RESPONDING TO THE PROGRESSIVE “CRITIQUE”

Dear Abigail and friends, and Joe:

How does one most effectively address the subtle—and sometimes not-so-subtle—antisemitic attitudes and behaviors that one encounters in groups that are connected with progressive causes?

It’s probably pointless to ask these groups where their protests are against human rights abuses in countries such as Russia, China, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, North Korea, Sudan, and Zimbabwe, although it would certainly be interesting to hear.

There is another step we can take, even though it will roil many Jews in the pro-Israel community. There’s nothing wrong in acknowledging that the current situation in the West Bank is untenable, and in explaining that the most reasonable solution would be two states—a Jewish state and a Palestinian state—side by side, with secure and defensible borders. This idea will be rejected by those who deny the legitimacy of a Jewish state anywhere in Mandatory Palestine, or those who claim that Israel will never be a good-faith negotiator. Discussing anything with them is, indeed, pointless. At the same time, we must carefully differentiate between campaigns that disagree with Israeli policy and those that essentially call for the elimination of the Jewish state. There is a vast difference between being opposed to the policies of the Israeli government and being an antisemite. Those of us who want to fight this scourge do ourselves no favor if we automatically brand ideas with which we disagree “antisemitic.” Too often, some Jewish organizations and their leaders reflexively fall back on this accusation.

We must not think of fighting antisemitism or anti-Israel animus as a one-size-fits-all process. Tactics that may succeed in the halls of Congress may well fail, if not backfire, on the campus. American Jewish communal leaders have boasted that, as of spring 2017, seventeen states have passed legislation against boycotts of Israel. They also made mention of the fact that at “the federal level, Congress passed a law that opposes politically motivated actions that penalize or otherwise limit commercial relations with Israel, such as BDS.” And they called attention to the losses suffered by BDS in Canada, the United Kingdom, France, and Spain.1 While efforts to stop commercial boycotts may well succeed (as they absolutely should), these kinds of antiboycott tactics are doomed to fail on the campus. Some off-campus groups have pressured university administrations to ban BDS groups and their affiliates, such as Students for Justice in Palestine. They have insisted that the universities and their trustees declare that they will reject any student-supported pro-BDS resolution. Efforts to ban anti-Israel groups from the campus are not only sure to fail but, even more significantly, they will be a boon for the pro-BDS forces. University officials cannot ban a student organization that is legally sanctioned by the student government. This is not how a university functions. They cannot control whom the students choose to invite to campus. Moreover, these kinds of actions play right into the hands of BDS’s proponents. As I have argued, BDS’s real objective is not boycotts or divestiture, but the toxification of Israel. And they are succeeding at that, as Israeli speakers at various campuses (regardless of their own personal politics) find their lectures disrupted. What we cannot assess, of course, is how many Israeli speakers are simply not invited to campuses because the problems this creates are too overwhelming. Banning anti-Israel or pro-Palestinian groups from campus will only increase this toxification and buttress the narrative propounded by many progressive groups, who argue that Israel’s criminality is being defended by “white, privileged, and powerful” Jews.

Some Jewish organizations have compiled lists of professors who have signed BDS resolutions and have urged Jewish students to boycott the classes of these teachers. This non-nuanced and often mistake-laden effort assumes that professors are unable to separate what they teach from their personal politics.2 (Some cannot. Many can.) These organizations have included on their lists the names and pictures of those faculty members they have deemed to be pro-BDS or anti-Israel. By advocating what is essentially a blacklist, these Jewish organizations are practically mimicking the tactics of the pro-BDS campaign. Mistakes easily creep into such lists. A number of years ago a list of “anti-Israel” Emory instructors was circulated by one of these groups. It was riddled with errors and incorrect accusations. Included on the list were people who had left Emory years earlier. Even pro-Israel and anti-BDS faculty members found the idea of such a list, as well as the list itself, to be outrageous and counterproductive. Some Jewish communal organizations have even gone after Israelis who are themselves victims of BDS. Such was the case with the singer Achinoam Nini, known professionally as Noa. They have demanded that their communities not invite her to perform because, they wrongly claim, she supports BDS. The irony is that, despite being a firm opponent of the current Israeli government, Noa has been prevented by BDS supporters from performing in the United States. Nonetheless, pro-Israel advocates who do not live in Israel have demanded that, even if she is not a BDS supporter, she not participate in communal events because she is a severe critic of Israeli foreign policy. Talk about eating your own.3

There was a similar disproportionate, if not absurd, reaction to the decision by the actress Natalie Portman to decline to travel to Israel to accept the 2018 Genesis Prize, an annual award cosponsored by private philanthropists and the Israeli government that honors individuals who they deem to have attained excellence and international renown in their chosen professional fields, and who they feel inspire others through their dedication to the Jewish community and Jewish values. Portman’s representative said that Portman had been distressed by recent events in Israel and did not feel comfortable participating in any public events there, particularly one at which Prime Minister Netanyahu (whom she has criticized in the past) would be speaking. In response, one Israeli cabinet member accused her of being a BDS supporter (which Portman immediately denied) and another accused her of acting in a way that bordered on antisemitism.4 It was a ludicrous and unfair attack, not to mention counterproductive. Not only did this accusation bear no relationship to reality, it also buttressed the arguments of those who claim that any criticism of Israel is unfairly categorized as antisemitism.

Israel has, on occasion, taken other counterproductive steps to fight BDS. Such was the case with a bill passed by the Knesset in 2017 that bars entry to the country to anyone “who knowingly issues a public call for boycotting Israel.”5 Some of the harshest criticism of this effort came from the heads of Israeli universities and the Diaspora leaders of the anti-BDS movement. They described the law as a “clear erosion of the principles of academic freedom and free scholarly exchange” and argued that rather than trying to silence BDS voices or bar them from the campus, these people should be directly confronted because, as they so powerfully put it, “we believe we have a more compelling narrative to share.” This law not only violates the principles of academic freedom, it also—like the lists of pro-BDS professors compiled by the Jewish organizations—is a classic shoot-oneself-in-the-foot strategy.6

Speaking of shoot-oneself-in-the-foot, during the summer of 2018 Israel seemed to be engaged in precisely that. It detained longtime supporters of Israel trying to enter the country because they have opposed Israel’s presence in the West Bank. Some were subjected to questioning by Shin Bet representatives. They were accused of doing no wrongs, except for belonging to organizations that are critical of current Israeli policy. Among them were a prominent journalist, who was in Israel for his nephew’s bar mitzvah. His treatment garnered headlines in many places, including Israel. Though the Shin Bet acknowledged that some of its actions, including this one, were “errors in judgment,” the attorney general’s office decided to investigate. In another case, a longtime supporter of Israeli philanthropies, who has donated millions of dollars to Israeli causes, among them schools and hospitals, was stopped upon leaving Israel. He had visited his sister, who lives in a town on the West Bank, and some of the philanthropies he supports. He had also participated in an encounter program with Palestinians. While on the program he was handed a document that he considered propaganda. He set it aside to examine more closely later. Security officials found it in his luggage and subjected him to an extended interview prior to allowing him to board his flight. Israeli officials subsequently apologized.7

Some of Israel’s defenders use rhetorical weapons. Such was the case when a Los Angeles rabbi declared that “BDS is no different than the Nazis of the 1920s and 1930s who created a myth that all Jews were guilty of insidious crimes against the international community and were intent on world domination.”8 These comparisons distort history and contemporary reality. They use charges of antisemitism as a cudgel and give validity to those who accuse Jews of citing the Holocaust “too much.” The only thing these lists and hyperbolic comments accomplish is to give those who make them a self-satisfied feeling.

A number of Israeli and American organizations have pointed to their legislative achievements and these “name and shame” lists and declared victory. At a 2017 World Jewish Congress–sponsored anti-BDS student gathering at the United Nations, Israeli and American speakers repeatedly stressed, “We are winning.” While the number of on-campus BDS activities may be down, the touted “achievements” of anti-BDS activists are at best false or pyrrhic victories. They come at the cost of alienating many potential allies and supporters and, more important, these efforts nullify the most potent argument against boycotts. In the recent past, increasing numbers of academics, including critics of Israel’s policies, have come to recognize that BDS is antithetical to the foundation stones of higher education. On campus, “boycotting the boycotters” will do more than just fail. By urging boycotts of anti-Israel groups, the anti-BDS advocates surrender the academic moral high ground—support of academic freedom and freedom of inquiry—to their opponents.

Yours,

DEL