person:joseph levine

  • A l’instar de Gideon Levy, Emmanuel Riondé revient sur les succès récents de BDS qui, au delà des quelques victoires spectaculaires, rendent compte d’une lame de fond dont israel ne se débarrassera pas facilement :

    Le boycott d’Israël prend de l’ampleur
    Emmanuel Riondé, Regards, le 19 septembre 2018
    http://www.regards.fr/monde/article/quand-bds-prends-du-poids-strategique

    Lancée il y a treize ans, la campagne prônant des mesures de boycott désinvestissement et sanction (BDS) contre Israël n’a guère affaibli l’économie du pays. Mais elle joue aujourd’hui un rôle majeur dans la déconstruction de son image... donnant du fil à retordre à Tel-Aviv.

    Il y cite, entre autres :

    Eyal Sivan : « Israël ne veut plus convaincre, mais devenir attractif »
    Emmanuel Riondé, Regards, le 1er février 2017
    https://seenthis.net/messages/569632

    Lobby israélien, le documentaire interdit
    Alain Gresh, Le Monde Diplomatique, septembre 2018
    https://seenthis.net/messages/718011

    Boycotter Israël est-il de la « haine » ?
    Joseph Levine, The New-York Times, le 4 septembre 2018
    https://seenthis.net/messages/720220

    Itay Tiran, le comédien et metteur en scène de théâtre n°1 d’Israël : BDS est une forme légitime de résistance
    Ravit Hecht, Haaretz, le 5 septembre 2018
    https://seenthis.net/messages/720187

    Les réussites de BDS
    Gideon Levy, Haaretz, le 5 septembre
    https://seenthis.net/messages/720326

    Eurovision, ne blanchissez pas l’occupation militaire et les violations des droits humains par Israël
    The Guardian, le 7 septembre 2018
    https://seenthis.net/messages/720386

    #Palestine #BDS


  • Itay Tiran, Israel’s No. 1 theater actor-director: #BDS is a legitimate form of #resistance - Israel News - Haaretz.com
    https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-itay-tiran-israel-s-no-1-theater-actor-director-endorses-bds-1.645

    “BDS is a perfectly legitimate form of resistance. And if we want to preach for a certain kind of political discussion that isn’t violent, we must strengthen these voices, even if it’s difficult,” said Itay Tiran, widely considered Israel’s leading theatrical actor-director, in an interview with Haaretz on the eve of his departure to Germany.

    “I think a normal political left should support BDS,” he says. “After all, it doesn’t matter what the Palestinian will do. When he commits an act of terror he is called a violent, bloodthirsty terrorist. And when he supports BDS he’s a political
    terrorist."

    “If what finally leads to a solution here will be non-violent pressure, conducted as political discourse, then why not support it? It’s a humanist approach, and it’s also practical, and I think it will prevent the next wars,” he said.

    #Palestine


  • BDS success stories - Opinion - Israel News | Haaretz.com
    https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-bds-success-stories-1.6455621

    More than the achievements of the economic, academic and cultural boycott, BDS has succeeded in undermining the greatest asset of Israeli public diplomacy: Israel’s liberal and democratic image in the world.

    Gideon Levy SendSend me email alerts
    Sep 05, 2018

    Gilad Erdan is a great success story of the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement, as is the Strategic Affairs Ministry that he heads. So is the anti-boycott law. Every human rights activist who is expelled from Israel or questioned at Ben-Gurion International Airport is a BDS success story. The European Broadcasting Union’s letter is another success of the global movement to boycott Israel.
    More than Lana Del Rey canceling her visit, more than SodaStream moving its factory from the West Bank to the Negev and more than the achievements of the economic, academic and cultural boycott, BDS has succeeded in a different area, effortlessly and perhaps unintentionally. It has undermined the greatest asset of Israeli public diplomacy: Israel’s liberal and democratic image in the world. It was the European Broadcasting Union, of all things, a nonpolitical organization, very far from BDS, that best described the extent of the damage to Israel: The organization compared Israel to Ukraine and Azerbaijan in the conditions it set for these countries to host the Eurovision Song Contest.
    To really understand Israel and the Middle East - subscribe to Haaretz
    Ukraine and Azerbaijan, which no one seriously considers to be democracies, in the same breath as Israel. This is how the Eurovision organizers see Israel.
    The song contest was held in Jerusalem twice before, and no one thought to set conditions to guarantee the civil liberties of participants. Now it is necessary to guarantee, in advance and in writing, what is self-evident in a democracy: freedom of entry and freedom of movement to everyone who comes for the competition.
    Keep updated: Sign up to our newsletter
    Email* Sign up

    In Israel, as in Ukraine and Azerbaijan, this is no longer self-evident. In the 13 years since it was founded, the BDS movement couldn’t have dreamed of a greater triumph.
    The main credit, of course, goes to the Israeli government, which in declaring war on BDS and made a great contributions to the movement. With a commander like Erdan, who is outraged over the interference with the “laws of a democratic state” and doesn’t understand how grotesque his words are, and with a ministry that is nothing but an international thought police, the government is telling the world: Israel isn’t what you thought. Did you think for years that Israel was a liberal democracy? Did you close your eyes to the goings-on in its backyard? Did you think the occupation was separate from the state, that it could be maintained in a democracy, that it was surely temporary and would be over momentarily? That at least sovereign Israel is part of the West? Well, you were wrong.


  • Boycotter Israël est-il de la « haine » ?
    6 septembre | Joseph Levine pour New York Times |Traduction CG pour l’AURDIP
    https://www.aurdip.org/boycotter-israel-est-il-de-la.html

    Le débat sur le mouvement Boycott, désinvestissement et sanctions (B.D.S.) contre Israël a été l’un des plus conflictuel de la culture politique américaine depuis plus d’une décennie. Et maintenant, étant donné les événements tumultueux et mortels des derniers mois, il va probablement s’enflammer encore davantage.

    Les victimes des manifestations en cours à Gaza, qui ont commencé en mars, continuent à s’accumuler ; près de 180 manifestants palestiniens, pour la plupart non armés, ont été tués par les forces israéliennes, et plus de 18000 blessés, selon les Nations Unies. Des dizaines de morts ont eu lieu à la mi-mai, lorsque les Etats-Unis ont pris la mesure provocatrice de déplacer leur ambassade à Jérusalem. Les tensions vont surement monter encore après la décision prise la semaine dernière par les Etats-Unis de mettre un terme aux subventions de plusieurs millions versées à l’agence des Nations Unies qui fournit de l’aide aux réfugiés palestiniens.

    B.D.S. a commencé en 2005 en réponse à un appel de plus de 100 organisations de la société civile palestinienne, avec à l’esprit le mouvement fructueux contre l’apartheid d’Afrique du Sud. Le raisonnement était qu’Israël, par son occupation d’un demi-siècle des territoires palestiniens, méritait autant la condamnation internationale, jusqu’à ce que change sa politique vis-à-vis des droits politiques et civils palestiniens. B.D.S. appelle à ce que sa position de protestation non violente reste en vigueur jusqu’à ce que trois conditions soient remplies : qu’Israël mette fin à son occupation et à sa colonisation dans tous les pays arabes et démantèle le mur ; qu’Israël reconnaisse les droits fondamentaux de tous les citoyens arabo-palestiniens d’Israël en pleine égalité ; et qu’Israël respecte, protège et promeuve les droits des réfugiés palestiniens à retourner dans leurs foyers et dans leurs propriétés ainsi qu’il est stipulé dans la Résolution 194 des Nations Unies.

    traduction de cet article : https://seenthis.net/messages/719821


  • Itay Tiran, le comédien et metteur en scène de théâtre n°1 d’Israël : BDS est une forme légitime de résistance
    Ravit Hecht, Haaretz, le 5 septembre 2018
    https://www.bdsfrance.org/itay-tiran-le-comedien-et-metteur-en-scene-de-theatre-n1-disrael-bds-est-

    « BDS est une forme tout à fait légitime de résistance. Et si nous voulons prôner un certain type de débat politique qui ne soit pas violent, nous devons renforcer ces voix, même si c’est difficile », dit Itay Tiran, largement considéré comme le comédien et metteur en scène de théâtre-phare d’Israël, dans une interview à Haaretz à la veille de son départ pour l’Allemagne.

    (...)

    « La Déclaration d’Indépendance et le discours sur l’égalité et les valeurs, tout ça c’était l’auto-lissage d’une fanfaronnade colonialiste d’un libéralisme éclairé. Il y a des gens qui se caractérisent encore par « centre-gauche » et qui pensent toujours que s’ils mettent le mot égalité dans la loi, tout ira bien. Ce n’est pas mon avis. Et vraiment, le contre-argument justifié par la droite était : Attendez, il y la Loi du Retour. Qu’est ce qui fait que c’est seulement la loi de l’État-nation qui vous rend fous ? » remarque-t-il.

    #Palestine #BDS #Boycott_culturel

    • Pour autant, Tiran a insisté sur le fait que la situation politique n’est pas la raison principale pour laquelle il quitte le pays, et qu’il ne se considère pas comme un « exilé politique ».

      « Si la loi de l’État-Nation est une référence à partir de laquelle vous calculez où en est la société israélienne, alors la loi est clairement raciste, inégalitaire ; c’est une nouvelle étape dans le tournant nationaliste pris ici. D’un autre côté, je dis qu’elle n’est pas seulement mauvaise. Pourquoi ? Parce qu’elle extirpe une sorte d’inconscient collectif qui a toujours existé ici » a-t-il dit.

      « La Déclaration d’Indépendance et le discours sur l’égalité et les valeurs, tout ça c’était l’auto-lissage d’une fanfaronnade colonialiste d’un libéralisme éclairé. Il y a des gens qui se caractérisent encore par « centre-gauche » et qui pensent toujours que s’ils mettent le mot égalité dans la loi, tout ira bien. Ce n’est pas mon avis. Et vraiment, le contre-argument justifié par la droite était : Attendez, il y la Loi du Retour. Qu’est ce qui fait que c’est seulement la loi de l’État-nation qui vous rend fous ? » remarque-t-il.

      Donc vous dites que le sionisme est un racisme, de toute façon ?

      Oui

      Que le sionisme est un racisme ?

      Oui, exactement, le sionisme est un racisme. Donc il nous faut à tous regarder la vérité et choisir son camp.

    • Des arrêts de bus de Londres vandalisés avec des affiches anti-Israël
      Par Times of Israel Staff 6 septembre 2018
      https://fr.timesofisrael.com/des-arrets-de-bus-de-londres-vandalises-avec-des-affiches-anti-isr

      Un groupe pro-palestinien a placardé des affiches où l’on lit qu’Israël est une entreprise raciste, pour protester contre l’adoption, par le Labour, de la définition de l’IIRHA
      Au moins six arrêts de bus londoniens ont été vandalisés avec des affiches sur lesquelles on peut lire “Israel is a racist endeavor” (Israël est une entreprise raciste) jeudi matin. Il s’agit d’une forme de protestation contre l’adoption, par le parti travailliste britannique, de la définition de l’antisémitisme internationale, qui considère cette phrase comme antisémite.
      Les affiches ont été installées par le groupe London Palestine Action, qui a publié des images de ces affiches jeudi sur ses comptes Twitter et Facebook, assorties d’explications sur l’affirmation du groupe, selon lequel Israël est profondément raciste.
      (...)
      La phrase choisie pour les posters est une citation de la définition élaborée par l’Alliance internationale pour la mémoire de l’Holocauste, qui spécifie que déclarer qu’Israël est « une entreprise raciste » est antisémite.


  • Opinion | Is Boycotting Israel ‘Hate’? - The New York Times
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/04/opinion/is-boycotting-israel-hate.html

    Opponents of the nonviolent Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement are involved in a dishonest branding campaign.

    By Joseph Levine
    Mr. Levine is a philosophy professor and a member of the Jewish Voice for Peace Academic Advisory Council.

    The debate over the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (B.D.S.) movement against Israel has been one of the most contentious in American political culture for more than a decade. Now, given the tumultuous and deadly events of the past several months, it is likely to heat up further.

    Casualties in the ongoing protests in Gaza, which began in March, continue to mount; nearly 180 mostly unarmed Palestinian protesters have been killed by Israeli forces, with more than 18,000 injured, according to the United Nations. Dozens of those deaths came in mid-May, as the United States took the provocative step of moving its embassy to Jerusalem. Tensions will surely spike again following last week’s decision by the United States to stop billions in funding to the United Nations agency that delivers aid to Palestinian refugees.

    B.D.S. began in 2005 in response to a call by more than 100 Palestinian civil society organizations, with the successful movement against apartheid South Africa in mind. The reasoning was that Israel, with its half-century occupation of Palestinian territories, would be equally deserving of the world’s condemnation until its policies changed to respect Palestinian political and civil rights. B.D.S. calls for its stance of nonviolent protest to remain in effect until three conditions are met: that Israel ends its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantles the wall; that Israel recognizes the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and that Israel respects, protects and promotes the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in United Nations Resolution 194.

    • The debate over the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (B.D.S.) movement against Israel has been one of the most contentious in American political culture for more than a decade. Now, given the tumultuous and deadly events of the past several months, it is likely to heat up further.

      Casualties in the ongoing protests in Gaza, which began in March, continue to mount; nearly 180 mostly unarmed Palestinian protesters have been killed by Israeli forces, with more than 18,000 injured, according to the United Nations. Dozens of those deaths came in mid-May, as the United States took the provocative step of moving its embassy to Jerusalem. Tensions will surely spike again following last week’s decision by the United States to stop billions in funding to the United Nations agency that delivers aid to Palestinian refugees.

      B.D.S. began in 2005 in response to a call by more than 100 Palestinian civil society organizations, with the successful movement against apartheid South Africa in mind. The reasoning was that Israel, with its half-century occupation of Palestinian territories, would be equally deserving of the world’s condemnation until its policies changed to respect Palestinian political and civil rights. B.D.S. calls for its stance of nonviolent protest to remain in effect until three conditions are met: that Israel ends its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantles the wall; that Israel recognizes the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and that Israel respects, protects and promotes the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in United Nations Resolution 194.

      Opposition to B.D.S. is widespread and strong. Alarmingly, in the United States, support for the movement is in the process of being outlawed. As of now, 24 states have enacted legislation that in some way allows the state to punish those who openly engage in or advocate B.D.S., and similar legislation is pending in 12 more states. At the federal level, a bill called the Israel Anti-Boycott Act would criminalize adherence to any boycott of Israel called for by an international agency (like the United Nations). The bill has garnered 57 Senate co-sponsors and 290 House co-sponsors, and may very well come up for a vote soon.

      While these bills certainly constitute threats to free speech — (a view shared by the ACLU) — I am interested in a more subtle effect of a fairly widespread anti-B.D.S. strategy: co-opting rhetoric of the anti-Trump resistance, which opposes the growing influence of racist hate groups, in order to brand B.D.S. as a hate group itself.

      In my home state of Massachusetts, for example, where a hearing for one of the many state bills aimed at punishing B.D.S. activity took place in July 2017, those who testified in favor of the bill, along with their supporters in the gallery, wore signs saying “No Hate in the Bay State.” They took every opportunity to compare B.D.S. supporters to the alt-right activists recently empowered by the election of Donald Trump. (Full disclosure: I am a strong supporter of B.D.S. and was among those testifying against the bill.)

      The aim of this activity is to relegate the B.D.S. movement, and the Palestine solidarity movement more generally, to the nether region of public discourse occupied by all the intolerant worldviews associated with the alt-right. This is an area the philosopher John Rawls would call “unreasonable.” But to my mind, it is the anti-B.D.S. movement itself that belongs there.

      There are two dimensions of reasonableness that are relevant to this particular issue: the one that allegedly applies to the B.D.S. campaign and the one I claim actually applies to the anti-B.D.S. campaign. Rawls starts his account of the reasonable from the premise of what he calls “reasonable pluralism,” an inevitable concomitant of modern-day democratic government. Large democratic societies contain a multitude of groups that differ in what Rawls calls their “comprehensive doctrines” — moral, religious or philosophical outlooks in accord with which people structure their lives. What makes a comprehensive doctrine “reasonable” is the willingness of those living in accord with it to recognize the legitimate claims of differing, often conflicting doctrines, to accord to the people that hold them full participation as citizens and to regard them as deserving of respect and equal treatment. We can label this dimension of reasonableness a matter of tolerance.

      The second dimension of reasonableness is associated with the notion of “public reason.” When arguing for one’s position as part of the process of democratic deliberation in a society characterized by reasonable pluralism, what kinds of considerations are legitimate to present? The constraint of public reason demands that the considerations in question should look reasonable to all holders of reasonable comprehensive doctrines, not merely one’s own.

      For example, when arguing over possible legal restrictions on abortion, it isn’t legitimate within a democracy to appeal to religious principles that are not shared by all legitimate parties to the dispute. So, while the personhood of the fetus is in dispute among reasonable doctrines, the status of African-Americans, women, gays and Jews is not. To reject their status as fully equal members of the society would be “unreasonable.”

      One of the essential principles of democratic government is freedom of thought and expression, and this extends to the unreasonable/intolerant as well as to the reasonable, so long as certain strict limits on incitement to violence, libel and the like are observed. Still, doctrines within the “tent of the reasonable” are accorded a different status within public institutions and civil society from those deemed outside the tent. This is reflected in the kinds of public support or reprobation representatives of the state and other civil society institutions (e.g., universities) display toward the doctrines or values in question.

      To put it simply, we expect what’s reasonable to get a fair hearing within the public sphere, even if many don’t agree with it.

      On the other hand, though we do not suppress the unreasonable, we don’t believe, in general, that it has the right to a genuinely fair hearing in that same sphere. For instance, after the white supremacist rallies in Charlottesville, Va., in August last year, students at my campus, the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, were greeted in the fall with signs plastered everywhere that said “Hate Has No Home at UMass.” This was intended to let the Richard Spencers of this world know that even if it may not be right or legal to bar them from speaking on campus, their message was not going to be given the respectful hearing that those within the tent of the reasonable receive.

      The alleged basis for claiming that B.D.S. advocates are anti-Semitic, and thus worthy only of denunciation or punishment, not argument, is that through their three goals listed in their manifesto they express their rejection of Jews’ right to self-determination in their homeland. This idea was put succinctly by Senator Chuck Schumer at the policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) in March, where he said, “Let us call out the B.D.S. movement for what it is. Let us delegitimize the delegitimizers by letting the world know when there is a double standard, whether they know it or not, they are actively participating in an anti-Semitic movement.”

      B.D.S. supporters are “delegitimizers,” according to Schumer, because they do not grant legitimacy to the Zionist project. Some might quibble with this claim about the B.D.S. goals, but I think it’s fair to say that rejection of the legitimacy of the Zionist project is fairly widespread within the movement. But does this constitute anti-Semitism? Does this put them outside the tent of the reasonable?

      To justify this condemnation of the B.D.S. movement requires accepting two extremely controversial claims: first, that the right to self-determination for any ethnic, religious or racial group entails the right to live in a state that confers special status on members of that group — that it is “their state” in the requisite sense; and second, that Palestine counts for these purposes as the rightful homeland of modern-day Jews, as opposed to the ancient Judeans. (I have argued explicitly against the first claim, here.)

      With regard to the second claim, it seems obvious to me, and I bet many others when they bother to think about it, that claims to land stemming from a connection to people who lived there 2,000 years ago is extremely weak when opposed by the claims of those who currently live there and whose people have been living there for perhaps a millennium or more.

      Remember, one needn’t agree with me in my rejection of these two principal claims for my point to stand. All one must acknowledge is that the right at issue isn’t obvious and is at least open to question. If a reasonable person can see that this right of the Jews to establish a state in Palestine is at least open to question, then it can’t be a sign of anti-Semitism to question it! But once you admit the B.D.S. position within the tent of the reasonable, the proper response is not, as Senator Schumer claims, “delegitimizing,” but rather disputing — engaging in argument, carried out in the public sphere according to the rules of public reason.

      But now we get to my second main point — that it’s the anti-B.D.S. camp that violates reasonableness; not because it is an expression of intolerance (though often it flirts with Islamophobia), but because it violates the constraints on public reason. Just how far the positive argument for the legitimacy of the Zionist project often veers from the rules of public reason is perfectly captured by another quote from Mr. Schumer’s speech to Aipac.

      “Now, let me tell you why — my view, why we don’t have peace. Because the fact of the matter is that too many Palestinians and too many Arabs do not want any Jewish state in the Middle East,” he said. “The view of Palestinians is simple: The Europeans treated the Jews badly, culminating in the Holocaust, and they gave them our land as compensation. Of course, we say it’s our land, the Torah says it, but they don’t believe in the Torah. So that’s the reason there is not peace. They invent other reasons, but they do not believe in a Jewish state, and that is why we, in America, must stand strong with Israel through thick and thin …”

      This quote is really quite remarkable, coming from one of the most powerful legislators in our democracy. After fairly well characterizing a perfectly reasonable attitude Palestinians have about who is responsible for the Holocaust and who should pay any reparations for it, Mr. Schumer then appeals to the Torah to justify the Jewish claim against them. But this is a totally illegitimate appeal as a form of public reason, no different from appealing to religious doctrine when opposing abortion. In fact, I claim you can’t find any genuine argument that isn’t guilty of breaching the limits of the reasonable in this way for the alleged right to establish the Jewish state in Palestine.

      This almost certainly explains why opponents of B.D.S. are now turning to the heavy hand of the state to criminalize support for it. In a “fair fight” within the domain of public reason, they would indeed find themselves “delegitimized.”

      Joseph Levine is a professor of philosophy at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and the author of “Quality and Content: Essays on Consciousness, Representation and Modality.” He is a member of the Jewish Voice for Peace Academic Advisory Council.

      #Palestine #USA #BDS #criminalisation_des_militants #liberté_d'expression #censure

      Et aussi à ajouter à la longue liste d’articles sur la confusion entretenue entre #Antisionisme et #Antisémitisme :

      https://seenthis.net/messages/337856
      https://seenthis.net/messages/580647
      https://seenthis.net/messages/603396
      https://seenthis.net/messages/604402
      https://seenthis.net/messages/606801
      https://seenthis.net/messages/690067
      https://seenthis.net/messages/700966
      https://seenthis.net/messages/716567
      https://seenthis.net/messages/718335
      https://seenthis.net/messages/719714


  • Eurovision’s demands should serve as wake-up call for Israel - Haaretz Editorial - Israel News | Haaretz.com

    https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/editorial/eurovision-s-demands-should-serve-as-wake-up-call-for-israel-1.6450815

    In a different time, the demands of the European Broadcasting Union, the organizer of the Eurovision Song Contest, would have been received in Israel with a shrug, as self-evident.
    To really understand Israel and the Palestinians - subscribe to Haaretz
    According to a report by the Israel Television News Corporation, the broadcasting union is asking for an Israeli authority, preferably the prime minister, to promise that Israel will grant entry visas for the event regardless of applicants’ political opinions; that visitors be able to tour the country regardless of their political opinions, religion or sexual orientation; that there be freedom of the press and complete freedom of expression for all participants; that there be no religious restrictions on rehearsals on Saturday; and that Israel’s public broadcasting company, Kan, be given complete independence in editing the broadcasts.

    • D’après cet article de Haaretz :
      https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-eurovision-organizers-set-conditions-for-contest-to-be-held-in-isr

      1) l’Eurovision demande qu’israel s’engage par écrit à laisser entrer tous les spectateurs, quelque soient leurs opinions (y compris s’ils soutiennent BDS), donc critique les nouvelles pratiques de sélection à l’entrée du pays sur des bases politiques

      2) l’Eurovision demande une complète liberté d’expression et de circulation pour les participants, les délégations et la presse

      3) l’Eurovision demande que les répétitions aient lieu le samedi (shabbat)

      4) plusieurs membres du gouvernement appellent Netanyahu à refuser ces conditions

      5) la télé israélienne demande une rallonge financière du ministère des finances qui pour l’instant refuse

      #Palestine #Eurovision #BDS #Boycott_culturel

    • BDS success stories
      More than the achievements of the economic, academic and cultural boycott, BDS has succeeded in undermining the greatest asset of Israeli public diplomacy: Israel’s liberal and democratic image in the world.
      Gideon Levy | Sep. 5, 2018 | 11:16 PM
      https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-bds-success-stories-1.6455621

      Gilad Erdan is a great success story of the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement, as is the Strategic Affairs Ministry that he heads. So is the anti-boycott law. Every human rights activist who is expelled from Israel or questioned at Ben-Gurion International Airport is a BDS success story. The European Broadcasting Union’s letter is another success of the global movement to boycott Israel.

      More than Lana Del Rey canceling her visit, more than SodaStream moving its factory from the West Bank to the Negev and more than the achievements of the economic, academic and cultural boycott, BDS has succeeded in a different area, effortlessly and perhaps unintentionally. It has undermined the greatest asset of Israeli public diplomacy: Israel’s liberal and democratic image in the world. It was the European Broadcasting Union, of all things, a nonpolitical organization, very far from BDS, that best described the extent of the damage to Israel: The organization compared Israel to Ukraine and Azerbaijan in the conditions it set for these countries to host the Eurovision Song Contest.

      Ukraine and Azerbaijan, which no one seriously considers to be democracies, in the same breath as Israel. This is how the Eurovision organizers see Israel.

      The song contest was held in Jerusalem twice before, and no one thought to set conditions to guarantee the civil liberties of participants. Now it is necessary to guarantee, in advance and in writing, what is self-evident in a democracy: freedom of entry and freedom of movement to everyone who comes for the competition.

      In Israel, as in Ukraine and Azerbaijan, this is no longer self-evident. In the 13 years since it was founded, the BDS movement couldn’t have dreamed of a greater triumph.

      The main credit, of course, goes to the Israeli government, which in declaring war on BDS and made a great contributions to the movement. With a commander like Erdan, who is outraged over the interference with the “laws of a democratic state” and doesn’t understand how grotesque his words are, and with a ministry that is nothing but an international thought police, the government is telling the world: Israel isn’t what you thought. Did you think for years that Israel was a liberal democracy? Did you close your eyes to the goings-on in its backyard? Did you think the occupation was separate from the state, that it could be maintained in a democracy, that it was surely temporary and would be over momentarily? That at least sovereign Israel is part of the West? Well, you were wrong.

      The government has torn off the mask. Not only BDS, but all supporters of human rights, should be grateful to it. The war on BDS, a legitimate, nonviolent protest movement, has dragged Israel into new territory. Omar Barghouti and his colleagues can rub their hands together in satisfaction and pride. They have begun to dismantle the regime inside Israel as well. No democracy has a strategic affairs ministry that spies on critics of the state and its government worldwide and draws up blacklists of people who are banned from entry on account of their worldview or political activities. No democracy asks its guests for their opinions at its borders, as a condition for entry. No democracy searches its visitors’ computers and their lifestyles when they enter and leave. Perhaps Ukraine and Azerbaijan do, Turkey and Russia too.

      It could have, and should have, been argued previously as well that Israel did not deserve to be seen as democracy, on account of the occupation. But now Israel has crossed the line. It hasn’t erased only the Green Line, it has begun to the task of annexation, including a gradual westward movement of the regime in the West Bank. The gap between the two regimes, in the occupied territories and in Israel, is still huge, but laws passed in recent years have narrowed it.

      The state’s fancy display window, with all the bright neon and rustling cellophane of freedom and equality; of Arab MKs and pharmacists; gay-friendly, with a vibrant night life and all the other shiny objects, is beginning to crack. The Eurovision organizers recognize this.


  • Après l’article de blog de Joseph Levine niant le droit d’Israël à être un État juif, le New York Times continue à publier des choses invraisemblables : ici, Rashid Khalidi dénonce le faux « processus de paix » et le rôle américains dans cette falsification. Will Obama Let the Oppression of Palestinians Continue ?
    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/13/opinion/obama-in-jerusalem.html

    The American-led “process” has ultimately strengthened the Israeli far right and made Palestinian self-determination more unattainable than ever. Continuing with the Orwellian grotesquerie that is the “peace process” is contrary to any enlightened definition of American self-interest. It has burnished the image of the United States as Israel’s uncritical defender and enabler. Furthermore, it insults the intelligence of the Palestinian people. Despite the complicity of some of their leaders in a process that has left them stateless while the unending colonization of the West Bank and East Jerusalem continues, they deserve to be more than prisoners in their own land.

    Est-il en train de se passer quelque chose dans l’establishment américain ? Ou est-ce un simple règlement de compte des Démocrates contre le lobby israélien de droite, qui s’est ouvertement attaqué Obama ces derniers moi.


  • Et voilà que le New York Times publie, sur son site Web, un article du philosophe Joseph Levine contestant, longuement, le droit d’Israël à exister en tant qu’État juif : On Questioning the Jewish State.
    http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/09/on-questioning-the-jewish-state

    I conclude, then, that the very idea of a Jewish state is undemocratic, a violation of the self-determination rights of its non-Jewish citizens, and therefore morally problematic. But the harm doesn’t stop with the inherently undemocratic character of the state. For if an ethnic national state is established in a territory that contains a significant number of non-members of that ethnic group, it will inevitably face resistance from the land’s other inhabitants. This will force the ethnic nation controlling the state to resort to further undemocratic means to maintain their hegemony. Three strategies to deal with resistance are common: expulsion, occupation and institutional marginalization. Interestingly, all three strategies have been employed by the Zionist movement: expulsion in 1948 (and, to a lesser extent, in 1967), occupation of the territories conquered in 1967 and institution of a complex web of laws that prevent Israel’s Palestinian citizens from mounting an internal challenge to the Jewish character of the state.

    Le New York Times ? Oui, le New York Times. Prévoir un scandale à base d’imputation d’antisémitisme dans le courant de la semaine prochaine, et idéalement quelqu’un va se faire virer.