1. The Methodist church was not voting on or even interested in boycotting any products within the green line, in Israel. They were considering divestment from three American companies that profit off the Israeli Occupation. These companies are: Caterpillar, Motorola Solutions, and HP.

2. The metaphor was not used in reference to just any drinking, or as a rally cry for prohibition. Quite the contrary. I was implying that just as a friend can enable someone with an addiction disease while simultaneously chiding them, so too we can oppose the very things we are funding, and as Beth Corrie pointed out, profiting from!

3. “inciting hatred toward the Jewish state” – I would say that my activism comes from a deep place of love – for my people, for all people, and for justice. In our opinion, if we love Israel, we will work to end the occupation.

4. Regarding the discussion of Beinart: Beinart doing a great service by raising issues to an audience that might not otherwise be able to hear it. The substance of his criticism isn’t new. What is new is that someone who already had a big platform started saying these things – especially in Jewish spaces where such painful realities have been generally unwelcome. And Beinart is a phenomenal communicator and will help open the eyes of a new generation.


Beinart’s beginning steps of supporting settlement boycott are good in that he recognizes that people who care about peace in the region have to use our financial power to pressure Israel to end its occupation. Governments have failed us.  And by calling it BDS, he acknowledges the symbolic power of the “BDS movement” although I would say that these words – boycott, divestment and sanctions – are tactics of a movement, not a stand alone movement. 

But his model is limited because it focuses only on getting Jews who support Zionism to act, while we at JVP think everyone- Palestinians, non-Jews around the world, all consumers needs to act. His angle is symbolic, but even small campaigns, such as the Ahava Boycott (StolenBeauty.org) can have an impact. JVP goes further than Beinart in supporting divestment from multinationals like Caterpillar that profit from the illegal occupation in order to show that nonviolent resistance to occupation can work on a larger level. Lastly, it’s incredibly difficult to separate Israeli companies from occupation profits, as I have learned from the Israeli research group Who Profits? (www.whoprofits.org) – the banking systems, and many other forms of financial exchange and industry are intimately tied to the Israeli economy. Nonetheless, to be clear, nowhere in the Methodist church or in JVP is there a focus on indiscriminate boycott – we are talking about boycotting the profiteers of occupation, segregation, and injustice.

It appears these points were not clear enough in my piece and I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify and for the discussion.

Nonetheless, we’re glad to have you post here, and glad that you have the courage to present your views and get people talking. I hope we’ll hear fro you again, even if I don’t agree with you.

A good many people, progressives and lovers of strong drink alike, should be offended by the employment of the metaphor. There’s nothing wrong with a good stiff drink. In this world, an occasional drink is sometimes an effective way to cope.

If anything, it seems those truly under the influence, who believe they are capable of feats which more boring sober people cannot accomplish, are the JVP youth being spoon-fed medicinal spirits and sent off to Methodist conclaves to drink the real cool aid.

The sh*tstorm Beinart created showed how unpalatable BDS is within the main body of the Jewish community and the spectre of boycotting fellow Jews is never going to fly with “many” young Jews. Myself included.

The author quotes Beinart but neglects to mention that his Boycott call only applied to settlement-made products, not to items within the Green Line. This is exactly the sort of obfuscation the organized communities fear and against which they steadfastly defend.

Its why Beinart, who is very smart, well spoken and possibly right, will never see his proposal adopted. Too many hear it and fear it, or conversely assign his voice to exactly that which he does not want.

“Even when it comes to the rabbinate, young rabbis are often more likely to support the politics of JSTREET or JVP than their AIPAC-loving predecessors.”

This is scientifically unproven, but the real red herring is even putting JVP in the same sentence as JStreet and pretending the two are somehow close in character, position or level of support.

There are far more productive ways to approach the issue than inciting hatred toward the Jewish state. JVP talks about enabling on the on hand but ignores that its doing just that at the UMC conference in others’ eyes. The road JStreet has taken is to influence policy, and yes, that is gaining traction. JVP is in the radical minority both on this issue and in its support among American Jewry. Talk about being drunk on something.

With regrets to my colleagues on this site who continue to flog BDS and allow the debate on this ineffective and unattractive tactic to take center stage here, in the words of my hero and fellow progressive Asher Ginsberg, “Lo Zeh HaDerech.”

Interesting use of “and” in this sentence. While the current status of debate on Israel policies moves some young jews further away form the Jewish establishment, slipping BDS into the same sentence doesn’t make it a major factor. Even in Berkeley, the base of Jewish Voice for Peace, BDS is a fringe position. If you walk outside JVP offices, how many people do you meet who say that they would join a synagogue, JCC, or other Jewish organization if only that organization was willing to host speakers supporting BDS? They exist, but I could probably count them on my hands.

There are many progressive Jews who want to see change in Israel, who have very good reasons why they don’t support BDS. If calling them enablers of drunkards is the level of your argument and how you view those people, it’s pretty clear why the Jewish BDS movement is and will remain on the fringe.

rabbis-letter.org/

BDS will never lead to peace, because it will inevitably break apart any possible coalitions of the center and left. It might make you feel good to stake out such a morally pure position, but it will set back the cause of compromise by empowering extremists on both sides- on the Arab side by giving the Palestinians hope that they can get what they want without negotiation, and on the Israeli side by reinforcing a narrative among some factions of “the world is always against us.”

It is not a strategy for real peace.