I’m frequently asked how BDS sustains itself after a defeat or series of defeats and, as with so many things, there is no simple (or single) answer to that question.
Historically, the BDS virus has actually gone into remission (as it did between 2006-2009) so the image of boycotters relentlessly moving forward is incorrect even if you judge them simply in terms of activity.
Recall that divestment advocates dwell in a world where simply dragging the Middle East conflict into an organization provides them sustenance (regardless of the damage it causes to others) which is why one of things that keeps their “movement” going is their complete unwillingness to take “No” for an answer. No doubt they see this as just one more example of their readiness to “speak truth to power,” (even as they tell lies while sucking up to the mighty). But here on earth such relentlessness begins to resemble nothing so much as stalking.
Take, for example, the Presbyterian Church in the US (PCUSA). Longer-term readers will recall a lot of coverage of the church’s 2010 General Assembly (GA) in June and July where divestment was (yet again) on the agenda, despite the fact that it was rejected by this same assembly when the Presbyterians met in 2006 and 2008. So why does divestment seem to be permanently on the Presbyterian docket? Well in 2004 partisans within the church managed to get PCUSA to pass a divestment measure (the one that was rejected 95% to 5% in ’06) and, as many who have had the misfortune of having their institution infected by the BDS virus will tell you, it can take a long, long time to fully clean this infection from your system.
Exhibit A (really Exhibit IV, the last column of a spreadsheet for your Excel users): the recent decision of the Israel/Palestine Mission Network (IPMN) of the Presbyterian Church (USA) to formally join the BDS “movement.” Now keep in mind that IPMN is an entity of the Presbyterian Church, the very Presbyterian Church whose members voted (three times now) to reject divestment at the legislative assembly where church policy is set. And yet here you have a church entity that should at least take into account the fact that a majority of members (some quite vociferously) reject the notion of divestment flipping their fellow Presbyterians the bird as they sign at the bottom of the BDS contract.
Such behavior can only be explained if you understand that IPMN is not a Presbyterian Church organization flirting with BDS, but a BDS organization that happens to be made up of Presbyterians whose goal is to drag the church back into serving as an anchor client for the divestment “movement” by any means necessary. In which case, why is such a political group simultaneously being allowed to act as an arm of the church while defying the policies and members of that organization publically and on a daily basis?