+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

Analysis News
Visit our Hebrew site, "Local Call" , in partnership with Just Vision.

A litmus test for the American Jewish left

I hesitate to critique BDS, but there is still something in the campaign that troubles me — a sense that some on the left are inadvertently using boycott as a tool with which to sort through, measure, and reject other progressive voices.

By Penina Eilberg-Schwartz

Protesters hold signs calling for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) during a Washington, D.C., protest against Israel's offensive on Gaza, August 2, 2014. (photo: Ryan Rodrick Beiler/Activestills.org)

Protesters hold signs calling for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) during a Washington, D.C., protest against Israel’s offensive on Gaza, August 2, 2014. (photo: Ryan Rodrick Beiler/Activestills.org)

Palestinians living in Israel are all too familiar with litmus tests, most of which boil down to the question of Israel’s “right to exist.”

In its politics, most brazenly suggested in the 2014 nation-state bill which suggested to define Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people, Israel demands that Palestinians in Israel both recognize the legitimacy of Zionism as a movement and, ultimately, accept the violence and dispossession it led to.

While Palestinians face the greatest danger of failing the litmus test–which one can fail by the simple fact of being Palestinian–Jews in America also find themselves caught in these mechanisms of testing and counter-testing.

In the Bay Area, grantees of the San Francisco Jewish Federation may not hold public events with organizations that consider Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) a legitimate movement. This policy bars public panel events with speakers from Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), a vocal advocate for selective boycotting of companies profiting from the occupation.

If you agree with certain forms of boycott, you’ve failed the test. And if you want to be seen as legitimate by the institutional Jewish community in the Bay Area, this is a test you must pass.

However, there is also another side to this dynamic.

In some radical spaces, to only partially support the movement or to feel ambivalent about academic boycott is seen as a kind of betrayal. If you are not pro-BDS, you are subject to scorn.

Those with the loudest voices in these spaces seem to view anyone using other strategies to fight the occupation as dissembling traitors who co-opt progressive language while supporting the status quo.

This is a relevant critique for some kinds of work–certain dialogue projects have legitimately been called into question in this way–but we have to be careful about concluding that there’s only one correct way to participate in a struggle.

I hesitate to critique BDS. In mainstream Jewish spaces, especially where the movement has been so broadly demonized, I feel protective of BDS’ legitimacy and voice.

But there’s still something in the campaign that troubles me, a sense that some on the left are inadvertently using BDS as a tool with which to sort through, measure, and reject other progressive voices.

BDS isn’t trying to change minds, nor should it. It’s trying to mobilize people who already believe that the occupation must be stopped and offer them a collective action that could force Israel’s hand.

I think we need this movement desperately. But just as the civil rights movement needed (and still needs) both Black Power and civil disobedience, I think it’s true that we need other things alongside BDS, namely, strategic individuals and organizations trying to change minds.

We should ask ourselves: What does it mean, exactly, that the tests we create on the left use the same determining factors as the litmus tests of the right? If we privilege the opposite answers, but use the same questions?

Locke wrote about an implicit agreement we are asked to make with the countries in which we live. Along the same lines, you could argue that every community must have litmus tests, that they are an essential tool for creating boundaries without which communities would not exist.

What marks the difference, of course, is who has the guns. If the litmus tests that are most dangerous are the ones backed by the most force, we might decide to forgive the litmus tests of the left.

We hope that the movements for freedom we are building now will define the realities of the future. But if the only difference between the two kinds of tests is the mechanism of power that lies behind them, the only reason the litmus tests of the left aren’t dangerous yet is because we don’t have power yet.

But we want that to change, and when it does, we don’t want to have built a reality based on tests, or one that looks anything like the one we were trying to fight.

Penina Eilberg-Schwartz is a writer and activist based out of the Bay Area. Her work has appeared in Reform Judaism, The Rumpus, This Recording, Neutrons Protons, and sparkle + blink. She is currently working on a book of literary non-fiction about the life of Combatants For Peace co-founder Sulaiman Khatib.

Newsletter banner

Before you go...

A lot of work goes into creating articles like the one you just read. And while we don’t do this for the money, even our model of non-profit, independent journalism has bills to pay.

+972 Magazine is owned by our bloggers and journalists, who are driven by passion and dedication to the causes we cover. But we still need to pay for editing, photography, translation, web design and servers, legal services, and more.

As an independent journalism outlet we aren’t beholden to any outside interests. In order to safeguard that independence voice, we are proud to count you, our readers, as our most important supporters. If each of our readers becomes a supporter of our work, +972 Magazine will remain a strong, independent, and sustainable force helping drive the discourse on Israel/Palestine in the right direction.

Support independent journalism in Israel/Palestine Donate to +972 Magazine today
View article: AAA
Share article
Print article

    * Required


    1. Wedding Singer

      This silly woman just realized that BDS is unethical and immoral. Like most Palostinian efforts, it is poorly though out. Its popularity is driven by elitists who want to feel chic and better than other people. They need to have a cause that will piss off their parents. Much like getting a tattoo or dating someone from another race. It’s time these fools move on to global warming before they hurt themselves.

      Reply to Comment
    2. Ben

      We need more intelligent, nuanced, balanced examples of critical thinking about “BDS” such as this. Thank you Ms. Eilberg-Schwartz and +972.

      Reply to Comment
    3. Gustav

      End the occupation end…End the occupation…End the occupation…

      That’s the endless mantra. But then what? Replace it with more war? How will that work? The occupation cannot be ended unilaterally. It needs to end by both sides signing a binding peace deal which is realistic and acceptable to both parties in the long term. And it needs to at least look like it is real rather than a charade. That means that organizations like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al Aqsa and other assorted darlings are under control (either curbed) or have shown that they have given up their bad old ways.

      In the meanwhile, the BDS movement reminds me of a three year old throwing a tantrum and demanding his dummy NOOOWWW!!!!

      Reply to Comment
    4. Mars Mercury

      Spanish former prime minister Jose Maria Aznar has repeatedly condemned the BDS movement, saying “BDS does not only want to change the government’s policy, it wants to empty the country of Jews.”

      Why is this state of affairs apparent to Sr. Aznar while Ms. Penina prefers wallowing in stupidity?

      Reply to Comment