Monday, June 6, 2016

Nonsense that can lull us into a sense of security

Sar Shalom

On Israel Hayom, there is an article by Judith Bergman about BDS and its efforts to penetrate western society. Bergman is correct in describing BDS as just another form of terrorism and not a movement about "peace and justice." However, she makes a claim that BDS is losing, and that claim fails to recognize the actual strategy and can lull us into a false sense of security. In reality, all the votes against BDS have as much to do with our victory against BDS as Westmoreland's body counts had to do with attaining victory in Vietnam. To understand how Bergman's declaration of victory misses the mark, it is necessary to have a definition of what constitutes victory.

Einat Wilf provides such a definition. Victory will be the advocates of BDS enjoying the social acceptability of neo-Nazis. As of now, the proponents of BDS are gaining in social acceptability and their arguments are gaining traction. They might not be getting over the hump to garner a majority of votes favoring divestment. However, their presentation of Israel as evil-incarnate is being welcomed as a legitimate viewpoint and the margin of defeat does not dismiss the argument, rather considers BDS's actions on behalf of the argument is a bridge too far. Victory will be BDS's arguments being greeted the way neo-Nazism is and winning is making progress towards that end.


  1. I think that many of us are just cluing-in to the idea that BDS is not meant to be a serious immediate challenge to Israel's economy.

    Rather, it is a propaganda campaign to drag the Jewish reputation through the mud in order to soften public opinion for the next significant assault against Israel, if not the rest of us.

  2. BDS is failing. It is increasingly seen for what it is, illegal.

    Some evidence is seen in this thread from several days ago:

    Google BDS and the news will show even more positive developments in NY, Spain, and Italy.

    The American Anthropological Association just voted it down today.

    Even at Portland State Univ. there is pushback.

    It's not a matter of being complacent, but it's fine to acknowledge that the tide may have turned against the malevolence of BDS.

    1. School,

      BDS is only failing if its goals are not being met.

      If the goal is to launch a significant assault against Israel's economy then, yes, it is failing... thank Christ.

      But if its goal is to muddy the name of the Jewish people while sullying the reputation of Israel, then it's doing a fine job.

    2. Must differ. BDS is being repudiated before our eyes as a discriminatory, illegal movement.

      Its goals on both levels are having the opposite effect.

      The Palestinian movement may also be teetering as the world moves on, and comes to see its essence is not really to help its people. Enough is enough.

      And as it flails, its proponents will only act and appear more extreme, as we have seen, which may accelerate the process.

      This is not to say that nirvana is around the corner, but pro-Israel is more on the offensive as the world comes to recognize that the Palestinians repeatedly had their chance, but forsook the opportunity each time.

    3. Is the glass half empty or is it half full?

      And is it getting emptier or fuller as we speak?

      Both trends are out there... so it's a tension.

      As you know, the American Anthropological Association just voted down BDS and that speaks to your case.

      The universities may be waking up, although we are not seeing any recent movement on the SFSU front.

      Nonetheless, your words are hopeful to me because we are starting to see what are perhaps the beginnings of pro-Israel push back.

      Believe me, my friend, I am more than willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

    4. I think that the recent action by the McGill Judicial Commission (or whatever the name is of the committee) that declared boycotts as out of bounds on the basis that they make people unwelcome on campus on the basis of their nationality is an example of a genuine setback in the way that the American Anthropological Association vote did not.

      True victory will be those proposing boycotts of Israel being greeted they way those promoting boycotts of black-owned businesses will be. Anything else will leave them free to regroup and try again later or with another group. The McGill action moves in that direction. The AAA vote, as welcome as it is, does nothing towards that end.

    5. Check the links posted in the thread I linked to, in which I mentioned that since 2014, when the glass was essentially empty, it started to fill.

      It has all come down to the fact that BDS is an illegal enterprise, subject to laws that ban discrimination.

      There is still the anti-Israel forces that permeate the Left, but they will soon have to find a different vehicle than BDS.

  3. I might check them out later. But your description of them does not address my point. Is the public concluding that BDS is fighting racism but that boycotts are a bridge too far, or is concluding that it's promoting racism? I am saying that only the latter would constitute victory. For someone who claims that the former is what's happening, saying that BDS is illegal only means that the "zio-lobby" has gotten it's way with lawmakers.

    1. Why must it be either/or?

      BDS is illegal because it engages in discrimination.

      Those that support it will not be convinced, but the "public" is not versed in these matters, and legality matters. When BDS loses, its reactions help show that claims of fighting racism are deceptive.

  4. This has been an interesting discussion. I must come down on the side of Sar Shalom and Einat Wilf. We cannot rest until those supporting this bigoted lunacy are persona non grata vis a vis the public at large, i.e., until the reaction to them is that of neoNazis.