BDS/AAA – An Ethnographic Report from the (Battle-)field

By Jackie Feldman, Ben Gurion University of the Negev

For me, anthropology is part of a search for personal freedom. The things that attracted me to leave my Orthodox Jewish home in New York for life in Israel are the same things that attracted me to anthropology: an openness to the world, a suspension of judgmentalism, a critique of power, a receptiveness to other ways of looking and living, and a consciousness of how our work might make a small difference for the better. It is for these reasons that the approval of the boycott resolution against Israeli academia at the AAA’s business meeting – or, should I say, “rally?” – in Denver was profoundly disappointing.

The setting: the BDS had mobilized students to hand out buttons and flyers, distribute green cookies and man the entrance to the business meeting with a line of placards with manipulative maps – “disappearing Palestine”. Some of the activists in the packed auditorium wore specially printed t-shirts – “another Jew for the boycott”. Each pro-BDS speech was accompanied by a burst of applause, until silenced by the chair. Some statements against the boycott drew hisses from the audience. When I stepped up to the microphone to present my two-minute case, I felt like a football fan of the wrong team in a visiting stadium. Or like I was walking down the wrong street in my childhood neighborhood. It was hostile.

Here’s what I said:

Thirty-seven years ago I immigrated to Israel in search of a Jewish homeland. A homeland where a Jewish presence could generate the confidence to create an open Jewish culture, one in which Israelis and Palestinians; Jews, Christians and Muslims could feel at home and interact in freedom. The land I found was not always the one of my dreams. I found a dynamic country, but one often marked by suspicion, violence, and defensiveness.

Over the course of three decades, I made my livelihood and carried out much of my fieldwork as a Jewish-Israeli tour guide for a Palestinian tour company, working with Palestinian bus drivers. At the height of the first Intifada, the Palestinian driver and I took turns switching between the kefiyya and the Israeli newspaper in the front window as we snaked from Israeli to Palestinian neighborhoods, bringing our Christian pilgrims to their holy sites – and putting bread in the mouths of our children. After work I came home, to neighbors and friends reeling from the last terrorist attack, who cursed the Arabs as motivated by eternal hatred and anti-Semitism. I would answer them – “I don’t know about ‘the Arabs’. But I know the Palestinians I work with. They want the same things you do – freedom, dignity and bread and hope for their children”.

As concerned anthropologists, we can choose to speak out against the occupation – but we have a choice: We can jump on the bandwagon and support the BDS – a movement whose final destination is unclear and many of whose leaders see no place for a Jewish homeland in the Middle East – or anywhere else for that matter [the mention of a Jewish homeland drew hisses from the public]. It may make you feel good. You can align yourself with the oppressed, and strike out against repressive forces on the American campus and society. But it misses the mark. It will not affect the Israeli government and only further isolate Palestinians and progressive Israelis who support their cause.

Alternatively, as anthropologists, you can support a nuanced position like the one adopted by the Israeli Anthropology Association: one that condemns the occupation and calls for support for Palestinian scholars and institutions. Here is where you as anthropologists have power – to further joint projects under AAA sponsorship; projects that can build bridges between Israelis and Palestinians and strengthen the hands of Israeli anthropologists who, as a group, have taken a stance against their government and foster greater equality.

That is the choice of hope.

My two-minute talk was interrupted once by hisses from the audience. One student asked the chair if the assembly could ‘forget about the rules’, and not have to go through the whole procedure of counting votes for and against the boycott. BDS supporters quickly ‘called the question’, curtailing discussion of the issues. Let’s get this over with and go out for a drink. The boycott against the Israeli academy was approved by about seven to one, to the sound of rousing applause.

The battle isn’t over, and I hope that more responsible, more anthropological voices will speak up when the issue comes to vote before the general membership in April. If they do, it will strengthen the critical voices working for peace and equality in Israel and Palestine. If not, the ‘gray’ boycott already in effect – scholars who have refused to read Israeli scholars’ proposals, recommend their Israeli grad students -will gain strength and legitimacy. In that case, I’ll have to think about my membership in the AAA. Not sure I wanna be part of that team.

Advertisements

Help Us Fight Academic Boycotts

Tax deductible online contributions to ADIP can be made here, the website of our partner organization Ameinu. Please remember to note ADIP Anthropology on the gift designation box online.

Ameinu, Hebrew for “Our People,” is a progressive Jewish organization committed to the struggle for peace, justice and reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians. It is also home of The Third Narrative (TTN) – an academic initiative to counter boycotts and other attempts to delegitimize Israel.

For those sending checks, Ameinu’s postal address is: 424 West 33rd Street, Suite 150, New York, NY 10001. Please remember to note ADIP Anthropology on the memo line of your check.

Throughout 2015, ADIP conducted a campaign calling for dialogue, reconciliation and anthropological engagement in AAA, rather than academic boycott. Unfortunately, at the November Business Meeting in Denver, those present voted overwhelmingly for a resolution supporting a boycott of Israeli academic institutions, and rejected our alternative anti-boycott resolution. The boycott resolution will now be sent to the full AAA membership for ratification or rejection, in an electronic vote between April 15th and May 15th 2016.

Dialogue or Boycott?

By Nicholas Herriman, Senior Lecturer, Anthropology, La Trobe University

Anthropology

Anthropology, for those who want a reminder, is the study of what it is to be human. Anthropologists come in different kinds. Socio-cultural anthropologists study contemporary societies and cultures. Archaeologists study stones, bones and other artifacts of the past. Linguistic anthropologists study language and social life. Physical anthropologists study primates. These and other types of anthropologists aim to deeply understand humankind.

We like to call ourselves a ‘broad church’, meaning we attempt to include a wide variety of approaches and opinions. This is necessary as we disagree about almost everything that comes under our purview. The case in point; we are devoted to changing human life for the better, but we disagree about how to do that.

As the premier international organization for anthropologists, the American Anthropological Association has, since its inception over a century ago, been capable of accommodating that variety.  This venerable tradition came to an end.

Vote for boycott

In a free and democratic vote, a majority of members arrived at what I believe is the wrong decision. 1040 voted to boycott Israeli universities. I have no doubt that the 1040 were well-meaning. But the result is that Israeli anthropologists, many of whom opposed the blockade of Palestinians, now find themselves subject to an academic blockade. This means my colleagues, some of whom have openly criticized the Israeli state and worked with Palestinians for dialogue are shut out.

The Occupation and the killing of civilians is hateful to me. So are suicide bombings and rocket attacks. But I do not see the boycott as assisting in finding peaceful and a fair solution to the Palestinian-Israeli question.

I am not suggesting that the country I now live and work in, Australia, is superior in this regard. I am a member of that country’s professional association for anthropologists. One former President, who has occupied professorships at our most prestigious universities is a powerful advocate for boycotting Israel. In an alienating and, for me at least, distressing move, this professor saw fit to send out information on the boycott but not for dialogue. The pro-dialogue position is also marginalized in Australia.

Malinowski not sanctioned

This runs counter to my belief  that anthropology should cherish academic freedom. Perhaps the most influential anthropologist, Malinowski, found himself in Australia as an enemy subject in WWI. The Australian government nevertheless provided him the opportunity to work in an Australian territory. The result was the conception of socio-cultural anthropology as we know it.

Boycott not about social justice

I am committed to social justice. As a young boy I supported sanctions against the Apartheid in the only way I could. I refused to buy candy from the local Shell petrol station (but I did used their air pump for my bike tires.). But as I thought about it more, I found the situation in Israel just a little more complex. For one, ‘Black’ South Africans were not rocketing and suicide bombing ‘White’ civilians to the same extent.  And even if we accept that Israel is a colonial settler state, as the advocates of the boycott insist, do we not have forms of Apartheid against indigenous and colored peoples in the US and Australia?

This is what my fellow anthropologists tell me. Yet they do not act on this.

So I wonder why no one has boycotted me, as a citizen of both America and Australia. And why have the 1040 anthropologists decided not boycott all my other American and Australian colleagues?

I would not support such a boycott. My own hypocrisy, sanctimony, self-interest, and self-righteousness precludes this. I can rest also assured that these or similar attitudes of the 1040 others will also ensure that America or Australia will never be boycotted.  I understand that; it’s the kind of pragmatism that gets me through the day after watching the news of terrorist bombings and Syrian refugees.

But as I look down on homeless people, sitting in my Denver hotel room, on land traditionally own by Araphoe and Cheyenne, in a country built on slavery, boycotting Israel first seems inconsistent to me. It indicates to me that however good the intentions of the boycott, the driving force behind is not social justice.

Death of dialogue

But there is another reason I wouldn’t support boycott of my two countries. I believe in sharing ideas, in talking, in dialogue, in promoting education. 1040 voted against dialogue. They did this for profound, deep, and heartfelt, I believe, ultimately, misguided reasons.

Repercussions of the vote

I remain unsure of the repercussions of their actions.

Some people think we anthropologists are merely quacks and won’t care what we do—this vote may help ‘confirm’ their suspicions.

As far as the right and for the hawks in Israel, if they even care, the vote has played right into their hands. If I could generalize: Israel used to court international favor. It used to care what people in the world think. These days it thinks the world is against it whatever it does.

I hope this boycott saves at least one Palestinian child. I don’t think it will. If anything it will probably have the opposite effect. One thing I am sure it will serve–the cause of those who are committed to the destruction of Israel.

Simplicity

Anthropology is a discipline that embraces complexity and reject simplicity. We are committed to seeing past stereotypes of evil aggressors and innocent victims.

As an anthropologist I want Israelis and Palestinians to know that I do care. I want to understand. I want to talk and study with them. Increasingly, this attitude can no longer be accommodated in anthropology.

Nicholas Herriman is not a member of the AAA but is looking for an international anthropological association which supports dialogue.

A Progressive Response to BDS

By Dan Rabinowitz, Professor of Anthropology at Tel Aviv University. First published on us.boell.org

This essay comes in three parts. It begins with a brief statement on the current state of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, then presents my take on boycotts generally, and finally offers an analysis of BDS’s mode of operation and its vision for the endgame of the conflict.

Assessing the situation

Reasonably well informed people, averagely sensitive and equipped with an intuitive sense of justice, find it increasingly difficult to remain indifferent to Israel’s conduct. The occupation, now nearing its 50th year, has turned Gaza, and to a lesser extent the West Bank, into de facto detention zones. It humiliates millions of Palestinians, robs them of meaningful citizenship, and violates their human rights on a daily basis. The consistent refusal by official Israel to recognize the tragic consequences of 1948 for the Palestinians and the continuous disregard for the refugee problem are unacceptable.

The notable drift in Israel’s public sphere towards essentialist thought patterns with obvious racist elements underwrites disturbing policies which resemble those practiced by the Apartheid regime of South Africa. The inferno of Gaza, in which Israel is a willing collaborator with Egypt, is untenable. So are the periodic outbursts of violence initiated by Israel against Gaza, which are grossly disproportionate to any damage caused by missiles launched by Gazans at Israeli targets.

All this amounts to unacceptable intrusions on the part of Israel beyond the pale of reasonable behavior, common sense and natural justice.

This assessment of the situation in Israel and Palestine is not radically different from those offered by spokespersons for BDS – the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions movement behind the current call to boycott Israeli universities. I also agree that BDS has dramatically enhanced global awareness of the situation in Israel and Palestine, successfully propelling a realization in the West of the urgent need for meaningful change.

My unease stems from the leap of faith and logic associated with suggestion that descent people who are enraged by the situation and seek justice for Palestine must boycott Israeli universities and cultural institutions. I find this leap not only misguided and flawed in logic, but also cynical and fundamentally dangerous – to Palestinians, to Israelis, to the Middle East and to world peace.

Boycotts 101

Boycotts and sanctions are legitimate forms of political brinkmanship that can be inspiring and effective. Captain Charles Boycott, the heavy-handed manager of an estate in 1880s Ireland, evicted 11 tenant families for petty debts. Outraged parishioners got organized and declared that until he reinstates those families, no one would work for the state or trade with it. To save the summer’s harvest, Boycott hired farm workers from another parish. At the end of the summer however he discovered that, the costs of transporting and protecting his replacement work force exceeded the harvest’s worth. To cut the estate’s losses, he then reinstated the evicted families.

Countless instances of boycott have taken place since. Famous ones include the boycott of British goods in China in retaliation to the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1902; the Jewish American boycott of Henry Ford in the 1920s; Ghandi’s boycott of British goods in the 1940s; the Montgomery bus boycott during the American civil rights movement in the 1950s; and the economic and disinvestment movement against South Africa in the 1980s.

To be effective, a boycott must fulfill four criteria:

  1. Those boycotted must be primarily and directly responsible for the injustice (Charles Boycott was the manager who instigated the eviction),
  2. Those boycotted must be capable of rectifying the injustice as soon as they resolve to do so (Boycott could re-instate those evicted at will, and eventually did),
  3. The conditions set for lifting the boycott must be clear, uncontestable and doable,
  4. Those boycotted must trust the boycotters to truly want their conditions to be met, without fear of any hidden future stipulations down the road.

The call for an academic boycott of Israel, as reflected for example in the resolution carried at the annual business meeting of the American Anthropological Association (AAA) on 20 November 2015[1] fails miserably on all four accounts.

First, Israeli universities are not directly or primarily responsible for the occupation and the violation of Palestinians’ human rights. Second, these institutions cannot, even if they wanted to, rectify the situation.[2] Third, the condition set for ending the suggested boycott (“until such time as [Israeli universities] end their complicity etc….”) is deliberately murky. I want to invite the reader to perform a mental exercise. Think of a university you know. Now consider the following three questions:

  • In 2015, is this university currently more or less complicit in the US-led invasion of Iraq that it had been five years ago?
  • Is it more or less complicit in US drone attacks, social inequality or police treatment of minorities than the university down the road?
  • How would you go about determining the answers to these two questions?

If you are having difficulty producing sensible answers, do not despair. These questions have no obvious answers. I bring them here to illustrate that the pivotal condition of the AAA’s 2015 resolution cannot be met.[3]

Failure on criteria C of course leads to failure on criteria D. Those boycotted – and here I speak for myself and virtually every Israeli academic I conversed with on the boycott, including friends positioned on Israel’s far left – interpret the impossible conditions as proof that BDS has no interest in any Israeli university ever qualifying to have the boycott lifted. As the report of the AAA’s own Task Force on engagement with Israel and Palestine states, the initiative to boycott Israeli universities could potentially lead to an indefinite ostracization.

An indefinite boycott is deplorable not only because it is too harsh or too extreme. It is unacceptable because it defeats the purpose which every sanction ever deployed for political brinkmanship strives to achieve: to motivate the boycotted party to redirect its conduct and induce positive change. Why do anything when you think that however hard you try, you will never really qualify to have the sanction lifted?

 

The Political Context of the Current Call for Boycott

Boycotters are a diverse crowd. They have no official leadership and cannot be held collectively accountable for anything. But based on my observation of Palestinian politics for many years, I can say that amongst the leaders of BDS many dream of a future without Israel. Some of them have held this view for decades. Others joined the drift more recently. But that is clearly the dominant sentiment amongst them.

Others in that diverse camp (and many potential supporters) may see a future for Israel, perhaps even through a two state solution. But rather than clarifying this crucial point, BDS’s leaders deliberately obfuscate it. The standard line is that the movement ‘has no position’ on the endgame – it is strictly focusing on human rights for Palestinians.

This position is deeply unconvincing and unsettling. BDS’s leaders do have a position. But since the notion of a future without Israel is hard to sell, they do their best to mute and to embellish it. An attempt to undo Israel is thereby camouflaged as an attempt to reform it. And a boycott designed to isolate, marginalize and silence Israeli moderates pretends to be a quest to reduce academic complicity as part of a larger struggle for human rights.

To be clear, I do not wish to trivialize the struggle for human rights, to which I have been committed throughout my career in academia and as part of Israeli and international civil society. But in the case in point, calling to boycott academic and cultural institutions as a means to promote human rights is decontextualized and misguided. Its real intention is to instrumentalize universities in Israel and academic associations abroad to achieve a broader, much more sinister objective.

This is the seed of wrath in BDS – its original sin. A boycott and sanctions campaign cannot work if it denies its target a future. It can only work if those boycotted can expect a brighter turn once they comply with the boycotters’ demands. Applying boycott in a situation where the actual goal is to eliminate your opponent’s existence will result in die-hard unwillingness to compromise.

This is why BDS has never focused on attempts to pressurize Israel economically. Economic sanctions are carrot-and-stick ploys, forcing those under pressure to do things against their will now in exchange for an alleviation of the pressure in the future. BDS, which strives to eclipse Israel altogether, has no carrots for it. That is why it has neglected economic sanctions, leaving them to sporadic action by committed student activists on US campuses who operate with little intervention, supervision or direction from BDS’s leadership.

An academic and cultural boycott, on the other hand, is a perfect fit for those who seek a future without Israel.

The Netanyahu government’s uncompromising and violent conduct in recent years brought international sympathy for Israel to an all time low. BDS now hopes that this fall from grace could soon be followed by Israel’s ultimate collapse. They see an opportunity for them to play an active role in this process: demonize Israel as a radically essentialized epitome of evil, and you might expedite its ultimate demise.

This strategy finds willing partners on the Israeli right, where politicians thrive on cultivating an ethos which suggests that ‘the whole world is against us’. Moreover, it is a strategy which cannot tolerate Israeli moderates. A vibrant intellectual milieu, where academics and artists embrace complexity and nuance, subverts BDS’s essentializing mission. Israelis who openly criticize the occupation and the government, who stand in solidarity with Palestinian farmers against settler violence, who work with Palestinian whose villages with no electricity to install solar panels, wind turbines and rainfall water systems – such Israelis have no place in BDS’s cosmology.

Israelis whose actions and integrity complicate BDS’s over-simplified, self-righteous, monolithic tale of evil colonial oppressors versus angelic indigenous victims must be marginalized and silenced. Stakes are even higher when it comes to people like my friend the late Edward Said and like Daniel Barenboim, whose West-Eastern Divan Orchestra brings Israeli and Palestinian teenagers to play classical music together, was declared ‘boycottable’ by BDS in 2012. In fact, as far as BDS is concerned, the more amenable to dialogue we are, and the more prominent we might become, the more ‘boycottable’ we must remain.

Those convinced that Israel should not have been created in the first place, or that it no longer has the right to exist, are entitled to their opinion. But they have obligations, too. They must come clean about seeking a post-Israel endgame. They must own up to the highly stereotyped, dichotomized incitement they pursue. They must develop detailed plans for what the new post-Israel reality might look like, with particular attention to the process they think might lead there. And they must openly acknowledge the terrible price both Palestinians and Israelis might have to pay for an attempt to force this vision onto Israelis who, apart from a tiny group of academics, are unable to imagine such a scenario even as an intellectual exercise. In short, they need to heed Noam Chomsky’s warning, in a 2014 article in The Nation, that BDS and its supporters must be careful what they wish for.

The conversation I am proposing here will be tense. It will take place far outside the comfort zone of those amongst the BDS leadership who have so far controlled its discourse. But it will be a more honest one. Most importantly, it will allow stakeholders and observers to form opinions and decisions based on real positions, not deceitful manipulations.

 

 

Prof. Dan Rabinowitz teaches Anthropology at Tel-Aviv University. He is Co-founder of Anthropologists for Dialogue on Israel and Palestine, a former President of the Israeli Anthropological Association and of Greenpeace Mediterranean and current Chairman of the Association for Environmental Justice in Israel. He has written books on Israel/Palestine published by Cambridge, UC Berkeley and Ashgate, and published articles in American Ethnologist, JRAI, Critical Inquiry, IJMES, JAR, Ethnic and Racial Studies and more.

 

[1] The issue will be put to an electronic ballot by the entire membership of the AAA between April 15 and May 15 2016.

[2] A nested argument which I will not develop here is that ‘complicity’, of which Israeli universities are repeatedly but not convincingly accused by boycotters, is an irregularity for which boycott is not necessarily the best remedy.

 

[3] This by the way is not a first. In 2014, many anthropologists signed a petition calling to boycott Israeli universities which had a different condition, equally impossible to meet: that Israeli universities ‘call on Israel’ to comply with BDS’s blueprint for normalization (above). It is impossible because universities do not, cannot and must not, as institutions, take sides in political debates that split the societies in which they operate down the middle.

 

Why the Academic Boycott is Immoral

By Ziggy Rivkin-Fish

This article was originally published on SociaLogics

The American Anthropological Association (AAA) recently approved at its business meeting a resolution to boycott Israeli Academic Institutions to be placed on the April electronic ballots for vote by the general membership. The resolution largely adopts the boiler plate language of PACBI and links the Academic Boycott as part of the larger boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement.

The resolution presents itself as in response to Israeli state transgressions and complicity by academic institutions in such transgressions, it also claims to be in response to some the call by some vague “vast majority of Palestinian civil society organizations.” But it is no secret who the backers and leaders of this effort are, and that many, if not most, of the leaders of BDS, most prominently Omar Barghutti, have made it clear that BDS’s unambigous goal is and should be the elimination of the state of Israel, and that it is the deligitimation element of BDS that will lead to this goal.

Some of the sponsoring organizations have provided apologist explanations that the movement contains a broad range of motives, including a one state solution that would eliminate an Israeli entity, but that once all conditions are fulfilled (including Israel giving up “all Arab lands” and allowing all Palestinians to return to all territories), the rest – as if there would be anything left – would be up to the parties to determine. This is at best an unacceptable moral compromise and at worst a sanction for ethnic cleansing. To claim that one can support BDS while also be for peace, is to pretend either that Israeli Jews will accept living under Palestinian majority rule and give up any aspirations of their own country, or that they will conveniently decide to self-deport. And it is simply not morally defensible to accept and legitimate aspirations for ethnic cleansing as a legitimate cost to secure Palestinian rights.

There is simply no alternative to a 2-state solution if one is committed to peace. I am aware that many boycott supporters, including some Jews, do not take for granted any inherent right of Jews to their own homeland. But that is morally irrelevant. The BDS path is a path to existential war and ethnic cleansing regardless of one’s position on Zionism or Palestinian nationalism.

While I object to academic boycotts on other grounds, I suppose one could make a moral case for them if they had clearly definable and achievable goals that would be verifiable, and targeted at the actual institution empowered to address the targeted actions. This is of course a very, very far cry from what this academic boycott resolution is. But it is the affiliation with BDS and the morally indefensible aim of its backers that makes it completely unacceptable, regardless of one’s position on Israeli state policies.

Ziggy Rivkin-Fish is a blogger, sociologist, and works in the IT sector as an expert on governance.

 

American Anthropologists Betray their own Values

While debating an academic boycott of Israeli universities Friday, an overwhelming majority of those attending the annual business meeting of the American Anthropological Association rejected a motion to reaffirm the discipline’s historic commitment to non-discrimination

A turning point in American academic history took place Friday night during the annual business meeting of the American Anthropological Association (AAA). With an all-time record attendance of more than 1500, the Association debated a resolution to boycott Israeli universities which was eventually upheld. Minutes into the debate, the Association refused to take up an amendment to the boycott resolution which affirms the AAA’s “long standing support of academic freedom and its opposition to measures that foster discrimination on the basis of race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, age or disability”. The proposed anti-discrimination clause was rejected by a crushing majority of those AAA members who were in attendance. With this rejection, and by embracing the boycott resolution which discriminates against Israeli universities later that evening by a 1,040 to 136 majority, the AAA repudiated its long cherished values of promoting pluralism and tolerance.

Apart from tabling this failed amendment to the boycott resolution, founders of Anthropologists for Dialogue on Israel and Palestine (ADIP) also joined ten other anthropologists to offer an alternative resolution at Friday’s business meeting. This alternative resolution strongly criticized Israel’s policies and actions vis-à-vis the Palestinians, called upon the AAA to address injustice and human rights violations against them by investing in academic initiatives in the region, and rejected the call for academic boycott. This alternative resolution was rejected by the Business Meeting by an almost equally large majority as the adopted boycott resolution.

ADIP regards the boycott resolution as a boost to the Israeli government’s intransigence and a recipe for extending the occupation of Palestinian lands which Israeli has occupied since 1967. “Such actions” said Prof. Dan Rabinowitz of Tel-Aviv University, a co-founder of ADIP, ”play into the hands of the Israeli Right, who will herald it as further proof that ‘the world is all against us’ and that whatever Israelis do, even left leaning academics, they will be marginalized”. Rabinowitz, who together with Prof. Susan Kahn (Harvard) proposed the non-discrimination amendment to the boycott resolution which was rejected Friday. The non-discrimination amendment was supported by Professor Harvey Goldberg (Hebrew U.), Professor Yehuda Goodman (Hebrew U.), Professor Jackie Feldman (Ben Gurion U.), Prof. Amalia Sa’ar (Haifa U.) and other Israeli anthropologists who are known for their pro-peace stances and work. Professor Rabinowitz continued: “The rage and indignation at Israel’s actions was wrongfully and dangerously diverted by boycotters to sow divisions within the academic community which are counterproductive and, in the case of me and my Israeli colleagues, most depressing”.

Dr. Gila Silverman (University of Arizona), Co-founder of ADIP, who addressed the AAA business meeting Friday, said: “The AAA’s vote today demonstrated a failure on the part of anthropologists to truly devote themselves to listening, learning, and acknowledging social complexity. The AAA betrayed our Israeli colleagues by ostracizing and silencing them, and unfairly holding them accountable for governmental policies that they themselves have courageously opposed.”

Prof. Michele Rivkin-Fish (UNC, Chapel Hill) said after the vote: “Something significant and powerful in me has broken. I feel it viscerally: a physical blow, a kick in the stomach. It is the kind of personal loss in which you know that nothing will ever be the same again. What has broken is my belief in my profession. My trust in my colleagues”.

ADIP co-founder David M. Rosen, professor of Anthropology and Law at Fairleigh Dickinson University, said after Friday’s vote: “This resolution will curtail the ability of anthropologists, social scientists and humanists to teach and conduct research with an open mind on the issues affecting Israel and Palestine. In embracing the right to discriminate, the boycott resolution has dangerously delineated a new terrain. The AAA’s decision could boost and provide a cover for governments and political operatives everywhere that seek to marginalize or suffocate academic institutions and members of civil society. The boycott resolution is something the AAA and members who supported it will need to grapple with for decades.”

The boycott resolution carried by the AAA’s Business Meeting on Friday is preliminary. The only final decision taken is to bring it to an electronic ballot in April 2015, whereby all 12,000 members of the AAA will be asked to approve or reject it. ADIP shares the view of many that an electronic vote taken by members individually is different to a crowded meeting setting, where a well-organized, well-funded group truncated debate, willfully preventing participants from having an opportunity to listen to the present minority’s point of view. ADIP remains committed to its campaign against the boycott frenzy, for dialogue and reconciliation, and will be dedicating more energy and whatever resources it can obtain to keep its struggle going in coming months and years.

Peace and Two States is an Anthropological and a Justice Position

A Question of Supporting Peace and Two States

By Ayala Emmett, Professor Emeritus of Anthropology, U of R

My question for you my fellow anthropologists who are supporting ostracizing and isolating Israeli academics, is: What have you done for peace and a two state solution? Numerous anthropologists on this site have already posted compelling arguments against your position; for me, a long time peace activist anthropologist and writer, your answer is critical.  If your answer to the question: What have you done for peace and two states, is your vote tomorrow, think again.  Those of us who have been peace activists all those years, have done fieldwork among peace activists, published, gave talks, supported local activists have not seen many of you supporting our efforts to end the occupation and promote a just solution.  It seems to me that like the right-wing, you embrace rage rather than compassion, destruction rather than supporting co-existence (yes, I know it’s been a long time, much too long, I was there) and you have made the task of those of us on the left, who spoke up on this anthropological/political ground for years, so much harder. I do know what I have done for peace and two states. Do you?

Ayala Emmett is author of Our Sisters’ Promised Land: women, politics, and Israeli-Palestinian coexistence. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1996.

 

Every Pro-Boycott Endorsement Weakens Israel’s Anti-Occupation Camp

 

The American Anthropological Association’s BDS proposal could have far-reaching consequences: strengthening Israel’s right wing and abetting BDS’s rhetorical pretense regarding its true aims.

By Harvey Goldberg, Yehuda Goodman, Dan Rabinowitz, Michele Rivkin-Fish, David Rosen, Gila Silverman, Alex Weingrod

This article was originally published at Haaretz

This Friday November 20th, the annual Business Meeting of the American Anthropological Association (AAA) will convene in Denver to determine whether or not to endorse a boycott of Israeli universities. One proposal, inspired by BDS (the Palestinian initiative to boycott Israel, sanction it and divest from it), calls for an academic boycott. Our proposal, in contrast, calls on Israel and the U.S. to end the Occupation and do justice for the Palestinians as part of a two state solution. It also calls to resist academic boycott and to foster dialogue – the only realistic path to reconciliation.

Emotions are running high. Attendance on Friday is expected to beat all records. Both sides are using traditional media, social networks, sponsored events and personal persuasion to get participants to vote. There is a sense that the signal that will be relayed by the AAA – a large, respectable academic association that took the trouble to send a Task Force on Engagement with Israel and Palestine to the region last summer – will reverberate with other academic associations.

BDS uses a moralistic, self-righteous and simplistic narrative to frame its position as representative of the ultimate good (all Palestinians) against radical evil (all Israelis). Within this framework they herald boycott as the only practical step available to counter Israel’s intransigence and bring justice to the Palestinians.

This contrived dichotomy is objectionable not only because of the travesty it produces of academic freedom. Its obsessive nature and persistent detachment from reality poses a much greater danger. If its approach to the conflict becomes widespread, it could spell disaster for Palestinians, Israelis and many others on a massive scale.

The boycott controversy was constructed to actively ignore and smartly hide a much more pertinent divide. Israeli society is split. On the one hand there is a cohesive right wing, now in power, convinced that clinging to the territories occupied by Israel in 1967 and keeping millions of Palestinians subjugated is the road to Israel’s survival. On the other hand, a consistent majority which regularly polls in favor of relinquishing these territories, that has not been able, since the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin in 1995, to ever stay in power long enough to implement such plan.

BDS’s essentializing, demonizing mission tries to convince listeners that the division between pro-boycotters and those who still believe in dialogue and compromise is the only one which matters. But if boycotters win, on Friday and on similar occasions later, they will profoundly impact the inner struggle within Israel. Their win will give the Israeli right a major boost.

A leftist Israeli member of Knesset told one of us recently how the success of BDS to boycott an Israeli film festival in New York in 2013 was met by right wing Knesset members with unmitigated glee. Boycotting a festival infested with subversive leftist Israeli film-makers, a right wing politician told him candidly at the time, was all the proof which right wingers needed to convince supporters that their propaganda is correct. The world is simply against us because of who we are, he said: it does not matter to anyone abroad what policies or actions we support or what documentaries we make. Bring on more silly boycotts, he concluded, and my party and those further to the right of it will stay in power indefinitely.

This is the paradoxical reality in which we live. The majority of Israelis are in favor of somehow ending the occupation and wants to give millions of Palestinian non-citizens an opportunity to have a state and live in dignity. But threats of boycotts and of sanctions exacerbate Israeli fears just as much as terror attacks do. This helps the Right, which poses as the only viable defender of a threatened national realm, to tighten its stranglehold on power ever more.

Instead of strengthening the Israeli peace camp, BDS weakens it, radically trivializing its efforts. Yes, dialogue has been frustrating and elusive. But academics are there to find innovative paths to justice and reconciliation, not to turn against each other in a futile, childish and destructive manner.

Embedded in what pro-boycotters say and write is an underlying urge to punish Israel. While Israeli academics are by no means justifiable targets of such anger, the basic sentiment cannot be blamed. But boycotters are not exclusively motivated by emotions. They also make political calculations. Their campaign, while ultimately geared towards a new reality where Israel no longer exists, often tries to pass as a moderate wish to merely end the Occupation, implying Israel might be allowed to remain. BDS’s statements systematically obfuscate the more radical vision. But as the debate of this campaign diversifies and deepens, and as more people learn to understand it better, the inconsistencies and confusions stemming from the tensions that exist between these contradicting goals emerge more clearly.

BDS sees Israel as a colonial project and an apartheid state which has run its course. For 7 million Jews in Israel and many more elsewhere however, the mere suggestion that Israel will be no more is unthinkable, unspeakable, abhorrent. Coercing Israel into relinquishing the territories is one thing. Forcing it to cease existing is quite another.

So far BDS scored victories and some defeats in academic circles. But let us assume, just for the sake of argument, its mission somehow becomes a runaway success. If it gets to dominate academe, conquer public opinion, shape the way important governments see the Middle East and turn the end of Israel into a universal blueprint, how will things pan out? Can anyone predict what a radicalized, desperate Israeli government possessing a nuclear arsenal might do when its captains become convinced that Armageddon is afoot?

BDS and its supporters must get real. The only way to diffuse the situation in the Middle East and prevent it from plunging the region and the world into colossal suffering is to accept that Israel is here to stay, make reasonable and doable demands from it and resume talking. A first step is to strengthen Israelis who are allies of the Palestinians rather than ostracize them.

BIOS

Harvey E. Goldberg is Sarah Allen Shaine Professor Emeritus in Sociology and Anthropology at the Hebrew University.

Yehuda Goodman is Senior Lecturer in Sociology and Anthropology at the Hebrew University.

Dan Rabinowitz is Professor of Anthropology at Tel-Aviv University. A former President of the Israeli Anthropological Association, he is cofounder of Anthropologists for Dialogue on Israel and Palestine.

Michele Rivkin-Fish is Associate Professor and Associate Chair, Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

David M. Rosen is Professor of Anthropology at Fairleigh Dickinson University.

Gila Silverman is a PhD candidate at the School of Anthropology, University of Arizona

Alex Weingrod is Emeritus Professor of Anthropology and Sociology at the Ben-Gurion University of the Negev.

 

The ‘Emics’ of Complicity

By David M. Rosen Professor of Anthropology and Law at Fairleigh Dickinson University

Ahmed Kanna claims that one of the reasons for boycotting Israeli universities is that these universities have strongly tended to support the occupation, and that this fact has been amply demonstrated by boycott supporters. Interestingly enough, the Task Force itself did not find this to be the case, and I hope that most of my anthropological colleagues will agree that the mere repetition by boycott supporters of the same narrative slogans hardly constitutes a demonstration of anything other than a commitment to that narrative.

BDS supporters continually use the term “complicity” to describe Israeli support of the occupation. The term complicity appears eight times in the academic boycott guidelines created by the Palestinian BDS National Committee, which serve as the foundational charter of the BDS movement. In thinking about the upcoming vote, it may be helpful to examine the “emics” of complicity and how charges of complicity function as a component of BDS rhetorical strategies. The BDS boycott guidelines identify three distinct human and organization levels and five separate modes of action and thought, which combined together, create the 15 forms of culpable thought and action. These levels are 1) individual complicity, 2) Israeli institutional complicity, and 3) Non-Israeli institutional complicity. The modes of action are 1) Silence 2) Justification, 3) Whitewashing 4) Diversion, and 5) Direct Collaboration. These fifteen BDS-defined forms of complicity make up the universe of transgressive thought and action with regard to conflict in Israel and Palestine. Individual complicity falls under BDS’s so-called “common sense” boycott standards, which target persons, while institutional complicity falls under the institutional guidelines.

While I can’t review all fifteen forms of complicity, it is clear that culpability rests in both doing nothing (silence) and in doing something. Individual anthropologists and departments in Israel which engage in the normal routines of academic life are presumed to be complicit in these ways. Presumably an anthropologist studying kinship and family or ritual in Israel would be complicit by virtue of her silence. A scholar advancing arguments of Jewish indigeneity in Israel and Palestine — thereby challenging the trope of the colonial settler state so widely embraced the BDS movement—might be charged with the transgression of justification.

Beyond this, both individuals and institutions are subject to the charge of “whitewashing,” which covers almost any issue or topic in which Israel might, directly or indirectly, be cast in a favorable light. In the BDS worldview, “whitewashing” is the term used to stigmatize progressive and liberal practices in Israel that are said to exist merely as cover for Israeli crimes and as a diversion from the occupation. As an example, it was used recently to describe the activities of the West-Eastern Divan Orchestra (WEDO) founded by Daniel Barenboim and Edward Said. Any simple Google search will show that BDS supporters employ numerous synonyms for whitewashing. These include pinkwashing (Israel’s gay rights movement); greenwashing (Israeli’s environmental movement); genderwashing (Israel’s feminist movement); brownwashing, blackwashing, and redwashing (advocacy by members of minority groups on behalf of Israel); Healthwashing (Israeli medical outreach in crisis zones); Veggie-washing (Israeli vegetarian advocacy); and animal-washing (Israel’s animal rights movement). The laundry list of “washings” make clear that BDS rhetorical strategies are designed to mark out and dismiss virtually all activities in Israel, elsewhere regarded as normal and/or progressive, but which BDS rhetoric recasts as forms of complicity. Such categorizations are attempts to close down all ordinary forms of discourse.

With respect to the issue of direct collaboration, it is clear that no one has been able to actually demonstrate that Israeli universities or individual scientists behave any differently than universities in the United States, Canada, England or anywhere else in the world. Indeed one only needs to look at Vice News’ report last week of the “The Most Militarized Universities in America” to recognize that hundreds if not thousands of anthropologists across the United States are deeply embedded in highly militarized institutions in ways that, BDS rhetoric aside, are indistinguishable from their Israeli counterparts.

Finally, there is the BDS charge of complicity for non-Israeli institutions. Here the boycott guidelines identify Horizon 2020 as “the clearest example of academic complicity with Israel that is supported by governments.” Horizon 2020 is the largest European Union research program ever undertaken, which will make available more than 80 billion Euros in research funding over a period of 7 years. Here are only a few among the wide range of academic projects which involve Israeli universities: 1) Rounding the circle: Unravelling the biogenesis, function and mechanism of action of circRNAs in the Drosophila brain (Hebrew University); 2) Crisis on the margins of the Byzantine Empire: A bio-archaeological project on resilience and collapse in early Christian development of the Negev Desert (University of Haifa); 3) Single cell genomic profiling of renal cancer stem cells (Bar Ilan University). Towards the elimination of iodine deficiency and preventable thyroid-related diseases in Europe (Hebrew University in cooperation with more than a dozen European academic instiutions). I invite readers to decide how projects like these fit into one or more of the 15 forms of complicity.

It is clear that that the BDS notion of complicity has metastasized so as to embrace the entire universe of normal science and all of the individuals and institutions that support it, so long as these have any connection to the State of Israel. The question before us as anthropologists is what are the implications of joining up with BDS and this worldview? A vote to boycott Israeli anthropology will transform the American Anthropological Association from a scientific organization into a partisan NGO in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There is no doubt that this will be a celebratory moment for BDS activists within our association. But for those who, like myself, oppose both the occupation and the boycott, real justice in the Israel Palestinian conflict requires something else: it requires that the many anthropologists who are frustrated and angry about the situation in Israel and Palestine join with and not ostracize their like-minded colleagues in Israel, including the vast majority of the members of the Israel Anthropological Association. Voting for a boycott will harm both American anthropology and any prospect for this association to play a role in bringing about real justice in this conflict.

 

A Letter from an Israeli Student and Peace Activist

Dear Fellow anthropologists,

I am writing this letter after much hesitation, since I do not see myself as a spokesperson against the BDS movement, nor do I see myself as a representative of the Israeli State (although I am an Israeli citizen). Still, I decided to write this letter since I think that in such a complicated topic, those of you who go to vote at the AAA business meeting, Friday November 20th, should make an informed choice which takes into account what exactly the BDS movement calls for and all possible implications of endorsing BDS as a tactic of opposing Israeli policy. 

Essentially, what I am urging you to do is to consider whether endorsing BDS in its current form will actually contribute to its goals. I write this based on my personal experience as a political activist against the Israeli occupation. In Israel, I organized and spoke in numerous demonstrations against current Israeli policy, and co-founded activities directed specifically in addressing gendered aspects of living in a conflict zone. I should also mention that I am a strong supporter of boycotts against Israeli products made in the occupied territories. Based on this experience, I strongly believe that BDS in its current form will probably reach the opposite of its goals. Furthermore, as an anthropologist, I am deeply disturbed by the preference to exercise authority to limit academic freedom upon any other alternatives.

Concerning the possible results of endorsing an academic boycott, please consider the following: The Israeli academy is exactly the sector of Israeli society where pro-Palestinian and pro-peace activity is most flourishing. Boycotting Israeli academy can only bring to weakening its ability to voice an opposition to Israeli policy.  Those who are arguing against this by saying that the Israeli academy is complicit with Israeli army and enforcing the occupation, should keep in mind that the only direct link between Israeli academic institutions as a whole and the Israeli army is that they are both significantly funded by Israeli tax payers, which is a result of the fact that most of the academic institutions in Israel are public. Second, anyone who thinks that endorsing BDS will change Israeli policy does not understand how Israeli politics works. Currently, what this move is more likely to do is stir greater crowds to a more militant, right wing position (I rely on current polls on this subject, so this isn’t just my perspective).

Concerning my second point, I urge you to consider whether choosing to silence voices of Israeli academics through endorsing an academic boycott is an appropriate pathway for a discipline that is troubled by questions concerning anthropologists’ authoritative practices. Furthermore, choosing to silence one group of academics as a main punitive action seems to be in contradiction with the discipline’s ethos of conducting a multifaceted, vibrant, professional discourse. There are multiple other measures to politically engage with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without harming the core of our professional ethos; without disenfranchising a whole group from participation in the international professional scene. For those who argue in return that Palestinian scholars are in fact silenced in these days by the Israeli occupation I say- this is correct. But how does silencing another group of people solve this situation? Since when retaliation by the same token is the optimal means to fight that situation?

I therefore urge you to carefully consider your vote on BDS, and all of its possible implications. Also, if you care about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and want to do something about it, please know that there are many other possibilities to be engaged and contribute to bringing an end to the Israeli occupation that do not involve such problematic measures.

Yours,

AA