How BDS Continues to Harm the Park Slope Food Coop and Our Community

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, which fought a veritable civil war over whether to boycott Israeli products, has taken on a new cause célèbre: the fight to save Long Island College Hospital.

"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.

What is Right to Speak?

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 Hate Speech Be Permitted on the College Campus?

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"?

Two views:

Judith Butler is unequivocal.  In her remarks at Brooklyn College she says:

“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.

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"?