Brooklyn College BDS Wrap Up

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.

Alan Dershowitz framed the issue like this:

“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.”

But according to the Political Science Department Head, Paisley Currah:(all emphasis mine)

"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.

Mayor Bloomberg:

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.

Four local Congressional representatives, 7 State legislators, and 8 New York City officials wrote to Brooklyn College President Karen Gould,:

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.

President Gould responded in an email to college staff, faculty and students affirming "a steadfast commitment to academic freedom with a commitment to ongoing dialogue and debate."  She concluded her letter saying:

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.

And the Chancellor of the City University of New York, Matthew Goldstein:

"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.

Exhibit #1 - Khader Adnan

Khader Adnan is a senior member of Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), an Islamist terror organization.   According to the Council on Foreign Relations:

Designated as a U.S. State Department terrorist organization in 1997, the PIJ targets Israeli civilian and military personnel in its commitment to the creation of an Islamic regime in “all of historic Palestine,”

The PIJ advocates the destruction of Israel through violent means; it approaches the Arab-Israeli conflict as an ideological war, not a territorial dispute. PIJ members see violence as the only way to remove Israel from the Middle East map and reject any two-state arrangement in which Israel and Palestine coexist.

PIJ is responsible for dozens of suicide bomber attacks inside Israel.  It has recruited children for suicide missions.  PIJ operatives fired hundreds of rockets from Gaza at Israeli civilians in 2012.

This video of Khader Adnan was filmed at the funeral of one of PIJ's senior commanders in October 2007.


You can watch it with subtitles or just read the transcript:

O Quds Brigades, Strike a blow!
O Quds Brigades, Shake the earth!
Who among you is "Hasan Abu Zeid"?*
Who among you is the next suicide bomber?
Who among you will carry the next explosive belt?
Who among you will fire the next bullets?
Who among you will have his body parts blown all over?

*Suicide bomber who murdered 5 Israelis in Hadera in October 2005.

So, why would a supporter of the "non-violent" BDS movement write in a March 8, 2012,  Linewaiters' Gazette member contribution to "please think about Khadar [sic] Adnan" when voting on the BDS referendum?

The author, Tara, identifies Adnan only as "on his 62nd day of hunger strike protesting Israel’s detention of him without charge or trial."   Tara doesn't mention his ties to the terrorist group responsible for the murders of scores of innocent Israelis.

Israel uses administrative detention when an imminent risk to the country’s security is believed to exist.  The process is conducted under full judicial review by Israel’s military and the Supreme Court.  European countries and the United States use administrative detention, as well.  The process is legal under international law, according to the fourth Geneva Convention, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the European Convention on Human Rights.

Was Tara unaware of Adnan's connection to PIJ or did she intentionally conceal it?  It doesn't matter.  Whoever introduced Adnan as talking point into the BDS repertoire knew exactly who he is and what he stands for.

Sorry, but there is no justification for supporting a terrorist group at the Park Slope Food Coop.

Taking Off My Gloves

The Park Slope Food Coop runs on the good will of its members.  We show up for our shifts on time faithfully and we work diligently.  We are patient when the store is crowded and the lines are long.  While the products are not as difficult to obtain in other stores as they once were, the savings are still substantial.

It all works because there is the expectation that all are welcome and there should be mutual respect for boundaries and sensibilities.  I have written previously about the importance of neutral spaces.

BDS is a hate movement.  Plain and simple.  It has no place in our coop.  It should never have come up for discussion.  The people who brought it and continue to submit letters to the Linewaiters' Gazette are violating our community's core values.

In my letter to the Gazette Editors, I stated:

These anti-Israel letters are harmful to the community.  They contain distortions, misrepresentations and false statements.  The letters are designed to instill hatred; the content is at times anti-Semitic.

I suggested the editors either implement guidelines that included:

exact definitions for what crosses the boundaries from legitimate discussion to any form of hate speech or racism

or - if enforcing guidelines is too onerous for a grocery store newspaper - put a moratorium on these letters.  

As I mentioned last time, my letter received 2 responses from BDS supporters.  Here is where it gets interesting and we see the logic-challenged thought process of the BDS advocates.

Naomi tries the "change-the-subject" deflection:

the author implies that those who criticize the actions of the Israeli government and military are “anti-Semitic.” This is a common denunciation offered by those who defend Israeli policies.

But I didn't imply anything, did I?  I didn't mention Israel's policies, at all.  I quite clearly stated the letters are designed to instill hatred.  A pretty serious charge left unanswered.

David uses the deflection, punctuated with a denial and sprinkled with arrogance(emphasis mine):

And it should not be assumed that the 60% represented uniform sympathy for the Israeli government’s position, and even less so that many believed anti-Semitism motivated the boycott backers, perhaps the most absurd of all the anti-boycott advocates’ claims. One would be hard-pressed to find actual expressions of anti-Semitism and hate in the pro-boycott letters (all available for review in the Gazette archive on the Coop’s website) as opposed to the ubiquitous accusations of them in the anti-boycott letters. What’s obvious from those letters is that any and all questioning of the Israeli government’s actions should be viewed as anti-Semitism and hate, a sort of presumptive reading between the lines and pop-psychoanalyzing.

David is addressing things that I didn't say.  Aside from that, one wouldn't have to look very hard at all to find "actual expressions of anti-Semitism."  So, I hope to use the next several posts to list them.

When You Lose, You Don't Win - You Just Lose

Even though the BDS initiative at the Park Slope Food Coop was soundly defeated last March, one pro-BDS Coop member continues to submit a letter to each issue of the Linewaiters' Gazette. These letters portray purely innocent, powerless Palestinians oppressed by a purely evil, guilty Israel. The content is inaccurate and incomplete. After about 8 months of this I submitted my own letter to the editors suggesting the development of clear guidelines for BDS letters.  If instituting fair guidelines is too onerous for grocery store newspaper, then perhaps a moratorium on BDS submissions is more appropriate for the Gazette.

My letter generated 2 responses; one from a "David", one from a "Naomi."  Both objected to my characterization of the BDS defeat in March 2012 as an "overwhelming rejection."  The BDS proposal obtained the support of less than 4 percent of the membership.  Among the self-selected, highly motivated 10% of the membership who attended the March General Meeting, BDS was defeated by a margin of 3 to 2.

BDS supporters are hardly the first people to try to spin a loss into some kind of victory. The "even though we lost, we won because...." meme is well documented at the Divest This! blog.  BDS supporters hate to be told they have lost.

But, what about the remaining 90% of members who, for whatever reasons, chose not to attend.  Can we assume anything about that?  David speculates it reflects “fatigue and burn out over the drawn-out debate, the desire that the issue just go away.”  That sounds like a rejection to me.

Naomi comes to a different conclusion:

I think this vote showed us how the General Meeting system of decision-making is flawed as a democratic process. About 6% of members were able to prevent the whole Coop from voting on this issue.

Really? 6% stopping the referendum is bad, and 4% pushing it forward is ok?  Really?

Can anyone say "sore loser"?

Why Sign the "Stand Up Against Boycotting Israel" Petition

I am not a great believer in internet petitions.  I don't like giving out my email address. 

I am making an exception for this petition, Stand Up Against Boycotting Israel, put together by Stand With Us,

We, the undersigned, stand together in support of the State of Israel. We call upon all people who side with freedom, to stand up against this boycott movement. We stand up for the State of Israel in its struggle to protect its citizens from rocket attacks and other terror attacks.

We stand for democratic values, peaceful coexistence, and a safe and secure Israel. Israel is the only free democracy in the Middle East with equal rights for all its citizens, regardless of race, religion, gender or sexual orientation. Israel stands on the front line of the free world in the fight against terrorism.

I am adding my voice to this petition and I stand against the boycott movement. Boycotting Israel serves no constructive purpose and only undermines peace efforts.

I, and people much smarter than I, have written hundreds of posts about the BDS movement: its goal to eliminate Israel as the Jewish homeland, the false accusations, the falsified history, the pretense of supporting human rights, the delusions of its supporters, the hijacking of the civic space and so on.

What good is a petition?  Simple.  Numbers.  Demonstrate that large numbers oppose BDS.

From my own BDS battle at the Park Slope Food Coop, I experienced first hand how this small group can make a lot of noise.  Ensconced within their echo chamber, the BDSers think everyone thinks the same as they do.  They intimidate.

Just suppose there was one place where you could show how many people there are on our side.  What could they say then?

Please sign and distribute the petition.

About that 4% Number

Just how much support was there at the Park Slope Food Coop for BDS?

If you are just coming to this story, here is a quick recap:

The Coop's governance system allows for anyone to submit something to be discussed at a General Meeting.  There is an Agenda Committee tasked with scheduling the item for presentation.  Theoretically, every proposal will eventually be presented.  All members are eligible to attend a General Meeting.  Attendance is optional.

On March 27, 2012, a proposal to conduct a referendum to boycott Israel and endorse the BDS movement was presented at the General Meeting.  Or, as it became known, "the vote on the vote."

The Coop had about 16,000 members at the time.  1,658 members came to the General Meeting and submitted ballots.  The final tally was 1,005 votes against the referendum and 653 in favor.  A 61% to 39% split among the people who came to vote.

Only 653 out of 16,000 members voted in favor of the referendum.  About 4%.

But isn't the General Meeting a statistical sample?  Can't we extrapolate the 39% to the entire membership?  No.  The people who attended the meeting were a self-selected group.  They were particularly motivated to give up an evening to attend the General Meeting.  I know the people who rearranged their schedules, made special transportation arrangements, or found babysitters so they would be free to attend.  Everyone who came cared about the issue.  90% did not show up.

What does all this mean? Even within the liberal Park Slope, within the progressive Park Slope Food Coop, support for BDS was only marginal.  BDS is a fringe movement.  It is not a main stream progressive cause.

Don't Use the Linewaiters' Gazette for Promoting Hate

An appeal to the Park Slope Food Coop Coordinators and Members of the Board of Directors

My husband and I have been Coop members for over 23 years, and my friendship with some of you goes back that far.  You have my deepest respect and appreciation for the work you have done to create and maintain the Coop.  You are the stewards of the Coop.

You listened to my concerns when the pro-BDS group began their efforts at the Coop.  You empathized with me.  Although you opposed the BDS initiative because you recognized its potential negative effect, you declined to interfere with the process of Coop governance.  Instead, you opted to allow the BDS initiative to proceed to the General Meeting with the expectation that a political defeat for the action would put the issue to rest.  I disagreed, yet I respected your decision.  I defended it when I spoke to the press, and I never disparaged the Coop publicly.

When we held the vote on the BDS referendum proposal, less than 4% of the total Coop membership came out to vote in its favor.  BDS was overwhelmingly rejected by the membership.  Yet, a few members continue to utilize the Linewaiters’ Gazette as a platform for promoting their anti-Israel agenda.  They submit letters containing distortions, misrepresentations and false statements.  It is a campaign designed to instill hatred.

Over the past several weeks, those of us with connections to Israel have seen our friends, relatives and loved ones subjected to the barrages of hundreds of rockets.  These rockets are directed at the civilian population with the intention to kill, maim and terrorize.  The Hamas charter states “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.”  It is the extraordinary measure on the part of Israel to protect its citizens that has minimized the casualties and damage. 

To end these attacks upon its citizens, Israel is targeting the weapons caches and the terrorists responsible for the rockets.  The Israeli weapons, unlike the Hamas rockets, do not target civilians.  Nevertheless, there will be loss of life and property among Gaza civilians because of Hamas rockets that will fall short, because of secondary explosions from Hamas weapons stored in residential neighbors, and because of Israel’s strikes on these legitimate military targets intentionally located in civilian areas.  We are sensitive to this.

While our people are in jeopardy, are we also to be demonized and vilified in our Coop’s newspaper for legitimate acts of self-defense?  Are we to be subjected to the rants used to promote hatred of Israelis and justification for terrorism?

Earlier today I submitted a letter to the Linewaiters’ Gazette, urging the editorial teams to institute a moratorium on all submissions related to the Israel/Palestinian/Arab conflict and/or the BDS movement.  I hope that rather than print my letter they will take my suggestion to heart and start the moratorium immediately.

Even though Gazette policy is the responsibility of editors, I ask you, as Coordinators and Board Members, to encourage the editors to take this step.  You have the support 96% of the Coop.  Inclusiveness and respect for diverse identities are Coop values.  A moratorium is a way to support these values.

Dear Gazette Editorial Teams:

If the Gazette is going to continue to publish submissions relating to the Israel/Palestinian/Arab conflict and the BDS movement, then I recommend that the teams meet and agree upon clear and consistent guidelines.  These should include:

a)      exact definitions for what crosses the boundaries from legitimate discussion to any form of hate speech or racism

b)      standards for conducting fact-checking and evaluation of sources

c)      minimum qualifications and background knowledge for anyone tasked with making the above judgements.

This is a rather large demand to make of a volunteer staff of a food coop newspaper.  It is much simpler to declare a moratorium on all submissions related the subject.

The Gazette’s purpose should be to build and strengthen our community, and inform us about the issues that relate to our store, our food supply and our common purpose.  Yet, the newspaper has been allowed to become a vehicle of small group of Coop members for the promotion of anti-Israel propaganda.  In March, the Coop community was given the opportunity to weigh in on the question of BDS.  Less than 4% of the total membership showed up to vote in favor of the proposal.  The membership has overwhelmingly rejected the discussion.  It is of no relevance, appropriateness or benefit to the Park Slope Food Coop community.

These anti-Israel letters are harmful to the community.  They contain distortions, misrepresentations and false statements.  The letters are designed to instill hatred; the content is at times anti-Semitic.  No amount of vehement denials by the authors can negate the pernicious effect of these letters upon my segment of the Coop community.  We are being attacked at the heart of our national and religious identity.

Gazette editors have on multiple occasions refused to publish content they deemed inappropriate.  Discretion is not censorship.  There is no shortage of other media for the expression of anti-Israel views.  After nearly four years of acrimony surrounding these letters, there is nothing new to be said or accomplished at the Coop.  Let’s institute the moratorium and allow healing to begin.