So one might say “The BDS Movement is lying yet again – so what’s so new about that? It must be a day ending in the Letter y”. And of course they would be right. Still, despite its overall monumental series of failures, occasionally this movement wins a small battle. Its last little win was when the ASA (American Studies Association) voted overwhelmingly for a boycott of Israeli Academic Institutions in support of this movement.
And how has the ASA supported their decision to boycott Israel when there are far worse abusers of Human Rights in the World Israel?(including the U.S.), Well… as Alan Dershowitz writes:
When the President of the American Studies Association, Curtis Marez, an associate professor of ethnic studies at The University of California, was advised that many nations, including all of Israel’s neighbors, behave far worse than Israel, he responded, “One has to start somewhere.”
Okie-Dokie then… “one has to start somewhere”? Really? No starting with academic institutions in Russia where politicians jail, openly beat, or suggest that members of the LGBT community be tossed into ovens? No starting with academic institutions in the Arab World where dissidents are “disappeared”, journalists are jailed and women are kept as second class citizens? How about no starting with China which brutally suppresses ALL dissent, uses slave labor in it’s prison system, and occupies and has systematically and brutally oppressed the Tibetan people (amongst others)? Perhaps no starting with institutions in Africa where actual Genocide IS taking place? But somehow they picked Israel out of all of this. And then they picked supporting the BDS (or Only Boycott Israeli Jews) Movement. Gee… I wonder why?
Well, no I don’t. Not really… But in any case I digress.
In response to this, Pro – BDS bloggers throughout the “blogosphere” have been rallying to make the ASA’s symbolic gesture into a major victory for their case. And here is where this article comes in. In the comments section of an article at Daily Kos, two bloggers engage in a discussion of BDS and discuss whether or not BDS implicitly supports a Palestinian “One State Solution” based on “equal rights for all” (something the Palestinian polity overwhelmingly opposes). But when presented with the fact that indeed the BDS Movement does support the destruction of Israel as the National Homeland and State of the Jewish People this is the response a BDS proponent offers:
“BDS doesn’t advocate for a political solution (one state or two state). It’s rights-based. It advocates for Palestinian rights.”
We see asked but not answered: “Doesn’t BDS also advocate for the complete restoration of Palestinian refugees to their original places in Israel and if so, wouldn’t that in effect end the existence of Israel, which was created to be the National Homeland and State of the Jewish People?”
Why is the above question never answered? Well, because advocates of BDS know fully well that such “return” (which is not really an appropriate word here) would effectively end a Jewish Majority in Israel and in effect would create a Palestinian run state from the Mediterranean to the Jordan. Of course when pressed on this point, proponents of BDS simply don’t answer despite repeated attempts to get them to state their opinion on the matter. They deflect, they equivocate, but they never, ever, ever, ever answer the question of whether they simply support a One State Solution.
Of course, truthfully answering this question would mean that those who are open advocates for BDS would truly have to declare one way or another whether they are advocating for the destruction of Israel. They keep trying to “have their cake and eat it too” (as the saying goes). Asking that question makes them uncomfortable because it makes them declare a position and by declaring a position it “boxes” them in. Just look at the willful disinformation of the quoted comment. No mention of the fact that for all intent that complete Palestinian “Right of Return” would end Israel. Why? Because that is BDS’ true intent, but they feel that by actually articulating that position, the movement would lose support from many who they have lied to regarding their goals and once they would hear the truth they may not be in agreement with those goals.
Thus, you will never see true BDS advocates actually addressing the problems with BDS or it’s end goals. You just get a a lot of distraction. Allow me to present another perfect example of how these people will not be honest, note this exchange between three people in this thread
A commenter wrote:
Peter Beinart gives a good explanation for the need to oppose this hideous boycott:
The Association’s boycott resolution doesn’t denounce “the Israeli occupation of the West Bank.” It denounces “the Israeli occupation of Palestine” and “the systematic discrimination against Palestinians,” while making no distinction whatsoever between Israeli control of the West Bank, where Palestinians lack citizenship, the right to vote and the right to due process, and Israel proper, where Palestinians, although discriminated against, enjoy all three. That’s in keeping with the “boycotts, divestments, and sanctions” movement more generally. BDS proponents note that the movement takes no position on whether there should be one state or two between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. But it clearly opposes the existence of a Jewish state within any borders. The BDS movement’s call for “respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties” denies Israel’s right to set its own immigration policy. So does the movement’s call for “recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality”, which presumably denies Israel’s right to maintain the preferential immigration policy that makes it a refuge for Jews. Indeed, because the BDS movement’s statement of principles makes no reference to Jewish rights and Jewish connection to the land, it’s entirely possible to read it as giving Palestinians’ rights to national symbols and a preferential immigration policy while denying the same to Jews.
To which the commenter gets the response:
Please explain under what basis you and
Peter Beinart feel that the right of refugees under international law to return to their homes does not apply in the case of Palestinians. Israel’s immigration plocy is completely irrelevant. We’re not talking about immigration here.
And a third commenter after a short discussion chimes in with:
Interesting that no one has addressed
the actual content of Beinart’s statement.
As one can see… the last commenter has a point. No one there in that conversation or any other conversation around BDS will actually ever address the problems in the attempted deception by the BDS movement. Certainly we will never see an attempt to discuss the content of Beinart’s comment that while BDS claims to support human rights, that when they mean “human” they mean they are not talking about Jews.
So.. What can we do about it? Well we can continue to ask those questions in pro-BDS forums. We should continuously confront BDS activists and get them to state the reality of their position in a clear manner. We should NOT let them off the hook for answers that will allow them to continue their campaign of deception.
The question we should really be asking is “WHY, don’t BDS advocates have full faith in their own position that they are un-willing to articulate what they really want?” That too me is the “telling” question.