Two weeks ago, journalist Ali Abunimah came to campus to give a talk on “The Battle for Justice in Palestine.” After the talk, he responded to the question of what average people can do to help alleviate the suffering of the Palestinians—suffering that is the result of apartheid, ethnic cleansing, and human and civil rights abuses. Abunimah called for people to take part in the call for a boycott of Israel, including PACBI (the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel).
Recently, Gabriel Frankel ’17 wrote a column in the opinion section criticizing the academic and cultural boycott of Israel for saying it repressed dialogue and singled out the state. Although Frankel cites USACBI throughout his article, I chose to cite PACBI because it is the actual movement that Frankel is referencing. USACBI is just a branch that supports PACBI, and both groups have the same call to action. I didn't read his article as a critique of USACBI specifically as an organization, but of the principles they stood for, which were created by PACBI in the first place. The USACBI website states "we are a U.S. campaign focused specifically on a boycott of Israeli academic and cultural institutions, as delineated by PACBI."
Frankel makes various disparate and blatantly incorrect claims regarding the motivations for PACBI—a call for action that the Palestinian community (including various trade unions and civil society groups) and many international organizations (such as the Green Party of the U.S., and hundreds of prominent academics) have officially endorsed.
One claim he makes is that PACBI is part of a “larger campaign to compel the country to withdraw to pre-1967 Palestinian borders.” If one looks on PACBI’s official website, it is evident that this is not its official mission: its mission extends much beyond this goal. To clarify, the call for an academic and cultural boycott is part of an effort to struggle against “Israel’s colonization, occupation, and system of apartheid.”
PACBI is not, as Frankel asserts, an attempt “to cut off the country intellectually and socially,” but part of a social movement that aims to show Israel the consequences of its human rights and international law violations. This is not a boycott of individual people, but institutions in Israeli society that are those complicit in “occupation, colonization, and apartheid” or profit from it. PACBI does not target people on the basis of their nationality or background—it targets those who profit from a state that perpetuates this very notion of discrimination.
Boycotts are a well-established form of peaceful protest, that have been successful for many issues, the most prominent being divestment from South Africa during the country’s apartheid regime in the 1980s. And yes, academic and cultural boycott was an element of the widely-employed boycott of South Africa. It is impossible for PACBI to be thwarting any sort of peace movement that is going on within Israel, as Frankel suggests, because it is by nature.
Israel treats its Palestinian citizens as second class. There is no Israeli nationality, because Israel has established itself as a Jewish state, in which Jews have the most rights and privileges, which are often determined arbitrarily because Israel lacks a constitution. Israel is not the open democracy that Frankel purports it to be—it is a fundamentalist sectarian state that uses religion and ethnicity to privilege one person over another.
Additionally, because they cannot vote in Israeli elections, the citizens of the West Bank and Gaza have no say in the occupation so the argument that “Israel is a country that allows and encourages public disagreement with government policies,” is null. From non-consensually injecting Ethiopian immigrants with birth control, to displacing Palestinians from their homes, Israel is discriminatory to its very core. This is not a state that encourages dialogue, but one that perpetuates the systematic oppression of its very own citizens.
Any dialogue that Israel might support is not meaningful if it does not count all voices as equal. How can we discuss encouraging public disagreement when people are discouraged from simply existing within that society?
Frankel’s misunderstanding of Israel as a society where all are free and equal is responsible for his preference for dialogue over boycott. However, what he fails to explain is that dialogue is only useful in situations where two or more sides with an equal amount of power can negotiate. This is not the case with Palestine and Israel.
During Abunimah’s talk, he spoke of a metaphor for the “dialogue” that occurs between Israel and Palestine. It is as if Israel and Palestine are trying to negotiate how to slice a pizza and, during negotiations, Israel starts eating up the pizza as fast as it can. Israel has been known to expand its settlements during peace talks with Palestine. If Israel really cared about bringing about any sort of peace, it would avoid breaking international law while it is supposed to be promoting peace.
PACBI does not criminalize dialogue; it criminalizes criminals. Israel is a state that has committed crimes against its people. We should not stand by complacently as Israel prettifies itself by bringing dance troupes and orchestras to other countries—and it is not right for anyone representing Israel to ignore or whitewash all of wrongdoing.
Hasbara is a form of public policy, more accurately explained as propaganda, that Israel uses to present a version of itself that ignores the fact that it is an apartheid state. It is also an element of the “Brand Israel” campaign—Israel’s attempt to make itself seem like an accepting democracy. Anyone who takes part in this campaign—an artist or group funded by it—is profiting off of this propaganda, and is profiting from a government that perpetuates oppression.
Refusing to support those who benefit from a settler-colonial state is an effective, peaceful way of showing the world that this state does not deserve special privileges or standing. PACBI does not single out Israel as the worst or only state committing crimes—it singles out Israel as a state that receives much support, approval and absolution while it violates, human and civil rights. The issue between Israel and Palestine is not one that can be resolved with dialogue; the issue is not about two sides that need to learn how to get along. The only way to deal with a state that commits crimes is to punish it for those crimes, and make it known that its actions are not acceptable.
Maya Reyes is a member of the Class of 2016.
Correction, Saturday, November 16, 4 p.m.: Reyes' original op-ed referenced PACBI but not USACBI, which Frankel referred to. The second paragraph has been added to show that USACBI is a branch of PACBI with the same values.