BDS and Anti-Normalization

Palestinian human rights activist Bassam Eid was recently prevented from speaking, or otherwise disrupted, on two Chicago area campuses including Northwestern.  No, he was not a victim of speech-suppressing Zionists; in fact, his talk at Northwestern was sponsored by the local Hillel chapter.  Rather, Eid – whose Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group investigates violations in both Israel and the Palestinian Authority – was prevented from speaking by pro-BDS demonstrators who objected to his opposition to anti-Israel boycotts.

Eid has been shouted down before, in speaking venues around the world, even though he is a forthright opponent of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the situation in Gaza.  His offense appears to be a violation of the BDS prohibition on “normalization,” which prohibits participation in forums that include Israelis (and apparently anyone at all sympathetic to Israel), unless they reject “co-existence” in favor of “co-resistance.”  This is the official position of the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) and the BDS National Committee (BNC).

Alas, this is where academic boycotts almost inevitably end up – stifling the speech of anyone who even mildly disagrees with the boycotters.  BDS supporters on many campuses probably do not understand the full implications of the anti-normalization position, and the many ways in which it undermines mutual recognition, understanding, and ultimately the prospect of peace.  Here is what Bassam Eid has to say about it – and what he would have said at Northwestern if he had been able to present his views:

As a Palestinian who actually lives in east Jerusalem and hopes to build a better life for his family and his community, this is the kind of "pro-Palestinian activism" we could well do without. For our own sake, we need to reconcile with our Israeli neighbors, not reject and revile them.

Here are the observations of Michael Simon, the executive director of NU Hillel:

I'm disappointed that we were unable to hear Mr. Eid speak, and that he felt that, based on the presence of at least one of the people who had disrupted his previous local event, he was not comfortable to appear at Northwestern Hillel.  I put this in the context that Northwestern Hillel, and I believe Northwestern overall, is committed to offering opportunities for a free and open exchange of ideas, even of those we might find difficult and challenging, and that it is deeply unfortunate that the presence of what I called "serial protesters" could inhibit such a free and open exchange from taking place.   

He added,

I was actually pleased when I stood before the audience and saw that there were students from organizations involved in education and advocacy related to Israel and students involved in education and advocacy related to Palestine in the room -- students whose perspectives are diverse and even divergent.  This made it all the more disappointing that protesters had created the conditions such that Mr. Eid did not feel comfortable speaking today.  [NU Hillel intends] to host further events that will bring speakers who present information and ideas in an open and free exchange in which students can listen, weigh information, and perhaps even learn from the speaker and one another.

Eid's talk would no doubt have contested the assumptions of many students at Hillel, taking them out of their comfort zone on Israel issues including the occupation.  Hillel International has been challenged -- quite appropriately, in my opinion --for its restrictive policies on outside speakers, but NU Hillel is still a place where criticism of Israel can be received politely and debated vigorously. Whatever one thinks of Eid's positions -- which can be equally controversial among Israelis and Palestinians -- can there be any doubt that he should have been able to present them, if only for the sake of academic and intellectual freedom?

It is understandable that speakers such as Bassam Eid cause much unhappiness in the BDS movement, as they expose the deep flaws and counterproductive aspects of the anti-normalization stance.  If more activists understood the actual goals, and in some cases tactics, of BDS, I imagine there would be much less support for it on American campuses.

Comments

[anon]

Well, here is where I fully agree, in every respect, with Lubet.

Take note, haters: if only your ranting and raving about anonymous commenters plaguing Lubet's campaign against Republicans could take into account the views he expresses above about viewpoint diversity.

The hypocritical nature of those angry reactionaries (notably, not Lubet himself, though he has seemed surreptitiously to have supported some of them) is laid bare by Lubet's ecumenical views expressed above. The haters try to shout down (and shut down) anyone who is critical of Lubet's campaign, in the most vulgar, personal and intemperate terms, using epithets and appeals that would be out of place and deemed too crass in a biker bar.

[Darush Mabadi]

I wonder what is more "stifling, the attempt by many to squash the spoken word of an individual vs the one who is self indulging writing with sufficient eloquence yet is unwilling to take public ownership, thus risking the full measure of that exposure. One certainly is courageous, while the other... well you can fill that blank for yourself.

Darush Mabadi

[anon]

Darush

One commenter filled in the blank with "gutless coward." To me that is just sort of vile hate speech, especially because the commenter didn't even attempt to address the criticism of Lubet's posts.

You speak of "risking the full measure of exposure."

What do you have in mind? I think it would be helpful to spell it out. And please, be sure to think about to what extent you can speak for all others.

Finally, do you agree with Lubet about "squashing" the speech in question? Do you agree that "the anti-normalization position, ... undermines mutual recognition, understanding, and ultimately the prospect of peace"?

[Darush Mabadi]

Anon? Did your mommy give you that name? Sounds more like the name of a West German rock group from the 80s. I find it amusing that you have Steve Lubet on the "brain" but lack the basic courage to disclose who exactly you are. Anyway, I think I have given you enough of my valuable time.

Happy Trolling...

[anon]

Thanks Darush.

And, like others before you, I'm sure that you realize that:

1. YOu are insulting every person who posts here anonymously, not only me; and

2. Your comment is as (perhaps a bit more) juvenile as stamping one's foot and saying "you're a gutless coward"; it is incredible how quickly some folks are reduced to sandbox, kindergarten like taunting, it is interesting in the same way that road rage is fascinating (from a distance);

3. You have the time to post the comment above, but not to answer some simple questions about your remarks, e.g., You speak of "risking the full measure of exposure." What do you have in mind? I think it would be helpful to spell it out. and do you agree with Lubet about "squashing" the speech in question? Do you agree that "the anti-normalization position, ... undermines mutual recognition, understanding, and ultimately the prospect of peace"? ,

4. It seems that there is way more interest in my comments here than Lubet's posts. Bizarre. I acknowledge I linked Lubet's attitude about viewpoint diversity in the post above to several objections to my objections to his political campaigning here in the FL, but the push back seems to be only about anonymity. This is weird because you won't say the reason this issue is so important to you.

You speak of "risking the full measure of exposure." Again, what do you have in mind? It would be helpful if you explain.

Finally, please direct your complaints about anonymous comments to those who govern the policy here in the FL. They can withdraw permission to post anonymously any time, close comment threads, etc.

[Darush Mabadi]

Well Anon ( AKA Troll) I don't believe in squashing speech, that is plainly evident. I do support the notion that if it is worthy of writing, it is also worthy of owning. You hide your identity, why is that? I am not comfortable sharing my personal views with "OZ"... you either come out from behind your curtain revealing who you are or scamper along... I won't be responding to any more of your comments on this particular thread without knowing who it is that I am talking with. I know Steve, you however are only ANON or simply put, nobody..

[anon]

Thanks, Darush. Apparently, it is more important to address the merits of the person, not the ideas expressed.

[Eric Muller]

Hi Darush,

My policy is not to engage with anonymous commenters at all. Not only do I think they don't deserve a response, but I know it drives (some of) them crazy. And that's a good reason right there.

[anon]

Eric:

You love to bash anonymous commenting, but haven't yet persuaded (apparently) your colleagues. You seem to believe there is something deeply wrong with all those who comment in the FL anonymously.

Take a moment, sir, and think about the type of person whose personality takes delight in "driving ... them crazy" and thinks that is a "good reason" to ignore substantive arguments.

I would ask you to answer the same question: Why is it so important for you to know who has argued, critiqued or commented in any way on any topic? Why is identity more important to you than the substance?

If your answer is that persons are more likely to be uncivil when commenting anonymously, I would invite you to read the abuse that you and others heap on anyone who doesn't agree with you and doesn't provide a personal identity.

[Darush Mabadi]

Eric:

You are a better man for it. At times I succumb to the temptation of addressing this mischief head on. In the end people are entitled to do as they wish. Cowardly behavior is not illegal, it's just cowardly.

On the other hand to be more helpful in this regard, I might just start referring to him in the future as Anonopolis or Anon-O'bradovich or Anonstein or last but not least simply calling him by his imaginary first name, Rufus when I am feeling particularly relaxed and less formal.

At least I can create an identity in my "minds eye" Maybe then I can focus on the substance of his future comments since I won't be distracted.

Anyway, thanks for the note.

Darush

[anon]

Darush

Your comment above reveals a very significant aspect of character. I can't believe you are carrying this on and on, and going lower and lower in tone and substance. All because you can't identify a person who dares to do as so many others do here in the FL and post anonymously? You don't even seem to know anymore the reason that you are spewing the gross epithets and assumptions (a worse term actually suggests itself) your last comment embodies. You just seem to delight in venting against someone you don't know, like road rage.