The more things change: Hallmark tricks of the manipulative propagandist.

The seven Hallmark tricks of the manipulative propagandist could be the  "DIY" manual  of the anti-Israel activist.  It is still entirely apropos.  Although this was originally written 10 years ago as Somerville was besieged by divestment activists it still accurately characterizes the state of discource today involving Operation Protective Edge.  And it’s the same few people, and the same few tired tricks

Via Divest this: 
A  fellow named Rich Cowan wrote a couple of articles a few years back on “Confronting Right Wing Actions and Arguments.” Part of the work he posted to the Internet referenced “seven hallmark tricks of the manipulative propagandist” originally described by The Institute for Propaganda Analysis, a now-defunct organization created to help counter right-wing propaganda in the 1930s.

Below is a list of Institute’s seven “tricks” along with excellent examples of how such tricks have been used in Somerville’s current divestiture debate:
 

Name Calling - Hanging a bad label on an idea

Such as taking the enormously complex issue of the Arab-Israeli conflict where 22 Arab nations have been warring with one Jewish state directly and through proxies for generations, and reducing everything to the simple, inaccurate term of “apartheid.”

Card Stacking – Selective use of facts or outright falsification

Such as presenting suffering of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza while making no mention of the role the Palestinian’s own murder campaign has played in creating their plight, much less ever once mentioning the 1000+ victims of Arab terror that might provide some context for Israeli actions.

Band Wagon – A claim that everyone like us thinks this way

Such as highlighting a few shaky “successes” (like the Presbyterian Church) while failing to mention of the fact that divestiture has failed on every campus in the country.

Testimonial – The association of a respected or hated person with an idea

Such as dishonestly presenting a fringe Israeli voice (see Voices) as representing popular Israeli support for divestiture.

Plain Folks – A technique whereby the idea and its proponents are liked to “people like you and me”

Such as creating a “grass roots” Somerville organization whose leadership is made up of the same, non-Somerville people that have been at the forefront of every anti-Israel activity of the last twenty-five years, and presenting it as a local movement.

Transfer - An assertion of a connection between something valued or hated and the idea or commodity discussed

Again, read “apartheid.”

Glittering Generality – An association of something with a “virtue word” to gain approval without examining the evidence

The list is long. In this debate, the terms “human rights,” “fairness,” “socially responsible investing” have all been used to dress up a petition which calls for Israel, alone among all nations in the world, to be economically punished. If the petition is ever passed, count on these soft words to be replaced by a much harder message: that Somerville has declared Israel to be a racist, apartheid state that the rest of the world should join Somerville in punishing.

Read it all here

Jewish Voice for Peace, TIAA - CREF and Caterpillar: The Newest BDS hoax?

Its beginning to look a lot like a BDS hoax- as ubiquitous as kitten pictures and porn on the web. All the signs were there from the very beginning. Sweeping proclamations from the anti-Israel lobby, spammed and tweeted with no confirmation from any neutral source, and no coverage in the mainstream media. The Forward briefly ran an article based on the JVP press release, quickly realized they'd been had, and quietly removed it. Oops.

From Divest This- the web's single most reliable site on BDS:

"To begin with, the story is not accompanied by any statement from TIAA-CREF itself that it has taken any action that could be described as political in nature. Which makes sense once you realize that CREF is still heavily invested in the company the boycotters are claiming as a divestment win (the long suffering Caterpillar Corporation).

In fact, if you dig a little deeper it looks like CREF did not make any politically related investment or divestment decision at all, but rather that one of its funds (one targeting social investors) was following the lead of an independent research firm (MSCI) which generates an index which many “Social Responsibility” investment funds use to determine what will and will not be included in their portfolios.

Now earlier this year, MSCI downgraded and eventually removed Caterpillar from their index, which means that CREF was just following along with a decision made by an independent researcher, not making a judgment regarding Caterpillar on its own (as reflected by the fact that other funds managed by CREF still hold millions in Caterpillar stock).

Which brings us to the question of why did MSCI (an organization none of us – including the BDSers – ever noticed or mentioned until just this week) made the decision they did regarding Caterpillar?

BDS press releases do a masterful job of claiming victory while never citing a single quote (or anything specific) that would indicate that this decision was based on their effort – or anything having to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict for that matter. (As usual, Jewish Voice for Peace goes to the furthest rhetorical extreme, claiming that TIAA CREF not only made a specific decision to divest from Israel, but did so in defiance of a US Congressman - with no evidence supporting either contention/invention, of course.)

Might MSCI have taken into account some of the faux controversy the BDSers themselves have generated in judging whether Caterpillar was in or out? Or might some of the union issues the company has been facing been a deciding factor?

We don’t know (but many of us are trying to find out). But given the total lack of evidence those touting the “BDS victory” narrative have produced, I think it’s safe to say that we’re looking at another situation where a business decision with no specifically known motivation is being sold by the boycotters as a result of their work. And given the boycotter’s track record for fraudulently trying to pass off similar stories in the past, I think it’s safe to ignore any BDS bombast until they can produce for us a quote from TIAA-CREF itself (the company they are claiming to have done the BDSers’ bidding) confirming the story."

In spite of JVP's laughable flash mobs and petitioning, TIAA CREF has held firm regarding divestment , stating in an open letter:

"While TIAA-CREF acknowledges participants’ varying views on Israeli and Palestinian policies and the Gaza Strip and West Bank, we are unable to alter our investment policy in accordance with those views. Our responsibility to earn a competitive financial return on the retirement savings entrusted to us by 3.7 million participants obliges us to invest in a diverse line-up of companies across all sectors of the global economy."

Rachel Roberts of CAIR: Denying the Principal of charity once again

What do we know about Rachel Roberts?

Using her own words, from her Twitter account we can learn that she considers New York's Celebrate Israel parade "the most horrible day of the year".



We know she considers vandalism an appropriate response to a message she doesn't agree with.



We know she rejects a 2 state solution.



And we know she's obsessed by the "Jewish question"




And we know she has an almost juvenile assessment of the situation in the Middle East- regarding it as a zero sum game where there can only be one "winner". (and apparently "victory" is measured by the number of bumper stickers you have supporting your side.)



We also know that Rachel Roberts, working for CAIR wrote an op-ed in the Oakland Tribune, libeling a local human rights activist, and distorting the dialog regarding Palestinian Cultural Day in Alameda County.

Let me digress for a moment.

Our friend Jon from the Divest this! blog has written an excellent series on rhetorical techniques that dominate the Israel Palestine issue. Read his post Rhetoric- Avoidance and see how the CAIR op-ed has strategically bypassed the message of activists opposed to the wording- not to the principle- of a Palestinian Cultural day resolution- wording that specifically reduced the Jewish people to a religion, denying them peoplehood and a connection to their ancient homeland.

"This avoidance of debate works in direct opposition to one of the most important notions behind sound argumentation: the Principle of Charity. This principle says that in any debate you are better off engaging with your opponent’s strongest points, rather than just pouncing on his or her weakest...

This choice to “engage” only with someone who could be characterized in negative terms while pretending that this was the only criticism they received was no oversight, but instead represents a BDS rhetorical strategy we see time and time again.

We see it whenever the boycotters studiously ignore all criticism until someone finally accuses them of anti-Semitism (an accusation for which they have a ready store of answers) which causes the boycotters to rise in indignant attack mode, insisting that any and all criticism they ever receive consist of nothing but similar accusations. This has become such a well-worn strategy that even if someone doesn’t make such an accusation, the boycotters will still argue as though this was the only criticism they have ever heard.

If the Principle of Charity requires you to engage your opponents at their strongest, what are we to make of a movement that will do everything in its power to wait for, ferret out or (if need be) make up talking points for their opponents that consist of arguments they do feel comfortable answering, and then pretending these is the only challenges they ever face?"

In her op-ed, co-written by Sameena Usman, also of CAIR, Rachel ignores the Principal of Charity and hurls out spurious charges of Islamophobia and prejudice, all the time ignoring the arguments of those opposed to the resolution- which addressed the Jewish people solely as a faith, and denied their history and cultural ties to the land of Israel. Never once does the CAIR op-ed address the stated concerns of the activists towards the language of the proclamation. Rather than work with the Alameda Board of Supervisors to rework the proclamation, removing the offensive wording, CAIR has chosen instead to embrace the cult of victimhood. Its not about achieving a solution- its about licking their wounds and crying victim.

PennBDS-Oy!

PennBDS-Oy!
Our story so far:

The University of Pennsylvania is hosting a BDS conference. Well, 15 students out of 21,000 have formed a club, and they are hosting the conference. The University has already formally distanced itself from the event and issued a statement

"This is not an event sponsored by the University. The event is being sponsored by a registered student group, as is permitted of any student group on campus.

The University of Pennsylvania has clearly stated on numerous occasions that it does not support sanctions or boycotts against Israel. Indeed, Penn has important and successful scholarly collaborations with Israeli institutions that touch on many areas of our academic enterprise."

The Campus Hillel applauded President Gutmann's statement, declaring

"...we welcome the university’s statement distancing itself from the conference and affirming its strong rejection of boycott, divestment or sanction of Israel.
Penn Hillel is working assertively with the university to assure that the conference does not create a hostile or unsafe environment for the free exchange of ideas and for students to be openly pro-Israel.
Penn Hillel staff and student leaders are using this situation as an opportunity to educate students about Israel, inform them about the reality of the BDS campaign, and expand the coalition of Israel’s friends at Penn among both Jews and non-Jews."

The purpose of the conference? To "build momentum" . The conference seeks to beat the proverbial dead BDS horse, and to revive and energize a tactic that has been failing for over ten years.

Our friend Jon has set up a very special website PennBds-oy to address the UPenn agenda. Check out PennBDS-oy to learn more about:

PennBDS Back to the Basics in Palestine: Time for Unity, Synergy and Mobilization

PennBDS Successes, Challenges, and Options for 2012

PennBDS and the LGBT Community: Pinkwashing Apartheid

PennBDS: BDS Mind, Beginner’s Mind

PennBDS: BDS and Community

PennBDS – The Zionist Response

PennBDS – Hillel and Questions of JVP

And of course, the perennial favorite PennBDS: Hamsphire Conference Planning Transcript

New articles are added regularly

The BDS'ers regard this attention as a sign of their impending victory. Its all about the buzz after all. My prediction: When all is said and done ,the final press release/op eds and tweets will invariably state "UPenn students endorse divestment"

"Be on Our Side. Because We're Pretty Sure You'll fall for anything"

Great column at Divest this about the use of pathos- emotional manipulation- in the anti-Israel camp.

"A large part of the BDS project is built around ensuring that wherever you go in life, and whatever you do, the Arab-Israeli conflict is in your face.

If you walk through a busy square in Cambridge or Boston or San Francisco at rush hour, at some point you’re sure to see a group of wrinkly Israel haters passing out photos of broken Palestinian children which (via a syllogism known only to the BDSers) means you should stop buying hummus made in Massachusetts or New Jersey.

If you shop at a department store during the holiday season, you stand a chance of seeing some even more deranged “activists” stripping to their underwear and smearing themselves with Ahava skin-cream products in public.

Point of fact, these particular antics are not nearly as ubiquitous as the Facebook pages of the boycotters would have you believe (which is why I continue to suspect that such theatre is largely for the benefit of the BDSers themselves). And if flash mobs at phone stores or catcalls at Israeli ballet performances are meant to sway public opinion, the twenty point jump in support for Israel during the BDS era seems to indicate it is counter-productive to the cause.

But neither reality nor the principles of cause leading to effect will ever budge this lot from their program, and when it comes to finding new innovative ways to annoy the public, this is one area where Israel’s foes never lack creativity (or chutzpah).

Earlier this year, they seem to have hit on a breakthrough: bus and subway ads. Unlike flash mobs, rallies and riots, after all, placing an ad on the side of a bus that shows those aforementioned photos of maimed children (with a tagline laying all blame on you-know-who) just requires writing a couple of checks (no great challenge to a “movement” that seems to have the resources to purchase ships and sail them across the Mediterranean).

The trouble is, the sale of bus ads is not limited to just one set of political opinion holders. And when the boycotters tried this stunt out in Seattle, it first elicited loud protests, and finally a threat to run equally ugly photos of victims of Palestinian terror in a parallel campaign. This led the public transport authorities to decide that, all things being equal, they’d prefer to not be the vehicle to subject the public to endless accusations alongside pictures of charred corpses.

As that battle continues (through the courts, naturally, given BDSers inability to take “No” for an answer), the innovation of the public transport ad inspired others to try out this tactic, albeit with a more subtle campaign; to wit:"




Read the whole post here

Jon offers in response:



Hmmmm. I have a feeling you'll be seeing these new improved ads around the Bay area, very very soon.

Failures Of BDS: A J Weekly Interview with Jon Haber

Boston based blogger Jon Haber from Divest this recently visited the Bay area, discussing the failure of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions(BDS) movement with local activists.

From his interview in J Weekly

Since 2001, BDS advocates have tried to persuade colleges, churches and others to buy in to their credo of boycotting Israeli goods, divesting from Israeli companies and urging governments to impose sanctions on Israel.

So far, Haber said, they have virtually nothing to show for their efforts.

Haber was in the Bay Area last week meeting with supporters. His core message: While vigilance remains necessary, the BDS movement has failed.

It has not persuaded a single institution to divest from Israel for political reasons, Haber insisted, adding that boycott efforts often backfire — especially when pro-Israel groups such as StandWithUs organizing “buycotts” of Israeli products.

Notes Haber, “When I talk to Jewish groups I say, ‘Don’t panic, but don’t be complacent.’”

He says the BDS movement is not a movement at all, but rather a tactic that has been employed by those who seek to delegitimize Israel. It launched a decade ago with the U.N.-sponsored Durban Conference, which equated Zionism with racism.

Jon concludes:

“You can only go so long without victories. America is not turning against Israel. The message of [Israeli] apartheid does not resonate at all — in fact, quite the opposite.”

Read the full interview here

Jewish Voice for Peace. None of the above

Pirkei Avot 5:13

There are four types among people:

He who says, "What is mine is mine and what is yours is yours"--this is the common type.
He who says, "What is mine is yours and what is yours is mine"--he is an ignorant man.
He who says, "What is mine is yours and what is yours is your own"--he is a saintly man.
And he who says, "What is yours is mine, and what is mine is mine"--he is a wicked man.


And again, we find Jewish Voice for Peace amongst the Wicked. JVP ('"Victim" is our middle name" ) has been of late whining about their justifiable exclusion from the "big tent" of the Jewish community. To which most of us think "well, duh!. Why wouldn't we exclude them?" Indeed, JVP is an organization that requires a loyalty oath for participation. Interestingly enough- being Jewish is not a requirement- its open to "Jews and allies". Paul Larudee, head of the International Solidarity Movement of Northern California is a member of JVP. He announced it proudly in an article written for American Muslim. Being Jewish is not required for membership- however accepting the Palestinian Right of return- code for the demographic destruction of the state of Israel is required. JVP excludes from its members anyone who fails to meet its test of whats socially acceptable for an anti-Israel, er, a "pro-peace" activist.

Yet JVP claims victimhood when the Jewish community excludes them. Whats yours is mine, they feel. But to JVP, whats theirs is exclusively theirs. They exclude. They set up barriers, while they expect to be welcomed. Wicked.

Jon, from Divest this discusses more JVP hypocrisy here, concluding

"..far from being “voices for peace,” groups like JVP are part of the arsenal militant organizations count on when making their military decisions. “How much can we rebuild our weapons stockpiles?” “How far can we push?” “How many rockets can we fire while Israel weighs the consequences of retaliating?” “If we trigger another war, how long before marches in the street (which will materialize seconds after Israel decides to shoot back) will force a cease fire?”


In short, for all their talk of peace, justice and love, JVP and like minded individuals and organizations who stand silent during the preparation for war, and spring into action only when two sides vs. one start firing needs to be seen for what they are: participants in a military conflict, no less responsible for mayhem than the driver of a getaway car who claims innocence since he did not pull the trigger himself.


If members of such organizations have managed to delude themselves into thinking they are voices for peace, virtue and justice, that is really immaterial, given the role they are currently playing as the propaganda arm of military planners. The fact that they have bamboozled themselves about their own true nature in preparation for bamboozling others into accepting their self characterization matters not a bit as renewed rocket fire signals the opening round of something that we all know will not end well.

Not end well for Israelis and Palestinians, that is. But for members of JVP, they will get to take to the streets in an orgy of self-righteous indignation with ranks swollen by those who “want to do something” without understanding that by marching alongside the BDS cru they are helping to ensure the next war is even bloodier than the last."


JVP. Proud to be ashamed to be Jewish.

"Divest this: How to Stop the Global Boycott Sanctions and Divestment (BDS) Movement Attack on Israel"

Jon, the brilliant, lucid voice behind "Divest this" has come up with a new weapon in the war against BDS. Jon's new handbook is "Divest this: How to Stop the Global Boycott Sanctions and Divestment (BDS) Movement Attack on Israel and ensure its Second Decade of Defeat".

The Handbook is a must read for any community, school or commercial institution dealing with the specter of BDS, drawing upon Jon's years of experience as a voice of light and reason in the BDS battleground

Jon's Top Ten Reasons to Defeat BDS:

1. BDS represents an attempt by narrow-interest partisans to stuff
their propaganda into the mouth of a third party.
2. BDS tries to make every civic organization a new battlefront in
the Middle East conflict.
3. BDS poisons and divides any community it enters.
4. BDS is based on falsehoods, such as the “Israel=apartheid” propaganda accusation.
5. BDS warps debate over the Middle East, making the quest for peace more difficult
6. BDS seeks to unfairly punish just one side in the Arab-Israeli conflict.
7. BDS activists frequently use manipulation or fraud to get their way with an organization.
8. BDS has been rejected by every organization where it’s been tried, including some of thenation’s most progressive communities.
9. Defeating BDS helps discredit the discreditable endeavor to de-legitimize Israel.
10. BDS is a loser.

When BDS invades a civic organization, divisiveness, hostility and chaos ensue. This new handbook gives supporters of Israel the tools we need to fight back.

Yascher Koach, Jon. May you go from strength to strength.

Berkeley Divestment Fails

From our Friends at "Divest this!" the single best source on the web for all things BDS.

BDS Twofer Takedown in California

"At Berkeley, after having made their presentations endlessly for weeks on end, after dozens of news stories, hundreds of blog entries, thousands of e-mails and millions of Tweets, they decided to demonstrate that the ASUC vote against their pet project was an example of – wait for it – them being "silenced" (illustrated by the BDSers covering their own mouths with tape and marching out of the room).

For the sake of sanity and harmony at Berkeley, let’s hope that tape remains on at least through the end of the semester."

New BDS Epic Fail : The Davis Co-op says No to BDS

Earlier, we had written about an attempt by some community members to bring the BDS movement into the bucolic town of Davis, and the subsequent community response.

There has finally been a resolution, and once again, the side of sweetness and light has prevailed:

From our Friends at Divest this- the source for information on the BDS movement worldwide

On Monday evening, the forces of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) were handed a major defeat when the Davis Food Co-op, located in Davis California, turned down demands by BDS activists to put a boycott of Israeli goods to a Co-op wide vote.

While this story may not be big enough to hit the national press, the details surrounding the decision make this as significant an event in the continuing annals of BDS failure as the Presbyterian Church's 2006 decision to abandon divestment altogether (a decision which changed the threat level of BDS from "potential issue" to "serious loser").

As backdrop, the Davis Food Co-op is a highly successful, member-owned cooperative with a nearly forty year history and over 9000 member-owners. Given the nature of the organization, the institution takes understandable pride in its progressive values and responsiveness to members needs, connections to the community that have contributed to its decades of success.

Sadly, it was these very qualities that made the organization a target for the local branch of the BDS movement, a movement whose two major tactics involve: (1) dressing up their mission of de-legitimization and demonization in a progressive/human-rights vocabulary; and (2) abusing the openness of organizations like the Co-op for their own narrow, political ends.

The Co-op recently reduced the number of members needed to put an issue to a Co-op-wide ballot from 15% to 5%, which gave local BDS organizers the impression that less than 500 signatures were needed to put their proposed ban on Israeli food products to a vote. And so their project kicked off with ongoing "tabling" at the Co-op featuring petitioning backed up by the usual context-free, anti-Israel propaganda (where Israelis were assigned the role of bullying tyrants, the Palestinians that of pristine victims, and the rest of the Middle East and all of history dumped down the memory hole).

Fortunately, large numbers of Co-op members chose to not take this challenge lying down, organizing their own tabling to educate members about the issues, and working with the leadership of the Co-op (with help from the local Jewish community) to inform the Co-op about the true nature of BDS.

What happened next was an exact replay of what's gone on whenever the boycott project tries to insinuate itself into an open-minded organization. This included all of the bitterness and divisiveness of the Arab-Israeli conflict spilling out into the community, forcing neighbors to take sides in one of the world's oldest and most complex disputes lest they be accused of betraying their progressive values.

The key to understanding the decision that was taken on Monday is that the Co-op by-laws require that member initiatives must be based on requests that were of a "lawful and proper purpose," a clause that they agreed would be more "stringently interpreted and enforced" once the threshold for a membership vote was reduced from 15%-5%.

Early in the debate over the proposal, the Co-op's board focused primarily on the "lawful" part of that phrase, seeming to reject the ballot request due to potential that it might place the organization in legal jeopardy. Now I've written before on the issue of whether or not BDS could be considered illegal based on current US anti-boycott legislation, concluding that the matter is murky (or, at least, open to interpretation).

Had the Co-op chosen to nix the boycott on the ground of potential legal risk alone, this would have been within their rights, and certainly would constitute a win over the boycotters. But the Co-op decided to do more than that. Much more.

If you look at the response they released on Monday, (click on the March 15, 2010 Resolution link of this Wiki) their entire reasoning for rejecting the boycott proposal was based on whether the proposal fulfilled the requirement regarding "proper purpose." And in over a dozen "Whereas-es" (some multi-part), the organization's leaders made it clear in no uncertain terms that a boycott does not come close to meeting that threshold.

Needless to say, the boycotters complained that, unlike matters of legality, what constitutes "proper purpose" is undefined, and thus open to the interpretation of the organization's leaders. But that is exactly why the decision made by the organization is so significant.

In this case, "proper purpose" meant the organization deciding which matters were in the community's interest and which were not. It meant grappling with the core values of the organization, and determining which issues need to be debated in the context of a cooperatively owned supermarket and which didn't. It meant looking at the obligations the organization owed not just to its membership at large, but also to the wider world. And in each and every case, the institution explained in clarifying detail why BDS did not belong at the Co-op, and why individual choices (like whether or not to buy Israeli oranges) are best left to individuals, not be subject to a majority vote.

All of this is, needless to say, incomprehensible to those behind the boycott attempt since a lack of propriety (i.e., a willing blindness to what constitutes "proper purpose" for themselves and others) is one of the key weapons of anti-Israel activists, giving them license to insert their political project (under various guises) into all manner of civic organization, regardless of what pain or damage this might cause to the institution they are trying to infiltrate.

But on Monday night, the leadership of the Davis Co-op laid down the law in terms that cannot be interpreted as anything other than a sweeping rejection of BDS.

Does this mean that Davis has suddenly become a hotbed of Zionism? Of course not. Political opinions on the Middle East vary within the Davis community on this and other issues as much as they've always done. But in making their decision, the Co-op was not making a statement on the Middle East conflict, but was instead taking a stand (based on their own rights and principles) to not be dragged into that conflict just because a group of single-issue partisans tried to exploit the organization's openness for their own ends.

No doubt, the BDSers who put so much time and effort into this project saw the Davis Co-op as one of the few institutions in America that might be vulnerable to their boycott calls, and hoped to be able to leverage success there to bring the message generated by this debate to other food co-ops and potentially other food retailers across the country.

And in this one case they were absolutely correct that the message from Davis must travel far and wide, warning similar organizations across the land of what happens to an organization when BDS comes knocking.