I couldn't disagree more, Claire, which I have never done with you before. I was at the meeting because I'm a decades-long member of Historians for Peace and Democracy. I have not been involved in any of the previous movements, including BDS. I found the atmosphere in the crowded room upbeat and positive. The arguments against the motion were uniformly that it left out Hamas and the hostages. It was solely about "scholasticide," a word I had never heard before but one that seemed appropriate to the situation and our mission as an academic organization. The crowd was generally respectful and I really agreed with Barbara Weinstein, the final speaker and a past AHA president. She followed the president-to-be, who argued that the AHA should not be involved in politics. Weinstein replied that the AHA had condemned the Iraq war of '07 and Russia's invasion of Ukraine. There was never a condemnation of Israel nor any antisemitism. I found the occasion and its conclusion uplifting.
Hey, Bonnie: I was *not* at the meeting, so thanks for leaving your first-hand view of it. Yes, I suspect the arguments against the resolution did not meet the moment at all. I have heard other things too--like that it would make students vulnerable to the Trump administration--all of which pale in comparison to what the resolution expressed. And as I say, I think the resolution was shrewdly tailored to meet past objections.
I mean--this is a really long haul for H-PAD, so hat tip. I think part of my ambivalence is that I respect my colleagues--and find the grassroots/student movement really troubling. But let's see what happens.
"The anti-Israel movement in the United States is populist in its character, exhibiting a radical disidentification with established institutions, an affinity for horizontal, peer-driven politics, and a predilection for strategic misinformation."
To be honest, given what those institutions have enabled and/or supported, this is not surprising or a negative to me. I don't understand what the "strategic misinformation" here means.
"In many ways, BDS embodies the tendencies that the Israeli right has organized against: the right to return, the illegitimacy of the state of Israel, and characterization of Israel as an apartheid state."
I disagree. These are principles that virtually all of Israel from left to right except, perhaps, for an miniscule minority on the far left organizes against. Even Yair Golan, the supposed "left-wing" opponent calls BDS antisemitic and dangerous. I think there is a tendency in the American center/center-left to obscure just how aligned Israeli politics are on the issue of Palestine, especially during a so-called existential war.
Danny, strategic misinformation includes things like asserting that there were no rapes on October 7; that Hamas is a pro-democracy movement that is defending the Palestinian people (as opposed to repeatedly exposing them to catastrophic violence)--I could go on, but I won't.
And if you think the Israeli left is aligned with the right on this war, you are just not paying attention. But the fact that the right is solidly in charge cannot be disconnected from the emphasis that BDS--as a representative of Palestinian civil society, which is what it says it is--has put on the boycott of Israelis, and the isolation of Israel, and the displacement of Jews from the area designated as Palestine (itself an artifact of colonialism.)
I've been paying attention. I've witnessed a Knesset unify nearly completely to block any consideration of a "two-state solution," voices across the political spectrum condemning international bodies from the UN to the ICJ as antisemitic terrorist fronts. Even those voices opposed to Netanyahu or Ben Gvir like Fania Oz are in agreement with the basic principles of the war and the ever-expanding definition of security. I respect and admire activists who are going to prison rather than face conscription, or those putting their bodies between aid trucks and the violent racist settlers, I just don't think those opposed to BDS are only Likud.
I'll need a citation for the claim that BDS calls for the "displacement of Jews from the area designated as Palestine." Are you referring to the right of return for Palestinians?
"strategic misinformation includes things like asserting that there were no rapes on October 7; that Hamas is a pro-democracy movement that is defending the Palestinian people (as opposed to repeatedly exposing them to catastrophic violence)--I could go on, but I won't.strategic misinformation includes things like asserting that there were no rapes on October 7; that Hamas is a pro-democracy movement that is defending the Palestinian people (as opposed to repeatedly exposing them to catastrophic violence)--I could go on, but I won't."
You completely ignored it and moved on to something else. So let's stop.
I think you mean “precarity,” not “precocity.” And you might mention that the first person to link precarity and Palestine was one Claire Potter, who “would make book” on the proposition that the demands of precarious academics to eliminate AHA interviews meant - ironically- that the resolution was doomed.
I do indeed mean precarity--the AI just trued to change it to precocity again in this comment!. Thank you.
Just out of curiosity, why do you think it is so ridiculous that I was wrong about that? People are sometimes wrong. There's nothing horrible about that.
Why don't you set up your own parlor-room-approved movement to end Israel's genocide if you have such issues with how the left does it
Why don't you respond to the post, and what it is actually about, rather than snipe?
I couldn't disagree more, Claire, which I have never done with you before. I was at the meeting because I'm a decades-long member of Historians for Peace and Democracy. I have not been involved in any of the previous movements, including BDS. I found the atmosphere in the crowded room upbeat and positive. The arguments against the motion were uniformly that it left out Hamas and the hostages. It was solely about "scholasticide," a word I had never heard before but one that seemed appropriate to the situation and our mission as an academic organization. The crowd was generally respectful and I really agreed with Barbara Weinstein, the final speaker and a past AHA president. She followed the president-to-be, who argued that the AHA should not be involved in politics. Weinstein replied that the AHA had condemned the Iraq war of '07 and Russia's invasion of Ukraine. There was never a condemnation of Israel nor any antisemitism. I found the occasion and its conclusion uplifting.
Hey, Bonnie: I was *not* at the meeting, so thanks for leaving your first-hand view of it. Yes, I suspect the arguments against the resolution did not meet the moment at all. I have heard other things too--like that it would make students vulnerable to the Trump administration--all of which pale in comparison to what the resolution expressed. And as I say, I think the resolution was shrewdly tailored to meet past objections.
I mean--this is a really long haul for H-PAD, so hat tip. I think part of my ambivalence is that I respect my colleagues--and find the grassroots/student movement really troubling. But let's see what happens.
"The anti-Israel movement in the United States is populist in its character, exhibiting a radical disidentification with established institutions, an affinity for horizontal, peer-driven politics, and a predilection for strategic misinformation."
To be honest, given what those institutions have enabled and/or supported, this is not surprising or a negative to me. I don't understand what the "strategic misinformation" here means.
"In many ways, BDS embodies the tendencies that the Israeli right has organized against: the right to return, the illegitimacy of the state of Israel, and characterization of Israel as an apartheid state."
I disagree. These are principles that virtually all of Israel from left to right except, perhaps, for an miniscule minority on the far left organizes against. Even Yair Golan, the supposed "left-wing" opponent calls BDS antisemitic and dangerous. I think there is a tendency in the American center/center-left to obscure just how aligned Israeli politics are on the issue of Palestine, especially during a so-called existential war.
Danny, strategic misinformation includes things like asserting that there were no rapes on October 7; that Hamas is a pro-democracy movement that is defending the Palestinian people (as opposed to repeatedly exposing them to catastrophic violence)--I could go on, but I won't.
And if you think the Israeli left is aligned with the right on this war, you are just not paying attention. But the fact that the right is solidly in charge cannot be disconnected from the emphasis that BDS--as a representative of Palestinian civil society, which is what it says it is--has put on the boycott of Israelis, and the isolation of Israel, and the displacement of Jews from the area designated as Palestine (itself an artifact of colonialism.)
I've been paying attention. I've witnessed a Knesset unify nearly completely to block any consideration of a "two-state solution," voices across the political spectrum condemning international bodies from the UN to the ICJ as antisemitic terrorist fronts. Even those voices opposed to Netanyahu or Ben Gvir like Fania Oz are in agreement with the basic principles of the war and the ever-expanding definition of security. I respect and admire activists who are going to prison rather than face conscription, or those putting their bodies between aid trucks and the violent racist settlers, I just don't think those opposed to BDS are only Likud.
I'll need a citation for the claim that BDS calls for the "displacement of Jews from the area designated as Palestine." Are you referring to the right of return for Palestinians?
This was my answer to your question:
"strategic misinformation includes things like asserting that there were no rapes on October 7; that Hamas is a pro-democracy movement that is defending the Palestinian people (as opposed to repeatedly exposing them to catastrophic violence)--I could go on, but I won't.strategic misinformation includes things like asserting that there were no rapes on October 7; that Hamas is a pro-democracy movement that is defending the Palestinian people (as opposed to repeatedly exposing them to catastrophic violence)--I could go on, but I won't."
You completely ignored it and moved on to something else. So let's stop.
You explained what you meant by the phrase and I didn’t have anything to add or ask further. Thanks.
Sorry to snap at you :-) Pax.
I think you mean “precarity,” not “precocity.” And you might mention that the first person to link precarity and Palestine was one Claire Potter, who “would make book” on the proposition that the demands of precarious academics to eliminate AHA interviews meant - ironically- that the resolution was doomed.
I do indeed mean precarity--the AI just trued to change it to precocity again in this comment!. Thank you.
Just out of curiosity, why do you think it is so ridiculous that I was wrong about that? People are sometimes wrong. There's nothing horrible about that.
karaoke Swisher?
Thank you so much Janet--this is an AI problem. I type it right, and the AI make sense of it in a way that is wrong. Appreciate you.