Why not write about BDS
Jonathan Cristol explains why he's not willing to write an article for or against the BDS (boycott, divest, sanction) movement against Israel, but only an article about writing an article against BDS.BDS has had so few triumphs that every extremely minor victory is blown up as “proof” that the movement is gaining steam. I suspect that this phenomenon is the natural psychological coping mechanism of people who have devoted themselves to an ineffective, offensive, and hopeless cause. This movement is planned on computers that run Intel chips (often designed in Israel, and a large employer in Israel) via e-mails that are sent through Cisco Systems routers (also often designed in Israel, and a large employer in Israel) by individuals using Microsoft Office (partially designed in Microsoft Israel’s Research and Development Center).Got that? By the way, there's a great quote from Johnny Rotten about Costello's cancellation here.
The cancellation of an Elvis Costello concert, scheduled after the Gaza War, will not cause Israel to withdraw from Gaza (Oh. Wait. Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2006). The Costello household itself was not even unanimous in its boycott of Israel– Diana Krall, Costello’s wife, performed in Israel on 4 August. Naïve musicians and other artists being convinced of the “error of their ways” by naïve college kids, professional activists, ex-hippies, and Pat Buchananites, does not a strong movement make. The fact that an artist canceling a concert in Israel for political reasons is rare enough to make the headlines is not a sign of growing support for BDS.
There are no major organizations or universities in the United States that have agreed to the B, the D, or the S of Israel. Some have debated the issue, but anything is debatable if someone debates it—it does not mean that the matter was taken seriously. The BDSers continue to make a fuss about Hampshire College “divesting” from Israel, long after the school itself issued a statement, in the form of a public letter to Alan Dershowitz, saying, “No other college or university should use Hampshire as a precedent for divesting from Israel, since Hampshire has refused to divest from Israel.” Here we see a non-success trumpeted as a great success. The matter has been debated in the English university system for years, but votes on boycotts have repeatedly failed.
So an article or incident that is in favor of BDS is proof that BDS is gaining steam; and an article or incident against BDS proves that it is gaining steam so quickly that the writer or publication is nervous about it. A victory is a victory and a loss is a victory. If the writer calls it anti-Semitic then that is an even greater victory as the writer is “resorting to ad hominem attacks.”
If I do write a long post or series of posts I will be handing a victory to the BDS movement. If, in that post, I write about the anti-Semitism that creeps into the BDS movement then I have handed out a huge victory. But if I am scared into not writing about BDS for fear I will be helping the BDS crazies, then that is certainly a victory for BDS. If I write about writing about BDS, I still haven’t avoided handing a victory to my opponents on this issue. So I must apologize to supporters of Israel for handing yet another victory to this small, inconsequential, but very loud movement.
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 9:54 PM
1 Comments:
As I've said before, the Arabs instituted the boycott in 1921, at the outset of the British Mandate. It achieved none of their goals. After almost a century, you'd think they'd learn to stop beating their heads futilely against a stone wall.
The Jews are in Israel to stay. Its time they got used to it.
Post a Comment
<< Home