Email Leak: New Campaign Planned Against BDS Movement

The following is a leaked document describing the set-up of an international group bent on countering the Boycott,Divest and Sanction movement. I suggest all my readers not only peruse this document thoroughly but forward it to everyone they know.

—
*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

1. (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.
2. 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.
3. 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

[image: Edit Section]<http://www.internetengagement.com.au/community/tiki-editpa
ge.php?page=WG4+Position+Paper&hdr=2>
Here are some steps we should follow to achieve those goals:

[image: Edit Section]<http://www.internetengagement.com.au/community/tiki-editpa
ge.php?page=WG4+Position+Paper&hdr=3>

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 worlds
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.

[image: Edit Section]<http://www.internetengagement.com.au/community/tiki-editpa
ge.php?page=WG4+Position+Paper&hdr=4>
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<http://www.internetengagement.com.au/community/President%20of%
20the%20UK%27s%20National%20Union%20of%20Students>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.)

[image: Edit Section]<http://www.internetengagement.com.au/community/tiki-editpa
ge.php?page=WG4+Position+Paper&hdr=5>
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.

[image: Edit Section]<http://www.internetengagement.com.au/community/tiki-editpa
ge.php?page=WG4+Position+Paper&hdr=6>
3. We Need a War Room

The BDS movement is well-coordinated (and well-financed). 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.

[image: Edit Section]<http://www.internetengagement.com.au/community/tiki-editpa
ge.php?page=WG4+Position+Paper&hdr=7>

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).

[image: Edit Section]<http://www.internetengagement.com.au/community/tiki-editpa
ge.php?page=WG4+Position+Paper&hdr=8>
5. BDS merits a double ju jitsu move

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.

[image: Edit Section]<http://www.internetengagement.com.au/community/tiki-editpa
ge.php?page=WG4+Position+Paper&hdr=9>
6. Make this the New Soviet Jewry Movement

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.

[image: Edit Section]<http://www.internetengagement.com.au/community/tiki-editpa
ge.php?page=WG4+Position+Paper&hdr=10>
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.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Quote/Avneri1.html]

[image: Edit Section]<http://www.internetengagement.com.au/community/tiki-editpa
ge.php?page=WG4+Position+Paper&hdr=11>
9. Ally, Fraternize, and Build Coalitions

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.

[image: Edit Section]<http://www.internetengagement.com.au/community/tiki-editpa
ge.php?page=WG4+Position+Paper&hdr=12>
9.1 Labor unions

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?

[image: Edit Section]<http://www.internetengagement.com.au/community/tiki-editpa
ge.php?page=WG4+Position+Paper&hdr=13>

9.2 Students

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.

[image: Edit Section]<http://www.internetengagement.com.au/community/tiki-editpa
ge.php?page=WG4+Position+Paper&hdr=14>

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/criticizing 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.

[image: Edit Section]<http://www.internetengagement.com.au/community/tiki-editpa
ge.php?page=WG4+Position+Paper&hdr=15>

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/