With more than 80% of the Noosa community eligible to vote supporting de-amalgamation, a long shadow cast by the development and financial threats of forced amalgamation at the behest of the Bligh government five years ago has been dispersed. Once again, Noosa will be free to pursue its local, sustainable destiny in accordance with the locally developed strategic plan and UNESCO biosphere status, with precious green corridors and limitations on subdivision intact.
Anytime someone tries to tell you ‘you can’t stop progress’, tell them the Noosa story. You can’t stop progress that is truly progressive, protects environmental values, and has a whole, involved community behind it committed to living sustainably. The Noosa model works – our Noosa UNESCO designated biosphere offers a means and strategy to help humans even in the ‘developed’ neoliberal world to live in balance within their habitat, sustain ecodiversity, protecting waterways and forests forever. Our model should be replicated and implemented nationally.
‘Privatising neoliberalism
seems to lack a solid vision,
hollow ‘perish or populate’
with rabbit warrens all over the state,
since when was overpopulation
any habitat’s salvation?’
After a near lifetime spent in lovely Noosa, once again I can feel proud and secure that hard-won community consensus achievements are viable and defendable. The surreptitious stroke of a pen by politicians beholden to filthy corporate interests who never pay sufficiently for the infrastructure needs and unsustainable population growth they create even as they slip backhanders to grease their exploitation, fails when communities fight to protect their values.
Now we can turn our efforts toward deseating the state LibNat government which despite permitting us a vote and action on de-amalgamation, is mooting horrific schemes like logging national parksand state forests and privatising anything that Bligh couldn’t in accordance with disgraced ex-treasurer Peter Costello’s dodgy recommendations. It should be remembered that Costello approved the sale of Australia’s gold reserves before the price went up, costing Australia $5b, in addition to his failed foreign currency exchange transactions – $2b – $5b – hardly a trustworthy record. These proposed LibNat privatisations, unlike Bligh’s, will be deferred till the next election to become a pivotal issue.
By then, an argument must be made to prove that public ownership is cheaper, more efficient and protects jobs for ordinary people AND can protect the environment, while profits for elite shareholders and bonuses for CEOs pursuant to privatisations gouge the public in perpetuity.
We urge you to cancel your plans to perform for a segregated audience in Tel Aviv on July 4, 2013. Palestinian civil society has called for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel’s policies of colonialism, occupation and apartheid towards the Palestinian people.
Israel’s attempts to hide systematic decades-long oppression and human-rights abuses against the Palestinians depend on its ability to maintain the facade of a progressive and democratic image in the eyes of the international community. Israel often goes as far as promoting itself as “the only Democracy in the Middle East.” Israel’s apartheid policies, however, even permeate events as joyous as concerts: Palestinian fans of your music living under the Israel’s brutal military occupation of the West Bank or its medieval siege of the Gaza Strip will be prohibited from coming to Tel Aviv to enjoy your performance. These 4 million people who are being denied their most fundamental rights include many Palestinian women, whom will not have the chance to be empowered by hearing you sing.
Palestinian Freedom Riders challenged Israeli segregated buses on which they are not allowed to travel. These buses carry instead Israeli settlers to and from their homes, illegally built on stolen land.[1][2][3] The ethnic-supremacist state of mind does not end there, unfortunately, as evidenced by the Tel-Aviv city councilman who appealed to the state to allocate segregated buses for African refugees and migrant workers in the city[4].
Prominent figures (authors, professors, and musicians) have visited Israel, Occupied Palestine and Gaza to witness for themselves the treatment of Palestinians living under Israeli occupation, and have vowed not to lend their legitimacy to these crimes.
Alice Walker made the following comments on her visit to Palestine: “Going through Israeli checkpoints is like going back in time to American Civil Rights struggle…I am a big supporter of BDS. I frankly think that it is the best, absolutely the best way.“[5]
“One of the things so painful to remember about the segregated south is that no matter what white people did to them black people were not allowed to fight back, not even with a word or a glance, hence the expression “reckless eye-balling” which led many a black person to be beaten or killed. The idea that the people of Palestine are not even supposed to fight back… To collectively punish them (by bombing and starvation) for electing their own government in a democratic election acknowledged by most observers to have been fair, is sadistic as well as internationally condemned as illegal.“[6]
Professor Robin Kelley offers this analysis: “My last book was about [the jazz musician] Thelonious Monk. … And so for people of my generation, the Israel-South Africa nexus, dispossession of Palestinians … these were the key questions for anyone politically active in the 1980s. … witnessed a level of racist violence that I hadn’t even seen growing up as a black person here in the States (laughs), I have to say, and I’ve been beat by the cops. The level of racist violence from the settlers is kind of astounding. … The key thing was the kind of engagement that helped us better understand why the boycott is central… And part of what the boycott does is it delegitimizes the claim that this is a normal situation. It’s not a normal situation, it’s a settler-colonial situation, a situation of oppression.”[7]
The Palestinian people are denied elementary freedoms: the freedom of movement, the freedom to access their stolen lands and the freedom to protest injustice without facing brutal repression.[8] Those living in the Gaza strip (56% of whom are children) live under a debilitating siege, limiting their access to water, medical supplies, and construction material.[9] This unimaginable situation takes place only an hour away from your scheduled performance. In the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Silwan, 40 minutes away from the scheduled venue, children are being abducted from their homes, in violation of international law, and taken into violent police interrogations with no access to their parents or a lawyer.[10]
Representatives of Palestinian civil society, including over 170 different organizations such as women, academic and worker groups, have called for a boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel’s policies. International artists are asked not to perform in Israel until it abides by its obligations under international law and reverses these policies.[11]
Some artists perform in Israel with the good will and intention to use their art as a means of changing Israeli public opinion and spreading the message of peace. One such example would be Roger Waters. These artists have later come to realize that their performance, as well-meaning as it was, has been hijacked and used to send a green light to the ongoing Israeli policies of oppression.
We have therefore learned that not performing is important to the promotion of justice in this region, as Israeli policy makers are coming to understand that the international community does not approve of their brutal policies towards the people of Palestine. Some prominent artists have stated:
Roger Waters: “In my view, the abhorrent and draconian control that Israel wields over the besieged Palestinians in Gaza, and the Palestinians in the occupied West Bank (including East Jerusalem), coupled with its denial of the rights of refugees to return to their homes in Israel, demands that fair minded people around the world support the Palestinians in their civil, nonviolent resistance. For me it means declaring my intention to stand in solidarity, not only with the people of Palestine, but also with the many thousands of Israelis who disagree with their governments racist and colonial policies, by joining a campaign of Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel, until it satisfies three basic human rights demanded in international law.”[12]
Faithless: “We’ve been asked to do some shows this summer in your country and, with the heaviest of hearts, I have regretfully declined the invitation. While human beings are being willfully denied not just their rights but their needs for their children and grandparents and themselves, I feel deeply that I should not be sending even tacit signals that this is either ‘normal’ or ‘ok’.”
Macy Gray: “I had a reality check and I stated that I definitely would not have played there if I had known even the little that I know now.”[13]
Cassandra Wilson: “as a human rights activist, I identify with the cultural boycott of Israel.” [14]
Understanding that the picket line has clearly been marked and that you cannot avoid taking a political stand on this matter, we are now asking you to take a moral stand. Please reconsider your participation in whitewashing Israeli apartheid. Stand against oppression and for liberation, against deep rooted racism and in favor of justice and equality for all.
Sincerely,
DPAI
We are a group, of over 1000 members, representing many countries around the globe, who believe that it is essential for musicians & other artists to heed the call of the PACBI, and join in the boycott of Israel. This is essential in order to work towards justice for the Palestinian people under occupation, and also in refugee camps and in the diaspora throughout the world.
FC Barcelona: it is time to stop normalising Israel and maintaining a policy of equidistance
between occupier and occupied in Palestine
We have heard that the President of Barcelona Football Club, Sandro Rosell and the
Vicepresident Javier Faus intend to go on a “diplomatic and commercial” mission to Israel and
Palestine on 21 and 23 February. The two executives will visit the towns of Tel Aviv, Jerusalem
and Ramallah, where they will have talks with the President of Israel, Shimon Peres, and the
President of the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) Mahmoud Abbas [1].
BDS Catalunya and the rest of the RESCOP (Solidarity Network Against the Occupation of
Palestine) [2], made up of 36 Palestine solidarity organisations across Spain, are strongly opposed
to this visit because it merely serves the interests of Israel by presenting it to the world as a “normal” country. Unfortunately the systematic breaches of international law since 1948 and the
constant unpunished violations of the human rights of the Palestinian people mean that Israel is
not a “normal” country. The military occupation, the colonisation measures and the apartheid
system imposed by Israel in Palestine since 1948, are not policies proper to a “normal” country.
Barcelona FC has traditionally maintained a “neutral” and “equidistant” position in the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict and has made an effort to maintain good relations with both Israeli and
Palestinian authorities. It has also promoted and financed joint sports activities between young
Israelis and Palestinians with the aim of contributing to “peace” and “coexistence” between the
two peoples. Inviting the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit to the Barcelona football ground in September
2012 and subsequently – under popular pressure – inviting the Gaza footballer Mahmoud Sarsak
was a paradigmatic example the club’s policy of “neutrality” and “equidistance” [3]. But joint
activities between Palestinians and Israelis that ignore the fundamental rights of the Palestinian
people can only be called one thing: normalisation. The Palestinian Campaign for the Academic
and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) has defined normalisation in the Palestinian and Arab
context as “the participation in any project, initiative or activity, in Palestine or internationally, that
aims (implicitly or explicitly) to bring together Palestinians (and/or Arabs) and Israelis (people or
institutions) without placing as its goal resistance to and exposure of the Israeli occupation and all
forms of discrimination and oppression against the Palestinian people.” [4].
Through its policy towards Palestine, Barcelona football club shows that it is still trapped in the logic of the Oslo Accord of 1993 [5], which gave a strong boost to normalisation activities
between Israelis and Palestinians, especially in the 90s. But 20 years after signing these
agreements the dramatic situation in Palestine shows that, in spite of the huge quantity of money
that has been poured into them by the Western powers and Israel itself, these initiatives for
“peace” and “coexistence” have totally failed. Over the years, Palestinian society has gradually
realised that normalisation activities have only benefited Israel, since they have made it possible
for the Israeli state to go on implementing its illegal policies whilst displaying to the world the
efforts they are supposedly making to achieve “peace”. Nowadays, the immense majority of the
Palestinian people reject normalisation.
In 2005, knowing that only recognition of the fundamental rights of the Palestinian people will bring
justice and peace to Palestine and inspired by the struggle against the South African apartheid
regime, more than 170 Palestinian civil society organisations launched a call for Boycott,
Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel [6] until it fully complies with the precepts of
international law by: 1) ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the
Wall; 2) recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality;
and 3) respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their
homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194. The sports boycott against Israel is an
essential part of this international campaign for liberty, justice and equality.
This June Israel will host the European Under-21 Football Championship. In this way, the
UEFA will be rewarding a state that destroyed the Gaza football ground and assassinated four
children while playing football during the last military aggression against the Gaza Strip; a state
that arrested two footballers belonging to the Al-Amari club (Ramallah, the West Bank) in February
2012 and has kept them in prison since then under administrative detention that is to say without
presenting charges or giving them a court hearing; a state that has been preventing the free
circulation of Palestinian footballers for decades. For all of these reasons, more than 50 footballers
who play in the main world leagues have condemned holding this championship in Israel by
giving their support to a letter by Frédéric Kanouté [7]. In addition, a popular European campaign
called “Red Card Israeli Apartheid” has been launched and is gaining strength [8]. Recently, the
Palestinian authorities have added their signatures to the petition against this championship taking
place in Israel [9].
For all of the reasons that we have put forward in this letter, BDS Catalunya and the rest of the
RESCOP demand that FC Barcelona put an end to its normalisation activities and to its policy of
equidistance between the Israeli occupying power and the occupied Palestinian people. We also
urge the Club to reply to the Call made by Palestinian civil society and break off all relations
with Israeli institutions. This is the best contribution that the Club can make to a just peace in
Palestine.
BDS Catalunya
Red Solidaria Contra la Ocupación de Palestina (RESCOP)
The RESCOP is made up of the following organisations:
Acsur-Las Segovias
Asociación Al-Quds de Solidaridad con los Pueblos del Mundo Árabe (Málaga)
Asociación Andaluza por la Solidaridad y la Paz – ASPA
Asociación de Amistad Palestina-Granada «Turab»
Asociación Hispano Palestina Jerusalén (Madrid)
Asociación Pro-Derechos Humanos de Andalucía
Asociación Unadikum
BDS Catalunya
BDS Madrid
Castelló per Palestina
Comité de Solidaridad con la Causa Árabe (Madrid, Asturias)
Comité de Solidaridad con los Pueblos – Interpueblos (Cantabria)
Comunidad Palestina en Canarias
Comunitat Palestina de Catalunya
Coordinadora de apoyo a Palestina (La Rioja)
Ecologistas en Acción (Confederal)
Fundación IEPALA
Fundación Mundubat
Gipuzkoako palestinaren aldeko plataforma
Izquierda Anticapitalista
Komite Internazionalistak (Euskal Herria)
MEWANDO (Euskadi)
Movimiento Solidaridad Internacional Catalunya – ISM Cataluña / Valencia
Mujeres en Zona de Conflicto – M.Z.C.
Mujeres por la Paz – Acción Solidaria con Palestina (Canarias)
Palestinarekin Elkartasuna (Euskal Herria)
Paz Ahora
Paz con Dignidad
Plataforma de Solidaridad con Palestina (Sevilla)
Plataforma Palestina Ibiza
Plataforma Solidaria con Palestina de Valladolid
Red de Jóvenes Palestinos
Red Judía Antisionista Internacional – IJAN
Sodepau
Sodepaz
Sodepaz Balamil
Taula per Palestina (Illes Balears)
Xarxa de Solidaritat amb Palestina de València
From March 8 to 11, 2013, Adelaide is the venue of one of the most well-known music and culture festivals – WOMADelaide – the World of Music, Arts & Dance in Australia. This year, along with featuring legends like Jimmy Cliff and Hugh Masekela, prominent in their opposition to apartheid in South Africa, and Tuba Skinny, who respected the boycott of Israel, WOMADelaide is giving venue to the Alaev family, who are sponsored by the Israeli government through its embassy in Australia.
Israel’s international cultural exports who receive governement sponsorship are contractually obligated to promote the state as a condition of their sponsorship.
If they receive funding by the state, Israeli artists who play internationally are expected to be political ambassadors and must sign contracts which declare their cooperation with state marketing aims. The standard Israeli sponsorship contract states:
“The service provider [or in English, the artist] is aware that the purpose of ordering services from him is to promote the policy interests of the State of Israel via culture and art, including contributing to creating a positive image for Israel.
The Israeli regime has long used all culture as propaganda unashamedly. In 2005, Nissim Ben-Sheetrit of Israel’s Foreign Ministry emphasised:
“We see culture as a propaganda tool of the first rank, and I do not differentiate between propaganda and culture.”
Artists Against Apartheid Australia has published an open letter to WOMADelaide, emailed to WOMADelaide on February 3rd:
To the organisers of the WOMADelaide festival
We, Artists Against Apartheid Australia, members of an international movement of artists, noticed with disappointment that WOMADelaide, which we respect greatly as one of the worlds most exciting world music festivals, has received sponsorship from the Israeli Embassy in Australia to support the performance of the Alaev Family. We believe that this support should be rejected.
Many of us have visited Palestine and have seen first hand the way Palestinians in the west bank are treated by Israeli authorities. Israel restricts Palestinian freedom of movement and of speech; and imprisons without charge or trial Palestinian human rights defenders. Israeli authorities, on a daily basis, inflict humiliation and violence at the more than 600 military checkpoints and roadblocks. All the while, Israel continues to build its illegal wall on Palestinian land and to support the ever-expanding network of illegal, Jewish-only settlements that divide the West Bank into Bantustans. In Gaza, Palestinians are subject to a brutal siege and Israeli military assaults. As part of Israel’s siege, various types of medicines, candles, books, crayons, clothing, shoes, blankets, pasta, tea, coffee and chocolate are prevented from entering Gaza, but also musical instruments.
The treatment of Palestinians by Israel has been likened to the former apartheid regime in South Africa by respected former activists who were involved in the South African anti-apartheidmovement (including Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Nelson Mandela).
The policy of using culture to whitewash Israeli violations of international law was openly confirmed by the Israeli government with the launch of a global ‘Brand Israel’ campaign. According to an Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesperson, the objective of this rebranding campaign, which “could include organizing film festivals,” is to convey the message that “a better image for Israel and a better performance of that image is part and parcel [of] Israel’s national security. Contrary to popular belief, national security is not just based on military power, it’s also a strong economy and a strong image” [1]. This language reveals – as did similar endeavours by the South African Apartheid regime – a cynical and systematic attempt at manipulating world opinion. It aims to obfuscate the real nature of Israel’s military occupation and apartheid and to divert attention from its ongoing war crimes by portraying it as a vibrant, cultural and artistic hub.
We have noted that many of the performers who are a part of the program have a history of taking a stand against racism and apartheid and we eagerly await your response before we contact these artists to let them know your festival has received sponsorship from the Israeli Embassy. We particularly note the presence on the bill of a number of South African performers whose countries history is blighted by the stain of Apartheid and whose country is now a leading supporter of the Palestinian struggle against Apartheid Israel.
Increasingly performers around the world are heading the boycott and refusing to perform in Israel. Many have cancelled their shows after requests from their fans. The boycott has been supported by many prominent artists from the film director Ken Loach to former Pink Floyd frontman Roger Waters and the author Alice Walker. Many more musicians such as Carlos Santana and Elvis Costello have also cancelled and in recent years; Coldplay, U2 and Bruce Springsteen have declined invitations to play in Israel without supporting the boycott publicly. Just recently Stanley Jordan, the headline performer at the Red Sea Jazz Festival cancelled his performance in Israel. A number of other renowned performers due to perform at this festival also cancelled their shows. A full round up of the growing International Boycott in 2012 can be found at http://www.pacbi.org/etemplate.php?id=2094 .
The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign against the State of Israel is a growing world movement in support of the Palestinian people and the Cultural and Academic boycott is a very important part of this campaign. http://www.bdsmovement.net/
The boycott call was issued on July 9th in 2005 by over 171 Palestinian civil-society organisations, who called on the international community to implement the BDS campaign against Israel. Inspired by the struggle against apartheid in South Africa, the Palestinian-initiated BDS campaign is conducted in a similar framework of international solidarity and resistance to injustice and oppression and calls for popular resistance through the BDS campaign until Israel complies with international law and meets its obligations towards the Palestinian people.
We therefore respectfully ask you to reject all support for WOMAdelaide from the Apartheid State of Israel.
A response to this letter from the WOMADelaide organisers, which to date has not been forthcoming, would be welcome.
People can let WOMADelaide know about the Palestinian-led boycott, divestment and sanctions and persuade them not to accept Israeli government funding by tweeting @WOMADelaide, contacting them on their facebook group, or emailing
Don’t Play Apartheid Israel
We are a group, of over 1000 members, representing many nations around the globe, who believe that it is essential for musicians & other artists to heed the call of the PACBI, and join in the boycott of Israel. This is essential in order to work towards justice for the Palestinian people under occupation, and also in refugee camps and in the diaspora throughout the world.
This receives too little attention in my view, and Butler’s wise remarks about academic freedom raise new questions about a political strategy that violates longstanding principles of scholarly exchange across national and political lines. I have never understood why I should embrace an undemocratic response to the Israeli state’s horrendous failure of democracy; or why an ideologically rigid, if secular, strategy is a morally appropriate counterweight to enforcing a conservative theocratic interpretation of history on the Palestinian people. I also don’t think that there is any good historical evidence that silencing intellectual, academic and cultural workers on a comprehensive basis, and preventing any exchange of ideas between the Israel and the United States, will have any effect on Israeli politics whatsoever beyond isolating progressive intellectuals in Israel. I cannot imagine it would do anything but promote further ignorance and polarization, giving the political organizations on the ground in Israel and the Occupied Territories the upper hand in fashioning information and arguments to promote their own positions.
Question: am I supposed to boycott the Israeli colleagues and friends I already have too? Or just the ones I don’t know yet? Enquiring minds want to know.
I also do not think that BDS, despite its commitment to nonviolence, adequately addresses the question of existing and past violence in the anti-colonial struggle. US intellectuals give the movement to end the occupation a pass on this too easily, in my view, betraying a romance with revolutionary politics that has a long and troubling intellectual history among American intellectuals. For example, on this page I see calls for a military embargo of Israel, but not a military embargo of the region or an embargo of arms to all militant groups in the Occupied Territories. This might lead to a discussion about why Israel and its many antagonists mutually refuse to renounce violence and negotiate; about the international arms trade that flourishes in the Middle East; and about whether BDS supports ongoing paramilitary and terrorist attacks in the region by non-Israeli forces despite its own commitment to nonviolent action.
Ali Abunimah’s response provides a concise overall view of Potter’s blog post:
One would have hoped that the “Tenured Radical” would have bothered to learn something about the BDS movement before pronouncing on it with such ill-informed gusto. There’s so much that is breathtakingly wrong with this, but I will focus on only one little example. Potter writes
Question: am I supposed to boycott the Israeli colleagues and friends I already have too? Or just the ones I don’t know yet? Enquiring minds want to know.
If she had bothered to learn about the movement or its principles, she would know that the guidelines published by the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (http://pacbi.org), absolutely do not call for a boycott of individuals of any nationality. It calls for a boycott of institutions.
It would take too long to refute the amateur and ad hoc arguments Potter makes, so I will simply recommend that people bamboozled by this post read Omar Barghouti’s book “BDS: The Global Struggle for Palestinian Rights” (Haymarket, 2011), which addresses every one of these claims, and does much more to explain what BDS is and stands for.
I put the following to Potter:
Dear Professor Potter
I acknowledge your unfamiliarity with the substance and logic of the call for boycott, divestment and sanctions and hope you will rectify this through the excellent material which has been offered. I have a few questions for you to consider.
Would you have supported a continuance of Jim Crow in the US in order to preserve the privilege of the white majority in order to avoid ‘the question of existing and past violence in the anti-colonial struggle’? would you have instructed Martin Luther King to cease his effective civil disobedience campaign on those grounds? are you making an exception for the non-violent tactic of BDS which is also a form of civil disobedience? are Palestinians less deserving human beings who should not avail themselves of civilised persuasive protest to achieve their rights, to end the systematic crimes against humanity and war crimes perpetrated against them for so long?
You say, ‘protest, engage and discuss’.
Do you understand the function of dialogue in the context of co-resistance to a noxious system of tyranny, compared to a chorus of sweet yet ineffectual noises framed duplicitously as ‘peace and dialogue’ convenient to well-meaning liberals who thereby can avoid the choice to stand with the oppressed against their oppressor, and which drowns out deepening insistence for justice, rights and freedom of oppressed Palestinians? Do you understand what Martin Luther King meant when he talked of a ‘negative peace’?
Potter replied:
I think that instead of acknowledge you should be more honest and say that this is your judgement/view/position. I get it that the idea that I *could* be familiar with BDS and be skeptical of it is unimaginable to the crowd here, which has responded by calling me ignorant, racist, “liberal” (horrors!), adn whatever is worse than liberal. You have all had your say.
I answered:
Claire,
Recognising your unfamiliarity with BDS as amply demonstrated in your post and highlighted by numerous posters on this thread is a polite kindness to you. One would not like to think you had deliberately misrepresented the BDS call in bad faith.
I am hoping that you can engage with and discuss the questions I have put to you in the spirit that they were offered.
No response.
Elsewhere Potter posted:
I don’t think I am unideological, and would have clarified this had anyone asked in such a straightforward and civil way in the first 117 comments before yours. It’s that I reject the four positions that are offered, and that this debate in the comments quickly evolved into: pro/anti Palestinian; pro/anti Israel. I think the claim that the BDS academic/cultural boycott is capable of that is at best unproven, and at worst a romance about what it means to do effective political work. That said, I think it is possible to create effective transnational projects that do ethical and humanitarian work, serve as centers for discussion and exchange, and transformation, projects that evade the four political choices: there’s a summer children’s camp, for example, that has for several decades brought Israeli and Palestinian children together on neutral ground. But other, more explicitly political projects could do that too. I find the assertion that there is *nothing* outside politics both familiar and something we might want to experiment with resisting. Politics doesn’t seem to be doing very well nowadays, does it? And the idea that sanctions against Israel will be effective (Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Syria) I find puzzling.
I queried:
Would you accept a guest lecture at a university that was fully complicit with a war criminal genocidal state, where you knew in advance that your presentation there was going to assist and be used as whitewash by the state in order to commit and cover up further atrocities, Claire?
‘summer children’s camp, for example, that has for several decades
brought Israeli and Palestinian children together on neutral ground’
And there’s that ‘chorus of sweet yet ineffectual noises framed duplicitously as ‘peace and dialogue” to which I referred earlier, where it is imagined that under a system of apartheid and colonialism, that there is ‘neutral ground’.
Again, no response.
Potter then closed that blog post for comments.
Potter’s ‘old friend and colleague’, Dr. David Shorter, had his response published as a new blog post.
Potter posted a comment:
My principles are a commitment to free speech, freedom and democracy. I think that is perfectly clear in the post if it is read in a straightforward way. Censorship doesn’t forward that project, not even as a temporary strategy. Nor does mockery, charges of racism, vilification, or twisting my words to argue that I am forwarding a secret agenda or am too ignorant of the “facts” and cannot read/understand the document I have linked to and quoted. Peace out.
In response, I rephrased my questions, hoping again to receive a reasoned reply.
May I explore your embrace of free speech, freedom and democracy?
If you are asked by people who are not free to deny your speech requested by a state institution which intends to use your oration to demonstrate falsely that all is normal with state deprivation of liberty and democracy from those it oppresses and thereby oppress them further, which do you choose – to indulge the state and enjoy your ‘free speech’ at the expense of those who are without rights, or to respect the request for non-cooperation from those whom the state denies rights?
Is the latter option a form of boycott which you would support?
No reply.
Further down I observed in regard to the top-mentioned Potter problematic passage:
I am surprised that Potter is not owning her fallacies and assumptions which you have quoted above, Rima. Perhaps she is reconsidering her position in light of her acquainting herself with the actual substance of the cultural and academic boycott at http://www.pacbi.org/etemplate…
Briefly, here are her unsupported assumptions and fallacious understanding of the PACBI guidelines and their implementation which Potter needs to
correct:
“undemocratic response”
“ideologically rigid”
“conservative theocratic interpretation of history”
“silencing intellectual, academic and cultural workers on a comprehensive basis, and preventing any exchange of ideas etc”
“I cannot imagine etc …”
Can Potter answer her rhetorical question about boycotting individuals yet?
Why does Potter conflate non-violent BDS with violence? what is going on here in her dishonest representation?
A spatter of tweets ensued wherein I attempted to elicit a response to my ethics hypothetical.
@translator_eli yes, I found that most contradictory @TenuredRadical
Potter banned me on her blog – a first for me – and blocked me on twitter. She complained in her latest hyperbolic tirade:
‘I also want to reiterate the comments policy:
There will be no purely personal attacks, no using the comments section to tease someone else relentlessly, and no derailing the comments thread into personal hobbyhorses. Violators will be dealt with politely and swiftly. Too many people at AHA told me that they were avid readers, but never commented, because the atmosphere in the comments section is so ugly. Let’s make it a group project in 2013 to change that.
Clearly my many detractors of the last few days didn’t get the memo, although I suspect many of them wouldn’t care if they had. I promised I would put this policy in the sidebar, and now I will. Five hard-core commenters who cannot, and will not, agree to disagree have been banned.’ .
I shall leave the reader to judge whether my contributions constitute ‘hard-core’ commenting that transgressed Potter’s comments policy. Folks might also note that Potter consistently rode roughshod over her own policy.
And here I languish in what one recent commenter has identified as “Potter’s Field” ….
Readers who wish to familiarise themselves with the actual content of the academic boycott guidelines to avoid misrepresentation can do so here and may also read the excellent contributions on the two blog posts on Potter’s blog from Professor Rima Najjar, Matt Graber, Ali Abunimah, Elise Hendrick, Lisa Duggan and others here and here.
UPDATE 16/2/13
Potter’s handwringing over-dramatisation continues on Storify, where she likens being in Potter’s Field to death, falsely attributing this lurid characterisation to me. If chronicling Potter’s misrepresentations is ‘obsessive’, then how should one describe her own commentary? The lengths to which Potter has gone to obscure the fact she has avoided answering my hypothetical is extraordinary.
With more than 80% of the Noosa community eligible to vote supporting de-amalgamation, a long shadow cast by the development and financial threats of forced amalgamation at the behest of the Bligh government five years ago has been dispersed. Once again, Noosa will be free to pursue its local, sustainable destiny in accordance with the locally developed strategic plan and UNESCO biosphere status, with precious green corridors and limitations on subdivision intact. 
Tweet to Alicia