In the past few months, the Tufts campus has seen its fair share of debate about the Israel/Palestine issue. On Friday, Tufts Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) brought University of California Berkeley professor and anti-Zionist advocate Judith Butler to speak. Excluding the content of her speech, her self-identification as an anti-Zionist calls into question her legitimacy as an impartial advocate and her fairness as a speaker. Zionism is simply support for the Jewish right to self-determination in the Jewish people's historic homeland free from anti-Semitic persecution. Butler's stance as contrary to a national group's self-determination merits a closer look at what she actually stands for.
Butler advocates a movement called Boycott, Divestment and Sanction (BDS) - calling for universities and people around the world to boycott Israeli products (and American products used in Israel). Additionally, BDS promotes the right of Palestinian refugees to return to Israel. While this certainly seems like an admirable goal, this call represents BDS's support of a one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Since the UN Relief and Works Agency has stipulated that all descendants of Palestinian refugees are refugees (no matter where they live or have settled), this number is hugely inflated, to nearly 5 million Palestinian "refugees" (approximately 700,000 Palestinians left Israel following its 1948 declaration of statehood). Instead of two states for two peoples, a return of 5 million "refugees" would mean a majority Palestinian state, with its attendant dissolution of the Jewish state of Israel. But don't take my word for it; according to Egyptian President GamalAbdel Nasser in 1961, "If refugees return to Israel, Israel will cease to exist."
While the United States, many European countries, the UN Security Council and leaders around the world advocate a two-state solution for two peoples, the BDS movement clings to this concept of a one-state solution. BDS condemns realistic peace policies and discussions between Israeli and Palestinian educational institutions. BDS denounces peace talks between the two governments, labeling them "collaborationist." This rhetoric makes compromise impossible. Butler, instead of calling for open dialogue, supports a hijacking of academic freedom to support her own political ends. Radical discourse won't solve the conflict.
Additionally, the BDS movement represents a larger problem - the unfair singling out of Israel. First, the movement is extremely tenuous legally. Second, it is based on a misleading premise that instigates discrimination.
In July 2009, the European Court for Human Rights ruled that the boycott of Israeli products in the BDS campaign was not protected freedom of expression. While people certainly have a right to criticize Israel's policies, the court ruled that a boycott constitutes "incitement to an act of discrimination." The boycott singles out Israel in a way that is designed to inflame rhetoric and bend the truth in order to bolster anti-Israel claims. While advocates of BDS may not be discriminatory in purpose, their actions certainly are in effect.
Since BDS's inception in Durban, South Africa, in 2001, the movement has gained little traction. Advocates have called on universities around the world to divest, or shift money in their endowments away from Israel. Resolutions calling for divestment have been defeated nearly universally, as universities around the country have come to realize the illegitimacy of BDS.
BDS proponents are quick to point out that being anti-Israel does not constitute anti-Semitism. In a way, this is true. In an ideal world, we could openly criticize any nation without fear of reprisal. We're lucky enough to live in a country that allows political dissent and free speech. However, criticism crosses the line when it is noncontextual and represents a clear double standard. My question: Where is the BDS movement against the Assad regime in Syria, which has murdered thousands of its own citizens? Where is the BDS movement against Hamas, which condones rocket attacks into Israel and openly calls for its destruction? Where is the BDS movement against China's human rights abuses in Tibet? The BDS movement disproportionately singles out the only democracy in the Middle East, the only country in which women and the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) community have equal rights, the only country in which anti-government demonstrations are not only accepted but also encouraged.
So the question as it relates to Butler's talk: Why single out Israel? Why deny the Jewish right to self-determination while supporting that same right among other groups? In short, because it is easy to criticize Israel. Butler could catch a flight to Tel Aviv tomorrow and hold signs saying she hated the government and its policies. This irony seems lost on Omar Barghouti, the Palestinian founder of the BDS movement, who regularly equates Israel and Nazi Germany. He also regularly calls for a boycott of Israeli academic institutions, yet Barghouti is currently studying for his master's degree at Tel Aviv University. When asked about this choice, he responded "no comment." No other country in the Middle East allows this degree of freedom of speech, yet people turn a blind eye to abuses around the world in order to ostracize Israel. Butler denounces the occupation of the West Bank, but Barghouti's words indicate that the campaign has more to do with ostracizing Israel. In his own words, "If the occupation ends . . . would that end support for BDS? No it wouldn't - no."
Imagine if a Berkeley professor called for the termination of black self-determination, or even Christian self-determination. Such an injustice would not stand, but Butler has made an exception for Israel. Again and again Israel is singled out and criticized. The Jewish state is being targeted as the victim of a media campaign to demonize Israel and to deprive Jews of a national home.
There are 21 Arab countries and 25 officially Muslim countries, 9 of which sentence death for blasphemy. There are 18 Christian countries and 5 officially Buddhist countries. However, there is only one Jewish state. Israel stands alone but nonetheless grants full and equal rights to all its citizens. There remain challenges in healing socio-economic gaps and a long history of ethnic tension, but minority groups have had great success pursuing justice through the Israeli democratic system itself. The Israeli government has even granted personal jurisdiction in legal matters to Muslims, Druze, Christians and Baha'i. However, in spite of its unprecedented respect for other religions and cultures, Israel remains besieged. Palestinians in Gaza shoot rockets from preschools and hospitals. Academics like Judith Butler call for the end to Jewish self-determination.
One of Butler's main points was "Global Responsibility." We as students have a responsibility to approach global issues without prejudice and to hold all countries to the same standard. We are fortunate here at Tufts to have several educational groups (such as New Initiative for Middle East Peace (NIMEP)) committed to creating safe spaces for dialogue and an administration that supports us with resources to help us learn. BDS is neither the only option nor the best way forward. I urge anyone interested in these issues to be proactive, attend more events and draw your own conclusions. Israel isn't perfect, but neither is any country. Singling out Israel for a misguided boycott campaign is both unfair and counterproductive. In the words of President Obama, "when there are efforts to boycott or divest from Israel, we will stand against them."
--
Mario Feola is a freshman who has not yet declared a major.
