US senators seek to make boycott of Israel a felony
July 20, 2017 9:32 AM   Subscribe

Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) is a way for people to non-violently protest the Israeli treatment of Palestinians in a manner similar to the boycott of apartheid South Africa in the 20th century. BDS is supported by such orgs as Black Lives Matter and Jewish Voice for Peace. US senators have recently proposed a bipartisan measure, the Israel Anti-Boycott Act (S. 720), that will make such boycott a felony with up to 20 years of imprisonment. The ACLU, while not supporting a boycott, has come out in opposition to this bill since it would "punish U.S. persons based solely on their expressed political beliefs".

Meanwhile, Israel's own devastating economic blockade of Gaza enters its 10th year.
posted by splitpeasoup (135 comments total) 18 users marked this as a favorite
 
But I heard money was speech? And that there is an ass-ton of precedent that political speech is the most important kind, w/r/t the First Amendment?
posted by thelonius at 9:36 AM on July 20, 2017 [26 favorites]


Has there never been a court ruling about boycotts being free speech?
posted by Bee'sWing at 9:36 AM on July 20, 2017 [8 favorites]


I've been saying for a long while now that it's just a matter of time before they decide that, if we won't buy enough stuff, they'll make us. It's a short step from there to deciding what we have to buy and how much of it and what we have to pay for it.

We can keep capitalism afloat if we just make everyone play along.
posted by Naberius at 9:37 AM on July 20, 2017 [38 favorites]


Also, that the worst kind of speech infringement is prior restraint?

I'm no lawtalking guy, but this seems like a stunt bill to me. Or maybe they figure the Roberts Court will uphold it?
posted by thelonius at 9:40 AM on July 20, 2017 [5 favorites]


I can't see any obvious reason this law would not immediately be found unconstitutional, but "immediately" in a law timeframe is not that immediately at all, and in the meantime a lot of people would go to jail/be fined/have their credit ruined/be threatened/be intimidated/etc etc etc. So: probably ineffectual, but bad.

To my understanding, the reason reporting has been so late on this has been precisely on the assumption that this is a stunt bill that won't proceed.
posted by peppercorn at 9:45 AM on July 20, 2017 [19 favorites]


If it would keep boycott supporters in prison for an important election cycle, the eventual constitutionality of the law seems almost a moot point, from certain perspectives. Voter suppression is almost certainly the reason why this is a felony and not a misdemeanor.
posted by tobascodagama at 9:51 AM on July 20, 2017 [15 favorites]


What do you folks mean by a "stunt bill"? The bill has 45 bipartisan cosponsors in the Senate, so there's a good chance it will be passed by the Senate, which in turn means there's a very good chance it will pass House and President and become law.
posted by splitpeasoup at 9:51 AM on July 20, 2017 [12 favorites]


Ugh, I'm so annoyed that Wyden is a cosponsor of this bill. I'm going to give his office a call tomorrow.
posted by hopeless romantique at 9:53 AM on July 20, 2017 [10 favorites]


Also, laws have chilling effects even when they are not enforced.
posted by splitpeasoup at 9:53 AM on July 20, 2017 [8 favorites]


What do you folks mean by a "stunt bill"?

We mean a bill that wouldn't withstand the legal challenges it would immediately receive if it were passed, which the sponsors well know. So they get to score points by introducing it, then quietly let it die because they know it will go nowhere.
posted by Sangermaine at 9:56 AM on July 20, 2017 [6 favorites]


I just shot my senators (both of whom are co-sponsors, which BLEW ME AWAY) this email:
I was EXTREMELY dismayed to learn today that you are one of the co-sponsors of Senate Bill S.720, the Israel Anti-Boycott Act. I am actually neutral on the issue of Israeli-Palestinian relations itself, precisely because it is a complex issue with a myriad of different perspectives; however, I strongly believe that all people have the right to express these perspectives.

And THAT is why I was horrified to learn that you would be supporting a law designed to punish one of these perspectives and modes of expression. A boycott may not be oral or written speech, but it is a powerful means to express dissent with a policy (I should point out, it is a tool the federal government uses itself, only in that case they're called "sanctions"). Bill S.720 would actually carry hefty civil fines and possible JAIL time for those violating the prohibitions; I am not able to rightly apprehend why such a harsh sentence would be necessary for someone who is simply participating in a boycott.

The bill carries a chilling message that the Senate is trying to influence American citizens' opinions through the use of punishment and force. And as I was always told, our First Amendment states that this is unconstitutional. Your actions have caused me grave concern.

I urge you to withdraw your sponsorship of this bill.

Thank you, etc.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:57 AM on July 20, 2017 [72 favorites]


Ugh, I'm so annoyed that Wyden is a cosponsor of this bill. I'm going to give his office a call tomorrow.

Kirsten Gillibrand, too. Not a great look for some of our so-called "progressive" Senators.
posted by indubitable at 9:59 AM on July 20, 2017 [17 favorites]


I recall that it is already a federal crime in Australia (under the Sedition Act 2006, which makes promoting boycotts of allies of Australia a crime; this includes Israel, the US, the UK and Japan, among others). Though AFAIK, nobody has been prosecuted for it yet.
posted by acb at 10:00 AM on July 20, 2017 [4 favorites]


This timeline is so confusing. We love Russia, and we want to make it illegal for people to not spend their money on certain things (or at least, to talk about not spending their money on certain things).
posted by rtha at 10:09 AM on July 20, 2017 [2 favorites]


Versions of this bill have been making their way through local government for a year or so. There's one wending itself through whatever sausage process makes law here in Minnesota. I recall them all being generated by one of those bill mills that creates a template and then passes it along to sympathetic lawmakers wherever they can find them.

The reason for this isn't immediately apparent. BDS hasn't been hugely successful in siphoning money away from Israel, and, besides which, these laws are almost totally unenforceable, and never even have a clear process for enforcement written in.

It seems to me like this is political theater. Not terribly surprising — Conservative politicians, in particular, have been doing a lot of this, like their repeatedly passing bills to eliminate Obamacare while Obama was still president, which he was always going to veto, but allowed them to claim to be doing something, to be taking a stand. It's like resume padding.

But for whom? I edit a newspaper for the Minnesota Jewish community, and, if there was a local call for this, I didn't hear it.

When Jews aren't demanding things, I always assume anything regarding Israel is a sop to the Evangelical Zionist community, who have their own agenda. But, who knows? Maybe the Zionist lobby wants this for some reason, or maybe its being done so that politicians can claim to be doing something to the Zionist lobby while they have repeatedly proven pretty ineffectual at doing anything they promised, like move the embassy to Jerusalem or put anybody except Jared Kushner to work on the I/P issue.
posted by maxsparber at 10:12 AM on July 20, 2017 [25 favorites]


How is this enforceable? If you refrain from buying X Israeli import products a month they jail you?

Or is it just AIPAC's trained monkey senators demonstrating their loyalty?

(Given the challenge of enforcement, I suspect the latter.)
posted by theorique at 10:13 AM on July 20, 2017 [4 favorites]


I'm going to give his office a call tomorrow.

Why not call them today?
posted by hippybear at 10:23 AM on July 20, 2017 [1 favorite]


Enforcement is through 50 USC 1705. If you look at 1701, the grant of authority enforced per 1705 is supposed to be for specific national security crises.

§1701. Unusual and extraordinary threat; declaration of national emergency; exercise of Presidential authorities
(a) Any authority granted to the President by section 1702 of this title may be exercised to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States, if the President declares a national emergency with respect to such threat.
(b) The authorities granted to the President by section 1702 of this title may only be exercised to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared for purposes of this chapter and may not be exercised for any other purpose. Any exercise of such authorities to deal with any new threat shall be based on a new declaration of national emergency which must be with respect to such threat.


I haven't tried to read all the statutes together (with the proposed modifications), but the attempt to enforce a ban of a boycott by supplementing those statutes seems shaky. (Say that five time fast.) 1705 isn't explicitly referenced by 1701, but it's there to enforce 1702.
posted by snuffleupagus at 10:23 AM on July 20, 2017 [1 favorite]


Also -- it's impossible to boycott Israel if you do things like own a car. There are car parts made in Israel, and Israel only.
posted by hippybear at 10:25 AM on July 20, 2017 [1 favorite]


I thought this is America where we can buy, or not buy, whatever we want, and talk about whatever we want. The Venn diagram of this is a single red, white, and blue circle.
posted by Oyéah at 10:25 AM on July 20, 2017 [4 favorites]


Over the last six months, I have often wondered what type of bill could possibly get bipartisan support in the current climate.


I see I now have my answer.
posted by wittgenstein at 10:25 AM on July 20, 2017 [28 favorites]


Okay, spot me on this: so if your pharmacist refuses to fill your birth control prescription, he's allowed to do that, and if Reactionary Cakes R Us declines to make a cake for a gay wedding, they're allowed to do that, because even in the context of business transactions, everybody's entitled to their beliefs. Right so far?
posted by Sing Or Swim at 10:29 AM on July 20, 2017 [16 favorites]


Today I learned that it's already illegal, under 50 USC 4607, to boycott a foreign country "which is friendly to the United States" if the boycott is "fostered or imposed by a foreign country". This is the law that this bill is amending, to explicitly include Israel and include the UN and EU as prohibited boycott imposers.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 10:31 AM on July 20, 2017 [6 favorites]


This is insane. It seems to me like an absurdly unconstitutional stunt bill that could never pass, but so too did he-who-shall-not-be-named seem like an absurd stunt candidate who could never win. At this point my money would be on this bill actually passing. What an absolutely insane time to be alive.
posted by shapes that haunt the dusk at 10:33 AM on July 20, 2017 [5 favorites]


The winds are definitely shifting - this is a sign of weakness and desperation.
posted by ryanshepard at 10:35 AM on July 20, 2017


Apparently they're fighting to make it okay for you not to have health insurance because you don't want to spend the money on that but they require you to have your money invested in Israel if that's what one of your retirement funds is doing.

I wonder if Israel is going to cover the potential 34 million uninsured that are expected over the next 10 years.
posted by hippybear at 10:37 AM on July 20, 2017 [4 favorites]


Today I learned that it's already illegal, under 50 USC 4607, to boycott a foreign country "which is friendly to the United States" if the boycott is "fostered or imposed by a foreign country". This is the law that this bill is amending, to explicitly include Israel and include the UN and EU as prohibited boycott imposers.

Ah, OK. I didn't notice 4607. This is, in part, what it prohibits:

Refusing, or requiring any other person to refuse, to do business with or in the boycotted country, with any business concern organized under the laws of the boycotted country, with any national or resident of the boycotted country, or with any other person, pursuant to an agreement with, a requirement of, or a request from or on behalf of the boycotting country.

Or, if this were to pass, of the boycotting international org. So there is supposed to be some flavor of cooperating with foreign entities, vs. being motivated by one's own political opinions. Pretty murky unless its read narrowly to require some kind of documented demand/request and response in negotiation of a transaction or maintenance of a business relationship.

It also says this:

The mere absence of a business relationship with or in the boycotted country with any business concern organized under the laws of the boycotted country, with any national or resident of the boycotted country, or with any other person, does not indicate the existence of the intent required to establish a violation of regulations issued to carry out this subparagraph.

Which I suppose is meant to guard against the absurdities suggested upthread, but that's still pretty remarkable.
posted by snuffleupagus at 10:43 AM on July 20, 2017 [8 favorites]


Is there much point (aside from catharsis) in calling to complain to my senator about this if he's the primary sponsor of the goddamn bill? Because ffs.
posted by suddenly, and without warning, at 10:52 AM on July 20, 2017 [2 favorites]


Is there much point (aside from catharsis) in calling to complain to my senator about this if he's the primary sponsor of the goddamn bill? Because ffs.

Oh hell yeah, you're his constituent and his actions don't represent your interests or desires. He should absolutely know that.
posted by shapes that haunt the dusk at 10:53 AM on July 20, 2017 [10 favorites]


Maybe the Zionist lobby wants this for some reason

AIPAC identified this bill as one of its 2017 goals.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:54 AM on July 20, 2017 [5 favorites]


Also -- it's impossible to boycott Israel if you do things like own a car. There are car parts made in Israel, and Israel only.

Or use generic pharmaceuticals.
posted by Thorzdad at 11:02 AM on July 20, 2017 [4 favorites]


Okay, spot me on this: so if your pharmacist refuses to fill your birth control prescription, he's allowed to do that, and if Reactionary Cakes R Us declines to make a cake for a gay wedding, they're allowed to do that, because even in the context of business transactions, everybody's entitled to their beliefs. Right so far?

What? No.
posted by ODiV at 11:09 AM on July 20, 2017 [5 favorites]


Is there much point (aside from catharsis) in calling to complain to my senator about this if he's the primary sponsor of the goddamn bill? Because ffs.

If it's Ben Cardin, it might be helpful to tell him what's actually in the bill, because he seems to have no fucking clue (listen to the audio interview with him later in the article)
posted by pinothefrog at 11:16 AM on July 20, 2017 [3 favorites]


I read something once which I haven't been able to confirm (possibly because I don't really know where to look) which claimed that the Oslo Accords prohibited the Palestinians themselves from buying many products, like concrete, from anywhere other than Israeli sources. Anyone know if that's true?
posted by XMLicious at 11:21 AM on July 20, 2017 [2 favorites]


I've been saying for a long while now that it's just a matter of time before they decide that, if we won't buy enough stuff, they'll make us. It's a short step from there to deciding what we have to buy and how much of it and what we have to pay for it.

Yeah, next they'll make it illegal not to buy health insurance.
posted by straight at 11:27 AM on July 20, 2017 [3 favorites]


Yeah, next they'll make it illegal not to buy health insurance.

I mean, when conservatives critique this by saying that it's wrong to be coerced into buying a product from a private company as a condition of existing, they're not wrong, but that's really neither here nor there for this thread.
posted by indubitable at 11:45 AM on July 20, 2017 [5 favorites]


Just emailed Wyden. His support for this shocks me.
posted by vverse23 at 12:08 PM on July 20, 2017 [1 favorite]


ctrl-f "export license". nothing? huh. No wonder there's all this uninformed talk about 'but my hummus purchases' in here.

https://web.archive.org/web/20100612131929/https://www.bis.doc.gov//complianceandenforcement/antiboycottcompliance.htm
posted by the agents of KAOS at 12:10 PM on July 20, 2017




Or use generic pharmaceuticals.

Or Intel CPUs, or Apple products (both do a lot of their semiconductor R&D in Israel).
posted by acb at 12:13 PM on July 20, 2017


Even according to the ACLU letter it doesn't sound like verbal statements alone would be illegal: "Under the bill, however, only a person whose lack of business ties to Israel is politically motivated would be subject to fines and imprisonment –even though there are many others who engage in the very same behavior."

To this nonlawyer, this seems vaguely analogous to hate crime legislation: Government treatment of the action is conditional on the motivations behind the action.

However, my understanding is that one rationale behind hate-crime enhancement is that it is particularly harmful because of it is a form of threat to others of that group. That doesn't seem to apply here.

Informed opinions from true experts or links to same would be very welcome.
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 12:19 PM on July 20, 2017 [1 favorite]


The gay wedding cake issue is a specious derail. Civil rights belong to individuals, not to governments.

Per the 1964 Civil Rights Act, it is illegal (and also unethical, of course) for a restauranteur to refuse service to an Israeli person. But it is perfectly legal (and ethical) for a restauranteur to refuse to stock Israeli wine as a protest against the treatment of Palestinians. The Israel Anti-Boycott Act would change that.
posted by splitpeasoup at 12:29 PM on July 20, 2017 [8 favorites]


Sing or Swim: Apologies for the overly terse reply, but going from "here are two examples" to "even in the context of business transactions, everybody's entitled to their beliefs." seemed to be a big leap, which is what I was reacting to, not the specific cases. I don't believe one thought logically follows from the other at all.
posted by ODiV at 12:39 PM on July 20, 2017


I can't see any obvious reason this law would not immediately be found unconstitutional,

Well, it's just amending an existing anti-boycott law that's been on the books (and has been enforced) since 1974. That's a long time for a challenge.
posted by jpe at 12:42 PM on July 20, 2017


But for whom? I edit a newspaper for the Minnesota Jewish community, and, if there was a local call for this, I didn't hear it.

It's just another one of the ways evangelical Christians and both Jewish and gentile conservatives are trying to reinforce the idea that most Jewish Americans (who are overwhelmingly left-of-center to liberal and opposed to the Israeli government) just don't know what's good for themselves. It's an incredibly patronizing attitude, and this actually sounds like they're trying to chill the speech and actions of many Jewish Americans, and leftists and liberals in particular, if not outright criminalize and disenfranchise them.
posted by zombieflanders at 12:50 PM on July 20, 2017 [11 favorites]


Pretty murky unless its read narrowly to require some kind of documented demand/request and response in negotiation of a transaction or maintenance of a business relationship.

And if you look at the regs on the existing antiboycott rules, it's all about business relationships. Unsurprisingly, the fines that have been levied have been based on fact patterns where someone is required to, say, not use Israeli parts as part of a procurement contract.

Eg
posted by jpe at 12:51 PM on July 20, 2017 [2 favorites]


The existing law was designed to disrupt OPEC's use of their economic power (which at the time was vast) against the US. OPEC was aiming at Israel, but directing US companies to comply with their boycott was a strategy that could obviously be used in other ways and by other coalitions, too. So what the existing law does is make it more expensive for (e.g.) Coke or General Motors to go along with the boycott rather than be cut from all the OPEC countries as well as other countries that were scared of OPEC.

The expansion of the law is stupid, though, and I can't see it passing Constitutional scrutiny.
posted by Joe in Australia at 1:10 PM on July 20, 2017 [7 favorites]


Today I learned that it's already illegal, under 50 USC 4607, to boycott a foreign country "which is friendly to the United States" if the boycott is "fostered or imposed by a foreign country". This is the law that this bill is amending, to explicitly include Israel and include the UN and EU as prohibited boycott imposers.

So does this mean that an independent, home-grown US BDS movement would not be in violation of this law (if passed)?
posted by Guy Smiley at 2:32 PM on July 20, 2017 [2 favorites]


My recollection of how the existing law is enforced is that it is interpreted to forbid US companies from signing contracts to carry out boycotts on Israel on behalf of or as a condition to do business in other countries (e.g. Arab ones) and from certifying legally to foreign countries that they have not done business in Israel. I don't have a specific link at the moment but I learned this from the surprisingly entertaining exportlawblog.

This avoids many of the Constitutional issues above.
posted by seejaie at 4:35 PM on July 20, 2017 [2 favorites]


I think a "home-grown US" anything inevitably leads to racist distinctions about whether its supporters are sufficiently non-foreign (and realistically any BDS movement is going to be working in conjunction with ones overseas) but let's stipulate that it could be done.

Any pattern of boycotts aimed at "Zionism" is going to be tainted by its association with anti-Zionist boycotts going back to the 1920s that were explicitly or implicitly antisemitic. Even without those associations, anti-Zionist movements have been really really bad at policing themselves for antisemitism. This is something that has been complained about by people with impeccably left-wing credentials for literally decades. In fact, right now there are two relevant FPPs coming out of an anti-Zionist policy at a Chicago gay rights rally.

So even though I recognise that one classic way of dealing with a bad law is to make it ridiculous, and without getting into the question of whether it's intrinsically racist to treat a Jewish national identity as something unique and pathological, I hope that it doesn't inspire a reactionary attempt to be as anti-Zionist as possible. Anti-Zionist movements (even the ones mentioned in the FPP) tend to provide cover for antisemites and excuses for antisemitism, and we don't need any more.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:18 PM on July 20, 2017 [5 favorites]


No, what we need is less antisemitism. We need more transnational political movements to put pressure on the state of Israel to change its policies. We need less laws restricting free speech.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 5:39 PM on July 20, 2017 [5 favorites]


A similar law already exist in Canada, correct? So this threat to free speech shouldn't be taken lightly.
posted by Beholder at 5:44 PM on July 20, 2017


How does this interact with "Buy American" rules, I wonder?
posted by fifthrider at 6:10 PM on July 20, 2017 [1 favorite]


No, what we need is less antisemitism. We need more transnational political movements to put pressure on the state of Israel to change its policies.

Those transnational movements exist, and some of them are explicitly Zionist. The ones focused specifically on Israel that aren't Zionist are generally co-opted by antisemites. JVP, for instance, had a very messy split from Alison Weir of the Council for the National Interest a few years ago, and the reaction from other anti-Zionists was basically "I don't see why she's worse than the rest of us". I don't expect a new anti-Zionist group would be immune to this pattern.
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:37 PM on July 20, 2017


Here's a pretty thorough take on what the bill says and how it differs from law that's been on the books for 40 years, why it doesn't ban BDS, and why it's a bad bill.
posted by escabeche at 6:53 PM on July 20, 2017 [18 favorites]


Read escabeche's link. It's very good.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 7:18 PM on July 20, 2017 [1 favorite]


And, if nothing else, you'll be better informed than many senators!

too, too many...
posted by Guy Smiley at 7:42 PM on July 20, 2017 [4 favorites]


Heh. From the comments to Escabeche's link:
Questioner: [...] Does the bill specify (as I believe the House one does) that boycotts of the occupied territories are also banned?

Author: The bill doesn't ban boycotts. The bill doesn't ban boycotts. The bill doesn't ban boycotts. This entire post is about explaining why the bill doesn't ban boycotts!
posted by Joe in Australia at 8:08 PM on July 20, 2017 [1 favorite]


Escabeches link is great, but I'm surprised at the argument that there are no non-state organizations that may call for a boycott. Isn't this aimed at the UNHRC? I don't know what the odds of them actually agreeing on a boycott are, but they've definitely made moves in that direction - http://m.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/UNHRC-to-call-for-boycott-of-Israeli-settlements-484612
posted by the agents of KAOS at 8:21 PM on July 20, 2017 [2 favorites]


Went through a bunch of cycles from outrage to confusion to confused skepticism and am nthing the recomendation for Escabache's link.

The law should still be opposed but it's not throwing people in jail who refuse to buy a SodaStream.

Glen Greenwald has made positive contributions but for me his take on this was what crystallized for me that he has zero credibility. He may say things that are true but those is coincidental: but he is selling fear and distrust, not accuracy.

But it is perfectly legal (and ethical) for a restauranteur to refuse to stock Israeli wine as a protest against the treatment of Palestinians. The Israel Anti-Boycott Act would change that.

To be clear, it would not. Nothing I read in the law would outlaw that, nor outlaw me from encouraging other people to boycott. Escabache's link has details.
posted by mark k at 9:43 PM on July 20, 2017 [2 favorites]


I note that the divestment component of the BDS movement has a bit more economic impact than the boycott component. So I would be worried not so much about the bill affecting personal purchasing choices (obviously unconstitutional and unenforceable, though still could have a potentially chilling effect on speech), but the bill affecting activism to change large group pension investments, as well as the ability of universities or businesses or local municipalities to factor human rights considerations in to their organizational purchasing decisions. (Eg. how some states with conservative state governments are now prohibiting municipalities from setting local minimum wage.) But I will go read escabeche's link to get more informed about how this bill might or might not affect that issue.
posted by eviemath at 4:28 AM on July 21, 2017 [1 favorite]


For what it's worth, the "anti-Zionist" phraseology (or the "Zionist lobby" phraseology) is a huge red flag for me.

I am against the occupation of Palestine, and absent the existence of a Palestinian state, the treatment of Palestinian Israelis as second-class citizens.

I am not against the existence of the State of Israel. That's what "anti-Zionism" means, if it means anything at all beyond "blame the Jews."

I'd prefer it be dropped by supporters of Israel, too. The state has been established for decades, persisting in "Zionism" is the baggage of 19th/20th century ethnic nationalism.
posted by snuffleupagus at 4:32 AM on July 21, 2017 [7 favorites]


I'd prefer it be dropped by supporters of Israel, too. The state has been established for decades, persisting in "Zionism" is the baggage of 19th/20th century ethnic nationalism.

This is critical. And this NY Jew seconds. Zionism is what Herzl came up with in order to end anti-Semitism in Europe. 19th Century ethics. And here we are, trying to reconcile "One Nation, with Liberty and Justice FOR ALL" with the EXISTING Government of Israel and supporters.
posted by mikelieman at 4:56 AM on July 21, 2017 [1 favorite]


I'd prefer it be dropped by supporters of Israel, too. The state has been established for decades, persisting in "Zionism" is the baggage of 19th/20th century ethnic nationalism.

Zionism is the word for supporting Jewish national self-determination. Israel is one expression of it; not the only one, and not the only proposed one. It's the only word for Jewish national self-determination.

Asking that Jews drop that word because Israel exists is like asking women to drop the word feminism because they got the right to vote.
posted by maxsparber at 7:10 AM on July 21, 2017 [2 favorites]


Insofar as many Israelis and supporters of Israel envision Israel as a specifically Jewish state, "Zionism" is not going to leave their vocabulary. "Hey, ethno-nationalists, stop using that ethno-nationalist term and abandon ethno-nationalism" is, uh, not the strongest of arguments.
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:15 AM on July 21, 2017 [3 favorites]


Asking that Jews drop that word because Israel exists is like asking women to drop the word feminism because they got the right to vote.

I couldn't disagree more strongly. The project of Zionism was establishment of the State of Israel. That was accomplished. Jews have attained national self determination. What does it mean now? It seems that it's now mostly attached to a kind of Israeli version of manifest destiny that asserts itself as some kind of ineffable counter to Palestinian claims, and I don't think that's good for anyone.

Insofar as many Israelis and supporters of Israel envision Israel as a specifically Jewish state, "Zionism" is not going to leave their vocabulary. "Hey, ethno-nationalists, stop using that ethno-nationalist term and abandon ethno-nationalism" is, uh, not the strongest of arguments.


Ethno-nationalism in that context is hardly a binary proposition. And the favored means to express political ideas or identify political identities can change, even though they seem very fixed at the moment. Just ask the Whigs.
posted by snuffleupagus at 7:27 AM on July 21, 2017 [3 favorites]


Furthermore, an apt comparison to dropping "feminism" would be dropping "Judaism." (Or anti-antisemitism, as clumsy as that is.) Supporting Israel is not the only way to advocate for or support Jewish identity, and I say that as someone who supports its existence.
posted by snuffleupagus at 7:31 AM on July 21, 2017 [2 favorites]


Out of curiosity, snuffleupagus, are you Jewish?
posted by maxsparber at 7:33 AM on July 21, 2017


Yes, it'd be pretty fucking nervy to speak that way if I wasn't. I'm of largely Hungarian and Romanian extraction, what remains of my family post-Holocaust that isn't in the US is in Israel.
posted by snuffleupagus at 7:37 AM on July 21, 2017 [1 favorite]


Just checking. I have experienced a strange trend lately of non-Jews explaining Jewish history to me, redefining Jewish words, and telling me what words I, as a Jew, and allowed to use.

Anyway, I disagree that that the project of Zionism was the establishment of the state of Israel — it was one of many proposed national projects, including diaspora nationalism (admittedly, the latter didn't go under the name of Zionism, but I suspect that was mostly because its theorist, Nathan Birnbaum, had broken from the Zionist movement he named.) But, at its core, Zionism was, in Hertzl's words "sovereignty over a piece of the Earth's surface, just sufficient for the needs of our people, then we will do the rest!" And while Herzl proposed Palestine as one of the places, he also proposed Argentina.

If we take away the word Zionism, or take away its complicated history and limit it to discussions of Israel, we take away all the other possibilities that Zionism originally conceived of. If someone wants to propose another word for Jewish national self-identification, I am open to it, but the project was not complete when Israel was founded, just one conception of Zionism was completed,
posted by maxsparber at 7:44 AM on July 21, 2017 [2 favorites]


That's a very good point. The contraction of the meaning of the word is part of the trouble I have with it. I mean, I'm someone who is aware of and attached to its diasporic aspect, but that's not what I think of when I hear it deployed in the context of foreign relations and so forth.

It may be unrealistic to think that a less loaded word is likely to be adopted, or that it would make a difference. But it does bother me the way it's thrown around currently.

(And 'Zion' is biblical place-name, which doesn't help foreground the other proposed forms of self-determination beyond an ethnic or religious attachment to blood and soil.)
posted by snuffleupagus at 7:47 AM on July 21, 2017


It has different meanings depending on its usage, and that gets complicated. For a majority of American Jews, it broadly means the right to national self-determination, and more narrowly means the general expression of that identity in Israel, but, for a plurality of American Jews, this is coupled with support for Palestinian self-determination and support for a two-state solution (and, for many, a profound opposition to Bibi and his government.)

But it seems like, for anti-Zionists, Zionism is interpreted as a more specific political philosophy that supports the displacement and cultural genocide of the Palestinian people.

I sometimes wonder if part of the issue is that Israel is still relatively new, and so its form of nationalism is still so visible. We're all products of nationalist movements — if anything, American has been growing increasingly ultranationalist — but our nationalism is so thoroughly a part of our world that it becomes invisible to us, the way we participate in it becomes invisible. But Israel, especially since its still entangled in competing national identities, doesn't benefit from the invisibility. I don't think we even have a word for American Nationalism, and, when it gets discussed, usually gets discussed under the rubric of patriotism. But Jewish nationalism has a name, and so is easier to see.
posted by maxsparber at 7:55 AM on July 21, 2017 [4 favorites]


"sovereignty over a piece of the Earth's surface, just sufficient for the needs of our people, then we will do the rest!"

The problem with this hypothesis is everywhere is already home to other people.
posted by mikelieman at 8:21 AM on July 21, 2017 [3 favorites]


The problem with this hypothesis is everywhere is already home to other people.

This is what I mean when I say everyone else's nationalism is invisible.
posted by maxsparber at 8:21 AM on July 21, 2017 [7 favorites]


On today's Democracy Now! (news brief at about 4:00, interview at 14:40, alt link, .torrent, transcript of interview) they covered the Israel Anti-Boycott Act and had an interview about it featuring Rabbi Joseph Berman, government affairs manager for Jewish Voice for Peace, and Ryan Grim, D.C. bureau chief for The Intercept.
posted by XMLicious at 11:35 AM on July 21, 2017 [1 favorite]


The Intercept reports on lobbying group J Street weighing in against the bill.
posted by zeusianfog at 11:40 AM on July 21, 2017


By the way, the bill has a House version—it's H.R.1697/S.720.
posted by XMLicious at 11:54 AM on July 21, 2017 [1 favorite]


I called my Senator to complain about this, mentioned it was nice to call about something different for a change.
posted by bq at 1:35 PM on July 21, 2017


Cory Booker: Boycott Israel Movement "An Anti-Jewish Movement"
"I think, what I'm seeing now in the BDS movement that's going around this country. What I'm seeing now in the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe. These are things that have to be condemned for what they are, which in my opinion are efforts to undermine America's most significant ally, specifically in that region. And call it for what it is. And I really do think it is an anti-Jewish movement."

Booker, who has endorsed Hillary Clinton, went on to acknowledge that his comments might be controversial.

"And I say that, and I know a lot of people are gonna rankle and get upset that I said that," he said. "But please. When people start talking about boycotting Israel, the first thing I want to know is, there's, if you look at the numbers of countries who are violating human rights—"

Earlier this week, Clinton was similarly critical about BDS movement — which she called "alarming," particularly in light of anti-Semitism in Europe — in remarks to AIPAC.
Corey Robin:
Nothing like being told by a non-Jew that I'm anti-Semitic. Noting like being Jewsplained by Cory Booker.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 8:42 PM on July 21, 2017 [7 favorites]


That's a pretty dishonest debate tactic Robin Just used. Booker didn't say Corey Robin was antisemitic; he didn't mention him at all. He said that BDS is. If the fact that some Jew supports a policy means that it can't be called anti-Jewish then pretty much nothing can be described as anti-Jewish, because there are - surprise! - Jews with all sorts of differing opinions.

See also: women who support bans on abortion, immigrants who support Trump, etc.
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:42 AM on July 22, 2017


I avoided jumping into this thread early, because I figured there would be a lot of people who knew more than me and understood the subtleties in a more visceral way. But I sort of flinched at the framing of this post, because while I've been aware of increasing anti-semitism, I hadn't done a deepish dive until the incident at the Chicago Dyke March last month, and, um...

I can say that casually googling around brings up a whole lot of BDS associated sites and groups that are nakedly anti-Semitic. Some of it seems like the sort of half-baked but very impassioned stuff you get from college students (or other young people) who don't necessarily have the tools to be critical of everything they hear, but that's also literally how bigots are made, so....

I dunno. If this bill did what this post claims it did, it would be stupid and wrong and unconstitutional. And BDS, from what I've found with even a cursory search, seems to have a pronounced anti-semitism problem that really shouldn't go unremarked upon. Meanwhile, every jew in my life (including the ones who have lived in Israel) is bitterly critical of the Israeli government and the resultant plight of Palestinians. And, again, acknowledging that there are nuances to the term "Zionism" that I'm not fluent in...like 99% of the time you hear or read it, it's, um, not coming from a nuanced place.

Thanks for this discussion, Metafilter.
posted by schadenfrau at 6:53 AM on July 22, 2017 [7 favorites]


That's a pretty dishonest debate tactic Robin Just used.

Eh, maybe the framing is off, but I think Robin's well within his rights to complain about gentiles like Booker and Clinton speaking out on what they feel is anti-Semitic if he disagrees with them. I certainly don't feel all that comfortable with jumping to accuse other Jews of being dishonest or disingenuous in this respect, when in almost any other situation we'd (rightfully) point out the problems we have with gentiles speaking out on what is or isn't anti-Semitism.

He is definitely wrong on one thing though: if he's borrowing it from the general 'splaining concept, it should be gentilesplaining (or goysplaining if he's really pissed), not Jewsplaining.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:30 AM on July 22, 2017 [2 favorites]


Not saying that "self-hating whatever" isn't a thing, but I've known Jewish folks who supported BDS. Trying to simplify that down to being self-hating is pretty insulting.

For any given X, there are a multitude of reason why a person or group might support X. The fact that some people or groups support BDS for anti-Semitic reasons does not make BDS itself inherently anti-Semitic.

I feel like we just went through a similar iteration of this in the UBI thread. Many of our Libertarian Venture Capitalist Overlords seem to support UBI, but that doesn't mean that all supporters of UBI are crypto-libertarians or whatever.
posted by tobascodagama at 9:47 AM on July 22, 2017 [4 favorites]


He is definitely wrong on one thing though: if he's borrowing it from the general 'splaining concept, it should be gentilesplaining (or goysplaining if he's really pissed), not Jewsplaining.

Funny--that's one of the first comments on his post :)

Update from those at the Gillibrand town hall happening now in the Bronx:
Senator Gillibrand on the anti BDS bill she co-sponsored, in response to question by JVP at Bronx town hall: "I saw the bill differently, I did not read it very wellj. I will meet with the ACLU, and I share your concern about the Israeli government".

JVP (NY and Westchester) were there in large numbers. Three or four of our people got to the microphones and all were very cogent and convincing. I could see that those there for other reasons didn't know anything about it, so they got educated.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 4:37 PM on July 22, 2017 [2 favorites]


This is How We Make Change (video of Jewish Voice for Peace's Steve Siegelbaum at the Gillibrand town hall)
posted by Joseph Gurl at 4:39 PM on July 22, 2017


The fact that some people or groups support BDS for anti-Semitic reasons does not make BDS itself inherently anti-Semitic.

Sure. But the same could be said of a lot of ideologies. Eugenics was once taken seriously by liberals, even though with hindsight we can see that it wasn't just co-opted by racists, it appealed to most people because it was racist. I have nothing against BDS in the abstract, but if it's a liberal cause then why are the groups that support it so associated with antisemites? I'm talking about real, indisputable Jews-drink-babies'-blood antisemites here, in case there's any doubt.

Case in point, JVP and its association with Alison Weir. Here's David Schraub on the eventual split, and why it was kind of unsatisfactory. But it wasn't just unsatisfactory, it was brief - six months later they were co-sponsoring events with her once more, probably because of the shock and consternation their erstwhile allies exhibited.

Here's Schraub again, on the blow-back the JVP received. It pretty much shows what JVP's actual audience is, and the role JVP plays in building a bridge between liberals-with-unexamined-assumptions and actual indisputable antisemites: The JVP's Untenable Position.
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:09 PM on July 22, 2017


Eugenics was once taken seriously by liberals, even though with hindsight we can see that it wasn't just co-opted by racists, it appealed to most people because it was racist.

I don't know anything about BDS beyond the basic concept, so I'm not trying to imply anything about whether it's inherently anti-Semitic or not, but it seems important that, because of things like preimplantation genetic diagnosis, aren't we in a bind as far as completely and absolutely denouncing all possible forms of eugenics?

I don't want to derail into discussing permanently eliminating inherited diseases or other facets of bioethics, but eugenics doesn't seem like a great example of something that can be completely ruled out by association, even association with the sort of antisemites you're talking about.
posted by XMLicious at 8:12 PM on July 22, 2017 [1 favorite]


Sure. But the thing is, I don't think BDS is intrinsically an immoral thing either. It's basically international grassroots pressure, and as such has a distinguished ancestry. In a hypothetical universe where antisemitism wasn't so much of a thing maybe BDS wouldn't have been co-opted by Jew-haters, or maybe well-intentioned people would have walked away once they realised they were caucusing with antisemites. At present, though, even the best pro-BDS groups are no more two degrees of separation away from people who literally believe Jews drink blood or get together to talk about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
posted by Joe in Australia at 10:08 PM on July 22, 2017 [2 favorites]


I'm not clear at this point whether you're saying that it appeals to most people because it's racist. It was the validity of that apparent part of the analogy I was responding to, because it doesn't seem to be the case that the appeal of permanently eliminating inherited diseases involves racism, whether pursuing that objective is the right thing to do or not.

But if what you're saying about everyone in the BDS movement being so close to overt anti-Semitism is true, it would certainly seem that any attempt to boycott, divest from, or sanction Israel should start from a clean slate and a slate that's been meticulously scrutinized for anti-Semitism.
posted by XMLicious at 11:01 PM on July 22, 2017


I think there are a lot of people who don't like admitting they're prejudiced, even to themselves. When they have an opportunity to exercise their prejudices in a legitimised way they get very excited. So anti-drug crusades tend to focus on young black men, because that's what prejudiced crusaders imagine when they think of drug abuse. Historically, eugenicists tended to focus on Jews/Blacks/Irish depending on their prejudices; and any imagined problems exhibited by that group seemed both urgent and a fine example of a problem that could be solved by eugenics.

So BDS as a means of exerting influence on countries isn't conceptually racist, but a lot of overt and covert racists seized on it as a legitimised way of being antisemitic. Without them, I don't think BDS would exist: it's not like there's any suggestion of applying BDS to any other countries. Hypothetically there could be a non-antisemitic BDS, but it's hardly likely that Israel would be its sole, or even primary target.
posted by Joe in Australia at 12:32 AM on July 23, 2017


On eugenics, I would agree that most of the hereditary criminality stuff was indulgence of prejudice and hatred. But for example, SCOTUS legalized involuntary sterilization in 1927 and that decision still stands, and IIRC among various Wikipedia articles the last use of the law to sterilize someone was in the 1980s.

Let me again make the caveat that I have only the most cursory familiarity with the issue, but isn't the parallel which is normally brought up, relative to similar movements against other countries, Apartheid South Africa? With additional analogies beyond the boycotts and sanctions, such as the U.S. taking protective measures at the U.N. for SA back then and Israel today.

I'm on my way to bed in my part of the world, but will be happy to respond again (and probably do some basic research on BDS I need to—any pointers?) when I return to the land of the woke.
posted by XMLicious at 12:50 AM on July 23, 2017


Metafilter: The land of the woke
posted by Joseph Gurl at 1:08 AM on July 23, 2017 [3 favorites]


isn't the parallel which is normally brought up, relative to similar movements against other countries, Apartheid South Africa?

Yes, and that's why I think BDS has a place. But there was no reason to think that BDS-SA was driven by particular hatred for South Africans; I don't even think there's a word for that sort of hatred. In contrast, many high-profile supporters of BDS are antisemites, and most others are at least in indirect association with them.

Now, one response might be that Israel is just so bad that all this is justified. Roger Waters of Pink Floyd, for instance, repeatedly compares Israel to Naxi Germany and recently said there were no "harsher regimes". This is crazy nonsense, of course, but suppose it were true: would opposition to such a regime justify making common cause with racists? I don't believe it would, for two reasons.

The first is that it's contradictory. The idea that fighting racism abroad necessitates supporting it at home is ridiculous. The other reason is, we must always consider that we may be wrong. None of us are immune to prejudice. Even leaving the factual disagreements aside, BDS-Israel is acting in conjunction with many antisemites. The kindest defense is for liberal supporters of BDS is that they didn't realise this, but then what else didn't they realise? So no, I don't believe there can be a liberal defense of BDS against Israel. If they didn't fight or even recognise the antisemitism of many BDS supporters it means that they were driven by prejudice, and they need to take a step back.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:07 AM on July 23, 2017 [2 favorites]


The fact that some people or groups support BDS for anti-Semitic reasons does not make BDS itself inherently anti-Semitic.

In theory, no. But tolerating anti-semitism in your movement isn't a neutral choice; it is, itself, anti-semitic. Substitute any number of evils for anti-semitism there and the analogy is pretty clear, right? MeFites routinely refer to the racism of the GOP this way, and I know I'm not gonna feel super safe around people who make common cause with MRAs or virulent homophobes. Who you let into your tent matters.

Metafilter: The land of the woke

I don't know exactly what this is supposed to mean, but yeah, I'm not really cool with teaming up with a movement that includes literal fucking crazytown racists. Like, any of them.

On a practical note -- and maybe this is addressed somewhere underneath the crazytown racism, but I didn't get that far -- I am sadly skeptical of the means of attack, here. Israel is not like South Africa in a number of ways, but probably the most important way is that South Africa was never geopolitically important. I don't know what the best way to put pressure on Israel to stop the abuse of Palestinians is, but whatever it is probably has to reckon with that fact. I sort of wonder why these groups don't get more involved in internal Israeli politics.
posted by schadenfrau at 6:08 AM on July 23, 2017 [3 favorites]


Metafilter: The land of the woke

I don't know exactly what this is supposed to mean

Sorry, that seemed like a much funnier pun when I was halfway to sleep on Ambien.
posted by XMLicious at 8:56 AM on July 23, 2017 [1 favorite]


Metafilter: Zionism is super nuanced, you guys, but all BDS supporters are anti-Semites.

This is just bad faith and sounds like the kind of passive aggressive, defensive, straw man bullshit people spout when they feel personally attacked because they support something that's just been identified as problematic. I said BDS has a pronounced anti-semitism problem that shouldn't go unremarked upon, and that it matters who you let into your tent. And yeah, if you're voluntarily associating with anti-semites -- or white supremacists, or misogynists, or other bigots -- you are very, very probably fucking up big time. In the best case scenario. This is literally the exact same reason I have seen you castigate Republicans in politics threads. The exact same.

And I don't pretend to know all the ways people use "Zionism" in the Jewish community, but I know every time I hear it from non-Jews it comes with a side of "Israel doesn't have a right to exist so let's destroy it" eliminationism. That puts it squarely in "terms gentiles probably shouldn't say" territory for me.

Unless that's how you mean it, of course.
posted by schadenfrau at 9:00 AM on July 23, 2017 [4 favorites]


I mean, Zionism is a 120 year old national theory created by the most argumentative people in history, so, yeah, it's nuanced, while BDS is a specific campaign started by a specific organization with identifiable core principals and leadership and explicit, documented official statements, so, yeah, if the organization is antisemitic, then supporters are supporting an antisemitic organization.

Listen, as far as I am concerned, people can boycott whatever they want, and the US government should not be punishing people for engaging in acts of conscience. I have no problem with people attempting to exert financial pressure on Israel to end the occupation.

None of that has anything to do with criticisms of BDS as an organization, and they can be criticized as an organization, because they are.
posted by maxsparber at 10:37 AM on July 23, 2017 [3 favorites]


Zionism is super nuanced, you guys, but all BDS supporters are anti-Semites.

Well, suppose there's no more no more than 10% shit in the milkshake.

Anti-Israel BDS presents as a liberal thing. There shouldn't be any room for antisemites. But even organisations that are only tangentially associated with BDS seem to have a problem with Jews. Ones that are more focused on BDS do things like imvite Helen Thomas as a speaker immediately after she's caught on camera saying that Jews should go "go back to Poland", or publish blood libels.

People are justifiably scared and appslled that there are now only two degrees of separation (Trump - Bannon or Trump - Gorka) between any senior Republican and literal neo-Nazis. Well, the same goes for BDS. This isn't the time to be talking defensively about nuance.
posted by Joe in Australia at 1:10 PM on July 23, 2017 [3 favorites]


I don't know exactly what this is supposed to mean, but yeah, I'm not really cool with teaming up with a movement that includes literal fucking crazytown racists. Like, any of them.

It's not supposed to mean anything; it's a tradition almost as old as Metafilter itself.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 9:08 PM on July 23, 2017


Metafilter: a tradition almost as old as Metafilter itself.
posted by Joe in Australia at 9:41 PM on July 23, 2017 [4 favorites]


That's how it's done, other Joe!
posted by Joseph Gurl at 9:53 PM on July 23, 2017 [2 favorites]


I feel like there are parallels between the problem of anti-semitism mingling with critiques of Israeli government policy and the problem of sexism mingling with critiques of Hillary Clinton's political platform. Maybe a slightly better comparison than the Libertarian tech overlord support of basic income, in that both involve a group of people who are, in the larger scheme of things, in an oppressed class doing things that are harmful to people in another oppressed class.

Another more accurate comparison is to the problem of addressing instances of sexism and sexual assault that occurred in the US civil rights movement. There was (and still is) a broader, unjustified/statistically invalid, racist narrative in US culture about black men being particularly sexually predatory. This narrative is racist, and needs to be fought against. Similarly, there is a narrative of shadowy Jewish control of world finance or politics that is total bullshit and anti-semitic, but that critiques of the more limited issue of Israel's Palestinian policy run the danger of playing into. But at the same time, sexual assault is still bad, it's prevalence is also a systemic problem, and a number - certainly no more than average across other racial demographics in the US, however - of black men commit sexual assault. And likewise, human rights abuses enacted by a specific subset of people within the Israeli government are still human rights abuses. Black women and those of us who try to address our culturally ingrained racism have been working (for decades) on discussing these intersecting structural problems in a productive way, without reinforcing either racism or sexism. Yet racists still co-opt discussions among the black community of other intersecting social/structural problems, and sexists still co-opt discussions among women of other intersecting social/structural problems.

I think that it helps, and is just generally important and respectful, to acknowledge the intersecting problem whenever addressing the one problem, especially for folks like me who have membership in at most one (or none) of the affected groups. So, for example, I support the idea of BDS as one avenue to pressure the Israeli government to adopt a more humane and just policy toward Palestine and the Occupied Territories, but I also try to proactively acknowledge at the same time that anti-semitism is a thing, and that part of the solution to the Palestinian conflict is to deal with our own anti-semitism in other countries (including in ourselves and in the BDS movement in general). I also try to be very clear in my language in such situations, eg. referring to the Israeli government (or specific individuals or departments, if possible) rather than to Israel more broadly, and certainly never confusing Israel or the Israeli government with the entire Jewish diaspora. But a certain amount of co-optation by racists, sexists, or anti-semites seems to be inevitable with any of these intersectional problems, unfortunately. Which is shitty, divisive and derailing, and difficult to address effectively.
posted by eviemath at 8:40 AM on July 24, 2017 [1 favorite]


Wonder what people think of this:
5 Myths About Israel Boycotts That Every Theater Lover Should Consider
posted by Joseph Gurl at 3:02 PM on July 24, 2017


I think the BDS movement's association with antisemites is enough to condemn it. I don't mean that everybody must run out to buy a Sodastream, but I can't think well of anyone who goes to BDS conferences or joins marches that invite or even accept the participation of antisemites.

The author of this piece is a member of JVP which frequently acts as an acceptable yarmulke for Jew-haters. So I don't accept the implied premise that BDS must be considered as if it existed in a social vacuum: it has a personal problem, not just theoretical ones. That being said, I'll respond to his points as best I can:

1) That they only support a boycott of "plays that are either funded by the Israeli state or produced by institutions that actively support the occupation".

He can't speak for BDS supporters in general, who have in fact discriminated against individual Israelis and even Jews with no ties to Israel. But even on his own terms, most foreign productions around the world rely or have relied on some support from their home nation. This isn't cultural propaganda except in the weakest, most milquetoast sense. Also, I can't help thinking that the "Israel-free" production he applauds would have come under more scrutiny if it weren't presently being used as a contrast with other productions.

As for plays "produced by institutions that actively support the occupation", in Australia this has meant ones put on by the university Jewish society, Hillel. Pretty much every mainstream Jewish organisation is Zionist to some degree, or can be depicted as such, and that's enough to be accused of "supporting the occupation". Letting non-Jewish groups decide the acceptable extent of Jewish culture and association is raw cultural imperialism.

2) Boycotting a play isn't censorship, but attempting to deny a production space is censorship, and interrupting a performance is censorship. BDS supporters do these things regularly, including to the groups he mentions as being not-censored.

3) I don't think anyone involved on either side really cares about "The Free Exchange Of Ideas, Which Is Necessary To Make Change".

4) His justifications for only boycotting Israel are embarrassing to read. Do they really need a response? I'll provide one if necessary.

5) This is a stupid strawman that begs the question. Nobody would even ask such a thing unless they had been primed by the speaker beforehand. If asked to answer, my reply would be short.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:47 PM on July 24, 2017


What would be a good/valid/credible/non-anti-semitic way to actively oppose the actions of Israel? Is there one?
posted by Joseph Gurl at 7:19 PM on July 24, 2017 [3 favorites]


All kinds of ways! But if you are going to protest Israel, it is worth familiarizing yourself with the history of antisemitism, and making sure your protests don't duplicate historic antisemitism. Some things to watch out for:

1. Are you conflating Israel and Jews?
2. Are you holding Israel to a different or higher standard than other countries?
3. Are you opposed to specific actions by Israel, or the fact of Israel altogether; if the latter, is it because you are opposed to nationalism, or just Jewish nationalism; if the latter, why specifically and exclusively Jewish nationalism?
4. Are you using American or European models to critique Israel, such as referring to Israeli Jews as European or white (aside from the fact that most Israeli Jews are Sephardic or Mizrahi, Ashkenazi Jews were typically seen as being interlopers rather than Europeans, and American ideas of whiteness don't track here)
5. This is not necessarily related to antisemitism, but have you actually discussed with Palestinians what might be most useful to them? It's surprising how many Israeli protests have never had contact with a single Palestinian.
6. But piggybacking on that, are you familiar with the history of antisemitism in Arab countries?
7. Are you familiar enough with the history of Israel to know that there has never been a time when there was no Jewish presence and significant Jewish migration to Israel? This comes up a lot — people seem to think that Israel was empty of Jews for two thousand years until the Balfour Declaration.
8. Do you think Jews are actually Europeans who are simply pretending to be Semitic people, but are actually descendants of the Kuzars? This accusation comes up a lot in anti-Zionist circles, is antisemitic, and should be refuted.
9. There are a ton more, so I guess, in the end, the biggest question is: Are you willing to listen to Jews when they make a case that a protest is antisemitic? I know there are some who overuse this, but they are in the minority (again, a plurality of American Jews oppose the opposition, as well as 70 percent of Israelis, so statistically a Jew is more likely to agree with a criticism of the occupation than disagree).

Literally the only check and balance against antisemitism is listening to Jews when they say there is antisemitism, and that's been the biggest failing of the left, especially regarding Israel. There is just this out-of-hand knee-jerk refusal to concede that maybe Jews are the experts on their own experience, and not some huge and sinister collection of apologists for a criminal state.
posted by maxsparber at 9:17 PM on July 24, 2017 [12 favorites]


Do you mean as a tactic or as a movement? Because I have no problem with boycotts as a tactic. I can't actually think of any problematic tactics in the standard repertoire (boycotts, letter writing, OpEds etc) as long as they're not carried out in a discriminatory way, like refusing to employ Israelis or rent space to Jewish groups. I think interrupting performances or talks can rise to the level of racist intimidation, but even that has its place.

If you're talking about organised anti-Israel movements, I don't know whether there are any that are uncompromised by antisemitism. It would still come down to what they say and who they associate with rather than their tactics, though.

On preview, also what Max Sparber said.
posted by Joe in Australia at 9:25 PM on July 24, 2017 [1 favorite]


That's great--and super thoughtful, maxsparber & Joe.

I guess my next question is about organized anti-Israel movements, but maybe nobody here really knows about that? Are there any good, anti-war/anti-violence, Leftist movements in Israel?
posted by Joseph Gurl at 12:35 AM on July 25, 2017 [1 favorite]


Also, are there any organized pro-Israel movements that are uncompromised by antisemitism? In the U.S., at least?

It's occurred to me that because I support the existence of Israel, and would have supported a homeland for Jews in general before modern Israel's establishment, I'm actually on the same side of the latter issue as Madagascar Plan era Nazis and Stalin with his Jewish Autonomous Oblast. For all I know I may well have only two degrees of separation from them—I have older relatives who served in Allied militaries during WWII but refused to discuss the war or any earlier events with the rest of us. (So, I would expect some connection to involve the British Mandate for Palestine, if a connection existed.)

I'm looking askance at the "two degrees of separation" and "10% shit in the milkshake" arguments, if those arguments are ones which would apply to boycotting, divestment, or sanction actions exclusively based on reasoning them to be connected to a "compromised movement"... if Trump produces an unacceptable connection to Nazis for Republicans, shouldn't he also produce the same unacceptable connection to, for example, any opposition to UN condemnation of Israel over Palestinian issues, now that he's POTUS?

(But I agree that groups like the United Methodist Church, as mentioned in the first OP link, should slap away the proffered hand of any organization which tolerates antisemitism. To take them as an example, are representatives of the Church attending BDS conferences with antisemitic speakers? Maybe I'm misunderstanding the amount of cohesion and coordination which is occurring.)
posted by XMLicious at 12:44 AM on July 25, 2017 [2 favorites]


if Trump produces an unacceptable connection to Nazis for Republicans, shouldn't he also produce the same unacceptable connection to, for example, any opposition to UN condemnation of Israel over Palestinian issues, now that he's POTUS?

Yes? I mean, maybe you could differentiate between working with officials and working with community groups, but you can't expect anything coming from Trump's office to be untainted.
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:48 AM on July 25, 2017


Are there any good, anti-war/anti-violence, Leftist movements in Israel?

Yes, I think, but due to distance and the language barrier I don't know any specifics. Israeli politics seems to be a lot more fluid than most places, and I get confused by left-wing politics even in Australia, so. All I can say is that all of the many Israeli political parties are much further left economically than most US politicians are, but this doesn't necessarily translate to a particular foreign policy view. So basically everybody supports free healthcare, but that doesn't mean any particular politician is going to sit down and sing kumbaya.

Also, Israel has been continuously at war since its inception, and this has shaped what it means to be anti-war. For the USA that would mean "no wars of foreign aggression, no use of troops as an arm of foreign policy". In Israel I think it means something more like the amount they would be willing to sacrifice for peace, ranging from "most or all of the West Bank plus maybe more" to "nothing except maybe my aspiration to hit you back". This then maps onto their attitude towards Israel's relations with the Palestine Authority and to Israeli policy across the Green Line. But unlike anti-war movements in the West, nobody in Israel seriously supports disarmament or expects that Israel could survive without an army in the forseeable future.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:20 AM on July 25, 2017 [2 favorites]


Do you think Jews are actually Europeans who are simply pretending to be Semitic people, but are actually descendants of the Kuzars? This accusation comes up a lot in anti-Zionist circles, is antisemitic, and should be refuted.

This is a total aside, but one wonders how many RPMs Koestler's coffin has reached behind that misuse of The Thirteenth Tribe. As a Jew with Hungarian ancestry, the Khazars are fascinating — my personal take is that upon the fall of the Khaganate, the portion of the population that had actually converted and remained Jewish over generations probably just folded themselves into the diaspora.
posted by snuffleupagus at 1:05 PM on July 25, 2017 [1 favorite]


Oh, I think Koestler was accidentally largely responsible for the who Khazar thing. It was pretty obscure before the book, limited to the Judah Helavy Kuzari, which only Jews read, and some academics, like Douglas Morton Dunlop and Raphael Patai.

Koestler wanted to help end antisemitism by eliminating the racial basis for it: if Jews were not Semites, but Europeans, than why would anybody hate them!

Unfortunately, he just gave antisemities a tool for delegitimizing Jewish history. You can't win with these guys, I tell you.
posted by maxsparber at 1:28 PM on July 25, 2017 [3 favorites]


I was going to say that I totally read about the Khazars in a book about Russian history before they were cool, but nope, The Thirteenth Tribe was published in 1976, well before my book about Russia would have been.
posted by XMLicious at 2:38 PM on July 25, 2017


I am also fascinated by the Khazars. The whole Ashekenaz are descended from them thing is silly (if they are Turkic, why the Germanic language?), but the choice of the (elite) Khazars to convert to Judaism rather than either of the more popular monotheistic religions is fascinating.
posted by jb at 3:39 PM on July 25, 2017 [1 favorite]




8. Do you think Jews are actually Europeans who are simply pretending to be Semitic people, but are actually descendants of the Kuzars? This accusation comes up a lot in anti-Zionist circles, is antisemitic, and should be refuted.

This tends to be one of the more strongly held (and gonzo) tenets of fringe groups like the Black Hebrew Israelites.
posted by theorique at 5:29 PM on July 25, 2017


In terms of the bill itself, it looks to me like someone said upthread-- political theater for AIPAC, which helped draft the bill (which means essentially wrote it). AIPAC has become a right-wing lobby group dominated by conservatives. They are very good at playing the Congressional game, to the point of making views considered very right wing within Israel the mainstream view in the Senate and House.

Can you think of any other legislation that both sides of the aisle can come together to support with such equanimity? Where Ted Lieu and Adam Schiff are on the same side as Rob Portman? AIPAC is like a mini version of the Oil and Gas Lobby or Banking lobbies, except that supporting Israel is generally popular in the United States, so there is little political risk in taking their money and generally voting how AIPAC wants.

That should change because the regardless of the faults of BDS, and despite the fact that there are surely many other countries with similar issues, Israel does have a human rights problem, and it should be addressed by peaceful means. Criminalizing dissent, regardless of it's just for show, is just another example of how even non-Violent activism is discouraged by AIPAC.
posted by cell divide at 6:18 PM on July 25, 2017 [3 favorites]


Non-Jews explaining Judaism to Jews, again:
@jdakwar
Israeli leaders exploit horrible acts of anti-Semitism to encourage Jews to move to Israel.

Judaism ≠ Zionism
Anti-Zionism ≠ Anti-Semitism
Jamil Dakwar is the Director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Human Rights Program and their main representative to the UN. His suggestion that victims "exploit" their abuse is a very typical reaction from people who haven't dealt with their own prejudice, but it's very disappointing to see it coming from someone that speaks for a major human rights organisation, especially in conjunction with a conspiracy theory. He also links to @mehdirhasan (Mehdi Hasan), who has his own history.
posted by Joe in Australia at 2:26 AM on July 27, 2017 [1 favorite]


I’m The First Jew Banned From Israel For Supporting BDS (Alissa Wise, Forward)
posted by Joseph Gurl at 5:09 PM on July 27, 2017


On the one hand, it's a pretty stupid law. But on the other hand, it's a bit precious for her to be complaining that her religion doesn't give her a free pass into Israel, when she apparently doesn't believe that Israel should discriminate that way. It's a bit of a "come and see the violence inherent in the system" complaint.
posted by Joe in Australia at 2:24 AM on July 29, 2017


This is surprising, and welcome: SlutWalk Chicago backtracks, will allow Zionist symbols at event
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:23 PM on July 30, 2017 [1 favorite]


They're now tweeting that they were misquoted, so we will see.
posted by maxsparber at 3:26 PM on July 30, 2017 [1 favorite]


Yeah, "taken out of context". It's a shame, because their spokesperson quoted in the Ha'aretz article (via Twitter) was very forthright.
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:44 PM on July 30, 2017 [1 favorite]


...Leftist movements in Israel?

Posted today: a Deutsche Welle 12min documentary about Breaking The Silence (Hebrew: שוברים שתיקה‎‎ Shovrim Shtika), ...one of the most controversial organizations in Israel. Its members compile testimony from Israeli troops who've served in the Occupied Territories and opposition to the organization.

Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely: Breaking The Silence is an extreme organization that is based on lies. When you think about organizations that do human rights issues, you usually think about organizations that are using the justice system in the state in order to prove what they are claiming. Breaking The Silence never use the Israeli justice system; they are based on anonymous testimonies that were never verified in Israeli courts.
posted by XMLicious at 12:32 PM on July 31, 2017


Like her counterparts in the US and other countries, Hotovely actually pals around with right-wing terrorists that depend on conspiracy theories, so that's rich coming from her.
posted by zombieflanders at 1:02 PM on July 31, 2017 [2 favorites]


Ok, this appears to be Slutwalk Chicago's new position.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:57 AM on August 1, 2017 [1 favorite]


It's a much better position. I have asked for some more accountability regarding their rather frantic decision to block anyone on Twitter who was remotely critical of them, and also that they add something about opposing antisemitism to their mission statement, which is a laundry list of oppressions they oppose but somehow leaves out the oppression of Jews.

But it sounds like Slutwalk has reconsidered their position and listened to members of the Jewish community, which Dyke March has failed to do.
posted by maxsparber at 7:11 AM on August 1, 2017 [2 favorites]


Ai Wei-Wei, translated by Ian Boyden:
Here's a passage I translated from a really great interview that Danhong Tang conducted with Ai Weiwei. This excerpt is part of his response to her question about criticism he received for holding an exhibition at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem.

"As an artist, I don't have much choice. If I decide not to have an exhibition in Israel because of Israel's racism and invasion of Palestine, then using the same attitude, I would not be able to exhibit in China, or in the United States, or other places. Regardless of what the historical or current reality is, this kind or that kind of contradiction is ubiquitous. I think the artist above all is an independent agent who participates on his own accord. Relatively speaking, finding a way out by way of "moral and ethical superiority" is exceedingly easy. In fact, if you insist on any kind of "moral and ethical superiority" you do not have to do anything.

"The artist is not merely resisting, above all, he resists not losing the right to resist. This right to resist should transcend the common measure, and this is actually the very part of art that I regard as important. The artist needs to express his views through his own actions and language—diversity and complexity of expression is actually the very means of art's survival, as well as the locus of art's power.

"Any form of exhibition, any type of aesthetic expression—all of them are political. For me, the current reality of this exhibition's location is like a readymade, it is perfectly suited for my thinking and the questions I ask, and furthermore we can use it to examine the function of contemporary art, as well as the many possibilities of influence it can engender."
posted by Joseph Gurl at 2:27 AM on August 3, 2017


Regrettably, I think Slutwalk Chicago is still trying to provide a big tent in which both antisemites and Jewish allies can be welcome:
we remain firmly anti-Zionist as part of our anti-state position
I've seen this pattern time and again: socialists who hate Jewish landlords, conservatives who hate Jewish socialists, atheists who hate Jewish clericalism.

Slutwalk Chicago didn't have any problem when Chicago Dyke March specifically endorsed Palestinian nationalism, and didn't have any problem with them encouraging other nationalist displays as well. If your politics is only defined in opposition to one group then it isn't politics; it's prejudice.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:25 PM on August 7, 2017




Liel Leibovitz is beyond awful. His work consistently discredits the entirely of Tablet.

He's never walked back his column about Sebastian Gorka not belonging to any fascist groups, even after Gorka admitted it. So Leibovitz has spent more time defending that specific fascist than that specific fascist could muster.
posted by maxsparber at 11:48 AM on August 8, 2017 [2 favorites]


I can't say that I remember having heard much about Faiz Shakir, but he was Editor in Chief at ThinkProgress and a VP at the Center for American Progress at the time that a number of their bloggers were widely criticised for antisemitic language and insinuations. He acknowledged that their language was antisemitic, but I don't know if he did anything to publicly distance himself from it, and whatever action he took was only after it became controversial.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:32 PM on August 8, 2017


Let's try not to go down the same path Leibovitz did, please. The "number of their bloggers" was "two," and they were using their private social media, not representing CAP or ThinkProgress, and both made sincere (i.e., not "I apologize if anyone was offended" BS) apologies. Leibovitz's supremely nasty attempt to connect Shakir, and by extension both CAP and ACLU, to anti-Semitism was horrible when Tablet printed it (and you can pretty much see him measuring how close to the line of libel he can get), we don't need to replicate that here.
posted by zombieflanders at 5:59 PM on August 8, 2017 [1 favorite]


I don't have much time for Leibovitz, but Shakir was directing two organisations whose bloggers and spokespeople repeatedly made more-or-less antisemitic allegations, and which were criticised by very mainstream Jewish groups, including the ADL, the AJC, and the Simon Weisenthal Center.

I don't know whether Shakir himself made any sort of apology, even though he was responsible for the "two bloggers" (Zaid Zilani and Ali Gharib) as well as the other people criticised, like Matt Duss, Eric Alterman, and their National Security Editor, Ben Armbruster. Not all of the offense was delivered via Tweets, and it wouldn't be any better if it were. Spokespeople don't get to make "unofficial " public statements on their area of employment without it reflecting on their employer; and even if they could - why did so many of his employees reflect similarly prejudicial attitudes and dismissal of Jewish concerns?

As for the ACLU's letter, Faiz Shakir is the ACLU's National Political Director and it was issued under his name. The suggestion that he isn't responsible for its contents is insulting and evasive. His time at CAP and ThinkProgress shows a substantial pattern of behavior indicating that he is blind to prejudicial and/or triggering antisemitic language, and if the ACLU doesn't want to be criticised for possible bias they should have chosen a different spokesperson.

Incidentally, Matt Duss also writes for Tablet Magazine; the Jewish world is a small world.
posted by Joe in Australia at 8:35 PM on August 8, 2017


« Older Pancreas broken? Make your own.   |   "I only think about the next mile" Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments