What Do AntiZionists Want?

Yesterday, the New York Times ran this front-page headline: “Anti-Zionism is Not the Same as Anti-Semitism.”  

Here at Framing Israel we’re interested in language and rhetoric, so the claims of Times staff opinion writer, Michelle Goldberg demand our attention. She says, “The conflation of antisemitism with antiZionism is a rhetorical slight of hand that depends on treating Israel as the embodiment of the Jewish people everywhere.”  This statement seems to be slight of hand, itself.

I would understand saying Israel embodies a 2000-year longing of Jews to return to their roots.  Or that Israel embodies the modern Zionist hope for a home safe from antisemitism.  I do understand that Goldberg objects to such Zionist themes and that she feels somehow implicated in what the Israeli government does.

At the same time, she tells us that BDS advocacy by new members of the US Congress is something that “American Jews have nothing to fear...” This appears right below the headline, in fact.

Goldberg writes that while some criticisms of Israel can be antisemitic, one can object to “Jewish ethno-nationalism without being a bigot.”

But “entho-national” doesn’t describe Israel, which is a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, democratic Jewish state.  And antiZionism is not hard to recognize.  It isn’t criticism of Israel.

Rather, antiZionists believe there should no majority Jewish country between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

There can be a Palestinian majority country, or all the many Muslim majority countries, or a Japanese majority country; in fact, there can be all of the 195 countries of the world except one.

BDS advocates for the elimination of the world’s only Jewish majority state.

In earlier eras, antisemitism showed up as hatred of the Jewish religion and at other times as hatred of the Jewish people.  Although these forms of Jew hatred still exist, more often antisemitism now appears as hatred of the Jewish state.

Singling out Jews for special harm fits the definition of antisemitism so well that even the New York Times front page can’t make this reality go away.

In Praise of Student Supporters of Israel

                                                                                                                     photo by Israel Campus Beat

                                
                                                                                                                       published at Times of Israel

In spite of the many biases, phobias, anti-"isms" and micro-aggressions studied at universities, anti-Israelism does not seem to be a familiar term in most academic settings.

When, at a rally, Israelis are called “Nazis”; when Israel “apartheid” weeks set up on campus; when there is a performance piece about “Israel/Palestine” involving simulated blood, or amplified shouting that Israel should not exist, as in “from the river to the sea/Palestine must be free,” these are simply referred to as free speech.

Students cannot expect that there will be allotted time for Israel’s perspective, or a sharing of “competing narratives” or that Jews will be considered a minority.

As a first world, successful, capitalist, democratic, progressive, multicultural, open society, with a strong military, a starting point for academic discussion of America is often its responsibility for most of world’s problems and its racism. Imagine trying to argue on campus for what is wonderful about America.

Arguing for Israel, students often need to counter claims that are not based on facts but are supported by a view of facts as simply agreed-upon interpretations.  For example:

Anyone spending even a few days in Israel can tell that the apartheid label doesn’t apply (and that this slander diminishes the experiences of people who lived under actual apartheid in South Africa).  But present the overwhelming evidence of Arabs and Jews going about their everyday lives in shared shopping malls, restaurants, buses, and trains; point out that all Israeli citizens are subject to the same laws or that Israeli doctors, professors, Knesset members and Supreme Court judges are Arabs as well as Jews, and your comments may simply crash against the chant of “apartheid wall.”

This stalemate occurs in part because, as a supporter of Israel, you naturally think the argument is about Israel. But creators of Israel “apartheid” week focus on only one state and it is called Palestine.

The separation barrier (the 95% chain link fencing/5% wall that reduced suicide bombing by more than 90%) stands, for them, as an arbitrary intrusion into the country of Palestine – a hoped for territory covering all of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza -- from the river along the Jordan border to the Mediterranean Sea at Tel Aviv.

When you realize that they actually mean No Israel, you may find yourself free falling through an Alice in Wonderland space where up is down and the one progressive country of the Middle East is the only one called out as oppressive. (At least, this was my experience.)

The more you know about Israel, the better, but this knowledge will not be persuasive to boycott advocates or apartheid week promoters.

Facts will be useful if you are talking about specific events. Like this. How have the lives of Palestinians and Israelis been impacted by the Jews unilaterally leaving Gaza in 2005?  If you are in a setting where the people with whom you are speaking know that there are no Jews in Gaza and accept that Israel is a sovereign democratic Jewish nation then, yes, facts will be valuable to share and debate. This setting may hard to locate in public campus forums.

The facts are also valuable because knowing them will help you keep some equilibrium when you are going though that Alice in Wonderland free fall.

But facts will not help you argue against ideologies.

Anti-Israel voices on campus have a great deal of ideological support. For starters, there’s the ideology of post-modernism within which there are no impartial facts-- only narratives open for interpretation.

However, your interpretation, because it appears to privilege the oppressors (Israelis) over the oppressed (Palestinians) is not credible.

And your objection that Israelis are not oppressors, even if you also voice your disapproval of particular Israeli policies, likewise is not credible because Israel is Western and first world; it has a powerful military, a high standard of living, a thriving economy, and so on. It is, necessarily, an oppressor.

Because you are standing up for Israel, the one Jewish country of the world, you too are supporting an ideology: Zionism. Knowing that Zionism is the belief that Jews, like the other peoples of the world, have a right to their own country, or even if you simply appreciate the reality that Israel is a democratic Jewish state, you can count yourself a Zionist.  It’s not an especially valued ideology on campus, pretty much like American patriotism isn’t especially valued in these post-nationalist times.

Like any other workplace, a university is a cultural setting in which some values are valued over others. Power relationships impact, if not our real freedoms, at least our sense of freedom to say what we believe. It can feel scary to stand up for a minority opinion in any setting.

When, in spite of it all, you get out there with an Israeli flag and say that you support Israel you are doing something important for yourself and for your campus. Most students on campus are not concerned or knowledgeable about Israel but may be open to learning about it.  Because of your presence other students learn that there is more to this story than what they have been hearing. You’ll influence some of these students. You can impact boycott voting even if you can’t expect to influence boycott activists.

And take pride that as a pro-Israel student you are demonstrating one of the longest running and highest campus values: speaking truth to power.

Breaking News of No Boycott

Forbes Magazine made a new list of the top 10 health technology companies in the world. Five of them are from Israel. 

Among these is ReWalk Robotics, inventors of an apparatus that allows people who have spinal injuries that keep them confined to wheel chairs to be able to walk with the help of a “wearable exoskeleton” supporting hip and knee motion.

In clean technology, Israel outranked every country in the world in 2014 according to the World Wildlife Fund and the Clean-Tech Group that compared 40 countries in terms of their renewable and environmental energy development.  Israel is especially good at water management and in this area is “many levels ahead of other countries.”

An Israeli company has just signed a billion dollar agreement to improve water systems and tackle water shortages in Kazakhstan. “Mekorot will assist the Kazakhstan government in developing the local water system and establishing a national water company…”  

Israel recently contracted with Jordon to send them $15 billion worth of natural gas from the Leviathon energy field over the next 15 years. This is in addition to the $500 million worth Jordan already ordered from the Tamar gas field. Egypt and the Palestinian Authority also import natural gas from Israel.  (The PA was Israel’s first customer.)

“The Jordanians turned to Israel because their supply of natural gas from Egypt had been halted by repeated terrorist attacks on the gas pipeline from Egypt.”

And the beat goes on: Legends--Beach Boys; Metal—KISS; Indie-- Emperor X; and whatever category is Lady Gaga--are performing soon.

Reasons for ASA Boycott of Israel

                                                         Ben-Gurion University of the Negev


1. Otherwise, how would most people ever hear of the Association of American Studies?
2. Words like "human rights violations" are not scary to direct toward democratic countries with academic freedom.
3. Who would boycott China, Zimbabwe, Iran or Russia?
4. The boycott is "symbolic" and symbolic is cool on so many levels.
5. Singling out Israel and no other country does not indicate bias; how could you suggest that?
6. The ASA is not aware of the diversity of Israeli universities.
7. The ASA is not impressed that even Mahmoud Abbas opposes boycotting Israel.
8. The American Association of University Professors opposes academic boycotts but who cares? (Membership of AAUP: 47,000, of ASA: under 5000; 1252 voted with two-thirds for boycott.)
9. No one at a university in the Middle East actually benefits from this resolution.
10.There is no downside to the resolution for the lives of its promoters.

What Boycott? Major Musicians Rock Israel

(published at Honest Reporting )

Yet another star ignores widely publicized demands to cancel and performs in Israel. Tom Jones even adds a second show. Like Alicia Keys this summer and Rhianna in October, Jones joins the vast majority of musicians in standing up to the pressure of boycotters.

In spite of boycott hype, only rare exceptions like Jello Biafra and Elvis Costello have counted themselves supporters. Costello nixed his show in June 2010 although his wife, singer Diana Krall, performed later that summer. Biafra flew to Israel anyway, watched Israeli punk band Useless ID play without him, and published his mixed feelings about Boycott, Divestment, and Sanction (BDS).

In fact, even among the few musicians who have canceled, giving into pressure or postponing a show does not mean supporting boycott.

When Marc Almond cancelled, his management announced, “Marc would like to make it absolutely clear that this is not for any political reason. We are very sorry for any inconvenience to fans who have bought tickets.”

Carlos Santana’s management said, “We are sorry that our schedule has forced the postponement of certain dates previously scheduled. We look forward to performing in the many historic places that Santana has long wanted to return to.”

Yet, these names appear in publicity about BDS as if they protested against Israel. Even included are some--like Jon Bon Jovi--who simply have never played in the Jewish state. When asked earlier this year by BBC’s, Jo Whiley, “Is there anywhere in the world you’d like to play but haven’t yet?” Bon Jovi immediately answered: “Israel.”

In recent years, many major musicians have played in Israel, legends like Bob Dylan, Paul McCartney, Paul Simon, Elton John, and Leonard Cohen, and performers that are big draws in every genre, including:  

Punk--Marky Ramone, New York Dolls, Buzzcocks, Gogol Bordello; NOFX;

Metal--Anthrax, Judas Priest, Ozzie Ozbourne, Megadeth;

Pop--Lady Gaga, Madonna, Justin Bieber, Alanis Morissette;

Rock-- Red Hot Chili Peppers, Aerosmith, Linkin Park, Jethro Tull, Guns N’Roses, Rod Stewart, 30 Seconds to Mars;

Blues—-KM Williams, Lucky Peterson, Robert Belfour;

Indie--Yo La Tengo, Deerhoof, Silver Jews, Why?;

Reggae--Ziggy Marley, Steel Pulse, Easy Star All-Stars;

Grunge--The Jesus and Mary Chain; Jane’s Addiction, Faith No More;

New Wave—-Depeche Mode, Peter Murphy;

Electronica—-Pet Shop Boys, VNV Nation;

R&B--Rhianna, The Black Eyed Peas, Pitbull, and Alicia Keys.

Responding to boycotters, Keys told the press, “Music is a universal language that is meant to unify audiences in peace and love, and that is the spirit of our show.”

Elton John, on stage in Tel Aviv, raised a clenched fist and shouted, “Shalom! We’re so happy to be back here! Ain’t nothing gonna stop us from coming, baby!”

Rather than boycott Israel, well-known musicians especially appreciate the country. Tablet Magazine’s Liel Leibovitz writes that Israel’s top security offers the famous a brief holiday in which to see the sites, and the closely connected, relaxed Israeli music scene creates opportunity for A List artists to enjoy night life in Tel Aviv, where locals usually just “see celebrities as people.”

Speculation about whether or not stars will cancel, or the latest commentary from Roger Waters (formerly of Pink Floyd and now a boycott spokesman) can give the impression that musicians teeter on the verge of agreeing with BDS. But BDS does not argue particular policies; they advocate for the elimination of the Jewish state, demanding all of Israel for Palestine.

Some with this view send death threats, like Islamist cleric Omar Bakri who broadcasted before Paul McCartney’s concert, "If he values his life, Mr. McCartney must not come to Israel."

In Tel Aviv, Sir Paul told the press, “My little bit is to try to bring people together through music…It seems to me that most of the people are quite moderate and would like a solution…They want the governments to decide quite quickly on two states, on two nations rather than this conflict.”

After all, how likely is it for musicians, who include Israel on a world tour, suddenly to align themselves against a goal of peace for two nations and boycott their own show?