BDS -- Biased and Divisive Sophistry

                                                                                                                         

“That's not our agenda.” “We have to start somewhere.” “We can only do one thing at a time.”

Those tend to be the responses to the charges of a double standard that are used by anti-Israel organizations – organizations spawned by those opposed to that state's existence. How those groups decided on their agendas is never discussed. And they seem to protest too much. In reality, however, they're inspired by the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement which arose from the pro-Palestinian NGO Forum held to parallel the UN World Conference Against Racism, held in 2001 in Durban, South Africa. The Forum, which was condemned by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, described Israel in its final declaration as a “racist, apartheid state” guilty of “racist crimes including war crimes, acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing.” It also promoted the “Durban Strategy” which called for “a policy of complete and total isolation of Israel [and] the imposition of mandatory and comprehensive sanctions and embargoes, the full cessation of all links (diplomatic, economic, social, aid, military cooperation and training) between all states and Israel.”

“Agenda” usually refers to a list of “to-do's,”ⁱ not to a single item, although the usage as a singular is accepted.ⁱⁱ Even so, I'd guess that none of the organizations that promote BDS actions against Israel (the agenda) has a second item listed. They all have a solitary focus. And I'd also guess that there are few, if any, similar organizations that propose a boycott of China, or Afghanistan, or some African nation – or one of the numerous countries that oppress their own citizens and the citizens of other countries. And no attention is paid to tyrannies.

“But,” they tell us, “we have to start somewhere.” Fair enough I suppose, at least as far as it goes.ⁱⁱⁱ However we import far more items from China than Israel so it would be much easier for members to find Chinese products not to buy than Israeli.^iv And, of course, “we can only do one thing at a time.” Oh? Why? If you're in the business of not buying something it's just as easy to not buy two or three things from different countries.^v

The fact that almost invariably Israel is singled out for political actions when the oppression of Christians, women, children, non-Caucasians, the disabled, and those with other than heterosexual practices, in numerous countries around the world is ignored, suggests that the agenda has more to do with Israel and its people than to its exports or its policies.^vi No notice is taken of of the actual practices in Israel where as opposed to some other countries in the area, Christians can pray openly.^vii And Israel has a higher standard of living and better health care for Muslims than in many of those other lands.^viii There are Muslim doctors, lawyers, college students, judges, and legislators. And they can speak freely. Israel is a democracy.

What is apparent, however, is the increase seen in the media – and secondarily in the consumers of the media – of both subtle and blatant anti-Israeli attitudes. And the fact that more and more countries are faulting Jewish religious practices, including circumcision and ritual slaughter, suggests that opposition to Israel has become the currently acceptable way of expressing anti-Jewish feelings. It is anti-semitism, but it is designed to sound virtuous. Holocaust deniers on the right, and “principled” liberals on the left have found a way to draw into their clique those in the middle. They look for people who won't ask “Why” Israel is their agenda and there is no other; who won't ask “Why,” having to start somewhere, they always choose Israel, rather than those who oppress so many groups that they otherwise favor; and who won't ask “Why” they can only do one thing at a time. They seek, and they find, “useful innocents” and “useful idiots” who can be manipulated into supporting causes they don't really understand. The ranks of their supporters are filled with “true believers,” who believe what they're told, and do as they're told.

So while it is true that one can oppose Israel without opposing Jews, such a position is usually just a smokescreen for anti-semitism. And the protesters with loud and seemingly high-minded declarations are simply the megaphones of those who dislike the Jews and the Jewish State simultaneously. So when we take such ideas seriously and buy into them (or, as their boycotts demand, we don't buy what they oppose), we only fool ourselves. Those who promote such views – especially those who understand the meaning and implications of their positions – are attempting to hide their real views behind self-righteous rhetoric. And they who give credence to such disingenuous bombast, who piously act on the patent prejudice of others, and on their own unconscious biases as well, should be made to understand the illogic and intolerance of the views they are promoting, and the manner in which they are being manipulated.^ix

But that would require too much insight, and the recognition of their own biases. So don't hold your breath.

Next episode: “Bill And Coup” -- You have to love those who prepare for your future.

i      I'm not sure the apostrophe belongs there. I certainly don't intend to imply either a contraction or the possessive form of “to-do,” only its plural state, but I was unsure if “to-dos” would be understood or would be considered some variant of an outmoded operating system.
ii      When used in the singular it usually refers to a specific goal which is to be pursued to the exclusion of all others. 
iii     Boycotts are legal in the United States as long as they're not initiated by a foreign government. Hence the prompting to establish BDS actions came from pro-Palestinian NGOs. (In this case I don't think an apostrophe is necessary to clarify the text.)

iv      It's interesting that so many of the groups that protest that they have to start somewhere decide to start with Israel. And it seems like an amazing coincidence that so many other groups have chosen Israel as the first, and only, item on their agenda. It's hard not to wonder if there is something more than coincidence that unites those who seek to act against Israel, and only against Israel.

v        There are so many products made in China, for example, that no one would have to go out of his way to not buy them. But perhaps there are too many. Perhaps China has such a hold on the American economy that no one would want to make the sacrifice, or spend the time, involved in boycotting them. It would be a lot easier to boycott Afghanistan, and it would make a strong statement about our view of the way they treat women. But it's not as politically correct as protesting against Israel. After all, the UN does it all the time. It's an obsession with them.

vi      A special irony is the accusation of racism against Israel. It used to be against “Zionism” but the United Nations eventually decided that such an accusation was unjustified and difficult to defend. So now the accusation is against Israel and, a few days ago, a UN committee condemned what it viewed as improper immigration policies there, as evidenced by protests of Africans who entered the country illegally. What makes it ironic is that Israel, the home of those whom the UN sees as anti-African racists, is forced to limit immigration because so many Africans want to go to there. Apparently the UN knows from a distance more about racism than those who have been suffering. And, according to the world organization, it appears that Israel is the only racist nation there is. Certainly no such decrees are warranted against anyone else.

vii     It's sad that so many church groups that wouldn't consider it appropriate to speak out against the murderers of those of their own faith, find their voices when it comes to condemning Israel and the Jews, and they never tire of doing so.

viii      “In addition to family ties, it seems economic considerations play heavily into making Israel attractive to its Arab citizens. Several polls and interviews conducted in recent years suggest that given the choice, most Palestinian Arab Israelis would prefer to remain in Israel, with some willing to move house if their homes became part of a new Palestinian state. A 2011 poll of over 1,000 East Jerusalem Arabs revealed that 54% would prefer to stay in Israel and only 25% would actively move to a new Palestinian state. Even if their neighborhoods were rezoned to such a state, 40% said they would try to move back to Israel. When asked why, they identified access to better jobs, smaller classes for their children, and better healthcare as motivating factors.”

http://www.breakingisraelnews.com/israeli-arabs-want-remain-israel/#5ye21S5sh0cQmrHG.99

x      Sadly, church groups and councils, that have been manipulated by fanatics in their ranks into supporting boycotts and other negative social programs, will never admit to having been wrong. It's a slippery slope that may cause the questioning of their theological precepts. We can hope, however, that they let such programs die through benign neglect while they focus on more positive activities. (Self-righteous academics are even worse than the clergy. However intelligent they are they have no insight into their own folly and fanaticism, and would never admit to a mistake since questioning themselves would be unthinkable.  Unfortunately they impose their prejudices on the next generation.)