PennBDS – Palestine and the Media

There are a number of approaches one could take when dealing with media-related issues regarding Israel and the Middle East.

The most obvious is an analysis of the way Israel and the Middle East conflict are treated in newspapers, television, radio and other media sources, both in the US and abroad.  Such analyses can be extremely eye-opening, but they are also conducted every day by people far more experienced at it than I (notably CAMERA in the US and CIFWatch in the UK).

Alternatively, this piece could focus on how BDS activists try to use the media as a force multiplier for their campaigns, especially since pushing BDS events into the headlines is really the raison d’etre for a “movement” dedicated to convincing the world that the desire to punish Israel economically for alleged “crimes” represents the opinion of more than just a tiny, marginal fringe.

A recent discussion of how boycott and divestment forces skillfully utilize Web 2.0 communication to bypass or augment traditional news sources discusses this phenomenon in detail.  And the only thing I could add specifically regarding the PennBDS conference is that organizers of that event never really seemed to get the hang of whole Web 2.0 thing, waiting until just this week to start tweeting frantically, with most of their comments the result of scouring the Internet for weak arguments to pounce on while all the time avoiding strong arguments at all cost.

Given that these two obvious angles are pretty well covered in the linked sources above, I’d like to use the media as an example of one of the key themes of this blog: the corrupting influence of BDS and allied propaganda efforts on important elements of our civil society.

Few readers will remember this, but one of the first unions to officially pass a BDS resolution was Britain’s National Union of Journalists(or NUJ).  The resolution came about as most boycott and divestment “victories” do (especially within UK unions) when a radicalized union leadership with its own agenda passed a boycott vote before members had the slightest understanding that a discussion on the matter was even taking place.

The 2007 resolution committed the union to a boycott of Israeli goods “similar to those boycotts in the struggle against apartheid in South Africa.” And given the negative disposition of many British journalists towards the Jewish state, it was unclear whether such a resolution would be accepted and remain union policy.  But instead, a revolt broke out among the membership that had not been consulted about the decision and who resented being put in the position of participants in a political conflict they were supposed to be able to cover impartially.

The spirit of objections was summed up by one journalist who asked how he could be expected to be treated as a neutral observer when he carried his press card in one pocket declaring him to be a professional journalist, and an NUJ card in the other declaring him to be a participating in the conflict he was writing about.

As with similar instances, this whole mishagas represented over-reach by BDS forces with rank-and-file objections overcoming leadership power-plays and the NUJ boycott was quickly withdrawn.  And while I couldn’t imagine a similar situation playing out within the mainstream media in the US, the BDSers have found tiny media niches where they have tried to ply their wares (so far unsuccessfully, at least in the US).

But step back for a moment and consider that the original NUJ was explicitly asking members of the journalistic profession to place their most sacred asset (journalistic integrity) on the sacrificial alter in order to be considered “right-thinking” by those pushing a BDS agenda within the union.

We’ve seen this level of sacrifice requested before by divestment partisans lucky enough to receive an audience (preferably private), in front of academic and religious groups.  In the case of an academic boycott (the subject of two talks at the PennBDS conference), educators are not being asked to move money from one retirement fund investment to another as a political statement but to throw their greatest treasure, academic freedom, out the window in order to participate in “the movement” and show themselves to be on the side of the angels.

And speaking of angels, when BDS gets injected into church discourse (as it’s been for almost a decade within Mainline Protestant churches in particular), they are not being asked to divest their considerable retirement portfolios of Israel-related assets to take a political position on a secular matter.  Rather, they are told that such action would represent the purest act of “Christian Witness,” implying that who is right and who is wrong in the Middle East conflict is so blindingly obvious that even God can see it (or, at least, that the church can confidently speak in God’s name when making statements to that effect).

A couple of months back, I read Robin Sheperd’s excellent book A State Beyond the Pale which discusses the reasons behind Europe’s deteriorating behavior vis-à-vis Israel.  The whole book is worth reading, but I wanted to end with a quote I found so resonant I decided to save it for just this purpose:

“Whatever it touches, the anti-Israel agenda always brings out the worst.  It brings out the worst in journalists who cast aside their principles of balance and objectivity.  It brings out the worst in seasoned commentators who substitute hysteria and foot stomping for calm analysis and enlightened discussion. 


It brings out the worst in trade unions which put a hateful agenda above the interest of their members.  It brings out the worst in diplomats who debase themselves by pandering to tyrannies against a democracy.  It brings out the worst in artists and writers who submerge their commitment to beauty and truth in ugliness and lies.  It brings out the worst of the great traditions of Left and Right which default back to their shabbiest instincts and their darkest prejudices.”

Truer words were never spoken.

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

8 Responses to PennBDS – Palestine and the Media

  1. Anonymous February 2, 2012 at 6:48 am #

    http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/nora/bds-proposal-wins-big-occupy-oakland

    BDSWINBDSWINBDSWINBDSWINBDSWINBDSWINBDSWINBDSWINBDSWINBDSWINBDSWINBDSWINBDSWINBDSWINBDSWINBDSWINBDSWINBDSWINBDSWINBDSWINBDSWINBDSWINBDSWINBDSWINBDSWINBDSWINBDSWINBDSWINBDSWINBDSWINBDSWINBDSWINBDSWINBDSWINBDSWINBDSWINBDSWINBDSWIN

    • Jon February 2, 2012 at 8:03 am #

      And in another stunning development, the BDS Movement has also endorsed BDS!

      BDSLAMEBDSLAMEBDSLAMEBDSLAMEBDSLAMEBDSLAMEBDSLAMEBDSLAMEBDSLAMEBDSLAMEBDSLAMEBDSLAMEBDSLAMEBDSLAMEBDSLAMEBDSLAMEBDSLAMEBDSLAMEBDSLAMEBDSLAMEBDSLAME

      PS – You need separated words to generate Google hits – so your final “word” will only be found if people type into Google exactly as you did. You're welcome.

  2. fizziks February 2, 2012 at 6:35 pm #

    Hey anonymous, thanks for bringing that to my attention. Now I know not to support Occupy Oakland anymore.

    http://progressivezionist.blogspot.com/2012/02/and-occupy-oakland-just-lost-me.html

    • Anonymous February 2, 2012 at 10:17 pm #

      Good for Occupy Oakland.

    • Anonymous February 3, 2012 at 3:02 am #

      Occupy Oakland has been entirely discredited by mainstream America as nothing more than a bunch of diseased, violent youth with nothing better to do than take over public property against the law. Good luck using that as your vehicle!

  3. Uncle yo-yo February 2, 2012 at 10:43 pm #

    Wow, so one fringe movement supports another fringe movement! FEEL THE MOMENTUM!!!!! Can the anouncement that they have the unqualified support of the “Rents are too damn high guy” be far behind?

    • JayinPortland February 3, 2012 at 10:58 am #

      Nah, Mr. McMillan doesn't want to lose his credibility…

      😉

  4. DrMike February 3, 2012 at 1:09 am #

    It should not be a surprise that the Occupy movements in the Bay Area would be welcoming of the BDS movement's agenda as well as its methods.
    To start with, International ANSWER, the Stalinists (really– they are an offshoot of the Worker's World Party and led on the West Coast by Richard Becker, a doctrinaire Marxist) who hold hate rallies in the public space complete with Hamas/Hezbollah flags and iconic photos of Nasrallah, have deeply infiltrated the Occupy groups locally, if not fully taken them over as wholly-owned subsidiaries. The tactics used by Occupy Oakland– riots, invading public buildings– are part of ANSWER's repertoire. (note the similarity to BDS activists who trash stores and even have set fires in a Trader Joe's). Even the theatrical spectacle of marching on the Port of Oakland matches the BDS playbook– they didn't give a flying you-know-what that they cost working truck drivers a day's pay, as long as they could wreak havoc and then move on leaving chaos in their wake.

    Given the overt anti-Semitism at play in any ANSWER event (see http://www.zombietime.com/stop_the_us_israeli_war_8_12_2006/ and http://www.zombietime.com/hall_of_shame/), telling us that Occupy Oakland endorsed BDS is not a win for BDS, but rather a loss for the people who hoped that the movement would not be co-opted by extremists with their own malicious agenda. Sounds like the Arab Spring, and why not? The same Islamist influence is subverting both.

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes