The Washington Post has published one of the most important pieces ever to appear in a mainstream American publication dealing with the bounds of Israel political discourse in America and within the American Jewish community.
The op-ed, written by Steven Levitsky (Harvard) and Glen Weyl (University of Chicago), is entitled “We are lifelong Zionists. Here’s why we’ve chosen to boycott Israel.” Within it, Levitsky and Weyl painfully conclude that, with Israel’s occupation and oppression of the Palestinians now a permanent fixture―something which threatens Israel’s very existence―pressuring Israel to change via economic boycotts has become a last, necessary resort.
These two men will likely be called self-hating Jews as a way to discredit their position. They will be smeared as seeking Israel’s destruction by those who believe supporting Israel means shielding its geo-political policies from rebuke, no matter how destructive. The problem they will face is this: Levitsky and Weyl have presented their case in such a way that these attacks will immediately reveal themselves as hollow and reflexive. As having no substance other than the fear and zero-sum tendencies which produce them.
Writing on the permanence of Israel’s occupation, on its undemocratic denial of basic human rights which Israel’s President Reuven Rivlin stated has become a “fact of modern Zionism,” Levitsky and Weyl write:
This “basic fact” poses an ethical dilemma for American Jews: Can we continue to embrace a state that permanently denies basic rights to another people? Yet it also poses a problem from a Zionist perspective: Israel has embarked on a path that threatens its very existence.
For supporters of Israel like us, all viable forms of pressure are painful. The only tools that could plausibly shape Israeli strategic calculations are a withdrawal of U.S. aid and diplomatic support, and boycotts of and divestitures from the Israeli economy. Boycotting only goods produced in settlements would not have sufficient impact to induce Israelis to rethink the status quo.
It is thus, reluctantly but resolutely, that we are refusing to travel to Israel, boycotting products produced there and calling on our universities to divest and our elected representatives to withdraw aid to Israel. Until Israel seriously engages with a peace process that either establishes a sovereign Palestinian state or grants full democratic citizenship to Palestinians living in a single state, we cannot continue to subsidize governments whose actions threaten Israel’s long-term survival.
Israel, of course, is hardly the world’s worst human rights violator. Doesn’t boycotting Israel but not other rights-violating states constitute a double standard? It does. We love Israel, and we are deeply concerned for its survival. We do not feel equally invested in the fate of other states.
These words, the ink used to produce them still fresh, still drying on the page, are already reverberating loudly in the American Jewish community. And for good reason: most major US Jewish organizations have cast those who support boycotting Israel as standing outside the Jewish community. As having crossed a red line. As enemies of the Jewish people.
I have felt such exiling. For while I do not boycott Israel, I have written in the past on how Palestinians have an absolute right to use nonviolent means of opposition, including boycotts, to fight Israel’s oppression, just as any country or entity has a right to such nonviolent means of protest. While I do not myself boycott Israel, I support Palestinians’ right to do so. And for that, I have had book events cancelled and have been cast as standing outside the US Jewish community by major Jewish leaders. This despite my still holding on to the two-state dream, despite the likelihood that dream has passed us by.
Jews who actively work with the BDS movement and/or support the concept of a single, bi-national state have been easy targets of such exiling. Despite the fact that many of Israel’s own leaders have embraced such a single-state reality, major Jewish organizations still officially articulate support for the two-state outcome, casting those who feel otherwise―like Jewish Voice for Peace―as self-hating.
However, it will be impossible to seriously consider Levitsky and Weyl as enemies of the Jewish people, as self-hating, as standing outside the Jewish community.
And this impossibility will result in one thing: a broadening of the dialogue in America on what it means to support Israel, on whether one’s political views on Israel define one’s Jewishness, and on who exactly gets to decide such things.
It’s a conversation which is desperately needed, a conversation which will deepen after this piece by Levitsky and Weyl.
David Harris-Gershon is author of the memoir What Do You Buy the Children of the Terrorist Who Tried to Kill Your Wife?, published recently by Oneworld Publications.
Follow him on Twitter @David_EHG.
You paint with too broad a brush, Mr. Harris-Gershon. My guess is intentionally so
They have explained that their reasons for their reluctant and personal decision to boycott are tied inextricably to their Zionism. They have not endorsed BDS.
Jewish Voice for Peace, on the other hand, does not even pretend to be sympathetic to Zionist ideals. JVP has given a full-throated support of the BDS movement, because they believe in the BDS goal of replacing Israel with a single non-Jewish state.
The absence of an endorsement of BDS, or the hateful goals of BDS, separates the authors both from JVP and you, who in an earlier piece on this blog stated that you “formally endorse and embrace BDS.”
The authors of this piece do not suggest they are locking arms in solidarity with virulent haters of Israel. The same cannot be said of those who advocate — either in a full-throated manner or in a too-cute-by-half manner — for the BDS movement.
[Update 10/28/2015 – The tenor of the comments in this thread, from the anti-Semitic to the personal attacks, are precisely why I often don’t engage after publishing, and why comments will often be disabled on future posts. Unfortunately, as with most sites, Tikkun often attracts commenters who are uninterested in substantive debate, but rather view the comments in articles as the only place in which to have the echo chambers in their heads be articulated. Shame.]
While there are several points you raise which seem to indicate a misunderstanding of the actual piece above, I’ll focus on just one:
Where do I write that these two professors are boycotting as part of the BDS movement and its goals?
A quote would be helpful.
You are falsely suggesting a common cause between these authors, on the one hand, and JVP and you, on the other, who have endorsed and advocated for the BDS movement.
There is a big difference between what these authors have written and your advocacy for a campaign that seeks to abolish Israel.
I still haven’t seen a quote. Are you not able to produce one?
I’ll produce two for you to consider, one in which I quote the authors making clear they are “Zionists,” as the title of their piece suggests, and the other quoting my own position from above.
I’ve provided quotes. I’m curious, can you?
You are trying to change the subject. And understandably so.
You wrote “Where do I write that these two professors are boycotting as part of the BDS movement and its goals?”
Problem is, I never said you you wrote any such thing. On the contrary, I noted the distinction — one that was conveniently absent in your piece above — between the professors’ position, which makes no mention whatsoever of BDS, and the BDS advocacy by JVP and your declaration that you “formally endorse and embrace BDS.” The distinction is huge, and relevant when talking about the kinds of criticism that has occurred.
As you are aware but don’t like to talk about, BDS is a movement that wants Israel abolished. To their credit, the professors’ article does not embrace that movement or that goal. So, I agree with you that calling the professors self-hating Jews would indeed be unwarranted and unfair. But it does not follow (from that) that the harsh criticism you have received, for your expressions of support for BDS and your solidarity with those who hate Israel and want it abolished, is not valid.
On another blog where you post and regularly receive accolades from Israel haters and — on occasion — from outright antisemites, there is a video of Norman Finkelstein pleading with BDS supporters to be honest with their intentions. You would do well to take that advice.
Professor Weyl, one of the authors of the op-ed quoted above, thanked me for this piece. Seems he does not feel any views have been misrepresented, nor that any positions have been conflated, as you suggest.
I also noticed that you have no interest in discussing the actual content of this piece, particularly the place Zionists who boycott Israel have within the Jewish community and the larger discourse they are likely to inspire.
That’s your choice, of course. A choice you’ve made clear. Good luck to you.
And good luck to you too, David. I noticed that you have no interest in acknowledging the difference between protests (boycott or otherwise) in the Jewish community of Israel’s occupation and your endorsement and advocacy for BDS, a movement that seeks to abolish Israel. Your refusal to deal with this rather huge distinction makes the premise of your diary fairly irrelevant.
But that’s your choice, of course. A choice you’ve made clear.
Aftonbladet e4r idioter som pilrucebar den tendentif6sa artikeln. Lieberman e4r givetvis ockse5 en idiot. Nu, vad ska vi le4ra oss av den he4r historien? Lieberman kan vi av allt att df6ma inte gf6ra ne5got e5t. Men kan inte Aftonbladet, och andra svenska tidningar med antiimperialistisk udd, se till att publicera vederhe4ftig journalistik se5 vi slipper denna rundge5ng? Och kan fokusera pe5 de avskyve4rda me4nniskore4ttsbrotten iste4llet.De kommer ff6rste5s alltid finnas element, se5som Lieberman, som alltid ropar pe5 antisemitism ne4r misshagligheter ff6rs fram, men varff6r ens ge dem lillfingret liksom. Serif6s gre4vande ve4nsterjournalistik e4r lf6sningen. Aftonbladet borde satsa pe5 det iste4llet.
Jews who boycott Jews are not people I want anything to do with, you are no different to us than those who boycotted us in the past
I dom’t understand why we Israelis don’t have David running out country for us.Obviously we have no clue what we are doing, and if we just follow his guidance, why, life will be peaches, I tell you. Look at those nice Yazidis with no army and no way to defend themselves, what could go wrong? Look at Syrians murdered each other to the tune of over 300,000 and over 1.2M wounded, surely David would have an answer as to how this will not be our fate.
David uses the term self-hating Jews, actually I use the term self-loving Jews. They are so full of themselves that they think no one is as moral as they are, and no one knows how to solve the issues of the Middle East as well as they do. I don’t understand why we even have elections here, we should just ask David and his fellow travellers what to do.
Naftali, there is no greater truth in this entire dialogue (op-ed and David’s response) then your articulate and accurate response to both. Unfortunately, the BDS movement, for most of its adherents, has become a weapon to defeat Zionism, not to humanize it.
Yes, David… I can provide quotes. You spend paragraphs talking about Steven Levitsky and Glen Weyl mentioning that they support a Boycott of Israel. Then… you have this very specific quote:
“Jews who actively work with the BDS movement and/or support the concept of a single, bi-national state have been easy targets of such exiling. Despite the fact that many of Israel’s own leaders have embraced such a single-state reality, major Jewish organizations still officially articulate support for the two-state outcome, casting those who feel otherwise―like Jewish Voice for Peace―as self-hating.
However, it will be impossible to seriously consider Levitsky and Weyl as enemies of the Jewish people, as self-hating, as standing outside the Jewish community.
So either you are drawing an equivalence here OR these paragraphs are complete non-sequiturs. If you are not implying that Levitsky and Weyl are in support BDS, why are you drawing equivalences here? And it is very easy to say that you imply Levitsky and Weyl are supporters of BDS, since you start talking about BDS and in the very next sentence talk about Levitsky and Weyl.
So you can forgive Alma for chastising you for claiming they are supporters of BDS given the structure of your diary or if you are not doing that, would then say that this article is poorly written and calls for a re-write to clarify that point.
Frankly though as an American Jew – I couldn’t care less what Levitsky and Weyl do or think. Honestly. While I disagree with the Israeli Right and Likud – I would certainly NOT boycott Israel, in the face of the undying hatred and existential threats that they face.
Typical typical ivory tower arrogance.”oh, look how moral we are, we can barely stand ourselves. Why can’t Israelis who face terror EVERY day be moral and nice like us?” “Look how well behaved we are here at Harvard, despite all the danger. Oh, let’s go tell everyone how moral we are and how nasty those Israelis are.”
These people, as “educated” as they think they are fail to understand that butchery of Jews has nothing to do with our behaviour. There were many Jews like them in Europe, “Oh, we’re not like those smelly Shtetel Jews, we’re progressive, enlightened, social justice seekers, living in the new tolerant Europe.” Imagine their shock when they ended up on the cattle cars with the Shtetel Jews.
These frauds disgust me.
perfectly stated. I agree 1000%.
“I have felt such exiling. For while I do not boycott Israel, I have written in the past on how Palestinians have an absolute right to use nonviolent means of opposition, including boycotts, to fight Israel’s oppression, just as any country or entity has a right to such nonviolent means of protest”
Perhaps they will one day adopt non violent way of protest. For now Palestinians prefer the use of knives
Den intressanta arkiteln e4r den Bjf6rklund refererar till, . En svidande vidre4kning med Bodstrf6ms och Aftonbladets underme5liga kindergartenjournalistik som har allvarligt skadat den Palestinska saken att bere4tta ff6r ve4rden om inhumana f6vergrepp av Israel. The problem is not that he is accusing the State of Israel of wrongdoing, but that he is making accusations of what would amount to extremely serious war crimes while providing absolutely no evidence to support his claims. Rather than advancing the cause of Palestinian human rights, such behavior hurts the many organizations, journalists, activists and others working tirelessly to expose and document Israel’s numerous violations of international law committed against Palestinians and people of other Arab nations in recent decades. It is poor journalism on Bostrom’s part to use a timely event and try to connect it to something that happened nearly two decades earlier without offering any evidence. Unlike Bostrom’s reporting, when most Palestinian human rights organizations or other journalists have uncovered Israeli violations, they are sure to provide well-documented evidence to prove beyond a doubt that such violations were in fact committed. In a place like Palestine, however, where evidence of Israeli war crimes has never been difficult to find — despite Israel’s consistent efforts to block investigations — those concerned with holding Israel accountable should not level allegations of such seriousness without producing some evidence. The fact that Bostrom did not offer evidence for his organ theft claims has given Israel an enormous propaganda gift. Because he offered nothing more than conjecture and hearsay, Israel has launched a major campaign casting itself as an aggrieved victim of “blood libel.” This allows Israel to distract attention from the mountains of evidence of well-documented war crimes, and even to discredit real evidence. If there is no evidence behind the organ theft claims, Israel can argue, then maybe all these other claims about crimes in Gaza are equally dubious. Predictably, Israel and its supporters launched a ridiculous campaign Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is demanding that the Swedish government declare its “condemnation” of the article. This is a strategy that Israel could not use in response to the Gaza war crimes reports. With each violation clearly documented and coming from a wide range of credible sources and testimonies But Israel has done all it can to draw attention and create an international crisis out of the organ theft allegation. So far, Sweden has withstood Israel’s hectoring that its government must take a position on an article published in a free press. But given the record of pandering to Israel, it remains to be seen if Sweden will stick to this position. If Sweden does bow down to Israeli pressure, it would set a frightening precedent for journalists whereby Israel can affect a state’s policy of freedom for the press.
The BDS movement, as a whole, is an affort to re-establish the Zionism of such pioneers as Ahad Ha’am, Martin Buber, Judah Magnes, and Hannah Arendt, who had a vision of Zionism that included sharing the future, as edqual citizens, with the Palestinians.
Howard, your comment is just ridiculous. BDS is anti-Zionist to the max. BDS seeks to cause economic harm to Jewish Israelis. BDS seeks to abolish Israel. It is a an absolute rejection of any and all forms of Zionism.
Obama admits that BDS is not anti-Israel. It only targets Jewish settlers in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem. On the other hand, Netanyahu has equated BDS with the Blood Libel.
In reality, the original Charter of the BDS has long been hijacked by pro-Israel “Lefties”. In the current shape, BDS legalizes the occupation of Palestine by the World Zionist movement.
Everything in your comment is 100% false. You are either woefully ignorant about this subject or a liar.
Thank you Netanyahu for your usual rant.
I sell a spooky, anti Semitic rat in the hose and it is Rahmat. he sees a Jewish conspiracy around every corner and covers this website with a web of lies..
BTW, Rahmat, Yasser Arafat was born in Cairo.
That isn’t anti-Semitism you have to suss out… It is out there on Rehmat’s page. Particularly when he links to Gilad Atzmon and has commentary like this: ‘Liberal Zionists also condemn arms resistance against the Jew occupation especially by the Islamist groups like Hamas and Hizbullah.”
I am sure David will be on here momentarily to denounce his support from Rehmat. Yep… any moment now.
Yep, I’m sure he will. Heh.
More accolades from antisemites. David gets all hot and bothered when someone calls out his BDS endorsement, but statements in support by an antisemite? No problem.
Nah… David would never let those comments stand.
I mean after all, didn’t he speak out against all people and organizations in the Jewish community that didn’t pushback on some of the nonsense that the right wing was spouting? Didn’t he try to make the point that Silence = Consent?
If that is the case couldn’t one then accurately say that David’s Silence = Consent?
I cannot imagine David allowing that hatred to stand. Surely he will speak against it. Won’t he?
Holocaust denial. David will attack his critics, threatening legal action, but he lets the guy get a free ride because the supports BDS
http://rehmat1.com/2015/10/27/adolf-eichmanns-daughter-jews-falsified-history/Adolf Eichmann’s daughter: Jews falsified history
Posted on October 27, 2015 | Leave a comment
On Thursday, Carmen Bretin Lindemann, Mayoral candidate for Argentinian village of Garupa announced she was withdrawing from the race as result of a vicious campaign run by Argentina’s powerful Jewish Lobby DAIA.
Bretin Lindemann is daughter-in-law of Zionist Nazi leader Adolf Eichmann, who was kidnapped from Buenos Aires by Mossad agents in 1960 and later hanged on the orders of an Israeli Kangaroo court for knowing too much about Zionist-Nazi collaboration.
On Wednesday, in an interview with TN news channel, she accused Jews of falsifying German history under Third Reich.
“Eichmann was not a bad person, he obeyed orders, and personally did not kill anyone. The history you know is not the real one. The version you know from movies and books is cooked-up by Jews to demonize German race. But due to Jewish control over media, world accept that history,” she said.
I wonder why Bretin Lindemann did not mention that both her in-laws visited British occupied Palestine as guest of World Zionist Congress in early 1940s.
She also said that she was never sympathizer of Nazis, many of them, according to Rabbi Wolf Gunther Plaut, were crypto Jews. Even the word NAZI was coined by a German Jew journalist Konrad Heiden in the 1920s.
Anyone who has the chance to study WW II history from some objective source, would know that the real victims of Holocaust were German Christians and not Jews.
In order to understand the truth behind the ‘Six Million Died’ story – one needs to refer to The World Almanac, which says that between 1940 and 1949 the world Jewish population increased by 400,000.
Sergio Massa, 43, president of the Renewal Front, expelled her from the party under DAIA pressure which accused her of denying the Holocaust. On Sunday, Massa, received 21.3% votes as compared to his opponents; Mauricio Macri (34.3%) and Daniel Sicoli (36.9%). Since none of them received the required 45% votes – a second round election will be held on November 22, 2015.
Argentin’a current president Cristina de Kirchner is about to complete her second term on December 10, 2015. DAIA never forgave Cristina de Kirchner for refusing to following her husband’s footsteps by blaming Iran for the bombing of Israeli embassy and Mossad office (AMIA) in Buenos Aires in the 1990s.
But, but… but…. David says that when it comes to Israel, Silence = Consent. Just look at all of his articles and diaries castigating the Zionist community for their “tolerance” of “bad behavior” on the part of the Israeli (and American) Right.
I can’t believe that David is going to let Rehmat’s (an obvious anti-Semite) support for him stand. No way. Surely he realizes what this looks like. No, I am shocked I tell you.. absolutely shocked that David hasn’t said anything yet. Surely he will comment today about Rehmat’s obvious hatred, or Bill G’s selective genetics quotenot too mention hyperbole blaming victims for hatred or Aflered’s straight up Palinesque word salad.
I’m sure it will be anytime now…. yep…. anytime…
Dave would never want to alienate his support. I’m sure Dave would have no problem joining hands with David Duke to sing Kumbyaya
Well Fred and Yoni… I find myself wrong… I guess David endorses anti-Semitism. I mean he constantly makes the point the Silence in the face of horrific actions = Consent of those actions. SO, here we a guy like Rehmat openly supporting David and using terms like “Jew Occupation” or making a case for the innocence of Adolf Eichmann and yet David is silent and indeed is accepting of that support.
What then does that say of David?
I thought he would stand up to anti-Semites and turn back their support. I guess I was wrong.
Imagine my surprise.
The fight over land embodied by the two state solution has run its course & was never a viable solution. It’s very essence reeks of separation, racism, prejudice, & hate. The Palestinians were never happy with it & the Israelis only paid lip service to it. The struggle for the Palestinians has moved to one of human & civil rights in one state. BDS, in that light, is a proper & legitimate strategy for the Palestinians to aquire the freedom & Liberty that the Israeli occupation has denied them.
What the world needs to make Israel understand their policy against the Palestinians is destructive to the health & well being of Israel is a competing Zionist State in some other part of the world other than the ME. If that were so, Israel would see that world Jewry would rather live in peace, love, & prosperity than in the immoral swamp of hate, domination & injustice that Israel affords Jews & Palestinians alike & have to change those destructive policies in order to compete & be relevant.
If BDS was about peace and justice, then they would promote the boycott of both sides for not coming to a compromise. But BDS has chosen sides and that side has not quiet come to terms with Jewish state even with smaller borders. BDS is part of the problem, not part of the solution
Not too mention that BDS calls for the Destruction of Israel (through unlimited Palestinian so-called “Right of Return” and promotes “Jew Only” Boycotts. Just ask any supporter of BDS if they support boycotting all Israelis or just Jewish Israelis. I guarantee you they would not boycott Arab Israeli. I know this because they have told me that. So if they don’t boycott Arab Israelis – who the hell else do they boycott? Thai Guest Workers? No… they only boycott Jews.
They used to be more honest about it, but then they figured out that they were losing support with this obvious anti-Semitism so they dropped it from their policy statements
Levitsky and Weyl in their noteworthy article do call for boycotting and divestitures when they say that “The only tools that could plausibly shape Israeli strategic calculations are a withdrawal of US and diplomatic support, and boycotts and divestitures from the Israeli economy.”
As the writer of the Argentum Post I deem this article constructive, yet personally I feel that the one state solution is the only viable one without major disruption and is sustainably as it would be gradually implemented.
The UN in its infancy and dominated by a small elite group of nations erred egregiously when it went along with the bizarre notion that the Judaic religion could be nationalized at the expense of the autochthonous residents of Palestine and then it was literally terrorist organizations, e.g. Irgun, Stern Gang, and Hagannah which in 1948 with Brittish imperialists facilitation, violently took over the land of the Palestinians, forced them into exile, and started the gradual “ethnic cleansing” of Palestine, a process which continues to this day.
So, with a one-state solution, organized and implemented by the UN, backed up by NATO troops if necessary, the Jews now living in Palestine would not all necessarily have to be moved anywhere, but the genuine universal right of return of the Palestinians from their diaspora must be granted, the odious walls of separation must then come down, and Israel’s arsenal of nuclear WMD must then be dismantled and thus a vibrant Palestinian democracy would be born giving all in it, the blessings of healing by co-reconstruction, co-creation, and collaboration in all walks of life.
This is how the end of the Apartheid Israel implant into Palestine can be solved. It will be the solution of dissolution on the basis of the evolution of the peaceful coexistence of Jews, Christians, Moslems, and secular – preferably humanists – in a vibrant reformed Palestine.
This model could be the nucleating agent of a wondrous crystallization of a mosaic which whose prosperity and harmony would inspire the cessation of the irrational and destructive Sunni – Shite sectarian warfare in the region.
One thing is clear. Jews who now live in occupied Palestine will not be moved or harmed, but the notion that people of the Judaic faith need a “homeland” is nonsensical since they are totally acclimatized and assimilated globally.
The extremist colonialist Zionist failed narrative opportunistically exploited by such delirious dishonest hate and fear mongering ethically and intellectually bankrupt liars as characterizes the present misleadership of Israel, namely Netanyahu, who now has completely run aground by his latest feeble minded attempt to link the Holocaust to the Palestinians having the temerity to suggest that “Hitler did not intend to kill Jews”, is now about to become extinct and part of a museum piece.
I state this as a direct descendant of parents who survived the Nazi genocide of the Jews and others.
You really love to take an inaccurate revisionist point of view, Pick up a freakin history book before posting.
We, the Jewish people, have been genetically selecting for intelligence for thousands of years. The sad truth is that if We sincerely wanted a solution to our Israeli-Palestinian problem, we would have implemented it long ago.
The sad historical truth is that Jabotinsky and his colleagues stated unequivocally that their goal was a single Jewish state from the Mediterranean to the Jordan. Palestinians who were paying attention understood this since the 1920’s. The heirs Begin and Shamir, in truth, envisioned the same. The Likud charter of 1973 comes right out and says it.
The problem for some of you here is that the creation of Israel was not an act of God, with an outstretched arm and a pillar of fire. Rather, it was created by a secular document in an international agreement: on one side of the document is the creation of Israel; on the other is the creation of Palestine. It is unconditional. There are no conditions of everyone playing nice. If the Israelis tear up the document creating Palestine, they tear up their own founding document and thereby delegitimize our beloved state.
We knew we were not wanted in the neighborhood. We knew that the tribal Arab culture of the Middle East held a medieval, pre-Enlightenment world view and mindset, prone to violence and blind revenge. We knew exactly what we were getting into. Tel Aviv was as close to Arab borders then as it is now. But we moved there anyway.
Of course, it one believes that we have a God given right to the Land, no matter what, then no rational discussion is possible, no matter the language that is used or the appearance of logic. But to those of us free of such blind fundamentalist religious faith, please understand that people of goodwill the world over increasingly understand the now obvious intent of the Israeli enterprise. And to the extent that virtually every Jewish synagogue has as an Israeli flag next to the bimah, the conflation of Israel and Jewishness is totally warranted. It will not end well. And in the end, despite the cries of “look what the Arabs do” and “remember the Holocaust,” we will have no one to blame but ourselves.
Jabostinsky ad the Irgun did not dominate the Zionist movement.Lies like this only perpetuate the problem.
That’s right Fred. There is no real knowledge here – don’t bother. That comment is so freakin’ ridiculous starting with “We the Jewish people….” and gets worse.
Understanding the early history of the Yishuv (where the Revisionists, Irgun folks were only something like 12%) is important. Israel’s early leaders (from the Haganah) were generally not “River to the Sea” folks. BUT interestingly enough you who was AND still are “River to the Sea” folks? The Palestinians. Just look at their public opinion polls. Only 28-30% of them support a State where Jews and Arabs live in total equality. Yet we are supposed to take the nonsense spouted from the BDS movement as something that would happen if only we had a One State Solution?
Even the Palestinians don’t want this. BDS is just a tool to weaken and eventually destroy Israel. And not understanding that reality is either pathetic (because being that dumb is sort of sad) or outright anti-Semitism.
The State of Israel has, as I understand it, outlawed BDS by Issaelis in Issrael. That’s bad policy — IMO — but a democratic state has the right to do stuff like that. If they want to stifle dissent, so be it. A tyranny. A police state. Fine. I’m sure Saudi Arabia does similar things.
But when the not-democratically-elected heads of selected-by-big-money Zionist (calling themselves Jewish) Organizations in the USA make bold to blackball someone who espouses boycott (or even BDS), they should be laughed down as the jackasses they are. America is a democracy in which free political speech is not yet extinct and the two authors of the WaPo article are protected byAmerican law. If the Zionist Organizations do not want them as members, that’s OK, but callkng them un-Jewish is beyond the pale.
Actually Pabelmont… it is your comment that is laughable.
First of all… Let me help you with spelling. The country’s name is Israel and it’s people are Israelis. Only one “s” there. Oh, and as you can see, there is an “r” in the word Israelis as well.
Now on to this nonsensical quote. You say this:
America is a democracy in which free political speech is not yet extinct and the two authors of the WaPo article are protected by American law.
And this is very true. These authors right to free speech is indeed protected by American Law. They can (and did) write what they wanted and say what they said, and because they are protected by the First Amendment, in the United States they cannot be legally incarcerated for holding and voicing those opinions.
But then you say this:
America is a democracy in which free political speech is not yet extinct and the two authors of the WaPo article are protected byAmerican law. If the Zionist Organizations do not want them as members, that’s OK, but callkng them un-Jewish is beyond the pale
Do you see the irony of your complaint?
First off, no one here is saying that they should be tossed in jail for publishing their nonsensical op-ed. AND the U.S. Government is not threatening them with incarceration in any case. This is what’s known as a “strawman argument”, you build up the argument and then burn it down. The only problem pabelmont is that no one is making the argument that you are.
Second of all… here you are complaining about people not having “free speech” (which is nonsense) and then you are telling mythical detractors that they cannot freely express themselves. What has calling these two “un-Jewish” by people have to do with the concept of the First Amendment? Why, Nothing of course – but you should have known that. Those organizations that choose not to publish the professors opinions are not the U.S. Gov’t. nor are they taking away their legal right to say what they want here in the U.S.
So, glad I could help you with actually understanding our First Amendment as well as with your spelling (though you did spell Israel correctly in the first part of your statement).
1. Living in Israel, it’s kind of hard to follow BDS. One has to buy groceries and other of lives necessities.
2. Strange how yo compare Israel to Saudi Arabia. Perhaps include Syria under Assad prior to the civil war. I bet you never gave much thought about the over the years unless you held Israel up against them
Mr. Harris Gershon: The goal of the BDS movement and such racist and anti semitic groups as Jewish Voice for Peace is the complete destruction of Israel and its replacement with another (there are now more than 60) Judenrein Islamic State. Your article is self righteous nonsense and completely erases history and context to create a mendacious narrative.