The past few weeks have seen two more American academic associations join the boycott of Israeli colleges and universities. The American Anthropological Association (AAA) and that National Women’s Studies Association (NWSA) passed resolutions – in both cases by an overwhelming majorities – calling on their members to cut any ties with academic institutions in Israel. The AAA resolution (which still faces a confirmation vote by the entire membership) calls for members “to refrain from formal collaborations or other relationships with Israeli academic institutions, including the Israeli Anthropological Association.” The NWSA resolution goes further by declaring full “support for the international movement for Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel.” International BDS guidelines include an “anti-normalization provision” that prohibits participation in “cultural activities” including “events, projects, publications, films, or exhibitions that are designed to bring together Palestinians/Arabs and Israelis so they can present their respective narratives,” even if the objective is co-existence. (Only events devoted to “co-resistance” are permissible.)
Academic boycotts are objectionable on many grounds, but I will mention only two. First, they impede academic freedom by restricting discussion, publication, research, and collaboration among scholars. Moreover, the boycott of Israeli academic institutions will only serve to isolate and weaken the most progressive and peace-minded segments of Israeli society. I suppose that makes sense if your goal is anti-normalization, but it is just plain bizarre if you are interested in peace or co-existence.
Even so, there are right ways to resist BDS and there are wrong ways. One of the wrong ways was recently outlined in a Wall Street Journal op-ed by my friend and colleague Eugene Kontorovich, and his co-author Steven Davidoff Solomon. (The op-ed itself is behind the WSJ paywall, but Kontorovich summarizes it on the Volokh Conspiracy here.)
Kontorovich and Solomon argue that BDS resolutions may be ultra vires for many academic associations, because their charters typically specify the groups’ purposes as something like “the promotion of knowledge and research.” According to Kontorovich and Solomon, “a boycott by definition restricts study and research,” and therefore potentially lies beyond the authorized power of groups such as the AAA, the NWSA, and others (including the American Studies Association) that have passed BDS resolutions.
Consequently, the authors claim that “individual members can sue to have a court declare [boycott resolutions] invalid. The individuals serving on the boards of these organizations may be liable for damages.” That is a terrible idea. Even if the case were successful – which is doubtful – it would do far more harm than good.
The last thing Israel needs is to be associated with the restraint of academic freedom. Like it or not, a boycott is a form of expressive conduct. Suing to enjoin a boycott would therefore be seen as limiting the speech rights of the association. If nothing else, that should be the lesson of the Salaita imbroglio. He was transformed from a spewer of vulgar tweets into an avatar of academic freedom, by virtue of his shabby treatment by the University of Illinois. An ultra vires case would surely lead to the same result, with the defenders of the boycott being cast as heroes, and the plaintiffs as scholarly villains.
Yes, I realize it is ironic for boycotters to claim the mantle of intellectual freedom. After all, they are the ones who want to limit open discussion and, in their most extreme form, to exclude even the consideration of co-existence. But their tactics so far have only employed persuasion. Their arguments should be met by arguments, not lawsuits.
And in any case, the success of a hypothetical ultra vires case would be short lived indeed. An organization’s charter can be changed by a vote of its membership, almost without limit. Can there be any doubt that groups such as the AAA and the NWSA would simply amend their charters to permit academic boycotts? The language would be anodyne – perhaps allowing resolutions that recognize and seek to remedy the persecution of scholars in foreign countries – but the intent would be clear and the outcome predetermined. Although a charter amendment typically requires a super-majority, the NWSA BDS resolution was approved by an overwhelming 88% of the vote.
Academic boycotts are wrong in principle, which is why they are opposed by the AAUP and virtually every responsible university administrator in the United States. That would quickly change, however, if the courts were employed to limit the expressive freedom of scholarly associations.
It's worth mentioning that the University of Illinois lost their case, and settled for substantial damages – something if I recall certain people predicted would never happen.
As it happens, the Salaita case did tremendous damage to the anti-BDS cause, for a simple reason, it is hard to argue against academic boycotts when those who oppose them for Israel implicitly or even openly endorse them for its critics.
I am personally ambivalent on BDS (though my views are shifting) – but I think the movement serves a useful purpose, in that it establishes a reality, that Israeli actions need to consider the risk of the BDS movement gathering strength, being encouraged by them. To me, the possibility of consequences is important and one that it seems Israel more extreme leaders have been indifferent to.
Can I ask two questions about that comment? When you say "did tremendous damage to the anti-BDS cause," do you mean tremendous argument to the logic of the anti-BDS argument, or do you mean actually, in some sense empirically, did tremendous damage to the current state of the anti-BDS movement? Depending on the answer to my other question, I could see the sense of the proposition as a matter of logic, but the words "did tremendous damage" seem more like an empirical claim.
Second, what do you have in mind by the statement that "those who oppose [academic boycotts] for Israel implicitly or even openly oppose them for its critics?" This is, to be clear, an earnest question. The arguments about the Salaita case were so varied and voluminous that I'm certainly not aware of them all, and I'm sure you have examples in mind. But I admit that none spring to my mind. I can think (or I think I can, but my memory may be wrong and I may just be projecting) of people who thought Salaita's tweets were dumb or offensive, or even questioned the wisdom of the departmental hiring decision, but thought nonetheless that disciplinary/departmental decisions should generally be deferred to and there were insufficient grounds for the university to fail to honor the decision in this case. And when I think of academic boycotts in the context of the Salaita case, the closest examples that spring to mind are the academics who refused to have any dealings with the university because they supported Salaita and opposed the withdrawal of employment. I don't know what those individuals' positions are on BDS but I would have thought mixed at best.
Paul:
My answer is that the response to Salaita hurt the anti-BDS cause because it revealed an essential hypocrisy on the part of many (but not all) of those opposing BDS as supporters of Israel. It was and is pretty transparently obvious that there was a lot of lobbying of the UoI by various persons – and it (and the obvious spoliation issues) cost Phyllis Wise her job. Most lawyers observing the situation concluded that a major factor driving the settlement was concern over discovery, what it would reveal about the lobbying (indeed there is some speculation that there may have been side settlements too, between some of the "lobby" and Salaita.) There is a perception that Israeli partisans target those who criticise Israel (they I'm sure will deny it) and that the Salaita case was more open and visible than most, which rely more on sub-rosa lobbying and whispers.
The Salaita situation was remarkably crude and unsubtle – and very open, but it confirmed perceptions that Israel's partisans do behave badly. The problem is, well, how can someone practically argue against academic boycotts, when in effect some in their group are driving activities with similar effects. Moreover, there were far too many who were willing to take comments from Salaita (and other) which, I'd hardly deny were intemperate, and try to turn them into more than they were. Far too many who pretended that Saliva was not being primarily criticised for the wrong partisanship. It's a cliché, but "what's sauce for the goose…."
Frankly (and it is unpopular in other environs to say this) anti-semitism is the worm in the apple of the Palestinian cause – nothing does more to damage their case than the antisemitism of many of that group. But therein lies the problem from Israel's partisans, the conduct of their own members undermines their cause. Fundamentally, it made those who opposed BDS look bad, unprincipled and hypocritical, just as antisemitism undermines those who support the Palestinians.
I have Israeli friends, many if not most of whom are appalled by the direction that Israel is taking. Friends (and family), Israeli, European and US had direct dealings with Netanyahu – well before he was Prime Minister. To say that they had nothing good to say would be kind – but it is the reality that many do oppose Israeli policy that makes me ambivalent about BDS, on the one hand I think it will harm, on the other hand, the implicit threat is an important constraint on Israeli behaviour (not that Netanyahu seems constrained by anything.)
Thanks for your answer. I suppose I remain somewhat skeptical about the "tremendous damage" part, at least. My interest here is not in defending critics of Salaita, or anyone who lobbied for the university not to follow through on the employment offer. (I'm speaking in general terms here in part because I don't want to go beyond what I know and remember about the case.) They might have specific arguments to make, but I'm not trying to carry water for either side. I just wonder whether that case has caused actual damage to the anti-BDS side, or actual growth on the pro-BDS side, when it seems to me that most people are so strongly motivated by their priors on this issue; I admit that I would be surprised if any significant changes in fortune in this debate were driven by that case. But, again, your response did help me to understand your comment, and I appreciate it.
Why do you academic egg heads hate the Jews so much? So, we have terrorists attacking 14 Ultra Soft DD targets in California and all you think about is condemning Israel? I am so sorry I went to college and law school. I could have made more money selling cars or doing construction. My education was a colossal waste of money.
BDS is academically and morally bankrupt. Why is BDS exclusively focused on the jews? Why is there no BDS of…well dozens of nations which execute people for a variety of things like political dissent or practicing Christianity. What about state sponsored torture? How about nations that dont allow women to drive? So basically the jews defend themselves and the West says F the jews they are too successful at defending themselves so lets F them economically.
I challenge any BDS supporter to name ANY other nation that is the subject of BDS. It is ONLY Israel that is selected for this treatment. Syria's Assad butchers his own in a savage civil war but somehow BDS overlooks this. Hmmm Russia is subject to Western sanctions over Crimea and Ukraine but never a word about Russia. China? BDS could care less. Various brutal dictatorships – ? BDS could care less. So BDS doesnt really care about "rights" BDS only cares about Israel. And only israel. That in and of itself establishes the arbitrary and capriciousness nature of BDS – BDS IS prejudiced against jewish folks. I say F BDS.
F BDS,
South Africa, Cuba
Challenge met.
Then there would be Iran – remember, only a few weeks ago, he'll even this week – you I'm pretty sure calling for continued sanctions on Iran.
Burma/Myanmar, Iraq, Syria (the latter over a prolonged period pushed by AIPAC), in the 70s various countries in Eastern Europe to apply pressure to allow Jewish emigration.
Hypocrisy, hypocrisy….
challenge met?
LOL – cite proof that BDS targets others. I have not heard of any BDS against China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, North Korea or Iran. Sources, links, proof? Just the word of "mack"
Hearsay and conjecture is inadmissible. Id love to see proof BDS targets dictatorships, military juntas, failed regimes, despots, state sponsors of torture, etc. But nope, they target Israel.
response rebutted
mack your comments demonstrate perfectly the jew hating nature of BDS WTF does jew emigration or AIPAC have to do with my point that BDS focuses solely on Israel?
And what are you talking about me and sanctions on Iran – what are you smoking?
Dont bother responding as you clearly have your own agenda of hate and Im not interested in giving you a forum. I wont bother answering your bull$hit.
AGAIN for the non macks out there who are looking at the comments box, BDS only targets Israel – they do not target any other nation.
Why was my post in response not posted?
Note to commenters: Sometimes comments are caught in the spam filter. I check it every few hours during daytime, but not constantly.
Steve, thanks I did not realize. Enjoy the week-end.
F BDS:
I think you jaw-droopingly hypocritical and frankly stupid post should be read as an illustration of the point I made.
The US and numerous other countries have pursued sanctions and boycotts repeatedly because of policies in various countries that they disagreed with. South Africa was subject to quite comprehensive boycotts, including academic, entertainment (remember the treatment of those who played at Sun City (of you don't, what a surprise), sporting (controversies over Rugby, Cricket and Soccer), and economic. Ditto a long list of Eastern Europe, Iran, Cuba, Libya, Syria et al.
In several instances Israel and its partisans were major backers of the sanctions in question. Indeed, the Iran deal is about sanctions, their imposition over Iran's nuclear program and the circumstances under which they would be lifted.
Now lets focus on why your are hypocritical, stupid and dishonest.
Jew hating – hey first part of your argument was the reflexive accusation of antisemitism. In case you did not notice that was one of the things that did the most damage in the Salaita discussion. Great own goal there!
BDS targets only Israel – yes and the recent campaign on the Nuclear deal targeted only Iran, the South African boycott campaign targeted South Africa, etc. etc. A false non-equivalence dressed up as important.
It try, I do at least strongly dislike dishonesty and hypocrisy, so I'm probably not very keen on you. But then I suppose neither are quite a few people opposed to BDS – their objection being to the damage you do.
Finally – "Don"t bother responding." Wow, how arrogant, you expect to order people around … is that trying to silence people you disagree with. Hmmmmmmm – trouble getting Steve Lubet's point huh!
We have been through this before, Mack, so I am surprised that I have to remind you that I will delete comments containing personal insults such as "hypocritical, stupid and dishonest."
I am not deleting your most recent comment, however, because it also includes significant substantive points. Yes, F BDS also included some nasty stuff, and I came close to deleting those comments as well.
Everyone: Let's keep it civil. This is an academic discussion forum, and we ought to be able to state our views without insults.
Lot of typos there…..no time to proof-read
Steve:
Stripped of my response to F BDS – which to be blunt, he earned.
BDS is pushing a response to Israeli policies that is not unique, it has been a response that the US and EU engaged in with respect to many countries policies, ranging from Eastern Europe's refusal to allow emigration, in particular of Eastern European Jews, Russia's invasion of Afghanistan, apartheid in South Africa, nationalisation in Cuba (the original reason for the anti-Cuba sanctions), sponsorship of terrorism by Libya, Syria, Nuclear research and arms development by Iran, Russian support of separatists (and likely more in Ukraine), list goes on. Several of these boycotts have been promoted by Israel's supporters in the United States – indeed earlier this year the whole Iran nuclear deal was fundamentally about sanction – about the US, EU and other countries lifting sanction in return for various undertakings from Iran and the loud opposition of Israel's supporters and Benyamin Netanyahu to that policy decision.
No one who describes themselves as a supporter of Israel can reasonably say that BDS sanctions are inherently wrong for a simple reason – the US and Israel's supporters have, over decades, been vocal supporters of sanctions when they saw them as forwarding policy objectives they support. Moreover, since many Israelis and the majority of US jews (and jews in the EU) when surveyed express their dislike and non-support of Israeli policies on issues from settlements to the overall treatment of Palestinians, it is hard to argue that BDS supporters in invoking those policies (that many US and EU Jews and a considerable number of Israeli jews find objectionable) are being anti-semitic (unless you are F BDS, who does this reflexively>)
As you will recall, I have repeatedly stated – with evidence – that the accusation of anti-semitism is thrown around like "snuff at a wake" when people criticise Israeli policy. That accusation is a very dangerous one – what happened to Salaita illustrates it. That the accusation is frequently made dishonestly and speciously to silence critics of Israeli policy – well see F BDS.
It's a dirty nasty stunt to run around randomly calling people jew-haters and antisemitic – nasty, unethical and unprincipled, designed to frighten and silence people – you know that, and I know that. That so many opposed to BDS are ready to sink to that level says a lot about them and it damns other BDS opponents by association, just as much as those who object to Israeli policies are frequently tarred by the ill-concealed anti-semitism of some of those who criticise Israel.
The chicanery that surrounded the Salaita episode is undeniable – Phyllis Wise resignation speaks to it. The episode did seriously damage the anti-BDS cause – as you suggest in your post.
I am as stated, personally ambivalent about BDS … I do not oppose BDS as a matter of principle, because I support the idea of sanctions as a policy response. I question whether the sanctions BDS propose would improve the situation and therefore their appropriateness as a policy response to Israel's actions. That by the way is something lawyers do, they look at their legal toolkit and decide which tool would work, not just what can they use. My view, which can be debated is that keeping the possibility of BDS succeeding as a potential response to Israeli actions and policies is important – it creates the potential for consequences, the sort of things that so many have insisted on for Iran.
So to oppose BDS in principle while at the same time seeking to promote what are equivalent consequences for persons like Salaita, or countries like Iran, well I think the word is "hypocrisy."
The sanctions listed by m a c k were not academic sanctions based on restricting academic free speech. Citing economic sanctions implemented by Congress aginast actual human rights abusers are in no way academic sanctions only imposed the worlds only Jewish majority state.
They are, however, representative of classic anti-Semitic acts. Academic boycotts only aimed at Jews.
Once again you are kindly requested to present passed boycott resolutions by academic associations.
By the way the proper method to respond is to ask the IRS to revoke the associations not-for-profit status. By imposing a religious test – only Jewish Israeli academic are sanctioned – they violate public policy. As President Obama would point out that is not who we Americans are supposed to be.
Name Witheld by Request:
you are conflating being Jewish with being Israeli. Have you considered the implications of that stance?
What disturbs me about the BDS movement is that–in contrast too, for example, the boycotts of South Africa in the days of Apartheid–it is not at all clear what the objectives of boycott are. For Israel to cease any control over the West Bank and Gaza? If so, on what terms? It is fantasy to believe that a nation would unilaterally step back from a conflict in which the other side is dedicated to its destruction. Of is the objective a "one state solution" and, in connection with that, a dismantling of the Zionist project.
In short, what is the proposed solution and why is that a solution? It is in knowing the objectives of individual supporters of the BDS movement that we might begin to attribute motives: is it in fact an effort to push for peace between Israel and its enemies, or is it an effort to dismantle Zionism? Or is it something else altogether? As an effort to push for peace, it seems remarkably one-sided. As an effort to dismantle Zionism? I'm afraid that, protests notwithstanding, there are an awful lot of Jews who would take that as an anti-semitic endeavor.
The objectives seem pretty clear to me; return to the pre-1967 borders, ensure equal rights for Palestinians, and allow them to return to their property. You might think they are unrealistic or that Israel would be giving up too much, but lack of clarity does not seem to be an issue here. And it certainly does not call for "unilaterally step[ping] back from a conflict in which the other side is dedicated to its destruction."
twbb:
As I said, my issue is not with the principle of sanctions, but whether BDS is an appropriate policy response. First, the BDS movement itself is somewhat vague, it has a number of groups advancing the cause, each of which has somewhat differently stated objectives.
The mainstream states its objectives as:
"various forms of boycott against Israel until it meets its obligations under international law by:
Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands occupied in June 1967 and dismantling the Wall;
Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and
Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194."
All of this sounds perfectly reasonable – until you realise that Resolution 194 was adopted in 1948 and demands an array of things which, though certainly just in December 1948, are not wildly practicable today. And that is just the BDS advanced by one group – other groups insist that BDS be advanced and made conditional on other events happening or other actions by Israel – and you have a wild array of supporters ranging from fairly sober intellectuals to members of Black Block, etc.
Moreover, BDS is a non-governmental policy response (at least as it now stands) with the difficulties that such ad hoc policy creates – deciding what should be boycotted and why, and whether it is even a good idea. So you have those who simply want, they say, to boycott the products of Israeli settlements, which sounds straightforward, until you realise that many settlers are commuters to Israel proper, at businesses that numerous Israelis and Israeli Arabs who oppose the very policies at issue are employed. Should you boycott journalists from Haaretz for example? What about some of the Israeli Universities where the academics have been pretty open in their disdain for Netanyahu and Likud?
So leaving out the moral question (and Name Withheld by Request is childishly Likudnik while F BDS is – well, you know what I think) the bigger question is whether in this instance is BDS good policy – is it a strategy that will work – and if so work against what? some of what BDS movements want are clear and laudable goals (IMHO) but the whole list?
That said, BDS is scaring Israeli governments more than people realise. It is plausible to suggest that the BDS movement will start to prove a restraint on Israeli actions and policies. The most recent tantrum over EU labelling requirements for goods from settlements (requirements that the UK and several other member states of the EU have had for some time) was informative.
So in short, I am ambivalent – I do find much of Israeli policy and actions objectionable, but I am unconvinced that BDS is a wise policy response. That said F BDS and Name Withheld on Request are very persuasive…… a few more advocates like that and maybe I'll be convinced.
I'll add another point.
The recent +5 negotiations with Iran centred on the idea that if Iran would do certain things, primarily limit is nuclear program and open it to inspection, various sanctions on Iran would be rolled back. The response was the oafish tantrum that many of Israel's supporters, the Republican Party and Netanyahu engaged in. Now consider some of the advocates of BDS – and assume BDS is successful, both in getting various boycotts and sanctions in place, and indeed in getting Israel to make concessions. How do you think some of the BDS supporters are going to react when the response is a proposal to roll back BDS – well let me put it this way, you have seen a good example from Netanyahu et al of the behaviours that would ensue.
Some of those who want to advance BDS are absolutists, just like Netayahu and typical Likudnik – nothing will satisfy them short of the end of Israel, and if the BDS sanctions are put in place, then there will be no negotiating, they will just stay there, immutable.
I wasn't opining on the wisdom or efficacy of BDS, or the practicality of their goals, but simply responding to the characterization by Peter Friedman that their goals are somehow unclear. Some of their goals do seem impractical at this point, but so does Israel's apparent belief that it can run the clock out on the Palestinian issue and eventually something will change.
I think it's pretty well known that boycotts and embargoes oftentimes hurt the people they're intended to help; we've certainly seen that in Cuba, as well as previously in South Africa. I don't think the BDS movement, they just see it (like boycott/embargo actions before) that it's necessary pain for long-term gain.
The right of return is probably the least practical goal, but Israel has to do something there I think. Allowing a right of return of 5 million people to a nation of 8 million definitely seems impossibility, but I'm not sure what to do. Maybe some form of serious reparations.
What's always surprised me by the attacks on the right of return is the position taken by presumably otherwise rational, educated, 21st century citizens — that Palestinians who fled in 1948 from a war zone lost the right to keep their homes simply by virtue of that flight. I have never heard any real defense of Israel's actions other than truly repellent arguments that Palestinians somehow had no collective cultural right to their homes, and therefore individual Palestinians could have their homes taken from them. Or, equally nonsensically, that because the fleeing Palestinians were "rooting" for the Arabs to beat Israel, that position justified having their homes taken from them.
Anyway, I agree that the BDS is scaring Israel, and its dwindling support in the US should scare them even more. I honestly don't think BDS supporters are in general the kind of radicals who insist on ideological purity, or at least few enough of them are that with a truly equitable compromise they won't be able to command any sort of non-fringe support.
twbb
Perhaps the Jews who fled Germany can go back and reclaim their homes.
Problem solved!