Comments on: Despite controversy, Brooklyn College BDS panel is a non-event

By: Jane Jackman

Jane Jackman — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 16:56:34 +0000

Judith Butler does not associate herself with the group mentioned – they attach themselves to events like this one – and it is false to say she is a hater of Israel. She is, however, a practicing Jew and a lover of justice.

By: Leen

Leen — Wed, 13 Feb 2013 09:15:21 +0000

If you reject Zionism and a Jewish state, that does not necessarily mean you reject Israel. I always found it a very strange concept that Israel claims to be a secular state and then claims to be a Jewish state. My understanding of secularism is that religious life is relegated to private life. Which means, public transporation doesn’t stop running on Shabat, shops don’t get fined on Shabat and the like. To me that isn’t secular.
Israel can shed its zionism and religious connotation and still remain a state. You don’t get your car stoned on Yom Kippur. It’s not hard, many countries have done similar things.
For the record, I don’t believe all forms of Zionism are bad, I for one don’t mind Cultural Zionism. Israel can retain some form of cultural zionism that is not opposed to liberty, plurality, and international law. I have heard BDSer actually on more than one occasion express aparthy to Cultural Zionism as it does not have terrible consequences for the inhabitant population.

Once more, I never have said at any point that I am part, support or not support, the BDS movement. I am merely discussing it and why alternate interpertations.

By: Frank

Frank — Tue, 12 Feb 2013 19:43:55 +0000

You lost all credibility Lisa when you wrote ” we had a certain Jewish Harvard professor who equates any criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism”

By: Avrumele Abramovich

Avrumele Abramovich — Tue, 12 Feb 2013 19:24:16 +0000

It is not a question of “interpretation.” The chief spokespeople of the BDS movement make no secret of their rejection of Zionism in all its forms and their rejection of a Jewish state in any form. All I have tried to do here is to appeal to those who support a two-state solution to reject the BDS movement and to join groups like J Street and Peace Now who do support a two-state solution. I have not tried here to argue why I believe in a two-state solution, because I don’t think these kinds of venues are suited for in-depth argument. But I do think they’re good for alerting people to the fact, as amply demonstrated by many of the comments here, that BDSers reject the two-state solution because of their fundamental opposition to Zionism and the very notion of a Jewish state. If anyone is still reading this thread, and you believe in a two-state solution, either for reasons of principle or pragmatism, please distance yourself from alliance with the BDS movement. It opposes your goals. You can verify this simply by reading the writings of its leading representatives like Judith Butler. The BDS movement is the opponent of people who believe in a two-state solution, not an ally.

By: Leen

Leen — Tue, 12 Feb 2013 10:09:55 +0000

I also do think BDS’s goals interpertation can be interperted as two states.

Firstly, if you advocate for an open border policy that allows Israelis and Palestinians to comfortable live in either Palestine or Israel. Then you have solved the ‘colonization of all Arab lands since 1948′. It can also solve the issue of Palestinians right of return and end occupation.

It would also make it a much higher risk for a war/conflict to restart between both Israelis and Palestinians, yet it allows each state to exist in its own standing and hold on to its identity and cultural character (the reason why I stop short from full on supporting one-state by the way because it does not fufill the self-determinatio of Palestinians in terms of foreign policy).

By: Leen

Leen — Tue, 12 Feb 2013 10:05:29 +0000

I don’t think you understand my position at all. I did not explicitly state what my position on two state or one state (for the record, yes one state for me is ideal, but I will live with a two state granted that it leaves an open border situation where Palestinians are allowed to travel and live in Israel and Israelis are allowed to live in West Bank granted they become Palestinian citizens. Only fair, plus I explicity said I do not support separation on ethnic and religious lines). I do not advocate for separation as I think it is inherently racist (Separate but equal has already proven to be false).

But I always stress this decision must be made by Palestinians and Israelis, based on international law and human rights. Not Non-Palestinian Arabs, Non-Israeli Jews, Americans, or whatever.

I also never explicitly said whether I support BDS or not, or whether I am part of the movement or not.

Therefore you are strawmanning the argument. You have made assumptions about my views while in fact I simply pointed out the interpertations of BDS.

Again, the reason why I flip flop about the issue of two state vs one state because I think they are used a slogan rather than concerete, substantial discussion of ‘attainability’ and ‘what the heck is even a one state or a two state?’ Too many peopel interpert it as too many things. With two states i’ve heard interpertations as outrageous as a halakic state in West Bank and secular one in Israel.

I also believe that states are dynamic, they are not static. So maybe a two-state would be achieved and everyone is dandy and happy. Next thing you know there’s a civil war in Israel between the religious right and secular left. And maybe that state dissembles in multiple little states. Who knows. The point is the process is dynamic and adapts to demographic, ideological, cultural and global change.

By: Avrumele Abromovich

Avrumele Abromovich — Tue, 12 Feb 2013 02:25:23 +0000

To Aristeid and Leen: I completely understand your positions. I reject them. And so do the vast majority of American Jews. With each post, you have made my point even stronger — viz., that anyone who believes in a two-state solution should reject the BDS movement because it and its supporters oppose a two-state solution. My point in posting here, as I’ve said all along, is to make it clear to all readers of this page that if they support the two-state solution, they should distance themselves from the BDS movement and its supporters. You reject Zionism and a Jewish State. I respect your right to hold and express those views. I reject them and will do everything to convince others that they should reject them. But I have not been trying to put forward substantive arguments in this space to support my endorsement of a two-state solution. Rather, I am calling on all who do support the two-state solution to realize that they do not share any common ground with you. I think that some supporters of the two-state solution have been mistakenly thinking that the BDS movement is their ally. It is not. It is fundamentally at odds with the two-state solution – as your posts have firmly and unequivocally announced. To supporters of the two-state solution: join J Street, support Peace Now, lobby your congressional representatives to call on Israel to withdraw to the ’67 borders. But reject the BDS movement, which firmly and clearly opposes your values.

By: Leen

Leen — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 15:48:30 +0000

And yes I am opposed to a Jewish state just as I am opposed to a Christian and an Islamic state. I am a secularist so I am wary of states that are built along religious identity/lines. I even wince a bit when any state claims to be secular yet claims to say the country’s religion is ‘insert religion here’

As for bringing up Bosnia, I was bring an example of two ethnic identities in one. I did not say it was ideal.

By: Leen

Leen — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 15:45:07 +0000

Again, you seem to be missing the point I was making. I was making the point that regimes and states are not ‘static’, they are dynamic. They adapt and change. That does not mean that the people are wiped out, nor do they lose any of their cultural or historical heritage. For example, Germany. Germany was imperial, then it became Nazi, then it split into two (one communist, one not), then it united into a federal republic. This was in the span of 100 years. The point is Germany is still there. Same argument for Russia. There isn’t a country today that hasn’t gone through some form of state change in the last 100 years, yes, including the US.

But you are straw-manning the argument. You are trying to paint a movement that aims to change the regime as some sort of ‘bad’ movement bending over on some type of destruction. While in fact, from everything I seem to read, they are more interested in a regime and state change. Again, that does not necessarily a bad thing as a regime and a state that is built on universal human rights and democracy is rarely a ‘bad’ state.

By: aristeides

aristeides — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 15:07:44 +0000

Avrum – your position is reasonable, but it is based on acceptance of the original injustice of the Arab expulsion. If Israel’s existence “as a Jewish state” with a permanent Jewish majority would not have been possible without the permanent expulsion of a quarter-million people, can you honestly say that Israel as a Jewish state deserves to exist?

Israel was born in sin. Zionism is the embrace of that sin. It doesn’t stop being a sin, even today.