For members of the Park Slope Food Coop:
to inform and educate on why the BDS movement is wrong. Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions really means Bigotry, Dishonesty, anti-Semitism
Today I attended the Celebrate Israel Parade in New York City. It was wonderful and uplifting. I spend far too much time reading all the horrible things the Israel-haters and the Jew-haters say. Today was a day for sharing with the tens of thousands who support Israel. You could feel the love. Here are a few pictures I took. I tried to get the unusual or the interesting.
I love seeing the flags waving as the marchers carry them up Fifth Avenue. The United States flag together with Israel's flag.
So, I tweeted:
When I see all Israeli and American flags #togetheronfifth I remember how much #BDS also hates America.
— Barbara Mazor (@StopBDS_PSFC) June 2, 2013
In addition to the synagogues, federations and Jewish schools, I saw this group "Christians and Churches of NYC"
These dancers are part of a Cyrus-Israel friendship group:
Hey, look at that camel on Fifth Avenue!
In your face, QAIA. LGBT Jews and Allies Celebrate Israel.
If you do any kind of Israel advocacy reading on the internet, you will eventually stumble upon the remarkable efforts of Adam Levick and others at CiF Watch. CiF refers to "Comment is Free," the website of the British leftist newspaper The Guardian. If you think the things that were written in the Park Slope Food Coop were bad, they are nothing compared to what is regularly said in the United Kingdoms.
One of the most frustrating things about opposing BDS is that the people who support it see themselves as progressives. If you point out that their position is inherently anti-Semitic, they deny anti-Semitism saying "criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic" and accuse you of trying to stifle debate. They truly don't see themselves as anti-Semitic and actually get quite irritated when you suggest anti-Semitism.
Even though the U.S. State Department has a definition of anti-Semitism, the editors of the Linewaiters' Gazette - the biweekly newspaper of the Park Slope Food Coop - seem to be unable to make the distinction, and recognize when their own editorial guidelines have been crossed. But it is hard to fault them. It is a volunteer job and they shouldn't be expected to be experts on the Middle East.
Fortunately, for the sake of anyone who doesn't want to be anti-Semitic, Adam Levick has created this handy guide of 10 common pseudo-progressive, hypocritical tropes that come from the left when discussing Israel. Here is his list, and I can illustrate an instance of every single one of these from either letters in the Linewaiters Gazette, statements on the PSFC-BDS website or things said in the Coop. Maybe I will even have the time to do it one day.
You claim to condemn racism at every opportunity yet are strangely silent or seriously downplay even the
most egregious examples of antisemitic violence.
You condemn the Holocaust yet also obsessively condemn living Jews for their alleged ‘inhumanity’ and even argue that Jews haven’t learned the proper lessons from the attempt to annihilate their co-religionists from the planet.
You champion diversity and multiculturalism of all kinds, yet suggest that Jewish particularism represents an inherently tribal, ethnocentric and racist identity.
Sometimes they say "The Food Coop is inherently political." Sometimes they say "Food is inherently political." They will say it as a justification for promoting and seeking Coop endorsement of a particular cause.
But is such a statement true? Indeed, does it even have any meaning?
The definition of inherent: "Existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute."
The definition of political: "Of or relating to the ideas or strategies of a particular party or group in politics. Having or influenced by partisan interests."
Can food have a partisan interest? No. Food is an essential human need.
How about the Food Coop? Well, it might have a partisan interest regarding things directly related to its operation, such as the traffic on Union Street. But is a diverse Coop membership not entitled to a diversity of views and allegiances? If the Coop is "political," then exactly which politics must it support?
The Park Slope Food Coop makes high quality food available at lower prices to anyone who is willing to put in about 30 hours of a labor a year. It also strives to purchase from local farmers and producers. And it tries to use and encourage the use of the most environmentally friendly practices.
But here comes the jump in logic. Because the Food Coop does all these things, is it also obligated to lend support to any cause that a member claims is consistent with the Coop's mission? The promoters of various causes would say "yes."
Later today, Sunday, the Food Coop is hosting an event titled "You and Your Food" described as:
The Coop is a great place for delicious, inexpensive food, and it’s also
where we can talk about the politics behind what we eat. Food
sovereignty, environmental racism, water supply threats, labor
struggles, urban agriculture initiatives, geopolitical issues,
international solidarity—these forces are inevitably mixed into what we
put on our plates. What are our opportunities and responsibilities as
New Yorkers, as consumers, and as Coop members? Come participate in a
lively and diverse discussion.
Are they to tell us we have responsibilities beyond our monthly work contribution to support their particular causes because we are Coop members and they say so?
There are differences between an interest, a privilege, a right and an obligation. Anyone can have an interest in using the Coop to promote a particular cause. However, it is a privilege, not a right to do so. The Coop is not obligated to provide its support. It is not even obligated to provide a platform. And certainly the membership is not obligated to agree.
Should the Coop allow the promotion of any cause by any member? Or should it have some criteria before allowing the use of its facilities?
Tonight's program will include an anti-fracking advocate, a labor advocate, an urban farming advocate and a sustainable food advocate. They will be sharing the panel with one of the Coop's BDS activists. The wording of the program implies the mutual endorsements of all parties.
I admit I understand very little about the economics of the health care system.
Long Island College Hospital (LICH) loses a lot of money and is being considered for closing. According to the May 3 New York Times City Room blog:
LICH is run by SUNY Downstate Medical Center, part of the State
University of New York, which has said the hospital is losing so much
money it is threatening the rest of the medical center. SUNY officials
have also noted that many of the affluent residents of northern Brooklyn
prefer to seek medical care in the more prestigious Manhattan
hospitals, leaving LICH dependent on poorer patients whose government
health insurance — if they have it — pays less than private insurance
plans.
It seems to me that hospital is being used - just not used by the "right" people. It also seems to me that a way should be found to save the hospital so that is can continue to serve Brooklyn. Apparently, the Park Slope Food Coop has put its reputation behind supporting efforts to save the hospital, as the Times reports: Park Slope Food Co-op Takes Up New Cause: Saving a Hospital. All that is good.
Now I would think a newspaper article should provide me with some relevant information so I could be informed about the issues regarding LICH. Actually, I would have had to read down 4 paragraphs until I found the one above which describes the core issue of LICH's problems.
So just how did the Israel-obsessed New York Times open the post?
"The Park Slope Food Co-op (spelled wrong by the Times) has joined the fight to save LICH," is the only relevant informations that should be in the lede. Instead, a worthy and serious cause is mocked as "a new cause célèbre." The Coop - where only 650 out 16,000 members voted in favor of the Israel boycott referendum (which was soundly defeated by our efforts one year ago) - is smeared as a bastion of support for the anti-Semitic, terrorist-sympathizing, Israel-eradicating BDS movement. The Times manages to link supporting LICH and the Coop with supporting BDS. Way to go.
If you want to be taken seriously for your community actions, then carefully consider the bedfellows you keep.
While it might be nice to say hate-speech should be excluded from the college campus, it is pretty hard to get people to agree to what constitutes hate speech. No one ever comes along and says, “Hey. I am going to rouse the crowd into hating a particular group.” One admits to engaging in “criticism” or “speaking truth to power.”
I would like to suggest what I believe to be a better, more objective rubric to be used to determine what should or shouldn’t enjoy the platform offered by the college campus or any other responsible civic organization: honesty.
A presentation should be honest in 3 ways: explicitly, implicitly and intellectually.
Explicitly honest means a presentation is factually correct. I think this is pretty straight forward.
Implicitly honest means that important context and historical information is included. Here is an example:
A team of several masked, well-armed men break into a man’s home in the middle of the night and shoot him in front of his family. As they leave, they steal his computers.
You are probably feeling one way about the victim. Now I tell you that I have just described the killing of Osama Bin Laden. Context changes everything.
Finally, intellectually honest means that conclusions and opinions are supported by the evidence, that counter evidence is not ignored, but can be explained, that cause and effect are not reversed, that correlation is not confused with causation, etc.
It seems to me this standard could be applied to any presentation, controversial or not. As far as I remember, it was the standard for scholarship back when I went to college. Maybe it could be used to determine what makes a "contribution to the intellectual life of the campus" and should be part of "the open and free exchange of ideas."
How does BDS fit into this? That is for next time.
Should "academic freedom" include hate speech? Should hate speech be permitted on the college campus? Should a college department co-sponsor hate speech? Can hate speech be a "contribution to the intellectual life of the
campus" and part of "the open and free exchange of ideas"?
“If BDS is hate speech, then it is surely not protected speech, and it would surely not be appropriate for any institution of higher learning to sponsor or make room for such speech.”
and
“So in the first case [BDS as hate speech], it is not a viewpoint (and so not protected as extra-mural speech),”
Butler excludes hate speech from not only from college sponsorship, but even from use of the college facilities.
On the other hand, Abe Foxman of ADL, in a paid advertisement on the New York Times Op-Ed page, insists "even hate-filled
voices have a right to be heard." Foxman does not object to a student group hosting BDS, but rather to the Political Science Department adding its co-sponsorship. Foxman objects to sponsorship "because it inherently creates the
perception that the views expressed at the event
are endorsed by the sponsor." Sponsorship gives the event "an added degree of legitimacy and credibility
that is unwarranted." So, Foxman offers a resolution:
First, students have a
right to invite whom they want. Second, officials of the
university, however, should not lend the good name of
the university to such hate by sponsoring or giving its
seal of approval to such appearances.
And third, when students invite hateful speakers—
which they have the right to do—university presidents
would do well to use their bully pulpits to reject those
messages of hate and anti-Semitism.
Both agree the college should not endorse hate speech. Butler would even exclude a student group from using college facilities for a hate event, whereas Foxman would permit it.
Of course, this doesn't resolve the question of how to identify hate speech. That is for next time.
In a week when more than 1200 people were killed in the Syrian Civil War and at least 25 people were killed in Iraq in the 7th and 8th suicide terror attacks there since the beginning of the year, it seems an inordinate amount of media attention was focused on the speaking engagement of Omar Barghouti and Judith Butler at Brooklyn College. Controversy erupted when it became known that the college's Political Science Department signed on as a co-sponsor of the student organized event to promote the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Movement against Israel.
“I am not opposed to students sponsoring an event like this. Students
have the right to be foolish and damn fools and immoral. What I’m
opposed to is the political department sponsoring and endorsing the BDS.
The BDS includes the blacklisting of Jewish professors from Israel, and
that’s illegal, immoral and racist. An academic department should not
be taking sides in this debate.”
"Last month the political-science department at Brooklyn College, which I
chair, was asked to either cosponsor or endorse a panel discussion on
the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement organized by a
student group, Students for Justice in Palestine. We decided to
cosponsor the event....
Is it inappropriate for an academic department to be a co-sponsor? Professor Currah answers:
The department has a long
history of cosponsoring student-initiated events, regardless of the
popularity of the perspectives presented or its perceived political
message. Until now no one has found fault with this practice....
By cosponsoring student-initiated events, we’re not endorsing the
ideas expressed.We’re not providing money. What we are doing is
acknowledging students’ contributions to the intellectual life of the
campus and supporting the open and free exchange of ideas.
And there’s no political litmus test. In my 18 years at Brooklyn
College, I cannot recollect our department turning down a single
cosponsorship request.
No endorsement.
Local politicians weighed in, as well. The opinions on the event varied: cancel the event, withdraw the cosponsorship, provide an opposing view, don't interefere with academic freedom. But, ALL condemned the BDS movement.
Well look, I couldn’t disagree more violently
with BDS as they call it, Boycott Divestment and Sanctions. As you know I’m a
big supporter of Israel, as big a one as you can find in the city, but I could
also not agree more strongly with an academic department’s right to sponsor a
forum on any topic that they choose.
We collectively believe that the BDS movement is a wrongheaded and
destructive one, and an obstacle to our collective hope for a peaceful
two-state solution. These simplistic and one-sided approaches do a
disservice to the cause of peace and stability by unfairly placing blame
entirely on one side, and by attempting to delegitimize one party on
the world stage, and will do nothing to bring either party back to
earnest negotiations or enhance a better understand of complexity of
this conflict.
Finally, to those who have voiced concern that our decision to uphold
the rights of our students and faculty signals an endorsement of the
speakers' views, I say again that nothing could be further from the
truth. Moreover, I assure you that our college does not endorse the BDS
movement nor support its call for boycott, divestment, and sanctions
against Israel. As the official host of the CUNY center for study
abroad in Israel, our college has a proud history of engagement with
Israel and Israeli universities. In fact, over the past two years we
have renewed our efforts to reconnect with existing institutional
partners and to develop new relationships as well for faculty and
student exchanges with Israeli institutions. We deeply value our
Israeli partners and would not endorse any action that would imperil the
State of Israel or its citizens, many of whom are family members and
friends of our students, faculty, staff, alumni, and neighbors.
"I personally abhor and am appalled by the aims of the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement."
There is one ironic footnote, however. President Gould stated in her letter:
...it is essential that Brooklyn College remain an
engaged and civil learning environment where all views may be expressed
without fear of intimidation or reprisal. As I stated last week, we
encourage debate, discussion, and more debate. Students and faculty
should explore these and other issues from multiple viewpoints and in a
variety of forums so that no single perspective serves as the only basis
for consideration. ...
...In addition to
Thursday evening's event, at which I encourage those with opposing
views to participate in the discussion and ask tough questions, other
forums will present alternative perspectives for consideration. The
college welcomes participation from any groups on our campus that may
wish to help broaden the dialogue. At each of these events, please keep
in mind that students, faculty, staff, and guests are expected to treat
one another with respect at all times, even when they strongly
disagree.
According to reports in the New York Daily News and Tablet Magazine some Jewish attendees, including the Daily News reporter who wore a yarmulke, were asked to leave or were not admitted, even though they had confirmed a reservations.
