A couple of weeks back, the New York Times ran a piece on YaLa, a loose-knit virtual organization of young Israelis and Palestinians trying to bridge the ever-widening gap between their societies using social media like Facebook.
I’ll admit to looking at the story a bit skeptically at first, especially given the media’s ability to lose all perspective (intellectual, emotional and historic) the moment Facebook is involved with a political movement (demonstrated mostly notably during the so-called “Facebook Revolutions” of the supposed “Arab Spring”).
But then I reconsidered. After all, if Jews and Arabs are trying to make peace with each other at ground level, any effort along those lines should be celebrated. And such support is especially needed for those Palestinians courageous enough to buck their own mainstream media and school curricula which erupts constant demands that every Settler/Israeli/Jew (take you pick) be boycotted/kicked-out/blown-up (again, take your pick).
But apparently the forces of BDS are not quite so open-minded regarding other people’s political choices. As noted here, the Electronic Intifada (an enforcer of the BDS “consensus”) has declared the YaLa group treif in BDS eyes, condemning its Palestinian leaders for (among other crimes) being involved with past efforts to find peace between Jews and Arabs.
As noted previously, such lashing out at Palestinians trying to maintain the people-to-people connection envisioned by the original Oslo peace accords seems to be part of a pattern. For as the forces of BDS have less and less to brag about after a decade of failure abroad, the one and only place where they can enforce their edicts are in territories under Palestinian control. And since they take it upon themselves the right to declare what makes up the Palestinian people’s general will (i.e., to participate in boycotts of Israeli people and companies), they seem to have no trouble clamping down on any effort to normalize Israeli or Palestinian lives in any way.
Once again, BDS has shown itself to be a “movement” dedicated first and foremost to eliminating any alternatives to conflict. And since its practitioners return to stony silence (or start screaming condemnations of Israel at the top of their lungs) the moment someone mentions that groups like Hezbollah and Hamas seem to be successfully stockpiling weapons for the next outbreak of violence, we are left with a political program dedicated to (1) assuring that conflict is the one and only choice available to both Palestinians and Israelis; and (2) trying to put the issue of those they support arming themselves to the teeth beyond discussion.
I’m not sure what you would call a “movement” dedicated to such warlike and propagandistic goals, but the words “peace” and “justice” certainly don’t shoot the top of the list.