I thought this particular conversation was deep, thoughtful, informed and on point. A couple of things I noted, in watching and listening:
1. The well-organized effort to legislate against all criticism of Israel (and, in particular, Palestinian action and BDS movements) has ramped up as Israel's own record on human rights and democracy has deteriorated. Panelists note that, even 10 years ago, Israel could credibly claim to have a robust democratic state, with a strong record of human rights support in some sectors. Over these last 10 years, under an increasingly authoritarian government, Israel has lost its right to that claim. Netanyahu's government has--like Trump's--pressed a program of restriction, punishment and control on its people, all of its people.
The point the panelists make, then, is this: as Israel can no longer tout its own high marks (in democratic terms, on human rights issues more broadly), the government must instead delegitimize all criticism as evil, racist and anti-Semitic. 'You can't reasonably criticize our human rights record, or our program of illegal settlements,' the line goes, 'without being anti-Semitic and shaped by bigotry.' In other words, don't start.
2. Another interesting point: not only is criticism of Israel marked as anti-Semitic, but so too any reference to the Palestinian narrative itself, any suggestion that the Palestinian experience of nakba merits special consideration and requires a moral response (and even solidarity among Jewish, Israeli, American, European, global allies). In other words, we not only reject your right to use speech and organizing tools to 'criticize' Israel's government and governance, but we reject your voicing the Palestinian story, the Palestinian experience itself, in terms that Palestinians themselves honor and understand.
Thus, states are legislating against all BDS activity; but universities are also moving to punish professors who simply name the Palestinian experience, the complex history of Zionism and the illegal settlements (and strategy of land seizures) that threaten Palestinian sovereignty, culture and history.
3. And this. Some argue that activists who criticize Israel are anti-Semitic because they call out Israel without also calling out every other country and regime guilty of similar abuses and projects. This, the argument goes, reveals that these critics are particularly hateful with respect to Israel; and this reveals an anti-Semitic current underneath all criticism and organizing.
One of the panelists notes how futile this argument is. Of course, we seek to be comprehensive in our human rights work. But one simply can't, reasonably and clearly, resort to a long list of guilty parties every time one calls attention to a particular case. When we single out white supremacy, for example, we can't always name all the other ways that racism and prejudice distort American democracy and destroy family life and justice in our communities. We simply have to focus at times, and articulate clearly what's happening a particular setting. Likewise, says the panelist, if you commit to advocacy for a particular bio-region (oceans, for example), this doesn't mean you're dead set against rainforests and deserts.
Again, the strategy--among those protecting Israel's settlement project--seems to be: "do anything to delegitimize and criminalize criticism." And in particular: "make liberals and progressives fearful of speaking up and acting in concert with Palestinian allies."
