To Leaflet or Not to Leaflet

For those of you who follow this blog but are not members of the Park Slope Food Coop, I am pleased to report that we are now at 203 supporters.

Recently the pro-BDS group has been handing out flyers in front of the Coop. The flyers advocate holding a referendum on joining the BDS movement. The text is pretty much the same as on this page of the pro-BDS website.

Some in our group have suggested we respond with our own flyers.  Reasons to respond are:

1. Not everyone reads the Gazette, but everyone coming to the Coop gets a flyer.
2. If we don't respond, it appears there is no opposition.
3. Someone might be convinced by the flyer to support the referendum, even if she doesn't support BDS.

Reasons not to responds are:

1. Giving out flyers annoys people.
2. Flyers create waste; even in New York City, where paper is recycled.
3. It is not necessarily a good use of time and money.

I oppose BDS because it is wrong, because it is not a peace movement.  I also oppose the exploitation of the Food Coop for political purposes.  People joined it because it is a food store.  I feel that promoting BDS - or for that matter any cause that does not have a direct impact on the Coop's operation -  is a usurpation of the Coop's prime purpose.  I don't want to increase the pollution of our civic space.

What do you think?

Who Wants Peace? Who Doesn't?

Plain and Simple #4 - "A Welcoming Place"

Here is another gem from our pro-BDS people at the Park Slope Food Coop, as part of their reasons why we should join the boycott.

It [joining the BDS movement] will also make the PSFC a more welcoming place for all people who want justice realized in Palestine.

Setting aside what "justice in Palestine" might mean - that will have to be a separate post - I assume they are talking about themselves. Are they saying they don't feel welcome? So let's see:

1. They have had over two and half years of letters printed in the Linewaiters' Gazette.
2. They have had an entire General Meeting devoted to their topic.
3. They have had hosted several education events in the Coop.
4. They give out flyers in front of the Coop.
5. They have 2 items sitting on the Agenda Committee list.

Just how much more welcome do they need to feel?

And since when is holding a political position akin to race or ethnicity or religion or sex or orientation? Since when are holders of a political positions a protected group? By definition, holding a position means excluding those who hold the opposite position. So, we have to be more welcoming to one group by endorsing a position that will make the people who disagree with them feel less welcome.

These are peace activists? This is the meaning of co-existence?

If your head hasn't exploded yet, can someone please explain to me the logic of "If you won't take a position on an issue, then your inaction means you support the people I disagree with."?

Once again, plain and simple, they don't know what they are talking about.

Israel and the U.S. - more

In my previous post I wrote about Israel's strategic value to the United States, as discussed by Robert D. Blackwill and Walter B. Slocombe. Their detailed report, “Israel: A Strategic Asset for the United States,” was just published by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. The report can be downloaded for free, or you can view a video of the authors' presentation.

Tablet Magazine has an article by Lee Smith about the the report. Smith writes:

The paper offers chapter and verse on Israeli contributions to the U.S. national interest. They include: Israeli counter-proliferation efforts, such as the 1981 bombing of Iraq’s Osirak nuclear facility and the 2007 attack on Syria’s secret nuclear facility at al-Kibar; joint military training exercises, as well as exchanges on military doctrine; Israeli technology, like unmanned aerial systems, armored vehicle protection, defense against short-range rocket threats, and robotics; missile defense cooperation; counterterrorism and intelligence cooperation; and cyber defense. Blackwill and Slocombe conclude that the alliance is in fact so central to U.S. national interests that U.S. policymakers should find ways to further enhance cooperation with Jerusalem.

...If the alliance with Israel really is a liability to U.S. national interests, there should be concrete evidence to back it up. “We tried to identify episodes when you could plausibly argue that Arab governments exacted a price from the U.S. for its alliance with Israel.” Blackwill said. He and Slocombe found only one example: the Arab oil embargo after the 1973 war.

“Without doubt that embargo was related to the U.S. re-supply during the ’73 Arab-Israeli war,” Blackwill said. “We thought, ‘Well, there have to be other examples. We’re just not looking hard enough.’ But to our surprise, we couldn’t find another example from that instance to today.”

Lee Smith is the author a fascinating book about the Arab world, The Strong Horse: Power, Politics, and the Clash of Arab Civilizations. Smith spent time living in Eqypt studying Arabic and the Koran. He gives a very different perspective than most journalists.

(h/t Silke)

Israel and the U.S.

One of the often repeated claims of the anti-Israel camp - and our Park Slope pro-BDSers are no exception - is that American aid to Israel is: 1) used to oppress Palestinians, 2) counter to American interests, and 3) money better spent here at home. I responded here.

The Los Angeles Times has an op-ed piece, Israel: A true ally in the Middle East, detailing the many ways in which Israel advances U.S. national interests. The authors are Robert D. Blackwill, deputy national security advisor for strategic planning in the George W. Bush administration, and Walter B. Slocombe, undersecretary of defense for policy in the Clinton administration.  Guys who know what they are talking about.

Today, Israeli contributions to U.S. national interests cover a broad spectrum. Through joint training, exercises and exchanges on military doctrine, the United States has benefited in the areas of counter-terrorism, intelligence and experience in urban warfare. Increasingly, U.S. homeland security and military agencies are turning to Israeli technology to solve some of their most vexing technical and strategic problems.

Go read the whole thing for the specifics.

Plain and Simple # 3 - Judaism

Judging from the letters in the Linewaiters Gazette, identifying BDS as anti-Semitic really upsets the Food Coop's BDS supporters.   They want to deny the charge, but they are unable to show that BDS is not anti-Jewish.  Instead, they redefine anti-Jewish to fit their position.

From the Coop's pro-BDS group's website:

Is BDS anti-Semitic?

BDS is not anti-Semitic. In fact, it’s quite the opposite – the Jewish religion, like this movement, supports social justice and rejects oppression. Unfortunately, many of the Israeli government’s actions violate basic tenants (sic) of Judaism (3).

Equating Judaism with the state of Israel is inaccurate and unfair. Many Jews involved in the BDS movement feel that it’s anti-Semitic to assume that, because of their religion, they must support a national project that violates their values.

Let's translate and analyze one line at a time.

"Is BDS anti-Semitic?" - Is BDS antagonistic to Jews and/or the Jewish religion?

"BDS is not anti-Semitic." - BDS's goal is the dismantling of Israel as a Jewish State. To claim BDS is not anti-Semitic, our BDS supporters would have to show that either this is not their goal or that this goal is not antagonistic to Jews.  Their proof:

"In fact, it’s quite the opposite – the Jewish religion, like this movement, supports social justice and rejects oppression." According to them, BDS and the Jewish religion support the same thing, namely "social justice", and reject the same thing, namely "oppression." Therefore, BDS isn't antagonistic towards Jews or Judaism. This is not a logical argument; two groups sharing a value does not imply a lack of antagonism. Not only have they not established that BDS "supports social justice and rejects oppression," but they do not demonstrate that BDS and Judaism share the same definitions of "social justice" and "oppression."   Yet, what follows is even more remarkable.

"Unfortunately, many of the Israeli government’s actions violate basic tenants (sic) of Judaism (3)." - I think they meant to write "tenets," not "tenants," but never mind.   I assume here they are identifying  "supporting social justice and rejecting oppression." as a basic tenet of Judaism.  By accusing Israel of violating their definition of Judaism,  they can conclude:  "Equating Judaism with the state of Israel is inaccurate and unfair." Once they have identified Israel as un-Jewish, opposing it is not anti-Semitic. In a final twist of logic, supporting Israel becomes anti-Semitic! "Many Jews involved in the BDS movement feel that it’s anti-Semitic to assume that, because of their religion, they must support a national project that violates their values."

They betray their ignorance of both history and Judaism.

Judaism, like all religions, mediates a relationship between the individual and the Divine. In Judaism, a covenant, the Torah, demands of Jews to worship God through particular rituals and to behave towards  others in a particular manner. In return, God will protect and establish the Jews as a nation in their own land, Israel. Some commandments - such as providing for the poor and establishing courts - correspond with our notions of social justice. Other commandments - such as living in the Land of Israel, building a nation, and protecting other Jews - illustrate Judaism's less universal aspects.  There is no commandment to capitulate to those seeking the destruction of the Jews.

Of course, each individual is free to choose what to believe.  However, characterizing any religion as supporting a particular view or opposing a particular view requires a familiarity with the scope of that religion's practices, history and theology.  Any claim regarding a religion's substance must be supported by actual references. Our pro-BDS members don't do that.  Plain and simple, they don't know what they are talking about.

Plain and Simple #2 - Is BDS anti-Semitic?

In August, I published a piece in the Linewaiters' Gazette showing that the goals of the Global BDS Movement are to eliminate Israel as a Jewish State.  I published a slightly longer version of the article on this blog, in two parts. I also pointed out that the statements of the BDS leadership fulfilled a globally accepted definition of anti-Semitism.

I further wrote that presenting a proposal to hold a referendum on joining BDS to the General Meeting provides legitimacy to a movement shown to be anti-Semitic. I said such an action is unacceptable for the Park Slope Food Coop, as we are committed to diversity.

Now, our members who want to hold the referendum have posted on their website page titled "About BDS," the exact BDS platform. Further down the page they ask, "Is BDS anti-Semitic?" In order to answer that question with a "No," they would have to show:

1. Either BDS does not oppose the existence of Israel as  a Jewish State or that opposing the right of self-determination for Jews is not anti-Semitic.
2. BDS does not deny the unique historic connection between Jews and the Land of Israel.
3. That the conditions demanded by BDS do not endanger the physical safety of Jews.
4. That there is a true commitment among the Palestinian leadership to live in peace with Jews, with full recognition of their rights.
5. That BDS demands of the Arabs an end to the conflict.

Of course, they don't do any of that. Nor do they address any of the other issues I raised in my essays. Is it because they haven't read the essays? Or is it because they don't know how to answer? Or is it because they don't know how to think about these issues because they truly don't know enough about it?

Instead, they provide a totally illogical, self-contradicting answer that reveals their ignorance. I will deconstruct their statement in the next post.

Once again, we see that plain and simple, they don't know what they are talking about.