Divest This

I apologize if the Lessons Learned articles I’m writing as the run up to the 500^th (and final) posting to this blog will sound familiar to long-time readers.

But as I noted when this wind-up/wind-down period began, Divest This was created to extract lessons from observing, analyzing and fighting against the BDS “movement.”  And since these lessons were learned over time through numerous observations now buried in the stack of blog entries, I wanted to wrap up by bringing the most critical takeaways I’ve learned to the surface.

And so we get to the crucial question of just who we’re dealing with when we’re dealing with those to who advocate Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions directed against the Jewish state.

Many an opponent of BDS has become bewildered when trying to take action that they think could diffuse or confront a BDS-related situation, especially actions involving engaging with boycott and divestment advocates directly.

For instance, Jewish student organizations who try to begin a dialog or find common ground with BDS groups routinely get rebuffed or, more typically, are told that any “dialog” is contingent on accepting all of the BDSers premises in advance and immediately and unconditionally awarding them the moral high ground and right to dictate the agenda before any conversation can begin.

And even this level of “dialog” is something many BDSers react violently to, as illustrated by the strange comic strip referred to in this piece that features dedicated and righteous anti-Israel activists shaking their rhetorical fists at the whole notion of engaging with people who are not already 100% in agreement with them.

But those who wish to shame or embarrass the boycotters by confronting them with challenges to their self-image as unquestioned human rights champions (for instance, by asking why they don’t take a stand on the suppression of gays and women throughout the Middle East or why their “human rights” agenda ignores the deaths of tens of thousands of Syrians) quickly discover that the embrace of BDS means never having to acknowledge (much less apologize for) anything at any time.

For, as we’ve seen, bringing up human rights issues like the murder of countless gays and Syrians will result not in soul searching but in accusations of “Pinkwashing” and “Assad-washing,” stolen and/or clumsy terms meant to imply that the only reason someone would bring up a human rights issue not on the BDS agenda was as some sort of cynical ploy.

The notion that the entire anti-Israel propaganda program is one of history’s greatest acts of cynicism based on a self-created crisis (the 100-year long, uncompromising war against the Jewish state) which created and now perpetuates a Palestinian refugee  problem to ensure a steady stream of victims that can then be blamed on Israel is beyond BDS imagining.  Which is why they continue so howl “Pinkwashing!” and “Assadwashing!” or simply cover their ears while shouting loudly whenever someone shows up who can expose their entire “movement” as nothing more than the ”Blue-and-White-Washing” of the human rights catastrophe that is the non-Israel part of the Middle East.

So how can we even describe people so suffused with self-righteous fury, so blinded to reality, and so ready to ignore or shout down any opinion they don’t agree with (with description providing the first step towards dealing with them)?

Well first of all, we need to recognize that BDS true believers (as opposed to just the temporary “something must be done ” loose change participants in this or that BDS campaign) are in the grip of a powerful group fantasy, one which casts them as a virtuous vanguard of white knights battling all-powerful, conspiratorial evil that is endlessly trying to repress them.

I’ve talked about such fantasy politics since this blog first began, and the run-down of how this concept (developed by political philosopher Lee Harris) fits in the BDS storyline emerged from this recent series (although you should read Harris’ essay on the subject to get the full flavor of the phenomenon he is describing).

Once you understand the fantasy nature of the BDS true believer, all of their behavior begins to make sense.  Why do they commit hoaxes when this is sure to cause their “movement” long-term damage?  Why do they disrupt events when this will no doubt brand them as fanatics and jerks?  Why do they endlessly boast of irrelevant “victories” while ignoring data that would confront their storyline of impending triumph?

Because the audience for these activities is not a public you would think the boycotters want to convince (a public that simply serves as a set of props in a drama going on in the BDSers own heads).  Rather, the audience are the BDSers themselves who can endlessly play and replay, post and repost video of their misbehavior to demonstrate to one another their own edginess and readiness to never compromise the “principles of the movement” (whatever those happen to be this week).

Interestingly, only the craziest (read Norman Finkelstein) and most openly anti-Semitic (read Giliad Atzmon) Israel haters are willing to point out from within the anti-Israel network what is obvious to everyone outside of it.  Finkelstein (for reasons known only to the mice and goblins living inside his head) spilled the beans when he denounced BDS as a cult (a dishonest, marginal, failing one at that).

More recently, Atzmon (one of the few characters so out there that even the BDSers finally denounced him as an anti-Semite) returned the favor to denounce the BDS “movement” as being led by a banal petty Marxist dedicated to “silencing any pro-Palestinian voice with an IQ over 90″ (which pretty covers the whole lot of them, including Atzmon himself).

The fact that the “movement’s” chief loons are now taking pot shots at that same “movement’s” primary strategy (BDS) means we may be seeing the beginning of the end of the current incarnation of the tactic that has defined anti-Israel strategy for almost a decade and a half.

And it is to the subject of strategy and tactics that we will turn to next.

One of the first lessons I learned when I became involved with fighting against divest-from-Israel campaigns is that, unlike other forms of anti-Israel propaganda, BDS involves more than just Israel, its foes and their mutual supporters.  For a third party is always required for a BDS campaign to have any meaning.

Think about it for a moment.  If an anti-Israel group like Students for Justice in Palestine or Jewish Voices for Peace declares that they will no longer be investing or companies to that do business with the Jewish state or are planning to stop buying Israel products, this is about as newsworthy as the Democratic Party expressing its support for a Democratic Presidential candidate, or an apple growers’ association broadcasting the health benefits of eating apples.

In contrast to other propaganda efforts (such as the latest Israel Apartheid Week rerun with their cardboard walls and angry-Palestinian minstrel shows) which may take place on a college campus but cannot claim support of the college, BDS must get its condemnations to come out of the mouth of a well-known and respected institution, such as a college or university, church, municipality, union or business.  Absent the participation of such a third party, the BDSers can claim to speak for no one but themselves.

The centrality of obtaining institutional support is so vital to the BDS project that proponents of this strategy will go to almost any length to convince the public that their Israel=Apartheid condemnation is shared by well-known organization, using “by-any-means-necessary” tactics which include:

• Working behind the backs of members of the organization to try to get leaders to take votes on boycott and divestment before anyone knows such decisions are even being discussed (read Somerville, the  Olympia Food Coop and the UCSA)
• When leaders are not amenable to such manipulation, suddenly turning into champions of democracy and insisting that members must be given a vote on some contrived BDS measure (read Park Slope)
• Returning to the same group over and over again, regardless of how much damage it might cause to the organization and how many times they are told no (read the Presbyterian Church)
• And, when all else fails, simply declaring a boycott or divestment win and hope that the press and public falls for the hoax (read Hampshire College)

At some level, the lengths the boycotters go to create momentum for their cause can seem positively insane (or at least totally counter-productive).  For instance, their stunt at Hampshire virtually guaranteed that no college President or investment manager in the country would even take their phone calls out of fear of ending up with words stuffed into their mouths in the latest BDS press release.

In fact, the whole BDS hoax phenomenon has become so widespread that even gullible journalists who might have taken BDS press releases at face value five years ago no longer give their pronouncements the time of day.  (Which is why BDS victory stories tend to only run in the anti-Israel press these days.)

But since third-party support is central to the BDS project, these campaigns must continue, even if the list of targets becomes ever more marginal and even when more and more BDS headlines translate to the now familiar self-serving formula of “When we lose we win!”

Now all of this reality does not mean the BDS tactic is without some utility.  For example, BDS is a very simple concept, making it easy to get a campaign off the ground.  And since ownership of a single share of widely held stock (such as Caterpillar and Hewlett Packard) can put a college or other institution into the cross-hairs, the BDSers are free to create controversy anywhere they like.

Boycott and divestment advocates also have the initiative to target new categories of institutions (such as community radio stations and food coops) as they like, which means Israel’s supporters will always be on the defensive, waiting to see where a BDS infection breaks out next.

In theory, we could turn the tables on our foes by campaigning just as ruthlessly to have institutions condemn our political adversaries (regardless of the cost to such organizations).  But since we are not willing to harm others to get our way, the initiative remains with anti-Israel forces who endlessly demonstrate that they have no such scruples

But the need for third party support also demonstrates the greatest weakness with the BDS strategy.  For even within organizations that show little sympathy with the Jewish state (such as Mainline Protestant churches), there is something more important than taking a political stand on Middle East politics: the health and well being of the institution itself.

This is why groups like the Presbyterians rescinded their 2004 BDS resolution by an overwhelming margin in 2006, and have voted down returning to a divestment policy three times since then.  For while a Zionist heart does not likely beat in the breast of every member of the church, all Presbyterians are united in not wanting to see harm come to their struggling church.  So even if the boycotters manage to manipulate their way into a Yes vote the next time around, the notion that their statements represent the will of millions of church members has long ago been exposed as a lie.

Just as importantly, if people from within these institutions arise to organize opposition, BDS is usually doomed.  We’ve seen this in places like Park Slope, but also at colleges and universities where actual divestment is more of a distant pipe-dream than ever, and even a behind-the-scenes student council divestment votes in favor of divestment have been drained of all meaning, given that everyone involved knows that such votes do not reflect the opinion of the people student governments claim to represent.

So BDS contains within it the seeds of its own destruction.  Which is why it continues today only because its proponents have not yet found something more useful to do with themselves.

I just realized that I’m less than a month away from publishing my 500^th piece on Divest This.

I know that 500 posts is small beer compared to some blogs that can turn out that many entries on a good day.  But this site has always been more about using the blog format to explore various issues that emerge from or orbit the seemingly small subject of BDS.  And performing this analysis has required journalistic-style analysis articles vs. the type of “news-of-the-day” postings done so much better (and more frequently) by others.

So barring any late-breaking news (like last week’s Max Brenner BDS fiasco in my neighborhood that cried out for coverage), I’d like to spend between now and post 500 organizing and synthesizing the main ideas developed from four year studying the BDS “movement.”

That’s the good news.

The bad news is that once I hit this 500 mark, Divest This will be going on hiatus.

The timing of this decision is largely driven by the fact that I’m about to embark on a major work-related project that will require a certain level of single-mindedness for the rest of this year.  (Anyone interested in hearing about what I’ll be doing can drop me a note.)

But even without that project looming, I realized a while ago that the blog format, which has been such a powerful and effective way to explore ideas and get feedback in real time, has limitations when it comes time to synthesize those ideas into a coherent whole.

For instance, the close study of BDS over the last four years provided the chance to review and discuss a wide range of issues, such as the true nature of the Arab war against Israeli and the political dynamics behind Israel’s detractors and defenders in the information component of that war.

This exploration provided an opportunity to look at the strategy, tactics and rhetoric of the conflict, as well as take a deep dive into all of the players involved with a BDS battle (including the third parties such as schools and churches that BDS turns into a battlefield).  And speaking of third parties, the timing of Divest This even gave me the chance to watch the evolution of BDS within a new category of institution (the food coop) from initial infection through ultimate immunization.

The open-ended nature of the blog also let me play with different writing formats (including fiction) to engage with and illustrate themes that have now become memes (such as #BDSFail and the exposure of BDS hoaxes).

But the blog’s reverse chronological structure also means that material which may continue to be relevant quickly gets buried, even with some of the tools a strong blogging platform provides to help organize posts into categories or highlight articles that stress a relevant topic or theme on the home page.

This is not such a big deal when the goal is to expose lots of divergent material to a wider audience and see what works and what doesn’t.  But once it becomes time to pull together the threads of this multi-year conversation into something that integrates into a coherent whole, then the blog may need to give way to a different medium (such as a book, white paper series, or educational curriculum) which allows disparate ideas and themes to weave into an integrated totality.

So while I am busy with my other project this year, I will be exploring what might work best with the material I’ve developed over the years.  And any thoughts, suggestions, comments or ideas from everyone who has spent time with me over the years are more than welcome.  (Yes, that even includes you Mr. Anonymous/BDS.)

Now having said all that, the fight against BDS is far from over (unfortunately), and while I expect it to re-enter the type of remission we experienced between 2006-2009 if the Middle East itself ever manages to cool down for a few years, the unlikeliness of that happening means that BDS will continue to be the propaganda tool of choice for Israel’s adversaries over the coming months (if not years).

And while I may not be blogging regularly on the subject, I certainly hope to find a home to publish the occasional piece if and when the next big BDS story breaks.  And I hope that the material on this site will continue to provide some of the perspective and background that often gets lost in such multi-year political engagements (especially on college campuses), as well as useful suggestions for how to counter BDS campaigns effectively.

Also, while I may not be writing on the subject on a weekly basis, I will continue to be available to anyone struggling with their own BDS-related problems, regardless of how busy I get with other things during the coming year.

While we’re still a few weeks off from a format goodbye, I’d like to thank everyone who has taken the time to participate in this journey over the last several years and I hope you’ll enjoy the summaries that you’ll be seeing over the next several posts until we hit that somewhat arbitrary, but apparently decisive number of 500.

Hey guys.  I’m thinking of auditioning for The Onion.  What do you think?

A group from Northeastern University’s Self-Righteous Asshole community made their presence known last night as they marched in front of Max Brenner’s restaurant and chocolate shop in downtown Boston for close to two hours, demanding that people not buy chocolate on Valentine’s Day in protest of something or other.

“We came to make a statement,” said Joshua Amarilla, a student from Stoughton, MA currently studying comparative literature and a leading member of the Self-Righteous Asshole organization at Northeastern.  “This chocolate shop is involved with evil, EVIL I tell you.  And if you look through this seven page flowchart I printed up, you’ll understand why buying cocoa here contributes to repression, Apartheid and other acts of evilness.”

“This protest has our full support,” says Anna Federman, a long-time leader in the wider Boston-based Self-Righteous Asshole community.  “For, as a Jew, I want to loudly condemn all other Jews – including Jewish chocolatiers – who don’t do what we say, and don’t immediately acknowledge that we are both right about all things and morally superior to them in every way.”

“Oh, and did I mention I’m Jewish?” Federman continued.

When asked why the event turned out just 15 people, Amarilla responded angrily.  “Hey, we had 80 people say they’d show up on our Facebook page, so that should count for something” he bellowed.  “After all, 80 is a lot higher than 15!”

The protest did not proceed without incident.  “At least one patron at Max Brenner’s actively tried to muzzle my freedom of speech by telling me to ‘fuck off’ when I handed him some of the literature I spent all night Photoshopping,” said Thomas Herman, a visiting Self-Righteous Asshole from Tufts.  (Waiting times to get into the Max Brenner’s grew to an hour during the period the protesters were insisting a boycott was the patrons’ only moral choice.)

The patron involved with the incident, Anthony Capone (a part-time physical therapist from Somerville) had this to say about what occurred: “After six weeks of effort, I finally got the girl from the office next door (26 year old Alison McNeeley, also from Somerville) to go out with me – on Valentine’s Day as luck would have it.  And just when I was about to make my move, this douchebag stuffs a leaflet into my hand and starts talking about Apartheid.  Honestly, he’s lucky I didn’t smack him across the street.”

“Whether we had 15 people protesting or 50 or 500 doesn’t matter,” responded Amarilla to continued questioning of why their weeks-long call to action ended in a protest barely noticed by the passers-by (much less the hundreds of people inside Max Brenner’s).  “After all, the point is to get people talking about issues that matter to us, specifically about how cool and edgy we are.”

And as it turned out, the event did generate more than twenty tweets during the 12 hours since the protest began, at least four of which were not written by the protestor’s themselves.  Typical of the level of conversation the protest triggered was this one in which a local Bostonian, responding to another tweet that Brenner’s was being picketed, asked: “Gosh, is the food really that bad?”

Apparently not since, in a related story, Max Brenner’s in Boston reports that yesterday was the most successful day in its two-year history and may represent the highest level of Valentine’s Day sales at any Max Brenner’s in the world.

Among the customers who flooded the shop during the course of the day were many Northeastern students who were not available for comment due to the fact that they were all sleeping off a chocolate high.

Members of Northeastern’s Self-Righteous Asshole community were also not available for a follow up interview, having chosen to celebrate their “victory” by locking themselves in their rooms.

It’s not often the forces of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) decide to put their sour souls on display on the sweetest day of the year.

Apparently, someone got it into their head that it would be a brilliant idea to picket Boston’s Max Brenner restaurant and gourmet chocolate shop on Valentine’s Day (i.e., tomorrow) at just the hour when the place will be packed with forgetful husbands and boyfriends trying to head off conflicts far more terrifying than anything the Middle East has to offer.

But a picket of Max Brenner (something local BDSers imported from a failed similar effort in Australia) does accomplish the boycotters single most important goal: showing their Facebook friends that they can act naughty in public.

While I don’t expect hundreds of people to show up at Max Brenner’s in the next 36 hours to buy them out and hold a chocolate party on Boylston Street (similar to the wine bash that began the Buycott movement in 2009), it would certainly be nice if anyone in, near or planning to be around Boston today or tomorrow stop by 745 Boylston Street (across from the Prudential) and show Max Brenner some love.

I’m happy to get things started:

Send me your pix if you’re able to make a purchase.  I recommend the chocolate covered nuts (far preferable to the non-chocolate covered ones that will be chanting incoherently outside tomorrow night).