RSS
This Canadian-Jewish Activist Wants to Boycott Israel; Here’s What She Gets Wrong
In an opinion piece for The Guardian, Canadian-Jewish public personality Naomi Klein advocates for the strengthening of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel.
According to Klein, Israel’s current war against Hamas in Gaza is further evidence of the Jewish state’s acting with “impunity,” and it is only by widening the influence of the BDS movement that the international community can rein in what she perceives to be Israel’s wrongdoings.
However, to make her case, Klein relies on a whitewashing of the BDS movement, misrepresentations of Israel’s military activities, and false allegations of Israeli apartheid.
Naomi Klein presents BDS as a Palestinian-led movement that seeks to isolate Israel until it “complies with international law and universal principle of human rights.”
For Klein and other proponents of BDS, the movement’s damaging boycotts of the Jewish state and international corporations that do business with it will ultimately force foreign governments to sanction Israel, similar to the campaign against Apartheid South Africa in the 1980s.
However, while Klein seeks to present BDS as this virtuous movement seeking only to bring Israel into lockstep with the international community, the reality is much more sinister.
Several BDS leaders have been unabashedly quoted as stating the ultimate end goal of the movement is the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state.
Omar Barghouti, a founding member of the BDS movement, who is presented in Klein’s piece as a moral voice against injustice, has been recorded in the past saying, “We oppose a Jewish state in any part of Palestine” and even going so far as to claim that Palestinians have a right to “resistance by any means, including armed resistance.”
Thus, it’s clear that it’s not trumped-up charges of Israeli violations of international law that BDS opposes. It’s Israel’s existence as a Jewish state that drives BDS’s international campaigns.
Klein also makes several misleading statements that serve to glorify the boycott movement.
For example, in touting the movement’s righteousness, she claims that BDS is “very clear that it is not calling for individual Israelis to be boycotted because they are Israeli…,” creating the impression that BDS is only focused on boycotting Israeli institutions.
However, a closer look at the movement’s boycott guidelines shows that the BDS National Committee allows for “common sense” boycotts of Israeli individuals that go beyond the scope of its boycott criteria. According to these guidelines, more or less any Israeli individual who has not actively denounced the Jewish state can be rightfully boycotted.
Similarly, Klein seeks to raise the image of the BDS movement by highlighting some of its latest “wins,” pointing to the termination of Puma sportswear’s sponsorship of the Israeli national soccer team, an “exodus of artists” from an Italian comics festival that was co-sponsored by the Israeli embassy, and the impact of a boycott against McDonald’s on the fast food giant’s revenue.
However, the fly in the ointment for these “wins” is that Puma announced its decision had nothing to do with BDS; the “exodus” from the Lucca comics festival was limited to eight artists and organizations (including Amnesty International); and the McDonald’s boycott mostly affected countries which have no relations with Israel.
For Naomi Klein, the BDS movement is necessary to stop Israel’s “reign of impunity,” which allows it to act without restraint against the Palestinian people.
However, Klein’s skewed portrait of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians is only made possible by her complete revision of history, which finds Israel guilty of all sins while removing all agency from the Palestinians and absolving them of all misconduct.
Klein writes that her support for BDS began after Operation Cast Lead in late 2008, when “Israel had unleashed a shocking new stage of mass killing in the Gaza Strip … It killed 1,400 Palestinians in 22 days; the number of casualties on the Israeli side was 13.”
What’s missing from this account is the fact that the operation began when Hamas unleashed rocket salvos aimed at the Jewish state and refused to heed Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s call for a cessation of this escalation in hostilities.
As opposed to Klein’s characterization, Operation Cast Lead was not a “shocking new stage of mass killing,” but was rather a defensive war launched against a genocidal terror organization that had embedded itself within civilian areas.
Similarly, Naomi Klein describes Israel’s military strategy following 2008 as a “murderous new policy that Israeli military officials casually referred to as ‘mowing the grass’: every couple of years brought a fresh bombing campaign, killing hundreds of Palestinians or, in the case of 2014’s Operation Protective Edge, more than 2,000, including 526 children.”
Once again, this characterization can only be made by completely ignoring Hamas’ activities during that time.
“Mowing the grass” does not refer to the casual indiscriminate bombing of Palestinian civilians, but rather an Israeli strategy of periodically reducing Hamas’ potential to harm Israelis while not engaging in an extended war to uproot the terror organization entirely.
Like Operation Cast Lead, Operation Protective Edge was a defensive war in response to Hamas’ murder of three Israeli teens and an increase in rocket fire directed at Israeli civilians.
The only time that Naomi Klein gives any agency to Hamas in her piece is in reference to its atrocities on October 7.
However, this is only mentioned so she can make her real point: Israel is exploiting Hamas’ attack in order to ethnically cleanse Gaza.
Despite Israel’s being forced into this war by Hamas’ unprecedented atrocities, despite the IDF’s continued attempts to lessen Palestinian civilian casualties, and despite Hamas’ cynical exploitation of Gazans’ civilian infrastructure, the only things that Naomi Klein sees are Israeli “transgressions” of international law.
It is these transgressions that must be punished by international sanctions driven by the BDS movement.
Along with Israel’s military activities, another crime that Naomi Klein accuses the Jewish state of is “apartheid.”
Klein points to studies conducted in the last few years by B’Tselem, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International, all of which accuse Israel of implementing an apartheid regime in the West Bank.
However, as pointed out by NGO Monitor, these claims are based on a re-definition of the term “apartheid,” on zero appreciation for the complexities of the Israeli security context, and on a misrepresentation of Israeli policies.
Klein even goes so far as to accuse Israel of practicing apartheid in its pre-1967 borders, basing itself on the controversial Palestinian NGO Al-Haq.
Perhaps no rebuttal of this ludicrous claim is better made than by Mansour Abbas, an Arab-Israeli politician who, in 2022, while sitting in the previous Israeli government coalition, vocally opposed the use of the “apartheid” moniker in relation to Israel.
In 2010, roughly a year after Naomi Klein first came out in support of BDS, Eran Shayshon coined the term “Kleinism” in a column for the Israel newspaper Haaretz.
According to Shayshon, “Kleinism” is:
a simplistic, artificial view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that has led many who consider themselves human-rights activists to focus their criticism nearly exclusively on Israel. It brands Israel as the new apartheid state, so it can do no right and its adversaries no wrong. It frames Israel as uninterested in peace or in ending the occupation. It ignores any structural obstacles to peace unrelated to Israel, the most obvious being the sharp divisions among the Palestinians.
Thus, “Kleinists” seem to have concluded that one-sided criticism of Israel is the best way to promote peace, and that pressurizing the state with all available means, including BDS, is both legitimate and effective.
In the almost 14 years since the term was first coined, it appears that the overly simplistic and, quite frankly, dangerous “Kleinist” point of view still has an audience in certain Western circles, including The Guardian.
The author is a contributor to HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.
The post This Canadian-Jewish Activist Wants to Boycott Israel; Here’s What She Gets Wrong first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Boston University Rejects Proposal to Divest From Israel
College students in the Boston, Massachusetts area hold dueling demonstrations amid Israel’s war with Hamas in April 2024. Photo: Vincent Ricci via Reuters Connect
Boston University has rejected the group Students for Justice in Palestine’s (SJP) call for its endowment to be divested of holdings in companies which sell armaments to the Israeli military, becoming the latest higher education institution to refuse this key tenet of the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel.
“The endowment is no longer the vehicle for political debate; nevertheless, I will continue to seek ways that members of our community can engage with each other on political issues of our day including the conflict in the Middle East,” university president Melissa Gilliam said on Tuesday in a statement which reported the will of the board of trustees. “Our traditions of free speech and academic freedom are critical to who we are as an institution, and so is our tradition of finding common ground to engage difficult topics while respecting the dignity of every individual.”
Gilliam’s announcement comes amid SJP’s push to hold a student government administered referendum on divestment, a policy goal the group has pursued since Hamas’s massacre across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. Its hopes were dashed on Tuesday when what SJP described as “technical difficulties” caused the referendum to be postponed indefinitely. However, SJP hinted that the delay may have been caused by its failing to draw a “representative sample of BU’s undergraduate population” to the polls.
SJP’s relationship with the university is poor, according to The Daily Free Press, Boston University’s official campus newspaper. In November, the Student and Activities Office issued the group a “formal warning” following multiple violations of policies on peaceful assembly. SJP, the Free Press said, occupied an area of the Center for Computing and Data Sciences for two days and tacked anti-Zionist propaganda — which included accusations that Boston University profits from “death” — on school property inside the building despite being forewarned that doing so is verboten. Following the disciplinary action, SJP accused the university of being “discriminatory towards SJP and our events.”
American universities have largely rejected demands to divest from Israel and entities at all linked to the Jewish state, delivering a succession of blows to the pro-Hamas protest movement that students and faculty have pushed with dozens of illegal demonstrations aimed at coercing officials into enacting the policy.
Trinity College turned away BDS advocates in November, citing its “fiduciary responsibilities” and “primary objective of maintaining the endowment’s intergeneration equity.” It also noted that acceding to demands for divestment for the sake of “utilizing the endowment to exert political influence” would injure the college financially, stressing that doing so would “compromise our access to fund managers, in turn undermining the board’s ability to perform its fiduciary obligation.”
The University of Minnesota in August pointed to the same reason for spurning divestment while stressing the extent to which the Israeli-Palestinian conflict polarizes its campus community. It coupled its pronouncement with a new investment policy, a so-called “position of neutrality” which, it says, will be a guardrail protecting university business from the caprices of political opinion.
Colleges and universities will lose tens of billions of dollars collectively from their endowments if they capitulate to demands to divest from Israel, according to a report published in September by JLens, a Jewish investor network that is part of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). Titled “The Impact of Israel Divestment on Equity Portfolios: Forecasting BDS’s Financial Toll on University Endowments,” the report presented the potential financial impact of universities adopting the BDS movement, which is widely condemned for being antisemitic.
The losses estimated by JLens are catastrophic. Adopting BDS, it said, would incinerate $33.21 billion of future returns for the 100 largest university endowments over the next 10 years, with Harvard University losing $2.5 billion and the University of Texas losing $2.2 billion. Other schools would forfeit over $1 billion, including the University of Pennsylvania, Stanford University, and Princeton University. For others, such as the University of Michigan and Dartmouth College, the damages would total in the hundreds of millions.
“This groundbreaking report approached the morally problematic BDS movement from an entirely new direction — its negative impact on portfolio returns,” New York University adjunct professor Michael Lustig said in a statement extolling the report. “JLens has done a great job in quantifying the financial effects of implementing the suggestions of this pernicious movement, and importantly, they ‘show their work’ by providing full transparency into their methodology, and properly caveat the points where assumptions must necessarily be made. This report will prove to be an important tool in helping to fight noxious BDS advocacy.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
The post Boston University Rejects Proposal to Divest From Israel first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
American Jews Believe Republicans Handling Antisemitism Better Than Democrats, Poll Finds
US Nominee for Ambassador to the United Nations Elise Stefanik addressing the Israeli parliament on May 24, 2024. Photo: Office of Congresswoman Elise Stefanik.
American Jews believe the Republican Party is handling antisemitism better than the Democratic Party, according to a new poll conducted by the American Jewish Committee (AJC).
The poll, which collected responses between Oct. 8 and Nov. 29 but was released on Wednesday, revealed that Jewish Americans hold widespread skepticism about how US politicians are handling the ongoing surge in antisemitism across the country.
Among respondents, only 39 percent indicated support for how the Democratic Party “is responding to antisemitism in the United States.” In comparison, 59 percent responded that they were “dissatisfied” with how the Democrats are handling the problem.
Meanwhile, the Republican Party performed better among Jewish American respondents, with 45 percent indicating “approval” and 54 percent indicating “disapproval” with how the GOP has handled antisemitism
Democrats have found themselves embroiled in controversy over their party’s handling of antisemitism following the Hamas-led massacres across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. Democratic leaders were harshly criticized for adopting what they deemed a soft approach to combating the rising tide of anti-Jewish hate within left-wing circles. High-profile progressive Democratic lawmakers such as Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), and Summer Lee (D-PA), have spent the past year launching a barrage of insults against Israel, oftentimes accusing the Jewish state of committing a “genocide” against Palestinians as retribution for the Oct. 7 terrorist attacks.
In November, 17 Democratic senators voted to implement a partial arms embargo against Israel, incensing many Jewish American organizations and pro-Israel supporters who view deep hostility and the application of double standards to the world’s lone Jewish state as an indicator of antisemitism.
Republicans in the US Congress have generally adopted a more hardline stance against antisemitism, launching congressional investigations against anti-Jewish bigotry on college campuses and presenting state-level legislation to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism.
High-profile Republican politicians such as Elise Stefanik, the nominee for US ambassador to the United Nations, have also been elevated into powerful positions within the new Trump administration in part for their strident pro-Israel positions. US President Donald Trump, a Republican, recently passed an executive order to crack down on antisemitism at universities and punish the harassment of Jewish students, including by deporting non-Americans on campuses who promote terrorism and hatred against Jews.
However, conservatives have struggled with surging antisemitism within their own ranks in the 16 months following the Oct. 7 atrocities. Popular conservative podcasters Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens have circulated antisemitic content to millions of their subscribers, oftentimes outright accusing Israel of committing “genocide” against Palestinians and promoting antisemitic conspiracy theories about the Jewish people. Both Carlson and Owens have indicated support for the “Christian Nationalist” movement — a form of religious nationalism which seeks to enshrine Christianity’s dominance in American cultural life. According to the AJC poll, 79 percent of American Jews believe Christian Nationalism is an “antisemitic threat.”
An almost identical number of American Jews perceive left-wing and right-wing political extremism as an “antisemitic threat.” According to the poll, 78 percent believe that the “extreme political left” and 79 percent believe that the “extreme political right” are threats to the Jewish community.
The poll also found that 54 percent of American Jews believe antisemitism is a “very serious problem,” a sharp increase from previous years, and another 39 percent said it was “somewhat of a problem.”
More than half, 56 percent, of Jews have also avoided publicly identifying as Jews to shield themselves from dealing with antisemitism, an 18-point increase from 2022.
“Antisemitism has reached a tipping point in America, threatening the freedoms of American Jews and casting an ominous shadow across our society,” AJC CEO Ted Deutch said in a statement. “This is an all-hands-on-deck moment for leaders across the US. We must act now to protect Jews — and America — from rising antisemitism. That one-third of American Jews have been the target of antisemitism in the past year should raise red flags for every American and our leaders.”
The survey also revealed that there is still widespread support for Israel among the Jewish community in the United States. According to AJC, 81 percent of American Jews stated that they cared about Israel because it was “important.” The poll also indicated rising pro-Israel sentiment among younger generations, with 40 percent of those aged 18 to 29 claiming Israel was “very important” to them, an 11-point surge from the previous year.
The post American Jews Believe Republicans Handling Antisemitism Better Than Democrats, Poll Finds first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Irish Leftist, Nationalist Party to Boycott St. Patrick’s Day Events at White House Over Trump’s Gaza Plan
Anti-Israel demonstrators stand outside the Israeli embassy after Ireland has announced it will recognize a Palestinian state, in Dublin, Ireland, May 22, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Molly Darlington
A prominent left-wing and nationalist political party in Ireland has confirmed that it will not attend St. Patrick’s Day celebrations in Washinton, DC next month due to “incompatible values” with US President Donald Trump following the announcement of his plan to “take over” Gaza and rebuild it into an economic hub.
Claire Hanna — leader of the Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP), the once dominant party of Irish nationalism in Northern Ireland — announced the decision as a stance against Trump’s proposal for the Palestinian enclave, where Israel and the terrorist group Hamas have been fighting for 16 months.
“The SDLP’s values are incompatible with what we are seeing and hearing, and we won’t be endorsing it on St Patrick’s Day,” Hanna, a member of the British parliament, said in a statement on Tuesday. “We understand the importance of the relationship between the US and this island [Ireland], but the politics of the current US administration mean it is essential that we stand up for what is right, and when it comes to Gaza, what is wrong.”
Last year, Hanna’s predecessor also refused to attend the White House festivities as a protest against US support for Israel’s military campaign against Hamas in Gaza.
At the time, then-party leader Colum Eastwood accused Washington of having an “atrocious” response to the Middle Eastern conflict — which began with Hamas’s invasion of and massacre across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023 — and refused to celebrate “while the civilian population in Gaza lives in constant fear of eradication.”
In line with her predecessor’s stance, Hanna justified this week’s decision by saying the SDLP “could not endorse the US government while it armed and supported the bombardment of Gaza.”
“We hope the fragile ceasefire will deliver a lasting peace and the return of hostages to their families, but the rhetoric of Donald Trump, around the displacement and ethnic cleansing of millions of people, is absolutely beyond the pale,” she said. “We can’t in good conscience attend parties hosted in that context.”
The SDLP also posted on social media announcing its decision, writing, “Ireland has a proud history of solidarity with Palestine.”
Hamas-led Palestinian terrorists started the war in Gaza when they murdered 1,200 people and kidnapped 251 hostages during their Oct. 7 onslaught. After 16 months of fighting, both sides agreed to a ceasefire and hostage-release deal last month, with the first phase set to last six weeks.
Trump last week proposed resettling Gaza’s Palestinians in Egypt, Jordan, and other Arab countries while the US “takes over” the coastal enclave and builds it up into a “Riviera of the Middle East.” His comments have been met with immense backlash, with some observers accusing him of supporting an ethnic cleansing plan. However, proponents of the proposal argue that it could offer Palestinians a better future and would mitigate the threat posed by Hamas.
Northern Ireland’s First Minister, Michelle O’Neill, and Deputy First Minister, Emma Little-Pengelly, have yet to announce whether they will attend St Patrick’s Day events in Washington next month.
Traditionally, political leaders from Ireland take part in celebrations at the White House each March, when the Irish premier usually presents a bowl of shamrock to the US President.
Even with its decision, Hanna said the SDLP will maintain relationships with US officials, “particularly with those trying to resist and combat the overreach of the current administration.”
Since the aftermath of the Oct. 7 atrocities, Ireland has been a fierce critic of the Jewish state.
Last month, Irish President Michael D. Higgins used his platform speaking at a Holocaust commemoration to launch a tirade against Israel’s military campaign targeting Hamas terrorists, seemingly drawing parallels between Israel’s war in Gaza and the Nazis’ genocide of Jews.
Amid a downward spiral in relations between the two countries, Ireland joined South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
In December, Israel closed its embassy in Dublin, accusing the Irish government of undermining Israel at international forums and promoting “extreme anti-Israel policies.”
Irish leaders have previously called on the EU to “review its trade relations” with Israel after the Israeli parliament passed a law banning UNRWA activities in the country due to its ties to Hamas.
Last year, Ireland officially recognized a Palestinian state, claiming the move was accelerated by the Israel-Hamas war and would help foster a two-state solution, which Israeli officials described as a “reward for terrorism.”
The post Irish Leftist, Nationalist Party to Boycott St. Patrick’s Day Events at White House Over Trump’s Gaza Plan first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login