Let us accept the offical version of this killing. A middle-aged judicial civil servant, grabbed a metal pole (which had somehow eluded the security check on the Jordanian side) and, unprovoked, attacks a soldier. They wrestler for the Soldier's rifle and then this Jordanian Magistrate (truly the one you want on your side in a court of law) tries to strangle the soldier. Important to note that this happens on the one part of the Jordanian-Israeli border without any electronic surveillance. If we all accept this version of events, it still begs the questions: Was there no way of disable him? Did they have to kill him?
A man trying to strangle another man clearly is doing something with his hands. Why didn't someone go up behind him and crack him in the back of the head with their rifle butt? Was there no tazer, no black jack, no baton? From my (blessedly) limited experience moving through Israeli border crossings and checkpoints, they seemed well equiped for nonleathal restraint. Checkpoints and border crossings are specifically designed to protect the security agents, how did Mr. Zeiter get so close? The man was clearly out numbered and unarmed, why was there no way to subdue him? Was there even an attempt? The sad thing is that this is the version of events released by the Israeli Governmnet as a justification.
And then we read down at the end of the Guardian’s artical:
Then you realize that a 20 year Palestinian doesn’t even merit an explanation.
Professor Delong, I open my letter with this incident not to be didactic, but to make a point about the nature of speech and silence in this conflict; to show what questions we don’t ask. I honestly and respectfully ask for your attention for a few moments and give me an oprotunity to address your position concerning BDS. I am not looking to change your position, but to examine some of your concerns and perhaps address some of my own.
Just so we can be on the same page, I offer a definition of BDS below, given by Roger Waters:
Roger Waters gives a personal account of why he supports it and it’s broader relation to his sense of self (interesting how frequently a sense of self is invoked when speaking of the Levant). My experience with the situation is quite different than most and should in no way be used as a reference (it is for entertainment purposes only). I think your terms are very interesting and worth looking at.
Permit me to start from the second point you make in it: BDS is a terminating discourse. It is speech that cannot be tested, revised and corrected, and it strives to shut down any other speech. Call it speech which trys to be the final word. Comparable to violence; another discursive mode where you don’t want a responce to your utterance. While non-violent physically, their means consitute an epistomogical violence.
You continue in this line in your critique of Prof. Judih Butler :
It doesn’t matter that the BDS movement doesn’t boycott Israeli Academics directly; the boycott of Israeli Institutions is defacto discrimination against Israeli Academics. And who are the Academics that are affected? The ones that are typically the most sympathetic to the Palestinian situation.
Now allow me to sketch out where I think this line leads to:
BDS has a toxifiying effect, turning potetial friends, into enemies. Moving to isolate the Israeli people from the international community, also isolates them from critisism. How can you hope to change hearts and minds, if you refuse to engage with the people who’s minds you wish to change? BDS which distributes responciblity (and perhaps culpablity) indiscriminately across all Israeli insitutions, generates critism that is suspect to an Israeli audience.
The flaw cuts deeper: even during the cold war, Academics attempted to somehow stay above politics. Going back to Kant, it has been a goal to recognize, if not create, a universal space that humans could participate in through reason. While Academics have always had passionate political positions but they attempted to keep them exterior to Acadmeic discourse. Various attempts through the 20th century to make politics interior to academic thought have been disasterous. Thus Academic discourse should be technological, rather than political.
Thus BDS has the potential to instigate a chilling effect across the Academy, inviting political inquisition and retribution on both sides. It invites a nihilism by positing that a discussion is no longer possible or viable. Culture becomes a coercive tool to try and bring a party to the table, instead of something which unites. BDS shatters collegiality.
This chill reaches deeper, while some organizations may openly support BDS, others will avoid working with Israeli Accademics, just to avoid the hassle. Why invite the storm of #hashtags about politics when you are holding a seminar in computer science? So, it begins to have the smell of a Terror about it.
Returning to what you have written Professor, this in no way places you against the Palestinian people. You are very much in a pragmatic, pro-peace camp. This camp, whom you could probably refer to as the Oslo-group, has always had friction with the other pro-peace camp that has organized around BDS, which I would refer to as the Birzeit-group. This is pretty clearly laid out in this letter you wrote in 2003 on the death of Edward Said:
I think this stands as a decent characterization of how you see the terms of resistance in this debate. A view that is very much in line with that of President Clinton and more so with Tony Blair and Sec. Kerry. That of an incremental peace process, where compromises build solid improvements for the Palestian people. The fact that this vision has failed repeatedly since its inception is irrelevant to this discussion.
Now to adress the moral aspects of BDS, it needs to be pointed out that the Academic boycott is just one small aspect, of BDS. BDS is a movement with a very large scope, primarily economic and legal. The below is from the BDS english website:
Even though it is small in scope and limited in effect, the Academic boycott is placed prominently in the introduction. Note that, in this introduction, the example of cultural boycott is inbound flows not outbound. Thus the line: A growing number of artists have refused to exhibit or play in Israel. In fact the all the big successes have been artists or scientists deciding not to go to Israel. People such as Roger Waters, HE Desmond Tutu or Steven Hawkins. Is following your conscience immoral behavior?
Individual have not only a right but a responsibility to acount for the externalities of their consumption. An individual is not obliged to pay for the Israeli occupation of the Palestinians (I am obliged to pay as a taxpayer, billions in foreign aid in fact). Irrelevant of BDS being a good or bad stratagdy, as a human being I am not compelled to finance the transfer of water from Palestinian children to melon cultivation for export to Europe. As a consumer I have the right to clear labeling and transparent sourcing, transparency which has not been provided.
Artists refusal to perform in Israel serves another purpose. The Israeli government spends billions of dollars to hide the occupation from the Israeli people, to hide the fact that they are still in a state of war with most surrounding countries in the region. Like no where else I have ever seen, the Israeli government strives to create an air of normalcy. This is one of the most dangerous things in the middle east.
Deprivations of conflicts, real preparation for war, these things effect politicians political fortunes poorly. Thus every unpleasant aspect of the Arab-Israeli conflict is concealed. The only reason that some people in Israel know there is still an occupation at all is because U2 and the Pixies canceled their Tel Aviv show.
Still I don’t think you have a problem with individuals exercising individual reason. Professor let me adress your central concerns, that of outward Israeli Academic exchange and the broader issues of speech.
...the purpose of the BDS movement itself. It is not speech that leads to actions and decisions that then can be assessed and corrected by more and different speech. It is speech that leads to actions and decisions that shut down future speech--one purpose of BDS is to stop Israelis from speaking on American college campuses…
Brad Delong, 2008
Let me try and build this out as a formal process:
Where S = Speech, A = Action, [] is a bracketing off and analysis
T1 : S -> A -> [S/A] -> S’ -> A’ -> [S’/A’]...
vs.
T2 : S -> A -> S’
T1 is a generative process. Speech leads to action, and then the relationship between speech and action is assessed. I relate the two terms (S,A) to each other, rather than to the world because results in such a situation are just another type of speech to be analyzed and revised. It is a simple model but it gves the sense of positions be testeds and truth being pursued.
T2 is a terminating process. Speech leads to action which in terms leads to more speech, but this speech is a last word, a final utterance. Be it propaganda, advertising, pornography, or violence, the goal is to establish a finality. Past this final speech is a silence.
T1 and T2 operate independantly from one another in an either/or condition. This is where I part from you, speech isn't self correcting, it needs to be engaged with an interlocutor (even if you are talking to yourself). Sppech is directed towards someone (so much so that it constantly reaches receivers it wasn’t intended for). Speech does not self correct like a server running debugging code, the process must be based on exchange, not generation alone.
If we make the process dialogic it start to work a lot better. They could be colaborating, competeing or just conversing. I have speech and action following from the actor because speech has a locus.
Process 1
X1 -> S -> A
X2 -> [S/A] -> S’ -> A’
X1 -> { [S/A][S’/A’][S/A’][S’/A] } -> S’’...
X2 -> { [S/A][S’/A’][S/A’][S’/A][S’’/A’’]...} -> S’’’...
vs.
Process 2
X1 -> S -> A -> S’
X2 -> [S/A][S’/A] -> S’’ -> A’
X1 -> S -> A -> S’
X2 -> { [S/A][S’/A’][S/A’][S’/A] } -> S’...
Process 1 shows two actors are modifing their speech and action not only from what they are doing but also on what the other is doing. The two actors are able to go through a greater number of terms and thus speech can be corrected at an accelerated rate.
Process 2 has X1 restating its speech metronomically, constantly coming to the same position, always working to establish the speech of X1 as the only speech. Now under normal circumstances, both actors having symmetrical positions and power, X1 is ineffective in dominating the argument. X2 is able to consider different terms and correct speech acordingly. Where there is a cost is in efficiency. X2 is only able to gain very limited information from X1 and will have to do most of the work.
Interesting to note that if you add additional actors, who are engaged in a generative process (X3,X4…), then X1 is reduced to irrelevance and drown out. That is why democracies are much more effective in marginalizing their extremist speech, it just gets lost in a crowd of vastly more intelligent speech.
What happens when X1 and X2 carry asymmetrical power? I would argue that X1 is able to affect the process by dominating its terms. So something like this:
Process 3:
X1 -> S -> A -> [S]S’
X2 -> [S’/A] -> S’’ -> A’
X1 -> S -> A -> [S]S’
X2 -> { [S’/A’][S’’/A] } -> S’’’ -> A’’...
X1 exerts dominance by defining S and eliminating this term from X2 (limiting its access to historical speech). X2 is still able to reason and to act, but it’s range of terms it considers is restricted. This is an analogous process to the control of history in totalitarian regimes (Marxism went as far as to define all of human history). Process 3 is an is auto-impoverishing, and while progress is possible, it is slow and highly inefficient.
Cleary this model is imperfect; there is no verification to an external reality (but how much speech does that anyway), and what is the difference between speech and action (isn’t speech an act and action just another form of speech)? Also, though I state that process 3 is brough about through asyemtrical power, I can’t formally show how it brought about. What it does show is why we find systems of open exchange more desirable and gives an idea of the effect of impeding exchange.
So what about BDS?
There should be no doubt that BDS is an illiberal movement, and anyone who is a signatory to it needs to accept that. Boycotts and divestment are coercive actions working to achieve political ends. No matter how positive and just the ends are, no matter that BDS is beyond reproach in it’s non-violece stance, the movement is not using reason to effect change, it is using force. That makes it illiberal and that is the ashen mark placed upon the brow of those who resist.
Our species has spent the last 200 years figuring out how to work to attempt political change in a manner that is both ethical and effective (and we have done a lousy job at that). All of the movements that have achieved social change, have all relied on force .In the extreme we see it when Camus cannot reject violence when looking at Algeria, nor can Derrida reject it when looking at Mandela. Even in our non-violent context of the United States, from civil rights to gay marriage, all have relied on some degree of coercion (the Brendan Eich story should be of particular interest here). Thus illberality is not necessarially a mark of a terminal discourse.
For me, what helps to settle the issue is the attitude of those who are involved in the Boycott:
This is not someone looking for the last word, this is someone desperate to have a voice at all. Today there is no other credible non-violent movemen other than BDS. BDS has become the only vehicle to connect Palestinian Intellectuals to those on the global stage.
The people involved in this movement feel they have few other options. BDS movement resembles not a terminating discorse but instead the X2 actor in Process 3. This is a situation where our choices are limited.
Where is this limitation? Ask Chris Christie, he just found out, there are somethings that you just can’t say:
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/chris-christie-occupied-territories-apology-105169.html
Ask the Olymipa food co-op, who just had to defend their support of BDS:
Ask Professor Joseph Massad, who was ritually attacked and defamed in 2004. This massive attack on Massad’s character occured while American academics silently shoe gazed to the sound collegiality shattering on the sharp edge of a slander.
Agreed, libelous speech and Anti-semitism neither deserves or requires respect, protection or consideration. I just find it risible to call Desmond Tutu, Steven Hawkins, Roger Waters and The Washington Food Co-op, a bunch of anti-semites. Thus I do sypathise with Butler and Khalidi when they write:
In an aside, pragmatically I have to ask, in the age of Blogs, Skype, and Satellite, how can BDS stop Israeli Academics from speaking to an American audience? In an age of massive austerity, is it really BDS which is stoping Israeli Academics from traveling and attending conferences? I am not saying it hasn't happened (but I am having a beast of a time finding an example). What I am saying is that the major effect of the boycott is on the prestige of Israeli Academic institutions and the legitimacy of the occupation.
I was in Ramallah in 2004 when the academic boycott was first initiated, based on the European Academic boycotts of 2002 (Larrys Summers spoke against them here):
http://www.harvard.edu/president/speeches/summers_2002/morningprayers.php
At the time I was very much against the boycott. I felt what was needed was more connections, more exchange, and a way toward mutual respect. I did not feel that the Academic Boycott as originally proposed in 2004 would lead to making the human connections needed. Sitting here in 2014 I can not only say that this human exchange did not occur, but that a new horrifying indifference and silence now dominates.
Today I see the BDS movement as a productive and generative speech refined from the Academic Boycott. Make no mistake, I am uncomforatble supporting it, but I am far less comforatble doing nothing in the face of the opression of the Palestinian people.
Moreso non-violent protest should appeal to the morality of the other. It should point to the justice and truely great achivements of Israeli society, while makeing the point that the occupation is an aberation that needs to be immediately corrected. BDS is an attempt to do exactly this.
It is very important to watch our language. We are all trying to get our points across, the best we can with the limited tools of language we have a hand. All of us should be aware of the human term in our equations, not only that we are speaking about other human beings but that the speakers are human too. As Roger Waters found out :
Point being, BDS is an evolving, and revising discourse, that is correcting over time. Supporters are not motivated by a desire to end a discourse but instead are attempting to engage in one using the only means they have left. Supporters of BDS care about our shared humanity and aren’t a bunch of closet racists.
Professor Delong, I am not argueing to change your mind, or anyone else’s about BDS. I am arguing that it is within a norm of political speech, and should be treated that way. I am asking that you accept it as a politically vaild choice and not something akin to Jim Crowe.
Not makeing a choice, is choising to accept the current situation. There are those of us who cannot and will not just accept a situation that not only causes unnecessary human suffering on a daily basis, but threatent to set the course for a nightmares to come.
Agreed we have the right to decide how our own money is spent, but a funder cutting off funding for an organization is one thing, quite another to target specific individuals for specific political positions. Of course, compared to the price paided by others for political speech, it is quite cheap. Stand up and say something at an American University against the occupation and a million tweets are fired at you. Say something at a the wrong border crossing or protest, they open up with live rounds. Life isn't cheap or easy. If we cannot deal with the pain of struggle then we can never have a life worth living.
I don’t think BDS is the best option, I just know it is the only option today for those who cannot acquiesce to the oppression of an entire people. For those opposed to the BDS movement, I would invite them to engage and invest. Give us the speech that is missing in this situation and prove that engagment is still possible. But keep well in mind that such speech needs to also give voice to Palestinians who have been silenced in their suffering. It should remember that it is difficult to give voice to those who have been silenced, but it is impossible to give a voice to the dead. Mr. Zeiter and thousands of others will never speak again, we should all keep that in mind as we moderate our language in rememberace of the dead.
Sincery and Respectfully,
J.E. D’Ulisse
update: Below is a link to an excellent article from Mondoweiss (one of the best sources if you care about this issue) well illustrates the dynamics I am trying to describe here.
http://mondoweiss.net/2014/03/ululating-israelpalestine-conflict.html
No comments:
Post a Comment