Peter Beinart’s Colonial Logic: Opponents Of Israel Boycott Make Anti-Democratic Arguments

[Purveyor]

An academic boycott of Israel is really protesting a segregationist mentality that should have ended long, long ago

STEVEN SALAITA

Last week, members of the American Studies Association [ASA] voted overwhelmingly to affirm a resolution boycotting Israeli academic institutions. The membership vote followed unanimous approval of the resolution by the ASA National Council. Intense debate has followed the affirmation.

Much of the reaction from the boycott’s opponents has been infantile: threats of lawsuits, screams of anti-Semitism, vulgar trolling, ear-piercing hysteria, and various strategies of derailment borrowed from the Glenn Beck playbook. These tactics are fit to ignore.

More thoughtful responses have emerged, however, and provide opportunity for serious engagement. One such response arrived from Peter Beinart, who supports a boycott focused on West Bank settlements but not on anything to do with 1948 Israel (i.e., anything inside the so-called green line).

While Beinart’s piece is thoughtful, it has serious problems, especially in its unexamined assumptions. Rejecting the “singling out” of Israel and academic freedom as viable arguments against boycott, Beinart opposes the ASA resolution because “it’s denying the legitimacy of a democratic Jewish state, even alongside a Palestinian one.”

Here is Beinart’s argument:

MORE...

http://www.salon.com/2013/12/20/peter_beinarts_colonial_logic_opponents_of_israel_boycott_make_anti_democratic_arguments/

[Scootaloo]

1. That Beinart values Palestinians at next to nothing shouldn't be a surprise to anyone

It's been his MO for years now. He basically talks like Palestinians like housing developers talk about trees. It's not as shrill or harsh or vociferously bigoted as many of his fellows, but it expreesses a clear indifference, and assumption that his own desires take precedence over theirs.

[shira]

3. Scoot, when u advocate for Israel's destruction, wishing for it to be replaced....

...by yet another failed Arab majority Islamist state, isn't it you who values the lives of Palestinians (and Jews) at next to nothing?

Any self-respecting progressive leftist should be calling for Israel to better itself, within the secular liberal western style framework. Not euthanizing itself in favor of a regressive Islamist theocratic fascist totalitarian dictatorship.

[Scootaloo]

4. It's a little early to be hitting the eggnog, Shira n/t

[shira]

5. You're not in favor of ending Israel anymore...in favor of another theocratic dictatorship?

That's news.

[Scootaloo]

6. Did I say eggnog? I meant listerine

On second thought, keep chugging, this could get funny.

[shira]

7. So you're in favor of replacing Israel with what exactly? Be clear. n/t

[Scootaloo]

8. You're a very odd creature, Shira

I say that I think Peter Beinart is a fake asshole (to paraphrase)

In response, you go on a rampage about me "advocating Israel's destruction," and "in favor of a theocratic dictatorship."

I'm really not seeing any rational connection between these topics. It looks like you're just drunkenly ejaculating text at me. It's random and senseless. While that's not exactly unusual for you, it usually takes about five posts to work yourself into a good lather and cease all attempts at rational discourse.

You okay? Take the pills out of order this morning or something?

[Jefferson23]

2. Nooo, not anything in the so called green line..can't have that.

Who the hell does he think he's kidding?

[bemildred]

10. The method is always the same:

1.) Embed your desired outcomes in the facts, principles, and assumptions on which your argument is based, put them outside the dispute. (Begging the question)

2.) Argue against your opponents views using your facts, principles and assumptions, showing his folly. (Straw man)

3.) Lots of casting of aspersions and "nobody could want that" sort of assertions. (Ad hominem)

If you lack the nerve or facts to entertain the full weight of your opponents arguments and argue back on his premises, and you are not willing to concede anything, it will always become an argument about who gets to frame the debate.