Thursday, February 2, 2012

Pro-Israel and Pro-BDS

Students at the University of Pennsylvania are hosting this weekend the BDS (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions) Movement’s National Convention. May I take this occasion to wish the speakers and organizers a good conference, with a healthy debate on issues surrounding BDS. This is a wonderful opportunity for the speakers to explain more about global BDS, a non-violent Palestinian movement that includes  Israeli Jews, non-Israeli Jews, and non-Jews.

I have written here and here about the global BDS movement. I have expressed solidarity with that movement, and I have argued that liberal Zionists should boycott the settlements and their products, and companies that make money off the Occupation.  But I do want to consider two  questions that have been raised in conjunction with the Penn conference.

Question One: Is the BDS movement anti-Israel?

Is the BDS movement anti-Israel? Jews are said to like answering questions with questions, and so I ask, “Was the BDS movement against apartheid anti-South African?” The answer to that question depends on whom you ask. For many whites and most Afrikaners, and the South African government at the time, the answer was a resounding yes.  For them, apartheid was an essential part of the South African regime. Dismantle apartheid, and the country, no matter what it’s name, would never be the same. Yet it was possible for those who opposed apartheid to contemplate a better place for all South Africans, blacks, whites, and colored. For them the BDS movement against apartheid was not anti-South African.

The global BDS movement today has adopted three tenets: a) “ending the occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling” the separation barrier; b) granting full civil rights and equality to the Arab minority within Israel, and c)  “respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194.  The three tenets correspond to the three main population sectors of the Palestinians. Since there is no tenet calling for the abolition of the State of Israel, or its transformation into one state, I conclude that supporters of BDS are as anti-Israel as supporters of BDS in South Africa were anti-South African. Both groups wanted to bring about fundamental changes in their respective societies. To be sure, there are differences; the Palestinians in the occupied territories and the Palestinian diaspora don’t view themselves as Israelis. But no  matter – what is at stake in these three tenets is not the existence of the State of Israel, but its compliance with international law and UN resolutions.

Question Two: Doesn’t BDS hurt Palestinians? 

The Palestinian economy is inextricably linked to the Israeli economy, and for good reason. Israel’s aim has always been to control the Palestinians economically and to use them as cheap labor (when possible) and as markets for their products. The Israelis  have done their best to prevent true economic Palestinian independence so as to thwart the possibility of real competition. But they have also been interested in improving the conditions of Palestinians in Areas A and B (not in Area C, where they are interested in restricting their development) on the reasonable ground that that is in Israel’s best interest – so that the Palestinians will have something to lose from fighting for the independence. And also because Israelis don’t have any particular animus against the Palestinians; they just want control of their land and resources.

From time immemorial, Imperialism has argued that empires bring civilization and economic prosperity to the natives, and that the latter is more important than freedom and independence. One of the most stunning examples of the imperialist mentality appeared a few days ago in the Daily Pennsylvanian by a Mr. Dov Hoch, the president of the Penn club in Israel.  In Mr. Hoch’s article, “Why We Should Invest and not Divest” , Mr. Hoch urged BDS supporters not to “burn your neighbor’s house despite the fact that you live in connected structures.” He did not explain why disinvestment in, say, Caterpillar, would cripple the Palestinian economy.

In fact, Mr. Hoch apparently knows nothing about the BDS movement, which targets companies that benefit from the Occupation. He also doesn’t know, or doesn’t wish to mention,  that the much praised (in the West) nation-builder, Palestinian Prime Minister, Salam Fayyad, supports the boycott of the settlement goods. From the perspective of the typified Anglo colony in Ra’anana, Mr. Hoch can urge Palestinian American Penn Students to

Come and live in the West Bank and Gaza, joining the 5000 Ivy League alumni living in Israel and the tens of thousands of U.S.-educated Americans who moved to Israel and contribute richly to the economy.

One of the speakers at the BDS conference is the Palestinian American Penn alumnus, Ahmed Moor. The last time I saw Ahmed, he was being tear-gassed at a protest at Bil’in. Perhaps Mr. Hoch, with his powerful contacts in the PA, can arrange for Ahmed to purchase a villa in Efrat. Or he can join former Yale professor, Mazin Qumsiyeh, in Walajeh, the village that Israel has turned into a ghetto.

Despite the mixture of genuine good will and condescension that typifies the enlightened colonialist, it would be wrong to dismiss Mr. Hoch or his point. For one thing, it is important to find serious investors in the Palestinian economy. For another, sanctions against Israel will hurt the Palestinians, and it will hurt them more than the Israelis.

In 1990, when the question of divestment from South African raged at MIT, a student wrote a letter to The Tech arguing against divestment:

Assume, for argument's sake, that MIT divestment did not result in a transfer of ownership but instead was an impetus for the disinvestment of the affected companies. Ignoring, for the moment, the effects on the US and world economy, what would happen in South Africa? Unfortunately, the black population would be the hardest hit. They would lose employment that offers them integrated facilities, equal pay for equal work, extensive training programs, housing assistance and education. Unlike their South African counterparts, American corporations address the single most important need for all South African blacks -- a quality education….

I should hasten to point out that this student was an opponent of apartheid. She simply felt that the tactic was too harsh and would hurt South African blacks. And, indeed, she had a good point. Factories closed, putting black people out of work.

And yet Nelson Mandela supported divestment. And while the role of the divestment campaign in the ultimate dismantling of apartheid has been debated, nobody questions that the international focus on South Africa ultimately helped lead to change.

I am not in favor of sanctions that will constitute severe collective punishment against Israeli public, just as I am not in favor of sanctions against the people of Iran,The Global BDS movement’s attempt to bring sanctions against a serial violator of human rights is of a different order altogether. But, as an Israeli, I am indeed prepare to suffer such sanctions if the price to pay for them is the end of the Occupation and Palestinian independence. Of course, I cannot speak to how much suffering Palestinians are willing to endure.  Were sanctions against Israel to bite, I am sure that Palestinians, being human, would disagree on these issues.

But what I would ask Mr. Hoch and others is – how much suffering are they willing to endure for the political and economic independence of Israel? In his article he advises BDS-ers to “throw out their IPhones – Apple just bought an Israeli company?”

Would he throw out his IPhone to end a sixty-year occupation of the State of Israel? Would he be prepared to endure more serious economic hardship?

Would he be prepared to take up arms against the occupiers?

13 comments:

pabelmont said...

I am not surprised that Jerry is not in favor of sanctions aimed at the broad Israeli public. He is an Israeli. Also, perhaps he believes that Israel -- like the USA -- is essentially governed by oligarchs and its so-called democracy pretty much a myth. If so, this would explain his disinclination to see the greater public harmed for the deeds of a government they do not control.

I, however, believe that even a bad democracy -- I do not say that Israel is such -- has power to change government policy. If BDS aimed at all Israeli businesses and were to grow in power to the point that it really hurt the Israeli economy -- why, in that case, Israeli citizens would face a choice which they do not face today. They would face the choice between deprivation-by-BDS, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, territorial aggrandizement and populational exclusiveness.

I would like Israelis to face this choice, because until they do, it appears that they will allow their government to persevere in its policy of no-return (for Palestinian exiles of 1948 and 1967) and usurpation of the 22% of Palestine which the PLO in 1988 indicated a willingness to accept in full adjustment of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Jerry Haber said...

Pabelmont, you misunderstood me. I wrote:

"I am not in favor of sanctions that will constitute severe collective punishment against the Israeli public"

That is not the same thing as what you wrote, which is

"I am not surprised that Jerry is not in favor of sanctions aimed at the broad Israeli public'

I am opposed to placing sanctions against Israel of the sort contemplated against Iran, which is what I call "severe collective punishment." But, as I went on to write, I would be willing to suffer the consequences of non-crippling sanctions -- and I think that these would be effective -- against the broad Israeli public, and not just against the settlements.

Like you, I think highly enough of the Israeli public that I believe that sanctions would indeed launch a more serious debate about the price of the occupation. And there are other Israelis who agree with me.

But lets start at the very beginning, a very nice place to start.

Jerry Haber said...

I hope I made it clear that I am opposed to crippling sanctions against Iran.

pabelmont said...

Jerry, Thanks very much for the clarification. Sorry I did not read carefully enough.

Gradualism is the essence of civil sanctions so that they may start small and get stronger as time passes (assuming that to the sanctioneers they appear to have insufficient effect) so that what starts as (mere) sanctions might develop over time into "severe collective punishment". But, of course, civil BDS cannot but start as "mere" sanctions. Perhaps this is fortunate.

There is an essay at MondoWeiss that touches on the subject of privilege.

Right now, Israeli Jews are enormously privileged as compared to Palestinians and have developed the usual failure-to-sympathize that privilege usually generates. A carefully nurtured national psychosis of fear abets this, of course.

One might hope that BDS well short of "severe collective punishment" might -- gently -- alert broad Israeli society to the need to become sensitive to the effects of their acts on others less privileged, and persuade them to renounce the worst of the privilege in favor of peace and justice -- as more or less happened in the USA in the 1960s (white privilege w.r.t. black) and in South Africa later (ditto).

AIG said...

Jerry,

To 99% of Israelis it is clear that accepting the third goal of the BDS movement:

c) “respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194.

is equivalent to wanting to bring about the end of Israel and the whole idea of a Jewish state.

Jerry Haber said...

AIG,

Good point. Do you think that the Israelis would agree to the repatriation of 1 million refugees?

What would be the threat to the character of the state if that were to come to pass?

How would it be less Jewish and democratic?

Do the math, and let me know your answer.

AIG said...

Jerry,

Where did you get the 1 million number? The number of "refugees" (as defined by the UN) is around 7 million.

And yes, 1 million refugees would make Israel much less Jewish. That is before considering practical issues like building houses and schools for all those people. Furthermore, for years to come the refugees will be a huge burden on the tax paying middle class just like many Arabs and Haredim are today.

Just look around you and sense the sectarian tensions that lurk under the ground in the Arab countries that neighbor Israel. What you want is to exacerbate the same kind of tensions inside Israel. You want to allow 1 million poor and on average much less educated people into a country in which they do not speak the main language and in which they will be an underclass for many generations. What is the unemployment rate you expect in the ex-refugee population?

Plus, there is the racism, disdain and in many cases hatred on both sides that will linger for generations. Put it all together, and 1 million refugees is the end of a stable and prosperous Israel.

Jerry Haber said...

AIG

Good, we're negotiating.

Nobody, but nobody says that 7 million Palestinians even want to return to Palestine as citizens of Israel. Been in Detroit, lately? Seen any polls about where Palestinians want to go?

The idea is that first, Israel recognizes that the Palestinian refugees have the right to choose where they want to live, and that choice includes the State of Israel, and second, a way is worked out that will be amenable to all sides in turns of absorbing -- as fully equal citizens, refugees, in accordance with Resolution 194.

Second, I picked "1 million" based on polls, but also because I knew you wouldn't accept even 1 million. You wouldn't accept the Palestinians, despite the fact that 1 million Palestinians would not change the political equation of Arabs in the State of Israel, that Arabs, who are 20% now and have no political clout, would be 33% and would still have no political clout.

Still, you didn't take the bait of the demographic argument, and I am grateful for that. Instead, you offered rational arguments about "increased ethnic tensions" and "forming an underclass" Those are good arguments, albeit arguments that never stopped aliyah before. I certainly believe that Israel should learn from its mistakes, and stop bringing Russian Jews, Ethiopian Jews, and American Jews (think of the tensions in Beit Shemesh) because of the inevitable ethnic tensions.

But here is another solution.

The absorption of the Arab returnees, as part of a historic reconciliation, would not be done begrudgingly, but would become a project of national importance. Schools would be built (imagine -- teaching Hebrew to people who are ignorant of the language --- what a concept!), as well as affordable housing, jobs would be created, all in the name of *Jewish* national values.

Unlike the absorption of the Russians, this project would occur gradually, over 15 or 20 years -- yes, there would be a yearly quota -- and, not all the immigrants would be poor and uneducated (Guess you were not a big fan of Emma Lazarus, were you?) Some would be like my friend Sam Bahour, the Palestinian American businessman. You'd be surprised to learn how many there are of those.

The new immigrants would not be an underclass because they would be part of a country that celebrates the return of its native sons and daughters in the spirit of reconciliation. Yes, inevitably there would be ethnic tensions, just as there still are in South Africa, and Jews would not have the same privileges they had in the ancien regime. But, entre nous, they would still have plenty of privileges and power. S.v. South Africa.

The new State of Israel would forge an Israeli identity that incorporates Jewish and Palestinian Arab culural motifs: homeland, exile, return, diaspora. It would be a Jewish state, a Palestinian state, and an Abrahamic state. There would be religious coalitions between orthodox Jews and Muslims who are united in conservative, religious values

Jerry Haber said...

If Israel is a stable and prosperous nation, as you say it is, then that stability and prosperity has been won at the expense of a) reducing natives to second-class citizens with only token political power; b) controlling the land and resources of millions without according them citizen rights; c) expelling the majority of the natives in 1947, 48, and 67 from their homes, and shooting at those trying to return.

It is not just that the Zionist settlers lied to the world when they said, before the declaration of the state, that a Jewish state would not be to the detriment of the native Palestinians, or that the majority of the natives were not be adverse to living in the Jewish state, or that not a single Palestinian Arab would be forced to leave a state.

It is more that the "ethnic homogeneity" which has brought "stability and prosperity" to Jews, and infringement of rights to Palestinians, has increasingly become noxious in the world to all but the center right.

Let us not forget how stable and prosperous South Africa was -- before the world turned on it with sanctions.

Israel is riding high now, but the price it will pay, and has paid, is getting higher.

AIG said...

Jerry,

When it comes to how the future will unfold we have a fundamental disagreement.

Let me start with this statement of yours:
"The absorption of the Arab returnees, as part of a historic reconciliation, would not be done begrudgingly, but would become a project of national importance."

Since we agree that 99% of Israelis are against this, how will this be ever done NOT begrudgingly? Israelis would have to be coerced to agree to such a project and will resent it from the very beginning.

"You'd be surprised to learn how many there are of those."

If you have hard data kindly surprise me. Otherwise, based on what are you making this assertion? It is clear that the refugees that will choose to move to Israel will mostly be the most poor and the unemployed. People who have good jobs and whose kids are getting a good education do not move their families so easily, especially into a situation that can easily deteriorate into a civil war.

"The new immigrants would not be an underclass because they would be part of a country that celebrates the return of its native sons and daughters in the spirit of reconciliation."

Who will celebrate this, certainly not the Jews. Again you are counting on some miraculous change of mind. How exactly is it going to happen? And even if this were celebrated, they would be an underclass, just like the Mizrahi Jews were and to a certain extent still are.

"Guess you were not a big fan of Emma Lazarus, were you?"

When Israel is as big and as empty as the US, I would be a fan of Lazarus. Americans would be singing a different song if their country was the size of two counties in Texas with one county being a desert.

AIG said...

"If Israel is a stable and prosperous nation, as you say it is, then that stability and prosperity has been won at the expense of a) reducing natives to second-class citizens with only token political power; b) controlling the land and resources of millions without according them citizen rights; c) expelling the majority of the natives in 1947, 48, and 67 from their homes, and shooting at those trying to return."

Let's assume the above is true for the sake of argument. So what follows from that? Why would I want destabilize my country and put at risk the prosperity of my children to fix these ills? What makes them more important than the future and well being of my children? My kids are not to blame for previous generation's mistakes and should not pay the price by being part of dubious social experiments.

"Let us not forget how stable and prosperous South Africa was -- before the world turned on it with sanctions."

So it is sanctions that are going to make Israelis enthusiastic about integrating millions of Palestinian refugees? I don't think so.

And how is SA, the murder and rape champion of the world an example for anything? You do realize people there are only safe living behind fences in gated communities just like the settlers in the West Bank? Is this what you want for Israel?

"Israel is riding high now, but the price it will pay, and has paid, is getting higher."

Doom and gloom will get you nowhere. So far the Arab Spring has shown how wise Israel's decisions have been. If Israel's decisions have been so bad, why is it riding high?

Yo Mo said...

Tenet three of BDS is the call for return of refugees. If this occurred it would potentially lead to an Israel with an Arab/Muslim majority which would still be "Israel" in name, true. If Italy changed its name it would still be the same nation, but it would not be if its population was replaced by, say, French people. It is disingenuous to say BDS is not an (implicit) call for dismantling Israel.

Jerry Haber said...

Yomo
Why would several million Israellis leave Israel? because they are racist and can't stand Arabs? Didnt Ben Gurion accept a state in1947 with a 40 per cent Arab minority? that would mean the return of several million refugees.

Tell you what. Would you be willing to cap it at a million? that would leave their percentage of the population around 28 per cent?