March 11, 2010

Legislating against BDS

I missed some tricks in my previous two posts. First I posted a document that has been in the public domain on the Global Forum for Combatting Antisemitism for over a month now as a "leaked" document, then I posted about an article in the Jerusalem Post alluding to the document with a quote from the article leading on the line, "the fight against BDS should be a relatively easy one." They claim to believe that the argument around boycotting, divesting from and sanctioning the State of Israel is easy because they claim they can conflate anti-zionism or arguments around Israel's "right" to exist with antisemitism.

Ok, no one on any side of any debate over the rights and wrongs of the State of Israel doubts the Israel advocates' propensity and prowess for sheer dishonesty but a trick I missed was the fact that the "leaked" document actually mentions legislating against BDS, See this under the heading "Strategy":
To have in place legislative prohibitions vs. BDS which can then be applied in different communities, acknowledging the different legal traditions
Now if the fight against BDS is so easy why do the zios need legislation against it? In fairness, they do say that it should be relatively easy. Relative to what? Well relative to the occupation:
There is a clarity in fighting against BDS that could provide traction in the Jewish world and beyond. In the current climate, Israel advocates are always going to lose a fight over “settlements” and “occupation,” or at best get mired in stalemate.
Which brings us to another trick. These combatters of antisemitism appear to be suggesting that if they can shift debate about Israel to the conflation of BDS with anti-zionism or demands for the abolition of the State of Israel as a state specifically for Jews and conflating that latter with antisemitism then they can avoid what they admit is the unwinnable debate over the occupation. But there are people on the list of participants that claim to be against the occupation. Do they mind that there are other participants who want to avoid debate or discussion of the occupation altogether? Maybe they do but have any of them indicated that they mind and if so, where?

0 comments:

Post a Comment