BDS unjust and counterproductive

We write in response to the two letters published in The Australian on Monday 21 September by Antony Loewenstein and Jake Lynch, supporting the call for a boycott of certain Israeli universities as part of a more general Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign.

In our view, the call for a boycott and the entire BDS concept is counterproductive, marginalises and disempowers the forces for moderation and compromise within Israel, and reinforces the position of the rejectionists on both sides.

It is simply incorrect for Loewenstein to state that Palestinians “overwhelmingly” support the BDS strategy. The Palestinian General Federation of Trade Unions, for example, has been careful not to adopt a position on BDS because of its potential adverse consequences for Palestinian workers.

If people want peace with justice for BOTH the Palestinians and Israelis, then positive measures based on an understanding of the narratives of both peoples are needed. These include co-operative ventures of the kind that currently exist between the Israeli and Palestinian Trade Union movements, an end to all racist incitement against Jews in Palestinian schools and media, stopping new settlements encroaching into the West Bank and the removal of the illegal hilltop settlements by the Israeli government, progressive removal of checkpoints (which is already happening), improving the freedom of movement of Palestinians in the West Bank and a return to negotiations.

The moral authority of movements like BDS is undermined by their very one-sidedness. They highlight the suffering of civilians on only one side of the conflict, to the exclusion of the suffering of civilians on the other side. This has been the approach of Lynch’s Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, which invariably promotes the ferociously anti-Israel views of people like Loewenstein and John Docker. Both of these commentators make no bones about their desire for Israel to cease to exist but have been conspicuously silent about the likely fate of the Jewish majority now living there if that were to happen. It is probably futile to hope that Lynch will take a more balanced approach when he organizes his Centre’s “peace research” conference for 2010.

For over 60 years international law has called for the existence of two states for two peoples. Israeli and Palestinian polling over a sustained period consistently indicates that this is also what a majority of Israelis and Palestinians want. The denial of self-determination and sovereignty to either people has no international legitimacy at all.

Inaccurate, polemical and emotive statements of the kind made by Loewenstein and Lynch merely serve to polarize people and create a climate of hate. As such, their statements are impediments to the cause of peace with justice which they purport to promote.

Associate Professor Suzanne Rutland, OAM, University of Sydney

Associate Professor Mark Baker, Monash University, Melbourne

Doctor Yoke Berry, University of Wollongong

Professor Allan Borowski, La Trobe University, Melbourne

Professor Andrew Markus, Monash University, Melbourne

Doctor Julie Kalman, The University of New South Wales

Another boycott campaign, 1930s Los Angeles. Source: Jewish Federation Council of Greater Los Angeles Community Relations Committee Collection, Urban Archives Center, University Library, California State University-Northridge *

By Michael Danby

Antony Loewenstein and Jake Lynch (The Australian, Letters blog, 22 September) criticise Philip Mendes and Nick Dyrenfurth for their opposition to the campaign for “boycott, disinvestment and sanctions” directed at Israel. But they fail to address the central issue pointed out by Mendes and Dyrenfurth – the hypocritical and one-sided nature of this campaign.

Sudan has killed at least 400,000 civilians in its genocidal war in Darfur. Russia killed about 40,000 people in its two brutal wars against Chechnya. Millions of people are suffering under dictatorships in Burma, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Syria and others. Protesters are being shot down in the streets in Tibet, East Turkistan and Iran.

Are Loewenstein and Lynch calling for academic, cultural or communications boycotts against these countries? No, they’re not. Only Israel is so uniquely evil that it merits such treatment. The Israel-Palestinian conflict, which over the past 20 years has caused approximately 8,000 deaths (a third of them Israelis), is apparently worse than Darfur and Chechnya, worse indeed than anything else in the world.

Loewenstein and Lynch’s attack on the Australian columnists do serve a useful purpose in drawing out their real purposes. Firstly the perversity of the Director of Sydney University’s “Peace” Institute, which backs boycotts of Israeli academics rather than enhancing peace between the parties, could now not be starker.

Loewenstein’s support for the elimination of Israel coded as support for a one state solution shows that he was trying to sucker the few hundred who signed his Independent Jewish Voices “two state declaration”. Either way no serious Australian policy maker takes seriously ideas of boycotting Israeli academics and universities.

Michael Danby MHR is Federal Member for Melbourne Ports

* The complete poster can be seen here.

By Alex Kats

Last week I was privileged to see the controversial film about Rebiya Kadeer at the Melbourne International Film Festival (MIFF).

In the lead up to the festival, English director, Ken Loach, who had previously premiered a number of his films at the festival, announced that he would pull out of the festival if the festival continued to take support from the Israeli embassy. Luckily for the sake of sanity and morality, MIFF director, Richard Moore, called Loach’s bluff and announced that he would rather have Israeli films than Loach’s, and thus Loach pulled himself and his film out of the festival.

When another controversy reared its head, this time concerning China, Moore again stood up for what was right.

More than seven years ago, Jeff Daniels, an American (now living in Melbourne) teacher turned filmmaker, visited a friend in Beijing and came across the name of a people he had never heard of. The Uyghur people come from East Turkestan. Their province borders Tibet, Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, and China, and about 60 years ago, China invaded and annexed the land.

They called it Xinjiang, which means ‘new territory’ and although it was intended to be an autonomous region, it has become one of the most oppressed regions in all of China. The Uyghur people have their own language, culture, heritage, religion and land, but all of these have been taken away or diluted since Chinese rule. Many thousands of people in the region have been murdered simply for their opinions; let alone for their actions.

On that journey, the curious filmmaker decided to make a documentary about the Uyghur people and in particular, about their charismatic and very vibrant leader, Rebiya Kadeer.

Kadeer became an activist for the rights of her people as a teenager. Over the years, she has also become one of the wealthiest women in China, but not without a lot of hardship. Her children were taken away from her and she was imprisoned for more than five years, spending most of that time in solitary confinement.

Now in exile in Washington, she is the president of the international Uyghur association.

Daniels, a Jew from the Bronx, had previously made small documentaries about Jewish identity and the struggle of minorities. For the past seven years he has been documenting the plight of the Uyghurs and the unadulterated drive of Kadeer.

The name of the film, The 10 Conditions of Love, comes from the conditions that Kadeer set herself when she went in search of a husband who would also be a partner in her work. (She found him and they are still together.) The title, however, also alludes to China’s 10 conditions for the transition to Communism.

Part of the story follows Kadeer’s advocacy in Washington on behalf of her people. When making representations to government, one of her strongest allies for a number of years was the late Tom Lantos. He was the only Congressman to have also been a Holocaust survivor, and as a Jew, like the filmmaker, he felt strongly about the passion of this minority leader.

QUIT = Queers Undermining Israeli Terrorism

By Anthony Frosh

By now you have probably read on Galus Australis and/or the Australian Jewish News that filmmaker Ken Loach is threatening a boycott of the Melbourne International Film Festival (MIFF), unless MIFF terminates sponsorship arrangements it currently has with the State of Israel.

Now, despite the AJN’s Adam Kamien describing this individual as a “Legendary British Filmmaker,” I must confess that I had never heard of this chap before reading about the boycott.  Perhaps Kamien just meant legendary relative to other British filmmakers … now that would make sense.  I can’t help but wonder if some British ‘talent’ agents are telling clients whose celebrity is waning that the best way to revive their profile is to publicly partake in boycott action against Israel.  Think Annie Lennox.

I could go into a lengthy essay on why there is a far better moral case for boycotting Loach’s own country of Britain than there is for boycotting Israel.  Just for starters, combat operations conducted on one’s own doorstep in response to eight years of constant rocket attacks, ceteris paribus, are more justifiable than combat operations conducted continents away from the home base in order to sure up energy security.  However, with so much absurdity in Loach’s position, and life being short, I’ll have to settle for one absolute gem.

A little research reveals that Loach is a signatory to Queers Undermining Israeli Terrorism.  The irony in the mere existence of this organization is almost delicious.  If there is one place in the Middle East that respects gay rights, it is Israel.  Indeed, gay rights in Israel compare favourably to even the USA.  As Alan Dershowitz points out in The Case for Israel, the Israeli defence forces do not discriminate against gay people, while the US armed forces officially ban gays from their membership.

As Dershowitz further points out, such realities have not prevented signs being seen at anti-Israel demonstrations reading “Queers for Palestine,” and yet if anyone was to display such a sign at a rally in either Hamas controlled Gaza, or the Fatah controlled territories, they would suffer a significant risk of being killed.  In fact, the only country in the Middle East where one could hold up such a sign without incurring such risk is Israel.  It is no surprise that gay Palestinians frequently seek refuge in Israel.

To give you an impression of the typical activities Queers Undermining Israeli Terrorism undertakes, they protested and disrupted the screening of Israeli film Yossi and Jagger (2002) at the San Francisco International Lesbian and Gay Film Festival.  For those unfamiliar with this film, it was the Israeli equivalent of Brokeback Mountain (2005).

Thankfully, it seems that only a tiny proportion of the gay community is actually involved in anti-Israel activity.  The existence of groups like Queers Undermining Israeli Terrorism says far less about gays than it does about the absurdity of anti-Israel boycotts.

Nothing like a hot coffee, a bagel, the AJN and news of a fresh cultural boycott to start one’s day, right?

Yes, dear readers, it’s that time of year again – MIFF! As British director Ken Loach has realised (he of the literally unintelligible My Name is Joe*), there is no better vehicle for really annoying, pointless political protest than an international film festival. All the requisite ingredients are there: various films from various middle-Eastern/African/Asian countries, pontificating intellectual filmmakers and filmgoers (er, myself included), the press… and of course: ‘contentious’ funding.

Here’s an excerpt from the AJN article, which sums up the whole fiasco quite nicely:

In a letter addressed to festival director Richard Moore, a keen supporter of Israeli films, Loach cited Israel’s “illegal occupation of Palestinian land, destruction of homes and livelihoods” and “the massacres in Gaza” as his reasons for boycotting the festival, which gets underway on July 24.

The letter was co-signed by the film’s writer Paul Laverty and producer Rebecca O’Brien.

Earlier this month, an open letter from the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel was sent to MIFF organisers urging them not to accept funding from the Israeli government. In the letter, Loach was listed as one of the filmmakers who had expressed support for the boycott.

Earlier this year, Loach successfully lobbied the Edinburgh Film Festival to return a grant from the Israeli embassy, which was intended to help Israeli filmmaker Tali Shalow Ezer get her film shown at the prestigious festival.

Loach wrote in his letter to Moore: “This is not a boycott of independent Israeli films or filmmakers, but of the Israeli State.”

Wow, Ken! Really? The state of Israel is that much of a presence at the Melbourne International Film Festival? What next? You’ll no longer be frequenting your local Chinese restaurant because of the situation in Tibet / exploitation of children / shoddy construction standards in earthquake-prone regions? (Good. You need to lay off the MSG.) (OK. Chinese takeaway does not equal Israeli movie at MIFF. But you know what I mean.)

Enough sarcasm. I get where Ken’s coming from, even though I disagree with him. I’m crapped off about a lot of what’s happening in Israel, too. I want a country for Jews and a country for Palestinians. I want real, meaningful, lasting peace. That, in a nutshell, is a very superficial, early-morning run-down of my political proclivities.

But surely, anyone with a bit of saykhl** knows that boycotting a film (or a writer, or an acadmic) is not going to achieve anything. Even if that filmmaker’s efforts may be partially funded by a government whose practices one may find morally questionable. (Special shout out to every film about Aboriginal people ever made in Australia with Australian government funding, ever!)

Surely Ken Loach knows that the Israeli government funds films by Israelis and Palestinians; Christians, Jews and Muslims. Surely Ken Loach knows that art (films! music! visuals! writing!) is one of the most enduring and effective ways to change the way people think and understand the world, for the better. Surely Ken Loach knows that Israeli films submitted to international festivals are unlikely to be pushing an uber-right-wing agenda; but rather encouraging a more nuanced, complex understanding of contemporary Israeli life.

Ach. Why, why, why?

[Hasid claps hand to forehead in frustration]

Let’s hope that the MIFF committee and everyone else leaves Loach’s proposal well enough alone, where it belongs.

A gitn shabbes and happy weekend to all.

.

.

* Below the belt? Perhaps. But that’s 105 minutes of my life I can NEVER GET BACK. Note to self: run for the hills when you hear the words “gritty realist Glaswegian drama”. RUN.

** saykhl = commonsense

I am a freelance documentarian of Jewish communities worldwide (www.JewishPhotoLibrary.com). My mission is to contribute to the preservation of Jewish communities by documenting them photographically. I recently spent a month making arrangements for a photo tour of Australia’s Jewish Communities (AJC), the first of several visits to document every synagogue, Jewish cemetery, and aspects of Jewish life Down Under. My 80 or so query emails initially met with plaudits and approvals. Then responses turned to “no thank yous” and permission retractions (though not all). I was confounded. Then a few kind souls brought Community Security Group (CSG), an organization that oversees matters of security within the AJC, to my attention. In short, I was ultimately left with no choice but to cancel my project.

This letter has two aims: 1, to highlight CSG’s inflexible policies and underhanded procedures, and, 2, to encourage discussion by ordinary members of the AJC on matters of security, access, documentation, and community image.

“Whilst the CSG does not consider Mr. David himself to be a security concern,” emailed Gavin Queit of CSG Victoria to all Jewish communities, “the subsequent publishing of such photographs does pose a risk to the Jewish Community. As such, it is our recommendation that Jono David be denied permission to photograph Victorian Jewish institutions.” In a follow up email to me (after I had initiated contact), Mr. Queit stated that emails were “sent to all Jewish community institutions in Australia (by the CSG’s in each state) [sic].” A similar email had also been, unbeknown to me, sent by David Rothman, head of CSG Sydney.

There was no reason to inform anyone, much less everyone, that my work “poses a security risk” (Gavin Queit) because there is indisputably no such evidence. In fact, I challenge anyone to name a single incident — worldwide — where photographs played an integral part in an attack on a synagogue or a Jewish institution.

While I have on rare occasion been denied photo requests, I could never have imagined being blacklisted on an entire continent. CSGs emails at once sabotaged my project and, for all intents and purposes, maligned me, a fellow Jew, as a threat to the AJC. Their words are, in effect, defamatory. I am open to photo conditions. In the extreme, I am happy to document an institution and keep the images safeguarded for at least a generation. But, alas, I was deemed unworthy of even a courtesy email. I fail to understand such treatment.

I am a stranger in every community I document. Naturally, verifying and vetting outsiders is necessary. Jewish community security concerns worldwide are justified and do not need explaining. I do not “map out” synagogues or other Jewish institutions. Nor do I not make images available if an institution has issues with said images. No exceptions. I am aware of a recent rise in anti-Semitic sentiment in Australia. But documenting Jewish life is important even in times of adversity — perhaps more so. By restricting documentation, the AJC is going to wake up in a generation and realize there is no photographic, no film, and no video record available to them. That is a real shame. CSG’s blanket no-photo policy, therefore, is actually a detriment to the AJC. Moreover, a hyper-sensitive security measure is a victory for the terrorists. But by photographing a vibrant community, the Jewish people win.

Perhaps the AJC ought to ask itself just what CSG is aiming to achieve. Do they wish to see the AJC go underground? Do they desire shutting down community websites which, contrary to their own “advice”, display for the world vital community information such as addresses, names, maps, prayer times, events, even photographs similar to those I wish to take? Does CSG desire stopping the presses too? The Australian Jewish News, and publications like it, is a portal into the life and times of the AJC. It is replete with community news and affairs past, present, and future — information that can be employed by the savvy terrorist. What is the point of “securing” a Jewish community, particularly in a free nation, if it cannot thrive openly? With so much Jewish history destroyed over the millennia, why surrender now? Jewish communities of the world have always been resilient in times of adversity and always emerged stronger because of it.

I am not giving up on Jewish Australia. I hope the AJC is not giving up on itself. Isaiah 41:6 says, “Each helped their neighbor and everyone said to his brother, be strong and courageous.”

Jono David
www.JewishPhotoLibrary.com
jono@gol.com
Osaka, Japan

(Note: as this is a guest post, the views expressed do not necessarily represent the views of the editorial staff.)

To the 170 signatories to the petition calling on Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard to cancel her planned visit to Israel, we understand that you believe that Israel is not “a truly democratic society”. That’s ok. We attribute this to the poor standard of education that you have received. It might serve you well to read a book that has not received recommendations from the Green Left Weekly.

Be that as it may, we are still curious because when Kevin 747 visited China, we do not remember seeing any petitions. In Kevin’s words, “Fair shake of the sauce bottle.” Even if we accept your views that Australian MPs should not visit Israel, we assume that there would be some other destinations that would have to be added to the strike list.

So here’s your chance to explain yourselves. We’re talking to you Miriam Margolyes, and the rest of you self-described “eminent Australians”. (We know some of you read this blog.) We welcome any explanations that you might have, but we want to point out that we are not interested in arguing with you about Israel. What we are looking for is your defence of China, and specifically, what is it about China that makes it an acceptable political destination? After all, we can see that you have high standards.

Sincerely,

Frochel