On the actual goals and consequences of voting for BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) 

by Lev Deych

Physics Department, Queens College

Last month the Delegate Assembly of Professional Staff Congress, a labor union representing faculty and staff of the City University of New York, debated resolutions condemning Israel and instructing chapters of the Union on each campus to start deliberating an approval of BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) policies directed against Israel. The deliberations left a pretty bad aftertaste for several reasons but in particular because they fell far short from expectations, I personally had for a meeting of academics.  The delegates claimed that their criticism of Israel was not antisemitic, but this claim felt empty and not supported by the character of the deliberations.  For instance, I personally found very amusing the suggestion that PSC-CUNY must support this resolution because it is a labor union and, therefore, must express solidarity with Palestinian labor unions, which called general strike to protest actions of Israeli government. While I understand the attractiveness of the old Marxist “Proletariat of all countries unite” slogan, I would like to inquire if PSC-CUNY ever stood in solidarity with Histadrut – the Israeli labor union – when they called for a general strike to protest policies of their own government? Shouldn’t PSC-CUNY stand in solidarity with Jewish workers as well, if this stand is against the Israeli government rather than against its Jewish citizens? This is, of course, a rhetoric question. 

The emptiness of the “it is not antisemitic” claims also becomes clear if one analyses the real consequences of the passed resolution. I do not want to speculate about “true” motives   of the delegates who voted for it because they do not matter. What I want to do is to present my analysis of the discourse on Israeli-Palestinian issues embraced by PSC-CUNY delegates. I will deconstruct this discourse with the goal of demonstrating its true content and the consequences of the policies it advocates hoping that this analysis will help union members to make more informed decisions in the course of future deliberations. 

Analyzing the discussions of the Israel-Palestine relations in the progressive circles one can identify three main distinct while overlapping themes. 

·      First is the absence of the any references to the Oslo process, the “land for peace” deals and the two-state solution. Also, no distinction is being made between Israeli Arabs, West Bank Palestinians, and Gaza population. Progressives have stopped talking about the return of Israel to its 1967 or 1948 borders. One can reasonably argue that the disappearance of the two-state solution from the discourse is, at least, partially, the fault of the Israeli policies promoting expansion of settlements in the West Bank (a policy, which I do not support) or that this is a fault of the Palestinian leadership never willing to negotiate in good faith, but this issue is not important for this analysis.  I am interested in merely placing this phenomenon in the general context of the progressive discourse.   The only important point for my analysis is that the Progressives stopped distinguishing in their rhetoric between Israel proper and now treat the entire territory of former British Mandate “from the river to the sea” as occupied Palestine.

·      Second, the progressive discourse insists on calling Israel an apartheid state, presenting as the main evidence of its culpability reports by Human Right Watch, an organization heavily criticized by its own founder and former Chairman Robert Bernstein. Its anti-Israel bias was documented by journalist Matti Friedman in his article in November 30, 2014 issue of Atlantic.  This association of Israel with apartheid is of paramount importance for the Progressive movement because it serves as a main justification for its promotion of the Boycott, Divest, and Sanction policies. By defining Israel as an apartheid state the progressives establish the direct link   between Israel and apartheid South Africa, which was brought down by the similar campaign. However, even leaving the credibility of HRW aside any serious inspection of the real situation in Israel makes it clear that the term “apartheid” does not describe it in any reasonable way. Indeed, Arab Israelis have the same rights to vote as Jews, they have representation in the parliament (and just on the day of writing, an Islamic Arab party became a part of Israeli governing coalition), they use the same shops, the same medical facilities, study in the same universities 17% of Israeli doctors are Arabs, an Arab judge holds a permanent seat in Israeli Supreme Court, there Arab ambassadors representing Israel abroad, etc. While the economic and social situations of Arab population of Israel is far from being satisfactory, in recent years even such a right-wing government as Netanyahu’s exerted significant efforts, financial and otherwise, to further advance the conditions of Arab Israelis. Unfortunately, many of such advances in building cohesive Jewish-Arab society were thrown several decades back by the recent unrest in Jerusalem, Yaffa, Lod and elsewhere.   At any rate, comparing the conditions of Arab citizens of Israel to that of black Africans in South Africa during the apartheid has as much sense as comparing the conditions of modern Black Americans to those during slavery or even Jim Crow era. 

The West Bank, which is formally under Israel’s occupation, shall be discussed separately. 55% of West Bank Palestinians live under the civil and security control of Palestinian Authority and Israeli government has no direct influence on their lives. Only 4% still live under full Israeli control (the rest of West Bank is under mixed Palestine civil and Israeli security control).    One can understand the need of such arrangements for Israel security in the light of numerous terrorist attacks perpetrated by residents of the West Bank, as well as one can reasonably criticize actions of Israeli government as an occupying power in parts of the West Bank. It is still is a far cry from what reasonable people understand as apartheid. In reality, the insistence of the Progressives on using this term has very little to do with protecting the rights of the Palestinians, as it unduly simplifies a complex problem and blocks any opportunity for serious discussions. By placing the accusations of the apartheid in a proper context, one can reveal its far more nefarious objectives. 

·      Third, it has become a common place in the progressive’s discourse to refer to the existence of Israel as a manifestation of “settler-colonialism” with no distinction made between expansion of the settlements in the West Bank, and the territory of Israel within the borders established by the UN resolutions. 

All these themes have been on full display during the debates at the Assembly of PSC-CUNY. Now, let me deconstruct these themes and demonstrate what the actual goals and consequences of the political movement embracing them are. 

The rejection of the Oslo process and the two-state solution by the Progressive Left means only one goal – complete delegitimization of Israel as a Jewish state and a support for reorganization of this territory as a unified Arab state of Palestine in full adherence to the goals stated by Hamas expressed in multiple statements by Hamas leadership and in Hamas Charter. This vision is also a full return to the position of the League of Arab states expressed in their 1948 statement preceding the invasion of this territory by the Arab armies. In 1948 declaration, Jews were given the role of the protected minority in the “undivided democratic Arab-governed Palestine”. Given the history of this region, this promise of the peaceful coexistence of Jews and Arabs in the Arab-dominated country did not look very plausible even in 1948, and given all what we know about the rhetoric and practice of Hamas and PLO it is even less plausible (to put it mildly) now.    But this is exactly a goal of the progressive pro-Palestinian movement which is being supported by PSC-CUNY. 

The second of the themes outlined above is a perfect complement to the first one. Indeed, what are the immediate consequences of linking Israel and South Africa, which is the clear objective of the apartheid libel? One just needs to look at the fate of South African regime, which collapsed under the international pressure, which, in the case of South Africa, was of course fully morally and politically justified. Insistence of the supporters of BDS on comparing Israel with South Africa leads to a reasonable assumption that they hope to achieve a formally similar effect: to bring down Israel as a Jewish state, and replacing it by a state with overwhelming Arab majority rule. This would require not only include in such a state the entire territory of former Mandate, but also to bring in millions of Palestinian refugees from Arab countries. After all, “the right of return” was also the rallying cry of all pro-Palestine movements.  One does not need to have a degree in political science or too vivid of imagination to realize what such transition would mean for the Jews of Israel.  As much as I do not like historical analogies, this would strikingly resemble 1933 – the Jewish minority in the country captured by a hostile government. 

This brings us to the next question – what to do with all these Jews in the newly liberated Palestine? The answer to this question is outlined in the third theme – the theme of Israel as a settler-colonial   project. If Israelis are colonialists, they just must be sent back to the countries they came from. This logic is based on the idea that when Indians sent British packing, Britons went back to England, when Congolese overthrew the Belgian rule, the Belgians returned back to Belgium, French ran from Algeria to France, and so on. And this is there the fallacy of the colonialist argument, when applied to Israel, stands in full relief. Jews have nowhere to go. They did not come from a single place, which they could call their home country – Israel is their only home country. The idea that the Jews would be simply sent back to the countries they originally came from cannot be discussed with any degree of seriousness. No one can seriously suggest that Iraq or Syria or Yemen (yes, only 30% of Israeli Jews are of European ancestry contrary to what the proponents of the “Israel is a European colonial project” presume)  or any other country would take back their Jews. And so, the new rulers of Palestine will have to decide what to do with their Jews – exactly the same problem, which Nazis faced in 1933. The decision about Final Solution was not made by the Nazis until infamous Wannsee Conference in 1942 (even though the mass killing of the Jews was already happening). The initial approach of the Nazi leadership was to get rid of their Jews by sending them somewhere. Ironically, Palestine was considered by the Nazis as a viable option, but it was blocked by UK under the pressure from the Arabs. The so-called democratic world was searching (or at least pretending to be searching) for the ways to resettle the European Jews with almost nothing to show for that. The Holocaust was the result of this failure. Now, if the unified Palestinian State is to come into being, the world would be forced to deal with exactly the same problem, and who can guarantee that the result will be any different? Actually, given the rhetoric and behavior of Hamas rulers and their Iranian patrons, it is not clear if they will be even willing to negotiate the relocation of Israeli Jews. It seems more likely that they will do exactly the same thing the Nazis did – the mass extermination. This will be the final “Final Solution”. And if it seems very unlikely that the world would just watch such scenario to unfold, we just need to remember that it seemed equally unlikely the first time around.  I do not suggest that people who voted for the resolution had this particular outcome in mind, but it does not matter because such an outcome is the only logical consequence of their votes.

One can reasonably argue about whether the creation of Israel was a historical injustice perpetrated against Arab residents of Palestine as the arguments exist for both sides of this debate. One can talk about atrocities committed by all sides during the War for Independence, including Israel’s, and assign blame.  But at the present, this debate has purely academic interest. In practical terms the situation has been settled after five wars – Israel proved to be a viable political entity, which created a democratic society with opportunities for flourishing for Jews and Arabs alike. This society produced significant achievements in agriculture, medicine, technology, and science, which benefits the entire world. It is curious that one of the arguments of the Arabs against resettlement of the Jews to Palestine was that the population density was too high for the land to sustain a larger number of people. Israel proved them wrong turning a desert into a thriving country, in which many people can live in peace. The Palestinian problem is a bleeding wound on the body of Israel, and there are many Israelis, Jews and Arabs, willing to work together to heal this wound and end the suffering of all Palestinians being it in the West Bank or Gaza. There have been a number of interesting ideas circulated in Israel press, such as infrastructure projects that would allow residents of the West Bank to travel freely without humiliation of having to go through Israeli roadblocks. There have been voices in Ramallah proposing expansion of economic collaboration between Arab and Jewish businesses.    Unfortunately, none of these ideas have been so far realized, but it is clear that destruction of Israel wouldn’t improve the plight of Palestinians. Actually, by comparing the wellbeing of Israeli Arabs with lives of Arabs in Gaza, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Egypt, one can make an argument that it will have an opposite effect of making suffering of not only Jews but also of Arabs even worse. Everyone must understand that voting for BDS as well as support for other items on the progressive anti-Israeli agenda such as the elimination of the military aid to Israel is essentially the vote for the second Jewish Holocaust as well as for continuing misery for the Palestinians.