethiopian Jewish community having the rug pulled out from under them, zarq.
And Joe, how about you assume some good faith and realize that we do actually know what the terms mean?
posted by NoxAeternum at 4:10 PM on May 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
And Joe, how about you assume some good faith and realize that we do actually know what the terms mean?
posted by NoxAeternum at 4:10 PM on May 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
Zarq: it's symptomatic of the media's bizarre focus on Israel that anyone outside that country would even know or care about Israeli blood donation guidelines.
For what it's worth, I just checked the Australian blood donation guidelines, which have similar restrictions: Ethiopia is considered to be a country with a high prevalence of HIV infection and a country in which malaria and schistosomiasis/bilharzia are endemic. The malaria thing means that you can't donate blood until you've been tested for antibodies; I suspect that if you have a chronic infection you will never be able to donate at all. The Australian site doesn't even say whether someone formerly infected with schistosomiasis will ever be able to donate blood. As for HIV, the restriction on donations means that a traveller who has sex with someone in Ethiopia will not be able to donate for twelve months after their return. I don't know how that would work with a transplanted community that has many recent immigrants, but it's obviously the sort of thing that would have to be carefully considered with a great deal of attention to the specific facts. In other words, it's not the sort of thing the media or Metafilter could do well.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:27 PM on May 12, 2015
For what it's worth, I just checked the Australian blood donation guidelines, which have similar restrictions: Ethiopia is considered to be a country with a high prevalence of HIV infection and a country in which malaria and schistosomiasis/bilharzia are endemic. The malaria thing means that you can't donate blood until you've been tested for antibodies; I suspect that if you have a chronic infection you will never be able to donate at all. The Australian site doesn't even say whether someone formerly infected with schistosomiasis will ever be able to donate blood. As for HIV, the restriction on donations means that a traveller who has sex with someone in Ethiopia will not be able to donate for twelve months after their return. I don't know how that would work with a transplanted community that has many recent immigrants, but it's obviously the sort of thing that would have to be carefully considered with a great deal of attention to the specific facts. In other words, it's not the sort of thing the media or Metafilter could do well.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:27 PM on May 12, 2015
NPR did a story on the issue of the Ethiopian Jewish community having the rug pulled out from under them, zarq.
posted by zarq at 4:28 PM on May 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
Israeli officials now required the Falash Mura to count back seven generations, "to see whether they have, in the middle, any non-Jews in that lineage."What the hell? FFS. That's complete and utter bullshit, and the people who set up that ridiculously offensive double standard should be ashamed of themselves.
posted by zarq at 4:28 PM on May 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
Magen David Olam
Magen David Adom, I think you mean.
posted by hoist with his own pet aardvark at 4:30 PM on May 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
Magen David Adom, I think you mean.
posted by hoist with his own pet aardvark at 4:30 PM on May 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
Joe in Australia: Zarq: it's symptomatic of the media's bizarre focus on Israel that anyone outside that country would even know or care about Israeli blood donation guidelines.
Please. There were protests and riots over the incident, covered in major Israeli papers and elsewhere. MDA was secretly trashing blood donated by Ethiopians. Not stopping them from donating, mind you. Just freezing and trashing the blood without screening it.
Here in the US, they won't take your blood if you fail the questionnaire. Which strikes me as the sane way to handle it.
hoist with his own pet aardvark: Magen David Adom, I think you mean.
Yes, sorry. Thanks for the correction.
posted by zarq at 4:42 PM on May 12, 2015 [2 favorites]
Please. There were protests and riots over the incident, covered in major Israeli papers and elsewhere. MDA was secretly trashing blood donated by Ethiopians. Not stopping them from donating, mind you. Just freezing and trashing the blood without screening it.
Here in the US, they won't take your blood if you fail the questionnaire. Which strikes me as the sane way to handle it.
"Israeli officials have said that the blood was accepted from Ethiopians and surreptitiously thrown out so as not to stigmatize the donors publicly. The realization that their blood was rejected seemed to unleash a pent-up sense of humiliation and discrimination among Israel's 60,000 Ethiopian Jews"--
hoist with his own pet aardvark: Magen David Adom, I think you mean.
Yes, sorry. Thanks for the correction.
posted by zarq at 4:42 PM on May 12, 2015 [2 favorites]
Joe, how about you assume some good faith and realize that we do actually know what the terms mean?
Perhaps you misspoke when you said "Israel has limited the right of return to non-Ashenkazi Jews"? The article you cite doesn't even claim that Israel has limited the right of return to Ethiopian Jews; it's talking about a particular group of Ethiopians who had never been eligible under the Law of Return but who claim to be "a special case":
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:54 PM on May 12, 2015
Perhaps you misspoke when you said "Israel has limited the right of return to non-Ashenkazi Jews"? The article you cite doesn't even claim that Israel has limited the right of return to Ethiopian Jews; it's talking about a particular group of Ethiopians who had never been eligible under the Law of Return but who claim to be "a special case":
Gezi and his family are a special case, because they're descended from a group of Ethiopians whose Jewish ancestors converted to Christianity under pressure in the 19th century. They're called the Falash Mura. They secretly practiced Judaism but were not allowed to emigrate with the other Ethiopian Jews until a hard-won political compromise a decade ago.Incidentally, it's weird that you think it's worth looking at another country's immigration laws in this level of detail. It's also weird that you think that (what may or may not be) a small flaw in a huge assisted migration program is evidence of racism. I don't think you lack good faith, but you need to examine your prejudices.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:54 PM on May 12, 2015
For heaven's sake. Would you please stop making snide accusations that people here are racist because they're reading news articles and commenting on topic about Israel in a thread about Israel?
posted by zarq at 5:07 PM on May 12, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by zarq at 5:07 PM on May 12, 2015 [6 favorites]
incidentally, it's weird that you think it's worth looking at another country's immigration laws in this level of detail.
About as weird as worrying about another country's free speech laws, eh joe?
posted by Chrischris at 5:14 PM on May 12, 2015 [4 favorites]
About as weird as worrying about another country's free speech laws, eh joe?
posted by Chrischris at 5:14 PM on May 12, 2015 [4 favorites]
Incidentally, it's weird that you think it's worth looking at another country's immigration laws in this level of detail.
Yes, other people's level of knowledge is suspect.
Tell us again what percentage of the U.S. Congress is African-American, please.
posted by Etrigan at 5:16 PM on May 12, 2015 [6 favorites]
Yes, other people's level of knowledge is suspect.
Tell us again what percentage of the U.S. Congress is African-American, please.
posted by Etrigan at 5:16 PM on May 12, 2015 [6 favorites]
Zarq wrote: MDA was secretly trashing blood donated by Ethiopians. Not stopping them from donating, mind you. Just freezing and trashing the blood without screening it. Here in the US, they won't take your blood if you fail the questionnaire. Which strikes me as the sane way to handle it.
I agree. But the NY Times article you quoted says:
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:20 PM on May 12, 2015
I agree. But the NY Times article you quoted says:
Instead of refusing to take blood from Ethiopian Jews, Israeli officials said they decided to dispose of it quietly so the donors, especially soldiers, would not be stigmatized in public. Most blood in Israel is donated in the army, with entire military units giving together.You can see that it's a tricky situation, and the "sane" way is not necessarily going to be the best one: we're dealing with people, not robots. Also, this took place in 1996. My rough calculation based on test reports from 2005 - a decade later - is that given the high prevalence of HIV among Ethiopian immigrants, there would have been at least two or three false negatives. And that's assuming that the tests they had were as sensitive to African strains of HIV as they were to the ones for which they were designed: the profile of HIV viruses in Africa is different and more variable than elsewhere. And that still leaves malaria and other diseases.
[...]
Dr. Amnon Ben-David, director of the agency's blood services, said, "We thought that singling out an ethnic group and telling them to go home would be more offensive and embarrassing."
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:20 PM on May 12, 2015
You can see that it's a tricky situation, and the "sane" way is not necessarily going to be the best one: we're dealing with people, not robots.
This is the questionnaire used in the US. (PDF) It's not terribly complicated, and asks a lot of questions, any of which can cause someone to be barred (temporarily or permanently) from donating blood and/or platelets. Some questions can be worked around if you speak with the tech. I once donated blood 2 times in 4 weeks for a friend who was having cancer surgery. (I don't recommend that, btw.) Other restrictions are carved in stone - no exceptions -- and travel through Africa is one of them.
Further details can be found at the American Red Cross website.
They could have easily handed out a questionnaire and dealt with things that way. It's not a perfect solution, but that's fine. Instead, they took people's blood, made them think it was going to be used and then quietly tossed it. Not great. But when the coverup was revealed, lots of people were unhappy, seeing it as a symptom of a larger problem.
posted by zarq at 5:55 PM on May 12, 2015 [2 favorites]
This is the questionnaire used in the US. (PDF) It's not terribly complicated, and asks a lot of questions, any of which can cause someone to be barred (temporarily or permanently) from donating blood and/or platelets. Some questions can be worked around if you speak with the tech. I once donated blood 2 times in 4 weeks for a friend who was having cancer surgery. (I don't recommend that, btw.) Other restrictions are carved in stone - no exceptions -- and travel through Africa is one of them.
Further details can be found at the American Red Cross website.
They could have easily handed out a questionnaire and dealt with things that way. It's not a perfect solution, but that's fine. Instead, they took people's blood, made them think it was going to be used and then quietly tossed it. Not great. But when the coverup was revealed, lots of people were unhappy, seeing it as a symptom of a larger problem.
posted by zarq at 5:55 PM on May 12, 2015 [2 favorites]
It's also weird that you think that (what may or may not be) a small flaw in a huge assisted migration program is evidence of racism. I don't think you lack good faith, but you need to examine your prejudices.
Oh, please. The structural intra-Jewish racism in Israeli society is an open secret at this point. Especially when you compare the radical difference in how Russian immigrants were treated.
posted by NoxAeternum at 6:38 PM on May 12, 2015 [3 favorites]
Oh, please. The structural intra-Jewish racism in Israeli society is an open secret at this point. Especially when you compare the radical difference in how Russian immigrants were treated.
posted by NoxAeternum at 6:38 PM on May 12, 2015 [3 favorites]
This is the questionnaire used in the US. (PDF)
Read questions 46 & 47 on that form. Also 39, which asks if the donor has ever had malaria.
In retrospect, MDA should have said "We can't accept Ethiopian migrants' blood and may never be able to." Concealing the situation didn't help anyone. I think their motives were compassionate, though, and based in a desire to promote integration.
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:47 PM on May 12, 2015
Read questions 46 & 47 on that form. Also 39, which asks if the donor has ever had malaria.
In retrospect, MDA should have said "We can't accept Ethiopian migrants' blood and may never be able to." Concealing the situation didn't help anyone. I think their motives were compassionate, though, and based in a desire to promote integration.
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:47 PM on May 12, 2015
I think their motives were compassionate, though, and based in a desire to promote integration.
You can imagine the depths of our collective surprise that you ascribe the best possible motives to an actively deceptive Israeli policy.
posted by Etrigan at 8:00 PM on May 12, 2015 [5 favorites]
You can imagine the depths of our collective surprise that you ascribe the best possible motives to an actively deceptive Israeli policy.
posted by Etrigan at 8:00 PM on May 12, 2015 [5 favorites]
Etrigan, I'm surprised to see your level of prejudice.
Israel's policy on discarding blood donations has been shown to be in line with other nations'. The person responsible for concealing this policy from migrants has said why he did it. Even if you think he's lying, you need a better reason than "well, he's Israeli".
This is what I mean when I say that anti-Zionism uses the same tropes as anti-Semitism: there's this same pattern of being willing to believe any bad thing, even when it goes against logic: surely you can see that the policy was actually more costly and burdensome to the MDA than simply saying "no, you can't donate blood if you came from Ethiopia".
posted by Joe in Australia at 9:04 PM on May 12, 2015
Israel's policy on discarding blood donations has been shown to be in line with other nations'. The person responsible for concealing this policy from migrants has said why he did it. Even if you think he's lying, you need a better reason than "well, he's Israeli".
This is what I mean when I say that anti-Zionism uses the same tropes as anti-Semitism: there's this same pattern of being willing to believe any bad thing, even when it goes against logic: surely you can see that the policy was actually more costly and burdensome to the MDA than simply saying "no, you can't donate blood if you came from Ethiopia".
posted by Joe in Australia at 9:04 PM on May 12, 2015
Other restrictions are carved in stone - no exceptions -- and travel through Africa is one of them.
I think Israel should be given the benefit of the doubt, but the Red Cross has a waiting period for Africa not a ban. Mad Cow disease countries are completely ineligible. Does Israel throw out blood from UK donors?
posted by Golden Eternity at 9:16 PM on May 12, 2015
I think Israel should be given the benefit of the doubt, but the Red Cross has a waiting period for Africa not a ban. Mad Cow disease countries are completely ineligible. Does Israel throw out blood from UK donors?
posted by Golden Eternity at 9:16 PM on May 12, 2015
the Red Cross has a waiting period for Africa not a ban
For travellers, maybe, but according to the FDA people who were born in, lived for more than one year in, received a blood product from, or had sex with a person from Cameroon, Benin, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Kenya, Gabon, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Togo, or Zambia, should be "indefinitely deferred". The US Red Cross has incorporated this advice into its guidelines.
Does Israel throw out blood from UK donors?
oogleGoogleGoogleGoogleGoogleGoogleGoogleGoogleGoogleGoogleGoogleGoogleG....
Yes, although apparently they now "freeze" it instead of throwing it out.
I'm ineligible to give blood myself, incidentally.
posted by Joe in Australia at 9:53 PM on May 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
For travellers, maybe, but according to the FDA people who were born in, lived for more than one year in, received a blood product from, or had sex with a person from Cameroon, Benin, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Kenya, Gabon, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Togo, or Zambia, should be "indefinitely deferred". The US Red Cross has incorporated this advice into its guidelines.
Does Israel throw out blood from UK donors?
oogleGoogleGoogleGoogleGoogleGoogleGoogleGoogleGoogleGoogleGoogleGoogleG....
Yes, although apparently they now "freeze" it instead of throwing it out.
I'm ineligible to give blood myself, incidentally.
posted by Joe in Australia at 9:53 PM on May 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
I can't see how Israel's treatment of blood donations has anything to do with Canada's position on BDS.
This thread has stayed remarkably civil, as Metafilter I/P threads go. It would be lovely to keep it that way, and staying at least vaguely on-topic would probably help.
posted by flabdablet at 10:33 PM on May 12, 2015 [10 favorites]
This thread has stayed remarkably civil, as Metafilter I/P threads go. It would be lovely to keep it that way, and staying at least vaguely on-topic would probably help.
posted by flabdablet at 10:33 PM on May 12, 2015 [10 favorites]
"Some of my family and my wife's family were executed in the camps. That sort of experience tends to sober one to the realities of having a state power devoted to defending your people. I mention this not to stifle your opinions in any way. You're entitled to have and express them. But the reasoning behind Israel's founding was less a matter of maintaining a sense of ethnic Jewish nationalism than it was making sure that Europe's remaining Jews could survive in their own state without being wiped out. And I do wonder if that could still happen. "
It's my understanding that while the Holocaust was the ultimate catalyst for the creation of Israel (and to call it a sufficient justification is, I think, an understatement), Zionism and the formal attempt at a post-Diaspora ethnic national homeland was at least 50 years old by the time Israel was created, with a historical narrative that extends for nearly all of the history of Judaism. Because of that, I think there's both the proximal justification of the Holocaust (and even modern pogroms separate from the Holocaust but still sufficient to justify seeking an ethnic homeland) as well as a longterm ethnic nationalist narrative that can legitimately be compared to other longterm ethnic nationalist narratives, e.g. Serbia or Armenia.
"I think that for the moment, this is an ideal goal that isn't achievable. Yet. "
I do think it's an ideal that most likely won't be reached in my lifetime, but I do think it's worth working toward. I also tend to think that working toward it also means working toward a broader Arab world that isn't insanely anti-Semitic.
Something else that I think complicates the discussion is that so many of the Arab countries around Israel are repressive dictatorships — that while their anti-Semitism is frothing and operatic, it's one problem among a slew of failures. As opposed to Israel, where the occupation of Palestine really is the biggest thing that keeps them from being regarded as basically on par with European democracies. Even if Saudi Arabia renounced anti-Semitism tomorrow, they'd still be deeply fucked up and repressive. While some folks may argue this amounts to holding Israel to a different, higher standard than their neighbors, I tend to think it's more of an acknowledgement of the significant European influence on Israel's founding and a refusal to bow to tu quoque lowest common denominator.
posted by klangklangston at 11:31 PM on May 12, 2015 [4 favorites]
It's my understanding that while the Holocaust was the ultimate catalyst for the creation of Israel (and to call it a sufficient justification is, I think, an understatement), Zionism and the formal attempt at a post-Diaspora ethnic national homeland was at least 50 years old by the time Israel was created, with a historical narrative that extends for nearly all of the history of Judaism. Because of that, I think there's both the proximal justification of the Holocaust (and even modern pogroms separate from the Holocaust but still sufficient to justify seeking an ethnic homeland) as well as a longterm ethnic nationalist narrative that can legitimately be compared to other longterm ethnic nationalist narratives, e.g. Serbia or Armenia.
"I think that for the moment, this is an ideal goal that isn't achievable. Yet. "
I do think it's an ideal that most likely won't be reached in my lifetime, but I do think it's worth working toward. I also tend to think that working toward it also means working toward a broader Arab world that isn't insanely anti-Semitic.
Something else that I think complicates the discussion is that so many of the Arab countries around Israel are repressive dictatorships — that while their anti-Semitism is frothing and operatic, it's one problem among a slew of failures. As opposed to Israel, where the occupation of Palestine really is the biggest thing that keeps them from being regarded as basically on par with European democracies. Even if Saudi Arabia renounced anti-Semitism tomorrow, they'd still be deeply fucked up and repressive. While some folks may argue this amounts to holding Israel to a different, higher standard than their neighbors, I tend to think it's more of an acknowledgement of the significant European influence on Israel's founding and a refusal to bow to tu quoque lowest common denominator.
posted by klangklangston at 11:31 PM on May 12, 2015 [4 favorites]
so many of the Arab countries around Israel are repressive dictatorships — that while their anti-Semitism is frothing and operatic, it's one problem among a slew of failures. As opposed to Israel, where the occupation of Palestine really is the biggest thing that keeps them from being regarded as basically on par with European democracies.
Worth bearing in mind that froth and opera are the instinctive modus operandi for repressive regimes generally, whether democratically elected or not.
Criminalizing boycotts looks pretty bloody frothy from where I sit.
posted by flabdablet at 2:54 AM on May 13, 2015 [2 favorites]
Worth bearing in mind that froth and opera are the instinctive modus operandi for repressive regimes generally, whether democratically elected or not.
Criminalizing boycotts looks pretty bloody frothy from where I sit.
posted by flabdablet at 2:54 AM on May 13, 2015 [2 favorites]
For travellers, maybe, but according to the FDA people who were born in, lived for more than one year in, received a blood product from, or had sex with a person from Cameroon, Benin, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Kenya, Gabon, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Togo, or Zambia, should be "indefinitely deferred". The US Red Cross has incorporated this advice into its guidelines.
Noticeably absent: Ethiopia, which is on the other side of Africa from almost every one of the nations listed.
posted by zombieflanders at 5:46 AM on May 13, 2015 [4 favorites]
Noticeably absent: Ethiopia, which is on the other side of Africa from almost every one of the nations listed.
posted by zombieflanders at 5:46 AM on May 13, 2015 [4 favorites]
Israel steps up diplomatic action as fears grow over FIFA suspension
posted by Golden Eternity at 8:53 AM on May 13, 2015
posted by Golden Eternity at 8:53 AM on May 13, 2015
> Ethiopia, which is on the other side of Africa from almost every one of the nations listed.
This comment is our periodic reminder that Africa is Big.
posted by benito.strauss at 10:06 AM on May 13, 2015 [5 favorites]
This comment is our periodic reminder that Africa is Big.
posted by benito.strauss at 10:06 AM on May 13, 2015 [5 favorites]
It is sad that on the day this debate rose up, Alan Borovoy, longtime civil liberties advocate, and specialust in parsing the murky world of conflicting rights in althr Canadian Charter, has died.
Here is Terry Glavin'saffectionate tribute to a great man Canada lost just when we need him most.
posted by chapps at 12:23 PM on May 13, 2015 [2 favorites]
Here is Terry Glavin'saffectionate tribute to a great man Canada lost just when we need him most.
posted by chapps at 12:23 PM on May 13, 2015 [2 favorites]
Noticeably absent: Ethiopia, which is on the other side of Africa from almost every one of the nations listed.
It's adjacent to Kenya.
But I presume that the MDA, not being idiots, considered the actual facts before implementing a policy that was potentially divisive and economically costly. The incidence of HIV among Ethiopian Israelis is much higher than the population generally: about a third of all Israelis with HIV were born in Ethiopia.
Israel's decision to admit tens of thousands of Ethiopian migrants was one of the most principled and humane actions taken by any state at any time. The courage of the refugees themselves cannot be overstated: I think about a third of them died while trying to reach a place from which they could be airlifted to Israel, but the enormous political, diplomatic, and economic costs of Operation Moses and Operation Solomon are a shining example of the best in human nature. This decision was taken despite the fact - in fact partially because of the fact - that many of the refugees were ill or weak.1 At that time, in contrast, people with HIV were not even able to visit the USA; a ban which continues to affect many people today.
The fact that even this is used as fodder by BDS activists shows what a nonsense the "holding Israel to a high standard" is. It's as offensive as saying that police hold African-Americans to a high standard: no standard would satisfy its critics; any humanitarian action is perversely used as an excuse for further criticism. And supporters of BDS, even ones who think themselves to be liberal and unprejudiced, soak this up. They think there must be something in it; they justify the constant stream of demonisation; they repeat things uncritically without ever checking the facts, And if all else fails, they just use sarcasm and snark: oh, you have a defense? You're defensive. The facts are wrong this time? What about all the other times? And if they have no leg to stand on, out comes Morton's Fork: "you think Israel never does anything wrong". To which, of course, there is no rejoinder.
1 "A number of children had died in the camps or during the flight to Israel, and their parents brought their bodies down from the aircraft with them. Many of the newcomers, overcome with emotion at the fulfillment of their dream of arriving in Israel, went down on their knees and kissed the tarmac, like many of the Yemeni Jews who came during Operation Magic Carpet more than 30 years ago." - Jewish Chronicle Online, quoting its January 5, 1985 edition.
posted by Joe in Australia at 8:08 PM on May 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
It's adjacent to Kenya.
But I presume that the MDA, not being idiots, considered the actual facts before implementing a policy that was potentially divisive and economically costly. The incidence of HIV among Ethiopian Israelis is much higher than the population generally: about a third of all Israelis with HIV were born in Ethiopia.
Israel's decision to admit tens of thousands of Ethiopian migrants was one of the most principled and humane actions taken by any state at any time. The courage of the refugees themselves cannot be overstated: I think about a third of them died while trying to reach a place from which they could be airlifted to Israel, but the enormous political, diplomatic, and economic costs of Operation Moses and Operation Solomon are a shining example of the best in human nature. This decision was taken despite the fact - in fact partially because of the fact - that many of the refugees were ill or weak.1 At that time, in contrast, people with HIV were not even able to visit the USA; a ban which continues to affect many people today.
The fact that even this is used as fodder by BDS activists shows what a nonsense the "holding Israel to a high standard" is. It's as offensive as saying that police hold African-Americans to a high standard: no standard would satisfy its critics; any humanitarian action is perversely used as an excuse for further criticism. And supporters of BDS, even ones who think themselves to be liberal and unprejudiced, soak this up. They think there must be something in it; they justify the constant stream of demonisation; they repeat things uncritically without ever checking the facts, And if all else fails, they just use sarcasm and snark: oh, you have a defense? You're defensive. The facts are wrong this time? What about all the other times? And if they have no leg to stand on, out comes Morton's Fork: "you think Israel never does anything wrong". To which, of course, there is no rejoinder.
1 "A number of children had died in the camps or during the flight to Israel, and their parents brought their bodies down from the aircraft with them. Many of the newcomers, overcome with emotion at the fulfillment of their dream of arriving in Israel, went down on their knees and kissed the tarmac, like many of the Yemeni Jews who came during Operation Magic Carpet more than 30 years ago." - Jewish Chronicle Online, quoting its January 5, 1985 edition.
posted by Joe in Australia at 8:08 PM on May 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
But I presume that the MDA, not being idiots, considered the actual facts before implementing a policy that was potentially divisive and economically costly.
HAAHAHAAAHAAAHA. You're joking, right? Like the way blood services here in Canada still ban any blood (or organ, or as the guy I'm dating just found out, vitally needed bone marrow for someone who needs a transplant) donation by any man who has had sex with a man in the past five years. For tolerably obvious reasons, this is functionally identical to banning virtually all gay men, and most bisexual men (whether cis or trans), from donating blood.
This also bans men who are in long-term monogamous relationships with other men.
And it's in defiance of science and basic common sense. We know how long it takes HIV to show up in the bloodstream; all they need to do is ask about risky behaviour and they've solved the problem. But nope, they continue their discriminatory practice.
So, yeah, don't be so quick to assume they're not just bigoted idiots.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:11 PM on May 13, 2015 [3 favorites]
HAAHAHAAAHAAAHA. You're joking, right? Like the way blood services here in Canada still ban any blood (or organ, or as the guy I'm dating just found out, vitally needed bone marrow for someone who needs a transplant) donation by any man who has had sex with a man in the past five years. For tolerably obvious reasons, this is functionally identical to banning virtually all gay men, and most bisexual men (whether cis or trans), from donating blood.
This also bans men who are in long-term monogamous relationships with other men.
And it's in defiance of science and basic common sense. We know how long it takes HIV to show up in the bloodstream; all they need to do is ask about risky behaviour and they've solved the problem. But nope, they continue their discriminatory practice.
So, yeah, don't be so quick to assume they're not just bigoted idiots.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:11 PM on May 13, 2015 [3 favorites]
And supporters of BDS, even ones who think themselves to be liberal and unprejudiced, soak this up.
I support boycotts, divestment and sanctions in pursuit of persuading the Israeli Government that getting serious about complying with international law is in its own economic best interest, I consider myself liberal and aim to be unprejudiced, and I do not "soak this up".
The Israeli Government, like all large organizations everywhere including the Australian and Canadian Governments, does some genuinely awful things warranting legitimate and strident criticism. Some of those things are contrary to international law, and to my way of thinking those are the ones that ought to be uppermost in people's minds. Endless tit-for-tat games of Yeah Well Your Fuckwits Are The Worst Fuckwits simply muddies the waters and distracts attention from where it belongs. I wish people would stop doing that.
posted by flabdablet at 9:39 PM on May 13, 2015 [3 favorites]
I support boycotts, divestment and sanctions in pursuit of persuading the Israeli Government that getting serious about complying with international law is in its own economic best interest, I consider myself liberal and aim to be unprejudiced, and I do not "soak this up".
The Israeli Government, like all large organizations everywhere including the Australian and Canadian Governments, does some genuinely awful things warranting legitimate and strident criticism. Some of those things are contrary to international law, and to my way of thinking those are the ones that ought to be uppermost in people's minds. Endless tit-for-tat games of Yeah Well Your Fuckwits Are The Worst Fuckwits simply muddies the waters and distracts attention from where it belongs. I wish people would stop doing that.
posted by flabdablet at 9:39 PM on May 13, 2015 [3 favorites]
FFFM wrote: Like the way blood services here in Canada still ban any blood [...] donation by any man who has had sex with a man in the past five years.
You're suggesting that ... BDS against Israel is justified because Canada discriminates against gay men? Wouldn't it make more sense for Israel to boycott Canada?
There's a solid argument for your position on gay male blood donation. Similarly, one critic of the Israeli policy on Ethiopian migrant blood donation said that eliminating it would avoid only one or two additional infections over a ten year period (I have no idea whether that's correct.) But Israel isn't a proxy for Canada, and the fact that both countries struggle with accommodating public policy to scientific reality shows that this isn't the sort of thing that is helped by treating one country as a scapegoat.
posted by Joe in Australia at 9:42 PM on May 13, 2015
You're suggesting that ... BDS against Israel is justified because Canada discriminates against gay men? Wouldn't it make more sense for Israel to boycott Canada?
There's a solid argument for your position on gay male blood donation. Similarly, one critic of the Israeli policy on Ethiopian migrant blood donation said that eliminating it would avoid only one or two additional infections over a ten year period (I have no idea whether that's correct.) But Israel isn't a proxy for Canada, and the fact that both countries struggle with accommodating public policy to scientific reality shows that this isn't the sort of thing that is helped by treating one country as a scapegoat.
posted by Joe in Australia at 9:42 PM on May 13, 2015
You're suggesting that ... BDS against Israel is justified because Canada discriminates against gay men?
I am at a total loss as to how you could have possibly taken that meaning from anything I said.
Reread the last line: "So, yeah, don't be so quick to assume they're not just bigoted idiots."
I was pointing out that your assumption that the Israeli blood agency was acting from motives of pure science and logic is laughable, particularly in light of how quick you are to throw accusations of racism at everyone else in the universe.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:46 PM on May 13, 2015 [3 favorites]
I am at a total loss as to how you could have possibly taken that meaning from anything I said.
Reread the last line: "So, yeah, don't be so quick to assume they're not just bigoted idiots."
I was pointing out that your assumption that the Israeli blood agency was acting from motives of pure science and logic is laughable, particularly in light of how quick you are to throw accusations of racism at everyone else in the universe.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:46 PM on May 13, 2015 [3 favorites]
Oh, and I'd say that boycotts against Israel (that is to say, actions which pressure the Israeli Government, which is a different entity than Jewish people) are justified because of the ongoing atrocity that is Gaza.
Go ahead, Harper, arrest me.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:18 PM on May 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
Go ahead, Harper, arrest me.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:18 PM on May 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
I support boycotts, divestment and sanctions in pursuit of persuading the Israeli Government that getting serious about complying with international law is in its own economic best interest [...]
That's an awkward way of putting it. I should hope that Israel would have better motives than that.
Flabdablet, we both know that Australia's treatment of refugees is very probably in breach of international law, as was its treatment of Aborigines, and a host of other things. But there's not the slightest skerrick of an iota of a possibility that there would ever be a substantial international boycott of Australia. You might say that Australia is one of the world's Good Guys, and to a certain extent that's true. But there's no boycott of very bad guys, either. That's not surprising: it's hard to get a boycott program off the ground, but it doesn't mean anything until it has broad-based support. It's a sort of Catch-22.
As I said earlier, there are lots of blatantly anti-Semitic supporters of BDS. I was surprised to see a call for the exclusion of Jews written off as "undergraduate"; a substantial proportion of BDS involvement is carried out by undergraduates; the ones responsible were both student officers and leaders of the UCLA BDS movement; and in any event: do you see the adult BDS supporters stopping this, decrying it, mortified by it? No. So some fraction of the BDS movement is anti-Semitic; and that fraction is tolerated more than it should be.
So how did BDS get started, globally, when there's no similar campaign against any other country even contemplated? My answer is that BDS calls upon a reservoir of anti-Semitism and that without that base it would be as unsustainable as a boycott of any other country. But if I'm wrong about this - if BDS could survive without the Jew-baiters and blood-libellers and "dual-loyalty" conspiracy theorists and so forth - then why isn't there an internal purge of the BDS movement? Why don't other activists stand up and say "Sorry, we can't tolerate leaders who are motivated by prejudice"? I think the answer is simple: the anti-Semites are the movement: they're the committed and experienced members; they're not going to purge themselves. But I'd be very happy to be proven wrong.
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:11 AM on May 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
That's an awkward way of putting it. I should hope that Israel would have better motives than that.
Flabdablet, we both know that Australia's treatment of refugees is very probably in breach of international law, as was its treatment of Aborigines, and a host of other things. But there's not the slightest skerrick of an iota of a possibility that there would ever be a substantial international boycott of Australia. You might say that Australia is one of the world's Good Guys, and to a certain extent that's true. But there's no boycott of very bad guys, either. That's not surprising: it's hard to get a boycott program off the ground, but it doesn't mean anything until it has broad-based support. It's a sort of Catch-22.
As I said earlier, there are lots of blatantly anti-Semitic supporters of BDS. I was surprised to see a call for the exclusion of Jews written off as "undergraduate"; a substantial proportion of BDS involvement is carried out by undergraduates; the ones responsible were both student officers and leaders of the UCLA BDS movement; and in any event: do you see the adult BDS supporters stopping this, decrying it, mortified by it? No. So some fraction of the BDS movement is anti-Semitic; and that fraction is tolerated more than it should be.
So how did BDS get started, globally, when there's no similar campaign against any other country even contemplated? My answer is that BDS calls upon a reservoir of anti-Semitism and that without that base it would be as unsustainable as a boycott of any other country. But if I'm wrong about this - if BDS could survive without the Jew-baiters and blood-libellers and "dual-loyalty" conspiracy theorists and so forth - then why isn't there an internal purge of the BDS movement? Why don't other activists stand up and say "Sorry, we can't tolerate leaders who are motivated by prejudice"? I think the answer is simple: the anti-Semites are the movement: they're the committed and experienced members; they're not going to purge themselves. But I'd be very happy to be proven wrong.
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:11 AM on May 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
I should hope that Israel would have better motives than that.
I would love to be able to hope the same thing.
So how did BDS get started, globally, when there's no similar campaign against any other country even contemplated? My answer is that BDS calls upon a reservoir of anti-Semitism and that without that base it would be as unsustainable as a boycott of any other country.
Mine is that Israel is the only democracy I'm aware of that's currently running a long-standing and brutal military occupation of a neighbor, for which its current leadership has a history of enthusiastic support; if that were not the case, the BDS movement would get none of the support it currently gets from the wider world community.
Israel being a democracy means that boycotts against it have much more chance of actually achieving policy change than they would against less accountable regimes like the ones running Russia, China or Burma.
why isn't there an internal purge of the BDS movement?
Because Israel is still running Gaza like an open-air prison, still expanding settlements in the West Bank, and still running periodic massacres in neighboring territory in gross violation of international law; and as wholly deplorable as antisemitism is, it's not as wholly deplorable as an ongoing record of actual war crimes.
The obvious fact that the BDS movement's leadership is studded with antisemitic fuckwits does not make boycotts, divestment and sanctions as such any less justifiable. What it does do is undermine support for BDS from reasonable people such as yourself, which in my view is a great pity.
To bring this back to relevance to the topic at hand: is this the kind of discussion that it is reasonable for a government to contemplate making illegal?
posted by flabdablet at 5:57 AM on May 14, 2015 [7 favorites]
I would love to be able to hope the same thing.
So how did BDS get started, globally, when there's no similar campaign against any other country even contemplated? My answer is that BDS calls upon a reservoir of anti-Semitism and that without that base it would be as unsustainable as a boycott of any other country.
Mine is that Israel is the only democracy I'm aware of that's currently running a long-standing and brutal military occupation of a neighbor, for which its current leadership has a history of enthusiastic support; if that were not the case, the BDS movement would get none of the support it currently gets from the wider world community.
Israel being a democracy means that boycotts against it have much more chance of actually achieving policy change than they would against less accountable regimes like the ones running Russia, China or Burma.
why isn't there an internal purge of the BDS movement?
Because Israel is still running Gaza like an open-air prison, still expanding settlements in the West Bank, and still running periodic massacres in neighboring territory in gross violation of international law; and as wholly deplorable as antisemitism is, it's not as wholly deplorable as an ongoing record of actual war crimes.
The obvious fact that the BDS movement's leadership is studded with antisemitic fuckwits does not make boycotts, divestment and sanctions as such any less justifiable. What it does do is undermine support for BDS from reasonable people such as yourself, which in my view is a great pity.
To bring this back to relevance to the topic at hand: is this the kind of discussion that it is reasonable for a government to contemplate making illegal?
posted by flabdablet at 5:57 AM on May 14, 2015 [7 favorites]
Democracies presently occupying other countries: the USA; the UK; Turkey; Morocco; probably France and some others I'm too tired to think of. And I'm sorry: there is no excuse for joining an anti-Semitic organisation. If you think the cause is worthwhile then clean house. Don't fellowship with fascists.
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:18 AM on May 14, 2015
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:18 AM on May 14, 2015
I see no expression of Jew-hatred in this thread quite so thorough and extreme as the implication inherent in the notion that opposition to Israeli apartheid can only be motivated by anti-Semitism.
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:33 AM on May 14, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:33 AM on May 14, 2015 [7 favorites]
Don't fellowship with fascists.
Well, quite. Hence the boycott.
posted by Sys Rq at 6:46 AM on May 14, 2015 [3 favorites]
Well, quite. Hence the boycott.
posted by Sys Rq at 6:46 AM on May 14, 2015 [3 favorites]
I don't think it's reasonable to use the term "apartheid" to describe the relationship between the Israeli Government and the people of Palestine. I think that's one of those rhetorical moves that serves mainly to muddy the waters and divert discussion away from issues of genuine importance onto arguments over semantics that create ill-feeling without actually getting anywhere.
I also think that the set of fascists overlaps with, but is not identical to, the set of antisemites.
posted by flabdablet at 6:48 AM on May 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
I also think that the set of fascists overlaps with, but is not identical to, the set of antisemites.
posted by flabdablet at 6:48 AM on May 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
there is no excuse for joining an anti-Semitic organisation
There is no need to join any organization in order to argue for or even to take part in boycotts, divestment and sanctions.
If the Westboro Baptists were to come out tomorrow in opposition to the Australian Government's current refugee policy, that would be no reason for me to stop opposing it myself.
posted by flabdablet at 6:54 AM on May 14, 2015 [5 favorites]
There is no need to join any organization in order to argue for or even to take part in boycotts, divestment and sanctions.
If the Westboro Baptists were to come out tomorrow in opposition to the Australian Government's current refugee policy, that would be no reason for me to stop opposing it myself.
posted by flabdablet at 6:54 AM on May 14, 2015 [5 favorites]
So how did BDS get started, globally, when there's no similar campaign against any other country even contemplated? My answer is that BDS calls upon a reservoir of anti-Semitism and that without that base it would be as unsustainable as a boycott of any other country.
I disagree.
When the head of the UN condemns Israel for 'extreme and disproportionate response' to rocket attacks and the heads of other countries follow suit, that gets people's attention. When Israel launches attacks against civilian targets including schools, power plants, water treatment plants or hospitals, and blocks non-military supplies from entering a war zone, people are bound to notice. When multiple human rights groups complain about a humanitarian crisis in Gaza that Israel is capable of alleviating, it's only natural that an outcry will ensue. When Israel restricts Palestinians from physically moving from and to their own territories and receiving aid, the world considers that oppression, not defense. The international community and many in the US also do not believe that the Settlement lands belong to Israel and that they are illegal. All of this, coupled with other offenses, creates a pretty vivid picture of Israel as an oppressor, to be defied and stopped.
One can be against all of those things happening without being antisemitic.
The arguments against (and there are many) and evidence of Palestinian provocations and attacks and even atrocities get buried because Israel is sometimes (often) its own worst enemy with regard to the Palestinians. And it serves no one to pretend what Israel has done and is doing isn't serious and not a problem or even in some cases not horrific behavior, and blithely act like it doesn't exist. Or to blame everything (wrongheadedly) on antisemitism. As if accountability shouldn't matter. Why delude ourselves?
Also, the majority of support of the BDS movement in the US is probably not antisemitic. It's probably a combination of outrage at the way Israel has been acting, and concern over the amount of foreign assistance we're sending them.
Americans sent $3.1bn to Israel last year. In all, $121bn in aid (not adjusted for inflation) has been sent since 1948. Since 1976, Israel has been the largest recipient of US foreign aid of any country in the world. Cumulatively, they have also received the most foreign assistance from us, ever of any country in the world. They also benefit from about $8bn in loan guarantees. They are a favored trading partner in other industries as well, including military hardware. The restriction that's place on foreign assistance to Israel is simple: about 3/4 of what we give them has to be spent on US goods and services.
This is no small amount of money. I'm not positive, but I believe the next recipient on the 2014 foreign assistance list is Afghanistan at about $2.5bn -- understandable, since we are still trying to rebuild after waging a war there. Egypt got about $1.5bn. Pakistan, $1.1bn. Most if not all of the others were under $1bn.
Americans still think 28 percent of the budget goes to foreign aid and the lines are blurred in many people's minds between foreign aid and foreign defense spending. In poll after poll Americans say that foreign aid should be cut because it's bankrupting our country. So out of everything we spend, the most money goes to Israel. And it's natural, when economics look bleak at home (and let's face it, for many of us they always look bleak at home,) for Americans to say, "Well, why?" And also to ask, when they turn on the news, if their hard-earned tax dollars are funding things they disapprove of.
So between the US' large Jewish population (proportionally to the rest of the world), Israel's strategic importance as a MidEast democracy, their status as a trade ally, and the amount of foreign assistance we send them, that keeps Israel in our national news. None of which stems from antisemitism.
The boycott would be sustainable here, even without the support of antisemites.
posted by zarq at 7:52 AM on May 14, 2015 [10 favorites]
I disagree.
When the head of the UN condemns Israel for 'extreme and disproportionate response' to rocket attacks and the heads of other countries follow suit, that gets people's attention. When Israel launches attacks against civilian targets including schools, power plants, water treatment plants or hospitals, and blocks non-military supplies from entering a war zone, people are bound to notice. When multiple human rights groups complain about a humanitarian crisis in Gaza that Israel is capable of alleviating, it's only natural that an outcry will ensue. When Israel restricts Palestinians from physically moving from and to their own territories and receiving aid, the world considers that oppression, not defense. The international community and many in the US also do not believe that the Settlement lands belong to Israel and that they are illegal. All of this, coupled with other offenses, creates a pretty vivid picture of Israel as an oppressor, to be defied and stopped.
One can be against all of those things happening without being antisemitic.
The arguments against (and there are many) and evidence of Palestinian provocations and attacks and even atrocities get buried because Israel is sometimes (often) its own worst enemy with regard to the Palestinians. And it serves no one to pretend what Israel has done and is doing isn't serious and not a problem or even in some cases not horrific behavior, and blithely act like it doesn't exist. Or to blame everything (wrongheadedly) on antisemitism. As if accountability shouldn't matter. Why delude ourselves?
Also, the majority of support of the BDS movement in the US is probably not antisemitic. It's probably a combination of outrage at the way Israel has been acting, and concern over the amount of foreign assistance we're sending them.
Americans sent $3.1bn to Israel last year. In all, $121bn in aid (not adjusted for inflation) has been sent since 1948. Since 1976, Israel has been the largest recipient of US foreign aid of any country in the world. Cumulatively, they have also received the most foreign assistance from us, ever of any country in the world. They also benefit from about $8bn in loan guarantees. They are a favored trading partner in other industries as well, including military hardware. The restriction that's place on foreign assistance to Israel is simple: about 3/4 of what we give them has to be spent on US goods and services.
This is no small amount of money. I'm not positive, but I believe the next recipient on the 2014 foreign assistance list is Afghanistan at about $2.5bn -- understandable, since we are still trying to rebuild after waging a war there. Egypt got about $1.5bn. Pakistan, $1.1bn. Most if not all of the others were under $1bn.
Americans still think 28 percent of the budget goes to foreign aid and the lines are blurred in many people's minds between foreign aid and foreign defense spending. In poll after poll Americans say that foreign aid should be cut because it's bankrupting our country. So out of everything we spend, the most money goes to Israel. And it's natural, when economics look bleak at home (and let's face it, for many of us they always look bleak at home,) for Americans to say, "Well, why?" And also to ask, when they turn on the news, if their hard-earned tax dollars are funding things they disapprove of.
So between the US' large Jewish population (proportionally to the rest of the world), Israel's strategic importance as a MidEast democracy, their status as a trade ally, and the amount of foreign assistance we send them, that keeps Israel in our national news. None of which stems from antisemitism.
The boycott would be sustainable here, even without the support of antisemites.
posted by zarq at 7:52 AM on May 14, 2015 [10 favorites]
Americans sent $3.1bn to Israel last year. ... Egypt got about $1.5bn.
Just for the record, foreign aid to Egypt is foreign aid to Israel. It's predicated on Egypt (the most powerful country that borders Israel) not starting another war. I served at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, and I can tell you that everyone there and every Egyptian I spoke to about it sees it the same way. There are some programs that are just sort of generic "improving people's lives" stuff that isn't quite so tightly tied to it, but those are rounding errors.
posted by Etrigan at 8:17 AM on May 14, 2015 [5 favorites]
Just for the record, foreign aid to Egypt is foreign aid to Israel. It's predicated on Egypt (the most powerful country that borders Israel) not starting another war. I served at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, and I can tell you that everyone there and every Egyptian I spoke to about it sees it the same way. There are some programs that are just sort of generic "improving people's lives" stuff that isn't quite so tightly tied to it, but those are rounding errors.
posted by Etrigan at 8:17 AM on May 14, 2015 [5 favorites]
Joe, it seems equally ridiculous to postulate a global anti-Jewish conspiracy as it would a global Jewish conspiracy. People join BDS, in the main, not because they are anti-semites but because they are outraged about Israel's occupation of Palestine. And they have every reason to be.
But it seems rather irrelevant to me to dwell on motivations. Not only because it's basically unknowable whether someone is an anti-semite, absent any concrete action or statement to that effect. But more importantly, if anyone, anti-semite or not, points out that Israel is violating Palestinians' human rights, they still are correct in saying that.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 8:56 AM on May 14, 2015 [2 favorites]
But it seems rather irrelevant to me to dwell on motivations. Not only because it's basically unknowable whether someone is an anti-semite, absent any concrete action or statement to that effect. But more importantly, if anyone, anti-semite or not, points out that Israel is violating Palestinians' human rights, they still are correct in saying that.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 8:56 AM on May 14, 2015 [2 favorites]
It's predicated on Egypt (the most powerful country that borders Israel) not starting another war.
What a rip-off. Egypt is not going to start a war with Israel. We could have gotten that for free.
So how did BDS get started, globally, when there's no similar campaign against any other country even contemplated?
There was a similar effort against South Africa. You have had Noam Chomsky, Edward Said and other leftist voices speaking out very loudly for Palestinian rights for a very long time, which is ultimately what BDS is about. It's not even anti-Israel so much as it is pro human rights. The BDS movement is very happy to have pro-Israeli jewish voices on their side putting pressure on the Israeli government to end the crimes perpatrated on Palestinians. Check out Jewish Voice for Peace as one example.
The whataboutism is somewhat valid though, imo. If Israel's human rights and international law violations are truly on par with those of the US and other major countries, why should only Israel be boycotted? It's a good point. Maybe the Left should boycott the US and the UK and others as well as Israel. But where whataboutism goes wrong is when it is used to silence any opposition to wrong doing rather than raise awareness to it, and it seems to me this is how it is sadly used wrt I-P and Gaza in particular.
posted by Golden Eternity at 9:06 AM on May 14, 2015 [3 favorites]
What a rip-off. Egypt is not going to start a war with Israel. We could have gotten that for free.
So how did BDS get started, globally, when there's no similar campaign against any other country even contemplated?
There was a similar effort against South Africa. You have had Noam Chomsky, Edward Said and other leftist voices speaking out very loudly for Palestinian rights for a very long time, which is ultimately what BDS is about. It's not even anti-Israel so much as it is pro human rights. The BDS movement is very happy to have pro-Israeli jewish voices on their side putting pressure on the Israeli government to end the crimes perpatrated on Palestinians. Check out Jewish Voice for Peace as one example.
The whataboutism is somewhat valid though, imo. If Israel's human rights and international law violations are truly on par with those of the US and other major countries, why should only Israel be boycotted? It's a good point. Maybe the Left should boycott the US and the UK and others as well as Israel. But where whataboutism goes wrong is when it is used to silence any opposition to wrong doing rather than raise awareness to it, and it seems to me this is how it is sadly used wrt I-P and Gaza in particular.
posted by Golden Eternity at 9:06 AM on May 14, 2015 [3 favorites]
Americans sent $3.1bn to Israel last year. In all, $121bn in aid (not adjusted for inflation) has been sent since 1948.
You could also factor in a significant percentage of the trillions spent in Iraq. Israel lobbied hard for the Iraq war. Supporting regimes with the right stance towards Israel has been a significant factor in our foreign policy, overall.
posted by Golden Eternity at 9:15 AM on May 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
You could also factor in a significant percentage of the trillions spent in Iraq. Israel lobbied hard for the Iraq war. Supporting regimes with the right stance towards Israel has been a significant factor in our foreign policy, overall.
posted by Golden Eternity at 9:15 AM on May 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
"What a rip-off. Egypt is not going to start a war with Israel. We could have gotten that for free."
That aid is also to do things like buy Egypt's help in securing the Gaza border, since without the Egyptian government's help, it'd be a pretty constant pipeline of rockets and mortars to Gaza.
posted by klangklangston at 10:06 AM on May 14, 2015 [3 favorites]
That aid is also to do things like buy Egypt's help in securing the Gaza border, since without the Egyptian government's help, it'd be a pretty constant pipeline of rockets and mortars to Gaza.
posted by klangklangston at 10:06 AM on May 14, 2015 [3 favorites]
Noisy Pink Bubbles: But it seems rather irrelevant to me to dwell on motivations.
Speaking as a Jew, it's not. Many of us pay very close attention when people hate Jews because it invariably leads them to commit acts of aggression against our people. Not just bias and lies, although those are pernicious and impossible to root out. None of us want to open the door for another genocide attempt.
German antipathy towards Jews was nurtured through propaganda and ever-tightening legislation for two generations before the events of WWII. It didn't suddenly appear on the scene.
The history of antisemitism goes back centuries. Being aware of it and vigilant against it is common sense.
And yes, it's important to know if the Palestinians are teaching their children to hate Jews if you want a peaceful two-state solution one day.
posted by zarq at 10:08 AM on May 14, 2015 [3 favorites]
Speaking as a Jew, it's not. Many of us pay very close attention when people hate Jews because it invariably leads them to commit acts of aggression against our people. Not just bias and lies, although those are pernicious and impossible to root out. None of us want to open the door for another genocide attempt.
German antipathy towards Jews was nurtured through propaganda and ever-tightening legislation for two generations before the events of WWII. It didn't suddenly appear on the scene.
The history of antisemitism goes back centuries. Being aware of it and vigilant against it is common sense.
And yes, it's important to know if the Palestinians are teaching their children to hate Jews if you want a peaceful two-state solution one day.
posted by zarq at 10:08 AM on May 14, 2015 [3 favorites]
So how did BDS get started, globally, when there's no similar campaign against any other country even contemplated? My answer is that BDS calls upon a reservoir of anti-Semitism and that without that base it would be as unsustainable as a boycott of any other country.
I completely, one hundred percent agree, especially when it comes to things like the much-touted 'right of return'. When people start equally pressuring Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela to return properties seized during the revolution by the governments, then I'll start believing they have some platonic ideal of 'right of return'. Until then it just seems like another way to criticize Israel for something literally almost every other country in the world has done, which seems mighty anti-Semitic to me.
posted by corb at 10:38 AM on May 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
I completely, one hundred percent agree, especially when it comes to things like the much-touted 'right of return'. When people start equally pressuring Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela to return properties seized during the revolution by the governments, then I'll start believing they have some platonic ideal of 'right of return'. Until then it just seems like another way to criticize Israel for something literally almost every other country in the world has done, which seems mighty anti-Semitic to me.
posted by corb at 10:38 AM on May 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
"German antipathy towards Jews was nurtured through propaganda and ever-tightening legislation for two generations before the events of WWII. It didn't suddenly appear on the scene. "
Yeah, one of the things that came out of my dad doing some family records digging recently is that in the 1860s, some great-great of mine got official state documents converting to Catholicism in one town and Lutheranism in another right around the same time (a belt and suspenders type), and while there's (we believe intentionally) no record of what he was converting from, we have a name that many Jewish people share, and are from an area which was known for a large Jewish population. Even some 70 years before WWII, it was fairly well well known that if you wanted to be a successful businessman, you'd do better if you could document that you weren't Jewish.
(After that, the convert's kids immigrated to the U.S., along with a steady stream of other relatives, meaning that my grandfather was raised as a German in America. I only mention this because he ended up as one of the translators at the Nuremberg trials, and worked as a post-war administrator during Germany's reconstruction, and I wonder if he had any inkling of that possible connection. It's not in any letters I have of his; I only heard second-hand stories about his work during the trials.)
posted by klangklangston at 11:08 AM on May 14, 2015
Yeah, one of the things that came out of my dad doing some family records digging recently is that in the 1860s, some great-great of mine got official state documents converting to Catholicism in one town and Lutheranism in another right around the same time (a belt and suspenders type), and while there's (we believe intentionally) no record of what he was converting from, we have a name that many Jewish people share, and are from an area which was known for a large Jewish population. Even some 70 years before WWII, it was fairly well well known that if you wanted to be a successful businessman, you'd do better if you could document that you weren't Jewish.
(After that, the convert's kids immigrated to the U.S., along with a steady stream of other relatives, meaning that my grandfather was raised as a German in America. I only mention this because he ended up as one of the translators at the Nuremberg trials, and worked as a post-war administrator during Germany's reconstruction, and I wonder if he had any inkling of that possible connection. It's not in any letters I have of his; I only heard second-hand stories about his work during the trials.)
posted by klangklangston at 11:08 AM on May 14, 2015
"I completely, one hundred percent agree, especially when it comes to things like the much-touted 'right of return'. When people start equally pressuring Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela to return properties seized during the revolution by the governments, then I'll start believing they have some platonic ideal of 'right of return'. Until then it just seems like another way to criticize Israel for something literally almost every other country in the world has done, which seems mighty anti-Semitic to me."
LOL wut.
I mean, first off, there are the right-wing Batistas in Florida who want reparations or return — they're basically the only reason why we've maintained the blockade for this long. Second off, comparing Israel's victory in the '67 war and subsequent occupation to people's revolutions against dictatorships in Latin America is more indicative of your personal hobbyhorse than any coherent connection, and it's not anti-Semitism that distinguishes the two. I mean, hell, the post-Sandinista government in Nicaragua was revanchist and did undo a lot of the expropriations of the Sandinista government, which you'd know if you had a reasonable familiarity with the politics. But fundamentally, the nationalizing of industry (including plantation agriculture) is significantly different from territory gained by war. People are calling for the return of Crimea to Ukraine; people are calling for the return of Tibet to, well, Tibet. Even within Latin America, there are still ongoing debates over the territory gained by Peru from Ecuador in ongoing pissing matches between Venezuela, Peru, Ecuador, Columbia and Panama. (Land that no one cared about enough to have a clear border drawn suddenly became a lot more important once oil was discovered.)
posted by klangklangston at 11:23 AM on May 14, 2015 [5 favorites]
LOL wut.
I mean, first off, there are the right-wing Batistas in Florida who want reparations or return — they're basically the only reason why we've maintained the blockade for this long. Second off, comparing Israel's victory in the '67 war and subsequent occupation to people's revolutions against dictatorships in Latin America is more indicative of your personal hobbyhorse than any coherent connection, and it's not anti-Semitism that distinguishes the two. I mean, hell, the post-Sandinista government in Nicaragua was revanchist and did undo a lot of the expropriations of the Sandinista government, which you'd know if you had a reasonable familiarity with the politics. But fundamentally, the nationalizing of industry (including plantation agriculture) is significantly different from territory gained by war. People are calling for the return of Crimea to Ukraine; people are calling for the return of Tibet to, well, Tibet. Even within Latin America, there are still ongoing debates over the territory gained by Peru from Ecuador in ongoing pissing matches between Venezuela, Peru, Ecuador, Columbia and Panama. (Land that no one cared about enough to have a clear border drawn suddenly became a lot more important once oil was discovered.)
posted by klangklangston at 11:23 AM on May 14, 2015 [5 favorites]
hell, the post-Sandinista government in Nicaragua was revanchist and did undo a lot of the expropriations of the Sandinista government, which you'd know if you had a reasonable familiarity with the politics.
Yes, given the fact that I had family killed by Sandinistas and land forcibly seized, I am in fact familiar with the politics concerning that, and you are kind of being a jerk to suggest otherwise. However, that doesn't mean we agree on what is 'a lot', or appropriate. Many lands seized are still held by their looters, not the owners of the property. And I most certainly don't see the left calling for the return of Palestinian property calling for either the return of Nicaraguan property or of Cuban property. You can't use completely different people to say 'see it's the same thing.' The left-wing BDS supporters are who we are examining now. Which other pieces of land do they demand be returned?
posted by corb at 11:56 AM on May 14, 2015
Yes, given the fact that I had family killed by Sandinistas and land forcibly seized, I am in fact familiar with the politics concerning that, and you are kind of being a jerk to suggest otherwise. However, that doesn't mean we agree on what is 'a lot', or appropriate. Many lands seized are still held by their looters, not the owners of the property. And I most certainly don't see the left calling for the return of Palestinian property calling for either the return of Nicaraguan property or of Cuban property. You can't use completely different people to say 'see it's the same thing.' The left-wing BDS supporters are who we are examining now. Which other pieces of land do they demand be returned?
posted by corb at 11:56 AM on May 14, 2015
The left-wing BDS supporters are who we are examining now.
Indeed it is.
Which other pieces of land do they demand be returned?
*facepalm*
posted by Sys Rq at 12:01 PM on May 14, 2015
Indeed it is.
Which other pieces of land do they demand be returned?
*facepalm*
posted by Sys Rq at 12:01 PM on May 14, 2015
wait are you arguing that BDS supporters do not in fact overlap with people demanding right of return?
posted by corb at 12:06 PM on May 14, 2015
posted by corb at 12:06 PM on May 14, 2015
In other words: This is a thread about a law in Canada, not a thread about left-wing revolutions in Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 12:10 PM on May 14, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 12:10 PM on May 14, 2015 [4 favorites]
If it's a discussion of a law in Canada, then how the hell did we get so far afield into "Why I Think Israel Is Terrible" territory?
posted by corb at 12:26 PM on May 14, 2015
posted by corb at 12:26 PM on May 14, 2015
It's beyond dispute that there was mass movement of refugees in both directions across Israel's border in the 40s and 50s. However, whether or not this constitutes a population exchange analogous to e.g. the one that occurred during Partition in India is a complex and nuanced issue, and not something upon which people with no skin in the game ought to adopt a dogmatic position on.
Israel's repeated massacres in Gaza, on the other hand, are obvious to all - despite the Netanyahu administration's appallingly cynical decision to launch the most recent ground offensive right when the gaze of the world press was distracted by the loss of a passenger jet over Ukraine. It is equally obvious that the same administration is not the least bit serious about reining in the expansion of the illegal settlements all over the West Bank. These actions and policies are clear violations of international law, as well as acting as huge impediments to any movement toward a genuine peace in the region, and ought to be denounced in the strongest possible terms.
The widespread international support that the BDS movement has achieved is due almost entirely to Israel's record of manifestly disproportionate military aggression. It has very little to do with more abstract concepts like a right of return for refugees. If Israel were to dismantle the illegal settlements and stop bombing, bulldozing and massacring Gaza, most people outside the BDS movement who currently support its suggested tactics would then cease to do so.
This is where the vast majority of arguments in support of boycotts and divestment come from, not from anything even vaguely resembling hatred for Jews or for Israel as a state. Subverting the legitimate purposes of anti-hate-speech and anti-terrorism laws in order to shut down such arguments is exactly the kind of short-sighted, bone-headed political bastardry I've come to expect from the Harper administration. It deserves no support whatsoever.
posted by flabdablet at 12:33 PM on May 14, 2015 [9 favorites]
Israel's repeated massacres in Gaza, on the other hand, are obvious to all - despite the Netanyahu administration's appallingly cynical decision to launch the most recent ground offensive right when the gaze of the world press was distracted by the loss of a passenger jet over Ukraine. It is equally obvious that the same administration is not the least bit serious about reining in the expansion of the illegal settlements all over the West Bank. These actions and policies are clear violations of international law, as well as acting as huge impediments to any movement toward a genuine peace in the region, and ought to be denounced in the strongest possible terms.
The widespread international support that the BDS movement has achieved is due almost entirely to Israel's record of manifestly disproportionate military aggression. It has very little to do with more abstract concepts like a right of return for refugees. If Israel were to dismantle the illegal settlements and stop bombing, bulldozing and massacring Gaza, most people outside the BDS movement who currently support its suggested tactics would then cease to do so.
This is where the vast majority of arguments in support of boycotts and divestment come from, not from anything even vaguely resembling hatred for Jews or for Israel as a state. Subverting the legitimate purposes of anti-hate-speech and anti-terrorism laws in order to shut down such arguments is exactly the kind of short-sighted, bone-headed political bastardry I've come to expect from the Harper administration. It deserves no support whatsoever.
posted by flabdablet at 12:33 PM on May 14, 2015 [9 favorites]
Mod note: One comment deleted. Let's drop the Latin America thing, please.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 12:53 PM on May 14, 2015
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 12:53 PM on May 14, 2015
Stephen Hawking joins academic boycott of Israel
I'm inclined to agree with Chomsky: if BDS is doing damage to whatever remains of the Israeli left it's probably best not to join yet. But I'm not sure that that's the case. And it also seems that a lot more pressure could be put on Palestinians to oppose anti-Semitism and build momentum for peaceful solution.
posted by Golden Eternity at 1:14 PM on May 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
He has not announced his decision publicly, but a statement published by the British Committee for the Universities of Palestine with Hawking's approval described it as "his independent decision to respect the boycott, based upon his knowledge of Palestine, and on the unanimous advice of his own academic contacts there".Wow, Stephen Hawking!
[...]
Noam Chomsky, a prominent supporter of the Palestinian cause, has said that he supports the "boycott and divestment of firms that are carrying out operations in the occupied territories" but that a general boycott of Israel is "a gift to Israeli hardliners and their American supporters".
I'm inclined to agree with Chomsky: if BDS is doing damage to whatever remains of the Israeli left it's probably best not to join yet. But I'm not sure that that's the case. And it also seems that a lot more pressure could be put on Palestinians to oppose anti-Semitism and build momentum for peaceful solution.
posted by Golden Eternity at 1:14 PM on May 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
I completely, one hundred percent agree, especially when it comes to things like the much-touted 'right of return'. When people start equally pressuring Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela to return properties seized during the revolution by the governments, then I'll start believing they have some platonic ideal of 'right of return'. Until then it just seems like another way to criticize Israel for something literally almost every other country in the world has done, which seems mighty anti-Semitic to me.
Wait, what? What other countries allow open, unrestricted immigration by people with a particular ethnic or religious background while denying it to other ethnicities/religions native to the same country?
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:27 PM on May 14, 2015
Wait, what? What other countries allow open, unrestricted immigration by people with a particular ethnic or religious background while denying it to other ethnicities/religions native to the same country?
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:27 PM on May 14, 2015
Many, many other places, from what I understand, if not as flagrantly. While we in the Americas tend to operate under jus soli and so it seems weird to us, it's pretty bog normal in other places. Many of them go by jus sanguinis, or lex sanguinis. They make very careful provisions for individuals of ethnic and cultural connections to have expedited or open immigration. Actually, India is a really great example of this - allowing for people of Indian origin so long as none of their ancestors were Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Nepalese, Sri Lankan, Afghani, or Chinese.
posted by corb at 1:39 PM on May 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by corb at 1:39 PM on May 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
What other countries allow open, unrestricted immigration by people with a particular ethnic or religious background while denying it to other ethnicities/religions native to the same country?
I don't know current statistics, but from 1882-1965, the US did. See the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which was in effect until 1943. Permitted immigration from all of Asia (not just China) to the US was virtually zero for decades. Today's quota system and favored country status is less transparent.
posted by zarq at 1:43 PM on May 14, 2015 [3 favorites]
I don't know current statistics, but from 1882-1965, the US did. See the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which was in effect until 1943. Permitted immigration from all of Asia (not just China) to the US was virtually zero for decades. Today's quota system and favored country status is less transparent.
posted by zarq at 1:43 PM on May 14, 2015 [3 favorites]
The Chinese Exclusion Act did not allow open, unrestricted immigration for people with a particular ethnic or religious background while denying it to other ethnicities or religions native to the same country — it's not like Uyghurs could come but Han couldn't. Likewise, the effort to exclude Jews was based on natural origin — Jews from Germany were subject to German quotas, whereas Jews from Russia were excluded largely based on Russian quotas. It was horrible and racist, but different from what PG was asking.
posted by klangklangston at 2:27 PM on May 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by klangklangston at 2:27 PM on May 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
Klangklangston, that argument - and a lot of the other arguments here - look like post-facto ones designed to uniquely identify Israel. Someone says that Israel is an occupying power, I point out other occupying powers, so the argument is that it's a democratic occupying power. I think the next step must be that it's a democratic power occupying a neighbour. And that Turkey isn't a neighbour of Cyprus because Cyprus is an island, and Morocco isn't a proper democracy, and ...
So Pope Guilty wants a country with "open, unrestricted immigration by people with a particular ethnic or religious background while denying it to other ethnicities/religions native to the same country?" To start with, there's Israel's neighbours: Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria. And (if you consider it to be a country) Palestine! But your view, above, is that Israel is different because of the "significant European influence on Israel's founding", as distinct from the other Middle Eastern countries, almost all of which were established by Europeans.
So leaving the most relevant countries aside, the obvious examples are the other countries that were created by dividing native populations, such as India and Greece. I presume that Israel is no more European than they are? Otherwise, there's a whole Wikipedia page on countries with a Right of Return. Call me Mr Cynic, but I suspect that Israel will still be unique somehow.
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:12 PM on May 14, 2015
So Pope Guilty wants a country with "open, unrestricted immigration by people with a particular ethnic or religious background while denying it to other ethnicities/religions native to the same country?" To start with, there's Israel's neighbours: Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria. And (if you consider it to be a country) Palestine! But your view, above, is that Israel is different because of the "significant European influence on Israel's founding", as distinct from the other Middle Eastern countries, almost all of which were established by Europeans.
So leaving the most relevant countries aside, the obvious examples are the other countries that were created by dividing native populations, such as India and Greece. I presume that Israel is no more European than they are? Otherwise, there's a whole Wikipedia page on countries with a Right of Return. Call me Mr Cynic, but I suspect that Israel will still be unique somehow.
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:12 PM on May 14, 2015
I think in many ways the unique feelings that people have about Israel is actually, perversely, because Israel is more visible to them than other countries. But Israel is far from the only country that does this even for Jews. Take Spain, for example, which recently opened its borders to Sephardic Jews expelled in 1492 after the Alhambra decree. It does not open its borders to every descendant of a Spaniard from 1492 (sadly, or I'd be sitting on some prime Spanish citizenship right now). So that's one example of a country admitting one religious group while prohibiting others of similar status, but different religious grouping.
posted by corb at 3:20 PM on May 14, 2015
posted by corb at 3:20 PM on May 14, 2015
No, sorry if I was unclear. The diaspora was in 1492 - the preferential citizenship is now.
posted by corb at 3:36 PM on May 14, 2015
posted by corb at 3:36 PM on May 14, 2015
"Klangklangston, that argument - and a lot of the other arguments here - look like post-facto ones designed to uniquely identify Israel."
Yes, we've established that you see every argument as a post-facto one to uniquely identify Israel. You don't see any argument that would ever justify any complaints of human rights abuses against Israel, or at least any that you can't sweep away with a tu quoque.
"To start with, there's Israel's neighbours: Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria. And (if you consider it to be a country) Palestine! But your view, above, is that Israel is different because of the "significant European influence on Israel's founding", as distinct from the other Middle Eastern countries, almost all of which were established by Europeans. "
For all your dudgeon about uniquely identifying, it'd be nice if you could separate what I've said from Pope Guilty or Flabdabet, at least if you're going to name me at the beginning of the comment rather than quoting passages.
As to whether Israel's neighbors have shitty, bigoted immigration policies — yes, they do. The policies in Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan and Syria are explicitly anti-Semitic, even as their bigotry extends beyond that — I had a Mid-East Politics prof who was born in Syria and grew up there, and was offered a position to teach at one of the universities, only to have it rescinded because someone twigged to his having a Christian last name, and since his passport was issued pre-1963, he was told they weren't going to honor it, but that his wife, a Muslim, was welcome to return.
However, I do think that it would be a shift to the better if Israel's neighbors changed their policies, allowing Jews who were expelled to either return or be paid compensation, and to then also remove the anti-Semitic policies banning immigration.
As to whether Israel has more of a European influence than its Arab neighbors, declaring that they were "established by Europeans" is either disingenuous or daft. Israel was largely established by the immigration of Europeans with explicit policies encouraging Europeans to move there, and with well-documented disproportionate influence from Europeans who sought to remake the country to their standards so that they could live there as a homeland. Arguing that because modern Syria comes from a French mandate or Palestine from a British one, they have effectively the same governmental and institutional norms is inane.
Finally, your whole line of argument devolves to the idea that we shouldn't treat Israel different than its neighbors. OK, then we should let Iran have nuclear weapons? Or should we actively sabotage Israel's? Should we cut our aid to Israel to make it commiserate with Egypt's? That's the problem with your repeated tu quoques — demonstrating that other countries are worse doesn't make Israel's human rights violations better, it justifies treating Israel more like one of those pariah states. Most liberals and lefties recognize the terrible real politik that comes from having to negotiate with petro-states, and would rather not continue indulging Saudi Arabia's horrendous treatment of e.g. gays. It's not a winning argument to simply say that Israel isn't as bad as those other countries — no state should be. In order to make Israel out to be just one of the gang, you have to abandon holding it to a reasonable standard and start arguing that we should hold it to the despicable standard of strongmen and bigots.
posted by klangklangston at 4:30 PM on May 14, 2015 [9 favorites]
Yes, we've established that you see every argument as a post-facto one to uniquely identify Israel. You don't see any argument that would ever justify any complaints of human rights abuses against Israel, or at least any that you can't sweep away with a tu quoque.
"To start with, there's Israel's neighbours: Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria. And (if you consider it to be a country) Palestine! But your view, above, is that Israel is different because of the "significant European influence on Israel's founding", as distinct from the other Middle Eastern countries, almost all of which were established by Europeans. "
For all your dudgeon about uniquely identifying, it'd be nice if you could separate what I've said from Pope Guilty or Flabdabet, at least if you're going to name me at the beginning of the comment rather than quoting passages.
As to whether Israel's neighbors have shitty, bigoted immigration policies — yes, they do. The policies in Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan and Syria are explicitly anti-Semitic, even as their bigotry extends beyond that — I had a Mid-East Politics prof who was born in Syria and grew up there, and was offered a position to teach at one of the universities, only to have it rescinded because someone twigged to his having a Christian last name, and since his passport was issued pre-1963, he was told they weren't going to honor it, but that his wife, a Muslim, was welcome to return.
However, I do think that it would be a shift to the better if Israel's neighbors changed their policies, allowing Jews who were expelled to either return or be paid compensation, and to then also remove the anti-Semitic policies banning immigration.
As to whether Israel has more of a European influence than its Arab neighbors, declaring that they were "established by Europeans" is either disingenuous or daft. Israel was largely established by the immigration of Europeans with explicit policies encouraging Europeans to move there, and with well-documented disproportionate influence from Europeans who sought to remake the country to their standards so that they could live there as a homeland. Arguing that because modern Syria comes from a French mandate or Palestine from a British one, they have effectively the same governmental and institutional norms is inane.
Finally, your whole line of argument devolves to the idea that we shouldn't treat Israel different than its neighbors. OK, then we should let Iran have nuclear weapons? Or should we actively sabotage Israel's? Should we cut our aid to Israel to make it commiserate with Egypt's? That's the problem with your repeated tu quoques — demonstrating that other countries are worse doesn't make Israel's human rights violations better, it justifies treating Israel more like one of those pariah states. Most liberals and lefties recognize the terrible real politik that comes from having to negotiate with petro-states, and would rather not continue indulging Saudi Arabia's horrendous treatment of e.g. gays. It's not a winning argument to simply say that Israel isn't as bad as those other countries — no state should be. In order to make Israel out to be just one of the gang, you have to abandon holding it to a reasonable standard and start arguing that we should hold it to the despicable standard of strongmen and bigots.
posted by klangklangston at 4:30 PM on May 14, 2015 [9 favorites]
The Chinese Exclusion Act did not allow open, unrestricted immigration for people with a particular ethnic or religious background while denying it to other ethnicities or religions native to the same country
If you were White and British from Hong Kong, you were not excluded. If you were Chinese you were.
posted by zarq at 5:21 PM on May 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
If you were White and British from Hong Kong, you were not excluded. If you were Chinese you were.
posted by zarq at 5:21 PM on May 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
Another story from South Africa, whose author is at right-angles to basically everyone here: Wits history lesson: Jews are again the ultimate scapegoat
The identification of Jews as a "hidden and powerful" hand at Wits is straightforward anti-Semitism. It is dressed up in progressive language; it claims some affinity with black nationalism; it laments the "overbearing" authority of the vice-chancellor; it decries alleged attacks on freedom of speech; but it comes down to singling out Jews as the problem.Via David Schraub, who comments:
In a tortured argument, Dlamini linked his admiration for Hitler to the Palestinian struggle for self-determination.
Dlamini, however, represents the fundamental problem with a wing of the pro-Palestine campaign internationally. It is the inability to separate opprobrium of the state of Israel — which British scholar Tony Judt accurately described as an anachronism — and its criminal actions against the Palestinian people from the existence of Jews as a whole.
On the one hand, the column really is well done and unapologetic in its condemnation of this form of anti-Semitism, even when it (as always) tries to cloak itself as mere "anti-Zionism" (and the author makes abundantly clear that he agrees with the basics of the anti-Zionist position). On the other hand, I feel like if I'm getting excited that a columnist is able to unapologetically condemn praising Hitler, I might be setting the bar too low.posted by Joe in Australia at 7:36 PM on May 14, 2015
Huh? Those articles seem to be at right-angles to this entire thread.
posted by Golden Eternity at 9:00 PM on May 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Golden Eternity at 9:00 PM on May 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
Very few of the arguments in this thread display an inability to separate opprobrium of the state of Israel and its criminal actions against the Palestinian people from the existence of Jews as a whole. Most people seem pretty clear that those are indeed completely separate things, from which it follows that conflating them in order to justify outlawing boycotts as hate speech or terrorism is dishonest at best.
posted by flabdablet at 9:06 PM on May 14, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by flabdablet at 9:06 PM on May 14, 2015 [4 favorites]
For what it's worth, Tony Judt's call for the dismantling of the Jewish state doesn't read like hate speech to me either:
posted by flabdablet at 9:18 PM on May 14, 2015 [3 favorites]
For many years, Israel had a special meaning for the Jewish people. After 1948 it took in hundreds of thousands of helpless survivors who had nowhere else to go; without Israel their condition would have been desperate in the extreme. Israel needed Jews, and Jews needed Israel. The circumstances of its birth have thus bound Israel’s identity inextricably to the Shoah, the German project to exterminate the Jews of Europe. As a result, all criticism of Israel is drawn ineluctably back to the memory of that project, something that Israel’s American apologists are shamefully quick to exploit. To find fault with the Jewish state is to think ill of Jews; even to imagine an alternative configuration in the Middle East is to indulge the moral equivalent of genocide.The resolution of the present conflict that I would personally prefer to see is the creation of two states whose administrations are not at each other's throats, so it's quite depressing to contemplate how little has changed since that was published in 2003.
In the years after World War II, those many millions of Jews who did not live in Israel were often reassured by its very existence—whether they thought of it as an insurance policy against renascent anti-Semitism or simply a reminder to the world that Jews could and would fight back. Before there was a Jewish state, Jewish minorities in Christian societies would peer anxiously over their shoulders and keep a low profile; since 1948, they could walk tall. But in recent years, the situation has tragically reversed.
Today, non-Israeli Jews feel themselves once again exposed to criticism and vulnerable to attack for things they didn’t do. But this time it is a Jewish state, not a Christian one, which is holding them hostage for its own actions. Diaspora Jews cannot influence Israeli policies, but they are implicitly identified with them, not least by Israel’s own insistent claims upon their allegiance. The behavior of a self-described Jewish state affects the way everyone else looks at Jews. The increased incidence of attacks on Jews in Europe and elsewhere is primarily attributable to misdirected efforts, often by young Muslims, to get back at Israel. The depressing truth is that Israel’s current behavior is not just bad for America, though it surely is. It is not even just bad for Israel itself, as many Israelis silently acknowledge. The depressing truth is that Israel today is bad for the Jews.
posted by flabdablet at 9:18 PM on May 14, 2015 [3 favorites]
Flabdablet, I'll stipulate that "opprobrium of the State of Israel" is not necessarily anti-Semitic, but time and again it turns out that people claiming to be "pro-Palestinian" are anti-Semitic. BDS supporters seem to have little or no interest in redressing this, either.
posted by Joe in Australia at 9:34 PM on May 14, 2015
posted by Joe in Australia at 9:34 PM on May 14, 2015
The very article you linked to is about BDS redressing anti-Semitism:
“We unequivocally distance ourselves from the singing of this song and its sentiments. Also, to tarnish all Jews with the Zionist brush is racism, regardless of who does it. Racism is racism… and racism is abominable,” said Prof. Farid Esack — a Muslim scholar active in the BDS movement — in a statement issued by Desai.posted by Golden Eternity at 9:53 PM on May 14, 2015
Of course, I don't quite approve of his use of the words "Zionism brush" there.
posted by Golden Eternity at 10:06 PM on May 14, 2015
posted by Golden Eternity at 10:06 PM on May 14, 2015
Are calls to boycott Israel anti-Semitic?
Not a terrific article. It does seem that BDS should modify its demands. I think to simply undertake serious negotiations towards a solution would be sufficient enough. It doesn't seem to me that BDS should have demands on what any ultimate agreement must look like, just that the relavent Palestinian leadership agrees to it.
posted by Golden Eternity at 10:15 PM on May 14, 2015
Not a terrific article. It does seem that BDS should modify its demands. I think to simply undertake serious negotiations towards a solution would be sufficient enough. It doesn't seem to me that BDS should have demands on what any ultimate agreement must look like, just that the relavent Palestinian leadership agrees to it.
posted by Golden Eternity at 10:15 PM on May 14, 2015
It doesn't seem to me that BDS should have demands on what any ultimate agreement must look like, just that the relavent Palestinian leadership agrees to it.
Well, of course. But a fundamental problem with the whole "peace process" is that there is no person or body that can speak for all Palestinians - except in the very artificial sense that Mahmoud Abbas controls the Palestine Authority, which was initially recognised as speaking for all Palestinians. I've read that the BDS movement represents a power struggle between Palestinian groups and the PA, but this sort of detail rapidly gets too Byzantine for me.
posted by Joe in Australia at 11:11 PM on May 14, 2015
Well, of course. But a fundamental problem with the whole "peace process" is that there is no person or body that can speak for all Palestinians - except in the very artificial sense that Mahmoud Abbas controls the Palestine Authority, which was initially recognised as speaking for all Palestinians. I've read that the BDS movement represents a power struggle between Palestinian groups and the PA, but this sort of detail rapidly gets too Byzantine for me.
posted by Joe in Australia at 11:11 PM on May 14, 2015
"Unless I'm remembering wrong...."
No, you're right. It didn't start out that way — due to a weird treaty supremacy thing, the original prohibition only applied to "laborers" and single women, but the case that recognized foreign citizens as having civil rights was explicitly about ethnically Chinese immigrants from Hong Kong, and they found that they were not excluded. That'd left the impression on me that the case was the end of it until the quotas of the 1920s, but reading up showed the law was amended in 1884 to specifically close that loophole. By the time that law made it to the SCOTUS, the underlying treaty that may have otherwise protected Hong Kong immigrants had expired anyway.
In any event, it's a shameful bit of American history and not one I would want Israel or any modern nation to emulate. Just like I wouldn't like to see any other country pass laws like the ones authorizing Japanese interment camps.
posted by klangklangston at 11:23 PM on May 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
No, you're right. It didn't start out that way — due to a weird treaty supremacy thing, the original prohibition only applied to "laborers" and single women, but the case that recognized foreign citizens as having civil rights was explicitly about ethnically Chinese immigrants from Hong Kong, and they found that they were not excluded. That'd left the impression on me that the case was the end of it until the quotas of the 1920s, but reading up showed the law was amended in 1884 to specifically close that loophole. By the time that law made it to the SCOTUS, the underlying treaty that may have otherwise protected Hong Kong immigrants had expired anyway.
In any event, it's a shameful bit of American history and not one I would want Israel or any modern nation to emulate. Just like I wouldn't like to see any other country pass laws like the ones authorizing Japanese interment camps.
posted by klangklangston at 11:23 PM on May 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
Golden Eternity wrote: The very article you linked to is about BDS redressing anti-Semitism
Ye-es ... but you notice that the author of the statement, Muhammed Desai, didn't put his name to the retraction. And he's still the National Convenor of BDS South Africa; they're still threatening to kill Jews; and he's still both denying and excusing it.
Incidentally, that's the same university where Mcebo "I Love Hitler" Dlamini was Student Representative Council President. There's currently a massive movement demanding his reinstatement on the grounds of academic freedom or something.
posted by Joe in Australia at 11:44 PM on May 14, 2015
Ye-es ... but you notice that the author of the statement, Muhammed Desai, didn't put his name to the retraction. And he's still the National Convenor of BDS South Africa; they're still threatening to kill Jews; and he's still both denying and excusing it.
Incidentally, that's the same university where Mcebo "I Love Hitler" Dlamini was Student Representative Council President. There's currently a massive movement demanding his reinstatement on the grounds of academic freedom or something.
posted by Joe in Australia at 11:44 PM on May 14, 2015
a fundamental problem with the whole "peace process" is that there is no person or body that can speak for all Palestinians
There's also no person or body that can speak for all Israelis on Palestine. Bibi certainly doesn't, any more than Harper speaks for all Canadians on hate speech or Abbott speaks for all Australians on refugees. But to paraphrase Rumsfeld: you have to go to the negotiating table with the leadership you have, not the leadership you wished you had.
Most Israelis don't want to be at war with their neighbors and nor do most Palestinians. As always, as ever, it's the actions of the ruthless few that cause misery for the many.
posted by flabdablet at 12:23 AM on May 15, 2015
There's also no person or body that can speak for all Israelis on Palestine. Bibi certainly doesn't, any more than Harper speaks for all Canadians on hate speech or Abbott speaks for all Australians on refugees. But to paraphrase Rumsfeld: you have to go to the negotiating table with the leadership you have, not the leadership you wished you had.
Most Israelis don't want to be at war with their neighbors and nor do most Palestinians. As always, as ever, it's the actions of the ruthless few that cause misery for the many.
posted by flabdablet at 12:23 AM on May 15, 2015
Incidentally, that's the same university where Mcebo "I Love Hitler" Dlamini was Student Representative Council President. There's currently a massive movement demanding his reinstatement on the grounds of academic freedom or something.
Massive? Really? No one is perfect. Moshe Feiglin loves Hitler more than Dmalini and even called for concentration camps and extermination of Gazans - and Likud made him Deputy Speaker of the Knesset! How is that possible? And Netanyahu's new selection for Justice Minister has also openly called for genocide for Palestinians. So much for "never again." Amazing. At least BDS is doing a better job of redressing this shit than Netanyahu and Likud. I guess they should deserve some credit.
posted by Golden Eternity at 12:54 AM on May 15, 2015 [5 favorites]
Massive? Really? No one is perfect. Moshe Feiglin loves Hitler more than Dmalini and even called for concentration camps and extermination of Gazans - and Likud made him Deputy Speaker of the Knesset! How is that possible? And Netanyahu's new selection for Justice Minister has also openly called for genocide for Palestinians. So much for "never again." Amazing. At least BDS is doing a better job of redressing this shit than Netanyahu and Likud. I guess they should deserve some credit.
posted by Golden Eternity at 12:54 AM on May 15, 2015 [5 favorites]
Again, I would very much appreciate not seeing this thread devolve into a game of Whose Fuckwits Are Fuckeder.
posted by flabdablet at 2:28 AM on May 15, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by flabdablet at 2:28 AM on May 15, 2015 [2 favorites]
Incidentally, that's the same...
Wait, is this the turn or the prestige?
posted by Etrigan at 5:03 AM on May 15, 2015 [2 favorites]
Wait, is this the turn or the prestige?
posted by Etrigan at 5:03 AM on May 15, 2015 [2 favorites]
NY Times apologizes for using a ‘Jewish Litmus Test’ to exclude Jewish students from an article about BDS on college campuses
...the article certainly would have benefited from quoting one or more Jewish students who support B.D.S.posted by Golden Eternity at 7:45 AM on May 15, 2015
Flabdablet, I'll stipulate that "opprobrium of the State of Israel" is not necessarily anti-Semitic, but time and again it turns out that people claiming to be "pro-Palestinian" are anti-Semitic.
People who oppose how Israel's government acts towards Palestinians, non-Jewish Israelis, and certain groups of Jewish Israelis who don't have the same pull with the heads of said government do not necessarily have to be pro-Palestinian, and even if they do, that is not the de facto anti-Semitism you portray it as. The way you keep outlining opposition to Israeli policies in such stark terms means that you inevitably characterize the majority of Jews worldwide as hostile to Israel. It doesn't help that the response to the crappy things that the Israeli government does are met with semantic dodges and excuses that wouldn't pass muster if we were talking about anybody else.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:01 AM on May 15, 2015 [4 favorites]
People who oppose how Israel's government acts towards Palestinians, non-Jewish Israelis, and certain groups of Jewish Israelis who don't have the same pull with the heads of said government do not necessarily have to be pro-Palestinian, and even if they do, that is not the de facto anti-Semitism you portray it as. The way you keep outlining opposition to Israeli policies in such stark terms means that you inevitably characterize the majority of Jews worldwide as hostile to Israel. It doesn't help that the response to the crappy things that the Israeli government does are met with semantic dodges and excuses that wouldn't pass muster if we were talking about anybody else.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:01 AM on May 15, 2015 [4 favorites]
Mahmoud Abbas could be Netanyahu’s unlikely salvation
posted by Golden Eternity at 12:40 PM on May 15, 2015
posted by Golden Eternity at 12:40 PM on May 15, 2015
bibi & abu mazen road trip buddy movie plz
posted by klangklangston at 1:00 PM on May 15, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by klangklangston at 1:00 PM on May 15, 2015 [3 favorites]
Look, I'll just state again that the Government of Israel alleges to solve a problem that I don't have, so I'm don't see any benefit to supporting them, especially considering... Well, you know...
posted by mikelieman at 1:21 PM on May 15, 2015
posted by mikelieman at 1:21 PM on May 15, 2015
the Government of Israel alleges to solve a problem that I don't have
Out of curiosity, what problem is that?
posted by zarq at 1:25 PM on May 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
Out of curiosity, what problem is that?
posted by zarq at 1:25 PM on May 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
Oh, I see. I scrolled up in the thread. You said, "Since the US protects me in the Diaspora better than Israel, they're a solution to a problem I don't have and are causing more problems than they resolve."
Which, to be honest, sounds to me like "Fuck everyone else, I've got mine." Because not everyone in the world has the permission, means or ability to emigrate to the U.S. Whereas, there are organizations devoted to bringing Jewish refugees to Israel, and Israel guarantees (most of) them citizenship.
When Jews desperately needed a refuge, the US collectively turned its back. And so did many other countries. It seems... shortsighted... to forget that.
posted by zarq at 1:51 PM on May 15, 2015 [4 favorites]
Which, to be honest, sounds to me like "Fuck everyone else, I've got mine." Because not everyone in the world has the permission, means or ability to emigrate to the U.S. Whereas, there are organizations devoted to bringing Jewish refugees to Israel, and Israel guarantees (most of) them citizenship.
When Jews desperately needed a refuge, the US collectively turned its back. And so did many other countries. It seems... shortsighted... to forget that.
posted by zarq at 1:51 PM on May 15, 2015 [4 favorites]
zombieflanders wrote: People who oppose how Israel's government acts towards Palestinians, non-Jewish Israelis, and certain groups of Jewish Israelis who don't have the same pull with the heads of said government do not necessarily have to be pro-Palestinian, and even if they do, that is not the de facto anti-Semitism you portray it as.
I've posted references to BDS supporters singing about killing Jews, and others asking whether Jews should be allowed to sit on student boards. This is unequivocally anti-Semitic.
My experience has been that BDS supporters are very often anti-Semitic. I don't especially care whether you believe it or not; that's my experience. But if you cannot even recognise the most outrageously blatant anti-Semitism then you have no business trying to differentiate between "people who oppose how Israel's government acts towards Palestinians" and "people who hate Jews".
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:03 AM on May 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
I've posted references to BDS supporters singing about killing Jews, and others asking whether Jews should be allowed to sit on student boards. This is unequivocally anti-Semitic.
My experience has been that BDS supporters are very often anti-Semitic. I don't especially care whether you believe it or not; that's my experience. But if you cannot even recognise the most outrageously blatant anti-Semitism then you have no business trying to differentiate between "people who oppose how Israel's government acts towards Palestinians" and "people who hate Jews".
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:03 AM on May 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
Moshe Feiglin loves Hitler more than Dmalini and even called for concentration camps and extermination of Gazans - and Likud made him Deputy Speaker of the Knesset!
This is just a tu quoque argument. If it were true (although as I show below, it's mostly not) it wouldn't excuse the South African BDS movement's anti-Semitism at all.
The Wikipedia article you cite says:
1) The "concentration camp" claim was made by the Daily Mail, which has something of a reputation here. Feiglin denies it. The same Wikipedia article links to his actual program for the 2014 Gaza War which, while being illegal in all sorts of ways, doesn't call for anything resembling concentration camps or genocide.
2) He said he thought Hitler was a military genius, but that he didn't admire him. He certainly didn't say that he loved him. It's still a very stupid comment, from an offensively stupid man, but it's not what you said.
3) He's not in the Knesset now, because he was pushed down to the (effectively unwinnable) #36 spot on the Likud list. According to that Wikipedia article, again, it looks as though Likud/Netanyahu have been trying to get rid of him for years.
4) He didn't succeed in forming his own party list after being effectively kicked out of Likud. This tells me that either (a) he didn't believe he could get 3.5% of the vote; or (b) he couldn't find three other people to run with him.
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:33 AM on May 16, 2015
This is just a tu quoque argument. If it were true (although as I show below, it's mostly not) it wouldn't excuse the South African BDS movement's anti-Semitism at all.
The Wikipedia article you cite says:
1) The "concentration camp" claim was made by the Daily Mail, which has something of a reputation here. Feiglin denies it. The same Wikipedia article links to his actual program for the 2014 Gaza War which, while being illegal in all sorts of ways, doesn't call for anything resembling concentration camps or genocide.
2) He said he thought Hitler was a military genius, but that he didn't admire him. He certainly didn't say that he loved him. It's still a very stupid comment, from an offensively stupid man, but it's not what you said.
3) He's not in the Knesset now, because he was pushed down to the (effectively unwinnable) #36 spot on the Likud list. According to that Wikipedia article, again, it looks as though Likud/Netanyahu have been trying to get rid of him for years.
4) He didn't succeed in forming his own party list after being effectively kicked out of Likud. This tells me that either (a) he didn't believe he could get 3.5% of the vote; or (b) he couldn't find three other people to run with him.
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:33 AM on May 16, 2015
I've posted references to BDS supporters singing about killing Jews, and others asking whether Jews should be allowed to sit on student boards. This is unequivocally anti-Semitic.
The world is full of assholes, and you can cherry pick video to support pretty much any agenda. Deeds, Not Words. The only people with any real power is the Israeli Government, so it's their responsibility to establish domestic tranquility and promote the general welfare.
In this simple gauge of democratic governments, the Israeli Government has failed to meet my expectations at every turn. Complaining about the backlash of the Israeli Governments failure to gain consent of the governed misses the point and just gives the responsible parties cover for the status-quo. Which is intolerable.
posted by mikelieman at 10:53 AM on May 16, 2015
The world is full of assholes, and you can cherry pick video to support pretty much any agenda. Deeds, Not Words. The only people with any real power is the Israeli Government, so it's their responsibility to establish domestic tranquility and promote the general welfare.
In this simple gauge of democratic governments, the Israeli Government has failed to meet my expectations at every turn. Complaining about the backlash of the Israeli Governments failure to gain consent of the governed misses the point and just gives the responsible parties cover for the status-quo. Which is intolerable.
posted by mikelieman at 10:53 AM on May 16, 2015
My experience has been that BDS supporters are very often anti-Semitic. I don't especially care whether you believe it or not; that's my experience. But if you cannot even recognise the most outrageously blatant anti-Semitism then you have no business trying to differentiate between "people who oppose how Israel's government acts towards Palestinians" and "people who hate Jews".
Seriously? That's not even close to what you quoted said, and it definitely wasn't what I said in the portion of my comment that you deliberately cut out in order to trot out that condescending BS. But really, all you're doing is proving my point for me. Every time you refuse to differentiate between opposing the positions of the Israeli government and anti-Semitism, you're calling most of our fellow Jews around the world anti-Semites. On top of that, your repeated insistence on telling Jewish Americans like myself that we (1) can't recognize blatant anti-Semitism (although most of us have been a target of it at some point in our lives), and (2) know less about our perceptions about other Jewish Americans regarding Israel's government, is just appallingly dishonest.
I used to find it hard to believe that you actually feel that every Jewish person to the left of the Likud coalition is some sort of self-hating fifth-column quisling, but every time you move the goalposts so blatantly that other Jews call you on it, it makes it a little bit easier.
posted by zombieflanders at 1:33 PM on May 16, 2015 [10 favorites]
Seriously? That's not even close to what you quoted said, and it definitely wasn't what I said in the portion of my comment that you deliberately cut out in order to trot out that condescending BS. But really, all you're doing is proving my point for me. Every time you refuse to differentiate between opposing the positions of the Israeli government and anti-Semitism, you're calling most of our fellow Jews around the world anti-Semites. On top of that, your repeated insistence on telling Jewish Americans like myself that we (1) can't recognize blatant anti-Semitism (although most of us have been a target of it at some point in our lives), and (2) know less about our perceptions about other Jewish Americans regarding Israel's government, is just appallingly dishonest.
I used to find it hard to believe that you actually feel that every Jewish person to the left of the Likud coalition is some sort of self-hating fifth-column quisling, but every time you move the goalposts so blatantly that other Jews call you on it, it makes it a little bit easier.
posted by zombieflanders at 1:33 PM on May 16, 2015 [10 favorites]
Every time you refuse to differentiate between opposing the positions of the Israeli government and anti-Semitism, you're calling most of our fellow Jews around the world anti-Semites.
I don't know what the positions of the Israeli government might be; I'm not particularly interested in them except when they make headlines. At which point I might go "yay" or "boo" depending. But we're talking about BSD here.
I used to find it hard to believe that you actually feel that every Jewish person to the left of the Likud coalition is some sort of self-hating fifth-column quisling [...]
Would you mind cutting the ad hominems out, please? The BDS movement is riddled with anti-Semites; that's an observation. I think your apparent support for it reflects poorly on you, but I'm not saying you are anything.
posted by Joe in Australia at 11:24 PM on May 16, 2015
I don't know what the positions of the Israeli government might be; I'm not particularly interested in them except when they make headlines. At which point I might go "yay" or "boo" depending. But we're talking about BSD here.
I used to find it hard to believe that you actually feel that every Jewish person to the left of the Likud coalition is some sort of self-hating fifth-column quisling [...]
Would you mind cutting the ad hominems out, please? The BDS movement is riddled with anti-Semites; that's an observation. I think your apparent support for it reflects poorly on you, but I'm not saying you are anything.
posted by Joe in Australia at 11:24 PM on May 16, 2015
>I don't know what the positions of the Israeli government might be; I'm not particularly interested in them except when they make headlines. At which point I might go "yay" or "boo" depending. But we're talking about BSD here.
I don't think it's possible to separate discussing BDS from that which it is protesting, the failure of the Israeli government to promote the general welfare and ensure domestic tranquility. The fundamental goals of Government.
posted by mikelieman at 3:13 AM on May 17, 2015
I don't think it's possible to separate discussing BDS from that which it is protesting, the failure of the Israeli government to promote the general welfare and ensure domestic tranquility. The fundamental goals of Government.
posted by mikelieman at 3:13 AM on May 17, 2015
I don't know what the positions of the Israeli government might be
Oh. Ohhhhhhhhh. Well, that explains that.
posted by Sys Rq at 8:12 AM on May 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
Oh. Ohhhhhhhhh. Well, that explains that.
posted by Sys Rq at 8:12 AM on May 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
the failure of the Israeli government to promote the general welfare and ensure domestic tranquility. The fundamental goals of Government.
You keep saying things like this. I pointed out to you less than a month ago that Israel governs neither Gaza nor the West Bank and that your premise is flawed and wrong.
The fundamental role of any government is to defend and maintain its borders and protect its citizens. That's "Government 101". If you want Israel to be more like the United States, perhaps you should consider the history of Native Americans in this country, and atrocities we committed against them.
posted by zarq at 9:43 AM on May 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
You keep saying things like this. I pointed out to you less than a month ago that Israel governs neither Gaza nor the West Bank and that your premise is flawed and wrong.
The fundamental role of any government is to defend and maintain its borders and protect its citizens. That's "Government 101". If you want Israel to be more like the United States, perhaps you should consider the history of Native Americans in this country, and atrocities we committed against them.
posted by zarq at 9:43 AM on May 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
For the sake of becoming informed about whether something apart from antisemitism could possibly motivate a person to support BDS, and therefore whether or not it is reasonable to classify pro-BDS writings as hate speech, it would pay to read and follow up this piece from Haaretz blogger Bradley Burston.
Pull quote and link, for people unwilling to register with Haaretz:
Pull quote and link, for people unwilling to register with Haaretz:
You don't know me. I'm just a guy from California who once fell in love with Israel, and stayed. But if you're a person who advocates for Israel in California or anywhere else outside of here, I have a message for you.posted by flabdablet at 9:48 AM on May 17, 2015 [9 favorites]
It's the same message whether you belong to StandWithUs or J Street, the Republican Jewish Coalition or the New Israel Fund, AIPAC or Americans for Peace Now, the ZOA or Ameinu: Before you advocate for Israel one more day, you owe it to yourself and to Israel to do this: Download and open a report called "This is How We Fought in Gaza: Soldiers' testimonies and photographs from Operation 'Protective Edge' (2014)."
Read it until you can't go on. Then read it some more. Don't go back to advocating for Israel until you've read it to the end. It's not that long. Length is not the problem. Nor is language. It's just people talking.
...
You don't know me. I'm just a guy who advocates for Israel in his own way. A guy who once fell in love with Israel, and got drafted in the IDF, and served in Gaza and Lebanon and elsewhere, and who wishes to God that Breaking the Silence had been founded long before it was, in 2004.
If you want Israel to be more like the United States, perhaps you should consider the history of Native Americans in this country, and atrocities we committed against them.
That's an argument you don't want to make, zarq, considering how The Iron Wall conflated the two.
And arguing that Israel doesn't govern either Gaza or the West Bank is laughable, as Israel refuses to give either of those areas sovereignty, which is ALSO Government 101.
posted by NoxAeternum at 12:09 PM on May 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
That's an argument you don't want to make, zarq, considering how The Iron Wall conflated the two.
And arguing that Israel doesn't govern either Gaza or the West Bank is laughable, as Israel refuses to give either of those areas sovereignty, which is ALSO Government 101.
posted by NoxAeternum at 12:09 PM on May 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
Govern is the wrong word. It implies representation. Rule would be more accurate.
posted by Sys Rq at 12:15 PM on May 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Sys Rq at 12:15 PM on May 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
Control is accurate. Oppress is accurate. Govern and rule are not. Mikelieman keeps using American catchphrases as if they apply. They do not. They cannot. And by overwhelming percentages, the goals of both the Palestinians and Israelis is not a single harmonious state with equality for all, so he's arguing for something that will never happen and few people in the region want to have happen.
Worse:
The Native American comparison was meant as an example of the atrocities the US had to commit to achieve its current "with liberty and justice for all" status. Which is also a myth, because indigenous Native American populations were slaughtered and marginalized to achieve a status that is not fair and just. The analogy doesn't apply to everyone within this country's borders. Applied to I/P: the Palestinian territories are not within Israel's borders. And merging the three areas into a single state is an incredibly stupid and dangerous thing to advocate, for both populations. It would lead to wholesale slaughter on both sides.
posted by zarq at 12:39 PM on May 17, 2015
Worse:
The Native American comparison was meant as an example of the atrocities the US had to commit to achieve its current "with liberty and justice for all" status. Which is also a myth, because indigenous Native American populations were slaughtered and marginalized to achieve a status that is not fair and just. The analogy doesn't apply to everyone within this country's borders. Applied to I/P: the Palestinian territories are not within Israel's borders. And merging the three areas into a single state is an incredibly stupid and dangerous thing to advocate, for both populations. It would lead to wholesale slaughter on both sides.
posted by zarq at 12:39 PM on May 17, 2015
I pointed out to you less than a month ago that Israel governs neither Gaza nor the West Bank and that your premise is flawed and wrong.
Proven false by the Israeli Government as you say, doesn't govern the West Bank, but has declared J'lem the "eternal and undivided capital".
I mean, they've claimed the territory, but you say they don't govern it. Makes no sense. Just because they didn't plant a flag there, doesn't mean they're not responsible for it. I don't get it.
Sounds pretty cowardly, and based on the fear that the Israeli Government, unlike legitimate democracies, can't obtain Consent of the Government.
posted by mikelieman at 3:14 PM on May 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
Proven false by the Israeli Government as you say, doesn't govern the West Bank, but has declared J'lem the "eternal and undivided capital".
I mean, they've claimed the territory, but you say they don't govern it. Makes no sense. Just because they didn't plant a flag there, doesn't mean they're not responsible for it. I don't get it.
Sounds pretty cowardly, and based on the fear that the Israeli Government, unlike legitimate democracies, can't obtain Consent of the Government.
posted by mikelieman at 3:14 PM on May 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
So, then can you explain clearly how some hypothetical Palestinian state is going to have its capital in J'lem after the Israeli Government has claimed the entirety. While you're at it, help me understand that since the Israeli Government has claimed the entirety of J'lem, everyone there isn't an Israeli Citizen.
posted by mikelieman at 7:26 PM on May 17, 2015
posted by mikelieman at 7:26 PM on May 17, 2015
While you're at it, help me understand that since the Israeli Government has claimed the entirety of J'lem, everyone there isn't an Israeli Citizen.
Why isn't everyone in New York a US citizen?
For what it's worth, the residents of East Jerusalem and the Old City were given permanent residency (convertible to citizenship) when Israel incorporated the areas. But this has nothing to do with BDS.
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:39 PM on May 17, 2015
Why isn't everyone in New York a US citizen?
For what it's worth, the residents of East Jerusalem and the Old City were given permanent residency (convertible to citizenship) when Israel incorporated the areas. But this has nothing to do with BDS.
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:39 PM on May 17, 2015
So, then can you explain clearly how some hypothetical Palestinian state is going to have its capital in J'lem after the Israeli Government has claimed the entirety.
In the history of negotiating peace treaties, no one side has ever given a concession to the other.
posted by zarq at 8:07 PM on May 17, 2015
In the history of negotiating peace treaties, no one side has ever given a concession to the other.
posted by zarq at 8:07 PM on May 17, 2015
For the sake of becoming informed about whether something apart from antisemitism could possibly motivate a person to support BDS [...]
I don't think anyone disputes that there can be other motives, just as there can be other motives than misogyny to support Gamergate and other motives than racism to support the display of the Confederate flag.
There are women who supported Gamergate; I think their actions contributed to a misogynistic environment, but I don't know if I could or should call them misogynists per se. The same thing applies to African-Americans who support the display of the Confederate flag. It flummoxes me, but I don't think it makes sense to call them racists. The same goes with BDS; my criticism is directed to what people should do, not what they are.
posted by Joe in Australia at 8:13 PM on May 17, 2015
I don't think anyone disputes that there can be other motives, just as there can be other motives than misogyny to support Gamergate and other motives than racism to support the display of the Confederate flag.
There are women who supported Gamergate; I think their actions contributed to a misogynistic environment, but I don't know if I could or should call them misogynists per se. The same thing applies to African-Americans who support the display of the Confederate flag. It flummoxes me, but I don't think it makes sense to call them racists. The same goes with BDS; my criticism is directed to what people should do, not what they are.
posted by Joe in Australia at 8:13 PM on May 17, 2015
Robert Fisk: Canada’s support of Israel is dangerous - Canadians are told that their government will show “zero tolerance” towards groups advocating a boycott of Israel
The totally pro-Israeli Conservative government of Stephen Harper intends to list the boycotting of Israel as a “hate crime”. This is not only ludicrous, stupid, pointless and racist because it assumes that anyone opposed to Israel’s vicious and iniquitous policies of land-grabbing in the West Bank is an anti-Semite, but it is also anti-democratic. Those who believe in non-violence have always espoused boycott movements on the grounds that economic pressure rather than bombs is a moral way of putting pressure on a country that violates international law.posted by Golden Eternity at 10:25 PM on May 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
Ah, Fisk. Not at all prone to hyperbole: "This is preposterous. If I decline to buy Israeli-produced oranges at a British supermarket, this doesn’t make me a Nazi murderer."
How about if you put yellow badges on the Israeli food? Still not a Nazi murderer, obviously. What if you go and put a pig's head in (what you suppose to be) the kosher aisle of a supermarket? Still nothing to do with mass genocide. What if you intimidate a supermarket into removing kosher food altogether? Once again, you're not a Nazi. And yet, these are all things that are are racist in implication or effect, and all things that were done by BDS activists. I think this shows that Fisk's test for "should this behavior be illegal" is useless, and throws more heat than light.
posted by Joe in Australia at 10:57 PM on May 17, 2015
How about if you put yellow badges on the Israeli food? Still not a Nazi murderer, obviously. What if you go and put a pig's head in (what you suppose to be) the kosher aisle of a supermarket? Still nothing to do with mass genocide. What if you intimidate a supermarket into removing kosher food altogether? Once again, you're not a Nazi. And yet, these are all things that are are racist in implication or effect, and all things that were done by BDS activists. I think this shows that Fisk's test for "should this behavior be illegal" is useless, and throws more heat than light.
posted by Joe in Australia at 10:57 PM on May 17, 2015
You're jumping from economic boycott to grotesque anti-Semitic actions and you're complaining about someone throwing more heat than light?
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:25 PM on May 17, 2015
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:25 PM on May 17, 2015
You're jumping from economic boycott to grotesque anti-Semitic actions
He's pointing out grotesque antisemitic actions that have been done in the name of that economic boycott.
I don't think the boycott should be illegal, but he's raising a valid point, not throwing unrelated hyperbole into the thread for no reason.
posted by zarq at 11:48 PM on May 17, 2015
He's pointing out grotesque antisemitic actions that have been done in the name of that economic boycott.
I don't think the boycott should be illegal, but he's raising a valid point, not throwing unrelated hyperbole into the thread for no reason.
posted by zarq at 11:48 PM on May 17, 2015
How about if you put yellow badges on the Israeli food?
Yep, those OU guys, what Nazis.
posted by Sys Rq at 7:56 AM on May 18, 2015
Yep, those OU guys, what Nazis.
posted by Sys Rq at 7:56 AM on May 18, 2015
BDS put yellow badges on kosher food.
You might want to step back and take a breath. Because your last comment sounded really fucking racist, Sys Rq.
posted by zarq at 8:11 AM on May 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
You might want to step back and take a breath. Because your last comment sounded really fucking racist, Sys Rq.
posted by zarq at 8:11 AM on May 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
Uhh... What exactly is racist about mentioning kosher certification? Point is: What's one more label?
I'm sorry, but in a thread filled with spurious accusations of racism, that one takes the cake.
(And what exactly is wrong with the stickers? An eye-catching sticker -- round, with words on it -- on a can of food is a far cry from forcing all Jewish people to wear yellow stars. Calling them "yellow badges" was a pretty obviously deliberately inflammatory flourish there by Joe.)
BDS put yellow badges onkosher food marked as "produce of WEST BANK (Israeli Settlement Produce)".
posted by Sys Rq at 8:50 AM on May 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
I'm sorry, but in a thread filled with spurious accusations of racism, that one takes the cake.
(And what exactly is wrong with the stickers? An eye-catching sticker -- round, with words on it -- on a can of food is a far cry from forcing all Jewish people to wear yellow stars. Calling them "yellow badges" was a pretty obviously deliberately inflammatory flourish there by Joe.)
BDS put yellow badges on
posted by Sys Rq at 8:50 AM on May 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
Again, we're kind of drifting back into Your Fuckwits Are Fucter Than Mine, which I don't believe serves any useful purpose. I think we can all agree that it's fuckwits per se that are the real problem, whichever side they claim to represent.
The pig's head thing? Totally over any reasonable line, and most likely illegal already on numerous grounds, without any need to fool about with existing anti-hate-speech legislation.
Yellow labels I'm not so sure about. If the labels in question are the ones pictured in the linked article, which have a yellow background behind prominent red, white, black and green text, I'd want more evidence of racist motivation for the choice of yellow than a simple claim that this was the case. The yellow disc design is very eye-catching, which I would have thought would have to be its primary purpose; lots of produce labels make heavy use of yellow for that reason (even some Israeli ones: see Jaffa oranges). Yellow is also what my local supermarket uses for all its shelf price labels.
If the label were a yellow star then yes, clear racism. But it isn't that.
On the other hand, I'm not Jewish. Am I goysplaining here?
posted by flabdablet at 8:51 AM on May 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
The pig's head thing? Totally over any reasonable line, and most likely illegal already on numerous grounds, without any need to fool about with existing anti-hate-speech legislation.
Yellow labels I'm not so sure about. If the labels in question are the ones pictured in the linked article, which have a yellow background behind prominent red, white, black and green text, I'd want more evidence of racist motivation for the choice of yellow than a simple claim that this was the case. The yellow disc design is very eye-catching, which I would have thought would have to be its primary purpose; lots of produce labels make heavy use of yellow for that reason (even some Israeli ones: see Jaffa oranges). Yellow is also what my local supermarket uses for all its shelf price labels.
If the label were a yellow star then yes, clear racism. But it isn't that.
On the other hand, I'm not Jewish. Am I goysplaining here?
posted by flabdablet at 8:51 AM on May 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
Those are stickers not badges. I highly, highly doubt they chose the color yellow on purpose. If they are specifically identifying products from the settlements that would seem to be a good thing as the best criticism of BDS is that it targets all of Israel rather than just the bad actors.
posted by Golden Eternity at 8:57 AM on May 18, 2015
posted by Golden Eternity at 8:57 AM on May 18, 2015
I don't think anyone disputes that there can be other motives
with the notable exception of Stephen Harper, apparently.
posted by flabdablet at 9:01 AM on May 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
with the notable exception of Stephen Harper, apparently.
posted by flabdablet at 9:01 AM on May 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
I highly, highly doubt they chose the color yellow on purpose.
Doesn't really matter. The yellow badge dates back to 1228 and is one of the longest-lasting, most visible symbols of antisemitism in Europe. It didn't really matter if all those Republicans who made pictures of Obama as a monkey or eating a watermelon were oblivious of its racist symbolism. Intention doesn't matter here. You don't mark something related to Jews with a yellow badge (even in sticker form) without recalling that history, whether it was your intention to or not.
posted by maxsparber at 9:08 AM on May 18, 2015 [3 favorites]
Doesn't really matter. The yellow badge dates back to 1228 and is one of the longest-lasting, most visible symbols of antisemitism in Europe. It didn't really matter if all those Republicans who made pictures of Obama as a monkey or eating a watermelon were oblivious of its racist symbolism. Intention doesn't matter here. You don't mark something related to Jews with a yellow badge (even in sticker form) without recalling that history, whether it was your intention to or not.
posted by maxsparber at 9:08 AM on May 18, 2015 [3 favorites]
It's not like it was shaped like a star, ffs.
Besides, this whole "stickers are racist" angle is pretty disingenuous. Let's not lose track of who's oppressing whom in the West Bank.
posted by Sys Rq at 9:17 AM on May 18, 2015
Besides, this whole "stickers are racist" angle is pretty disingenuous. Let's not lose track of who's oppressing whom in the West Bank.
posted by Sys Rq at 9:17 AM on May 18, 2015
What? Like I said I don't think they chose the color yellow for any other reason than it stood out. How could someone accidently draw Obama like a monkey? That very suggestion seems racist.
posted by Golden Eternity at 9:21 AM on May 18, 2015
posted by Golden Eternity at 9:21 AM on May 18, 2015
It's not like it was shaped like a star, ffs.
Neither were many of the earlier yellow badges. The history is of yellow, not the star shape.
ow could someone accidently draw Obama like a monkey? That very suggestion seems racist.
Yeah, the very use of yellow strikes me as antisemitic, and yet here we are, arguing that it doesn't matter.
posted by maxsparber at 9:26 AM on May 18, 2015
Neither were many of the earlier yellow badges. The history is of yellow, not the star shape.
ow could someone accidently draw Obama like a monkey? That very suggestion seems racist.
Yeah, the very use of yellow strikes me as antisemitic, and yet here we are, arguing that it doesn't matter.
posted by maxsparber at 9:26 AM on May 18, 2015
this whole "stickers are racist" angle is pretty disingenuous
I dunno, Sys Rq. Even if most people (myself included) are not familiar enough with the history of European antisemitism to hear it, a dog whistle is still a dog whistle and unintentional intimidation is still intimidation. Probably better for all concerned if people who want to put boycott stickers on stuff use this design instead.
posted by flabdablet at 9:34 AM on May 18, 2015
I dunno, Sys Rq. Even if most people (myself included) are not familiar enough with the history of European antisemitism to hear it, a dog whistle is still a dog whistle and unintentional intimidation is still intimidation. Probably better for all concerned if people who want to put boycott stickers on stuff use this design instead.
posted by flabdablet at 9:34 AM on May 18, 2015
Why not just re-print them on white labels?
Is BDS Anti-Semitic?
posted by Golden Eternity at 9:53 AM on May 18, 2015
Is BDS Anti-Semitic?
posted by Golden Eternity at 9:53 AM on May 18, 2015
Why not just re-print them on white labels?
Because when your aim is to garner widespread public support, it pays to be seen to be doing more than the bare minimum required to respond to reasonable claims that you're being unintentionally offensive.
Stepping as far away from racism as possible can only benefit the BDS movement, especially in countries run by unprincipled fucks like Harper who will happily jump on anything that smells even vaguely of it in order to further their own political alliances.
posted by flabdablet at 10:03 AM on May 18, 2015
Because when your aim is to garner widespread public support, it pays to be seen to be doing more than the bare minimum required to respond to reasonable claims that you're being unintentionally offensive.
Stepping as far away from racism as possible can only benefit the BDS movement, especially in countries run by unprincipled fucks like Harper who will happily jump on anything that smells even vaguely of it in order to further their own political alliances.
posted by flabdablet at 10:03 AM on May 18, 2015
Neither were many of the earlier yellow badges. The history is of yellow, not the star shape.
As your own link acknowledges, the history is also of white, as many of the earlier round badges were white, and two bands of blue, because that's what Jewish women had to wear on their heads, and the Star of David, because that's what all the more recent badges bore. I suppose you'd object to a sticker depicting the Israeli flag then?
Also, those marks were put on people to mark their religion and/or ethnicity, not on vegetables to mark their country of origin.
posted by Sys Rq at 11:29 AM on May 18, 2015
As your own link acknowledges, the history is also of white, as many of the earlier round badges were white, and two bands of blue, because that's what Jewish women had to wear on their heads, and the Star of David, because that's what all the more recent badges bore. I suppose you'd object to a sticker depicting the Israeli flag then?
Also, those marks were put on people to mark their religion and/or ethnicity, not on vegetables to mark their country of origin.
posted by Sys Rq at 11:29 AM on May 18, 2015
I mean, don't get me wrong, I understand your concern, I just don't think it's warranted in the case of those stickers where it seems mostly an unfortunate coincidence. By all means, yes, they should make them another colour.
But again, there are people involved in what we're discussing, and they're not just people in history books. This sticker debate is doing an awfully good job of distracting from them. Kudos.
posted by Sys Rq at 11:34 AM on May 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
But again, there are people involved in what we're discussing, and they're not just people in history books. This sticker debate is doing an awfully good job of distracting from them. Kudos.
posted by Sys Rq at 11:34 AM on May 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
As your own link acknowledges, the history is also of white
Yeah, but you'll note the link is not called "white badges." I mean, some minstrels did not do blackface, but that doesn't mean that it's still not a symbol of minstrerly.
"Yellow badges" has the evocative power. I don't care of people want to put stickers asking for a boycott -- I have no opposition to the boycott. But if you put a yellow sticker on something associated with Judaism, you are making a mistake, and that mistake should be acknowledged and addressed.
This sticker debate is doing an awfully good job of distracting from them. Kudos.
Intersectionality. It applies as much to Jewish concerns as anyone else. It's not a distraction to point out when people engaged in a noble cause are engaged in un-noble behavior. You don't want to discuss the stickers? Go ahead and don't discuss them. But it's part of the struggle; not a distraction.
posted by maxsparber at 12:12 PM on May 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
Yeah, but you'll note the link is not called "white badges." I mean, some minstrels did not do blackface, but that doesn't mean that it's still not a symbol of minstrerly.
"Yellow badges" has the evocative power. I don't care of people want to put stickers asking for a boycott -- I have no opposition to the boycott. But if you put a yellow sticker on something associated with Judaism, you are making a mistake, and that mistake should be acknowledged and addressed.
This sticker debate is doing an awfully good job of distracting from them. Kudos.
Intersectionality. It applies as much to Jewish concerns as anyone else. It's not a distraction to point out when people engaged in a noble cause are engaged in un-noble behavior. You don't want to discuss the stickers? Go ahead and don't discuss them. But it's part of the struggle; not a distraction.
posted by maxsparber at 12:12 PM on May 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
it seems mostly an unfortunate coincidence
to you, as it does to me. But you and I are not really the point at issue here, are we? The point is to persuade as many people as possible that boycotting Israeli goods in order to apply economic and therefore political pressure to an outrageous though democratically elected regime is both worthwhile and moral.
And if that's the aim, why would you not modify the tactics in such a way as to reduce their vulnerability to being dismissed as simple racism?
When it comes right down to it, people who are racist on purpose are straight-up fuckwits, and that puts them in the minority. Most people disapprove of racism, or claim to disapprove of it, or at least believe that they disapprove of it; tactics that reasonably can be disparaged as antisemitic are bound to have reduced appeal overall, regardless of who "wins" that argument.
And yes, side issues like the sticker debate do distract from the main game. But it's utterly counterproductive to waste even more time on snarking at the stickers' critics, who have done the BDS movement an absolute favor by identifying a genuine tactical weakness in its propaganda armory: that the form of the yellow disc stickers is likely to undermine support for their explicit message, both among those Jews who directly experience them as antisemitic symbols and in the bigotry-opposed community generally. Replacing them with something that doesn't carry that baggage is pure win for BDS, and should simply be done without fuss.
posted by flabdablet at 12:24 PM on May 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
to you, as it does to me. But you and I are not really the point at issue here, are we? The point is to persuade as many people as possible that boycotting Israeli goods in order to apply economic and therefore political pressure to an outrageous though democratically elected regime is both worthwhile and moral.
And if that's the aim, why would you not modify the tactics in such a way as to reduce their vulnerability to being dismissed as simple racism?
When it comes right down to it, people who are racist on purpose are straight-up fuckwits, and that puts them in the minority. Most people disapprove of racism, or claim to disapprove of it, or at least believe that they disapprove of it; tactics that reasonably can be disparaged as antisemitic are bound to have reduced appeal overall, regardless of who "wins" that argument.
And yes, side issues like the sticker debate do distract from the main game. But it's utterly counterproductive to waste even more time on snarking at the stickers' critics, who have done the BDS movement an absolute favor by identifying a genuine tactical weakness in its propaganda armory: that the form of the yellow disc stickers is likely to undermine support for their explicit message, both among those Jews who directly experience them as antisemitic symbols and in the bigotry-opposed community generally. Replacing them with something that doesn't carry that baggage is pure win for BDS, and should simply be done without fuss.
posted by flabdablet at 12:24 PM on May 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
But you and I are not really the point at issue here, are we?
As a Canadian citizen whose rights are being threatened by people who can't tell a boycott from hate speech, yes, actually, "I" most certainly am the point at issue here.
(The rest is stuff I already agreed with upthread, so.)
posted by Sys Rq at 12:32 PM on May 18, 2015
As a Canadian citizen whose rights are being threatened by people who can't tell a boycott from hate speech, yes, actually, "I" most certainly am the point at issue here.
(The rest is stuff I already agreed with upthread, so.)
posted by Sys Rq at 12:32 PM on May 18, 2015
Anti-BDS Bill Poised for Passage in Illinois Legislature
The bill, which would force Illinois’ five state pension funds to divest from any company supporting boycotts of Israel, passed by a 10-0 vote through a key executive committee on Wednesday and is now on its way to a full vote in the state’s legislature, where it is expected to garner widespread support.posted by Golden Eternity at 1:53 PM on May 18, 2015
In addition to barring the state’s pension funds from contracting with BDS supporters, it also prevents the taxpayer-funded groups from interacting with any country that supports rogue nations such as Iran and Sudan.
On the other hand, I'm not Jewish. Am I goysplaining I?
I am Jewish. I lost family in the camps. The choice of color matters to me, and i felt it was a very specific and nasty reference, especially since Sys Rq mentioned Nazis. As far as I'm concerned it makes no difference whether the symbol is a star or not.
I'm not really interested in debating whether or not I have a right to find a Nazi reference offensive. I do however, think that it says quite a bit about people's privilege that they think they are entitled to dictate.
I'm done here.
posted by zarq at 2:23 PM on May 18, 2015 [3 favorites]
I am Jewish. I lost family in the camps. The choice of color matters to me, and i felt it was a very specific and nasty reference, especially since Sys Rq mentioned Nazis. As far as I'm concerned it makes no difference whether the symbol is a star or not.
I'm not really interested in debating whether or not I have a right to find a Nazi reference offensive. I do however, think that it says quite a bit about people's privilege that they think they are entitled to dictate.
I'm done here.
posted by zarq at 2:23 PM on May 18, 2015 [3 favorites]
Well, if BDS in Ireland did intentionally choose yellow to make an allusion to the holocaust, then I agree with those saying BDS is probably not an organization anyone decent should have anything to do with. However, I still find this very hard to believe. Maybe BDS should have a committee to investigate accusations and take action to make it absolutely clear that they won't tolerate anti-Semitism.
posted by Golden Eternity at 2:35 PM on May 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Golden Eternity at 2:35 PM on May 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
Mod note: One comment deleted. The interpersonal nastiness here has to stop. If you can't discuss this stuff without being nasty to other members, please take a break from the thread until you can.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 4:49 PM on May 18, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 4:49 PM on May 18, 2015 [3 favorites]
I'm depressed that yet another thread related to Israel has turned into yet another round of "Is Israel wonderful or evil" and "Are Israel's critics a bunch of anti-semites or are they brave speakers of truth to power." The latter, I guess, is at least somewhat related to the thread topic. But only somewhat. Any discussion of Canada or speech laws is long gone.
Yes -- I know comments about the thread belong in MetaTalk, not on the blue. What good is it going to to do to make another MetaTalk thread about this? None.
posted by escabeche at 5:32 PM on May 18, 2015 [4 favorites]
Yes -- I know comments about the thread belong in MetaTalk, not on the blue. What good is it going to to do to make another MetaTalk thread about this? None.
posted by escabeche at 5:32 PM on May 18, 2015 [4 favorites]
people who can't tell a boycott from hate speech
This seems key, to me. I don't believe for a second that Harper and Blaney can't make that distinction. It seems perfectly clear to me that given the number of prominent Jewish voices in support of boycotts, anybody should to be able to make that distinction.
So if the Harper administration really is contemplating a broad anti-BDS crackdown on hate speech grounds - which in fact it has specifically denied that it is going to do - then that's not the actual reason why they'd be doing it.
Am I goysplaining?
That would appear to be a yes. Pays to check. Apologies to all offended by that piece of poorly informed clumsiness, and thanks to maxsparber for setting me straight.
posted by flabdablet at 8:04 PM on May 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
This seems key, to me. I don't believe for a second that Harper and Blaney can't make that distinction. It seems perfectly clear to me that given the number of prominent Jewish voices in support of boycotts, anybody should to be able to make that distinction.
So if the Harper administration really is contemplating a broad anti-BDS crackdown on hate speech grounds - which in fact it has specifically denied that it is going to do - then that's not the actual reason why they'd be doing it.
Am I goysplaining?
That would appear to be a yes. Pays to check. Apologies to all offended by that piece of poorly informed clumsiness, and thanks to maxsparber for setting me straight.
posted by flabdablet at 8:04 PM on May 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
Well, if BDS in Ireland did intentionally choose yellow to make an allusion to the holocaust, then I agree with those saying BDS is probably not an organization anyone decent should have anything to do with. However, I still find this very hard to believe.
Yes, it's weird. In the absence of a smoking gun it would be impossible to prove one way or the other. But, racists of all sorts seem to love these little deniable dog whistles. Take the blood libel, for instance, an ancient/medieval allegation Jews drink human blood. It is surprising how often you find this implied by BDS and other "pro-Palestinian" campaigners; it can't be coincidental. Just off the top of my head: campaigners against an Israeli-licensed chain of cafés here in Australia chanted "Max Brenner, there's blood in your hot chocolate"; Stephen Salaita made jokes about the Israeli company SodaStream selling "Palestinian blood orange flavor"; he also jokes about the Jewish actress Scarlett Johanssen liking that flavor. Also this quite extraordinary one I just noticed; he seems to have a thing about her. And if you go to the Wikipedia page on BDS you'll find it illustrated, again, by a picture of a blood orange.
Can I prove that any of them are anti-Semites? No. I can't prove that the guy who depicts Obama as a monkey is a racist, either. But I know that if I did something like that, I'd apologise and stop doing it. BDS campaigners don't; they get huffy about the suggestion that they may have done something racist; they double-down on it, doing it again and again to show that it's perfectly normal. And you know, the whole campaign is a bit like that: it's not normal to put stickers on food in a supermarket; in any other context you'd probably call someone who did that a nutter. But if a bunch of people do it then it gets seen as something unusual but not crazy. It's the madness of crowds in action.
posted by Joe in Australia at 11:52 PM on May 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
Yes, it's weird. In the absence of a smoking gun it would be impossible to prove one way or the other. But, racists of all sorts seem to love these little deniable dog whistles. Take the blood libel, for instance, an ancient/medieval allegation Jews drink human blood. It is surprising how often you find this implied by BDS and other "pro-Palestinian" campaigners; it can't be coincidental. Just off the top of my head: campaigners against an Israeli-licensed chain of cafés here in Australia chanted "Max Brenner, there's blood in your hot chocolate"; Stephen Salaita made jokes about the Israeli company SodaStream selling "Palestinian blood orange flavor"; he also jokes about the Jewish actress Scarlett Johanssen liking that flavor. Also this quite extraordinary one I just noticed; he seems to have a thing about her. And if you go to the Wikipedia page on BDS you'll find it illustrated, again, by a picture of a blood orange.
Can I prove that any of them are anti-Semites? No. I can't prove that the guy who depicts Obama as a monkey is a racist, either. But I know that if I did something like that, I'd apologise and stop doing it. BDS campaigners don't; they get huffy about the suggestion that they may have done something racist; they double-down on it, doing it again and again to show that it's perfectly normal. And you know, the whole campaign is a bit like that: it's not normal to put stickers on food in a supermarket; in any other context you'd probably call someone who did that a nutter. But if a bunch of people do it then it gets seen as something unusual but not crazy. It's the madness of crowds in action.
posted by Joe in Australia at 11:52 PM on May 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
Full Transcript: Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Speech to Israel’s Knesset
Anti-Israel boycotters want US State Dept definition of anti-Semitism changed
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:51 AM on May 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
We all know about the old anti-Semitism. It was crude and ignorant, and it led to the horrors of the death camps.
Of course, in many dark corners, it is still with us. But, in much of the western world, the old hatred has been translated into more sophisticated language for use in polite society. People who would never say they hate and blame the Jews for their own failings or the problems of the world, instead declare their hatred of Israel and blame the only Jewish state for the problems of the Middle East. As once Jewish businesses were boycotted, some civil-society leaders today call for a boycott of Israel. On some campuses, intellectualized arguments against Israeli policies thinly mask the underlying realities, such as the shunning of Israeli academics and the harassment of Jewish students.
Most disgracefully of all, some openly call Israel an apartheid state. Think about that. Think about the twisted logic and outright malice behind that: a state, based on freedom, democracy and the rule of law, that was founded so Jews can flourish, as Jews, and seek shelter from the shadow of the worst racist experiment in history, that is condemned, and that condemnation is masked in the language of anti-racism.
It is nothing short of sickening.
Anti-Israel boycotters want US State Dept definition of anti-Semitism changed
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:51 AM on May 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
Painting an alliance with such a high number of Jewish supporters and organizers as anti-Semitic is a conversation stopper and convenient way to change the subject.
It's reasonable to say BDS is controversial and a handful (2?) of actions taken by local BDS groups have had distressing antisemitic overtones, but going farther than that just makes no sense. It is quite obvious that BDS is not organized around antisemitism. That is not their organizing principle. They are not banding together to harm Jews, or to repress Jews, or enact laws that harm Jews. Their purpose is to oppose the policies of the Israeli government, and their campaigns are focused on that purpose.
Even as Jews, is is possible to enact internalized antisemitism, and we aren't immune from employing subconscious or consciously problematic imagery. Imaginary intended to provoke is not easily categorized and I personally don't think the image of blood coming from food should be off limits to anti-Israel activists. I am well educated on the history and specter of Jewish blood drinking, I get it, and like many in this thread I can point to members of my family tree who were murdered in a context where those images were used to fuel murderous antisemitism. I get it. But I think it's also true that buying products from Israel does prop up state murder at the hands of an apartheid government, so blood-filled-food is a reasonable metaphor. Would I approve of a poster showing a blood sucking Israeli government figure? No. Is that the image in question? No.
posted by latkes at 6:53 AM on May 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
It's reasonable to say BDS is controversial and a handful (2?) of actions taken by local BDS groups have had distressing antisemitic overtones, but going farther than that just makes no sense. It is quite obvious that BDS is not organized around antisemitism. That is not their organizing principle. They are not banding together to harm Jews, or to repress Jews, or enact laws that harm Jews. Their purpose is to oppose the policies of the Israeli government, and their campaigns are focused on that purpose.
Even as Jews, is is possible to enact internalized antisemitism, and we aren't immune from employing subconscious or consciously problematic imagery. Imaginary intended to provoke is not easily categorized and I personally don't think the image of blood coming from food should be off limits to anti-Israel activists. I am well educated on the history and specter of Jewish blood drinking, I get it, and like many in this thread I can point to members of my family tree who were murdered in a context where those images were used to fuel murderous antisemitism. I get it. But I think it's also true that buying products from Israel does prop up state murder at the hands of an apartheid government, so blood-filled-food is a reasonable metaphor. Would I approve of a poster showing a blood sucking Israeli government figure? No. Is that the image in question? No.
posted by latkes at 6:53 AM on May 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
It is surprising how often you find [the blood libel] implied by BDS and other "pro-Palestinian" campaigners; it can't be coincidental.
The blood libel is an antisemitic smear which, unlike the connotations of yellow labels in general, I was aware of before the discussion we're having now. Even so, I wouldn't be quite so quick to jump on things like the blood orange motif as having originally been deliberate references to the blood libel.
Obviously that's a perspective unlikely to be shared by anybody brought up with a keener awareness of Jewish history than I was, so let me unpack it a little.
Blood's a terribly evocative thing, blood oranges are a fairly well-known variety of red-colored oranges, and if somebody's growing and exporting any kind of oranges from orchards on land that was forcibly seized by military means, the idea that these are "blood oranges" follows fairly naturally; it's a term that resonates in much the same way as "blood diamonds" does.
Blood, in this context, is being used to refer to blood spilt and taken up by the orchard, not blood deliberately prepared for consumption. The original blood orange imagery could easily have been intended, by a designer not across their medieval history, as a punchy and straightforward way to draw attention to the horrific history behind West Bank Israeli orchards, with no specifically antisemitic slur intended.
BUT
given that there has indeed been fairly widespread outrage because of the perfectly reasonable perception of the bleeding Jaffa orange image as an echo of the historical blood libel, it would be incredibly stupid for any BDS supporter with an ounce of media savvy to insist on continuing to use it in 2015.
posted by flabdablet at 6:59 AM on May 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
The blood libel is an antisemitic smear which, unlike the connotations of yellow labels in general, I was aware of before the discussion we're having now. Even so, I wouldn't be quite so quick to jump on things like the blood orange motif as having originally been deliberate references to the blood libel.
Obviously that's a perspective unlikely to be shared by anybody brought up with a keener awareness of Jewish history than I was, so let me unpack it a little.
Blood's a terribly evocative thing, blood oranges are a fairly well-known variety of red-colored oranges, and if somebody's growing and exporting any kind of oranges from orchards on land that was forcibly seized by military means, the idea that these are "blood oranges" follows fairly naturally; it's a term that resonates in much the same way as "blood diamonds" does.
Blood, in this context, is being used to refer to blood spilt and taken up by the orchard, not blood deliberately prepared for consumption. The original blood orange imagery could easily have been intended, by a designer not across their medieval history, as a punchy and straightforward way to draw attention to the horrific history behind West Bank Israeli orchards, with no specifically antisemitic slur intended.
BUT
given that there has indeed been fairly widespread outrage because of the perfectly reasonable perception of the bleeding Jaffa orange image as an echo of the historical blood libel, it would be incredibly stupid for any BDS supporter with an ounce of media savvy to insist on continuing to use it in 2015.
posted by flabdablet at 6:59 AM on May 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
Most disgracefully of all, some openly call Israel an apartheid state. Think about that. Think about the twisted logic and outright malice behind that: a state, based on freedom, democracy and the rule of law, that was founded so Jews can flourish, as Jews, and seek shelter from the shadow of the worst racist experiment in history, that is condemned, and that condemnation is masked in the language of anti-racism.
It is nothing short of sickening.
Personally I am far more sickened by the present Netanyahu administration, which never misses a trick in its relentless quest to undermine its own country's international reputation in pursuit of cheap political point-scoring at home, and by the mealy-mouthed Harper for giving that administration his fawning support.
I do have a fair degree of confidence that Harper is doing the standard trick of adapting his rhetoric to his audience of the day, telling the Knesset what he hopes it wants to hear, while maintaining no real intention to follow any of it through. He's always been a shameless huckster.
posted by flabdablet at 7:19 AM on May 19, 2015 [5 favorites]
It is nothing short of sickening.
Personally I am far more sickened by the present Netanyahu administration, which never misses a trick in its relentless quest to undermine its own country's international reputation in pursuit of cheap political point-scoring at home, and by the mealy-mouthed Harper for giving that administration his fawning support.
I do have a fair degree of confidence that Harper is doing the standard trick of adapting his rhetoric to his audience of the day, telling the Knesset what he hopes it wants to hear, while maintaining no real intention to follow any of it through. He's always been a shameless huckster.
posted by flabdablet at 7:19 AM on May 19, 2015 [5 favorites]
"And if you go to the Wikipedia page on BDS you'll find it illustrated, again, by a picture of a blood orange. "
So, while you get anti-Semitic tones from the blood orange, Jaffa (blood) oranges were a symbol of pre-mandate Palestine, and the growth of the Jaffa orange industry was used for a long time as a symbol of Israeli-Palestinian cooperation. Likewise, currently Jaffa oranges are one of the major exports of Israeli businesses that operate in the West Bank.
How do you, Joe, differentiate between symbolic meanings for things like blood oranges? It seems like your criteria start with "Anything that has ever been used in connection with anti-Semitic messaging is anti-Semitic" and don't change much from there — I doubt very much that adding context to the blood orange image will change your feelings at all, even though there seems to be more than a few reasons beyond blood libel that a blood orange would be an appropriate symbol for BDS, namely its literal economic connotations and recent historical ones.
posted by klangklangston at 1:57 PM on May 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
So, while you get anti-Semitic tones from the blood orange, Jaffa (blood) oranges were a symbol of pre-mandate Palestine, and the growth of the Jaffa orange industry was used for a long time as a symbol of Israeli-Palestinian cooperation. Likewise, currently Jaffa oranges are one of the major exports of Israeli businesses that operate in the West Bank.
How do you, Joe, differentiate between symbolic meanings for things like blood oranges? It seems like your criteria start with "Anything that has ever been used in connection with anti-Semitic messaging is anti-Semitic" and don't change much from there — I doubt very much that adding context to the blood orange image will change your feelings at all, even though there seems to be more than a few reasons beyond blood libel that a blood orange would be an appropriate symbol for BDS, namely its literal economic connotations and recent historical ones.
posted by klangklangston at 1:57 PM on May 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
Klangklangston, you see how pernicious the idea is? You're falling into it yourself: Jaffa oranges are not blood oranges. Blood oranges are red inside; Jaffa oranges are just a regular variety of orange. The "blood" association was dreamed up by BDS activists. But when you linked to it, you thought there was something to it.
posted by Joe in Australia at 2:17 PM on May 19, 2015
posted by Joe in Australia at 2:17 PM on May 19, 2015
oogleGoogleGoogleGoogleGoogleGoogleGoogleGoogleGoogleGoogleGoogleGoogleG....
Jaffa Red Oranges
Types Of Blood Oranges
Jaffa Red Oranges
Types Of Blood Oranges
Palestine Jaffa Blood Orange, introduced to Texas in 1883 from Palestine (now Israel), is is considered by some to be a blood orange and by others to be a different variety entirely. It is seedless.www.jaffa.co.uk
Jaffa Reds get their red colour from high concentrations of a pigment called anthoyanin, a powerful antioxidant that neutralises the effects of free radicals.posted by Golden Eternity at 2:29 PM on May 19, 2015
Jaffa Reds are grown in Sicily, which has been producing blood oranges since 800AD. The fertile land and climate found in Sicily provide the unique conditions needed to grow these richly flavoured and coloured “red rubies of the Mediterranean”
? The descriptions say that they don't come from Israel, but from Sicily or Texas. I suspect that "Jaffa red" is Tesco's own marketing term, because I can't find it anywhere else. The Wikipedia illustration doesn't even show a Palestine Jaffa Blood Orange (in which "flecks of pigment sometimes occur" and in which "peel color is yellow as is juice color"); it shows one of the "deep blood oranges", like a Sanguinelli.
Anyway, it wouldn't make a difference if they did come from Israel; the implication of Jews drinking blood is the issue, not the origin of a variety of orange which can be used to make orange juice.
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:47 PM on May 19, 2015
Anyway, it wouldn't make a difference if they did come from Israel; the implication of Jews drinking blood is the issue, not the origin of a variety of orange which can be used to make orange juice.
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:47 PM on May 19, 2015
The issue is that the name "Jaffa blood orange" appears to never have had anything to do with blood libel and was probably coined 130 years ago due to its color.
posted by Golden Eternity at 4:00 PM on May 19, 2015
posted by Golden Eternity at 4:00 PM on May 19, 2015
The fact that this is devolving into a debate of the color of blood oranges reflects what a smokescreen this is.
- BDS is not dedicated to antisemitic goals. That is not their stated purpose, and so far I have seen no argument that states how they would be covertly promoting an agenda of harming Jews, limiting our legal rights, promoting violence against us, etc. They are activists in opposition to the policies of the Israeli government, and a large number of them, possibly a majority based on my personal observations, are Jews themselves.
- It's possible to cherry pick a small number of actions of local BDS groups (less than 5?) and interpret those actions as antisemitic. Almost none of the examples are explicitly antisemitic. Some could be read as such but are not read as such by all (most?) Jews.
Sooooo.. we should treat BDS as a "political terror" group that promotes "hate speech" (see original links)? Do you really think the people that produced that orange poster should be prosecuted for hate speech? That strikes me as either disingenuous or batty.
posted by latkes at 4:54 PM on May 19, 2015 [2 favorites]
- BDS is not dedicated to antisemitic goals. That is not their stated purpose, and so far I have seen no argument that states how they would be covertly promoting an agenda of harming Jews, limiting our legal rights, promoting violence against us, etc. They are activists in opposition to the policies of the Israeli government, and a large number of them, possibly a majority based on my personal observations, are Jews themselves.
- It's possible to cherry pick a small number of actions of local BDS groups (less than 5?) and interpret those actions as antisemitic. Almost none of the examples are explicitly antisemitic. Some could be read as such but are not read as such by all (most?) Jews.
Sooooo.. we should treat BDS as a "political terror" group that promotes "hate speech" (see original links)? Do you really think the people that produced that orange poster should be prosecuted for hate speech? That strikes me as either disingenuous or batty.
posted by latkes at 4:54 PM on May 19, 2015 [2 favorites]
The issue is that the name "Jaffa blood orange" appears to never have had anything to do with blood libel and was probably coined 130 years ago due to its color.
Sure. But look at the Wikipedia article Klangklangston linked to: it's not the same sort of orange, and the word "blood" doesn't even appear in the article. Klangklangston presumably thought they were the same thing, and "corrected" the title of his link accordingly:
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:25 PM on May 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
Sure. But look at the Wikipedia article Klangklangston linked to: it's not the same sort of orange, and the word "blood" doesn't even appear in the article. Klangklangston presumably thought they were the same thing, and "corrected" the title of his link accordingly:
So, while you get anti-Semitic tones from the blood orange, Jaffa (blood) oranges were a symbol of pre-mandate PalestineJaffa oranges per se are a different variety, particularly famous in Europe. I don't know whether the Texan ones are available outside the USA; it's certainly not the sort depicted in the BDS poster. So the association with Jaffa is a secondary one at best: if you think about Israel and you think about oranges, you'll probably think about Jaffa. But the primary association of the poster is "Israel" and "blood oranges" and it's clearly meant to make you think of Israelis drinking blood.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:25 PM on May 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
Yeah, that poster is dubious.
posted by Golden Eternity at 5:41 PM on May 19, 2015
posted by Golden Eternity at 5:41 PM on May 19, 2015
"Sure. But look at the Wikipedia article Klangklangston linked to: it's not the same sort of orange, and the word "blood" doesn't even appear in the article. Klangklangston presumably thought they were the same thing, and "corrected" the title of his link accordingly:"
So, since I've been getting into regional blood orange cultivars recently (my second to last FPP was about them), I can tell you that you both don't know what you're talking about and have basically confirmed that no, nothing you're told is going to change your point of view.
Jaffa oranges are also known as Shamouti, with "Jaffa" being better known in some places (mostly Europe) because it's a brand name of an Israeli company. Shamouti is the preferred term in horticulture, due to confusion with Florida Jaffa and Joppa oranges. Jaffa includes several famous cultivars, of those Iaffaoui Maouardi and Maouardi Beledi are blood oranges. They are also sometimes known as Jaffa blood oranges.
The reason why they're famous is because Jaffa cultivars have thick rinds and intercell membranes, which mean that they both store and ship very well, and their sweet flavor and general seedlessness made them more popular than other export cultivars. This applies to their blood cultivars as well — not only did the Shamouti cultivars precede the most famous current cultivars, for a long time Tarroco, Moro and Sanguinello varietals were too fragile to ship much outside Italy, Spain and North Africa. The Cara Cara, a "red navel" developed in Venezuela in the '70s, was even cheaper (and more importantly more consistent in its red coloring) than the Shamouti cultivars, so displaced most other cultivars (despite being described as having an "insipid" flavor) until a resurgence of interest in blood orange cultivars in the late '80s .
So, no, the Jaffa blood oranges were once an important symbol of both Palestine and Palestinian-Israeli cooperation — I have a hunch that I could turn up much more if I spoke Arabic or Hebrew. Is your next gambit to argue that because the poster didn't make clear that the Shamouti has a distinctive egg shape that it clearly couldn't be referencing the same oranges — that the anti-Semitism rests on stock photography?
posted by klangklangston at 6:53 PM on May 19, 2015 [2 favorites]
So, since I've been getting into regional blood orange cultivars recently (my second to last FPP was about them), I can tell you that you both don't know what you're talking about and have basically confirmed that no, nothing you're told is going to change your point of view.
Jaffa oranges are also known as Shamouti, with "Jaffa" being better known in some places (mostly Europe) because it's a brand name of an Israeli company. Shamouti is the preferred term in horticulture, due to confusion with Florida Jaffa and Joppa oranges. Jaffa includes several famous cultivars, of those Iaffaoui Maouardi and Maouardi Beledi are blood oranges. They are also sometimes known as Jaffa blood oranges.
The reason why they're famous is because Jaffa cultivars have thick rinds and intercell membranes, which mean that they both store and ship very well, and their sweet flavor and general seedlessness made them more popular than other export cultivars. This applies to their blood cultivars as well — not only did the Shamouti cultivars precede the most famous current cultivars, for a long time Tarroco, Moro and Sanguinello varietals were too fragile to ship much outside Italy, Spain and North Africa. The Cara Cara, a "red navel" developed in Venezuela in the '70s, was even cheaper (and more importantly more consistent in its red coloring) than the Shamouti cultivars, so displaced most other cultivars (despite being described as having an "insipid" flavor) until a resurgence of interest in blood orange cultivars in the late '80s .
So, no, the Jaffa blood oranges were once an important symbol of both Palestine and Palestinian-Israeli cooperation — I have a hunch that I could turn up much more if I spoke Arabic or Hebrew. Is your next gambit to argue that because the poster didn't make clear that the Shamouti has a distinctive egg shape that it clearly couldn't be referencing the same oranges — that the anti-Semitism rests on stock photography?
posted by klangklangston at 6:53 PM on May 19, 2015 [2 favorites]
it's clearly meant to make you think of Israelis drinking blood
As a person not brought up with knowledge of the blood libel, that's still not what it makes me think of; it makes me think of blood spilt in Palestinian orchards and it's powerfully affecting on that basis.
Even so, given that it can be interpreted as a reference to the blood libel, and given that its purpose is to garner as much public support for BDS as possible, and given that dismissing the entire BDS movement as an expression of antisemitic hate speech is apparently such a natural rhetorical move for its opponents, it isn't anywhere near as clever a use of media as I suspect it appeared to its original designer.
posted by flabdablet at 7:04 PM on May 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
As a person not brought up with knowledge of the blood libel, that's still not what it makes me think of; it makes me think of blood spilt in Palestinian orchards and it's powerfully affecting on that basis.
Even so, given that it can be interpreted as a reference to the blood libel, and given that its purpose is to garner as much public support for BDS as possible, and given that dismissing the entire BDS movement as an expression of antisemitic hate speech is apparently such a natural rhetorical move for its opponents, it isn't anywhere near as clever a use of media as I suspect it appeared to its original designer.
posted by flabdablet at 7:04 PM on May 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
Yeah, the poster could be making a pun. The red drip seems very suggestive of blood: maybe not of blood libel but of Palestinian blood in general. Or maybe Joe's just gotten in my head.
It seems to me the best, if not only, hope for Palestinian rights, is for the Israeli and Palestinian left to gain power, and PR like this isn't doing them any favors. Imposing a solution on Likud seems like a fantasy. They can do whatever they want as they showed in Gaza and it is probably only likely to get uglier.
posted by Golden Eternity at 7:19 PM on May 19, 2015
It seems to me the best, if not only, hope for Palestinian rights, is for the Israeli and Palestinian left to gain power, and PR like this isn't doing them any favors. Imposing a solution on Likud seems like a fantasy. They can do whatever they want as they showed in Gaza and it is probably only likely to get uglier.
posted by Golden Eternity at 7:19 PM on May 19, 2015
So, no, the Jaffa blood oranges were once an important symbol of both Palestine and Palestinian-Israeli cooperation — I have a hunch that I could turn up much more if I spoke Arabic or Hebrew.
Can you find me any reference at all to people importing blood oranges from Jaffa, or Israel, or former-Palestine? Because Wikipedia has an article on Jaffa oranges that doesn't mention blood; and an article on blood oranges that doesn't mention Jaffa. I think I'd be aware of literary references to it, but into my knowledge blood oranges were invariably imported from places like Italy or Spain. The term "Jaffa orange" traditionally meant what it does today: a yellowish orange that is never described as being a blood orange. And the orange in the photo isn't a Jaffa orange anyway, so what is the bleeding point?
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:47 PM on May 19, 2015
Can you find me any reference at all to people importing blood oranges from Jaffa, or Israel, or former-Palestine? Because Wikipedia has an article on Jaffa oranges that doesn't mention blood; and an article on blood oranges that doesn't mention Jaffa. I think I'd be aware of literary references to it, but into my knowledge blood oranges were invariably imported from places like Italy or Spain. The term "Jaffa orange" traditionally meant what it does today: a yellowish orange that is never described as being a blood orange. And the orange in the photo isn't a Jaffa orange anyway, so what is the bleeding point?
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:47 PM on May 19, 2015
Analysis from Eugene Kontorovich at WaPo: Illinois passes historic anti-BDS bill, as Congress mulls similar moves
posted by Joe in Australia at 9:35 PM on May 19, 2015
posted by Joe in Australia at 9:35 PM on May 19, 2015
@INTLSpectator: "BREAKING: Palestinians have been banned from riding same buses as Israelis by Israeli government ministry." (Only to/from the West Bank apparently)
Israel begins separating Palestinian bus travel in West Bank
posted by Golden Eternity at 10:26 PM on May 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
Israel begins separating Palestinian bus travel in West Bank
posted by Golden Eternity at 10:26 PM on May 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
I don't see how this is particularly relevant to BDS, but there are lots of things that are done to increase the safety of (Jewish/Arab/whatever) Israelis, some of which inconvenience Palestinians, some of which inconvenience Israelis (e.g.)
Ha'aretz's position is that these fears are overblown, and I have to say that the people it quotes sound a bit racist. On the other hand, there may be a sampling bias going on here. On the third hand, you can't take a bus between Israel and Gaza at all, and for very good reasons.
posted by Joe in Australia at 10:49 PM on May 19, 2015
Ha'aretz's position is that these fears are overblown, and I have to say that the people it quotes sound a bit racist. On the other hand, there may be a sampling bias going on here. On the third hand, you can't take a bus between Israel and Gaza at all, and for very good reasons.
posted by Joe in Australia at 10:49 PM on May 19, 2015
Separate is not equal.
If your "democracy" can't obtain Consent of the Governed, the problem isn't with The People, it's with the Government.
posted by mikelieman at 11:51 PM on May 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
If your "democracy" can't obtain Consent of the Governed, the problem isn't with The People, it's with the Government.
posted by mikelieman at 11:51 PM on May 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
For many in Canada, this move by Harper is seen within a context of muzzling dissent of all kinds. In the past couple of years rhetoric against critics of our federal government has ramped up. Environmentalists are an extremist threat, Revenue Canada audits seem to be used as a tactic to quell critics, and federal government staff are literally instructed to destroy world class research libraries.
Michael Harris' ipolitics column today makes this argument, linking c-51, muzzling scientists and the branding of BDS as a hate crime, as part of Harpers general clamp down on civil society and debate.
posted by chapps at 12:16 AM on May 20, 2015 [2 favorites]
Michael Harris' ipolitics column today makes this argument, linking c-51, muzzling scientists and the branding of BDS as a hate crime, as part of Harpers general clamp down on civil society and debate.
posted by chapps at 12:16 AM on May 20, 2015 [2 favorites]
I note the mp comparing it to apartheid, clearly an antisemite eh Joe? ;)
posted by smoke at 2:23 AM on May 20, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by smoke at 2:23 AM on May 20, 2015 [3 favorites]
If so, the cancellation of the program (by the notoriously squishy Benjamin Netanyahu) shows that Apartheid is now over, hip hooray.
posted by Joe in Australia at 2:31 AM on May 20, 2015
posted by Joe in Australia at 2:31 AM on May 20, 2015
If so, the cancellation of the program (by the notoriously squishy Benjamin Netanyahu) shows that Apartheid is now over, hip hooray.
It's bad enough that I can't tell if you're joking or not, but there is essentially no good news here. First of all, let's keep in mind that Ya'alon is a member of Netanyahu's party and was appointed by him, alongside a Minister of Justice who thinks an apartheid state doesn't go far enough. Second, this program was first proposed 7 months ago, which means that he neither did much of anything to dissuade Ya'alon nor make a big stink about it publicly. And finally, Netanyahu apparently didn't cancel the program, he "suspended" it, which is fairly ominous.
So, yeah, he's caught between the people who don't want to head down the road to a state that is based on eliminating freedom, democracy and the rule of law; and those who actually do want apartheid (or worse). Either way he's being a squish, but he's at best he's heavily leaning towards knuckling under to the latter group, and at worse he's implicitly supporting them by doing things like appointing them to some of the highest positions in the Israeli government.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:01 AM on May 20, 2015 [2 favorites]
It's bad enough that I can't tell if you're joking or not, but there is essentially no good news here. First of all, let's keep in mind that Ya'alon is a member of Netanyahu's party and was appointed by him, alongside a Minister of Justice who thinks an apartheid state doesn't go far enough. Second, this program was first proposed 7 months ago, which means that he neither did much of anything to dissuade Ya'alon nor make a big stink about it publicly. And finally, Netanyahu apparently didn't cancel the program, he "suspended" it, which is fairly ominous.
So, yeah, he's caught between the people who don't want to head down the road to a state that is based on eliminating freedom, democracy and the rule of law; and those who actually do want apartheid (or worse). Either way he's being a squish, but he's at best he's heavily leaning towards knuckling under to the latter group, and at worse he's implicitly supporting them by doing things like appointing them to some of the highest positions in the Israeli government.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:01 AM on May 20, 2015 [2 favorites]
Israel scraps scheme to ban Palestinians from buses
It's time for the Commonwealth Solution
The leader of Israel’s leftwing Meretz party, Zahava Gal-On, said: “This is how apartheid looks. There is no better or nicer way to put it. Separate buses for Jews and Palestinians prove that democracy and occupation cannot co-exist.”It seems to me Israel would be much better off with Rivlin as PM.
The suspension of the scheme was welcomed by Israel’s president, Reuven Rivlin, who also said he had spoken to Ya’alon.
“As one who loves the Land of Israel, I have nothing but regret for the discordant voices that we heard this morning, supporting the separation between Jews and Arabs on the basis of ideas that have no place being heard or said,” Rivlin said.
It's time for the Commonwealth Solution
The Commonwealth Solution calls on Israel to follow the legal precedents set forth by the United States and reconstitute Judea and Samaria into an Organized Unincorporated Territory. This would entitle the residents to full citizenship, but with territorial (rather than national) voting rights, and make them exempt from the draft. It would provide maximum autonomy while protecting Israel's need for a security presence. Israel could even take this a step further than the US has with territories like Puerto Rico and Guam by allowing the Commonwealth's self-governing Legislature to sign non-binding international treaties, join international organizations and establish embassies.posted by Golden Eternity at 8:49 AM on May 20, 2015
Segregation in Israel does not begin or end on buses
posted by Golden Eternity at 8:53 AM on May 20, 2015
posted by Golden Eternity at 8:53 AM on May 20, 2015
It's bad enough that I can't tell if you're joking or not [...]
I can see how that must be a problem for you.
And finally, Netanyahu apparently didn't cancel the program, he "suspended" it, which is fairly ominous.
... you mean, it portends the suspension of similar plans? Or do you mean that it is "marked by evil omens, disastrous"?
[Netanyahu is] caught between the people who don't want to head down the road to a state that is based on eliminating freedom, democracy and the rule of law; and those who actually do want apartheid (or worse).
He's presumably got ideas and agency of his own, you know.
If and when there is a total separation between Israel and the PA, as contemplated in the Oslo Accords, there will be no buses going between the two entities at all. In that respect, this is probably a step away from a multi-state solution. On the other hand, commerce and social intercourse are a foundation for peace, and I'm always opposed to treating people like crap. Also, it's not like the residents of Ariel are trying to force a multi-state solution. So to the extent that this is my business at all, I think that this was the right decision.
I think a more interesting question is what the Palestinians thought about it. It's remarkable that we haven't heard more about that side of things.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:11 PM on May 20, 2015
I can see how that must be a problem for you.
And finally, Netanyahu apparently didn't cancel the program, he "suspended" it, which is fairly ominous.
... you mean, it portends the suspension of similar plans? Or do you mean that it is "marked by evil omens, disastrous"?
[Netanyahu is] caught between the people who don't want to head down the road to a state that is based on eliminating freedom, democracy and the rule of law; and those who actually do want apartheid (or worse).
He's presumably got ideas and agency of his own, you know.
If and when there is a total separation between Israel and the PA, as contemplated in the Oslo Accords, there will be no buses going between the two entities at all. In that respect, this is probably a step away from a multi-state solution. On the other hand, commerce and social intercourse are a foundation for peace, and I'm always opposed to treating people like crap. Also, it's not like the residents of Ariel are trying to force a multi-state solution. So to the extent that this is my business at all, I think that this was the right decision.
I think a more interesting question is what the Palestinians thought about it. It's remarkable that we haven't heard more about that side of things.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:11 PM on May 20, 2015
It's time for the Commonwealth Solution
Oh, Lord.
There are just so many things wrong with that suggestion I can't even, but here's the fundamental one: he hasn't asked the Palestinians what they want.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:16 PM on May 20, 2015
Oh, Lord.
There are just so many things wrong with that suggestion I can't even, but here's the fundamental one: he hasn't asked the Palestinians what they want.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:16 PM on May 20, 2015
They want what everyone wants from a government. Promote the General Welfare and Ensure Domestic Tranquility.
When the Israeli Government gets its shit together and can deliver on those two simple democratic ideals, they won't have to worry about what would happen if everyone in their jurisdiction got to vote on their consent to be governed.
posted by mikelieman at 5:25 PM on May 20, 2015
When the Israeli Government gets its shit together and can deliver on those two simple democratic ideals, they won't have to worry about what would happen if everyone in their jurisdiction got to vote on their consent to be governed.
posted by mikelieman at 5:25 PM on May 20, 2015
Obama's message: I represent American Jewish values better than Netanyahu
posted by Golden Eternity at 1:07 PM on May 22, 2015
posted by Golden Eternity at 1:07 PM on May 22, 2015
ugh. Haaratz's paywalled.
posted by mikelieman at 2:54 PM on May 22, 2015
posted by mikelieman at 2:54 PM on May 22, 2015
This is the Jeffrey Goldberg Obama interview the Shalev mentions:
‘Look ... It’s My Name on This’: Obama Defends the Iran Nuclear Deal
posted by Golden Eternity at 3:24 PM on May 22, 2015
‘Look ... It’s My Name on This’: Obama Defends the Iran Nuclear Deal
In an interview, the U.S. president ties his legacy to a pact with Tehran, argues ISIS is not winning, warns Saudi Arabia not to pursue a nuclear-weapons program, and anguishes about Israel.
posted by Golden Eternity at 3:24 PM on May 22, 2015
The father, the son (Bibi) and the spirit of catastrophe - Far from being a politician with no vision or plan, Benjamin Netanyahu is in dialogue with history. His ideology was inherited from his father, but it harkens back to 15th-century messianic writings. (By Avner Ben-Zaken)
Netanyahu the Younger, then, understands that only by means of maintaining, sustaining and managing a potential catastrophe will the collective Jewish political consciousness be preserved, as the adhesive that preserves the unity of the Jewish political entity.posted by Golden Eternity at 10:04 PM on May 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
Consequently, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will not be resolved by means of a peace agreement, annexation of territories, unilateral withdrawal or deportation of Palestinians. Rather, it will be managed by means of exacerbation of the situation and its becoming unsolvable. The Iranian nuclear threat cannot be eliminated through military action or by consensual agreement; it will be contained, in Netanyahu’s view, by means of an unending regime of sanctions.
Moreover, Hamas rule in Gaza will not be eradicated by means of occupation of the Strip or imposition of a new international order; it will be preserved, together with the drizzle of rocket fire, which is critical for reinforcement of the notion of the dangers inherent in the establishment of a Palestinian state. The threat posed by Israeli Arabs will not be reduced by deportation, granting full equality of rights or swapping of territory; it will be contained by preserving their status as a fifth column, as an entity that threatens the very essence of Jewish existence in Israel.
In principle, threats are not to be eliminated but are to be maintained and contained, because they do an immense service in the shaping of a shared and effective political and historical consciousness. So it is that Netanyahu the Younger skips and hops between potential catastrophe, on the one hand, which he cultivates, and preventing its realization, on the other, all the while keeping Jewish existence suspended in a state of emergency. His political philosophy is, then, fully based on what can be called a doctrine of restrained catastrophism.
[...]
Thus, in Netanyahu the Younger’s playbook, only a perpetual Palestinian threat, only “management of the conflict” and the maintenance of a perpetual state of war, can preserve the Jewish state over time.
The frequent declarations of a state of emergency have severely reduced the range of opinions in the Zionist political field. Benjamin Netanyahu has succeeded in fixing in the Israeli mindset the assumption that the decisive Jewish question in this state is always an existential one; consequently, anyone who is part of the national Jewish discourse here is compelled to adhere to that basic truth, and must come to terms with the political truths that Netanyahu himself has termed critical.
So it is that during his years in power, liberal Zionism, from the left and from the right, has been vanquished. Every time Netanyahu declares a veritable state of emergency, he tears away additional layers of non-Revisionist Zionism’s cellophane wrapper, forcing liberal forces to vie with him on the basis of existential issues, and to support his position.
From Golden Eternity's link:
Also, why is he saying
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:01 PM on May 25, 2015
Obama [...] responded with an argument I had not heard him make before.That would be a remarkably narcissistic argument even if Obama hadn't already won a Nobel Prize: "Look, I understand you guys are worried - but consider how embarrassed I'll be in twenty years if you all get killed!"
“Look, 20 years from now, I’m still going to be around, God willing. If Iran has a nuclear weapon, it’s my name on this,” he said, referring to the apparently almost-finished nuclear agreement between Iran and a group of world powers led by the United States. “I think it’s fair to say that in addition to our profound national-security interests, I have a personal interest in locking this down.”
Also, why is he saying
If Iran has a nuclear weapon [in twenty years], it’s my name on this? I thought the White House concedes that removal of sanctions means that Iran will have a nuclear weapon within ten years; their argument is that there is no strategy that will have a longer delay.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:01 PM on May 25, 2015
I'm tired of these attempts to psychoanalyse Benjamin Netanyahu by some mystical invocation of his father; and Avner Ben-Zaken's argument is an especially egregious example. Here's what he says about Benzion (Netanyahu senior)'s attempt to rouse public awareness of the Holocaust, at a time when Roosevelt was deliberately ignoring it and far too many American Jews were afraid of "rocking the boat":
posted by Joe in Australia at 12:24 AM on May 26, 2015
During the war, Netanyahu and Hillel Kook served as emissaries for the Revisionist Zionist movement in New York. Once the rumors and reports about the destruction of European Jewry began to spread, the two men, both together and individually, worked to sow general turmoil among American Jewish leaders, and goad them into lobbying the U.S. administration to exert all due military force to disrupt the Nazi annihilation machinery.Working "to sow general turmoil"? What a cheap and nasty description of their efforts. I wish that they had been able to sow turmoil; maybe a few more Jewish lives would have been saved.
posted by Joe in Australia at 12:24 AM on May 26, 2015
WaPo: Obama is nostalgic for “white” Israel
[...] To understand how this sounds to someone sensitive to the history of various historically disfavored groups in Israel, imagine a foreign leader had said “I came to know America based on images of Dwight Eisenhower, Harry Truman, the American Federation of Labor, the Daughters of the American Revolution…” Each of these individuals and groups had their virtues, but lots of us would think, “Geez, you’re nostalgic for an America dominated by White Protestants, and you aren’t even sensitive enough about the course of American history to recognize it, or assumedly you wouldn’t say it.”posted by Joe in Australia at 3:58 PM on May 26, 2015
German court upholds ruling that "Death to Zionists" really means "Death to Jews"
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:01 PM on May 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:01 PM on May 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
Yet, that group is not BDS. The fact that there is antisemitism in the world does not mean that BDS is antisemitic. Is that link just meant for... what?
posted by latkes at 7:38 AM on May 27, 2015
posted by latkes at 7:38 AM on May 27, 2015
Online database 'exposes' pro-Palestinian college students in bid to block future jobs
A new website is publicizing the identities of pro-Palestinian student activists to prevent them from getting jobs after they graduate from college. But the website is keeping its own backers’ identity a secret.posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 1:49 PM on May 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
“It is your duty to ensure that today’s radicals are not tomorrow’s employees,” a female narrator intones in a slick video posted to the website’s YouTube account.
German court upholds ruling that "Death to Zionists" really means "Death to Jews"
Latkes wrote: Yet, that group is not BDS.
When you say that a group of people "is not BDS", do you mean they don't support BDS, that they're not typical of BDS supporters, or that BDS is some official body and that they aren't part of it?
I posted the link because of the argument that actions nominally in support of BDS are ipso facto not anti-Semitic. This case follows the same lines: the defendant referred to "Zionists", not "Jews"; he claimed that he didn't even call for violence against them, just expressed a wish that they would die. His argument was rejected, because (the judge said) everybody knows that he meant.
So when people barricade Jewish businesses, or demand the removal of Jewish academics, or interrupt performances with Jewish themes, it's not necessarily a defense to say that the complaints are about Israeli products (that just happen to be sold by or to Jews), Israeli academics (who just happen to be Jews), or programs subsidised or supported by Israel or Israelis that just happen to have Jewish themes or be of Jewish interest. There's no real way to determine protestors' motives, and in any event: when it comes to racism, people's motives are a lot less important than the effect of their actions. BDS is effectively anti-Semitic because it uniquely oppresses and burdens Jews both directly, through attacking Jews and Jewish interests; and indirectly, by evoking earlier instances of anti-Semitic persecution.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:20 PM on May 27, 2015
Latkes wrote: Yet, that group is not BDS.
When you say that a group of people "is not BDS", do you mean they don't support BDS, that they're not typical of BDS supporters, or that BDS is some official body and that they aren't part of it?
I posted the link because of the argument that actions nominally in support of BDS are ipso facto not anti-Semitic. This case follows the same lines: the defendant referred to "Zionists", not "Jews"; he claimed that he didn't even call for violence against them, just expressed a wish that they would die. His argument was rejected, because (the judge said) everybody knows that he meant.
So when people barricade Jewish businesses, or demand the removal of Jewish academics, or interrupt performances with Jewish themes, it's not necessarily a defense to say that the complaints are about Israeli products (that just happen to be sold by or to Jews), Israeli academics (who just happen to be Jews), or programs subsidised or supported by Israel or Israelis that just happen to have Jewish themes or be of Jewish interest. There's no real way to determine protestors' motives, and in any event: when it comes to racism, people's motives are a lot less important than the effect of their actions. BDS is effectively anti-Semitic because it uniquely oppresses and burdens Jews both directly, through attacking Jews and Jewish interests; and indirectly, by evoking earlier instances of anti-Semitic persecution.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:20 PM on May 27, 2015
Online database 'exposes' pro-Palestinian college students in bid to block future jobs
Students are stupid, and so is this idea. But you know, I'd also oppose a website that pretended to track student members of anti-gay or anti-immigration groups. I hope that people can change; and if someone's public presence after college doesn't evidence their prejudice then I would think they probably had changed. If I didn't think that, though, I can't see why I should treat BDS differently.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:33 PM on May 27, 2015
Students are stupid, and so is this idea. But you know, I'd also oppose a website that pretended to track student members of anti-gay or anti-immigration groups. I hope that people can change; and if someone's public presence after college doesn't evidence their prejudice then I would think they probably had changed. If I didn't think that, though, I can't see why I should treat BDS differently.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:33 PM on May 27, 2015
BDS is effectively anti-Semitic because it uniquely oppresses and burdens Jews both directly, through attacking Jews and Jewish interests
If that were true, it would also be true that the present government of Israel is effectively anti-Semitic because its actions promote the view that defending Judaism necessarily involves repeated and flagrant violations of international law.
posted by flabdablet at 6:55 PM on May 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
If that were true, it would also be true that the present government of Israel is effectively anti-Semitic because its actions promote the view that defending Judaism necessarily involves repeated and flagrant violations of international law.
posted by flabdablet at 6:55 PM on May 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
I don't think what you wrote makes an iota of sense. Can you try rephrasing it?
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:35 PM on May 27, 2015
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:35 PM on May 27, 2015
If your position is that BDS is "effectively anti-Semitic" solely for attempting to do economic damage to Israel based on its policies, then the government that enacts those policies must also be "effectively anti-Semitic".
It's logically equivalent, after all.
posted by Etrigan at 7:43 PM on May 27, 2015
It's logically equivalent, after all.
posted by Etrigan at 7:43 PM on May 27, 2015
That would be like saying that "black thugs" are to blame for racism in the USA. It both begs the question and blames the victims.
Incidentally, I have repeatedly said why BDS is effectively anti-Semitic, most recently in the very article Flabdablet replied to. You might try responding to that, rather than a self-contradictory hypothetical - it is the consequences of an action, not its motive, that make something racist in effect.
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:53 PM on May 27, 2015
Incidentally, I have repeatedly said why BDS is effectively anti-Semitic, most recently in the very article Flabdablet replied to. You might try responding to that, rather than a self-contradictory hypothetical - it is the consequences of an action, not its motive, that make something racist in effect.
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:53 PM on May 27, 2015
You might try responding to that
That's exactly what I was doing, Joe. You literally asked for a rephrasing, got one, and then said, "No, I want to talk about something else." You're still not engaging in good faith.
posted by Etrigan at 8:03 PM on May 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
That's exactly what I was doing, Joe. You literally asked for a rephrasing, got one, and then said, "No, I want to talk about something else." You're still not engaging in good faith.
posted by Etrigan at 8:03 PM on May 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
It's frustrating to be part of this "conversation" when one person is posting so much. But it's also frustrating to just let those comments stand without reply because I am Jewish and it is really upsetting to be repeatedly told that my values are antisemitic. Can you understand why that might upset me (and the many, many Jews, including Israelis who oppose Israeli policies?)
Sure, internalized feelings of self-hatred are a thing that exist. But at what point does it become absurd to call such large numbers of Jews antisemitic?!
Judith Butler was raised by two observant Jews. She went to Hebrew School and to special classes on Hebrew ethics. Much of her family was killed in the Holocaust. Her son was bar mitzvahed. Yet as a critic of Israel and supporter of BDS, she gets accused of being antisemitic.
Are these Jews antisemitic? Are these Jews antisemitic? Are these Jews antisemitic?
Your link actually said nothing about BDS! It talks about a court ruling about someone who shouted antisemtic slogans at a rally. I don't read German, but I didn't see anything stating that he affiliated himself with the BDS movement. I agree that what he said was antisemitic. BDS is a large, horizontal movement without official spokespeople. One wingnut (or a dozen - although you've listed only a handful of examples) does not define the movement for me, and I should get to be part of defining what is antisemitic because I am Jewish. People who are pro-Israel don't get to make the call for the rest of us.
posted by latkes at 9:57 PM on May 27, 2015 [5 favorites]
Sure, internalized feelings of self-hatred are a thing that exist. But at what point does it become absurd to call such large numbers of Jews antisemitic?!
Judith Butler was raised by two observant Jews. She went to Hebrew School and to special classes on Hebrew ethics. Much of her family was killed in the Holocaust. Her son was bar mitzvahed. Yet as a critic of Israel and supporter of BDS, she gets accused of being antisemitic.
Are these Jews antisemitic? Are these Jews antisemitic? Are these Jews antisemitic?
Your link actually said nothing about BDS! It talks about a court ruling about someone who shouted antisemtic slogans at a rally. I don't read German, but I didn't see anything stating that he affiliated himself with the BDS movement. I agree that what he said was antisemitic. BDS is a large, horizontal movement without official spokespeople. One wingnut (or a dozen - although you've listed only a handful of examples) does not define the movement for me, and I should get to be part of defining what is antisemitic because I am Jewish. People who are pro-Israel don't get to make the call for the rest of us.
posted by latkes at 9:57 PM on May 27, 2015 [5 favorites]
it is the consequences of an action, not its motive, that make something racist in effect.
I am perfectly willing to concede this point, provided only that the very same principle is applied to those who prescribe the use of indiscriminate weaponry against terrorist targets in circumstances where doing so has the completely predictable consequence of killing large numbers of civilians.
posted by flabdablet at 10:10 PM on May 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
I am perfectly willing to concede this point, provided only that the very same principle is applied to those who prescribe the use of indiscriminate weaponry against terrorist targets in circumstances where doing so has the completely predictable consequence of killing large numbers of civilians.
posted by flabdablet at 10:10 PM on May 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
BDS is effectively anti-Semitic because it uniquely oppresses and burdens Jews both directly, through attacking Jews and Jewish interests
Isn't this basically racist? To say that action taken against Israel is *uniquely* anti-Jewish, is to completely discount the Arab and Christian populations in Israel. It's basically saying non-Jews in Israel don't matter at all.
The UN estimates that Gaza will be unlivable by the year 2020 unless immediate action is taken to reverse current trends
Hmm. I wonder how Netanyahu and Ya'alon are planning to insure this trend is reversed.
Working "to sow general turmoil"? What a cheap and nasty description of their efforts.
I didn't take it that way at all. I think Benzion's efforts are clearly to be lauded, as is his ideological contribution to Zionist ideology and a better understanding of racism. He is probably right that during the Spanish Inquisition Jews who converted to Christianity did not live double lives but were persecuted due to their ethnicity which they could not escape. There is also little doubt that they now face similarly racism in the Middle East. In fact, I wonder if the current character of anti-Semitism in the Middle East isn't itself a product of European colonialism, as it shares much of the same nature, and fascism clearly took a strong foothold throughout the region. Netanyahu may not be wrong! I don't think the article was a psychoanalysis so much as a suggestion of Netanyahu's true ideology and strategy, and it seems to me to be very close to correct. Netanyahu sees himself as the Churchill of today.
It also seems to me to be plainly obvious that Netanyahu and Likud don't want any solution at all. The solution they want is what they have now: to slowly continue to annex the occupied territories and make life as miserable as possible for non-citizen Arabs with the hope that someday they can be made to leave.
Netanyahu and the Politicization of Israel
posted by Golden Eternity at 10:32 PM on May 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
Isn't this basically racist? To say that action taken against Israel is *uniquely* anti-Jewish, is to completely discount the Arab and Christian populations in Israel. It's basically saying non-Jews in Israel don't matter at all.
The UN estimates that Gaza will be unlivable by the year 2020 unless immediate action is taken to reverse current trends
Hmm. I wonder how Netanyahu and Ya'alon are planning to insure this trend is reversed.
Working "to sow general turmoil"? What a cheap and nasty description of their efforts.
I didn't take it that way at all. I think Benzion's efforts are clearly to be lauded, as is his ideological contribution to Zionist ideology and a better understanding of racism. He is probably right that during the Spanish Inquisition Jews who converted to Christianity did not live double lives but were persecuted due to their ethnicity which they could not escape. There is also little doubt that they now face similarly racism in the Middle East. In fact, I wonder if the current character of anti-Semitism in the Middle East isn't itself a product of European colonialism, as it shares much of the same nature, and fascism clearly took a strong foothold throughout the region. Netanyahu may not be wrong! I don't think the article was a psychoanalysis so much as a suggestion of Netanyahu's true ideology and strategy, and it seems to me to be very close to correct. Netanyahu sees himself as the Churchill of today.
It also seems to me to be plainly obvious that Netanyahu and Likud don't want any solution at all. The solution they want is what they have now: to slowly continue to annex the occupied territories and make life as miserable as possible for non-citizen Arabs with the hope that someday they can be made to leave.
Netanyahu and the Politicization of Israel
posted by Golden Eternity at 10:32 PM on May 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
BDS is effectively anti-Semitic because it uniquely oppresses and burdens Jews both directly, through attacking Jews and Jewish interests
Isn't this basically racist? To say that action taken against Israel is *uniquely* anti-Jewish, is to completely discount the Arab and Christian populations in Israel.
I'm not really concerned about the effect of BDS on Israel, although I suppose that's an argument, too. I'm talking about the local effect of BDS-supporting actions, here, on Jews in the diaspora. For instance, BDS supporters' chant about a (local, Australian) café chain serving blood to its customers clearly invoked the blood libel; it had little or no effect on Israel, but it made things very unpleasant for Jews here. I'm sure the Swedish poster with the dripping blood orange made things unpleasant for Jews there, too. As did the BDS activists who put a pig's head in what they supposed was the kosher food section of Woolworths, in South Africa, and the ones whose violent protest led a British supermarket to remove its kosher products altogether.
Then there are BDS activists' interruptions to Jewish religious and cultural life. It is very, very common for Israeli performers to have their performances interrupted by protestors in the audience. Or even non-Israelis addressing mostly-Jewish audiences on subjects that are thought to be relevant to Israel. Here in Melbourne, BDS protestors planned a major protest outside a synagogue for Shabbat afternoon - apparently because the synagogue had a hall named after the mother of Joseph Gutnick, who in turn has a building named after him in Hebron. (I know of several others; he apparently has buildings named after him everywhere.) The protest was cancelled after police intervention and a public outcry.
A lot of these actions are literally terrifying, like the South African BDS supporters threatening to kill Jews. But even ones that "just" target Jewish businesses or cultural events are harmful and burdensome, and are therefore racist in effect if not in intent. I was astonished to see people here arguing that this burden is somehow Israel's fault. That argument effectively justifies every sort of racist attack; it's morally bankrupt and it should have no place here.
posted by Joe in Australia at 11:03 PM on May 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
Isn't this basically racist? To say that action taken against Israel is *uniquely* anti-Jewish, is to completely discount the Arab and Christian populations in Israel.
I'm not really concerned about the effect of BDS on Israel, although I suppose that's an argument, too. I'm talking about the local effect of BDS-supporting actions, here, on Jews in the diaspora. For instance, BDS supporters' chant about a (local, Australian) café chain serving blood to its customers clearly invoked the blood libel; it had little or no effect on Israel, but it made things very unpleasant for Jews here. I'm sure the Swedish poster with the dripping blood orange made things unpleasant for Jews there, too. As did the BDS activists who put a pig's head in what they supposed was the kosher food section of Woolworths, in South Africa, and the ones whose violent protest led a British supermarket to remove its kosher products altogether.
Then there are BDS activists' interruptions to Jewish religious and cultural life. It is very, very common for Israeli performers to have their performances interrupted by protestors in the audience. Or even non-Israelis addressing mostly-Jewish audiences on subjects that are thought to be relevant to Israel. Here in Melbourne, BDS protestors planned a major protest outside a synagogue for Shabbat afternoon - apparently because the synagogue had a hall named after the mother of Joseph Gutnick, who in turn has a building named after him in Hebron. (I know of several others; he apparently has buildings named after him everywhere.) The protest was cancelled after police intervention and a public outcry.
A lot of these actions are literally terrifying, like the South African BDS supporters threatening to kill Jews. But even ones that "just" target Jewish businesses or cultural events are harmful and burdensome, and are therefore racist in effect if not in intent. I was astonished to see people here arguing that this burden is somehow Israel's fault. That argument effectively justifies every sort of racist attack; it's morally bankrupt and it should have no place here.
posted by Joe in Australia at 11:03 PM on May 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
A lot of what you describe seems incredibly idiotic of BDS. They should be doing everything they can to prevent anti-Semitism in their PR or even the appearence of it. The Oxfam poster was apparently created in 2002 and was accused of representing blood libel as early as 2007. How could BDS use this poster? Just dumb.
posted by Golden Eternity at 11:22 PM on May 27, 2015
posted by Golden Eternity at 11:22 PM on May 27, 2015
And Joe, what do you make of the fact that so many supporters of BDS, and organizers of actions for BDS are Jewish? Are you saying those Jewish BDS activists are antisemitic?
posted by latkes at 6:10 AM on May 28, 2015
posted by latkes at 6:10 AM on May 28, 2015
No. It's a bit late for me, but I discussed this above.
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:19 AM on May 28, 2015
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:19 AM on May 28, 2015
So you'd say that these folks for example are similar to women who support gamergate? These holocaust survivors are making a similar judgement to African American Southerners who support public display of the confederate flag?
Does it bother you to accuse so many Jews of supporting antisemitism? Does your definition of antisemitism get at all troubled by the fact that includes the actions of so many Jews?
posted by latkes at 6:42 AM on May 28, 2015 [4 favorites]
Does it bother you to accuse so many Jews of supporting antisemitism? Does your definition of antisemitism get at all troubled by the fact that includes the actions of so many Jews?
posted by latkes at 6:42 AM on May 28, 2015 [4 favorites]
Mod note: Folks, I realize the discussion has gone a long way down this road, but at this point let's take a step back from the specific focus on "what does Joe in Australia think"; going around and around on that doesn't seem to be advancing the discussion.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 9:19 AM on May 28, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 9:19 AM on May 28, 2015 [2 favorites]
Are these Jews antisemitic? Are these Jews antisemitic? Are these Jews antisemitic?
The people I know who are the most outspoken against Israeli policy and the occupation are also the people who run a beit midrash and a house that is also an "intentional Jewish community", making important connections between younger Jews in the area.
Lately, the CJN have been running concern opeds about younger Jews "disengaging" from Israel. Why wouldn't we? The Israeli gov't doesn't follow our values; heck, they don't even recognize my rabbi as being a rabbi. One of the most important commands in the Torah is to treat the stranger - the other - as yourself, as we were once strangers in Egypt. The Jewish leaders who marched for civil rights in the US remembered this. But not so the Israeli government.
If Israel is running away from what we value, why should we value Israel? Because it is the place of last resort? But maybe it isn't - not for non-white Jews, not Jews who converted through any liberal movement, and not for many Jews who don't practice strict Orthodoxy. Our rabbis can't lead us in reading the Torah at the Kotel. We can't get married there.
Some day, maybe I'll visit. But I'm not staying - and it's not my home. My home is the community I've found, and my holy land is distant in the past as well as in kilometres.
posted by jb at 10:25 AM on May 28, 2015 [5 favorites]
The people I know who are the most outspoken against Israeli policy and the occupation are also the people who run a beit midrash and a house that is also an "intentional Jewish community", making important connections between younger Jews in the area.
Lately, the CJN have been running concern opeds about younger Jews "disengaging" from Israel. Why wouldn't we? The Israeli gov't doesn't follow our values; heck, they don't even recognize my rabbi as being a rabbi. One of the most important commands in the Torah is to treat the stranger - the other - as yourself, as we were once strangers in Egypt. The Jewish leaders who marched for civil rights in the US remembered this. But not so the Israeli government.
If Israel is running away from what we value, why should we value Israel? Because it is the place of last resort? But maybe it isn't - not for non-white Jews, not Jews who converted through any liberal movement, and not for many Jews who don't practice strict Orthodoxy. Our rabbis can't lead us in reading the Torah at the Kotel. We can't get married there.
Some day, maybe I'll visit. But I'm not staying - and it's not my home. My home is the community I've found, and my holy land is distant in the past as well as in kilometres.
posted by jb at 10:25 AM on May 28, 2015 [5 favorites]
sorry - for those playing along at home: CJN = the Canadian Jewish News, once immortalised in Airplane II (written & directed by Ken Finkelman, a Canadian!) as one of "the big papers".
posted by jb at 10:28 AM on May 28, 2015
posted by jb at 10:28 AM on May 28, 2015
Both Airplane II and Finkelman are so underrated. Finkelman went on to write & star in The Newsroom, which was The Office before The Office, only cleverer.
posted by jb at 10:30 AM on May 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by jb at 10:30 AM on May 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
BDS must spell out what it wants from Israel
posted by Joe in Australia at 2:22 PM on May 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Joe in Australia at 2:22 PM on May 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
So you'd say that these folks for example are similar to women who support gamergate? These holocaust survivors are making a similar judgement to African American Southerners who support public display of the confederate flag?
Possibly. I generally try to follow Jay Smooth's distinction between "what they did" and "what they are". It's excellent advice in these circumstances, because I would have a real attack of cognitive dissonance if I called these guys racists, for instance.
I think I should point out the flip side of your question, though: Hedy Epstein isn't very representative of Jews (or Holocaust survivors) generally. Would you say that the ones who disagree with her are racist? Should their status as Jews and/or Holocaust survivors give their opinions an added level of legitimacy?
posted by Joe in Australia at 11:08 PM on May 28, 2015
Possibly. I generally try to follow Jay Smooth's distinction between "what they did" and "what they are". It's excellent advice in these circumstances, because I would have a real attack of cognitive dissonance if I called these guys racists, for instance.
I think I should point out the flip side of your question, though: Hedy Epstein isn't very representative of Jews (or Holocaust survivors) generally. Would you say that the ones who disagree with her are racist? Should their status as Jews and/or Holocaust survivors give their opinions an added level of legitimacy?
posted by Joe in Australia at 11:08 PM on May 28, 2015
What BDS wants is the same thing everyone else wants. Liberty and Justice FOR ALL.
One nation, two nations. Those are details, but if the Israeli Government isn't just waiting for 2020 when Gaza is empty so they can move back in without the pesky residents causing trouble, then they have to define the borders of the 2 states TODAY.
And that horseshit where they took all of J'lem as their "eternal and undivided capital"? Clear evidence of bad-faith on their part, but I feel the same way about disengagement....
Maybe they just act honestly and in good-faith for a change? Join the NPT, allow UN inspections. You know, stop acting like a rogue state?
Again, the US is safer than Israel for Jews, so they claim to solve a problem that I don't have.
posted by mikelieman at 1:24 AM on May 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
One nation, two nations. Those are details, but if the Israeli Government isn't just waiting for 2020 when Gaza is empty so they can move back in without the pesky residents causing trouble, then they have to define the borders of the 2 states TODAY.
And that horseshit where they took all of J'lem as their "eternal and undivided capital"? Clear evidence of bad-faith on their part, but I feel the same way about disengagement....
Maybe they just act honestly and in good-faith for a change? Join the NPT, allow UN inspections. You know, stop acting like a rogue state?
Again, the US is safer than Israel for Jews, so they claim to solve a problem that I don't have.
posted by mikelieman at 1:24 AM on May 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
...if the Israeli Government isn't just waiting for 2020 when Gaza is empty so they can move back in without the pesky residents causing trouble...
I don't know where this particular chestnut comes from but Gaza has one of the highest population growth rates in the world and has never been more populous. There is zero percent chance that any Israeli's living there will be anything but a tiny insignificant minority.
Again, the US is safer than Israel for Jews, so they claim to solve a problem that I don't have.
A phrase much like many Jewish communities have heard through the ages with regard to their current country of residence.
posted by PenDevil at 1:50 AM on May 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
I don't know where this particular chestnut comes from but Gaza has one of the highest population growth rates in the world and has never been more populous. There is zero percent chance that any Israeli's living there will be anything but a tiny insignificant minority.
Again, the US is safer than Israel for Jews, so they claim to solve a problem that I don't have.
A phrase much like many Jewish communities have heard through the ages with regard to their current country of residence.
posted by PenDevil at 1:50 AM on May 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
The past seventy years qualify as "through the ages"?
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:56 AM on May 29, 2015
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:56 AM on May 29, 2015
It's an eyeblink in the history of antisemitism.
posted by maxsparber at 8:42 AM on May 29, 2015
posted by maxsparber at 8:42 AM on May 29, 2015
The past seventy years qualify as "through the ages"?
Remove Israel and the phrase is entirely accurate.
Historically speaking, the list of countries where Jews felt safe and protected that turned out not to be so is pretty damned long.
Off the top of my head:
Algeria
Austria
Czechoslovakia
Egypt
England
Europe (In addition to atrocities like the Crusades, Holocaust and various antisemitic acts committed against us throughout the ages, Jews became pretty much persona non grata in all of Europe during the Black Plague years, when we were blamed for the sickness)
France
Germany (long history: pogroms, Holocaust, judensau, etc., etc.)
Holland
India (16th Century, Kerala and Goa. Fomented by Christians)
Iran
Iraq
Italy (Roman empire through the rise of Christianity)
Libya
Morocco (Among other anti-Jewish acts, there were forced mass conversions in the 13th century.)
Poland
Portugal (Look up Marranos.)
Russia
Spain (No one expected the Spanish Inquisition. Or the Pogroms.)
Switzerland (Basel massacre, etc.)
Syria
Turkey
Yemen
That's 21 countries and at least one entire continent. There are others.
Also:
The Russian Orthodox Church (antisemitic liturgy. History of pogroms in the 19th and 20th centuries. Etc.)
Martin Luther founded Protestantism. He hated Jews.
There's also a timeline of antisemitism on wikipedia.
History of blood libel. Christians have been accusing Jews of blood libel and ritual murder since the time of Apion.
Lastly, from wikipedia: History of antisemitism in the United States.
posted by zarq at 8:54 AM on May 29, 2015 [4 favorites]
Remove Israel and the phrase is entirely accurate.
Historically speaking, the list of countries where Jews felt safe and protected that turned out not to be so is pretty damned long.
Off the top of my head:
Algeria
Austria
Czechoslovakia
Egypt
England
Europe (In addition to atrocities like the Crusades, Holocaust and various antisemitic acts committed against us throughout the ages, Jews became pretty much persona non grata in all of Europe during the Black Plague years, when we were blamed for the sickness)
France
Germany (long history: pogroms, Holocaust, judensau, etc., etc.)
Holland
India (16th Century, Kerala and Goa. Fomented by Christians)
Iran
Iraq
Italy (Roman empire through the rise of Christianity)
Libya
Morocco (Among other anti-Jewish acts, there were forced mass conversions in the 13th century.)
Poland
Portugal (Look up Marranos.)
Russia
Spain (No one expected the Spanish Inquisition. Or the Pogroms.)
Switzerland (Basel massacre, etc.)
Syria
Turkey
Yemen
That's 21 countries and at least one entire continent. There are others.
Also:
The Russian Orthodox Church (antisemitic liturgy. History of pogroms in the 19th and 20th centuries. Etc.)
Martin Luther founded Protestantism. He hated Jews.
There's also a timeline of antisemitism on wikipedia.
History of blood libel. Christians have been accusing Jews of blood libel and ritual murder since the time of Apion.
Lastly, from wikipedia: History of antisemitism in the United States.
posted by zarq at 8:54 AM on May 29, 2015 [4 favorites]
Israel’s Antisemitism Ad Hominem To Silence Dissent Under Fire
"The anti-Semitism allegation against BDS is clear evidence that Israel and its allies have lost the battle to defend Israeli state policies. Name-calling and smearing opponents is all that is left. This strategy has failed miserably everywhere and will fail here.”posted by Golden Eternity at 9:18 AM on May 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
From that last link:
posted by Joe in Australia at 1:57 AM on May 30, 2015
“False accusations of anti-Semitism and support for terrorism are one of a range of strategies being employed by Israel advocacy groups [...]I've given citations to BDS supporters literally shouting "kill the Jews". There is no way to be more anti-Semitic than that.
posted by Joe in Australia at 1:57 AM on May 30, 2015
US court ruling opens door to lawsuit against BDS
Washington State justices reverse 2012 decision protecting food co-op from being sued over its boycott of Israeli products
posted by Joe in Australia at 2:22 AM on May 30, 2015
Washington State justices reverse 2012 decision protecting food co-op from being sued over its boycott of Israeli products
posted by Joe in Australia at 2:22 AM on May 30, 2015
Rivlin: 'I am a soldier' in the fight against BDS movement
posted by Joe in Australia at 2:34 AM on May 30, 2015
Lavie told Rivlin that there was no doubt that the president’s participation in countering academic boycotts carried a lot of weight. The consensus among those present was that the situation is worse in America than it is in Europe.It's Kafkaesque that opposition to academic boycotts is described as an attack on freedom of speech.
Lavie also mentioned that the Technion was conducting a course on nanotechnology in Arabic on the Internet, for which there had been 7,000 applications, including from countries throughout the region. Many of the students could not believe that the professor teaching them was an Arab who was a member of the university’s faculty. They had been brainwashed into believing that no Arab could hold a faculty position in an academic institution in Israel, he said.
posted by Joe in Australia at 2:34 AM on May 30, 2015
Here's the thing. Freedom of speech can only be infringed by the Government. The People cannot infringe on Freedom of Speech by using it.
When *I* or my bowling team call for a boycott of Israeli products to protest their Government's acts, there is no risk to anyone else's "Freedom of Speech". Since I'm not able to pass laws that infringe on it.
The moment a law is passed preventing that, MY FREEDOM OF SPEECH is infringed BY THE GOVERNMENT.
Another simple metric of true democracies that the Israeli Government fails to meet.
posted by mikelieman at 2:04 PM on May 30, 2015 [2 favorites]
When *I* or my bowling team call for a boycott of Israeli products to protest their Government's acts, there is no risk to anyone else's "Freedom of Speech". Since I'm not able to pass laws that infringe on it.
The moment a law is passed preventing that, MY FREEDOM OF SPEECH is infringed BY THE GOVERNMENT.
Another simple metric of true democracies that the Israeli Government fails to meet.
posted by mikelieman at 2:04 PM on May 30, 2015 [2 favorites]
Freedom of speech can only be infringed by the Government.
Really? Do you imagine that in the absence of a government, everybody has perfect freedom of speech? What about other rights? For instance, is a captive's right to liberty contingent on him being confined unjustly by a government, not by a kidnapper?
You seem to view things through a very US-centric lens, so consider this: your country's Declaration of Independence says that people
Historically, attacks on free speech have only sometimes been carried out by governments directly; it's very common for them to be committed by ostensibly private "popular" groups. For instance, Jewish students and lecturers in Europe were sometimes kept out of universities by organised student militia; everybody recognised that this was an attack on the Jews' freedom: that was the point. A similar process went on in the USA after Reconstruction; it started with extra-legal attacks on people exercising their civil rights and only later became official policy.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:23 PM on May 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
Really? Do you imagine that in the absence of a government, everybody has perfect freedom of speech? What about other rights? For instance, is a captive's right to liberty contingent on him being confined unjustly by a government, not by a kidnapper?
You seem to view things through a very US-centric lens, so consider this: your country's Declaration of Independence says that people
are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights [...] That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men...That is, human rights are not gifts of a government or merely constraints upon it; human rights come first, and governments are created to protect them. The complaints of that Declaration are not confined to the British Crown's own breaches of the American colonists' rights; they include the Crown's failure to legislate and enforce laws that would protect colonists' rights vis-à-vis other people.
Historically, attacks on free speech have only sometimes been carried out by governments directly; it's very common for them to be committed by ostensibly private "popular" groups. For instance, Jewish students and lecturers in Europe were sometimes kept out of universities by organised student militia; everybody recognised that this was an attack on the Jews' freedom: that was the point. A similar process went on in the USA after Reconstruction; it started with extra-legal attacks on people exercising their civil rights and only later became official policy.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:23 PM on May 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
Mod note: A couple comments removed. Maybe y'all can cool it all around, we're three weeks into the latest Israel/etc. thread and this is getting to be a kind of frustrating The Same Six Dudes Have The Same Basic Disagreement Every Month routine that might at this scale be better served by a mailing list than recurring Metafilter threads.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:07 PM on May 30, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:07 PM on May 30, 2015 [4 favorites]
"Comprehensive" doesn't actually mean "comprehensive":
Comprehensive approach to fighting BDS is needed
Comprehensive approach to fighting BDS is needed
The appeal of such legislation is understandable. It lacks the wishy-washiness of education, lobbying or persuasion. It seeks to use the very real power of government to stop the bad guys.posted by Joe in Australia at 3:16 AM on May 31, 2015
Magic wands, however, are just that — magical. They give one the feeling of control and power, but they are not real. And they divert us from the day-to-day unglamorous work that needs to be done.
Legislation that bars BDS activity by private groups, whether corporations or universities, strikes at the heart of First Amendment-protected free speech, will be challenged in the courts and is likely to be struck down. A decision by a private body to boycott Israel, as despicable as it may be, is protected by our Constitution. Perhaps in Europe, where hate speech laws exist and are acceptable within their own legal frameworks, such bills could be sustained. But not here in America.
New York Times: Israel’s Charade of Democracy
If you look at all the land Israel controls between the Jordan and the Mediterranean, that area contains some 8.3 million Israelis and Palestinians of voting age. Roughly 30 percent — about 2.5 million — are Palestinians living outside Israel under varying degrees of Israeli control — in East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. They have some ability to elect Palestinian bodies with limited functions. But they are powerless to choose Israeli officials, who make the weightiest decisions affecting them.posted by Golden Eternity at 9:36 AM on June 1, 2015
International humanitarian law does not grant a people living under temporary military occupation the right to vote for the institutions of the occupying power. But “temporary” is the operative word. Military occupations are meant to have an end. And common sense says half a century is not “temporary.”
Nevertheless, that is the basis for denying Palestinians their political rights: Their status is temporary, we are told, until a political agreement with Israel allows them to vote for sovereign Palestinian institutions. Now the chances of that happening are more clear. On the eve of elections, Mr. Netanyahu promised that there would be no Palestinian state while he is in office.
Israel's 'war on BDS' misses the point
What is taking place in Israel these days is reminiscent of what took place in South Africa in the 1980s and in Yugoslavia in the 1990s: international pressure that is focused on a specific problem is understood by those states’ citizens as an assault against the entire country, evidenced by the world’s irrational loathing and hatred of it. As a result, nationalism grows, internal dissent is silenced, and various democratic characteristics become weaker, or are weakened.posted by Golden Eternity at 11:16 AM on June 1, 2015
Take for example, in South Africa, the activist movement Black Sash, a group of white women who opposed apartheid. The activists organized protests and published reports that highlighted the injustices of apartheid. For that work they were ostracized, labeled as traitors, and even suffered physical violence. As apartheid became more repressive and international pressure increased, opposition to Black Sash intensified: its members were repeatedly arrested, their protests were banned, and the violence directed toward them got worse.
In Serbia it was a similar story. The Serbs saw themselves as the victims of the international media, which, they alleged, did not fairly portray their positions. In the period when Serbia was subjected to international criticism, support for Slobodan Milosevic only increased; hatred toward Albanians became stronger, democracy was weakened, and opposition activists were seen as traitors.
Palestinians [...] have some ability to elect Palestinian bodies with limited functions.The author (who is the executive director of B'Tselem) knows very well that Palestinians have no ability to elect Palestinian bodies; that the last Palestinian general elections were nearly a decade ago; that even local elections were stymied by Hamas and the Palestinian Authority - each of which has its own police, army, post office, passports &c &c.
Israel couldn't run an election in the West Bank and Gaza even if it wanted to: quite apart from the legal issues, it has no ability to enter most population centers except via an invasion. If B'Tselem were an actual human rights organisation or if it were actually concerned about Palestinians' rights it would say that the reason Palestinians can't vote is that they live in thuggocracies that do not wish to be voted out of power. So B'Tselem is demanding something that Israel can't do and which Palestinians (officially) don't want.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:17 PM on June 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
Mod note: Comment deleted. Seriously, as per cortex's note above, if you are mainly here to interrogate one person, just go ahead and do this directly via email. If a thread has become a endlessly-recursive personal debate space between a couple of people, please go ahead and do this via email. Metafilter is for discussion with a range of members about the topic posted.
posted by taz (staff) at 1:47 AM on June 2, 2015
posted by taz (staff) at 1:47 AM on June 2, 2015
I thought the statement, "Israel couldn't run an election in the West Bank and Gaza even if it wanted to", was so outrageously false, it shouldn't go unquestioned.
If you're going to permit statements like that to remain unquestioned, it makes me wonder about bias and good faith.
posted by mikelieman at 1:20 PM on June 2, 2015
If you're going to permit statements like that to remain unquestioned, it makes me wonder about bias and good faith.
posted by mikelieman at 1:20 PM on June 2, 2015
Ad hominem personal attacks about bias, good faith, and shilling are mostly unproductive. Better to just respond to what has been said - which could certainly involve pointing out bias and lack of good faith.
I think Joe makes a strong point that Palestinian leadership is not very democratic and woefully lacking in competence to create a functional state. What is the Left doing about that?
Haneen Zoabi's war on religious fanatics
posted by Golden Eternity at 1:30 PM on June 2, 2015
I think Joe makes a strong point that Palestinian leadership is not very democratic and woefully lacking in competence to create a functional state. What is the Left doing about that?
Haneen Zoabi's war on religious fanatics
posted by Golden Eternity at 1:30 PM on June 2, 2015
I thought the statement, "Israel couldn't run an election in the West Bank and Gaza even if it wanted to", was so outrageously false, it shouldn't go unquestioned.
It's pretty accurate. In the Isaiah thread, I explained some basic facts to you about how the governments of Israel, Gaza and the West Bank operate. Joe was speaking specifically about Israel's lack of realistic ability to enforce electoral change in the Occupied territories and Gaza.
It should be apparent to any alert observer that Israel doesn't have much influence on Palestinian leadership outside the negotiating table. The worst punishment tactics they have done have been ineffective: such as military intervention (bombings), destruction of civilian infrastructure and withholding basic goods. If Israel did have any influence at all, they'd have unseated Hamas years ago. And illegally flooding the West Bank with Settlers isn't going to force a Palestinian political change in any direction other than against Israel.
If you want to argue that Israel can run an election in the Palestinian territories, you don't need to engage in personal attacks.
Speaking only for myself here, I think it would also be nice if you chose to argue with facts rather than hyperbole.
posted by zarq at 2:16 PM on June 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
It's pretty accurate. In the Isaiah thread, I explained some basic facts to you about how the governments of Israel, Gaza and the West Bank operate. Joe was speaking specifically about Israel's lack of realistic ability to enforce electoral change in the Occupied territories and Gaza.
It should be apparent to any alert observer that Israel doesn't have much influence on Palestinian leadership outside the negotiating table. The worst punishment tactics they have done have been ineffective: such as military intervention (bombings), destruction of civilian infrastructure and withholding basic goods. If Israel did have any influence at all, they'd have unseated Hamas years ago. And illegally flooding the West Bank with Settlers isn't going to force a Palestinian political change in any direction other than against Israel.
If you want to argue that Israel can run an election in the Palestinian territories, you don't need to engage in personal attacks.
Speaking only for myself here, I think it would also be nice if you chose to argue with facts rather than hyperbole.
posted by zarq at 2:16 PM on June 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
EU sources: Drive to label Israeli settlement products unstoppable - Sources in the Prime Minister’s Office deny that foreign policy chief Mogherini made such remarks during her visit to Israel last month.
posted by Golden Eternity at 10:58 PM on June 2, 2015
posted by Golden Eternity at 10:58 PM on June 2, 2015
I wonder how they plan to distinguish these products. With some sort of sticker, perhaps?
The proposal is inherently discriminatory, but Israelis can probably get around it by having dual addresses; it's going to be rather harder for Palestinian exporters. And it's not as if you can avoid these unintended consequences by labelling products made in the West Bank and East Jerusalem: there are Palestinian-owned manufacturers right next to Israeli-owned ones. That is, unless they plan on marking goods as being free from Jewish labour ...
posted by Joe in Australia at 11:29 PM on June 2, 2015
The proposal is inherently discriminatory, but Israelis can probably get around it by having dual addresses; it's going to be rather harder for Palestinian exporters. And it's not as if you can avoid these unintended consequences by labelling products made in the West Bank and East Jerusalem: there are Palestinian-owned manufacturers right next to Israeli-owned ones. That is, unless they plan on marking goods as being free from Jewish labour ...
posted by Joe in Australia at 11:29 PM on June 2, 2015
Yes, the illegal occupation of Palestine and apartheid forced on the Palestinians has made it easier to simply respond with anti-Semitism toward Israelis than conduct a nuanced mass campaign. Would you prefer they send rockets instead of stickers?
posted by klangklangston at 12:51 AM on June 3, 2015
posted by klangklangston at 12:51 AM on June 3, 2015
I'd prefer people to say what they think the problem is, and what their objectives are.
If Israel were practising apartheid then the answer would be simple: let Arabs and Jews intermingle, use the same conveyances and utilities, vote in and stand for the same elections, &c &c. But since Israel is guilty of none of those things the term "apartheid" just obscures the issue.
Bradley Burston isn't the only one frustrated by BDS activists' refusal to spell out what they want; that's really the crux of the matter. This isn't a relatively simple problem like apartheid: it's vastly more complicated and there may in fact not be any good solution. In the absence of any realistic proposal that ends with "and the Palestinians are much better off", what is the point of BDS or rockets? What is the objective here? Or is BDS like Hamas' rockets, an objective in itself?
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:35 AM on June 3, 2015
If Israel were practising apartheid then the answer would be simple: let Arabs and Jews intermingle, use the same conveyances and utilities, vote in and stand for the same elections, &c &c. But since Israel is guilty of none of those things the term "apartheid" just obscures the issue.
Bradley Burston isn't the only one frustrated by BDS activists' refusal to spell out what they want; that's really the crux of the matter. This isn't a relatively simple problem like apartheid: it's vastly more complicated and there may in fact not be any good solution. In the absence of any realistic proposal that ends with "and the Palestinians are much better off", what is the point of BDS or rockets? What is the objective here? Or is BDS like Hamas' rockets, an objective in itself?
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:35 AM on June 3, 2015
If Israel were practising apartheid then the answer would be simple: let Arabs and Jews intermingle, use the same conveyances and utilities, vote in and stand for the same elections, &c &c. But since Israel is guilty of none of those things the term "apartheid" just obscures the issue.
Israel has been guilty of racial segregation and discrimination against Palestinians and Israeli Arabs in recent times, and there are current, enforced laws and policies, such as the restrictions against family reunification that are also racial segregation. There was the segregation of Highway 443, which ended several years ago. The Israeli Ministry of Defense tried to segregate Israeli and Palestinian bus passengers in the occupied West Bank two weeks ago. Netanyahu put a stop to it just hours after the policy was enforced. This is similar to the previously segregated line in the West Bank, back in 2013.
There are other examples and an argument can be made that some segregation actually helps increase public safety. But perhaps the most damning fact is one that no one seems to be discussing. Ministry officials in Israel can apparently propose and enact policies that racially segregate Israeli Arabs and Palestinians from Israeli Jews, keep their jobs and even get re-elected. As the Or report noted, certain forms of discrimination have become institutionalized.
posted by zarq at 6:04 AM on June 3, 2015 [4 favorites]
Israel has been guilty of racial segregation and discrimination against Palestinians and Israeli Arabs in recent times, and there are current, enforced laws and policies, such as the restrictions against family reunification that are also racial segregation. There was the segregation of Highway 443, which ended several years ago. The Israeli Ministry of Defense tried to segregate Israeli and Palestinian bus passengers in the occupied West Bank two weeks ago. Netanyahu put a stop to it just hours after the policy was enforced. This is similar to the previously segregated line in the West Bank, back in 2013.
There are other examples and an argument can be made that some segregation actually helps increase public safety. But perhaps the most damning fact is one that no one seems to be discussing. Ministry officials in Israel can apparently propose and enact policies that racially segregate Israeli Arabs and Palestinians from Israeli Jews, keep their jobs and even get re-elected. As the Or report noted, certain forms of discrimination have become institutionalized.
posted by zarq at 6:04 AM on June 3, 2015 [4 favorites]
Israeli academics report signs of undeclared boycott targeting them
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:08 AM on June 3, 2015
[...] Rivka Carmi, president of Ben-Gurion University in the Negev, says her institution’s accumulation of complaints by faculty members cannot be dismissed as a coincidence.For an interesting point of contrast, Omar Barghouti is a co-founder of the BDS movement. He's also a PhD student at Tel Aviv University. Some people got a petition up to have him expelled, but the rector refused, saying
“There’s nothing written on paper, but one tells you that he used to be invited to plenaries and keynotes, and all of a sudden he’s not. Another one tells you he can’t get his articles and papers accepted into leading journals anymore even though it’s good stuff,” she says.
“Others tell me they have a hard time getting people to write letters of recommendation. They’re not told that it’s because of the boycott. Rather, they’re told that there’s no time or that they’re not well-versed in the subject. All sorts of excuses like that, so you really don’t know. But it’s happening more and more.”
A university campus should be a place that encourages and tolerates free speech, no matter how offensive the expressed opinions may be to the majority of students and faculty at that institution, or indeed to the public at large. Our university has adopted a similar policy also in previous occasions....The University cannot and will not expel this student based on his political views or actions. He will be assessed only on the basis of his academic achievements and excellence...This didn't please Barghouti, who complained that
The anti-boycott lobby will now jump to use this as a weapon in their increasingly desperate attempts to fend off the growing threat of academic boycott of Israeli academic institutions, arguing that these institutions respect the academic freedom "even" of boycott advocates.Really, you couldn't make this stuff up.
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:08 AM on June 3, 2015
Ministry officials in Israel can apparently propose and enact policies that racially segregate Israeli Arabs and Palestinians from Israeli Jews [...]
Zarq, I think all the instances you cite were aimed at preventing terror attacks by separating Palestinians from Israelis, not Jews from Arabs. Not only is that not apartheid, but if and when there is a Palestinian state there will be a total separation between Israelis and Palestinians. This is pretty much everybody's policy, this is what the world is working towards, this is what you and I want ... right?
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:14 AM on June 3, 2015
Zarq, I think all the instances you cite were aimed at preventing terror attacks by separating Palestinians from Israelis, not Jews from Arabs. Not only is that not apartheid, but if and when there is a Palestinian state there will be a total separation between Israelis and Palestinians. This is pretty much everybody's policy, this is what the world is working towards, this is what you and I want ... right?
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:14 AM on June 3, 2015
I should probably clarify: I don't think the policies and laws constitute apartheid. I think they're discriminatory and sometimes racist. But I've never been convinced they're a government-wide movement in lockstep, primarily because of the diverse and tumultuous nature of Israel's Knesset, and the fact that some policies, like the bus segregation plan from a couple of weeks ago, have been struck down by Israeli officials. The security aspect also strongly influences how I feel about segregation of the Palestinian population in the West Bank. For example: Highway 443 was segregated, and terrorist incidents dropped drastically. After the highway was integrated, they're up again. The West Bank Barrier dropped suicide bombings to zero. Yet, the policies are/were still racist.
I don't agree with the detrimental economic and personal impact those segregation measures have on West Bank Palestinians. Frankly I think the Settlers shouldn't be there At All. And as I noted above, there are Israeli policies and laws that discriminate against Arab Israelis. Those weren't prompted by terrorist incidents. They're founded in racism. All of this is problematic and needs to be addressed more aggressively. It's hard to accomplish that when ministry officials are behind the push to segregate, and the court system needs to get involved when racism rears its head in Israel.
if and when there is a Palestinian state there will be a total separation between Israelis and Palestinians. This is pretty much everybody's policy, this is what the world is working towards, this is what you and I want ... right?
I want to see the Palestinians get their own state, devote themselves to peaceful coexistence and be able to function independently of Israel. That doesn't mean I want to see them completely close their borders to each other. Issues of family reunification will need to be dealt with when that happens. Until then, that's a discriminatory law.
Enforced segregation is not a constructive step on the road toward Palestinian statehood.
posted by zarq at 7:03 AM on June 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
I don't agree with the detrimental economic and personal impact those segregation measures have on West Bank Palestinians. Frankly I think the Settlers shouldn't be there At All. And as I noted above, there are Israeli policies and laws that discriminate against Arab Israelis. Those weren't prompted by terrorist incidents. They're founded in racism. All of this is problematic and needs to be addressed more aggressively. It's hard to accomplish that when ministry officials are behind the push to segregate, and the court system needs to get involved when racism rears its head in Israel.
if and when there is a Palestinian state there will be a total separation between Israelis and Palestinians. This is pretty much everybody's policy, this is what the world is working towards, this is what you and I want ... right?
I want to see the Palestinians get their own state, devote themselves to peaceful coexistence and be able to function independently of Israel. That doesn't mean I want to see them completely close their borders to each other. Issues of family reunification will need to be dealt with when that happens. Until then, that's a discriminatory law.
Enforced segregation is not a constructive step on the road toward Palestinian statehood.
posted by zarq at 7:03 AM on June 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
This is neat. He touches on the need for the creation of Israel. Turns out we're pretty much doomed in Einstein's view.
Listen as Albert Einstein Calls for Peace and Social Justice in 1945
posted by Golden Eternity at 9:47 AM on June 3, 2015
Listen as Albert Einstein Calls for Peace and Social Justice in 1945
posted by Golden Eternity at 9:47 AM on June 3, 2015
Orange would cut Israel ties 'tomorrow' if not for 'huge risk' of penalties - Speaking at Cairo news conference, CEO Stephane Richard says mobile phone giant intends to withdraw brand from Israel as soon as possible, but that the move would take time.
posted by Golden Eternity at 11:51 AM on June 3, 2015
posted by Golden Eternity at 11:51 AM on June 3, 2015
The era of Iran is over; the age of BDS begins - How the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement is changing organized American Jewish life. (Peter Beinart)
posted by Golden Eternity at 12:41 PM on June 3, 2015
posted by Golden Eternity at 12:41 PM on June 3, 2015
"If Israel were practising apartheid then the answer would be simple: let Arabs and Jews intermingle, use the same conveyances and utilities, vote in and stand for the same elections, &c &c. But since Israel is guilty of none of those things the term "apartheid" just obscures the issue. "
"There is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong."
"I want to see the Palestinians get their own state, devote themselves to peaceful coexistence and be able to function independently of Israel. That doesn't mean I want to see them completely close their borders to each other. Issues of family reunification will need to be dealt with when that happens. Until then, that's a discriminatory law. "
Honestly, your comments have been really persuasive in swaying me more toward a two-state solution, despite being skeptical of ethnic nationalism and religious prophecy as a state foundation. I can understand how the historical persecution of Jews would make self-determination and self defense a justification for wanting to preserve an ethnically Jewish majority. I'm still not sure if that's a longterm sustainable project, especially compared to, say, working to build Israeli institutions that would still function to and recognize the historical remit to protect Jewish people even in the event of an Israeli Muslim prime minister. I do think that if Israel is a legitimate democracy, they will at some point have to contend with having people who are neither ethnically nor religiously Jewish in positions of power at some point (though God only knows if that will happen before England elects a black PM).
Ironically, one of the things that may be holding back the establishment of two functional states is Israel's uneasiness in thinking of itself as an occupier — they don't have the latitude of legitimate control to enact a Marshall plan for Palestine, but that level of massive infrastructure investment will probably be necessary to make Palestine a functional state. Right now, with no real institutions and the lack of a credible partner with which to deal, there's no way to view Palestine as a legitimate equal to Israel — a position Israel seems to very much encourage. But without a legitimately equal Palestine, all of the endemic hatreds fester and no healing can happen, leaving both Palestinian and Israeli lives at risk. I mean, Christ, the only reason why Hamas is a semi-legitimate political organization in Palestine is because Fatah was (likely still is) corrupt through and through, and Hamas is able to get things like trash pickups organized without massive bribes. (Similar to how the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt won elections because they were seen as clean and organized compared to their corrupt or scattered opponents.)
I also think that if you saw massive, publicized investment of Israel in the development and rebuilding of Palestine, you'd not only see a decrease in BDS activism and the treatment of Israel as a pariah, but also a decrease in the pernicious sticking points of two-state negotiation, e.g. right of return. Right of return would be less important (though obviously some people would still be deeply invested in it) if Hebron was as nice as Tel Aviv. It would also be a lot harder to foment anti-Semitism — especially in Palestine but across the Arab world as well — if Israel was seen as a positive development partner rather than an invading force. (I mean, not gonna lie, tyrants across the Arab would probably still use Jews as a boogieman to distract from their own corrupt failures, but fewer of their citizens would buy it.)
I recognize that some of the above would be pretty profoundly frustrating for many of the Israelis who actually are doing good work with and for Palestinians to hear, but being an American who has traveled abroad, I'm pretty cognizant of both the way that imperialism can overshadow altruism (or at least enlightened mutual self interest) and that I would imagine that many of those Israelis would share some of those criticisms of their own government.
posted by klangklangston at 1:34 PM on June 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
"There is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong."
"I want to see the Palestinians get their own state, devote themselves to peaceful coexistence and be able to function independently of Israel. That doesn't mean I want to see them completely close their borders to each other. Issues of family reunification will need to be dealt with when that happens. Until then, that's a discriminatory law. "
Honestly, your comments have been really persuasive in swaying me more toward a two-state solution, despite being skeptical of ethnic nationalism and religious prophecy as a state foundation. I can understand how the historical persecution of Jews would make self-determination and self defense a justification for wanting to preserve an ethnically Jewish majority. I'm still not sure if that's a longterm sustainable project, especially compared to, say, working to build Israeli institutions that would still function to and recognize the historical remit to protect Jewish people even in the event of an Israeli Muslim prime minister. I do think that if Israel is a legitimate democracy, they will at some point have to contend with having people who are neither ethnically nor religiously Jewish in positions of power at some point (though God only knows if that will happen before England elects a black PM).
Ironically, one of the things that may be holding back the establishment of two functional states is Israel's uneasiness in thinking of itself as an occupier — they don't have the latitude of legitimate control to enact a Marshall plan for Palestine, but that level of massive infrastructure investment will probably be necessary to make Palestine a functional state. Right now, with no real institutions and the lack of a credible partner with which to deal, there's no way to view Palestine as a legitimate equal to Israel — a position Israel seems to very much encourage. But without a legitimately equal Palestine, all of the endemic hatreds fester and no healing can happen, leaving both Palestinian and Israeli lives at risk. I mean, Christ, the only reason why Hamas is a semi-legitimate political organization in Palestine is because Fatah was (likely still is) corrupt through and through, and Hamas is able to get things like trash pickups organized without massive bribes. (Similar to how the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt won elections because they were seen as clean and organized compared to their corrupt or scattered opponents.)
I also think that if you saw massive, publicized investment of Israel in the development and rebuilding of Palestine, you'd not only see a decrease in BDS activism and the treatment of Israel as a pariah, but also a decrease in the pernicious sticking points of two-state negotiation, e.g. right of return. Right of return would be less important (though obviously some people would still be deeply invested in it) if Hebron was as nice as Tel Aviv. It would also be a lot harder to foment anti-Semitism — especially in Palestine but across the Arab world as well — if Israel was seen as a positive development partner rather than an invading force. (I mean, not gonna lie, tyrants across the Arab would probably still use Jews as a boogieman to distract from their own corrupt failures, but fewer of their citizens would buy it.)
I recognize that some of the above would be pretty profoundly frustrating for many of the Israelis who actually are doing good work with and for Palestinians to hear, but being an American who has traveled abroad, I'm pretty cognizant of both the way that imperialism can overshadow altruism (or at least enlightened mutual self interest) and that I would imagine that many of those Israelis would share some of those criticisms of their own government.
posted by klangklangston at 1:34 PM on June 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
I can understand how the historical persecution of Jews would make self-determination and self defense a justification for wanting to preserve an ethnically Jewish majority.
When you say "historical" it makes it sound as if it isn't something that's going on right now, as if it were a rhetorical point or a meaningless obsession. The only reason you don't hear about persecution of Jews in Israel's neighbours is that they were either killed or fled as refugees. Jewish persecution is a present, ongoing thing, and attacks on the home of those refugees is part of it.
I wish there were an Israel for the Kurds. I wish there were an Israel for the Yazidis. I wish the were an Israel for the Mandaeans, and the Assyrians, and all the other peoples of the Middle East who are treated like crap. Diversity is great, but a precondition for diversity is that there are diverse peoples. Your own country recognises this: you have affirmative action for groups that were historically excluded from education, set-asides for groups that were denied government business, even reservations for people whose ancestors were murdered and dispossessed from their homes. In an ideal world none of those would be necessary, but it would be ridiculous (and offensive!) to suggest that you can achieve an ideal world by getting rid of them.
I do think that if Israel is a legitimate democracy, they will at some point have to contend with having people who are neither ethnically nor religiously Jewish in positions of power at some point [...]
Again, like right now? There are lots of Arab/Druse/Muslim/Christian politicians, officials, judges, and military officers.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:21 PM on June 3, 2015
When you say "historical" it makes it sound as if it isn't something that's going on right now, as if it were a rhetorical point or a meaningless obsession. The only reason you don't hear about persecution of Jews in Israel's neighbours is that they were either killed or fled as refugees. Jewish persecution is a present, ongoing thing, and attacks on the home of those refugees is part of it.
I wish there were an Israel for the Kurds. I wish there were an Israel for the Yazidis. I wish the were an Israel for the Mandaeans, and the Assyrians, and all the other peoples of the Middle East who are treated like crap. Diversity is great, but a precondition for diversity is that there are diverse peoples. Your own country recognises this: you have affirmative action for groups that were historically excluded from education, set-asides for groups that were denied government business, even reservations for people whose ancestors were murdered and dispossessed from their homes. In an ideal world none of those would be necessary, but it would be ridiculous (and offensive!) to suggest that you can achieve an ideal world by getting rid of them.
I do think that if Israel is a legitimate democracy, they will at some point have to contend with having people who are neither ethnically nor religiously Jewish in positions of power at some point [...]
Again, like right now? There are lots of Arab/Druse/Muslim/Christian politicians, officials, judges, and military officers.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:21 PM on June 3, 2015
"When you say "historical" it makes it sound as if it isn't something that's going on right now, as if it were a rhetorical point or a meaningless obsession. The only reason you don't hear about persecution of Jews in Israel's neighbours is that they were either killed or fled as refugees. Jewish persecution is a present, ongoing thing, and attacks on the home of those refugees is part of it."
Most other ethnic groups with the cohesion of identity that Jews have, have had a state at one time or another over the last 1,000 years or so. I also do think that you can legitimately say that the Jewish people have faced more, and wider, persecution than, say, Serbs. Your inferences from my use of "historical" are more about you than my point.
"I wish there were an Israel for the Kurds. I wish there were an Israel for the Yazidis. I wish the were an Israel for the Mandaeans, and the Assyrians, and all the other peoples of the Middle East who are treated like crap. Diversity is great, but a precondition for diversity is that there are diverse peoples. Your own country recognises this: you have affirmative action for groups that were historically excluded from education, set-asides for groups that were denied government business, even reservations for people whose ancestors were murdered and dispossessed from their homes. In an ideal world none of those would be necessary, but it would be ridiculous (and offensive!) to suggest that you can achieve an ideal world by getting rid of them. "
The United States doesn't include an Israel for former slaves. The idea was mooted — about the closest it came to fruition was Liberia.
Ethnic nationalism is what provoked both world wars and led directly to the Holocaust. Serbian ethnic nationalism was the direct catalyst for WWI, and recurred as a genocide in the late 20th century.
Your argument about America is incoherent and flatly contradicts your argument. The foundational myth of America is that it was specifically not about being the homeland to any ethnic group, but instead based on ideas of liberty. At a time when British and Irish were considered different races, the American embrace of enlightenment values — the diversity you laud — was a repudiation of ethnic nationalism as justification for statehood. There have always been revanchist Nativist parties here that have sought to undo that, and we're certainly a great deal away from the ideal we set for ourselves, but the idea that ethnic nationalism is foundational to America because of affirmative action is not even wrong.
"Again, like right now? There are lots of Arab/Druse/Muslim/Christian politicians, officials, judges, and military officers."
Right now a non-Jewish politician is the head of state in Israel? A non-Jewish party controls the Knesset? Does Bibi know?
posted by klangklangston at 7:50 PM on June 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
Most other ethnic groups with the cohesion of identity that Jews have, have had a state at one time or another over the last 1,000 years or so. I also do think that you can legitimately say that the Jewish people have faced more, and wider, persecution than, say, Serbs. Your inferences from my use of "historical" are more about you than my point.
"I wish there were an Israel for the Kurds. I wish there were an Israel for the Yazidis. I wish the were an Israel for the Mandaeans, and the Assyrians, and all the other peoples of the Middle East who are treated like crap. Diversity is great, but a precondition for diversity is that there are diverse peoples. Your own country recognises this: you have affirmative action for groups that were historically excluded from education, set-asides for groups that were denied government business, even reservations for people whose ancestors were murdered and dispossessed from their homes. In an ideal world none of those would be necessary, but it would be ridiculous (and offensive!) to suggest that you can achieve an ideal world by getting rid of them. "
The United States doesn't include an Israel for former slaves. The idea was mooted — about the closest it came to fruition was Liberia.
Ethnic nationalism is what provoked both world wars and led directly to the Holocaust. Serbian ethnic nationalism was the direct catalyst for WWI, and recurred as a genocide in the late 20th century.
Your argument about America is incoherent and flatly contradicts your argument. The foundational myth of America is that it was specifically not about being the homeland to any ethnic group, but instead based on ideas of liberty. At a time when British and Irish were considered different races, the American embrace of enlightenment values — the diversity you laud — was a repudiation of ethnic nationalism as justification for statehood. There have always been revanchist Nativist parties here that have sought to undo that, and we're certainly a great deal away from the ideal we set for ourselves, but the idea that ethnic nationalism is foundational to America because of affirmative action is not even wrong.
"Again, like right now? There are lots of Arab/Druse/Muslim/Christian politicians, officials, judges, and military officers."
Right now a non-Jewish politician is the head of state in Israel? A non-Jewish party controls the Knesset? Does Bibi know?
posted by klangklangston at 7:50 PM on June 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
Klangklangston, you're shifting the goalposts. You said
Well, no, I acknowledge that Israel's Head of State is Jewish (and by all accounts a very nice guy). But that's hardly the only position of power, is it? It's not even the most powerful position.
A non-Jewish party controls the Knesset?
No party controls the Knesset; that's not how Israeli democracy works. The Arab coalition might very well might have been in government, but they explicitly refused to contemplate either sharing votes with a (mostly) Jewish party or joining a government.
Does Bibi know?
Given that he has a majority of a single vote, I presume he is very, very, very much aware of it. Interestingly, the sole Arab cabinet minister at present is a Netanyahu appointee and a member of Likud ...
posted by Joe in Australia at 10:30 PM on June 3, 2015
Israel ... will at some point have to contend with having people who are neither ethnically nor religiously Jewish in positions of powerI pointed out that it does, but now you say "a non-Jewish politician is the head of state in Israel?"
Well, no, I acknowledge that Israel's Head of State is Jewish (and by all accounts a very nice guy). But that's hardly the only position of power, is it? It's not even the most powerful position.
A non-Jewish party controls the Knesset?
No party controls the Knesset; that's not how Israeli democracy works. The Arab coalition might very well might have been in government, but they explicitly refused to contemplate either sharing votes with a (mostly) Jewish party or joining a government.
Does Bibi know?
Given that he has a majority of a single vote, I presume he is very, very, very much aware of it. Interestingly, the sole Arab cabinet minister at present is a Netanyahu appointee and a member of Likud ...
posted by Joe in Australia at 10:30 PM on June 3, 2015
I don't think the policies and laws constitute apartheid. I think they're discriminatory and sometimes racist.
Wikipedia: Israel and the apartheid analogy
Wikipedia: Israel and the apartheid analogy
In 2009, a comprehensive 18-month independent academic study was completed for the Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa for the South African Department of Foreign Affairs on the legal status of Israel's occupation of East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza Strip.[53] The specific questions examined in the study were whether Israeli policies are consistent with colonialism and apartheid, as these practices and regimes are spelled out in relevant international legal instruments.Gideon Levy has made similar comments in a recent article: Israeli propaganda isn't fooling anyone – except Israelis
[...]
Regarding international law, the team reported that Israel's practices in the OPT correlate almost entirely with the definition of apartheid as established in Article 2 of the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid. (The exception was the Convention's reference to genocidal policies, which were not found to be part of Israeli practices, although the team noted that genocide was not the policy in apartheid South Africa either.) Comparison to South African laws and practices by the apartheid regime also found strong correlations with Israeli practices, including violations of international standards for due process (such as illegal detention); discriminatory privileges based on ascribed ethnicity (legally, as Jewish or non-Jewish); draconian enforced ethnic segregation in all parts of life, including by confining groups to ethnic "reserves and ghettoes"; comprehensive restrictions on individual freedoms, such as movement and expression; a dual legal system based on ethno-national identity (Jewish or Palestinian); denationalization (denial of citizenship); and a special system of laws designed selectively to punish any Palestinian resistance to the system.
Thematically, the team concluded that Israel's practices could be grouped into three "pillars" of apartheid comparable to practices in South Africa:
The first pillar "derives from Israeli laws and policies that establish Jewish identity for purposes of law and afford a preferential legal status and material benefits to Jews over non-Jews".
The second pillar is reflected in "Israel's 'grand' policy to fragment the OPT [and] ensure that Palestinians remain confined to the reserves designated for them while Israeli Jews are prohibited from entering those reserves but enjoy freedom of movement throughout the rest of the Palestinian territory. This policy is evidenced by Israel's extensive appropriation of Palestinian land, which continues to shrink the territorial space available to Palestinians; the hermetic closure and isolation of the Gaza Strip from the rest of the OPT; the deliberate severing of East Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank; and the appropriation and construction policies serving to carve up the West Bank into an intricate and well-serviced network of connected settlements for Jewish-Israelis and an archipelago of besieged and non-contiguous enclaves for Palestinians".
The third pillar is "Israel's invocation of 'security' to validate sweeping restrictions on Palestinian freedom of opinion, expression, assembly, association and movement [to] mask a true underlying intent to suppress dissent to its system of domination and thereby maintain control over Palestinians as a group."
[...]
Adam and Moodley also argue that "apartheid ideologues" who justified their rule by claiming self-defense against "African National Congress (ANC)-led communism" found that excuse outdated after the collapse of the Soviet Union, whereas "continued Arab hostilities sustain the Israeli perception of justifiable self-defense."[51]
And propaganda shall cover for everything. We’ll say terrorism, we’ll shout anti-Semitism, we’ll scream delegitimation, we’ll cite the Holocaust; we’ll say Jewish state, gay-friendly, drip irrigation, cherry tomatoes, aid to Nepal, Nobel Prizes for Jews, look what’s happening in Syria, the only democracy, the greatest army. We’ll say the Palestinians are making unilateral moves, we’ll propose negotiations on the “settlement bloc borders,” we’ll demand recognition of a Jewish state and we’ll complain that “there’s no one to talk to.”posted by Golden Eternity at 11:37 PM on June 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
We’ll wail that the whole world is against us and wants to destroy us, no less. The deputy minister will call on Switzerland to boycott, the minister will declare that boycotts are unacceptable, the deputy director of the Foreign Ministry will explain that a bigger budget is needed, and Sheldon Adelson will convene an emergency conference in Las Vegas – and despite it all, nothing will budge. Propaganda won’t cover for everything.
The policy of denial and disconnection from reality is rising to a dangerous level, and the illness is getting worse. When the world starts to show encouraging signs of stirring to action, Israel further entrenches itself in its imaginary reality and erects more and more separation barriers for itself. Israel seems to think that what worked well in its society and succeeded in almost totally wiping out all consciousness and awareness, will work just as well in the rest of the world. That the brainwashing campaign that was such a dazzling success here will be just as effective abroad – it’s all just a matter of “hasbara,” the Israeli euphemism for propaganda – and of budgets, of course.
Mod note: Couple of comments deleted. You guys can seriously take it to some other venue at this point. This isn't conversation; it makes threads like this impossible and we're not going to have them if this is how they go.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 7:45 AM on June 4, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 7:45 AM on June 4, 2015 [4 favorites]
When the judge is your enemy, to whom shall you complain? The Israeli justice system – from its inaccessible police stations to its lenient prosecutors, from its negligent investigators to its judges who won’t convict – makes it clear to the Palestinians that there is simply no point in lodging complaints.
posted by Golden Eternity at 9:18 AM on June 4, 2015
posted by Golden Eternity at 9:18 AM on June 4, 2015
Here Comes A New Round Of Fighting (Moshe Feiglin)
When is the last time you heard an Israeli leader say the two words that every world leader says without a second thought? The two words that no Israeli leader since Oslo has dared utter: “Zo Artzeinu – This is our Land”?posted by Golden Eternity at 4:10 PM on June 4, 2015
Not “This is also our land.” Not “Areas A-B-C.” Simply “This is our Land” – until the very last grain of sand that the Creator left at our doorsteps since the state was established.
When we firmly cling to our land, we express our justice. Every retreat – and every mention of a willingness to retreat – expresses our retreat from that justice. And when we remain bare of our justice, we create an uncontrollable urge of the enemy to conquer our land.
What have we received in exchange for all our retreats Peace?
We fled every last grain of sand in Gush Katif. We destroyed every Jewish house. We evacuated every single settler. What did we receive in return? The support and empathy of the world? The legitimacy to defend our lives and attack Iran?
And really, why should anybody support the robber who has, in his kindness, agrees to let go of the stolen merchandise? On the contrary – first let him change his evil ways and return the merchandise he stole in 1948.
When you give up your justice, you are driven from the city and you also end up eating all the rotten fish.
In order to stop being hostages to Hamas and Iran: in order to stop paying protection-money to the enemy – monthly truckloads of cash, free electricity and much more; in order to stop sacrificing soldiers to the “peace god” in endless rounds of fighting – in order to stop all this, we need leadership that talks the language of justice. “Zo Artzeinu – This is our land.”
Golden Eternity, I'm really not sure why you posted that last link and excerpt, and which parts you agree with.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:31 PM on June 4, 2015
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:31 PM on June 4, 2015
I think it just summarizes the Israeli Right's view of the IP conflict and what sort of solution they might have in mind. I don't agree with it or Moshe's attitude at all, but it shows what BDS is up against. It seems I read a very similar article with "this is our land" language from another on the Right in Israel recently, but I can't find it. I wish they would clarify what they mean by "this" when they say "this is our land." Since the article was about Gaza, I assume Moshe believes Gaza is Israel's land.
I would like to hear more from Rivlin, though. It's too bad the Presidency is only ceremonial. I'm not convinced the two state solution is possible anymore. If it is not, maybe it is best to be advocating for some sort of Israeli citizenship for Palestinians in the occupied territories - even if it is second class citizenship.
posted by Golden Eternity at 5:20 PM on June 4, 2015
I would like to hear more from Rivlin, though. It's too bad the Presidency is only ceremonial. I'm not convinced the two state solution is possible anymore. If it is not, maybe it is best to be advocating for some sort of Israeli citizenship for Palestinians in the occupied territories - even if it is second class citizenship.
posted by Golden Eternity at 5:20 PM on June 4, 2015
Israeli NGO Breaking the Silence meets Obama aides in Washington - Left-wing nonprofit met with White House National Security Council and State Department's human-rights bureau to discuss Israeli soldiers' testimonies from last summer's war in Gaza.
posted by Golden Eternity at 7:16 PM on June 4, 2015
posted by Golden Eternity at 7:16 PM on June 4, 2015
I wouldn't call Moshe Feiglin "the Right". He's something of a marginal figure: as I said above, he couldn't even get his own party list organised when he lost his position in Likud. Naftali Bennett is a much more mainstream figure who actually enjoys some degree of public support.
I wish they would clarify what they mean by "this" when they say "this is our land."
Well, it's "he", not "they": Bennett's plan would involve Israel annexing Area C and giving its residents citizenship, but explicitly not annexing areas presently under Palestinian control. In contrast, I'm pretty sure that Feiglin means at least everything now part of Israel or under Israeli occupation. I find it hard to believe anyone is crazy enough to want the Gaza Strip, but who knows: it's not like he expects to be in power.
I'm not convinced the two state solution is possible anymore. If it is not, maybe it is best to be advocating for some sort of Israeli citizenship for Palestinians in the occupied territories - even if it is second class citizenship.
That's basically what Feiglin advocates. There are two big problems with it, not that they worry him:
Firstly, who says Palestinians want to be Israeli citizens, second-class or otherwise? Many Arab residents of East Jerusalem didn't take it up, even though they could, and forcing it on them would probably be contrary to international law.
Secondly, Israel can't govern Gaza; the Palestinian Authority can't govern Gaza; Hamas is responsible for Gaza, but really: they can't govern it either. The same thing goes for a number of other Palestinian urban areas; they're basically run by gangs. The whole reason for the Oslo accords and so forth was that Israel couldn't even contain the violence, much less maintain law and order. A one-state solution is really a return to the pre-Oslo situation and to the best of my knowledge nobody in Israel, Gaza, or the West Bank wants that.
So what do BDS proponents want? That's really the 64 billion dollar question. Do they expect that Palestinians will be able to elect their own leaders, for instance? If so, who has the ability to conduct an election in Gaza against Hamas' wishes? If Hamas loses the election, who will impose a change of leadership there? Israel tried, and failed; the Palestinian Authority refused to even try. Answers on a postcard please ...
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:46 PM on June 4, 2015
I wish they would clarify what they mean by "this" when they say "this is our land."
Well, it's "he", not "they": Bennett's plan would involve Israel annexing Area C and giving its residents citizenship, but explicitly not annexing areas presently under Palestinian control. In contrast, I'm pretty sure that Feiglin means at least everything now part of Israel or under Israeli occupation. I find it hard to believe anyone is crazy enough to want the Gaza Strip, but who knows: it's not like he expects to be in power.
I'm not convinced the two state solution is possible anymore. If it is not, maybe it is best to be advocating for some sort of Israeli citizenship for Palestinians in the occupied territories - even if it is second class citizenship.
That's basically what Feiglin advocates. There are two big problems with it, not that they worry him:
Firstly, who says Palestinians want to be Israeli citizens, second-class or otherwise? Many Arab residents of East Jerusalem didn't take it up, even though they could, and forcing it on them would probably be contrary to international law.
Secondly, Israel can't govern Gaza; the Palestinian Authority can't govern Gaza; Hamas is responsible for Gaza, but really: they can't govern it either. The same thing goes for a number of other Palestinian urban areas; they're basically run by gangs. The whole reason for the Oslo accords and so forth was that Israel couldn't even contain the violence, much less maintain law and order. A one-state solution is really a return to the pre-Oslo situation and to the best of my knowledge nobody in Israel, Gaza, or the West Bank wants that.
So what do BDS proponents want? That's really the 64 billion dollar question. Do they expect that Palestinians will be able to elect their own leaders, for instance? If so, who has the ability to conduct an election in Gaza against Hamas' wishes? If Hamas loses the election, who will impose a change of leadership there? Israel tried, and failed; the Palestinian Authority refused to even try. Answers on a postcard please ...
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:46 PM on June 4, 2015
I should add: I don't support Bennett's plan either. It sounds better but it's a band-aid solution that would impose further restrictions on Palestinians within Areas A & B and thereby breed even more resentment.
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:51 PM on June 4, 2015
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:51 PM on June 4, 2015
Part of my objection to the BDS campaign is that its undirected nature gives its supporters license to act in violent ways without any reflection on the movement itself. The women attending this talk quite reasonably feared for their lives:
Police Report On Temple Israel Confrontation; Temple Guest Thought She Might Be Killed
Police Report On Temple Israel Confrontation; Temple Guest Thought She Might Be Killed
The Westport Police Department issued this statement this afternoon:posted by Joe in Australia at 9:11 PM on June 4, 2015
Today at approximately 1 p.m. the Westport Police Department received a complaint from Temple Israel about unwanted people protesting at the property. Shortly after the initial dispatch to responding units, the communications center started to receive additional calls reporting [mistakenly - JiA] that a person had a gun. The first 2 arriving officers were able to take custody of the two individuals on the 2nd floor meeting room where staff had physically detained them.
[...]
Doesn't appear that incident had anything to do with BDS.
Well, it's "he", not "they"
I used they because, as I mentioned, I'd heard similar from someone else. I found it:
Hotovely: Land of Israel belongs to the Jews - Quoting Rashi, the new deputy FM tells Israeli diplomats that, 'this country is ours, all of it. We didn’t come here to apologize for that.'
I'm not sure about Moshe, but it appears that Bibi's choice for Foreign Minister, Hotovely, is at least partially relying on medieval interpretations of three-thousand-year-old texts to determine what land "the creator" has allocated or is allocating to Israel.
"Solving" the 'apartheid' problem by partially annexing territory would only make it worse, I agree. Much worse I would think, as the remaining territories would essentially become miserable, overpopulated reservations or camps with even fewer resources.
I was thinking of President Rivlin's thoughts on a one-state solution.
The One-State Reality
Firstly, who says Palestinians want to be Israeli citizens, second-class or otherwise?
Even if they don't think they want it, that shouldn't stop Israel from offering it. The benefits of citizenship could be immense, I would think.
So what do BDS proponents want?
Generally speaking, they want an end to gross violations of Palestinian civil rights. It seems like it would benefit them to make a more precise list of what would be required for them to call off the boycott, but I don't think they need to provide their own blueprints for a solution or whatever.
posted by Golden Eternity at 11:10 PM on June 4, 2015
Well, it's "he", not "they"
I used they because, as I mentioned, I'd heard similar from someone else. I found it:
Hotovely: Land of Israel belongs to the Jews - Quoting Rashi, the new deputy FM tells Israeli diplomats that, 'this country is ours, all of it. We didn’t come here to apologize for that.'
“Many times it seems that in our international relations, more than emphasizing the rightness of our cause, we are asked to use arguments that play well diplomatically,” she said in a speech broadcast to Israel’s 106 representations abroad. “But at a time when the very existence of Israel is being called into question, it is important to be right.”I find it hard to believe anyone is crazy enough to want the Gaza Strip, but who knows: it's not like he expects to be in power.
“The international community deals with considerations of justice and morality,” she said. “We need to return to the basic truth of our right to this land...this country is ours, all of it. We didn’t come here to apologize for that.”
[...]
The deputy minister ended her comments by quoting from Rashi, the famed medieval Talmud commentator, on the first line of the Torah:
“Rashi says the Torah opens with the story of the creation of the world so that if the nations of the world come and tell you that you are occupiers, you must respond that all of the land belonged to the creator of world and when he wanted to, he took from them and gave to us,” she quoted from the commentary. She also quoted from Rabbi Yehuda Ashkenazi as saying. “If the Jews are convinced of the justice of their path vis-a-vis the world, they will already manage.”
I'm not sure about Moshe, but it appears that Bibi's choice for Foreign Minister, Hotovely, is at least partially relying on medieval interpretations of three-thousand-year-old texts to determine what land "the creator" has allocated or is allocating to Israel.
"Solving" the 'apartheid' problem by partially annexing territory would only make it worse, I agree. Much worse I would think, as the remaining territories would essentially become miserable, overpopulated reservations or camps with even fewer resources.
I was thinking of President Rivlin's thoughts on a one-state solution.
The One-State Reality
This is where Ruvi Rivlin’s legacy becomes more complex. Although Jabotinsky considered himself a liberal and a democrat, his nationalism was so fierce that he occasionally betrayed an admiration for Benito Mussolini. Rivlin is no doubt sincere when he says that he would give Arabs full civil rights in a Greater Israel, but he can be viewed as the more benign face of a right-wing one-state ideology. Others on the right who talk of one state want mainly to sanctify the annexing, in some form, of occupied territory. As Margalit puts it, “The rest really believe in apartheid in the West Bank. They believe in full surveillance, full dominion, something resembling a Stasi state as in that film ‘The Lives of Others.’ ”Obviously, it would be preferable for everyone in a single-state to have fully equal rights, but that wouldn't be realistic for at least a hundred years or something, probably. Perhaps something like a 'common wealth' solution could be worked out where Palestinians are offered irrevocable though limited Israeli citizenship along with progressively increasing rights. It wouldn't change things much at all to start with, but hopefully over time it would allow them to merge with the Israeli Arab population and provide motivation for them to revive democracy in their own communities. And most importantly their property rights would be solidified and they would have more access to water rights and other important resources.
[...]
Talk of a one-state solution, limited as it is, will never be serious if it is an attempt to mask annexation, expulsion, or population transfer, on one side, or the eradication of an existing nation, on the other. Israel exists; the Palestinian people exist. Neither is provisional. Within these territorial confines, two nationally distinct groups, who are divided by language, culture, and history, cannot live wholly apart or wholly together.
To most Israelis and many Palestinians, a one-state solution is no solution at all. It seems like the by-product of left-leaning desperation or right-leaning triumphalism. Even many of those who know that a two-state peace settlement is far from imminent believe that a binational state represents not a promise of democracy and coexistence but a blueprint for sectarian strife—Lebanon in the eighties, Yugoslavia in the nineties. And yet the idea has a rich history.
Firstly, who says Palestinians want to be Israeli citizens, second-class or otherwise?
Even if they don't think they want it, that shouldn't stop Israel from offering it. The benefits of citizenship could be immense, I would think.
So what do BDS proponents want?
Generally speaking, they want an end to gross violations of Palestinian civil rights. It seems like it would benefit them to make a more precise list of what would be required for them to call off the boycott, but I don't think they need to provide their own blueprints for a solution or whatever.
posted by Golden Eternity at 11:10 PM on June 4, 2015
Israeli members of Knesset, along with journalists, commentators and others are taking advantage of the boycott movement in order to delegitimize Israeli human rights groups at home.
posted by Golden Eternity at 6:26 AM on June 9, 2015
posted by Golden Eternity at 6:26 AM on June 9, 2015
The rational response to Israel's state terror: boycott
posted by Golden Eternity at 6:39 AM on June 9, 2015
posted by Golden Eternity at 6:39 AM on June 9, 2015
« Older Night of 100,000 Stars | The Texas Instruments TMX 1795: the first... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by griphus at 7:46 AM on May 11, 2015 [1 favorite]