BDS Without Tears
And stuff we learned in Kindergarten
My friend Leo Casey tees off on the “Boycott Divestment Sanctions” (BDS) movement aimed at Israel. I think he gets over his skis a bit. I’ve had a few qualms about BDS, especially as applied to otherwise innocent Israeli academics and performers who need to travel for professional reasons. By now, however, in general, Israel’s horrific conduct regarding Palestine and Iran render almost any non-violent response acceptable.
I did say “almost.” The simple problem with BDS is that it is tainted by chauvinism regarding Israel’s right to self-determination. Israel’s chauvinism explains BDS chauvism, a.k.a. “nationalism,” but it does not justify it. As from Kindergarten, two wrongs do not make a right. Socialism beats nationalism, democracy is foundational to socialism, and self-determination is necessary for democracy. BDS’s obsession with the “normalization” of Israel is a denial of its right to self-determination. It dovetails with the periodic antisemitic lapses observed in BDS-adjacent agitation.
Self-determination means respect for national sovereignty, regardlesss of what you think of a nation’s conduct. Socialists should like self-determination because it is conducive to countries not brutalizing weaker countries. It’s good for World Peace. We like Peace. War is usually waged for the benefit of corrupt, self-interested elites. Them we don’t like. Kindergarten stuff again.
Leo goes on about BDS’s habitually over-the-top conflation of all Zionists and Jews with the worst of Israel’s actions. I’ve made this point myself. The enemy is not individuals, however Zionist their sympathies, but Israeli policy and its fundamental supporting ideology, which was chauvinist, nationalist, and imperialist from its very start in the 19th Century.
What about self-determination for Palestine? Of course, that merits support as well. In fact, as I’ve previously asserted, Israel’s denial of Palestinian self-determination is nearly disabling with respect to its own right to self-determination. That’s another reason why BDS should be indulged, if not embraced whole-heartedly.
BDS used to be toxic politics. The faults Leo recounts are not helpful. There could not have been more than a handful of Congressional districts where a pro-BDS stance would be tolerated. That has been changing. Thanks to Israel’s horrific acts, American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee donations have become a stain on centrist candidacies all over the U.S. Michigan might elect an anti-Zionist senator.
But the carnage in Gaza, the West Bank, and elsewhere is ongoing. The shift in public opinion is not happening fast enough, which is why for practical purposes we still need to find common cause with liberal Zionists like J Street. BDS, for its part, can’t even see any value in explicit proclamations in support for Palestinian self-determination, because they come from Jews with incorrect thoughts.
Even the mad MAGAs are starting to turn against Israel, and given what passes for their intellectual faculties, Jews in general. I’ve always thought Trump, an obvious antisemite, would sell out Israel at the drop of a hat. That he has done so in a good cause by pausing the hostilities with Iran confuses people, but it does not erase the underlying prejudices boiling in the U.S. We are still in the woods.
Interesting take that made me ponder about the idea of "nation."
Let us first consider the assumption that nations enjoy rights under the laws of nature. I think we can agree that a corporation is not an individual and should not enjoy the same rights of individuals, correct? If so, then why should we attribute the same assumption to the idea of a nation (a relative concept to begin with)?
I see the US embracing BDS as the most effective way to help Standing Together. Right now, they are so far outside the vast majority of Israeli Jewish public opinion, not merely Israeli-Jewish leadership, that they really are window dressing for apartheid and genocide. This is true no matter their personal intentions, bravery, and demand for kindness. Leo Casey is taking their word too seriously, not strategically. He should not worry more about BDS than worrying about why it is the Dem establishment in the US remains so committed to arming, financing, and militarily-cooperating with an apartheid, genocidal, land aggrandizing regime. Weren't there similar voices in white apartheid South Africa back in the 1980s, too? It is BDS being embraced by the US power curve that took down that regime.
And Max, remember, people have a right to self-determination, not nations. And people's right to self-determination should not be about extermination of another's right on the same land. Most people I know who are Palestinian activists don't want Judenrein. That's Steve Bannon right here in the US. Casey is really focused on the wrong people in his handkerchief clutching essay. It is great on links and I can go some of the way in his argument, but overall, it misses this crucial moment in US domestic politics and reminds me, sadly, of my avatar Michael Harrington not really understanding why young people were so pissed by 1968 at US leadership for continuing the war against the people of Vietnam.