Defending Palestine Solidarity Activists: An Interview with Dima Khalidi

Defending Palestine Solidarity Activists: An Interview with Dima Khalidi

Defending Palestine Solidarity Activists: An Interview with Dima Khalidi

By : Nadine Naber

In this interview, attorney Dima Khalidi, who founded and directs Palestine Solidarity Legal Support (PSLS), discusses what it means to provide legal defense to protect Palestinian rights activists in the US from suppression and criminalization. Khalidi describes the perpetrators behind attacks against Palestine solidarity activists and provides an overview of the kinds of attacks they face, including pressures placed on universities to discipline and punish students and faculty for their speech activities. Khalidi also discusses the role of the Israeli government in several cases, provides recommendations for activists, and shares the goals of PSLS for the near future. Given the case of Professor Steven Salaita which developed after we completed this interview, Khalidi’s work is more urgent than ever. In 2013 alone, activists and community members reported over one hundred incidents of repression and intimidation to PSLS, and the numbers are increasing this year.  

Nadine Naber (NN): Can you tell me about the organization you founded, Palestine Solidarity Legal Support?
 

Dima Khalidi (DK): The idea for PSLS came out of an assessment I did with others interested in figuring out the best use of legal resources in the United States when it comes to Israel/Palestine. The efforts to get accountability for Israel’s international law violations are huge. But what came up again and again was the enormous pressure that activists in the US are under—the legal threats, intimidation, and smearing that students, academics, and others who speak out about this issue are subjected to, and the fact that there were very few resources to help them.

We started PSLS with the aim of being that resource, providing the legal defense and advocacy that would ensure that advocacy and activism for Palestinian rights is not suppressed or criminalized. The intent was to better coordinate and bolster the ad hoc work going on with organizations like the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and the National Lawyers Guild to support Palestinian rights activists.

Our work has several components. We track incidents of repression and intimidation so that we can detect patterns in the ways that Palestinian rights activists are being targeted. Through an intake system, we help activists respond to the attacks they face by giving them legal advice, representing them, and advocating on their behalf when possible, or referring them to other local attorneys who understand the political and legal context of this issue. A big component of our work is developing and providing resources, such as Know Your Rights workshops and guides. These empower activists to prepare for and navigate the different situations they may face. We are also building a network of legal professionals, advocacy organizations, and others who are familiar with this issue and who can be engaged in different aspects of the work.

Beyond these legal services, we aim to challenge the narrative that right-wing organizations are pushing to defend Israeli policies and shield Israel from accountability, which distract from the real injustices that Palestinians face on a daily basis. This false narrative relies on the notion that supporting Palestinians and criticizing Israel is not based on any real interest in human rights, but on a senseless hatred of Jewish people—or anti-Semitism. This narrative also tries to make indistinguishable a hatred of Jewish people and criticism of the Israeli state. It is common now to see the terms “anti-Semitism” and “anti-Israelism” used together, which reinforces the false equation. 

We advocate for the right to speak about Israel/Palestine without being marginalized, ostracized, having your reputation and career prospects destroyed, and getting visits from the FBI because of your views. Our work aims to change public opinion in this country—not only about the Palestine question, but also about social justice activism in general. It is the activists, working on many levels to connect social justice struggles and to effect real change, whose voices need to be amplified, not silenced. I view PSLS’s role as making that amplification possible by neutralizing or eliminating the inevitable legal threats that come with such activism.

NN: As an expert on this topic, can you help our readers understand the various sorts of assaults that are waged against anti-war and Palestine solidarity activists, students, or scholars in the United States? How do you suggest we understand the many types of assaults waged by varying levels of government, individuals, and organizations?

DK: We can think of the attacks on activists as coming from three general sources: private organizations that support Israeli policies, the US government, and the Israeli government. There is a level of coordination among these sources, and it is clear that the objective is to maintain the status quo, both between Israelis and Palestinians, and in terms of unconditional US support for Israel. A common thread in the attacks by these forces is to paint individuals and groups who are advocating for Palestinian rights as motivated by anti-Semitism, terrorist sympathies, and the desire to destroy the state of Israel. These accusations underlie almost all of the attacks we are seeing.

The efforts of private, often non-profit organizations to stifle pro-Palestinian activity in the United States are the most obvious and public source of repression. This is not new. For years, organizations that promote a Zionist agenda have been attacking Palestinian rights activists. We have seen a distinct uptick in the last few years with a rise in activism in the wake of Operation Cast Lead in Gaza in 2009, which awakened a new generation of activists who were outraged by the casualties and damage that Israel caused. Another factor is the growth of the movement for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS). As increasing numbers of people question Israeli policies and US support for Israel, pro-Israel organizations have sought to dominate the narrative with often false, exaggerated, and highly inflammatory accusations. This is likely to intensify now, with the latest and most brazen mass destruction in Gaza yet, which is mobilizing people to oppose Israeli and US policies in record numbers, and will likely strengthen the movement for BDS. Of course, Israel’s propaganda machine is working on all cylinders to somehow justify the massive civilian casualties by shamelessly blaming the victims and claiming the onslaught is an exercise of the right of self-defense.

To give a sense of the types of legal tactics that these organizations use, I will describe a couple of cases we have worked on in the last year and a half since PSLS started. Many of these tactics are directed at activism on campuses, where the student Palestine solidarity movement has burgeoned, and more academics are undertaking scholarship and public advocacy on this issue.

The situation at Florida Atlantic University (FAU) illustrates the lengths to which off-campus, Israel-promoting organizations will go to shut down student speech. The Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) at FAU was putting on a lot of educational events and activities to raise awareness about Palestine. In April 2012, SJP distributed mock eviction notices in a dorm. These flyers announced that students were being evicted, then went on to explain Israeli policies of eviction and home demolition that facilitate Israel’s continued settlement of Palestinian land. With permission from administrators, they taped the notices to dorm room doors. In response, the campus Hillel chapter, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the Zionist Organization of America, and others made a big fuss, claiming that the notices were only taped to Jewish students’ doors, and that students were scared and intimidated by them. They insisted that the university investigate it as a bias incident. Even Palm Beach County was threatening legal action because the students had put a county seal on the flyer. The SJP students started getting death threats and intimidating emails. The university conducted an investigation and found that there was absolutely no evidence that Jewish students were targeted, and that it was clear the flyers were distributed randomly with an educational intent. 

After this incident, several videos came out claiming that FAU itself was anti-Semitic, urging people to stop giving money to the university, naming individual students protesting, and labeling them as pro-terrorist and anti-Semitic. This put a lot of pressure on FAU. In April 2013, the students staged a walkout of an event featuring an Israeli soldier who was talking about the ethics of the Israeli military. One student said a few words about Israeli war crimes, others held up a banner, and then they walked out, all within a couple of minutes at the start, and the event continued for a while after. Afterward, five of the SJP students were charged with disciplinary violations. Rather than going through a skewed hearing process, they ended up agreeing to some conditions on their activism—that they would not hold leadership positions in student organizations, that they would attend “diversity trainings” (which were designed by the ADL, to add insult to injury), and they were put on academic probation so that any other infraction would cause them to face more severe penalties. One student had to do community service. All of this retaliation for a short walkout, which is a time-honored, peaceful protest method, that was intended to register outrage at the presence of an Israeli soldier talking on campus about how great the IDF is! This example illustrates the kind of pressure that is being placed on universities to take disciplinary action against students for their speech activities, from donors and organizations that make these kinds of damaging accusations.

These Zionist organizations are also demanding US government scrutiny. They are pushing legislation in different states and city councils that condemns student activists, or that attacks boycotts, notably after the American Studies Association’s endorsement of an academic boycott. Legislation was proposed in at least six states and the US Congress to condemn boycotts, and even to penalize universities that subsidize their faculty’s membership in or travel to ASA conferences—something that would be plainly unconstitutional. They are using civil rights laws to instigate Department of Education investigations into universities that they claim are discriminating against Jewish students by tolerating a hostile anti-Semitic environment on campus, allegedly created by all of the Palestine-related events that students and academics organize. We have seen a number of examples of Zionist organizations making claims that groups or individuals are connected to terrorist organizations, or that their fundraisers are supporting terrorism, and publicizing that they reported them to law enforcement. We have had a number of activists call us because the FBI is trying to talk to them. There is a palpable, and justified fear on the part of students that there are government agents and informers among them.

These tactics of criminalizing dissent and infiltrating groups are, of course, very similar to those used against other civil rights and social justice movements in the 1960s and 1970s, and against immigrants’ rights, antiwar, environmental, and animal rights movements today. The difference is the powerful layer of domestic organizations and the fact that the Israeli government is fueling and actively pushing for this criminalization of human rights activism in order that Israeli crimes go unchecked.

NN: Given these pressures, what are your recommendations for activists, from a legal standpoint?

DK: We are working with dozens of activists all over the country, and I have to say, there are some formidable organizers out there who keep on going despite all of this pressure. In our Know Your Rights workshops, we encourage activists to think ahead, and to think strategically about the activities they organize, to understand and be able to predict the kind of backlash they will encounter, and we give them tools to better withstand threats against them. Most of all, we want activists to be confident that they have the right to speak out, to be passionate, to expose the injustice, and to use their collective power to try to make a difference—whether through petitions or boycotts or sit-ins. Of course, this does not guarantee that they will not be attacked for it, or arrested or disciplined—as I explained, that is a more and more common result. But if they go into everything knowing the possible outcomes, and if they know that PSLS and the other organizations and individuals we work with are ready to defend them, it is a little less intimidating to go up against the powers that be. My hope is that PSLS is providing some breathing room by dispelling the legal threats that they face, and acting as a bulwark against the rising tide of desperate attacks by apologists for the Israeli government.

NN: What has PSLS uncovered about this interrelationship between Israeli government pressure and funding of these groups and US government involvement in any if these cases?

DK: In several cases we have encountered, the role of the Israeli government has been public, and in many others, we can only guess at the influence it is having. We know in big criminal cases that Israel has been the impetus behind some prosecutions and has provided the US government with much evidence, often tainted by torture and utter disregard for human rights and due process. This was the case in Muhammad Salah’s trial in 2006 on terrorism-related charges, as well as in the Holy Land Five case. It is very likely the case now in the prosecution of Rasmea Odeh, a beloved community activist who has done amazing work organizing Arab women in Chicago for over a decade. Odeh allegedly committed immigration fraud ten years ago because she did not mention on her naturalization application that she was arrested, convicted by an Israeli military court, and imprisoned for ten years by Israel for a crime she says she did not commit. During her interrogation by Israeli security forces, she was brutally tortured. Her trial will take place in Detroit this fall.

The US government would have little incentive to go after these cases involving humanitarian charity to Palestine, or community-based activists, without Israel’s encouragement and supply of evidence that forms the basis for the prosecution’s charges. In most of these situations, US courts become tools of Israeli efforts to silence and punish dissent. Even constitutional protections have been thrown out of the window in many cases, with Israeli secret service agents testifying in disguise, defense attorneys barred from seeing evidence against their clients, courtrooms closed to the public, all based on Israel’s determinations of what should and should not be made available to public scrutiny in the United States. It is shameful.

At the same time, Israel is engaging on a more surface level in efforts to oppose BDS activism. This illustrates the threat that Israel perceives from this non-violent tactic. We have seen Israeli diplomats showing up on campuses trying to convince students not to vote for divestment, participating in campus events, and even engaging on social media to influence the debate. This happened at DePaul University this past spring. The consular entourage also managed to photograph and videotape student activists campaigning for divestment, a very distressing intimidation tactic because many have family and friends in Palestine and travel there themselves.  

What is unseen, I think, is the level of coordination between the Israeli government and the numerous organizations in the United States that do its bidding. In a lawsuit against the Olympia Food Co-op for its board members’ decision to boycott Israeli goods, a case that our partner organization, CCR, has successfully defeated so far, the Israeli consul made clear that the Israeli government was supporting StandWithUs in its case against Co-op board members. We have seen Israeli officials laud and encourage legislative efforts to defeat BDS as well, as was the case with the recent legislation proposed in several states and in Congress attempting to punish the ASA for its endorsement of a boycott against Israeli academic institutions. Former Israeli Ambassador to the US Michael Oren inspired these efforts, which have so far been defeated by strong coalitions with which PSLS has been working. There have been explicit calls from Israeli officials to use legal measures and surveillance of activists to counteract BDS, and we are seeing that manifested now.

NN: What is your vision for the future? What changes are you at PSLS seeing and what are you working towards?  

DK: Long term, I hope that the work of these young folks, and the work of many other groups that are now pushing for concrete changes, will really turn the tables at the top. This situation in which the oppressor, the occupier, the colonizer, the war criminal is protected and enabled by our own government while the occupied are blamed, shunned, and portrayed as the aggressors cannot continue indefinitely. The change is now happening at the bottom. These conversations are happening on college campuses all over the country, and the orthodoxies on this issue are being challenged. Change feels possible now more than ever. There is definitely a steep climb ahead, and I am certain that legal attacks will be a primary tool in the arsenal against these activists. 

Nevertheless, we are still on the defensive, trying to prove that these activists are not the monsters they are portrayed to be. But slowly, I think we can make a difference in these perceptions—by educating university administrators, government agencies, and media outlets about the real power dynamics at play here, by exposing the breadth and depth of the attacks on activists, and by defending their right to nonviolently advocate for change using the same tactics of the civil rights and anti-apartheid movements that are now celebrated. Importantly, the legal efforts to punish activists so far have not been successful, and we hope to keep it that way.

Based on our experience in the short time that PSLS has been in operation, I already get the feeling that people in positions of power feel bullied into acting against student activists, or publicly condemning critics of Israel. Many have thanked us for being a counterweight to this enormous pressure. Many have said that their hands are tied by Israel’s defenders without counter demands being made on them to support Palestinian rights. So it is my hope that rather than being stifled, silenced, and distorted, the demands for justice in Israel/Palestine will be heard, will grow louder, and will be impossible to ignore. PSLS’s role is to fend off legal and other obstacles thrown in their way, and to help shift the discourse, so that time may come a little sooner.

INTERVIEWEE ID: Dima Khalidi is the founder and director of Palestine Solidarity Legal Support (PSLS), and Cooperating Counsel with the Center for Constitutional Rights. She has a JD from DePaul University College of Law with a concentration in International Law, an MA in Comparative Legal Studies from the University of London – School of Oriental and African Studies, and a BA in History and Near Eastern Studies from the University of Michigan. Prior to founding PSLS, she worked with the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) as a cooperating attorney on the Mamilla Cemetery Campaign, and as an intern on numerous cases that sought to hold Israeli officials and corporations accountable for violations of international law. Khalidi also headed a research project at Birzeit University on informal justice mechanisms in the Palestinian legal system. Her writings and interviews have appeared in the New York Times, the Jewish PressThe Real News NetworkMondoweiss, Huffington Post, Law and Disorder Radio, and Radio Tahrir

  • ALSO BY THIS AUTHOR

    • Nadine Naber, “The Radical Potential of Mothering during the Egyptian Revolution” (New Texts Out Now)

      Nadine Naber, “The Radical Potential of Mothering during the Egyptian Revolution” (New Texts Out Now)

      I chose to write about leftist women’s activism in Egypt out of my own life history as a leftist activist-scholar, originally from Al-Salt, Jordan, but having lived primarily in the United States.

    • Including Arab Americans in the Biden Administration is not Enough

      Including Arab Americans in the Biden Administration is not Enough

      In a series of unprecedented moves, President Biden has included six Arab Americans in his administration; partnered with Arab Americans; increased the refugee admission cap; explicitly named the problem of anti-Arab bigotry and committed to end it, and ended the Muslim Ban. Yet rather than quickly deeming these as “victories” for Arab American communities, we need to look beyond individual policy stances or political slogans. Instead, we need to explore the root causes of the problems that Biden claims his partnership with Arab Americans will address and ask ourselves to what extent the Biden administration is committed to unraveling the underlying systems that maintain anti-Arab bigotry or the structures that make policies like the Muslim Ban possible. A “root-cause” approach allows us to envision structural changes that can ensure not only an end to anti-Arab bigotry but also a world where anti-Arab and anti-Muslim racism become unimaginable.

    • Here We Go Again: Saving Muslim Women and Queers in the Age of Trump

      Here We Go Again: Saving Muslim Women and Queers in the Age of Trump

      As I researched and joined political actions responding to the Muslim ban — the third iteration of which remains permanently in place — I was appalled by the trend of responses lacking any sort of feminist and/or queer analysis. When responses did mention gender, they wittingly or unwittingly reified the dynamic of centralizing forms of gender violence that can be explained through cultural and religious frames while obscuring the realities of gender violence inflicted by the US state and the Muslim ban itself.


Demanding Equality: Interview with Steven Salaita on the ASA Academic Boycott

The American Studies Association (ASA) recently became the second US-based scholarly association to endorse the boycott of Israeli academic institutions. The 800-member Association of Asian American Studies (AAAS) was the first. A group of ASA scholars proposed the boycott resolution to the ASA’s Community and Activism caucus in November 2012 after visiting Palestine and Israel on a delegation organized by the US Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (USACBI). After deliberating the resolution at its most recent conference in Washington, DC, the ASA’s National Council unanimously endorsed the resolution. In contravention of its traditional practice and presumably to deflect backlash, the National Council put its endorsement to a membership wide vote. On Monday 16 December 2013, the ASA announced that sixty-six percent of its membership voted in favor of the boycott. The backlash to the affirmative vote has been tremendous. Notably, the mainstream debate has excluded Palestinian voices. 

Steven Salaiata  served ASA`s Community and Activism Caucus that successfully put forward the recent boycott resolution and is one of the leading Palestinian voices on this successful initiative. Salaita was born in West Virginia (yes, you read that correctly) to a pretty multicultural household.  His mother was born and raised in Nicaragua, but her parents are from Palestine.  His father is Jordanian, from the Old Testament town of Madaba. For the past six years he has taught English at Virginia Tech, but starting in the fall he`ll join the Department of American Indian Studies at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.  He writes regularly for Electronic Intifada and Salon.  His most recent published book is Israel`s Dead Soul, but he`s working on a project that compares necolonial narratives in the New World and Palestine. 

This interview with Salaita is also featured on Jadaliyya’s December edition of ‘An Jad/For Reel, its monthly audio podcast.  

Noura Erakat: Welcome Steven, thank you for joining me on `An Jad/Jad For Reel, Jadaliyya`s monthly audio podcast.

Steven Salaita: Thank you for having me.

NE: So, there`s a lot of exciting news in the air. We just found out that the American Studies Association membership has endorsed the National Council`s resolution for the academic boycott of Israel by sixty-six percent, which is a supermajority. Obviously, this is a big deal, though the way that it has been framed is a bit curious, because it is not the first academic association in the United States to endorse an academic boycott--that was the Asian American Studies Association. It certainly is not the first globally as we know. For example, the University of Johannesburg cut all of its ties with Ben-Gurion University in 2011. Yet, it has been framed as a game-changer. You have been significantly involved in leading this effort for years and through this last stretch. Can you tell us a little bit about why it is such a game-changer? 

SS: I think there are a few things going on. The size of the ASA as compared to the Asian American Studies Association (AASA) is significant. This association has more of a national and international profile. Also, there was a level of opposition within the ASA that was loud and ended up getting a lot of media involved and created interest. So, I think that with the AASA, it passed unanimously and it passed rather quietly. They faced a good amount of backlash and criticism but in the weeks leading up to their adoption of a boycott there wasn`t this media brouhaha that the ASA was subject to. So, with the interest of a lot of outside media, with a lot of the international profile and stature of a lot of the scholars that were helping to organize the resolution, all of those things created a tremendous amount of interest. In the United States, the very notion of isolating Israel or singling out Israel or targeting Jews and these sorts of nonsensical narratives that are coming from the other side carry a lot of weight in people`s imaginations. So, a lot of curiosity got evoked around the idea of “why are people doing this to Israel?” This has been great, because it has given us an opportunity to explain what the boycott is about and to explain what it does and does not do.

NE: You have done a tremendous job at that. You have continued to churn out op-eds that have been featured in Electronic Intifada, Mondoweiss, Salon, and you have responded to these nonsensical arguments. These nonsensical arguments have said the boycott singles out Israel, that this targets Israel, or targets Jewish people, that this infringes on academic freedom. What we noticed is that these arguments kept being repeated ad nauseum despite the responses to them, and that they all look similar to one another. This, for me, indicated a weakness in their argument. Can you tell us about your responses to them and your observations about their tactics?

SS: I agree with you completely. It almost sounded like a collection of automatons, sort of repeating the same talking points, and there was no real engagement with the issue. As you know, and as all of us know, there were some really solid and well-rendered arguments raised in opposition to the resolution from a number of scholars and we addressed those, we engaged in conversation with those people. Some of them, including Claire Potter (aka Tenured Radical), changed their minds and took a pro-boycott stance because of that engagement, but the majority of responses seemed to be from people reading from a pre-approved list of ADL/StandWithUs talking points, and it`s very difficult to engage in a serious conversation with people who are reading from a script and who show very little ability to critically think and discuss or even have a basic ethical strategic conversation.

I want to be very careful about choosing my words here, but I think the idea that we were targeting Jews is so pernicious, so false, that I find it troublesome on so many levels. Not merely because a lot of Jewish people, some practicing, some secular, of all stripes are involved in the boycott resolution and boycotts in general. But again, that`s where the problem comes in, and it`s where I wish they would make the connection. By equating Israel, a nation-state, with the Jewish people, an international, highly diverse, heterogeneous population, they are recreating the same sort of ethno-nationalism that we`re standing opposed to, and it is a grave mistake from a geopolitical standpoint, and from my point it is a mistake for the Jewish people, because it singularizes them and homogenizes them and it does no cultural or religious or ethnic community any good to be associated with the behavior of a nation-state. I would never associate my ethnic background, which is Jordanian and Palestinian, with the behavior of the PA or with King Abdullah, and I don`t think anyone should associate Jewish culture with the state of Israel.

NE: I agree with you, Steven, but don`t you think that part of their argument is, for those who are making that argument and are subsuming the heterogeneity of a global Jewish population, that they`re mirroring the Zionist project as it has been deployed--especially in the United States by the Israel Lobby, where that collapse has been used as silencing tactic? 

SS: I couldn`t have said it any better, that is exactly what`s happening. So that response really juxtaposes itself with the very ethical basis for boycott. Every time they say that we`re attacking the Jews, one of the thing that comes out of it is the conflation that we`re contesting and pointing out the dangers of. And it`s been a problem with Zionism since it`s inception. 

NE: Along with many problems that we are slowing contending with. But back to the academic boycott specifically, it gained momentum in a way that, for many people watching, looked as if it came out of the blue, that somehow this was miraculous for the opponents. There were accusations that this resolution blindsided them, that we were just more prepared than they, and that`s why this was such a decisive victory. Yet, for someone who`s in the ASA, that`s just not true. You have mentioned that this was a four year effort. Can you tell us a bit about how this came to be?

SS: Sure, but by the way Noura, did you see the ADL job posting in the Bay Area for an anti-BDS campaigner?

NE: No, I have not.

SS: I`ll send it to you. So they have paid positions! I just want to point out that all our work is voluntary, and that really belies the accusation that we`re some kind of organized juggernaut with funding and that they`re just a poor, dispersed group of voices in the wilderness who have no organizational power. That is just ridiculous. I do not want to start naming names because I`m going to forget people, and I do not want to inadvertently insult anyone, but Marcy Newman tells me in fact that the first formal meeting about doing anything vis-a-vis a boycott at the ASA was seven years ago. In fact, I was at that meeting, and while I don`t remember it being seven years ago, she tells me that it was and I believe her. All of the meetings in the Community and Activism Caucus from the where the resolution arises were all open and advertised and we never made any demand of ideology or politics on people. Anyone was welcome to join us and converse about it. Also, the ASA has been hosting panels and open sessions of various forms on academic boycott and on responses to Israeli aggression for a long time, so this was absolutely no secret. There was nothing stealth about it. It was featured prominently at this year`s conference, in two member-wide sessions. So the idea that this was done in any sort of secret is nonsensical. 

NE: Can you say a little about the process, that this was mentioned seven years ago? The first time it was mentioned, there was significant opposition to it. So, there was a steady track, and something shifted in the 2012 meeting in Puerto Rico. People get the impression that they can launch a boycott campaign and that they can win it, and that`s never how it happens. In the Presbyterian Church (PCUSA), for example, it was first introduced in 2004. Now, in 2012, they were able to almost decisively win, and lost by a split hair, 333-331. Now, going into 2014, we might see a decisive victory. We are talking ten years in the case of the PCUSA. Not many people follow it that closely, and I think the ASA offers another great lesson in this steady trajectory of BDS organizing, that of an academic boycott being one of the most difficult and challenging of those efforts. Can you tell us about that steady trajectory within the ASA?

SS: Absolutely. I think with the church or a religious community that really has a profound sense of ethical commitment, not necessarily to the Palestinians but just in general, it is one thing. With academic associations, I think most professors are innately averse to anything that they might think would even remotely threaten academic freedom. So we had that added challenge, where people who in moral principle would be against Israel`s behavior and military occupation might have trouble coming into support of boycott because they feel like it might infringe on people`s academic freedom. The resolution does not do that, in fact it protects academic freedom. As for the process, I guess it takes a lot of commitment. I would remind people to try their best, and I`m guilty of this way more than I should be, not to get into snarky mudslinging matches. Because I think one tactic of the anti-BDS crowd is to sling a lot of mud, and no matter who quote-unquote wins the argument, everyone comes out smeared with dirt.

I would remind people to stick with the facts, and we have an enormous body of evidence available everywhere that illustrates just how aggressive Israel is and how aggressive the founding of this state was, so there`s no shortage of materials. Stick with those materials and stick with the great need to emphasize the freedom of Palestinians, always talk about what they aree going through and how they are marginalized and how they are affected by Israel`s occupation and racist legal system. Because the anti-BDSers always try to bring everything back around to how things affect Israel, or American Jews, or Israeli Jews, and this isn`t about how things affect Israeli Jews. In fact, we have gone out of our way, the Palestinians have gone out of their way, to ensure that their struggles for freedom do not infringe on the freedoms of American Jews. All the Palestinians are asking for is democracy. They are not asking for anybody else to be marginalized, they are not asking for anybody else to be dispossessed, which quite frankly I find remarkable, given their circumstances.

Boycott doesn`t ask for any of these things. Boycott asks for the implementation of simple democracy, nothing more nothing less, simple equal rights, a juridical system that doesn`t privilege one ethnic community over another. So you have to keep sticking with those points, keep putting those points forward, those arguments forward. Because you quickly begin to realize the counterarguments, as you pointed out earlier, are all talking points. They have very little substance behind them; in fact, the majority of opposition responses, ever since the news of the vote got released, have been bullying, screams of anti-Semitism, and threats of lawsuit. That is kind of what the other side has been reduced to. So, you can change people`s minds, and the way you change people`s minds is by showing them the facts, engaging them with Palestinian narratives, and by pushing forward and not being scared or intimidated.

NE: Absolutely, and that has actually worked in the past because those threats and intimidation have been made real on that promise, as we have seen with so many of our colleagues. Which is why this boycott was so remarkable. Even before the vote was in, to see the groundswell of support for boycott from junior scholars, undergraduate students, graduate students, and tenured scholars, as well as senior scholars, indicated that despite these material threats, there was a desire and a moral conviction to speak in favor of the resolution. I think for many of us bearing witness, this marked one of the fundamental victories involved in the process.

You mentioned something really important, and something that was mentioned to me, which is the importance of emphasizing the Palestinian narrative. I was told that was one of the most impactful things for those who were part of the deliberations, hearing from Palestinians speaking about how this affects Palestinians. I have been in this for so long, I tend to forget that it is true. The Palestinian narrative is not an issue when we discuss BDS. It becomes about how this impacts Jewish Americans, as well as Israel, but says Palestinians are already expendable. So, and you have done this really well in emphasizing the story of your grandmother being a refugee, and doing a lot of work to reinsert the Palestinian narrative in this struggle, why did you decide to do that and what has been the response to you doing that, in this case and in the past?

SS: Overwhelmingly positive. Of all the arguments I raised publicly, an emphasis on basic Palestinian humanity tends to evoke a very positive response whereas a lot of other arguments end up in debate. I think I am just bothered in general, from an intellectual moral and historical standpoint, that the Holy Land is at least implicitly seen to be a Jewish space, and that the Palestinians are somehow tangential to its future, rather than absolutely central and vital to its future. In the US especially, so much of the debate, even on the left, focuses on what this conflict does for Israeli Jews, what this conflict means to American Jews. I feel like Norman Finkelstein, for example, spends way too much time focused on the needs and opinions of the American Jewish community while ignoring the needs of Palestinians. So I think that when we focus on the Palestinians as central players in this conflict and central players, THE central players in my opinion, in that region`s future, what we`re doing is producing an important shift, and it is a vital component of decolonization to put the emphasis on the colonized rather than retaining our focus on the colonizer.

NE: I think that is absolutely right, to frame Palestinians as the colonized, when they`ve been framed for so long as just a security issue, for many reasons that have to do with domestic politics in the US, and obviously this was resurrected after 11 September 2001, that coming out of that security framework to have this discussion is somewhat of a milestone and sadly was about a matter of time. So, now we are also bearing witness to this last-ditch effort for a peace process where finally the world is on board with the two-state solution when the two-state solution is dead. One has to wonder: when will the consensus develop about the alternative for a one-state solution that needs a lot of work to be fleshed out before it finally develops as a consensus, and before it is too late?

SS: You are a veteran of the cultural wars around the Israel-Palestine conflict, so you know a lot better than I do about just how much the discourse has shifted and progressed. What I find remarkable about much of the debate around the ASA resolution was that we were not talking about whether Israel was guilty of these things, of this nasty behavior in the past and present. We were discussing whether boycott was a viable response to that behavior. That, to me, seemed really important, that we were no longer discussing “does Israel do bad things?” I find myself discussing more, “what do we do in response to them?`” We are seeing a lot of discussion on the Israeli liberal left about the two-state solution being dead and a lot of hand-wringing about needing a settlement because one-state is going to be the only viable option. We are even seeing some of that commentary coming from the Israeli right, also.

I think that, like BDS, that the movement towards a one-state solution is inevitable. I think that the horse is out of the barn, and we`re not putting it back in. I do think that the notion of a one-state solution, as complex as it is, is a movement fundamentally focused on discourses of democracy, and so I do feel like it goes hand-in-hand with BDS as an activist movement. US Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (USACBI) does not take an explicit position on one or two state, so I am talking as an individual here, but I feel like the move towards a one-state solution and the move to pressure Israel via boycott are two sides of the same coin. 

NE: Any words on where this horse is going to next? Can you comment on how this movement has been expanding and the interest it has been generating amongst other scholars from other US-based academic associations?

SS: I have been so involved in ASA I do not know for sure what is going on elsewhere, I am really not being coy. But I know a lot of people shave reached out to me and others talking about the possibility of their organizing a similar movement within their own scholarly organizations or within their academic departments or on their campuses. I do not know where the horse is going to end up, but I do know that he is headed towards a place that Israel`s advocates do not want it do go.

NE: On that note, we`re all looking forward to the next rest stop and the next battle, as this is obviously continuing. Even as we celebrate this victory, Israel`s settler colonial expansion is accelerating unabated. We cannot possibly move fast enough to compete with that process, so our urgency can`t be overestimated. I`m so grateful for all the work that you`ve done and for joining us today on `An Jad/Jad For Reel. Thank you Steven.

SS: Thank you, I appreciate it.