[News] Leaked Zionist strategy Paper to counter BDS

[Anti-Imperialist News]

Leaked Zionist strategy Paper to counter BDS – MUST READ!

By 
<http://palestinethinktank.com/author/guest-post/>Guest 
Post • Mar 11th, 2010 at 8:52 •
http://palestinethinktank.com/2010/03/11/leaked-zionist-strategy-paper-to-counter-bds-must-read/
<http://palestinethinktank.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/settler-poster-child.jpg>
an example of changing the context of the issue by appealing to


an example of changing the context of the issue 
by appealing to emotions and creating a brand new narrative

Here is a leaked copy of the Zionist plan to 
attack the Boycott and Divestment Campaign 
Against Israel's Occupation and to strategy to 
shut down the debate on the Palestinian issue and 
to shift it discussion of anti-Semitism and not 
Israel's illegal Occuption and illegal 
settlements and human rights violations. (thanks 
to the various people who supplied this material).

Delegitimization of Israel: “Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions”
Co-Chairs: Dr. Mitchell Bard and Professor Gil Troy

This position paper summarizes the discussions of 
the Working Group on Delegitimization at the 2009 
Global Forum against Anti-Semitism. Our task was 
to generate specific action plans to respond to 
the BDS – boycott, divestment, sanctions – 
movement, to reframe the issues in our favor and 
to set a new proactive agenda. If there was one 
clear conclusion that emerged from the two-day 
session in December, it was THERE MUST BE FOLLOW 
UP. There is a need in the Jewish world today for 
more coordination, for more sharing of best 
practices, for more LEADERSHIP in the fight 
against anti-Semitism. Activists in the field 
feel alone. Those who succeed are not sharing 
their successful tactics and strategies; those 
who are less experienced flounder, wasting 
precious time, resources, goodwill. Everyone was 
honored and excited to participate in the Global 
Forum; no one wanted it to be limited to a 
two-day meeting, and many volunteered to keep the global conversation growing.

Beyond that, this paper will spend less time on 
definitions and narratives, and instead serve as 
an initial brainstorming document. Through the 
use of a Wiki set up with the assistance of 
Dr.Andre Oboler, task force members helped edit 
these two papers. The first was initially 
authored by Gil Troy, the second on taking 
offense, by Mitchell Bard. We thank all the 
participants for all their time, passion and 
expertise – and look at this as the start of an 
ongoing process, which we hope will continue.

BDS AS A CLEAR TARGET:
There is a clarity in fighting against BDS that 
could provide traction in the Jewish world and 
beyond. In the current climate, Israel advocates 
are always going to lose a fight over 
“settlements” and “occupation,” or at best get 
mired in stalemate. BDS shifts the terrain, 
making the battle one over Israel’s right to 
exist, over the legitimacy of Zionism, over the 
anti-Semitic tropes shaping the anti-Israel 
movement, and the rank anti-Semitism behind the 
disproportionate, obsessive focus on Israel. It 
is also a battle about freedom of speech and of 
open discourses, given the BDS attempt to shut 
down normal flows of learning and commerce with 
Israel. This is a battle we can win – and (shhh, 
don’t tell anyone) have been winning so far, in many ways, in many communities.

We also should recognize that BDS is a part of a 
broader campaign to delegitimize Israel. This 
campaign of delegitimization, Dr. Joel Fishman 
writes, has been "a central motif of Palestinian 
propaganda in international bodies" and reflects 
a strategy of a "People's War," as full blown 
political, economic, cultural, ideological 
struggle against the very existence of Israel.

The Foreign Ministry can help centralize the 
fight against BDS and delegitimization, 
coordinate responses to what is a coordinated 
attack, share information, take a moral stand 
against the human rights hypocrites, engage 
diplomats in a fight for Israel’s basic rights, 
and train Israeli diplomats about the BDS 
movement. But the fight also has to be local not 
international, rooted in particular community 
norms, and necessarily somewhat distanced from 
the Foreign Ministry which is, naturally, 
perceived as a biased party, and whose 
involvement in all facets would help our enemies 
argue that we are fighting for Israel using the 
fight against anti-Semitism as camouflage.

PUT BDS IN CONTEXT:
Part of the fight against BDS is an educational 
one. And central to that is explaining that
(as mentioned before) BDS crosses the line into 
traditional bigotry, both by resurrecting 
traditional anti-Semitic tropes, and by following 
the traditional ways of all bigots in attacking 
the essence of Israel and the Jewish people 
rather than constructively seeking to change 
particular policies or actions.BDS is part of the 
“Durban Strategy” adopted by NGOs during the 
infamous Durban Conference that was supposed to 
be against racism in late August, early September 
2001. Good liberals on campus and elsewhere who 
think they are just fighting for “justice” need 
to be confronted with the fact that they are 
advancing a particular agenda with a particular – 
and quite problematic – pedigree.BDS is also part 
of the broader Islamist strategy to undermine the 
West. Especially in North America, activists need 
to understand how positions they are taking are 
aiding the same people who support shooting up 
Fort Hood, trying to down commercial jets on 
Christmas, and succeeded in killing nearly three 
thousand people on September 11, 2001.

Strategy / Vision A 5 Year Plan

All too often, we get mired in the tactics of the 
day-to-day battle and are too reactive. The group 
decided that before plunging into a more detailed 
discussion of some dimensions of the problem, we 
should step back and think about our vision, 
about our strategy and about what tactics will 
achieve our broader goals, five years from now.

Our Vision:

Includes: Israel being a cause to celebrate

Humanization of Israel (using a vibrant proactive 
approach making the Zionist case while 
emphasizing Israel’s many positive 
accomplishments and appealing characteristics

Driving a Wedge between Soft Critics and Hard Delegitimizers

Strategy

To have in place legislative prohibitions vs. BDS 
which can then be applied in different 
communities, acknowledging the different legal traditions.

Creating “Best Practices” which can be modeled and taught.

To have in place institutions (centralized, or 
'hub within network' institutions) that can share 
information. (Committee members disagreed whether 
the bulk of the work should be from the 
government or from the community/civil society).

Institutions: To have in place Affinity Groups – 
lawyers, accountants, academics etc who can help fight BDS from within

Israeli intellectual 'buy in' – mobilizing 
Israeli academics and other professional who 
understand the seriousness of the threat and fight it

Encouraging more Israel Studies on campus as part 
of a broader rebranding and reversing of the 
current wherein enemies of Israel on campus are 
rewarded and friends are punished

Debranding the NGOs (Non-governmental Organizations) – naming and shaming

Pursuing a strategy of ridicule and satire – especially on the internet

Here are some steps we should follow to achieve those goals:

1. Let’s Reframe to Name and Shame:

BDS means very little to most people – and sounds 
like a communicable disease (which in some ways, 
like anti-Semitism itself, it is
) The 
awkwardness of the language, and the venom behind 
the sentiments, together provide a double 
opportunity. We can rename and reframe their 
movement. We need to point out how BDS crosses 
the line from legitimate criticism to 
historically- laden, anti-Semitic messaging. We 
should note that BDS fails the “Sharansky Test” 
of Demonization, Double Standards and 
Delegitimization” because it singles out Israel 
for special condemnation, speaking for example 
about the “apartheid nature of the state” rather 
than specific policies. We could reinforce this 
by adding a 2-E Test – “exceptionalism” and 
“essentialism” – which again focuses on singling 
out Israel and, in the nature of traditional 
bigotry, condemning the actor not the act.

In that spirit, in Toronto, the Jewish Federation 
re-christened the movement the Blacklist, 
Demonize and Slander movement. In addition to 
exposing the animus of the movement, the label 
cleverly filtered the BDS movement through the 
correct cultural framework when the BDSers 
targeted the Toronto Film Festival. Jane Fonda, 
initially, was happy to sign a petition bashing 
Israel. When she found out that she supported a 
“blacklist” – a major no-no in post 1950s 
Hollywood culture, she felt ashamed and 
retracted. Similarly, the leading academics 
fighting boycotts have been scientists, because 
free exchange is the lifeblood of the scientific 
community and the thought of risking that for 
mere politics is appalling to many. At the same 
time, there are (some, not enough) voices in the 
gay community denouncing groups such as “Queers 
Against Israeli Apartheid,” because they know how 
much more liberal Israel is than any other Middle 
Eastern country (the major international 
association of gay travel agents held its annual meeting in Israel in 2009).

These examples suggest we need to think, case by 
case, about how to frame the BDSers in the way 
that most emphasizes the gap between their 
actions and the democratic ideals they pretend to 
espouse. Recasting the campaign as a blacklist is 
a powerful way to demonstrate what the movement 
is really about. We should think of other 
strategies that help delegitimize the delegitimizers.
More broadly, we need to think about what the 
right messaging for an anti-BDS campaign could be 
– “Let Israel Live,” for example, may make Israel 
sound pathetic and may sound too 1940s – kind of 
begging the world’s permission for Jewish 
survival. But, given the culture of crisis in the 
Jewish world, that is the kind of slogan that 
just might work. We invite other suggestions.

It is also important to determine the need for a 
response on a case by case basis. Some people 
argue that every BDS initiative must be fought 
out of fear of a domino effect; however, it may 
not be to our advantage to do so. Sometimes, we 
may give a trivial exercise greater meaning.

1.1 Ensuring tactics don't defeat strategy

The campaign against the University and College 
Lecturers' Union's boycott attempt in the UK was 
a signal success, mainly due to a classic job of 
re-framing. The BDS crowd wants the debate to be 
about Israel and the pro-Israel crowd made it 
about academic freedom. Although this is an 
exquisite tactic it runs the risk of leading to a strategic defeat.

What happened was that the "bad guys" talked 
about how bad Israel is and the "good guys" 
talked about how bad boycotts are. In the end the 
only messages that anyone heard about Israel were 
how bad she is. The boycott motion was handily 
defeated, but such a triumph contains the seeds 
of a Pyrrhic victory. Perhaps it's natural to 
glory in any kind of victory we can obtain in 
this fight, however, “Israeli policy makes me 
sick, but boycotts make me sicker” (as stated as 
a typical progressive view in the BDS fight) is 
hardly the ringing endorsement of Israel we would all seek!

To quote Charles Jacobs (late of the David 
Project), students are often reduced to arguing 
that "Israel doesn't suck." This is only a slight 
exaggeration. Unless we can come up with a way to 
produce a new meta-frame for discussing the 
Middle-East the BDSs will keep us on the run until we are worn out.

(Emendation, post conference: Wes Streeting 
President of the UK's National Union of Students 
argued that this concern was somewhat 
ill-founded. In the working group session he 
stressed that the argument against boycotts in 
general had opened the way to substantive 
discourse on why a boycott was particularly 
unjust when focused on Israel. If that's an 
accurate depiction of what happened, then it's a 
good example of what we need to do to ensure that 
strategy is not eclipsed by tactics.)

2. Dig Deep to Undermine

When the Student Society of Concordia University 
in Montreal was overtaken by Palestinians and 
anarchists in the late 1990s, early 2000s, rumors 
were rife about activists just enrolled in one 
course per semester to keep their eligibility for 
the Student Society, about money from outside the 
university being pumped into the pro-Palestinian 
activities and about money from the Student 
Society being diverted both for personal gain and 
for unauthorized political use. Surprisingly, 
neither the Jewish community nor the journalistic 
community undertook the kind of Edwin-Black- 
style investigation the whole mess deserved, for 
various cultural and political reasons. 
Investigative journalism is an underutilized tool 
in the fight against coordinated movements like the BDS movement.

Similarly, we need to do more historical 
research, showing the polluted origins of the 
Zionism is racism, Israel apartheid, and BDS 
movements. In October 1976, just under a year 
after the 1975 Zionism is Racism resolution 
passed the UN General Assembly, Professor Bernard 
Lewis published an article “The Anti-Zionist 
Resolution,” in Foreign Affairs (Vol. 55, No. 1 
(Oct., 1976), pp. 54-64), uncovering the Soviet 
and Nazi roots of the resolution. Lewis’s 
research remains relevant today – as does his example.

3. We Need a War Room

The BDS movement is well-coordinated (and 
well-financed) (MY NOTE: HUH???) . The Jewish 
community needs a war room, tracking this 
movement, sharing best practices, coaching 
communities. All too often (and most especially 
on campus), when an anti-Israel initiative is 
launched the few who care act as if such a thing 
never occurred elsewhere and start working on 
their own strategy – rather than relying on a 
broad network and a collective memory that should be helping them.

The War Room could also provide the necessary 
intelligence and background that could be useful 
in the kinds of grassroots fights necessary to 
defeat BDS. Whether this War Room should be 
linked to the Ministry, or to the Global Forum, 
or to another Jewish organization, or stand on 
its own, is an important subject we should debate.

In describing this much-needed body of activists 
and academics we debated the nomenclature – some 
call it a clearinghouse, others a hub – but we 
need to share information, coordinate strategy, 
learn from each other, and push certain lines, 
taking offense, not just playing defense. In 
North America, the Federation system is talking 
about launching a coordinating body to fight BDS.
England has “Fair play” functioning as a hub. In 
France the CRIEF coordinates. All these 
initiatives should be coordinated globally – 
through Israel, the target of the attack and the center of the Jewish people.

To be specific:

* Our guiding principle is that the first people 
to fight are the people on the ground – this is 
added value not a command center
* The mission is to be informational and tactical 
– a clearinghouse of information and like the 
town crier of old – a spur to action with weekly updates, particular tactics
* Like an iceberg, partially submerged – we need 
to make some public points to shape the narrative 
against BDS, delegitimizing the delegitimizers, 
but we also need ome private initiatives. We 
should not share all our strategies and tactics for the enemy to see
* Broadcast and narrowcast – having some messages 
that work globally, but also customizing our 
messages for campus, unions, civil society

Professor Irwin Cotler spoke at the Global Forum 
about “the globalization of the indictment” and 
our need to take back the narrative, to become 
the plaintiff
. How can we do this is we don’t 
coordinate strategies, if there isn’t a central 
body for information sharing, with a great 
website, but also engaged experts, representing 
the different countries, helping to shape this 
battle, sending out weekly updates, helping 
people who want to get involved, and, as one of 
our participants suggested targeting the bad 
guys, using the blogosphere to mock them, to embarrass them, to name and shame?

Each community should of course have its own 
structures but this war room should act as a hub. 
It should start simply by coordinating a 
proactive, integrated structure against BDS and 
delegitimization – if it works, it could be a 
crucial resource when crises develop,and it truly 
could be a global forum against anti-Semitism, 
anti-Zionism and delegitimization, but for now let’s keep it focused.

4. BDS Draws a Line in the Sand

BDS Draws a Line in the Sand – Either testing or 
recruiting progressives. By implicitly shifting 
the debate from Israeli policy to Israel’s right 
to exist, BDSers have provided what we could call 
the J-Street Test (or the test for J-Street). 
Progressives, no matter how critical of Israel, 
who condemn the BDS movement, prove their 
“pro-Israel bona fides.” (And Tal Shechter of J 
Street U recently sent out this message: “We 
should be investing – not divesting – in our 
campus debate, in our communities and in the 
people who will bring about change in the region. 
That’s why J Street U is launching an ‘Invest, 
Don’t Divest’ campaign today to raise money for 
two organizations ­ LendforPeace. org, a 
Palestinian microfinance organization set up by 
students like us, and The Center for Jewish-Arab 
Economic Development, which promotes Jewish-Arab 
Economic Cooperation in Israel.”)

Critics of Israeli policy can in fact be 
particularly useful in this fight – note how much 
of the British academic boycott was repudiated by 
people who were from the left but recognized the 
boycott threat as a great threat to academic 
freedom. So fighting BDS can help heal some of 
the rifts in the Jewish community, assert a 
big-tent Zionism, and invite left-wing critics of 
Israel who nevertheless believe in Israel’s 
existence to stand up for Israel on this defining issue.

The argument should be made – and this is true, 
not a mere tactic – that BDS harms the peace 
process. Whatever one thinks of Oslo, it is not 
coincidental that Israel entered into the Oslo 
Peace Accords only after the UN lifted its odious 
Zionism is Racism resolution in 1991 and that 
Israel made peace with Egypt only after Sadat 
came to Jerusalem. A nation under threat of 
boycott, a nation that feels its very existence 
and international legitimacy are threatened, is 
less likely to make peace, which makes the 
Palestinian strategy particularly self-defeating 
at this point (not to mention the fact that 
Israeli academics are among the most outspoken peace advocates).

5. BDS merits a double ju jitsu move

A “Let Israel Live” anti-BDS campaign, if done 
right, could provide the kind of community-wide 
unity, continuing passion, and identity-building 
activism, last seen during the Soviet Jewish 
movement. The threat is intense enough, the moral 
issue is clear enough, all we need is the 
motivation, leadership, and organizational sophistication to make it happen.

7. Make the fight Horizontal, Hip, and Hysterical


While we do need some central coordination via a 
“war room,” we must not forget the importance of 
the netroots in combating BDS. The fight needs to 
be horizontal not hierarchical – what we use to 
call “grassroots” empowering college students to 
get involved using their skills, their media, 
their networks to push back. In the same spirit, 
the fight should be “hip,” rooted in the language 
and mores of the 21st century, presenting an 
updated, exciting, relevant celebration of modern 
Israel. And, as already mentioned, the fight 
should be hysterical – we forget just how 
powerful a tool ridicule can be as a weapon in 
politics, especially in our “Jon Stewart” culture.

8. Speak to Israelis about their roles as 
ambassadors and dangerous role as enablers

The fight against anti-Semitism, against BDS, and 
for Israel begins at home, in the homeland. 
Israelis can be the most effective ambassadors 
and activists in the fight against BDS – this 
should be the kind of fight for survival that 
transcends most political divisions and harnesses 
the kind of ingenuity and passion Israelis bring 
to more conventional battlefields. Israelis need 
to understand that, for all their much vaunted, 
“Start-up Nation” Hi Tech inventiveness, if the 
European Union decides to boycott Israel, the 
economic impact would be devastating. The threat 
is real – but not well known, and usually seen, 
unfortunately, through a left-right prism.

At the same time, Israeli critics of Israeli 
policy need to understand that in an age of 
instant communication, what they say “within the 
family,” echoes throughout the world. The Norman 
Finkelsteins and Noam Chomskys of the world quote 
Israelis incessantly. No Israeli should feel 
compelled to change their politics, no matter 
what Chomsky and Finkelstein would choose to do. 
But ALL Israelis should watch their language, 
understanding that false Nazi/Apartheid/ Racism 
analogies feed Israel’s harshest enemies, who 
wish to wipe out the state. There is a rich bank 
of historical analogies and words Israeli critics 
can use to criticize Israel. There must be an 
awareness of how harmful the Nazi and Apartheid 
analogies are, and how they are used – the slogan 
“Never Again” should apply to false, offensive, 
analogizing, not just the mass murder itself

Note the analysis of Uri Avnery of the BDS. 
Avnery has a long record of harshly criticizing 
Israel, but distinguishes between his ultimately 
loving criticism and the exterminationist agenda 
underlying much of the BDS Campaign. He writes: 
“Reading some of the messages sent to me and 
trying to analyze their contents, I get the 
feeling they are not so much about a boycott on 
Israel as about the very existence of Israel. 
Some of the writers obviously believe that the 
creation of the State of Israel was a terrible 
mistake to start with, and therefore should be 
reversed. Turn the wheel of history back some 62 years and start anew.

“What really disturbs me about this is that 
almost nobody in the West comes out and says 
clearly: Israel must be abolished. Some of the 
proposals, like those for a “One State” solution, 
sound like euphemisms. If one believes that the 
State of Israel should be abolished and replaced 
by a State of Palestine or a State of Happiness – why not say so openly?
“Of course, that does not mean peace. Peace 
between Israel and Palestine presupposes that 
Israel is there. Peace between the Israeli people 
and the Palestinian people presupposes that both 
peoples have a right to self-determination and 
agree to the peace. Does anyone really believe 
that racist monsters like us would agree to give 
up our state because of a boycott?” Other 
Israelis – and other critics outside of Israel – 
should be appealed to on these terms, 
understanding that the BDS-Apartheid- 
Nazi-language is anti-Israel and anti-peace. See 
<http://www.jewishvi/>http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary. 
org/jsource/Quote/Avneri1. html

9. Ally, Fraternize, and Build Coalitions

We need to do a better job of empowering and 
educating Jewish and pro-Israel students. 
Specifically through advocacy training programs, 
like hasbara fellowships and many others, which 
bring students to Israel and give them the 
knowledge, skills and confidence to advocate on 
campus. Too many students are too intimidated to 
express their views. They need quick and easy 
answers to the most common criticisms thrown at 
them, and the confidence to deliver those 
messages. Jewish community organizations need to 
invest in these programs, and send their students 
to Israel to learn. Setting up one hour seminars 
on campus don't work, students need to go to 
Israel, learn the situation, and practice the responses.

We also need a major push to educate non-Jewish 
student leaders. Specifically, more money needs 
to be spent on the programs that already exist in 
countries like Canada to send non-Jewish student 
leaders (members of student government, campus 
organizations, campus newspapers etc). to Israel 
to learn the facts on the ground. They are the 
future leaders off-campus and in the media, and we are losing this battle.

9.3 Reporters

We need to adopt a radically different approach 
to media relations: ‘embracing the journalist’, 
building relationships to go beyond the two 
traditional approaches of giving information to 
the press and monitoring/criticiz ing the media 
for ‘getting the story wrong’ – and instead 
helping them to ‘get the story right in the first 
place’, as MediaCentral does here in Israel. 
Reaching out to all levels of the media – local 
and national – to engage rather than criticize, 
without the “Hasbara” agenda but instead 
promoting accuracy as Israel’s best ally, 
widening the lens and helping to reframe the 
MidEast situation and to affect the tone and 
terminology used. Working to win the ‘battle for 
hearts and minds’ through the heart rather than 
the head, using Dale Carnegie’s approach to "win 
friends and influence people" or to put it 
another way, "rather than fighting your enemy, make the enemy your friend
.”

9.4 Bloggers

We need a creative, edgy, systematic outreach to 
pro-Israel bloggers, who are willing to target 
BDSers and delegitimizers, exposing their 
tactics, ridiculing them as necessary, and, as 
much as possible putting them on the defensive.

9.5 Professional Organizations and Communities

Dr. Jonathan Rynhold, who was involved in 
combating the proposed British academic boycott 
of Israel, suggests applying some of the lessons 
from that experience more broadly. He proposes 
forming and informing groups of Jewish/pro-Israel 
professionals within various national and 
international professional association/ 
organizations/ unions. Their first order of 
business should be passing anti-discrimination 
by-laws within the organization that are general 
in nature, and that do not mention Israel per se, 
but rather oppose discrimination on the basis of 
race, religion, nationality etc. This would put 
the onus on the boycotters to prove they are NOT 
discriminating, instead of pro-Israel forces 
having to prove Israel’s innocence. He also 
suggests offering a positive alternative to the 
boycott, such as engaging Israelis and 
Palestinians through the particular professional 
framework of the organization. Israeli 
organizations should take the lead in seeking 
international partners and preparing the 
groundwork for these general denunciations of 
boycott resolutions. All too often we wait until 
the crisis is upon us, rather than laying the 
foundation before trouble erupts. And considering 
that the specter of boycott already has arisen in 
various academic contexts, it is particularly 
important to re-establish and fund an 
organization of Israeli academics to work with 
the Israeli Academy of Science against the 
boycott, where Bob Lapidot has been the contact person.

10. Zero in on a moment to raise awareness of the 
BDS threat and start delegitimizing the delegitimizers

Beyond Israel (and the communities of Israelis 
abroad), even many ardently pro-Israel activists 
do not quite know what to do with Yom Hazikaron, 
Israeli Memorial Day. Perhaps this year is the 
time for a mass, international, cross-community 
teach-in about BDS on Yom Hazikaron, remembering 
the fallen soldiers and victims of terror by 
learning that words can kill (or heal), that 
demonization has facilitated violence and 
undermines peace. An added bonus is that after 
this sobering, somewhat defensive day of 
learning, one can simply celebrate Israel’s 
birthday, with Yom Ha’atzmaut immediately afterwards.

11. Meet “lawfare” with “lawfare.”

Professor Irwin Cotler has termed the variety of 
ways in which BDSers have hijacked international 
human rights laws to hound Israelis as “lawfare.” 
Many of the French delegates explained that there 
had been some success in applying the new French 
penal code outlawing discrimination based on 
religious or ethnic characteristics against 
BDSers – who sometimes have very violently ruined 
Israeli fruit in supermarkets. We should explore 
this more fully, being sensitive to the different 
legal traditions in the particular countries involved.

12. Let’s Push More Broadly for a Citizenship 2.0 Campaign

One way of not just wallowing or being defensive, 
but to take the offensive, is to push a broader, 
Citizenship 2.0 campaign, deputizing the next 
generation to fight hate on the Web in general, 
and anti-Israel material in particular. Part of 
fighting anti-Semitism should entail enlisting 
educators, parents and community leaders to 
envision Citizenship 2.0, teaching students to 
avoid polluting on line-discourse themselves, to 
combat on-line hate, to assess on-line 
information critically, and to use the net's 
grassroots power to defend democratic values 
against the haters. The Internet works 
democratically, let’s mobilize and deputize young 
people in Israel, and the world over to fight 
hate wherever they see it (and, of course, never 
indulge in it). For parents, instead of grumbling 
about their kids being on “the computer” all the 
time, perhaps they could start boasting about 
their kids as modern Judah (and Judith) 
Maccabees, striding across the blogosphere, 
defending the Jewish people, fighting the BDS-ers 
and standing for truth, justice, civility and democracy.

GOING ON OFFENSE

The time has come to explore ways to put the 
boycotters on the defensive and to initiate our 
own campaigns to highlight issues of concern. For example:
1. Seek to have boycotters expelled from 
international organizations. One condition of 
Saudi Arabia’s admission to the WTO was that it 
cease its boycott of Israel. It promised to do so 
and then, after admission, declared it would not 
end the boycott. Organizations such as WTO should 
be pressured to adhere to its rules and other 
groups (e.g., sports federations) should be 
lobbied to adopt anti-boycott provisions.

2. Lobby academic journals to adopt policies 
barring submissions from anyone who advocates an 
academic boycott. Journals are supposed to 
promote academic freedom and intellectual 
exchange and should not collaborate in efforts to 
stifle such exchanges. If academic boycotters 
cannot get published, they will perish.

3. Circulate information on Muslims acting 
contrary to Islam. If the people of countries 
such as Iran and Saudi Arabia knew their “pious” 
leaders were really alcoholics, gamblers and 
perverts, they might hasten regime change.

4. Create a “Student Rights Watch” organization 
that would seek to counterbalance certain NGOs 
that have become Israel-bashing specialists. SRW 
could go in at least two different directions – 
one would be to make a human rights organization 
that monitored activities around the world with 
the emphasis on non-democratic states (as HRW 
once did) – another approach would be to have the 
students focus on rights as students on college 
campuses with an emphasis on how Israel and Jews 
are treated, but also monitor other abuses inside and outside the classroom.

5. Launch a Saudi apartheid campaign. It is 
galling that Israel is tarred with comparisons to 
South Africa when there is a country that really 
does merit this comparison. Progressive and 
women’s groups should be natural allies in such a 
campaign, which might have a goal of adopting 
Sullivan-like principles for Western companies doing business in the kingdom.

6. “Buy Israel” campaign. This is already being 
done is some areas, but it might be adopted as an international program.

7. Buy Israel Bonds. It has been done quietly, 
but a more aggressive effort might be made to 
sell Israel Bonds to corporations and other 
entities (there is a danger to raising attention 
to it as it might create a new target for BDS). 
It may be a tougher sell given current interest 
rates at the moment, but one of the best 
responses to BDS is multimillion dollar bonds 
purchases made by banks, unions, pension plans, and others.

8. Outreach to mainline Christians. We have spent 
too little time on educating non-Jews and 
reacting only at the last minute when some of 
their leaders try to adopt BDS proposals at their 
national conventions. These churches bring in a 
parade of anti-Israel speakers who are rarely 
countered. Rather than focus so much attention 
preaching to the choir, greater efforts should be 
made to speak directly to non-evangelical 
Christians. The MFA could be especially helpful in this area.

9. Outreach to key minorities. In the United 
States, Hispanics will become an increasingly 
influential factor in American politics and, 
therefore, the U.S.-Israel relationship. Too 
little effort has been given to educating this community about Israel.

10. Developing Israel Studies as an academic 
discipline. Most universities have few if any 
courses about modern Israel and many of those 
that are taught are usually taught badly. A 
variety of steps can be taken to enhance the 
field across the globe. In the U.S., for example, 
the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise 
(AICE), has brought 65 visiting Israeli scholars 
to teach for an academic year at more than 40 
universities over the last 5 years. AICE also 
supports graduate students pursuing Ph.D.s in 
Israel-related fields and postdoctoral fellows. 
Chairs and centers of Israel studies are being 
created in the U.S. and, more recently, the U.K. 
Providing the next generation with a good 
education about Israel is vital for the future as 
well as critical to countering present 
campus-based efforts to delegitimize Israel.

11. Try to make inroads at the UN and its 
associated agencies by targeting small nations. 
Many of these countries do not give a lot of 
thought to the Middle East and go with the herd. 
In fact, we know the UN reps sometimes act with 
little or no instruction from their governments. 
It may not be possible to overcome the 
Arab/Islamic bloc and its allies, but it may be 
possible to chip away at its majorities so votes 
are not one-sided and resolutions so biased (a 
small effort along these lines is underway in the U.S.).

12. A priority should be placed on defunding 
anti-Israel UN agencies, such as the Committee on 
the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People. 
Efforts should be made to focus the UN on a 
positive agenda of economic development, health 
and environmental protection and lobby that funds 
be directed away from attacking a UN member and 
toward the mutual interests of all members.

These are just a few ideas that we hope will 
serve as the basis for discussion and stimulate 
additional suggestions for proactive measures to 
improve Israel’s image, delegitimize the 
detractors and energize everyone committed to fighting anti-Semitism.

AGENDA FOR THE WORKING GROUP MEETING

These were some of the questions we addressed – 
although it was difficult to cover them all, let 
alone answer them adequately in two short 
sessions. Still, we include them as food for thought for future conferences.

I. Should this “working group” evolve into an 
ongoing task force – if so, what is its mandate, 
what are its goals, who will participate, what can it hope to achieve?

II. Have we effectively explained why BDS crosses 
the line from legitimate criticism to 
historically- laden, anti-Semitic messaging 
(failing both the 3-D, Demonization, Double 
Standards, and Delegitimization, and 2-E, 
Essentialism and Exceptionalism, tests?)

III. If there is to be a “war room” – who should 
run it? where should it be? who should 
participate? who will pay for it? what are its goals?

IV. How can we best harness the comparative 
strengths of different institutions/ communities 
in order to achieve the most effective response? 
Where specifically do the Ministry of Foreign 
Affairs, and the Global Forum fit in?

V. In strategizing regarding the BDS movement, 
how do we keep the messaging positive – while 
motivating normally apathetic students, etc?

VI. Who can make the case to Israelis that some 
of the discourse in Israel is harmful – and how 
can it be done in an effective manner?

VII. If the idea of a broader anti-BDS/pro- 
Israel movement makes sense – who will run with 
it, how do we make that happen? Can we work in 
some cooperative fashion or will multiple 
organizations insist on doing it their way with little or no coordination?

VIII. What other ideas do we have for “Going on 
Offense”: and which ones do we wish to make priorities?

Universities (or other institutions) that invest 
in Israel seldom do so for reasons of Zionist 
sympathy. If they have put money into Israel or 
Israeli companies it's because their investment 
advisers have told them that it's the right thing 
to do in order to grow their endowment. Hence, 
divestment would be financially inadvisable.

If, in the midst of a divestment campaign, campus 
unions that represent technical, administrative 
and janitorial staff were convincingly informed 
that the divestment campaign might well lead to 
job cuts (and not amongst the tenured academics 
pushing for BDS) they might easily be persuaded 
to condemn such a campaign. How embarrassing for 
the "progressive" academics pushing BDS to be 
opposed by the representatives of the lowest paid workers on campus?

9.2 Students Far too much of the fight against 
anti-Semitism and for Israel occurs within a 
Jewish community bubble. The Foreign Ministry can 
be a particularly useful force here in helping 
build alliances with academics, business people, 
politicians, anti-terror/ national security 
types, Christian Zionists, civil libertarians – 
creating a broad coalition that is against 
demonization. Moreover, we learn from the 
anti-academic- boycott movement in England, whose 
guiding principle is that “the first people to 
fight BDS should be the people in the sector,” 
self defense is the best defense.

9.1 Labor unions BDS merits a double ju jitsu 
move: First, the BDS response to Israel is so 
over the top, it should be an opportunity to 
delegitimize the delegitimizers. Second, the 
Toronto community has been particularly effective 
in turning the lemons of BDS into lemonade – 
going from “Boycott” to Buycott – with the 
results being sold-out Israeli movie nights at 
the Toronto Film Festival, record-ticket sales 
for the targeted Dead Sea Scrolls, and a run on 
kosher wine when BDSers attacked Israeli wine. 
More broadly, the second paper offers many 
interesting ideas for getting off the defensive, 
becoming pro-active and taking the fight to the BDSers.

6. Make this the New Soviet Jewry Movement




Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110

415 863-9977

www.Freedomarchives.org  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20100311/e608fc8f/attachment.htm>