Understanding BDS demonization of Israel

The BDS campaign is seemingly targeted at a country other than the UK, ie. Israel.
However as Jews we are drawn in to, and labelled by some as implicitly associated with, the politics of another state and region.

This can impact your life and cause you to experience social exclusion.

We have therefore prepared a reading list, together with extracts from various publications.

This will help you further understand the arguments into which you may be drawn.

Hopefully this will relieve the problem of having to exclude yourself from Social Media, or even going to the pub.

MENU: Guides & Essays: click to show

Guides

STOP BDS demonization of Israel

Combating Anti-Semitism in Social Media & Online

Tools to help you cope with Social Media & the Press

Countering anti-Israel claims

Essays

HOWARD JACOBSON: Let’s see the ‘criticism’ of Israel for what it really is.

Freedom & Tyranny

Anti-Semitism on the Rise

Israeli academics respond to anti-Israel letter

Demonization, Double Standards, Delegitimization

What is BDS?

The “BDS” or “Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions” movement advocates the demonization of Israel and her actions.
Supporters of BDS are waging a political, economic, cultural, and ideological campaign to delegitimize the State of Israel.
BDS proponents make a false analogy between democratic Israel and Apartheid South Africa so as to isolate and stigmatize Israel.
Advocates of BDS deny Israel the basic human right of self-defense and blame Israel alone for conflict in the region.
BDS supporters demand self-determination for the Palestinians but do not acknowledge the right of the Jewish people to self-determination in their homeland, Israel.
The BDS movement is rapidly spreading on campuses and communities, representing a looming threat to Israel and its supporters.
The BDS movement comes to campus in many forms: Anti-Israel protests calling for boycotts, calls for divestment from certain Israeli products on campus, resolutions for the University to divest from Israeli companies, and many more…

WHY BDS IS ANTI-PEACE?

How BDS Undermines Peace

“The reason I don’t believe the boycott is the way to go is that I believe peace must be built on the bridge between two civil societies…While some people believed that one way to deal with Israelis was ‘to bash them on their heads,’ the other way is to reach to their hearts, and it’s the reaching out that’s important.”

– Sari Nusseibeh, president of Al Quds University in east Jerusalem

Repetition: As the timeline indicates, Israel has repeatedly offered a variety of compromises that would have allowed the Palestinians to establish a state.

Zero-sum approach: By contrast, in its rhetoric and in practice, the BDS Movement rejects the peace process. It is routinely dismissive of virtually every peace effort ranging from the 1978 Camp David Peace Accords to the Oslo Process to Obama’s peace efforts. With their zero-sum approach to everything Israeli, they make no attempt to address issues of reconciliation and coexistence. Moreover, they do not acknowledge any Palestinian responsibility or accountability.

Peace is not their end-game: BDS is modeled on the campaign against South Africa, which also was not designed to promote peace, but to dismantle the state. Thus, BDS leaders abhor cooperation between Israelis and Palestinians and often attack organizations that seek to bring the two sides together in a peaceful manner.

BDS advocates the “one-state” solution: Under the false premise of being “apolitical,” BDS advocates claim they are not advocating any one solution. In reality, this is purposeful ambiguity, as their three demands clearly spell out a “one-state” outcome, which has no basis in international law and which is code for the destruction of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people. While disavowing any interest in a formula for concluding an Israeli-Palestinian agreement, their preconditions make it impossible to see an outcome whereby an independent state of Palestine would coexist beside a secure Jewish state. Meanwhile, BDS proponents use this ambiguity to try to recruit well-meaning people unaware of the movement’s true agenda, BDS is, therefore, a recipe for disaster, not coexistence. Creating “one state” with the “right of return” would mean that there would be no Israel and no self-determination for the Jewish people. This is not a basis for peace but a formula for perpetual conflict.

Isolation not compromise: Rather than encourage compromise, efforts to isolate Israel only make its citizens feel more vulnerable and raise the already high level of risk associated with evacuating additional territory.

Just as anti-peace as the Arab boycott: The Arab League boycott, which has been in force since 1945, before the creation of the state, did nothing to help the Palestinians achieve independence nor did it prevent Israel from becoming one of the world’s economic success stories.

The progressive argument: Progressives are usually the ones to oppose BDS-style maneuvers against countries like Cuba or Iran. They tend to be attentive to the arguments that isolation is ineffective, counterproductive, or immoral. They should ask themselves: Is collective punishment a solution that we should embrace? Why should we accept this method against Israel when we oppose it in every other context? The same progressive argument used against isolating any country can be made for Israel: it hurts moderates, and makes compliance seem like folding to international pressure.

Engaging people with your counter-argument

P.E.E.R Approach – how to get people to listen

Over the years, survey research and experience has found that the case for Israel can be made most effectively if you keep in mind the following guidelines: Peace, Empathy, Emotion, Rhetoric.

Peace

In most debates, the speaker who comes across most reasonable and in favor of peace is the one who wins. Thus, whenever you speak about Israel, every other word out of your mouth should be peace. Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip in the hope this would bring about peace. Israel constructed a security fence to protect Jews and Arabs alike and create the conditions for peace. Israel froze settlement construction for ten months to encourage the Palestinians to enter peace talks. Peace, peace, peace.

For too long, the Palestinians would have a three word answer to any question: End the occupation. It was effective because it was simple and no one is for occupation. At the same time, pro-Israel speakers would launch into long historical explanations that were largely ignored. Now, we have an equally simple message: Israel wants peace. This is not a sound bite or propaganda, it is what every Israeli believes.

Empathy

Too often supporters of Israel resort to demonization or generalization of the other side. While it is useful to point out contrasts between Israel and the Arab states, for example, you lose your audience if you start to talk about “the Arabs” or “the Muslims” behaving certain ways. Instead, it is important to acknowledge valid points the other side may have and then turn the argument to your advantage.

For example, many Palestinians are suffering in the Gaza Strip. I’m sure most would like to live normal lives and not have to worry about Israeli actions. If only the Palestinians had leaders with the courage and vision of Anwar Sadat and King Hussein, then it would be possible to negotiate a peace agreement that would create a Palestinian state beside Israel.

The Palestinians endure many hardships. Some of these are due to Israeli policies. They also do not enjoy freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, women’s rights or gay rights. Israel does not deny them these rights – in fact Israeli Arabs all enjoy them – it is the Palestinian Authority, their own leaders that deny these human rights.

Emotion

How many times have you seen powerful images of Palestinian suffering in the press? They (who is they) use these images (some of which have proven to be falsified) and personal stories to tug at the heartstrings of viewers and listeners. By contrast, Israelis typically resort to dry statistics or history lessons to make their case. Emotional stories are usually much more persuasive.

For example, instead of talking about the 10,000 rockets that terrorists have fired from Gaza into Israel, an abstract statistic that does not convey the daily psychological strain and danger Israelis face, tell a true story that your listeners can understand.

Try a countdown:

15, 14, 13…..1

That’s how long you have to find shelter when the code red alarm sounds in the town of Sderot.

Imagine trying to get your family to safety if 15 seconds. What if you have elderly parents or a disabled child?

Two boys, Osher and Rami Twito, brothers aged 8 and 18 were walking home through the town square when the Qassam warning siren rang out. The brothers tried to take cover. They didn’t make it. The rocket landed nearby and sprayed them with shrapnel. Osher, who loved soccer, had a leg amputated that night. Osher’s older brother rami had a lengthy operation to repair a severe break in his leg. Osher is now confined to a wheelchair.

Rhetoric

Israel is often faced with impossible decisions to make to protect its citizens. When it acts, the consequences are sometimes grave and unintended and lead to widespread criticism. It is easy, of course, to criticize from afar, and to condemn the results of an action, but try to force critics to put themselves in Israel’s shoes. Let them try to come up with better solutions to Israel’s dilemmas.

For example, if a town in Mexico began firing thousands of rockets into Texas, what do you think the United States would do?

Some critics of Israeli actions in Gaza have argued the rockets didn’t kill many people so Israel acted disproportionately. Ask them how they would feel if their neighbor fired a shotgun into their house every night. So far, none of the bullets have hit anyone, so would they be content to do nothing or would they want to stop the shelling?

A final reminder

Not every Israeli action needs to be defended, but they should be put in context. And not everyone will be convinced of your arguments, no matter how persuasive.

MYTHS and FACTS

BDS Resolution Myths and Facts

BDS supporters often claim that BDS is an apolitical movement aimed only at ”making Israel comply with international law.” As a result, many of the campus divestment resolutions accuse Israel of violating international law in a number of ways. This page is dedicated to combating those false accusations. Israel does its best to comply with international law, even though the United Nations is often hostile toward Israel due to the great influence of its many Arab and Muslim member states. Below are some of the top myths cited in campus divestment resolutions:

Myth: “Israel’s Apartheid Wall is a violation of international law and must be torn down in order to ensure human rights.”

Fact: All countries have a right under international law to build fences on their borders and an obligation to protect their citizens. No one can deny that the security barrier saves lives; courts are reviewing the route to ease Palestinian hardship.

The barrier was created as a reaction to suicide bombings, which killed over 1000 men, women, and children, and is the prime reason why bombings are not daily news like there were in 2002. Over 90% of the barrier is fence; the barrier has walls in urban areas only to prevent sniper fire and save lives.
The UN has ruled that the barrier is 100% legal on the green line.
When the barrier has created hardships, the court has altered route.
Palestinians have access to the Israeli Supreme Court, where some have petitioned to alter the barrier’s route. While some court cases are pending, in many cases the court has ruled in the Palestinians’ favor and the route has been changed.
There would be no barrier without suicide bombings, but there were daily bombings before the barrier.

Myth: “Companies that do business in the West Bank violate universally-accepted human rights.”

Fact: Companies do not violate human rights by working in the West Bank; in fact they have raised the living standard there, offered decent wages, and do not exploit or abuse laborers.

Jews and Palestinians both work for companies in the West Bank, often giving them a rare chance to interact.
No one forces Palestinians to work anywhere. In fact, many West Bank inhabitants receive money from the UN and work to receive supplementary income.
The West Bank economy grew by 8% in 2009. Palestinians are able to work for Palestinian, Israeli, or international businesses in the West Bank. The labor system in no way resembles South Africa, where black labor was exploited by a wealthy white minority.
Labor conditions far exceed those in factories throughout the Middle East and Asia, and working conditions are not much different than in neighboring Arab countries.
Many Palestinians do not support BDS and may lose their jobs because of the movement.

Myth: “According to international law (UN Resolution 194), Israel must allow Palestinian refugees to return to their homes in Israel.”

Fact: There is no basis in international law for the so-called “Right of Return“, which would turn the Jewish democracy into a Palestinian democracy. After a two-state solution is agreed-upon, the new Palestinian state can allow all Palestinians to immigrate to Gaza or the West Bank.

UN Resolution 184 does not require Israel to repatriate Palestinians for a number of reasons.
- First, General Assembly Resolutions are not considered legally binding.
- Secondly, “should be permitted” is not mandatory legal language. If UN Resolution 184 provided for a Right of Return, it would have been reiterated in UN Resolution 242, which mentions a ‘just solution to the refugee issue’, which can be met by monetary compensation and Palestinian statehood.
Return is not a requirement under international law, according to the UN High Committee on Refugees, which is the UN body that deals with almost all the world’s refugee issues.
The UNHCR says Local Integration (integrating refugees into their new countries) is a durable solution to refugee issues.
Repatriation is not recommended in cases where populations remain conflicted, and is only viable when the society voluntarily accepted refugees. However, resettlement is considered just as durable as repatriation in UN reports.
The UNHCR does not consider the children of refugees to be refugees.
Most descendants of refugees already live in surrounding Arab states.
There is no reason why ‘refugees’ can’t be integrated into their birthplaces, which they are far more culturally accustomed to than Israel.
In the context of a peace deal, refugees would likely receive monetary compensation.
A recent EU court ruling shows that refugee property demands are invalid decades after others have moved in, although compensation may be demanded.
Most importantly, such a return is just not practical 62 years later.

Myth: “Israel is violating UN Resolution 242 by not unconditionally withdrawing from the West Bank and East Jerusalem.”

Fact: UN Resolution 242 only requires that Israel withdraw from part of the territories in the context of a peace agreement.

Refers to “Relinquishing territories”, specifically not ‘all territories.’
Israel has already withdrawn from 93% of all territory won in 1967.
Regardless, Israel requires that peace come with land withdrawal.
Israel has proven able to do follow ‘land for peace’, as it did in 1978.
Israel has offered land for peace in many agreements in the past.
Israel is by no means required to withdraw before peace negotiations.

Myth: “The Gaza Blockade violates international law and is only meant to make Palestinians suffer.”

Fact: Blockades are legal under international law, and Israel has no responsibility for Gazans since it no longer occupies the Gaza Strip.

The blockade is meant to prevent war by keeping rockets out.
The blockade is not illegal; it is legal to blockade a hostile entity.
Claims that the blockade is illegal are based on claim of occupation.
Occupying powers need to provide aid, but Israel is not occupying.
Israel has no troops in Gaza, nor does it control all of its borders.
Israel has 0% control over the border with Egypt.
Lack of border control, troops means no occupation obligations.
Gaza Infant mortality rate is similar to Mexico, Bulgaria, or Jordan.
Life expectancy is higher than Romania’s, Bulgaria’s or Turkey’s.
Both above the global average according to the CIA fact book.
You can oppose the blockade and oppose BDS.
After all, you can oppose to Cuba embargo and still not boycott the USA.

Myth: Israeli Policy is the source of the Arab-Israeli conflict. If Israel wanted, the conflict could end tomorrow.

Fact: This theory is entirely backward. In truth, it is terrorism that has shaped Israeli policy, not the other way around.

There was no peace in the region before Israel occupied the West Bank, or even before Israel existed.
The Arabs rejected Israel and the idea of a Jewish state early on.
Arab states threatened to push Israel into the sea.
The end of occupation did not bring peace with Lebanon.
Israel withdrew from Lebanon fully, and Hezbollah still attacked.
Occupation was just an excuse for Hezbollah’s violence.
The UN has proved ineffective at preventing violence in Lebanon.
If Israel even keeps the Kotel, it could be Hamas’ Sheba Farms
Even if Israel gives up every inch, Hamas could be like Hezbollah.
Hamas shot thousands of rockets from Gaza after Israel’s withdrawal from the area.
Israelis have no confidence that Hamas will be better than Hezbollah.
Terror created the Separation Barrier, the barrier did not create terrorism.

Myth: “Justice Goldstone remains convinced that Israel committed war crimes documented in the Goldstone Report.”

Fact: In an April 1, 2011, editorial published by the Washington Post, Justice Richard Goldstone retracted his accusations that Israel intentionally targeted civilians and was guilty of war crimes during its conflict with Hamas in Gaza in December 2008.

Goldstone now admits the work used by Israel’s detractors to vilify Israel was based on incomplete information and falsely accused Israel of wrongdoing.
The report, which erroneously claimed that Israel led a “deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population,” became a tool for Israel’s detractors to demonize the Jewish state and denigrate its right to self-defense.
Goldstone now accepts that “civilians were not intentionally targeted [by Israel] as a matter of policy” and that in the aftermath of having thousands of rockets and missiles fired at its cities, Israel had the “right and obligation to defend itself and its citizens against such attacks.”
Goldstone also takes the UN Human Rights Council to task, saying he “hoped that our inquiry into all aspects of theGaza conflict would begin a new era of evenhandedness at the UN Human Rights Council, whose history of bias against Israel cannot be doubted.”
Goldstone now rightfully focuses his criticism on Hamas

Myth: “Endorsing a BDS-supported resolution is different from endorsing BDS itself.”

Fact: Every time that the call to boycott Israel is honored the BDS movement claims it as a victory and the boycotting organization as an ally in the cause.

It has become very common for BDS resolutions to contain a clause rejecting theexplicitly anti-Israel goals of BDS as well as BDS itself, while still giving them what they want, which is divestiture from BDS targeted companies.
However, once the resolution is passed, BDS claims it as a victory nonetheless. This “bait and switch” has been attempted at UCLA, and succeeded at DePaul and the Presbyterian Church.
It should therefore be concluded that any endorsement of boycotting Israel will be perceived as synonymous with endorsing BDS.

Gaza War Myths and Facts

Goldstone Report Myths and Facts

Justice Goldstone Refutes Goldstone Report Findings

For more information about the Arab-Israeli conflict, visit Myths and Facts.