Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

Israel Tag

Posted by William A. Jacobson on February 26, 2014 9 Comments
After an all-night session, the UCLA student council defeated an ant-Israel divestment resolution by a vote of 7-5.  (Featured image is moment vote announced.) The vote received enormous attention, and was trending in the U.S. on Twitter. This is a huge defeat for BDS on campus. Divestment resolutions recently were overturned at UC-Riverside and defeated at UC-Santa Barbara. I can't say whether this is a national trend, but it does signify that pro-Israel students now are more organized than in the past. (added) Ben Shapiro made a "guest" appearance against the resolution: In this image, one of the student council members a student note taker, who appears to have supported the resolution, is crying and screaming that she's never been so disappointed and that "we just fucking blew it." (UPDATE -- Video HERE) UCLA student we just fucking blew it

Posted by William A. Jacobson on February 24, 2014 23 Comments
We reported yesterday how incoming American Studies Association President Lisa Duggan of NYU organized an anti-Israel conference through NYU, but didn’t want those who disagree to know about it (via Elder of Ziyon).  The Facebook post about the event since has been taken down. It appears that secrecy is the new policy at ASA. Earlier this month I wrote to ASA Regional Chapter Presidents asking for their position on whether the ASA academic boycott of Israel applied to Regional Chapters and their events, such as regional conventions.  This is an important issue because much of ASA's presence -- other than its Annual Meeting -- takes place through the Chapters.  To understand the scope and application of the boycott, we need to know whether the Regional Chapters will follow the boycott. My email is quoted below.  Some responded that they didn't know but would find out and get back to me (but didn't), others didn't respond. Now I know why I have been met with mostly silence. Apparently the ASA Exceutive Committee is not happy about this inquiry, and has told the Regional Chapters not to communicate with me other than to refer me to the ASA boycott resolution itself (which, of course, I already have).  This amounts to a complete non-communication strategy. Here is the email the ASA Executive Committee sent (emphasis added):

Posted by William A. Jacobson on February 23, 2014 14 Comments
The ancient "blood libel" that Jews use the blood of non-Jewish children to make Matzah has its modern incarnation in Israel Apartheid Week, which starts this week on campuses. Not surprisingly, the incoming President of the American Studies Association, Lisa Duggan of NYU, is leading an anti-Israel effort that coincides with Israel Apartheid week, but doesn't want people to know about it (via Elder of Ziyon): duggan The Apartheid accusation is false at every level, and was a deliberate propaganda strategy devised at the anti-Semitic Durban NGO conference in 2001. Here's what the late Congressman Tom Lantos observed at that Durban conference (emphasis added):
Another ring in the Durban circus was the NGO forum, taking place just outside the conference center. Although the NGO proceedings were intended to provide a platform for the wide range of civil society groups interested in the conference’s conciliatory mission, the forum quickly became stacked with Palestinian and fundamentalist Arab groups. Each day, these groups organized anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic rallies around the meetings, attracting thousands. One flyer which was widely distributed showed a photograph of Hitler and the question “What if I had won?” The answer: “There would be NO Israel…” At a press conference held by Jewish NGO’s to discuss their concerns with the direction the conference was taking, an accredited NGO, the Arab Lawyers Union, distributed a booklet filled with anti-Semitic caricatures frighteningly like those seen in the Nazi hate literature printed in the 1930s. Jewish leaders and I who were in Durban were shocked at this blatant display of anti-Semitism. For me, having experienced the horrors of the Holocaust first hand, this was the most sickening and unabashed display of hate for Jews I had seen since the Nazi period. Sadly, but perhaps not surprisingly, the official NGO document that was later adopted by a majority of the 3,000 NGOs in the forum branded Israel a “racist apartheid state” guilty of “genocide” and called for an end to its “racist crimes” against Palestinians….
"Israel Apartheid Week" as part of the BDS movement is the direct by-product of the Durban anti-Jewish hatred -- a history few of its participants probably realize. In reality, Israel is nothing like South Africa under Apartheid.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on February 20, 2014 11 Comments
To repeat, take the Boycott Divest and Sanction movement seriously, because it reflects an insidious coalition of anti-Israeli leftists and Islamists, which reflects a sophisticated part of the overall war on Israel. But, keep things in perspective. Despite all the heated anti-Israel rhetoric coming from academic extremists, Israel has favorability ratings in the latest Gallup survey have surged in the last year, and remain far beyond favorable views of the Palestinians: Gallup Survey Israel Favorability February 2014 Also don't panic about Israel's economic isolation, as pointed out by Yoram Ettinger (emphasis in original):

1. A record of 5.3 million tourists in Israel in 2013.

2. A record of $83.2BN foreign exchange reserves reflects the strength of Israel's Shekel, at a time when the currencies of the emerging markets plummet.

3. A record of $2.3BN invested in 662 Israeli startups in 2013 (21% above 2012), according to KPMG and IVC (Globes, January 23, 2014).

Posted by William A. Jacobson on February 14, 2014 5 Comments
The Times of Israel, based on communications with unnamed Palestinian Authority officials, reports that the Palestinians have conveyed their rejection of John Kerry's draft "framework" proposal:
The Palestinian Authority has informed US Secretary of State John Kerry that it will not accept his framework peace proposal as it currently stands, PA officials told The Times of Israel.... Central clauses of the framework deal as presented by Kerry, and rejected by the PA, the Palestinian officials said, are as follows: Borders: The peace agreement is to be based on pre-1967 lines, but will take into consideration changes on the ground in the decades since. Settlements: There will be no massive evacuation of “residents.” Refugees: Palestinian refugees will be able to return to Palestine or remain where they currently live. In addition, it is possible that a limited number of refugees could be allowed into pre-1967 Israel as a humanitarian gesture, and only with Israeli acquiescence. Nowhere is it written that Israel bears responsibility for suffering caused to the refugees. Capital: The Palestinian capital will be in Jerusalem. Security: Israel has the right to defend itself, by itself. The Jordan Valley: The IDF will retain a presence in the Jordan Valley. The length of time the IDF will remain will depend on the abilities of the Palestinian security forces. Border crossings: Israel will continue to control border crossings into Jordan. Definition of the countries: Two states will result, “a national state of the Jewish people and a national state of the Palestinian people.”
So what's the problem?  Some of these issues probably are surmountable. But one issue probably is not, the recognition of Israel as the Jewish homeland, as further reported by the Times:

Posted by David Gerstman on February 14, 2014 5 Comments
Previously we noted that the New York Times has a tendency to play up the successes of the BDS movement and to play down the true nature of the BDS movement. The New York Times has since carried two more articles about BDS; one in the news section and one op-ed. Surprisingly, the opinion article took a critical look at BDS. Unfortunately the news story was consistent with previous New York Times coverage of the issue. In the news section, Jerusalem bureau chief, Jodi Rudoren wrote West Bank Boycott: A Political Act or Prejudice? For the most part Rudoren treats the issue "evenhandedly," giving each side equal time and not judging either side. In the course of the reporting Rudoren interviews BDS activist Omar Barghouti.
“He can say anything he wishes, but immoral? Resistance to his immoral policies can never be immoral,” Mr. Barghouti said of Mr. Netanyahu. “The litmus test is are you boycotting a group of people based on their identity, or are you boycotting something — an act, a company, a business — that you disagree with. “We have three reasons,” Mr. Barghouti said, citing the movement’s goals of ending the occupation; ensuring equality for Palestinian citizens of Israel; and promoting the right of return for Palestinian refugees. “End the three reasons and we won’t boycott.”
Barghouti, who got a degree from Tel Aviv University is a pretty good example of equality of Israel's minorities. That degree also makes Barghouti a hypocrites as his boycott would affect Tel Aviv University too. Rudoren ignores these inconsistencies. She also remains silent about Barghouti's demand for the right of return. Everyone knows that the point of that "right" is the destruction of Israel. In fact, Barghouti's claim confirms that the  the goal of the BDS movement is an assault on Israel's right to exist is correct. Rudoren doesn't appear to grasp this. Oddly, it is columnist Roger Cohen who got things right about BDS. In The B.D.S. Threat, Cohen writes:

Posted by David Gerstman on February 09, 2014 4 Comments
Professor Jacobson made a very good point last week:
The BDS movement presents little real threat to Israel currently, while the European governments do present a potential threat, but it is a diplomatic, not boycott, threat.  Kerry, and the boycott movement, conflate the two.
The problem is that despite the fact that there's no evidence that the BDS movement is gaining mainstream acceptance there are many who pretend that it has. Let's look at the New York Times coverage of some recent BDS activity. Last May the paper reported, Stephen Hawking Joins Boycott Against Israel:
The academic and cultural boycott, organized by international activists to protest Israel’s policies toward the Palestinians, is a heated and contentious issue; having Dr. Hawking join it is likely to help the anti-Israel campaigners significantly.
There are two items of note. The first is that the BDS movement is described in terms of being a "protest" against "Israel’s policies toward the Palestinians." It is not described as a movement to delegitimize Israel. The second is the assertion that Hawking's action "is likely to help the anti-Israel campaigners significantly." This is a judgment, but it is also somewhat quantifiable. Will subsequent reporting use similar standards? The article later noted that the Oxford student union overwhelmingly voted against an academic boycott of Israel. Later that month when Alicia Keys announced that she would defy the anti-Israel activists two months later, the New York Times reported:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on February 07, 2014 16 Comments
Over 225 University Presidents have issued statements condeming the anti-Israel academic boycott by the American Studies Association as a threat to academic freedom and education, as have several major academic organizations such as the American Association of University Professors and the Association of American Universities. Of the 80 ASA Institutional Members, at least 8 have dropped their membership and at least 11 have denied being Institutional Members in the first place. It is not an exaggeration to say that ASA has become a pariah in the academic community, and the boycott passed by a vote of less than 25% of the membership (because so few participated) has split the organization. There also has been legislative activity with regard to anti-boycott laws that is stalled because even critics of the ASA boycott are concerned with preserving university and individual academic autonomy. Nonetheless, even though stalled, the legislation does reflect a political backlash against the ASA. Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper publicly called the academic boycott part of “mutation of the old disease of anti-Semitism” From the earliest days, the ASA has played victim, mistaking harsh criticism of its boycott as an infringement of its academic freedom.  ASA's incoming President, NYU Prof. Lisa Duggan, also has accused one critic, an author at Forbes, of homophobia.  Others have accused Israel Lobby money of being behind the backlash. All the while, ASA as an organization has sought to put on a happy face, as if none of this troubles them and all is well. But there are significant signs that the backlash is being felt at ASA. First, the ASA activism caucus issued an urgent request to BDS supporters to join the organization to increase individual memberships. Next, ASA has increaed the activity of its non-profit legal advisers to speak out on the subject, defending ASA's boycott. Today I received an Open Letter to college and universities signed by the leftist National Lawyers Guild and other anti-Israel groups and individuals making inflammatory accusations that the Universities that have spoken out against the ASA boycott are engaged in "McCarthy" like witch hunts and are themselves abusing academic freedom by speaking out.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on February 06, 2014 2 Comments
While legislation regarding academic boycotts is stalled in the NY State Assembly after widespread protests, a federal bill has been introduced by House Chief Deputy Whip Peter Roskam (R., Ill.) and Rep. Dan Lipinski (D., Ill.). The bill is embedded at the bottom of this post. Roskam was one of the Congressman behind the Letter signed by 134 Members of the House condeming the anti-Israel boycott by the American Studies Association. The new Bill cuts off funding for institutions of higher education "if the Secretary [of Education] determines that such institution is participating in a boycott of Israeli academic institutions or scholars." "Participation" is defined as:
if the institution, any significant part of the institution, or any organization significantly funded by the institution adopts a policy or resolution, issues a statement, or otherwise formally establishes the restriction of discourse, cooperation, exchange, or any other involvement with academic institutions or scholars on the basis of the connection of such institutions or such scholars to the State of Israel.
My first and quick read is that the Bill, as drafted, is unlikely to accomplish the desired effect. It will make martyrs of the academic boycotters, who are in fact the villains, and amounts to a blunt instrument to deal with a narrow problem. There is no university, that I'm aware of, currently even contemplating an academic boycott of Israel. Also, the definition of "participation" is sufficiently broad that it will ignite serious pushback from universities. The ASA, which had been a pariah, now will be defended by people who are against the academic boycott, but even more against such legislation. I think there are ways to deal with the ASA and related academic boycotts. I'm not sure this Bill is one of those ways, as it puts at risk universities, not the ASA. The story was first reported by Adam Kredo at The Washington Free Beacon:
The “Protect Academic Freedom Act,” jointly filed by House Chief Deputy Whip Peter Roskam (R., Ill.) and Rep. Dan Lipinski (D., Ill.) could serve as a deterrent to other groups considering Israeli boycotts. It would amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 “to prohibit an institution that participates in a boycott of Israeli academic institutions or scholars from being eligible” to receive federal funds, according to text of the legislation. “Attempts to single out Israel for discriminatory boycotts violates the principle of academic freedom guaranteed by the United States,” the bill states.
Accessibility by WAH