Over at MuzzleWatch, Mitchell Plitnick is upset that AIPAC has taken back his press credentials, and will not give him media access at their Annual Policy Conference.
Now, AIPAC does not consult me about these things, so I don't know why his press credentials were either granted or revoked. However, I would like to note that JVP, which produces MuzzleWatch, and of which Plitnick is a former co-director, did not protest or comment when, a month ago, the National BDS Conference at the University of Pennsylvania*, which JVP officially endorsed, revoked the press credentials of one local Jewish newspaper, the Jewish Exponent, and refused press access outright to the Philadelphia Jewish Voice.
MuzzleWatch's newfound concern about censorship rings hollow. They are happy to complain when AIPAC withholds press credentials, but the barring of the local Jewish press from a major anti-Israel conference (which JVP endorsed, did I mention that?) rates not even a yawn.
It's convenient to be the eternal victim over at MuzzleWatch, proudly wearing tape over your mouth for all to see. It's less convenient to hold all conferences to one standard, especially when one conference is being run by a group you want to please, and another by a group you despise. But that's the only way to avoid being rightly identified as a whiner and a hypocrite.
(I also hate to point this out, but AIPAC has had some trouble with JVP activists, which Plitnick certainly is, in the past. To the best of my knowledge, the Philadelphia Jewish Voice has no record of disrupting BDS conferences.)
*Please note an edit--this was formerly 'Pennsylvania State'. Thanks to a kind reader, the error has been corrected. I apologize profusely to Pennsylvania State University, and assure them that I did not mean any insult to Penn State students by suggesting that they would host an anti-Semitic conference like this on their fine campus.
Showing posts with label PennBDS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label PennBDS. Show all posts
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
J Street refuses to Play Nice
It has been said that the second temple was destroyed because of sinat chinam- baseless hatred. Its also been said that the third temple will be built upon a foundation of unconditional love. This foundation of cooperation and unity is being built as our community unites against attacks on our ancient homeland, Israel.
Lori Lowenthal Marcus, president of Z STREET and chair of the National Conference on Jewish Affairs executive committee writes about the Philadelphia Jewish Community's remarkable unification over the PennBDS conference. All, except for J Street.
Originally Published in American Thinker
"Given the ideological bedlam often seen even within individual Jewish organizations, just imagine trying to get an entire community of Jewish organizations together to sign a several-paragraphs-long statement reflecting a single position -- and to do that within a matter of weeks.
That miracle almost happened recently, when the Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia gathered practically every Jewish organization in the Philadelphia community to send a message of strong disapproval to an anti-Israel coalition known as the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which is holding a three-day conference at the University of Pennsylvania on February 3-5. But the "almost" is necessary because one significant local group refused to join in. Understanding who, and why, reveals important lessons that must be taken to heart.
Penn BDS was thrown together by a single undergraduate student with the goal of luring the BDS conference to the University of Pennsylvania campus. BDS is a global, largely unsuccessful but widely publicized menace with the ultimate goal of demonizing, demoralizing, and destroying the state of Israel. BDS proponents claim that their methods constitute a tool to achieve justice for those oppressed by Israel; they take their cue from the effort to overthrow the racist South African government during the 1980s. But BDS is, in fact, merely a thin mask over enmity against any effective haven for the Jewish people.
Last month, when the Penn Hillel leadership learned that the BDS conference was to take place on their campus, the Philadelphia Jewish leadership was alerted, as was the Israeli Consulate. A broad spectrum of at least nominally pro-Israel local organizations was quickly called together with the goal of creating a strong communal response.
Mainstream local groups such as the Jewish Federation, the Anti-Defamation League, and Scholars for Peace in the Middle East -- as well as those on the far left of the spectrum, such as the New Israel Fund and J Street, and those on the right end, such as Z STREET and the Zionist Organization of America -- were included in this call to action. Several decisions were reached: there would be a communal statement of solidarity condemning the BDS conference; there would be an event showcasing communal support for Israel just prior to the conference; and, to counter the campaign of boycotting Israeli goods, there would be a concerted effort to encourage people to purchase Israeli products.
The crafting of the communal statement took two rounds of drafts and delicate negotiations with each organization involved. It fell to David Cohen, the senior associate for Israel and Middle East Affairs at the Philadelphia Federation, to ferret out each group's rock-bottom red lines, then artfully craft changes to avoid crossing any of those lines, and finally to come up with a document that avoided all the pitfalls but still clearly condemned the strategy of BDS generally, and the holding of the BDS conference at Penn specifically.
I was present at and participated in the meetings as the Z STREET representative. In response to the first draft, I told Cohen that Z STREET objected to an emphasis on the ubiquitous "two state" mantra. We think the one clear goal of the peace process should be peace for Israel. Z STREET believes that the pro-Israel community disserves that goal by adding an additional goal which may not -- and in our view, clearly does not -- ensure that such peace will be attained. While disappointed to see the "two states" language as part of the final version of the community statement, we decided that a show of community-wide solidarity is important. More than two dozen other organizations felt the same, with each no doubt making its own ideological compromises so that the Jewish community could say something with one voice.
But there was a conspicuous absence from the Philadelphia Community Statement's list of signatures. Although its representative was present at the community-wide meeting and was included in the community phone calls, J Street refused to be a part of the community and would not sign the joint statement of condemnation. Instead, J Street Philly issued a separate statement -- one very different from the community's in title, in tone, and in apportionment of blame. As the local representative stated clearly, J Street wanted to "maintain the integrity of our values" and their "unique position on this issue."
Whereas the Philadelphia Community Statement is officially one of solidarity with Israel and of condemnation of the BDS Conference, J Street's is neither.
The Philadelphia Community Statement unequivocally condemns boycotting Israel, disinvesting from its companies, or sanctioning it. J Street's statement criticizes the BDS tactics but explicitly recognizes, validates, and agrees with the underlying sentiments expressed by those advocating BDS, which include "the ongoing occupation and diplomatic stagnation" and the "legitimate and warranted" and shared "concern about the present and future of the Palestinian people."
Of particular concern to J Street was a broad condemnation of BDS -- one that lacked "nuance," such as making exceptions for boycotting goods made in Judea and Samaria. Also, J Street refused to criticize Penn, even subtly, for allowing the conference to be held there. J Street was unwilling to include its voice in stating that "the outrageous claims of BDS campaigns do not stand up to the rigors of academic inquiry and as such, go against the sophisticated civil discourse that is a core element of the University of Pennsylvania."
Worse, J Street seems to have issued even its own tepid statement with not enough enthusiasm as to post it; the J Street statement does not even appear on the J Street Philadelphia website. J Street also refused to be one of the more than thirty co-sponsors of the "We Are One With Israel" event with Alan Dershowitz.
Much has been written about why and whether J Street is allowed in the "big tent" of Jewish communal organizations. The argument in favor, of course, is the desire to expand the marketplace of ideas, to be as inclusive as possible, and simply to give a respectful hearing even to those with whom one disagrees. But we now know what happened when J Street was unquestioningly welcomed into the Philadelphia community tent. When given the first opportunity to stand as one with the community and speak with one voice from one tent, J Street snuck out the back and pitched its own tent instead."
Lori Lowenthal Marcus, president of Z STREET and chair of the National Conference on Jewish Affairs executive committee writes about the Philadelphia Jewish Community's remarkable unification over the PennBDS conference. All, except for J Street.
Originally Published in American Thinker
"Given the ideological bedlam often seen even within individual Jewish organizations, just imagine trying to get an entire community of Jewish organizations together to sign a several-paragraphs-long statement reflecting a single position -- and to do that within a matter of weeks.
That miracle almost happened recently, when the Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia gathered practically every Jewish organization in the Philadelphia community to send a message of strong disapproval to an anti-Israel coalition known as the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which is holding a three-day conference at the University of Pennsylvania on February 3-5. But the "almost" is necessary because one significant local group refused to join in. Understanding who, and why, reveals important lessons that must be taken to heart.
Penn BDS was thrown together by a single undergraduate student with the goal of luring the BDS conference to the University of Pennsylvania campus. BDS is a global, largely unsuccessful but widely publicized menace with the ultimate goal of demonizing, demoralizing, and destroying the state of Israel. BDS proponents claim that their methods constitute a tool to achieve justice for those oppressed by Israel; they take their cue from the effort to overthrow the racist South African government during the 1980s. But BDS is, in fact, merely a thin mask over enmity against any effective haven for the Jewish people.
Last month, when the Penn Hillel leadership learned that the BDS conference was to take place on their campus, the Philadelphia Jewish leadership was alerted, as was the Israeli Consulate. A broad spectrum of at least nominally pro-Israel local organizations was quickly called together with the goal of creating a strong communal response.
Mainstream local groups such as the Jewish Federation, the Anti-Defamation League, and Scholars for Peace in the Middle East -- as well as those on the far left of the spectrum, such as the New Israel Fund and J Street, and those on the right end, such as Z STREET and the Zionist Organization of America -- were included in this call to action. Several decisions were reached: there would be a communal statement of solidarity condemning the BDS conference; there would be an event showcasing communal support for Israel just prior to the conference; and, to counter the campaign of boycotting Israeli goods, there would be a concerted effort to encourage people to purchase Israeli products.
The crafting of the communal statement took two rounds of drafts and delicate negotiations with each organization involved. It fell to David Cohen, the senior associate for Israel and Middle East Affairs at the Philadelphia Federation, to ferret out each group's rock-bottom red lines, then artfully craft changes to avoid crossing any of those lines, and finally to come up with a document that avoided all the pitfalls but still clearly condemned the strategy of BDS generally, and the holding of the BDS conference at Penn specifically.
I was present at and participated in the meetings as the Z STREET representative. In response to the first draft, I told Cohen that Z STREET objected to an emphasis on the ubiquitous "two state" mantra. We think the one clear goal of the peace process should be peace for Israel. Z STREET believes that the pro-Israel community disserves that goal by adding an additional goal which may not -- and in our view, clearly does not -- ensure that such peace will be attained. While disappointed to see the "two states" language as part of the final version of the community statement, we decided that a show of community-wide solidarity is important. More than two dozen other organizations felt the same, with each no doubt making its own ideological compromises so that the Jewish community could say something with one voice.
But there was a conspicuous absence from the Philadelphia Community Statement's list of signatures. Although its representative was present at the community-wide meeting and was included in the community phone calls, J Street refused to be a part of the community and would not sign the joint statement of condemnation. Instead, J Street Philly issued a separate statement -- one very different from the community's in title, in tone, and in apportionment of blame. As the local representative stated clearly, J Street wanted to "maintain the integrity of our values" and their "unique position on this issue."
Whereas the Philadelphia Community Statement is officially one of solidarity with Israel and of condemnation of the BDS Conference, J Street's is neither.
The Philadelphia Community Statement unequivocally condemns boycotting Israel, disinvesting from its companies, or sanctioning it. J Street's statement criticizes the BDS tactics but explicitly recognizes, validates, and agrees with the underlying sentiments expressed by those advocating BDS, which include "the ongoing occupation and diplomatic stagnation" and the "legitimate and warranted" and shared "concern about the present and future of the Palestinian people."
Of particular concern to J Street was a broad condemnation of BDS -- one that lacked "nuance," such as making exceptions for boycotting goods made in Judea and Samaria. Also, J Street refused to criticize Penn, even subtly, for allowing the conference to be held there. J Street was unwilling to include its voice in stating that "the outrageous claims of BDS campaigns do not stand up to the rigors of academic inquiry and as such, go against the sophisticated civil discourse that is a core element of the University of Pennsylvania."
Worse, J Street seems to have issued even its own tepid statement with not enough enthusiasm as to post it; the J Street statement does not even appear on the J Street Philadelphia website. J Street also refused to be one of the more than thirty co-sponsors of the "We Are One With Israel" event with Alan Dershowitz.
Much has been written about why and whether J Street is allowed in the "big tent" of Jewish communal organizations. The argument in favor, of course, is the desire to expand the marketplace of ideas, to be as inclusive as possible, and simply to give a respectful hearing even to those with whom one disagrees. But we now know what happened when J Street was unquestioningly welcomed into the Philadelphia community tent. When given the first opportunity to stand as one with the community and speak with one voice from one tent, J Street snuck out the back and pitched its own tent instead."
Friday, February 3, 2012
PennBDS Censors Free Speech, bans Jewish paper
The organizers of the PennBDS Conference have have revoked the press credentials of the only local Jewish paper, the Jewish Exponent, effectively banning the paper from attending the BDS conference. The controversial anti-Israel Conference is scheduled for this weekend.
From the Exponent:
"It is ironic that a group that purports to be interested in open dialogue, is operating under the cover of free speech and insists it is not anti-Semitic, is barring the only Jewish news outlet in town from covering the conference," said Lisa Hostein, the Exponent's executive editor.
University officials said that while they didn't agree that barring any press was a good idea, they could not do anything because it was a private group that had the right to decide who could come to its event."
From the Exponent:
"It is ironic that a group that purports to be interested in open dialogue, is operating under the cover of free speech and insists it is not anti-Semitic, is barring the only Jewish news outlet in town from covering the conference," said Lisa Hostein, the Exponent's executive editor.
University officials said that while they didn't agree that barring any press was a good idea, they could not do anything because it was a private group that had the right to decide who could come to its event."
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Understanding the BDS Movement
From an article by Avishai Don in the Harvard Crimson
Avisahi, processing strong intestinal fortitude has endured the reading , cover to cover of Omar Barghouti's book “Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions.”
"Next weekend, the University of Pennsylvania will host the second national BDS conference, an event that will advocate for the “growing global campaign to boycott, divest from and sanction (BDS) the State of Israel.” Last April, Omar Barghouti, a leader and spokesperson of this campaign, spoke at Harvard. He insisted that anyone wanting to learn more about the fundamental tenets of BDS should read his recently released book, aptly titled “Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions.”
So I followed his advice—I bought a copy of Barghouti’s book and read it from cover to cover. He writes some things in this work about the aims of BDS that lead me to believe that the movement is being far from forthright about its ultimate goals.
The Penn conference states that the purpose of the global BDS campaign is to isolate Israel economically “until it complies with its obligations under international and human rights law.” Understanding this to mean ending the Israeli occupation and fostering a viable Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, a number of Zionists—that is, individuals who believe in the Jewish state’s right to exist—have either joined the BDS Call or implicitly sanctioned it. Two years ago in the Los Angeles Times, for example, an Israeli professor insisted that he supports BDS because it is “the only way to save his country.” Jewish Voice for Peace, an organization composed of both “Zionists [and] anti-Zionists,” considers itself “proud to be a part of the BDS movement.” Last year, J Street, an American liberal Zionist organization, held a panel at their national conference on the efficacy of this movement’s tactics “as a means to end the occupation.” Although J Street does not endorse the BDS movement, J Street’s president describes it in his book as a group of “activists who seek to raise pressure…against Israel to end the occupation.”
Clearly, these individuals have not read Barghouti’s work.
“A few Israeli and international activists have a tendency to make the [BDS] struggle Israel-centric, arguing that ending the occupation is good for Israel, above everything else,” Barghouti writes. “We totally reject that ‘save Israeli apartheid’ view.” He goes on to say that although BDS should coalesce with diverse political forces, “caution should be exercised in alliances with ‘soft’ Zionists, lest they assume the leadership of the BDS movement in the West, lowering the ceiling of its demands beyond recognition.”
So what, then, are BDS’s demands? Although Barghouti insists that BDS is neutral on the debate about a one-state versus two-state solution, even a cursory glance at Barghouti’s book reveals that this movement considers the existence of a Jewish state in the region patently unacceptable. For example, Barghouti explains that his movement cannot ally with Israeli peace groups, because even “the most radical Israeli ‘Zionist-left’ figures and groups are still Zionist, adhering to the racist principles of Zionism” that “maintain Israel’s character as a colonial, ethnocentric, apartheid state,” which BDS seeks to dismantle.
If the BDS movement were more open about its aims to purge the Jewish state from the Middle East—rather than just end some of its policies—I could have written an op-ed decrying the movement for its distortion of international law rather than its duplicity. I could have asked, for example, how the movement could possibly believe that a liberal democracy cannot have an ethnic identity when democracies across Eastern Europe—including members of the European Union like Finland, Slovenia and Germany—explicitly privilege one ethnicity over others in areas like immigration and culture. I could have also noted how odd it is that the movement vocally opposes the ethnic nature of the Jewish state, yet says nothing about the myriad Arab states that surround it.
But the BDS movement hides its ultimate goal of dismantling the Jewish state behind its public rhetoric. As a result, it has co-opted numerous individuals—and quite possibly donors—who desire to see both a Jewish and Palestinian state flourish into supporting its campaign. Although some members of the movement might actually support the Jewish state’s continued existence, as Barghouti makes abundantly clear, the Palestinian BDS National Committee—the “reference and guiding force for the global BDS movement”—cannot do so under any circumstances.
So because this movement will not broadcast its ultimate aims loud enough, I will do it for them. If you support the BDS movement, you are supporting an organization that is actively working to undermine the Jewish state. Utilizing the vocabulary of international norms, the movement actually systematically attempts to undermine the international consensus that recognizes Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. And if you support this right—regardless of your politics, regardless of your stance on the occupation, and regardless of your feelings towards the current Israeli right-wing government—then there is only one moral option. Boycott the BDS movement."
Thank you, Avishai.
Stanford is also resurrecting the divestment movement. The anti-Israel group on campus is sporting a new and improved politically correct name "Stanford Students for Palestinian Equal Rights" and a thinly disguised BDS agenda of "targeted divestment".
We will keep you posted.
Avisahi, processing strong intestinal fortitude has endured the reading , cover to cover of Omar Barghouti's book “Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions.”
"Next weekend, the University of Pennsylvania will host the second national BDS conference, an event that will advocate for the “growing global campaign to boycott, divest from and sanction (BDS) the State of Israel.” Last April, Omar Barghouti, a leader and spokesperson of this campaign, spoke at Harvard. He insisted that anyone wanting to learn more about the fundamental tenets of BDS should read his recently released book, aptly titled “Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions.”
So I followed his advice—I bought a copy of Barghouti’s book and read it from cover to cover. He writes some things in this work about the aims of BDS that lead me to believe that the movement is being far from forthright about its ultimate goals.
The Penn conference states that the purpose of the global BDS campaign is to isolate Israel economically “until it complies with its obligations under international and human rights law.” Understanding this to mean ending the Israeli occupation and fostering a viable Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, a number of Zionists—that is, individuals who believe in the Jewish state’s right to exist—have either joined the BDS Call or implicitly sanctioned it. Two years ago in the Los Angeles Times, for example, an Israeli professor insisted that he supports BDS because it is “the only way to save his country.” Jewish Voice for Peace, an organization composed of both “Zionists [and] anti-Zionists,” considers itself “proud to be a part of the BDS movement.” Last year, J Street, an American liberal Zionist organization, held a panel at their national conference on the efficacy of this movement’s tactics “as a means to end the occupation.” Although J Street does not endorse the BDS movement, J Street’s president describes it in his book as a group of “activists who seek to raise pressure…against Israel to end the occupation.”
Clearly, these individuals have not read Barghouti’s work.
“A few Israeli and international activists have a tendency to make the [BDS] struggle Israel-centric, arguing that ending the occupation is good for Israel, above everything else,” Barghouti writes. “We totally reject that ‘save Israeli apartheid’ view.” He goes on to say that although BDS should coalesce with diverse political forces, “caution should be exercised in alliances with ‘soft’ Zionists, lest they assume the leadership of the BDS movement in the West, lowering the ceiling of its demands beyond recognition.”
So what, then, are BDS’s demands? Although Barghouti insists that BDS is neutral on the debate about a one-state versus two-state solution, even a cursory glance at Barghouti’s book reveals that this movement considers the existence of a Jewish state in the region patently unacceptable. For example, Barghouti explains that his movement cannot ally with Israeli peace groups, because even “the most radical Israeli ‘Zionist-left’ figures and groups are still Zionist, adhering to the racist principles of Zionism” that “maintain Israel’s character as a colonial, ethnocentric, apartheid state,” which BDS seeks to dismantle.
If the BDS movement were more open about its aims to purge the Jewish state from the Middle East—rather than just end some of its policies—I could have written an op-ed decrying the movement for its distortion of international law rather than its duplicity. I could have asked, for example, how the movement could possibly believe that a liberal democracy cannot have an ethnic identity when democracies across Eastern Europe—including members of the European Union like Finland, Slovenia and Germany—explicitly privilege one ethnicity over others in areas like immigration and culture. I could have also noted how odd it is that the movement vocally opposes the ethnic nature of the Jewish state, yet says nothing about the myriad Arab states that surround it.
But the BDS movement hides its ultimate goal of dismantling the Jewish state behind its public rhetoric. As a result, it has co-opted numerous individuals—and quite possibly donors—who desire to see both a Jewish and Palestinian state flourish into supporting its campaign. Although some members of the movement might actually support the Jewish state’s continued existence, as Barghouti makes abundantly clear, the Palestinian BDS National Committee—the “reference and guiding force for the global BDS movement”—cannot do so under any circumstances.
So because this movement will not broadcast its ultimate aims loud enough, I will do it for them. If you support the BDS movement, you are supporting an organization that is actively working to undermine the Jewish state. Utilizing the vocabulary of international norms, the movement actually systematically attempts to undermine the international consensus that recognizes Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. And if you support this right—regardless of your politics, regardless of your stance on the occupation, and regardless of your feelings towards the current Israeli right-wing government—then there is only one moral option. Boycott the BDS movement."
Thank you, Avishai.
Stanford is also resurrecting the divestment movement. The anti-Israel group on campus is sporting a new and improved politically correct name "Stanford Students for Palestinian Equal Rights" and a thinly disguised BDS agenda of "targeted divestment".
We will keep you posted.
Saturday, January 7, 2012
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"
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"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)