We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Beneath the fold is a letter from Scholars For Peace in the Middle East (SPME) to some faculty members at one college, whose petition is similar to such petitions at other colleges to silence those who disagree with Boycotting, Divesting from, Sanctioning Israel (BDS), which by definition is anti-Semitic for singling out Israel for claims that are false or really appropriate to despotic countries but aren't made by BDSers instead BDS being about hatred of Israel and Jews. The letter amply sums up the sheer hypocrisy and ignorance of the petition signers.
An Open Letter from SPME to the faculty who signed the pro-BDS letter to University of Massachusetts Amherst Chancellor Kumble Subbaswamy
We do not know whether you signed because you are knowledgeable on the issue, or you are just trusting the colleague who encouraged you to “be one of the good guys” and sign. If you are of the latter, allow us to address you. This is indeed about freedom of speech, and about both sides speaking. It is just the opposite of what the document you signed claims. It is not the Jews who are trying to shut down criticism of Israel. Only someone who knows nothing about Israel or is a dedicated enemy can say such a thing with a straight face. No country on the planet has so high a level of internal public critical discussion. Everyone criticizes Israel, including Israelis and Jews. What the Jews who support Israel find really offensive is the moral sadism of calling them Nazis or having people from far more prejudiced if not racist cultures, call this astoundingly tolerant polity, “racist.”
It is not the Jews who support Israel who are preventing discussions on what is going on in the Middle East or shutting down criticism of Israel; it is those who support the BDS movement, for whom any exchange with an Israel-supporter is considered unacceptable. It is not pro-Israel Jews who are pushing cancel culture with shouting and violence; it is BDS promoters. Because Israel, so runs the BDS narrative, is an irredeemable evil – like the Nazis, white supremacists – with which one can make no compromise. As runs their chant: “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free .” Do you really think that Palestinian sovereignty over “every inch of the land” will bring freedom? For anyone? Even Muslims?
While it is often a good idea to have debates on controversial issues like this one, it is extremely common for departments and student organizations to sponsor presentations that mainly support one side. In fact, many of us see it as a part of the mission of the university to ensure that legitimate positions that are marginalized by the mainstream media and those in political power get a special hearing.
Ask yourself about those who favor BDS: when was the last time they had a debate on this controversial issue, rather than shout down and cancel the voice of anyone who might challenge their narrative of the vicious Zionist oppressor and the innocent Palestinian victim?
And while positions of those marginalized by the mainstream may be legitimate and should be heard more often, some voices may be marginalized precisely because the content of their claims and demands go far beyond what a community committed to fairness and honesty would find acceptable. Certainly, that’s what you feel about white supremacism. Indeed, there is a direct relationship between the extreme nature of the BDS demands – especially the cancel culture’s motto: “no normalization” – and the dishonesty and irredentism of their narrative and accompanying demands. Ask your BDS activist to tell you what an Israeli might say and he or she cannot: for them Israelis are beyond the pale of humanity. Unlike the claim of the letter you signed, it’s entirely possibly to treat people inhumanly without actually killing them.
Bill Burr caught the contradiction nicely:
I just love the arrogance of these people, as if the former Pink Floyd bass player does not show up in Israel, it will finally make all sides sit at the negotiating table and resolve the conflict.
Of course, it won’t. It isn’t there to help compromise. It is there to feed the belligerence of one side – the side you signed on to support – in their effort to shut down all negotiations and instead deny another people any recognition, and any right to sovereignty.
Ask yourself: in a matter as morally significant as this, with all kinds of issues dear to the progressive agenda – indigeneity, occupation, oppression, human rights – what rate of unreliability would convince you to distrust testimony from any given side? If 25% of their claims proved false or deliberately inflated, would that be enough? 50%? 75%? If some of us object to the panel as organized, it’s not because those on it criticize Israel, but because we know from past experience that they will demonize Israel with unreliable (fake) news and will not allow anyone to challenge their claims.
Let’s settle for a (extremely low) bar: when one can demonstrate that 50% of the narratives promoted by BDS are either false or distorted beyond recognition, will you agree to treat their claims with a hermeneutic of suspicion? Some of us, as veteran checkers of BDS claims, are willing to bet on results of 75-95% false/inaccurate… let the chips fall as they may. But at least look at how the chips fall, rather than taking sides with the very people who claim they are so right, and Israel so wrong, that you must not listen to them. Why not take an open, balanced, approach, and hear another side? The only reason is, you have already adopted one side’s demon narrative. Do you really want to mainstream marginalized voices as “legitimate,” who take advantage of the platform you give them, to demonize and marginalize others?
My current framing is that facts do not matter to them, because all the thinking is taking place at a symbolic, possibly tribal and mythic level. That has always been partly true of humankind in general, and of each of us in specific in various amounts. What makes this concerning is that 1) the facts seem to be not only secondary but even irrelevant, 2) this is the intelligentsia, who we rely on to be more objective*, and 3) it has untoward intensity.
It is evidence for my contention that liberalism is essentially a religious belief.
* I know, I know. I'm just giving you the theory here. European intellectuals got just about everything wrong in the 20th C, and that has gradually bled over to Americans.
Assistant Village Idiot
One wonders just how much funding BDS gets from Schwartz György and others of his ilk...