Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forumHow today's liberal Zionists echo apartheid South Africa's defenders
While the majority of black South African leaders are against disinvestment and boycotts, there are tiny factions that support disinvestment namely terrorist groups such as the African National Congress, libertarian economics professor Walter Williams wrote in a 1983 New York Times op-ed.
Williams claim was as absurd then as it appears in hindsight, but his sentiment was far from rare on the American and British right in the 1980s.
Yet todays so-called progressive and liberal Zionists employ precisely the same kinds of claims to counter the growing movement, initiated by Palestinians themselves, for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) on Israel.
Indeed, looking back, it is clear that Israels liberal apologists are recycling nearly every argument once used by conservatives against the BDS movement that helped dismantle South Africas apartheid regime.
Singling out
In a 1989 op-ed for the Christian Science Monitor, University of South Africa lecturer Anne-Marie Kriek scolded the divestment movement for singling out her countrys racist government because, she wrote, the violation of human rights is the norm rather than the exception in most of Africas 42 black-ruled states (South Africa Shouldnt be Singled Out, 12 October 1989).
Kriek continued, South Africa is the only country in Sub-Saharan Africa that can feed itself. Blacks possess one of the highest living standards in all of Africa, adding that nowhere on the continent did black Africans have it so good. So, Why is South Africa so harshly condemned while completely different standards apply to black Africa? she asked.
Divestment opponents in the US provided similar justifications. In 1986, for instance, Gregory Dohi, the former editor-in-chief of the Salient, Harvard Universitys conservative campus publication, protested that those calling for the university to divest from companies doing business in South Africa were selective in their morality (I am full of joy to realize that I never had anything to do with any divestment campaign , Harvard Crimson, 4 April 1986).
Divestment was wrong not only because it would harm black workers, Dohi claimed, but because it singled out South Africa.
Déjà vu
Where have we heard these kinds of arguments before?
Arguing against BDS, The Nations Eric Alterman writes, The near-complete lack of democratic practices within Israels neighbors in the Arab and Islamic world, coupled with their lack of respect for the rights of women, of gays, indeed, of dissidents of any kind make their protestations of Israels own democratic shortcomings difficult to credit (A Forum on Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS), 3 May 2012).
Altermans only update to Krieks logic is his mention of womens and gay rights, a nod to The Nation readers liberal sensitivities.
Altermans sometime Nation colleague, reporter Ben Adler, has also reprised Krieks and Dohis 1980s-style arguments: If you want to boycott Israel itself then you need to explain why youre not calling for a boycott of other countries in the Middle East that oppress their own citizens worse than Israel does anyone living within the Green Line (The Problems With BDS, 31 March 2012).
Williams claim was as absurd then as it appears in hindsight, but his sentiment was far from rare on the American and British right in the 1980s.
Yet todays so-called progressive and liberal Zionists employ precisely the same kinds of claims to counter the growing movement, initiated by Palestinians themselves, for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) on Israel.
Indeed, looking back, it is clear that Israels liberal apologists are recycling nearly every argument once used by conservatives against the BDS movement that helped dismantle South Africas apartheid regime.
Singling out
In a 1989 op-ed for the Christian Science Monitor, University of South Africa lecturer Anne-Marie Kriek scolded the divestment movement for singling out her countrys racist government because, she wrote, the violation of human rights is the norm rather than the exception in most of Africas 42 black-ruled states (South Africa Shouldnt be Singled Out, 12 October 1989).
Kriek continued, South Africa is the only country in Sub-Saharan Africa that can feed itself. Blacks possess one of the highest living standards in all of Africa, adding that nowhere on the continent did black Africans have it so good. So, Why is South Africa so harshly condemned while completely different standards apply to black Africa? she asked.
Divestment opponents in the US provided similar justifications. In 1986, for instance, Gregory Dohi, the former editor-in-chief of the Salient, Harvard Universitys conservative campus publication, protested that those calling for the university to divest from companies doing business in South Africa were selective in their morality (I am full of joy to realize that I never had anything to do with any divestment campaign , Harvard Crimson, 4 April 1986).
Divestment was wrong not only because it would harm black workers, Dohi claimed, but because it singled out South Africa.
Déjà vu
Where have we heard these kinds of arguments before?
Arguing against BDS, The Nations Eric Alterman writes, The near-complete lack of democratic practices within Israels neighbors in the Arab and Islamic world, coupled with their lack of respect for the rights of women, of gays, indeed, of dissidents of any kind make their protestations of Israels own democratic shortcomings difficult to credit (A Forum on Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS), 3 May 2012).
Altermans only update to Krieks logic is his mention of womens and gay rights, a nod to The Nation readers liberal sensitivities.
Altermans sometime Nation colleague, reporter Ben Adler, has also reprised Krieks and Dohis 1980s-style arguments: If you want to boycott Israel itself then you need to explain why youre not calling for a boycott of other countries in the Middle East that oppress their own citizens worse than Israel does anyone living within the Green Line (The Problems With BDS, 31 March 2012).
Cont.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
0 replies, 1955 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (7)
ReplyReply to this post