About the series: Adalah ("justice" in Arabic) is a diary series about the Middle East, with special (but not exclusive) emphasis on the Arab-Israeli conflict. The authors of this series believe in the right of self-determination for all the people of the Middle East and that a just resolution respecting the rights and dignity of both Palestinians and Israelis is the only viable option for peace. Our diaries will consist of news roundup and analysis. We invite you to discuss them in the comments or contribute with stories from the region which deserve attention. We ask only that you be respectful and that the number of meta comments be kept to a minimum.
If you are not following the new e-zine, Jadaliyya, you are missing great analysis of events in the Middle East. Today's piece by Anthony Alessandrini covers the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions call against Israeli institutions and declares this movement a provisional success. More below the fold.
Outlining several recent incidents that have brought the boycott debate to the fore, the author points out the illogical claim that boycott stifles debate and dialogue by restating:
The first step in promoting dialogue would be to remove Israeli tanks from the gates of Palestinian universities.
Omar Barghouti, the Palestinian BDS leader (and one hell of a compelling spokesperson) has recently penned a new book, Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions: The Global Struggle for Palestinian Rights, but we won't be able to hear from him here in the United States. His speaking tour was cancelled when the U.S. consulate in Jerusalem delayed his visa without explanation. Apparently only one side is allowed to participate in dialogue. You can tell the U.S. consulate to let Omar Barghouti be heard by signing on here.
The article goes on to explain the logic of the academic and cultural aspects of the boycott:
The logic of the academic and cultural boycott is aimed precisely against this exclusionary logic and its stifling effect, which is why the claim that the boycott itself amounts to a stifling of free and open discourse and dialogue is ultimately so disingenuous. Of course, Butler is one of our most brilliant readers, but one hardly needs to be a professor of rhetoric to be able to see the contradictions inherent in arguing that it is the boycott that stifles dialogue, rather than the actions of the Israeli government and its supporters. Take, for example, the recent forced cancellation of a U.S. speaking tour by Omar Barghouti, a founding member of the Palestinian Civil Society Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions campaign, in support of his new book Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions: The Global Struggle for Palestinian Rights, due to an “inexplicable delay” in granting him a visa to visit the United States (an action carried out by the U.S. consulate in Jerusalem, but which is clearly guided by U.S. support for Israeli policies).
Such an action puts the onus more clearly than ever upon those intellectuals who continue to oppose the boycott in the name of promoting free and open dialogue. The question needs to be asked: what sort of dialogue is possible under these sorts of exclusionary conditions? Perhaps it is better phrased as a simple statement: if you are hoping to support free and open discourse and dialogue by opposing the boycott, then quite simply, you’re on the wrong side.
Of course, it can be argued that the very fact that intellectual giants such as Eco and McEwan, or Margaret Atwood and Amitav Ghosh, who were involved in similar debates around their decision to accept the Dan David Prize in Tel Aviv last May, or even rather less formidable intellectual figures such as Justin Bieber, have been forced to address the issue of BDS can be counted as a sort of moral victory. After all, one of the motivations of the academic and cultural boycott is to make the issues involved more visible, and to compel intellectuals to address them and, ultimately, choose a side. By this standard, a related way of measuring the success of BDS efforts more generally is to examine the seriousness with which they have been taken by the Israeli government. The answer is: very seriously indeed.
As Dana notes, the Knesset is currently considering a bill that would criminalize support of BDS by Israeli citizens. First proposed in June 2010 by 25 Knesset members, the bill passed its first reading by the Knesset’s Constitution Committee on February 15. The terms of the bill call for those found guilty to be liable to pay punitive damages of up to 30,000 NIS (about $8,000); in addition, if proven they participated in a boycott, individuals who are not citizens or residents of Israel could also be punished by having their right to enter the country denied for at least ten years. This comes on the heels of the first-ever meeting called by the Knesset’s Education and Culture Committee to discuss the cultural boycott, which occurred on February 1; afterwards, members of the Committee announced plans to draft legislation to protect and compensate Israeli entertainment producers “who have been financially harmed by the cultural boycott of Israel.”
Measured by the standard of such reactions, the BDS movement has a right to declare itself a success, albeit a provisional one. But measured by the standard of actually affecting the situation on the ground or alleviating the resultant sufferings of Palestinians, then “success” would be far too optimistic a word. I don’t mean this as a criticism: supporters of BDS constantly remind audiences (and ourselves) that, like many forms of non-violent struggle, BDS must be viewed as a long-term strategy. That said, I do think it is incumbent upon us to maintain this latter standard as the proper measure of all our strategies: “success” can only ultimately be measured by a fundamental transformation of the situation.
Read the whole article. It is worth the time.
The more this boycott issue is debated the better. How Israel is violating international law needs an open airing.