All right, let's give this a shot and see how it goes.
I think this is going to key.
Interesting.
I told you at the start of last week that I have been self censoring myself on some
topics, not because of monetization you reasons on youtube, but because of an effort basically
to preserve my sanity.
I did a long segment last week explaining that I've tended not to take on certain topics
because merely broaching the topics is me choosing to deal with two weeks of nonsense
on my social media feeds and email inbox and youtube channel.
Uh, and some of those topics include everything from talking about the squad in anything but
the most glowing terms or talking about Venezuela in anything but glowing terms or even mentioning
Tulsi Gabard or the Israeli Palestinian conflict of some examples.
So today I'm going to talk about sort of the Israeli conflict.
I'm going to specifically talk about a vote that was taken in the United States related
to what is called the bds movement last week.
And, yeah, I mean, to some extent, I don't know why I'm doing this, uh, but we will see
sort of what the reactions are.
I'm making an effort not to self-censor the reactions to my segment last week where David,
we understand that we may disagree on some issues, but don't self censor.
You will be surprised at actually how people will respectfully engage you on the substance
rather than, uh, going down the Ad Hominem antisemitic rabbit hole.
For example, if you talk about this bds vote.
So let's see.
Let's see how it goes.
Um, let's do it.
Uh, my, my only request is listen to what I'm actually saying.
If your comment or your response is not based on what I've said, then it's worthless and
I'm going to ignore it.
Okay.
Recently there was a vote in the House of Representatives, HR two 46 easily passed with
both democratic and Republican support.
I believe it's 17 Democrats voted against it, but numerous so-called progressive heroes
voted in favor of the bill, uh, to condemn the boycott divestment sanctions movement
against Israel.
And this includes Ro Khanna, who I know a little bit personally.
This includes Diana Presley from here in Boston.
This includes Tulsi Gabard, who voted in favor of the bill to condemn bds, and it instantly
spun some elements of the progressive media sphere into disarray.
We've been betrayed.
How dare these so called progressive's vote in this way.
So let's break it down piece by piece.
And again, if you're going to respond with anything that includes, for example, comments
about me being Jewish, that is not what I would call a substantive response.
If you're going to respond with smears about these elected officials who voted one way
or the other, that's not a productive conversation.
Let's actually talk about the substance.
Let's first start with the premise that I imagine all democrats, uh, who are considered
themselves even remotely progressive.
So this includes people like Rocana and I, Anna Presley, who voted for the bill and those
who voted against the bill.
I believe that we all share the goal of wanting Israel to change its policy towards Palestinians.
I believe we're all United against the right wing government of Benjamin Netanyahu, which
I've been talking about my opposition to for years, and I think my progressive audience
is basically on board with, so then we get to one element of this, which is the bds movement.
The bds movement dates back to 2005 again, it's bds, boycott, boycott, divestment sanctions.
The idea is to force or shame Israel into, I guess treating Palestinians better as they
see it by boycotting Israeli businesses.
This includes individuals participating in boycotts.
This includes lobbying businesses and even countries or city governments, local governments
to boycott Israel.
So let's charitably assume in good faith that bds supporters truly believe that bds will
push the government to change in this respect.
My first disagreement with bds is that I disagree that it will work.
It's a pragmatic disagreement.
The first bit of evidence is that it's been around almost 15 years and it has accomplished
almost nothing.
Now, I know people will write to me and they'll say, but David, there have been some localities
or some countries, I think Ireland had a vote where they say we are not going to do business
with Israel.
Uh, and that's true.
There have been some academic departments that have said we are going to boycott and
divest from Israel.
Many of them don't even have investments or business with Israel to begin with.
The point is nothing has changed in terms of policy or in the improving of the lives
of Palestinians as as result of the bds movement.
And it's actually stunning in fact, because they've had a pretty significant PR impact.
I mean, again, entire country speaking in favor of the movement and yet there is policy.
We all disagree with those of us who favor bds and those of us who oppose it and none
of those policies have changed.
Now there is a big argument that takes place around bds.
Is bds antisemitic?
And the answer is, here we go.
Now listen to what I'm going to say.
No.
BDS is not inherently antisemitic any more than boycotting.
China is inherently anti Asian or boycotting.
Saudi Arabia is anti Saudi or anti Muslim or anti Arab or whatever.
But bds does provide cover for lots of antisemites.
Again, importantly, without having achieved anything of substance over the last 14 years,
bds as successes include convincing some artists not to do concerts in Israel.
It's not doing much for the Palestinian people.
I want to do something for the Palestinian people.
They've had colleges vote in favor of bds proposals, the number of which has been declining
over the years.
That's starting to fade.
And meanwhile from other places, there are record investments in Israel.
New Jersey divested from a bank that participates in bds, Ohio made record investments in Israeli
bonds, intelligence scaled up Israeli investment.
Dozens of examples.
So listen, I get it.
This is a tactic that might work.
I don't believe it has worked and I think that we need to go in a different direction
now.
There's another problem which is that it's very overtly and Al boycott Israel when it's
convenient movement, but not other countries because it's inconvenient.
And as soon as it's not convenient to boycott Israel, I won't boycott Israel anymore.
So let's go through it.
What about China?
Right?
China's human rights abuses are horrible.
Who's boycotting China?
Well, very few people because we need those Chinese products.
Whether it's your iPhone, whether it's other electronics, whether it's clothing, whatever
the case may be, it's simply not practical.
They say to boycott China, boycott Israel is much more practical until of course you
need the emergency bandage that was used to save the life of Gabby Giffords when she was
shot.
Or we still for boycotting that and using a subpar product to save a life.
I don't think so.
Boycott Israel until a family member needs a medical treatment or humanitarian efforts,
need Israeli products boycott Israel until uh, a family member has multiple sclerosis,
in which case most people will say, yeah, let's just use the good drug, which is the
one developed by the Weitzman Institute and sold by Teva pharmaceuticals from Israel.
So let me be really clear about why I'm mentioning this.
I don't want people to forego what is the best treatment because they want to boycott
Israel.
What I'm pointing out is then it's soon as it's inconvenient.
The boycott falls.
Do you shop at trader Joe's?
Last time I was there.
Terrific.
Israeli fed a cheese at trader Joe's imported as well as other Israeli products.
Are you supporting there but saying that you support bds cause there's an inconsistency.
Do you shop at whole foods?
Whole foods has actually made a statement where they said we do not boycott Israeli
products at whole foods.
Well maybe you go to stop and shop if you live in the northeast of the United States.
Wait a second.
Stop and shop is one of the biggest Israeli product selections around Passover, including
those really great chocolate covered marshmallows.
So are you actually boycotting, are you sort of repeating the talking point without understanding
what's going on?
So the problem with bds is that it is as ineffective as it is capricious in its application.
Okay.
You won't buy a soda stream to make your own seltzer, but when the rubber hits the road,
most people will abandon their principles as soon as it's necessary or convenient just
to go and do the grocery shopping.
So in the end, bds asserts nothing that will promote peace.
It is simply failed and it divides the left groups that would be very glad to work together.
Like for example, Jewish groups that are for Palestinian rights, for getting rid of the
Netanyahu administration for stopping the settlements but aren't in favor of bds, would
be able to be working with so many of these other groups if bds was not driving this wedge
between them.
So then we get to this vote on HR two 46.
Uh, there are people who thought Rocana was great as an example, California congressman,
until he voted in favor of the bill and now they are insulting him or saying, well, the
reason why Rowe Kinda did this is because he supports Bernie and Bernie's Jewish and
clearly Bernie, uh, hypnotized Rocana into voting for the bill.
Maybe Rocana just assessed the circumstances and decided it made sense to vote for the
bill.
Oh, David, you're against the, you're, you're for the bill.
You're against it.
Whatever your position is informed by being Jewish.
Maybe.
I just think that this is really a distraction of a bill and that bds is a wedge that is
going to get in the way of us advancing our a shared goal of improving circumstances for
Palestinians and Israeli Palestinian peace.
What would unite the left would be to say at its basic principles, we need a president
here in the United States who is not going to give divisive gifts to Israel like moving
the embassy to Jerusalem.
We need to recognize that the left is in agreement on 95% of this issue.
I simply disagree that bds will work or that it will unite any important coalitions in
order to achieve the change that we all want and sadly it does also function as a veil
for some antisemitism.
For some people.
That's my view on this issue.
I'm ready for the criticisms, make them substantive.
I'm going to ignore you if it's about me being a Zionist shell or whatever else that that's
not serious conversation.
I'm looking to actually explain to you why I think this is a movement that has already
failed and that there are ways in which we can work together rather than arguing about
bds to improve the lives of Palestinians
and Israeli Arabs and quite frankly of Jews around the world as well who don't benefit
from the continuation of the status quo.
Let me know what you think