Israel, Palestine, and the “Myth and Symbol” of American Studies

Lisa Duggan, president of the American Studies Association, has an excellent oped in the Los Angeles Times on the organization’s recent convention in Los Angeles and how the ASA has fared, academically and politically, in the year since it announced its boycott of Israeli academic institutions.

Lisa’s oped reminds me of a point that’s been bothering me for some time.

One of the frequent criticisms that opponents of the ASA boycott make is this: What in the world is an American Studies organization doing concerning itself with the affairs of another country? As one American Studies scholar (to whom Lisa is in part responding) put it in the LA Times:

Ostensibly devoted to the study of all things American, the 5,000-member academic cohort has ventured outside its natural borders and into the crossfire of Israeli-Palestinian politics by voting to bestow pariah status on Israel.

Other similarly inclined critics of the ASA—many of them of an older generation of scholars—often add to this claim a lament for the good old days of American Studies when scholars like Richard Slotkin (who also opposes the ASA boycott of Israel) penned learned and literate trilogies about the long and terrible career of American violence.

But here’s what seems so strange about this claim.

My sense of American Studies—admittedly from outside the field—is that it always has derived a great deal of its animating energy and intellectual purpose from the international arena (otherwise known as other countries). As Lisa’s interlocutor himself acknowledges, the early years of American Studies were shaped by the imperatives of the Cold War, and then in the 1960s and 1970s the field was reshaped by the Vietnam War, producing such canonical works as…Richard Slotkin’s learned and literate trilogy about the long and terrible career of American violence.

In order to reconcile this past of the discipline with the complaints of its contemporary critics, you have to make one of two assumptions: either that the field has another, completely different past or that Israel is not part of the foreign policy of the United States. Either way, you’re living in a fantasy land.

Once upon a time American Studies’s elders took apart the “myth and symbol” of America; now they’ve turned their field into one.

51 Comments

  1. DT November 14, 2014 at 6:25 am | #

    I don’t think anyone is arguing that the field of American Studies hasn’t (or should not) include studies of the rest of the world (as they intersect with the field). Rather, critics (including vast swaths of the academy that has no stake in the Middle East conflict which has roundly condemned ASA) are asking:

    (1) why such a mandate must include taking political stances as an organization against those countries they claim they want to include in their scope of study;

    (2) why this mandate has extended to just one of the 200+ nations of the earth; and

    (3) why that political stance has taken the form of an academic boycott, which essentially negates the original justification for why ASA’s mandate should include study of the world (unless the right to study other cultures now includes the right to boycott their academics and thus close off such study).

    In short, the inherent contradictions you decry are best exemplified by the ASA’s arguments in support of their boycott, rather than those of the organization’s critics against it.

    • J. Otto Pohl November 14, 2014 at 8:27 am | #

      1) Well I would assume it is because they find the policies of that state morally unacceptable.

      2) Well in theory it could be extended to other states and has in the past. I am guessing that most of the people so upset about Israel being “singled out” were not at all angry about a much more inclusive boycott of all things South African during the 1980s. Nor do I suspect any of them were upset about boycotts of Sudan during the naughts.

      3) Well as an academic organization how else would ASA put pressure on the Israeli state other than boycotting Israeli academic institutions? Again were you as militantly opposed to the boycott of South Africa? If not why not? All of your objections to boycotting Israel applied even more so to South Africa.

      • DT November 14, 2014 at 11:49 am | #

        No doubt, you (like the leaders of ASA) feel that the comparison between Israel and South Africa is apt and that this political opinion justifies the boycott of Israeli academic institutions.

        But what if another organization decided that discrimination based on gender and sexual orientation in the Palestinian Authority and Hamas-run Gaza (including at their universities) made *them* gender or sexual Apartheid societies and thus worthy of institutional boycott? Would you accept that, in such a case, someone else’s opinion (which you would no doubt strongly disagree with) gives them just as much right as ASA to express their disapproval through an academic boycott? Or would you follow the lead of ASA leaders of throwing out accusations of “Pinkwashing” in order to avoid the subject?

        Taking things further, what if a consortium of universities decided that the ASA’s boycott was anti-Semitic and thus that organization deserved to be institutionally boycotted, which meant that while individual academics could join, that any institutional affiliation with the organization or interaction with it as ASA was forbidden?

        Again, you would no doubt disagree with the accusation upon which such a boycott was based. But would ASA have any ground to stand on when they claimed their academic freedom was being attacked when someone followed the exact rule they laid out (one which says political disapproval can be translated into an official boycott of academics)? Or would they be reduced to “special pleading,” claiming that they (and only they) were allowed to boycott their choice of colleagues for political reasons?

      • J. Otto Pohl November 14, 2014 at 12:04 pm | #

        The ASA and other organizations can boycott whoever they like as far as I am concerned. Although given the almost non-existent connections between US academics and Hamas such a boycott is as likely to be effective as my personal boycott of North Korean academic institutions. The fact is as Dunn and Duignan in 1987 pointed out, South Africa was not the worst violator of human rights in the world in the 1980s. It was not even the worst in Africa. Yet, it not Mengistu’s communist Ethiopia was singled out for sanctions. There were reasons for this. But, I get the sense that a lot of radical leftists in the US are today opposed to sanctions against Israel solely because it became their favored model of a socialist state after 1948.

      • J. Otto Pohl November 14, 2014 at 12:05 pm | #

        Oops that should be Gann and Duignan. My spelling is off today.

      • Andrew Miller November 14, 2014 at 12:43 pm | #

        “But what if another organization decided that discrimination based on gender and sexual orientation in the Palestinian Authority and Hamas-run Gaza (including at their universities) made *them* gender or sexual Apartheid societies and thus worthy of institutional boycott? ”

        For one thing, there already is a de-facto boycott of Gazan universities since American law would make any kind of co-operation between an American university and one under Hamas rule illegal. Secondly, I’m not aware of any gender apartheid policies in the West Bank universities. Israel does enough to squelch Palestinian intellectual life(think of how many Palestinian political activists and intellectuals have had their toenails plied out or their genitals electrified in Israeli prisons), they hardly need American help.

        ” But would ASA have any ground to stand on when they claimed their academic freedom was being attacked when someone followed the exact rule they laid out (one which says political disapproval can be translated into an official boycott of academics)?”

        The ASA is boycotting Israeli universities not because of their beliefs but because of their actions: they are directly or indirectly complicit in apartheid, racism and Israeli military crimes. Moreover, every Israeli university infringes on their Palestinian students’ academic rights as a matter of course(banning pro-Palestinian demonstrations, persecuting pro-Palestinian intellectuals, discriminating against Palestinians in admissions, etc.) Refusing to deal with a university that does not respect its own students’ academic freedom is perfectly justified. Retaliating against the ASA for taking a stance in favor of equality and human rights cannot employ the same justification.

        And given Israel defenders’ newfound obsession with civility, I propose that anyone who tries to smear the ASA’s principled stance as anti-semitic be fired. After all, what could possibly be more uncivil or less conducive to the free, respectful exchange of ideas than false and malicious accusations of anti-semitism?

      • DT November 14, 2014 at 1:53 pm | #

        J. Otto – You might want to consider your belief that “ASA and any organization can boycott whoever they like” not in the context of any particular political dispute or nation, but as a general, universalizable principle.

        For if such a principle ever became a matter of faith within the academy, that would mean any person or institution (a professor, a department, a college or university, an academic association or union) was free to decide that a particular political issue (or set of issues) was so important that other principles (like the free flow of information between scholars) can take a back seat to them.

        And if, indeed, “any organization can boycott anyone they like,” who’s to say whether a boycott of Israel schools, or Palestinian ones, or French ones represents an attack on academic freedom (since it would have been established that academic freedom is a secondary principle to the boycotter’s political judgement). In fact, under this scheme, why shouldn’t a university fire a professor or disband a department due to their political opinions? After all, if “anyone is free to boycott whoever they like,” who gets to draw the line?

        Clearly ASA hopes they can let politics triumph academic freedom and then pull the ladder up behind them. But academic freedom is not a natural law but a human construct that has emerged after decades of battle and debate. And like any human construct, it can be changed through acts that set precedent (like the ASA boycott) and the new rules that are created when those acts are justified.

      • J. Otto Pohl November 14, 2014 at 2:02 pm | #

        I don’t see ASA boycotting your favorite socialist apartheid state as setting any precedent for boycotting ideas. As Andrew Miller has already pointed out the boycott is not based on Israeli ideas, but Israeli actions. It is also based on the fact that these actions have caused Palestinian civil society to request such a boycott and that a US and European academic boycott of Israel is far more likely to be effective than one of North Korea or Hamas which are already completely boycotted by the US government. However, I really would not care if the boycott did lead to the end of US academia. I work in Africa and I really don’t have any love for US academia and especially for many of its members unconditional support of Israel soley because it is a Jewish state with socialist origins.

      • DT November 14, 2014 at 3:01 pm | #

        J Otto – I appreciate your honesty and just have to say that I, like most of the people I suspect read this site, *would* be bothered by an end to academia in the US. And so we must end this little exchange agreeing to disagree.

  2. thom prentice November 14, 2014 at 10:46 am | #

    What is UP with this obsessive/compulsive, affluent, Aryan, privileged obsessive/compulsion about “borders” — everything is about BORDERS. Over the border, inside the border, outside the border, crossing the border, borders, borders, borders? What happened to transdiciplinary and supradisciplinary and collegiality? Oh. Doesn’t apply with regard to the affluent, imperial, European colony of The Levant known as Judah.

  3. Donald Pruden, Jr., a/k/a The Enemy Combatant November 14, 2014 at 11:39 am | #

    I can answer the critics’ question with a very simple answer, and it is one that I have in this forum often given to the hasabarists that grace this blog with their comments.

    *AHEM*

    “We Americans PAY TAXES To Support The State Of Israel And Its Repression Of The Palestinians Whose Land Said State Occupies Illegally.”

    Therefore, WHATEVER I PAY MY TAXES FOR can neatly enter the purview of “American Studies” along with other interested/interesting topics (like the history of this nation that happened before I became its newest taxpayer)

    Readers may feel free to use it when needed.

    • thom prentice November 14, 2014 at 11:45 am | #

      touche

    • DT November 14, 2014 at 11:59 am | #

      Then let’s follow the categorical imperative trail and see where it leads.

      Your taxes also go to a great many other states whose behavior you would no doubt disapprove. To take two obvious examples, Egypt (as part of the Camp David treaty) and Pakistan (as part of American foreign policy) each receive $1-2 of your tax dollars for every $3 given to Israel. And by any conceivable measure, both of these nations have far worse human rights records than does Israel.

      Now since neither of those nations have been named as candidates for an academic boycott (or have come under any scrutiny whatsoever at ASA or anywhere else that BDS is proposed), either the difference between $2 billion in US tax revenue and $3 billion is where the cause of human rights kicks in, or there is some other reason why only Israel has been chosen to get the boycott treatment (with your tax dollar only serving as an excuse to justify a boycott that has been chosen for other reasons).

      • J. Otto Pohl November 14, 2014 at 12:17 pm | #

        The idea that we have to boycott every state that receives US foreign aid and violates human rights before we can boycott Israel is ludicrous. Also the boycott is not purely about violations of human rights, but about the fact that Israel is the last settler colony set up like South Africa or Rhodesia. Eliminating human rights abuses is unrealistic. Eliminating openly racist states that violate the 1973 UN Treaty on the Crime of Apartheid is a more realistic goal given its success already in Southern Africa. If the US declared itself a State of White Christians and forcibly expelled 80% of its non-Christian and non-White population into Mexico, placed the rest under military rule, and justified itself as merely defending the right to have a White Christian State the way Israel does with a Jewish state neither you or any other Israeli supporters would like it. In fact you would probably a homeless refugee in Mexico subject to US bombing attacks just like the Palestinians are today. Really why should any American support such a state regardless of what happens in Egypt or Pakistan?

      • Andrew Miller November 14, 2014 at 12:59 pm | #

        For one thing, neither of these countries has the unquestioning, carte blanche support of the US; they receive American funds largely because the US thinks maintaining these governments is key to preventing anarchy and/or a regional war. Nor is there, to my knowledge, a unanimous call for a boycott from Pakistani or Egyptian political society(or from say, Coptic, Pakistani Hindu, Dalit or Baloch society) whereas BDS does enjoy the support of Palestinian civil society including the Palestinian labor unions and human rights organizations.

        But leaving that aside, if you think that Pakistan or Egypt deserves a boycott, academic or otherwise, then make the case for it. If you do it well, showing that such a boycott is justified, has reasonable aims and enjoys the support of those it’s designed to help, I’m sure you’ll have many of the commentators here supporting you(or are you under the impression that BDSers are el-Sisi fans?). But if you’re just using these two human rights abusers to justify another country engaging in gross human rights violations including apartheid, you’re being disingenuous. “Other people do bad things” is not an excuse to commit evil.

    • DT November 14, 2014 at 2:14 pm | #

      Andrew – In other contexts, I might debate the specifics of Israel vs. other nations with regard to whose human rights record deserves general disdain or punishment.

      But in the context of this discussion, we’re asking what should trigger a very specific type of act (an academic boycott) and what might happen if the principle ASA has established (that a nation or institution’s behavior warrants shunning of their academics) was established as a norm.

      Given the ASA’s recent “Under Attack” campaign, they clearly feel that the rules they established for Israel should not be applied to them (or anyone else they like). But once you have pulled the rug out from under the principle of academic freedom (or, more specifically, established that academic freedom can take a back seat to politics), then one person’s “attack” is just another person’s justified opinion being put into action according to the very rules ASA has established.

      • Andrew Miller November 14, 2014 at 3:38 pm | #

        “But in the context of this discussion, we’re asking what should trigger a very specific type of act (an academic boycott) and what might happen if the principle ASA has established (that a nation or institution’s behavior warrants shunning of their academics) was established as a norm. ”

        No, we’re not. The decision to boycott was made after extensive debate and following a democratic process. If you feel that other states deserve such a boycott, then do the same. As Corey said, this same kind of specious argument could be applied to any kind of political action- why boycott South Africa when Ethiopia or Uganda were also engaged in wide-scale human rights abuses? Why boycott Californian grapes when agricultural working conditions were far worse in say, West Africa or South America? Why boycott the Montgomery bus system when discrimination was just as bad in Rhodesia or Algeria? This kind of dishonest reasoning, if applied, would basically make any kind of political action impossible; if you demand that every political activist take on every bad thing, everywhere, committed by anyone, nothing is ever going to get done.

        And it’s not about “shunning” their academics- Israeli academics are free to come and speak at ASA conferences and to publish in ASA-related journals. They are simply requested to introduce themselves as individuals rather than as representatives of an apartheid-complicit organization. This is no more of an attack on free speech than requiring that government employees engaging in political activity do so as individuals instead of representatives of the government. It’s about refusing to give material support to institutions which have blood on their hands and which regularly infringe upon their own students’ academic freedom. How can you claim to support academic freedom while insisting that Israeli universities should face no consequences when they systematically deny their students academic freedom on the account of race? Why are you outraged that an Israeli academic would have to introduce him/herself as “X, who specializes in Y and has written Z” instead of “X from Ben-Gurion University who specializes in Y and has written Z” while you couldn’t seem to care less that Palestinian students face a real and tangible attack on their academic freedoms like discrimination in admissions, strict bans on pro-Palestinian political expression and persecution for expressing the Palestinian perspective(such as the bans, enforced on Israeli campuses, of observing the Nakba)? It’s almost as though you don’t even care about Palestinian rights at all.

        Finally, you act as though the ASA’s motion is some kind of crossing of the Rubicon; it’s not. For one thing, both the UK and the UN supported a wide-scale academic boycott of apartheid South Africa; applying that same principle to apartheid Israel is not breaking any new ground. In fact, the current academic boycott of apartheid Israel is far milder than the one enacted against apartheid South Africa. Moreover, US law enforces a boycott of Gazan universities for political reasons and universities refuse to engage with police-state countries’ universities all the time(in fact, the recent willingness of American universities to open campuses in states like Kazakhstan, where a student who says the wrong thing in a philosophy course could easily end up disappeared, is widely seen as more of a weakening of the principle of academic freedom than a strengthening of it.)

        But if you really want criteria, here are mine. I don’t claim to speak for anyone but myself, but here are mine: 1) the state is engaged in wide-scale human rights abuses and the universities themselves are complicit, 2) the victims of these human rights abuses, with a strong majority, have called for such a boycott and 3) such a boycott has a reasonable chance of effecting positive change. The academic boycotts of apartheid Israel and South Africa both fit these criteria. If you feel that another state does, too, let’s hear you make that argument. And I’d certainly like to hear how you think that the ASA itself fits these criteria.

      • DT November 14, 2014 at 4:16 pm | #

        Andrew – It doesn’t matter if I feel that Apartheid Palestine or Apartheid Gaza or Apartheid Jordan practices Apartheid far more Apartheid-y than “Apartheid-Israel” does. My belief is that whatever I feel about those regimes, that assaulting their legitimacy by shunning their academics (by insisting that detach themselves from their institutions or wear special markings/non-markings in order to be allowed into my community) is both inappropriate and legitimizes anyone’s choice to punish the next academic for *their* political beliefs. Which is why I (and other critics of the boycott) are not going to start our own boycotts – because doing so represents an attack on both academic integrity and civil society (which I refuse to harm just so I can score points against political enemies).

        Regarding your criteria for supporting a boycott, it looks like the best way to avoid your moral wrath is to actually BE an Apartheid dictatorship which suppresses civil society, vs. one that lets civil society both exist and organize boycott campaigns. Rather than tie yourself in such knots, why don’t you simply say that you support any boycott targeting a country whose name begins with I and ends in L (with a caveat that your boycott will only apply to a majority group that begins with J and ends in ews).

      • Andrew Miller November 14, 2014 at 4:20 pm | #

        And a baseless accusation of bigotry from the apartheid supporter! My bingo card is almost full!

      • Andrew Miller November 14, 2014 at 4:25 pm | #

        Truly, your dishonesty is astounding. Nobody is punishing Israeli scholars for their political beliefs; we are punishing Israeli universities for their actions(while doing everything we can to permit the free exchange of ideas.) There’s a huge difference and the fact that you deliberately and dishonestly conflate the two says a lot about the weakness of your arguments and of your character.

        Also, I was not aware that South Africa started with an I, ended with an L, and has a majority group that begins with J and ends with ews. You learn something new every day, I guess.

      • DT November 14, 2014 at 4:35 pm | #

        >>You learn something new every day, I guess.

        And I suspect that you have many days to go.

        So if all 250 colleges whose Presidents condemned the ASA’s boycott instead chose to boycott the organization, demanding that any American Studies professor that works for the school must do so without any support or affiliation from the university, then you’d be just fine with that?

        And South Africa begins with an S and an A, just like Saudi Arabia which has spearheaded the assault against “Apartheid Israel,” even as the oil they provided to Apartheid South Africa (in exchange for blood gold) kept the machinery of Apartheid afloat.

        But hey, that assault has given the BDSers the ammunition they need to continue that propaganda war. So who cares if you are the inheritor of the Apartheid alliance, rather than the successor of the fight against it.

      • Andrew Miller November 14, 2014 at 4:45 pm | #

        “So if all 250 colleges whose Presidents condemned the ASA’s boycott instead chose to boycott the organization, demanding that any American Studies professor that works for the school must do so without any support or affiliation from the university, then you’d be just fine with that?”

        Of course not. Are you drunk?

        “And South Africa begins with an S and an A, just like Saudi Arabia which has spearheaded the assault against “Apartheid Israel,” even as the oil they provided to Apartheid South Africa (in exchange for blood gold) kept the machinery of Apartheid afloat.”

        Saudi Arabia, as in Israel’s ally? Are you under the insane delusion that BDSers like the Saudi dictatorship? Is this it- you’re just going to keep on dragging out Arab dictatorships as a justification for Israeli apartheid? I guess Idi Amin justified South African apartheid, right? After all, those blacks are all alike, just like the Arabs.

      • DT November 16, 2014 at 8:05 am | #

        Now that two sundowns are behind us, some quick thoughts before a busy Sunday begins.

        First off, if a university saying that an individual scholar cannot participate in ASA activities as representative of their school so clearly demonstrates how an institutional boycott (my hypothetical boycott of ASA) impacts individuals, then the reverse (ASA saying an individual Israeli scholars cannot participate in ASA activities as representatives of *their* institutions) must also demonstrate the impossibility of an alleged institutional boycott having no impact on individual scholars. The fact that ASA had to rewrite their rules at the last minute (out of fear of triggering California anti-discrimination law) simply demonstrates that they got caught in this very contradiction that institutions don’t fly to conferences or participate in other forms of scholarly activity – individual scholars do (and always will).

        Speaking of which, here’s another hypothetical. Say an American Studies scholar decided to heed the ASA boycott by refusing to serve on the dissertation committee of a young scholar earning their PhD at an Israeli University. Would that constitute a punishing an individual (rather than an institution)? And, if it does, would it represent an attack on that individual’s academic freedom?

      • DT November 16, 2014 at 8:20 am | #

        Andrew – I can understand your need to try to distance yourself from Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Arab nations that have supported the Palestinian cause with money, arms and propaganda for close to a century, given that these regimes represent some of the most repressive, human-rights abusing nations on the planet. Yet with every invocation of “Israeli Apartheid” you are demonstrating your debt to the Saudi/Soviet 1975 Zionism=Racism debate at the UN (the origin of the Apartheid slur), even if a combination of historical ignorance and self-righteous fury keeps you from confronting who your allies are in your struggle to keep the human-rights spotlight permanently focused on the Jewish state.

        In a way, this just demonstrates what I’ve frequently said about BDS falling outside the category of a normal political movement. Normal politics involves give-and-take, after all. For example, if BDS were a normal project, it would acknowledge that replacement of the one Jewish state with the 23rd Arab one would more than likely increase the square mileage where homosexuality is punishable by imprisonment and death (as it is in the other 22), but that this sacrifice is worth it in order to “Free Palestine.”

        But BDS proponents don’t just want to be considered a progressive project, but the litmus test that determines whether you are truly progressive or a “Progressive in Everything but Palestine” (PEP). And in order to avoid the contradiction with gay rights mentioned above, they concoct fake phenomenon like “Pinkwashing” (which implies even bringing up the contradiction is part of a nefarious Zionist plot) or form gay organizations for the soul purpose of pretending the contradictions at the heart of their program do not exist.

        I’ve not read Professor Robin’s book, but I suspect it would shed some light on a movement that simultaneous wants to get into bed with the global forces of reaction while simultaneously declaring themselves (and probably actually believing themselves to be) voices of the downtrodden (or simply supporting calls from “civil society”).

    • Bloix November 17, 2014 at 6:10 pm | #

      “We Americans PAY TAXES To Support The State Of Israel And Its Repression Of The Palestinians Whose Land Said State Occupies Illegally.”

      My god this is idiotic.

      I PAY TAXES that pay the salaries of PROFESSORS at UNIVERSITIES SUPPORTED BY TAXES.

      I don’t want PROFESSORTS HIRED TO TEACH AMERICAN STUDIES using MY TAX DOLLARS TO GET INVOLVED IN FOREIGN POLICY.

      They weren’t hired to MAKE FOREIGN POLICY WITH MY TAXES and I want them to STOP DOING IT.

      DO THE CAPS MAKE MY ARGUMENT MORE PERSUASIVE TO YOU OR ARE YOU DEAF?

      • Donald Pruden, Jr., a/k/a The Enemy Combatant November 18, 2014 at 10:12 am | #

        My god — YOU, “Bliox”, are idiotic.

        Any engaged AMERICAN has EVERY GODDAMNED RIGHT to involve herself in the practical application of the ideas that underly the discipline in which she has become knowlegeable as a professional scholar. You don’t get to tell AMERICANS — scholars, or not — what is permissable political expression because you object to it, dumbass. You don’t get to demand compartmentalization because some scholars are on the public payroll as educators — indeed, one could argue that a healthy democracy expects some kind of public policy interest in the public realm of political action by such persons whose focus of study is precisely the kind of public policy interest about which they write and teach. Or, are you suggesting a stupid idea that only private universities’ scholars have that right to enter the realm of political action, and that scholars at public universities should just keep their mouths shut?

        Do you think we are as idiotic as you?

        DO YOU?

  4. Corey Robin November 14, 2014 at 12:22 pm | #

    Like everyone else who raises this issue of “why single out Israel,” DT seems to think s/he is the first person ever to raise it and that it hasn’t been dealt with a thousand times. Here is just one of my many responses to it.

    https://coreyrobin.com/2013/12/13/a-response-to-michael-kazin-on-bds-and-campus-activism/

    • DT November 14, 2014 at 2:06 pm | #

      I realize that there are a host of explanations as to why the BDS movement’s focus on Israel and Israel alone does not represent a double standard. In fact, I’ve analyzed those reasons in detail at http://divestthis.com/2009/10/the-bds-double-standard.html and http://divestthis.com/2009/10/unpacking-the-pacbi-excuse.html.

      I understand that we are destined to cycle through these set of reasons for all time. But I would like to suggest that there may be another, simpler and more obvious reason why Palestinians get so much more attention than Tibetans and Kurds.

      For the last time I checked, there were not 24 Tibetan nations, or 24 Kurdish nations that controlled half the world’s oil reserves. Nor do Tibetans and Kurds represent the world’s worst human rights abusers (an accurate characterization of Israel’s neighbors) who want to keep the human rights spotlight permanently focused on their enemy and off of themselves.

      So, perhaps the reason why proponents of BDS have hitched their wagon to the agenda of the most reactionary regimes on the face of the earth is simply the desire to embrace Goliath while simultaneously patting themselves on the back as the reincarnation of Gandhi.

      • J. Otto Pohl November 14, 2014 at 2:11 pm | #

        “…the world’s worst human rights abusers (an accurate characterization of Israel’s neighbors)…”

        Wait you are claiming that Lebanon has a worse human rights record than North Korea, Burma, or Congo? Are you high?

      • Andrew Miller November 14, 2014 at 3:45 pm | #

        Ah, and your racism is finally in full view. There are not 24 Palestinian states; there are none. And the many political problems that face Arab nations do not in any way justify Israeli apartheid any more than the political problems in sub-Saharan Africa justified South African apartheid.

        And BDS is a movement that comes from Palestinian civil society, not from dictators like the Sauds or el-Sisi who are happy to diss Israel in public while supporting them and making deals with them behind the scenes and who are widely hated by BDS supporters.

      • DT November 14, 2014 at 4:24 pm | #

        Andrew – Wasn’t it just a few posts ago that you declared accusations of anti-Semitism (which I didn’t make, BTW) as a “smear” that could not “possibly be more uncivil or less conducive to the free, respectful exchange of ideas?” And yet here you are throwing around accusations of “racism” with all abandon in order to shut down criticism. So once again, we see that BDS accusations against Israel and its supporters are just a reflection of the boycotter’s own principles and tactics.

        I’ve already said my piece above (and at http://divestthis.com/2009/10/unpacking-the-pacbi-excuse.html) regarding the Palestinian civil society excuse for BDS double standards. To which I’ll only add that the reason the United Nations devotes 3/4 of its condemnations to one country and one country only (guess which one) has something to do with those states you claim have nothing to do with the movement you support, not the behavior of a “Palestinian civil society” they could not care any less about than you do.

      • Andrew Miller November 14, 2014 at 4:40 pm | #

        “Wasn’t it just a few posts ago that you declared accusations of anti-Semitism (which I didn’t make, BTW)”

        You didn’t make any accusations of anti-semitism? Wow, the chutzpah on this one!

        “And yet here you are throwing around accusations of “racism” with all abandon in order to shut down criticism. ”

        You were attempting to justify Israeli apartheid by removing any agency from Palestinians and portraying them as just a part of a faceless Arab horde. There is a long history of this kind of racist discourse in Zionism. And never mind the fact that you’re more concerned about Israeli academics facing minor semantic juggling than you are about blatantly racist policies which rob Palestinian students and academics of their academic rights. But in the name of civility, I retract my accusation of racism and settle instead on your argument being dishonest and inane.

        “To which I’ll only add that the reason the United Nations devotes 3/4 of its condemnations to one country and one country only (guess which one) has something to do with those states you claim have nothing to do with the movement you support, not the behavior of a “Palestinian civil society” they could not care any less about than you do.”

        1) Political theater in the UN has nothing to do with the grass-roots BDS movement. Stop being dishonest.
        2) My guess is that the large number of toothless UN condemnations of Israel has more to do with the impunity that the US has given Israel through veto after veto of any meaningful resolution which would pressure Israel into modifying its behavior than it has to do with any of your half-baked conspiracy theories.

      • DT November 16, 2014 at 12:06 pm | #

        Andrew – I think I’ve identified the source of your confusion.

        While I may have brought up antisemitism in one hypothetical example (when I asked what ground ASA supporters would have to stand on if someone decided to boycott them due to accusations of AS), you seem to see actual accusations of AS on my part far beyond that. Similarly, when I asked if the rules set by ASA means that any academic is free to boycott the academics of any other country due to the behavior of the governments of those country, you (and others) have chosen to see that question as part of a “hierarchy of human-rights violators” argument that boils down to claims that you cannot criticize (or boycott) Israel before you take on far worse human rights abusers.

        While both of those arguments are legitimate, I did not make them for the very reason that they tend to trigger pre-digested talking points on the part of BDS supporters (which may explain why they claim that accusations of antisemitism and human rights hypocrisy is all they ever face).

        So, in this case, only your accusations of racism directed at anyone who mentions that Arab states of the Arab league (a name of their own choosing, BTW) to perpetuate the Arab-Israel conflict (including the Jewish-Palestinian component of that conflict) represent the kind of wild and reckless behavior directed against anyone who disagrees with your political opinions.

      • DT November 16, 2014 at 12:13 pm | #

        Continuing that last thought, I don’t think I have ever eliminated Palestinian agency in any discussion I’ve had about the Arab-Israeli conflict. After all, the Palestinians chose to throw their lot in with the Nazis during World War II, with the Soviets during the Cold War and with Saddam Hussein during the first Gulf War (decisions that cost their people dearly each time). Similarly, they have had agency when they chose to reject one peace offer after another (including offers that would give them things they can only dream about today) or when they threw their lot in with Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia and now Iran – rather than seek a negotiated peace.

        In fact, it seems as if it is you who treats Palestinians not as actors, but as a faceless mass of pristine victims who have no existence or agency outside of acting as the victims in a Passion Play that casts them in the role of Christ with Israel as Pilate.

        While I would never accuse someone of “racism” for treating Palestinians in such a way, such behavior provides an other example of how accusations directed against Israel and its supporters tend to say a lot more about the accusers than the accused.

      • DT November 16, 2014 at 12:18 pm | #

        Whoops! I just realized that your last posting actually “generously” retracted accusations of racism replacing them simply with accusations of dishonesty and inanity. (I guess that’s what happens when you let a couple of days go by before responding.)

        In which case, I retract my claim that your treatment of the Palestinians as a faceless, agency-less hoard of victims represents that accusations of racism actually reflect the boycotter’s own soul. But for dishonesty and inanity, I stick by my assertion that the general pattern we see in most debates of this type boils down to Israel haters accusing their opponents of their own sins.

    • DT November 14, 2014 at 2:18 pm | #

      J. Otto – Not yet.

      I’m simply pointing out that Syria, Saudi Arabia and every one of Israel’s neighbors (including Lebanon) taken together (1) make up the most brutal, racist, sexist, homophobic, reactionary nations on the face of the earth; (2) are all in full agreement that the only human rights discussion allowed is the one ASA has also decided is the only one they will discuss or act on; and (3) have been onboard the BDS bandwagon since the first Arab boycotts of Israel in the 1920s.

      • J. Otto Pohl November 14, 2014 at 2:31 pm | #

        Well since I am a reactionary their political orientation away from zionism and other forms of socialism does not bother me in the least. But, I have been to Lebanon and while not perfect it is hardly one of the most brutal or racist regimes “on the face of the earth.” It certainly is far less racist and brutal than Israel.

      • DT November 14, 2014 at 2:57 pm | #

        I’ve heard it’s lovely.

        Perchance, did you get to enjoy the Hezbollah float during this year’s gay pride parade in downtown Beirut? (Whoops! There I go “pinkwashing” again – silly me!)

    • DT November 14, 2014 at 3:07 pm | #

      Corey – Love you choice of theme, BTW.

      • thom prentice November 14, 2014 at 4:09 pm | #

        I am given to understand that DT means “Delirium Tremens” and couldn’t agree more — particularly after clicking on DT’s link to find myself within a stupefyingly infantile, juvenile, peurile — indeed fetal — textbook case of world class arrested developmental narcissisistic personality disorder in an alleged adult. Check it out your own selves…

      • DT November 14, 2014 at 4:27 pm | #

        Gosh Thom – What a cogent and fact-filled argument! If this is the best you’ve got, it’s no wonder BDS has barely managed to get a dozen student governments to do its bidding after a decade of trying to bring the Israeli economy to its knees.

        Perhaps you should just go back to shaking your fist at “Judah” and leave this conversation to those of us who can complete a coherent thought.

      • thom prentice November 14, 2014 at 5:20 pm | #

        I am given to understand that DT means “Delirium Tremens” and couldn’t agree more — particularly after clicking on DT’s link to find myself within a stupefyingly infantile, juvenile, peurile — indeed fetal — textbook case of world class arrested developmental narcissisistic personality disorder in an alleged adult. Check it out your own selves…

  5. Angela Horne November 14, 2014 at 4:43 pm | #

    Israel’s side of the story …

    • Rodney Watts November 16, 2014 at 4:12 pm | #

      Hello Angela (and Corey)

      I saw this hasbara video some time ago in the UK when it was aired by God TV and/or Revelation TV around the time of operation protective edge. Both of the TV channels are basically supportive of Christian zionism, though in fairness to Revelation TV they had had a debate on the Christian understanding of Israel from a biblical perspective about a year earlier. The anti-zionist speaker was Rev Dr. Stephen Sizer
      ( http://www.stephensizer.blogspot.co.uk and http://www.stephensizer.com where you can find details of his excellent books)

      Now your video ref. could be seen as a little tangential to the core considerations of why ASA should support an academic boycott, but it has spurred me to comment, for the first time since being drawn to this blog through the terrible plight of Stephen Salaita. I am a 74 year old retired academic biochemist, pedagogue, and political activist among other things. In the 1960s I was active in the anti-apartheid and other race relations movements in the UK. I also was pleased to support Israel and by the way team up with a Jewish student friend to earn a few bucks singing ‘Erev shel shoshanim’ and other songs.

      Memories of those days were shared when a number of us met up for a 50th year or so anniversary of our graduations. We remembered the early efforts that were made to introduce boycotts; Brian Piper told of mentoring a young Desmond Tutu and in our company was Prof. Jairam Reddy, who was tasked by Nelson Mandela to restructure higher education. We also remembered friends and acquaintances who had opted for the ‘terrorist’ route because of the frustration and lack of hope with the political process.

      I see so many parallels today– in any society where freedom and justice are denied then violence results– yes, in my understanding of the teachings of Jesus I cannot condone violence, but I understand. Angela, I became an anti-zionist about thirty years ago after really reading the Torah, The Prophets and of course the teachings of Jesus.
      Yes God gave the Hebrews land under covenant, with major conditions, and Israel in 1948 was founded legally– even though Jewish terrorists had contributed, and often conveniently forgotten today. In no way do I see Israel obeying God’s conditions.

      I remember that though it took about 30 years to see the end of apartheid it was largely through moral BDS–academic and economic. Sadly Israel/Palestine is far worse a situation, and I pray for a real shalom for all Jewish and Palestinian people and the legitimate state of Israel.

      Kindest of regards Rodney

      • Edward November 17, 2014 at 3:34 am | #

        How was Israel “founded legally”?

        • Rodney Watts November 17, 2014 at 6:01 pm | #

          Hi Edward

          I must say I was a bit surprised at your question, because although resolution 181(II), passed by the UN GA on 29 Nov 1947 has still not been fully implemented it has been confirmed by the ICJ in 2004 as being the legal basis for the state of Israel AND a state of Palestine.

          I know Britain abstained in the UN vote (33 for, 13 against, 10 abst., 1 absent), and indeed various British governments from the Balfour Declaration in 1917, through League of Nations Mandate in 1922, various commission reports and to the end of mandate in May 1948 changed their views on partition v. binational state from time to time. However, Britain did give de jure recognition to the State of Israel, within the borders pertaining at the time, on 27 April 1950. Truman had, of course, given de facto recognition within a few days of Ben Gurion’s declaration of statehood in 1948 due to zionist pressure and even Russia gave de jure recognition early on.

      • Edward November 18, 2014 at 6:11 am | #

        Hi Rodney,

        UN Resolution 181 was a non-binding general assembly resolution. It has no legal force. In any case, the Palestinians were not members of the UN, were carefully excluded from having any say in this resolution, and did not consent to this process. The UN does not have the legal authority to take territory away from one group of people and grant it to another. They could not, for example, declare Briton a Palestinian state and order the British to leave, at least not legally. The Arab governments challenged the legality of the UN decision with the world court but didn’t succeed in canceling the resolution.

        • Rodney Watts November 18, 2014 at 6:22 pm | #

          Hi again Edward!

          You are absolutely right that resolution 181 was non-binding, that the Arabs did not support it and that the Palestinians were not members of the UN. I would also add that Israel was not even in existence, let alone a UN member in 1947! You are also correct that the UN cannot take territory away from one group and give to another. However you are wrong ( or at least you profoundly disagree with the 14 judges at the International Court of Justice in 2004) to say that the legal BASIS for both Palestinian and Israeli states did not lie in res.181.

          Now you may be a bit surprised that zionist Eli E Hertz of mythsandfacts.org says exactly the same as you about res. 181 in his critique of the ICJ advisory -see the summary
          http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1677.pdf If you remember, legal advice was requested by the UN GA concerning the ‘security wall’ that Israel had built and its legality. I am sure you totally agree with their conclusions that the wall and the settlements in occupied Palestine were illegal and should be removed. Mr Hertz thinks otherwise in his advice concerning American attitudes to Israel.

          One last thing Edward WRT legality of the state of Israel: it fulfills the requirements under international law as set out in the 1933 Montevideo Convention, whether we like it or not.
          The only area of fuzziness concerns the borders.

          All the best Rodney

      • Edward November 19, 2014 at 10:23 am | #

        Rodney, thanks for the clarification. I was not aware of the ICJ ruling on res. 181 or the Montevideo Convention. It does not surprise me that the court refers to 181 in its decision, given its widespread acceptance. All the same I consider the resolution illegal even if it ends up forming the basis of a settlement between Israelis and Palestinians as a practical matter. A “legal basis” and “legal” are not necessarily the same thing.

        The legal rights of Palestinians have been ignored since WWI which complicates the legal issues. Which rights or laws will the “international community” ignore and which ones will it insist on? A recent example of this ambivalence is the decision of the ICC not to prosecute Israel over its attack on a Gaza flotilla, although it declares the attack a war crime.

        best,

        Edward

    • thom prentice November 16, 2014 at 5:33 pm | #

      AIPAC/Zionist/Likud/Netanyahu/Apartheid/Auschwitzia-in-Gaza-and-West-Bank Israel does not HAVE a side of the story any longer.

  6. louisproyect November 17, 2014 at 9:14 am | #

    Disappointing to hear that Slotkin opposes BDS. I owned a couple of his books. But then again I owned Nelson’s “tenured” radical book.

Leave a Reply