The Conspiracy

JVP: Student Activism Gone Wrong

Protest movements, to gain legitimacy, often relate their cause to another, more established one from the past. Thus we see that gay rights advocates cite the Civil Rights movement of the fifties and sixties, and advocates against the Iraq War find common cause with antiwar protesters from the Vietnam era.

Not all protests are the same, though, and just because the demographics and setting of one movement may relate to those of another does not mean the two should be implicitly equated. One such inaccurate, implicit equation occurred in a Forward article that appeared yesterday — which was otherwise a fine story — about the JVP protest of Bibi Netanyahu’s GA speech:

This is not the first time young activists have disrupted the federation movement’s annual meeting. In 1969, the North American Jewish Student’s Network conducted a sit-in at the general assembly of Council of Jewish Federations, an organizational ancestor of the JFNA, to protest what was described as the Jewish establishment’s lack of attention to issues concerning young Jews. They were ultimately invited to offer their own speaker at the event.

This is a misleading comparison. Yes, it’s true that in both cases young activists disrupted the General Assembly, but the similarities more or less end there. In 1969, the students who protested the GA did so with concrete, positive goals in mind–increased funding for Jewish education and Jewish culture.  The Jewish Student Press Service, New Voices’s publisher, is an outgrowth of that student movement. To achieve their goals, students spoke with delegates to the GA, organized a sit-in and eventually reached a compromise wherein they presented a speaker at the conference. These students had a productive vision for the American Jewish community and found a way to articulate that vision, in the end, within the framework of the conference.

Not so with the JVP protesters. By interrupting Netanyahu with shouted slogans, these activists (not all of whom were students) showed that they were more interested in disruption than in dialogue. Far from articulating a positive and productive vision for the Jewish community, all they did was yell vapid sound bytes during a public event. They did not speak with delegates. They did not publicly present a plan of what they wanted. They did not engage in a multifaceted, organized protest campaign. All they did was cause a scene.

As I’ve written before, I think that JVP will be ineffective and — in the end — irrelevant because of this. The organization does not articulate a vision for what it wants; all it does is protest what it does not want. And JVP doesn’t always have its eyes on the prize, whatever that prize may be. At the GA, the movement cared more about getting attention than about changing the minds of Jewish organizations.

Independent student activism is great, but it needs to be productive, positive and open to dialogue. If not, it cannot hope to see the change it desires.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

19 Older Responses to “JVP: Student Activism Gone Wrong”

  1. Joel Katz
    November 9, 2010 at 4:36 pm #

    I recommend reading Haim Watzman’s article posted today on this very subject.


  2. Jon Sussman
    November 9, 2010 at 5:45 pm #

    While I doubt this action will change policy in the short term, it is important as a signal that not all is well within the Jewish community. I think it’s wrong to say that JVP lacks a positive agenda, and that they are doomed to irrelevance. There is a confusion between the prescriptive and normative meanings of the words you use – after all, fulfilling Jewish values by ending the occupation is certainly positive. Moreover, the work of a social movement often requires placing ‘negative’ goals – like halting continuing civil rights abuses in Israel/Palestine – before a ‘positive’ program can be clearly articulated. Note that one positive program that JVP has shown support for, the one-state solution, is simply dismissed without debate.

    I think it’s strange to say that JVP isn’t interested in dialogue when the weight of the Jewish establishment refuses to recognize them as legitimate. Ossified institutions often need shocks to the system in order to change; the sit-ins and demonstrations of the civil rights movement were just such a shock. Compromise and dialogue on the conditions of these institutions is not necessarily productive (e.g. the Mississippi controversy at the 1964 Democratic convention).

    I agree that the JVP activists caused a scene, but scenes force us to dramatically rethink and reexamine our priorities. If the Jewish community dismisses young, proud Jews who find serious fault with the program of an older generation, they are doing a disservice to the people they claim to represent. Frankly, they lack imagination.

  3. Ben Sales
    November 9, 2010 at 6:20 pm #


    There are better ways to signal to the Jewish community that all is not well than to interrupt a speech by shouting slogans and getting thrown out by security. All this action accomplished was to further antagonize the largest Jewish organization in the United States. I understand that JVP disagrees with some of the Federation’s policies, but if JVP’s goal was to convince the rest of the Jewish community to support its positions, it was a bad idea to disrupt a major event at the GA. Sit-ins, by contrast, are not disruptive; rather, they’re quiet and peaceful.

    Furthermore, it’s possible to simultaneously argue for positive solutions and against negative policies. JVP doesn’t need to do one before the other. Perhaps you could argue that JVP should advocate against negative policies before pushing positive solutions, but there’s no reason the group can’t articulate a positive program from the outset.

    You say that JVP supports the one-state solution. Is this true? Note this statement from our article on the BDS campaign: “JVP campaigns focus only on divesting from the occupation,” Surasky said, and claimed that as a human rights group JVP does not take an official position on the debate over a political solution.

    So does JVP support a one-state solution? If so, why did Cecilie say what she said?

    Finally, the fact that Jewish organizations dismiss JVP is no excuse for JVP to dismiss them. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Has JVP contacted the leaders of the Federation? Has the group tried to explain its positions to the organizers of the GA before resorting to disruptive protest? If so, what was their response? If not, why not?

    I don’t think that JVP’s scene forced many people in the room to rethink their positions. Next time, JVP should attempt to start a respectful and peaceful conversation with the people it wants to convince.

  4. Yakov Wolf
    November 9, 2010 at 10:00 pm #

    JVP is obviously not dismissing large Jewish organizations; dismissing implies writing them off as irrelevant at best. The fact that they conducted this action is evidence that they recognize the power and influence such large organizations…and their events…hold.

    And, Ben, youre being overly generous to say mainstream Jewish organizations are merely ignoring or “dismissing” JVP–they’re in fact actively attacking JVP. I’m sure you of all people haven’t already forgotten the fact that the ADL, one of the oldest, most powerful and influential Jewish organizations in the nation libeled and blacklisted JVP as anti-Israel, despite the fact that its membership includes Zionists, non-zionists, and Israelis, alongside anti-zionists. The fact that there is even the suggestion of an element of anti-zionist sentiment is the only thing that matters and taints the whole enterprise as far as the mainstream Jewish establishment is concerned.

    Its true, this protest changed the minds of few people in that hall yesterday. I wouldn’t expect expect Alan Greenspan to change many minds at a meeting of the Communist Party, nor Noam Chomsky to change many minds at a WTO conference–if either of them had even been allowed in. The people in that hall made their minds up years ago. But it did make the audience watching at home dramatically aware that there is an alternate current of thought in the Jewish community, and that the movement behind it isn’t afraid to speak out….but won’t stand to be co-opted, either.

  5. Yakov Wolf
    November 9, 2010 at 10:57 pm #

    You might find this article interesting and relevant as well, particularly the reaction of young Jews critical of JVP to the violence committed against the non-violent protesters. I’m struck (not choked, fortunately) by this:

    Sapira said he was just trying to help, but in the end the aggressive responses from audience members to the protesters isn’t helping Jewish federations any with some segments of the very demographic that they are trying desperately to reach.

    While clearly some of the younger attendees at the GA helped in shouting down the JVP protesters, a number of young leaders in the Jewish world told me that the scene made them very uncomfortable, that while they do not agree with JVP’s tactics, they too are critical of the policies that were being protested. And the hostility they witnessed from some audience members gave them pause to wonder if the federation system, ideologically, is a good fit.”

    That last paragraph, that young Jewish leaders are seeing a possibility that they can, and ultimately may have to, seek an alternate venue to express their concerns outside of the mainstream organizations, if nothing else positive comes from this action, made this protest worthwhile. They, like Jstreet and NIF, can easily be the next ones on the receiving end of a choke hold….which isn’t always a physical one.

  6. Ben Sales
    November 10, 2010 at 12:11 pm #


    In response to your first comment: Obviously they recognize the power and influence of these organizations, but they are, in fact, dismissing them as legitimate counterparts for dialogue or respectful conversation. This event was nothing if not disrespectful. If you want them to respect you, you need to respect them.

    I completely agree that the Establishment Jewish community’s response to JVP has been wrongheaded, inappropriate, disrespectful, counterproductive and narrow-minded. As you say, I of all people am aware that this blacklisting is happening, and yes, it bothers me a lot. That’s no excuse, though, for JVP members to act like they did on Monday.

    OK, it’s possible that “the audience watching at home” was affected by this, though I would argue that they were also antagonized by disruptive and disrespectful conduct, no matter what the message. Again, my point is that there are much, much better ways to get that message across, such as respectful conversation.

    And in response to your second comment, yes, I would agree that they need to seek an alternate venue, but it doesn’t follow that they should cause a scene at the established venue. As I wrote in my post, JSPS has been and I’m sure will be, at some point, on the receiving end of a virtual choke-hold. We combat that, though, by employing firm, resprrectful, intelligent and nuanced discourse–not by yelling slogans during a speech. If you want to express yourself, do it on New Voices! You’ll find an open forum for your ideas here.

  7. Jon
    November 10, 2010 at 1:27 pm #

    Ben, I misspoke – thank you for correcting me. Better would be to say that while JVP itself does not advocate a particular solution, many members (including myself) are promoters of a one-state solution.

  8. Ben Sales
    November 10, 2010 at 1:31 pm #

    Why doesn’t JVP advocate a particular solution? If the organization’s concern is really justice and peace, and not just criticism of Israeli policies, why doesn’t JVP give an outline of what that peace should look like?

  9. Jesse Bacon
    November 10, 2010 at 1:50 pm #

    For the positive vision articulated by the protestors, please see or click on my name. I can tell you this site is getting vastly more traffic as a result of this courageous action, which I helped publicize for JVP. If you want to know why we don’t advocate for a particular number-of-states solution: click here. The gist is that we work with people across a range of positions to make a broad based movement for human rights and equality.

  10. Matthew Taylor
    November 10, 2010 at 2:03 pm #

    Dear Ben Sales,

    As one of the protesters who was dragged out – I was chanting “The Occupation Delegitimizes Israel” – I’d like to respond to a few of your remarks, and shed light on my motivations. (I will not attempt to speak for the other members of the “Bibi 5,” nor JVP in general).

    It seems to me that Israel is on a suicidal course to impending self-destruction, a catastrophic road that will lead to ruin for both the Palestinian people and the Jewish people. Israel’s institutionally insane, greedy policies of land theft, settlement construction, house demolitions, settler-only roads, and so on are not only oppressing the Palestinian people in a horrific manner, these policies are also causing hatred of both Israel *and of the Jewish people.* A friend of mine who served many years in the IDF said to me, “the single greatest threat to the Jewish people today is the occupation.” Not Iran. Not the so-called “delegitimizers.” The occupation.

    I chose to participate in the action at Netanyahu’s speech because I see very few options today to get this vital message out to both Jews and to the world. As you well know, the American Jewish Establishment (see Beinart’s article in the New York Review of Books) has created a McCarthy-like environment in which any real dissent against Israel’s policies is silenced in extremist fashion. I cannot begin to tell you how many times I have been called a “self-hating Jew” for the simple fact that I believe major Israeli policy change is in the best interest of the the Israeli people and the Palestinian people. Ironically, I believe that it is those who defend Israel reactively regardless of its policies, and who tar and feather people like me with these despicable labels, are the ones who put the Jewish people at risk by enabling Israel’s suicidal and oppressive policies.

    So anyway, where are we supposed to speak? There is no space for us. The General Assembly had zero space for our message. If we’d proposed a workshop entitled, “How are the occupation, settlements, house demolitions, and settler-only roads delegitimizing Israel?” I can assure you the GA leadership would never have approved it. The GA is a space for 100% pro-Israel cheerleading and pro-Israel brainwashing propaganda and nothing else.

    At the GA, I had a number of casual conversations with attendees and came to the belief that those drawn to the GA are largely those who have yet to seriously question the “Israel: Right or wrong” echo chamber effect created by American Jewish Leadership. If one were to attempt to discern the views of young Jews about Israel solely from a survey of GA attendees, one might believe that young Jews are uncritically supportive of Israel, and Peter Beinart was wrong.

    But from my conversations in the wider world, I believe the GA is not at all representative of the young Jews broadly, and that the GA attendance skewed very right wing. Of course it did — do you think the GA’s organizers would send invitations to the numerous young Jews, nationwide, who are members of Students for Justice in Palestine, and who advocate for various forms of boycott, divestment, and sanctions? And even among the right wing GA attendees, the admirers of Bibi who I spoke to, I heard a lot of pain and struggle with the dissonance. One self-described Republican Hillelnik told me something like, “Israel is absolutely an apartheid state – come on, it’s obvious, of course it is – but I would never admit that in a public discussion about Israel, because I don’t want people to think Israel is so bad.” Another young Jewish college student told me that while she loves Bibi, she hates what Israel is doing to the Palestinians in the West Bank, and she doesn’t know how to reconcile those feelings. These kinds of unsettling internal contradictions, privately held on the young right, provide a potential for more awakenings and more young Jews to join the ever growing tidal wave of young Jewish moral dissent that is heading for major confrontation with the paranoid, desperate, and deeply misguided American Jewish Establishment.

    When I stood to unfurl my banner and chant my slogan, my first goal was to get a message out to the larger world. It is important to me to be in solidarity with my Israeli and Palestinian brothers and sisters who are engaged in nonviolent struggle against the crimes of the occupation every single day in Palestine (for example, Bil’in,, and getting this dissent into the media I think is ultimately helpful to the cause of pressuring Israel to change. Given the media firestorm that ensued, I believe this tactic was successful.

    As far as persuading people in the room — this was a secondary goal. Did we win hearts and minds? I think many people felt alienated by what we did. I saw one young woman crying, she was so upset that her beloved Bibi’s speech had been disrupted. I felt genuinely sad about that and wished I could have done something to help her with her pain. But **the truth** is downright painful and when you love a family member you have to be honest with them. What serves an alcoholic more – smiling while they brag about their plans to go to the bar with your money to get drunk, or performing an intervention and telling them in no uncertain terms they have to get into rehab? Israeli columnist Gideon Levy has called Israel an alcoholic who is drunk on settlement expansion and colonization of the West Bank. I believe U.S. Jews must perform an “intervention,” cut off Israel’s supply of guns and bombs and bulldozers that it uses to confiscate Palestinian land, and get Israel into a rehab program of equality, peace, coexistence.

    What we did, I think, was one part of that “intervention.” We got a truthful message out in the face of extreme, highly self-deluded power. And given the fact that a dialogue ensued among Jews about our message on this and other sites, and that we got so much media attention, I think the tactic was effective. Boycott, divestment, and sanctions is another part of the nonviolent intervention to persuade Israel to change.

    As for a positive vision, I have one word for you: Equality. Israel from its founding has been based on inequality, and inequality has been growing more over the years. I support any political program based on equality between Israelis and Palestinians, and I oppose any political program based on inequality. There are many different ways the Israel/Palestine conflict can be addressed based on equality. You can have a two state solution based on equality, a one state solution based on equality, a six state solution based on equality (Johan Galtung’s proposal for a Middle East Community, modeled after the early versions of the EU).

    Today in Israel, we have a one state solution based on extreme inequality and extreme oppression. Our voices at Bibi’s speech called for change, and I stand by our actions.

    P.S. – Last time I checked, JVP does not advocate for one state or two state, but for international law, human rights, and equality. Check the website,, the position is clearly stated.

    For the peace that can only come from True Equality,


  11. Matthew Taylor
    November 10, 2010 at 4:12 pm #

    I’d like to add two clarifications to my above comment…

    1) Although we jokingly called ourselves “The Bibi 5,” there were over a dozen young Jews who collaborated together for several days working on the Young Leadership Institute — see for more info the organizing efforts. Everyone who was part of that group contributed to the dissent expressed vocally by us five, and everyone’s efforts were deeply important.

    2) Although I noted that the majority of GA attendees seemed to be enthralled in the pro-Israel propaganda, a powerful minority of folks we spoke to, including a few Hillel students, expressed major objection to Netanyahu’s continued insistence on building settlements and the occupation. Rabbi Melissa Weintraub delivered a powerful JVP message at one of the panels. Even those with right wing tendencies said, “The occupation must end, it’s a problem.” The big disconnect I think is that while a lot of the attendees want the occupation to end, a smaller number have taken action in that direction, or are willing to directly challenge the Israel/American Jewish establishment. More will, as Peter Beinart said in his Tweet.

  12. Chris
    November 10, 2010 at 6:09 pm #

    Were the actions of the 5 JVP members during Netanyahu’s speech impolite and disrespectful?


    They were also long overdue. While Ben Sales agonizes over the propriety of upsetting the representatives of established Jewish organization gathered at the GA, Netanyahu’s gov’t is proposing a racist loyalty oath, settlers are desecrating mosques, IDF soldiers are kicking down the doors of non-violent activists in midnight raids, homes are being demolished, olive trees are being uprooted, and Israeli police, military and other security forces are doing dry runs exercises in anticipation of riots arising from moves by Israel to forcibly “transfer” Palestinian citizens of Israel.

    The time for quiet expressions of dissent has long since passed. What is at stake here is not primarily the terms for a “dialogue” within the Jewish community but rather the Palestinian people’s urgent struggle for justice and equality against a regime that is sytemtically dehumanizing them.

    How much longer, precisely, Mr. Sales should the Palestinian people have to suffer additional displacement and dehumanization so that the decorum of events like the GA not be disrupted?

    Do you honestly think that next week or next year through some process of polite discussion that the leaders of the established organizations are going to wake up and say to themselves “what Israel has been doing to the Palestinian and what we have been supporting is wrong and we are now going to change our tune? That is not how justice has ever been won.

    You and many like you freely admit that settlements, the occupation, the loyalty oath, the seige of Gaza are unconscionable travesties and yet insist that those who are actually forcing us to discuss the question are pushing too hard or too fast or with insufficient deference to the sensitivities of this that or the other. These are not new arguments. They are old ones that are heard every time people struggle against entrenched injustices. They are addressed far more eloquently than I am capable of in the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail.” It is one of those famous documents that most people haven’t read. It is quite apropos to the present situation and available at: You and everybody else concerned with he questions around thios action should read it.

    Frederick Douglass famously wrote:

    “If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle.”

    The fact is that the unbearable conditions confronting the Palestinians would not be possible without massive U.S. aid and support to Israel and that aid and support are ensured in some significant measure by the carefully cultivated appearance of unanimous support for Israel in the American Jewish community. Shattering those appearances is therefore critical to the Palestinian’s realization of their just demands for justice and equality. There is no way to do this without offending and upsetting large numbers of people in established organizations. Its a price worth paying.

    The disruption of Netanyahu’s speech at the GA was like a shot heard round the world. It was extraordinarily effective in bringing the fact of dissent within the Jewish community to the attention of the world. even if it didn’t move a single soul within the auditorium in which it occurred, which is doubtful, it fulfilled its purpose.

    Even more importantly, it was true. Every word on the banners held up by the JVP members and in the chants that they shouted as they were assaulted was urgently true. Luckily for you, history will forget your blog post, as it usually forgets such vacillating response to injustice. But it will remember the courage of JVP and the Bibi 5.

  13. Ben Sales
    November 10, 2010 at 6:52 pm #

    A few comments here claim either that:
    a. I disagree with the statements of the JVP protesters
    b. that my blog post criticizes the protesters primarily for their lack of politeness

    Let me say this: I think settlements should be dismantled as soon as possible, and I oppose the loyalty oath, as I’ve written a few times in these pages. But that’s not the point. The important thing is that, while I did criticize the protesters’ lack of respect, my bigger problem with what they did was that it was antagonistic and ineffective. If they meant to convince people of the righteousness of their cause, or actually advance the fight for Palestinian human rights, they failed. If they wanted to cause a scene and make headlines for themselves, they succeeded.

    Chris, history may forget this post–whatever that means. If so, I won’t really care, because my point in writing this post was not to promote myself or get attention. Rather, I wrote this to start a conversation, and it looks like I’ve succeeded. I hope it keeps going.

  14. Yakov Wolf
    November 10, 2010 at 7:25 pm #


    I think its been stated well by the YJP members who have written here that convincing people of the righteousness of their cause was not the central focus here, and probably didnt occur within that hall. What was accomplished was the idea that the creation of a space in the Jewish conciousness for ideas OUTSIDE of Bibi, OUTSIDE of the Jewish establishments fences, is a vitally important task that has heretofore been neglected; the starvation for this discourse has been long and drawnout; and its that frustration that necessitates dramatic action.

    You asked earlier in comments whether JVP approached the GA for a space to express their concerns. Matthew Taylor I think I addresses that in his comment that the GA has no room for this sort of agenda, despite the fact that members of the audience, even ‘republican hillelniks’ find JVP’s concerns to be questions of the highest concern. If even anti-JVP young jews in that hall feel concerned about the occupation, the oath, settlements, etc., but don’t feel they can safely bring up those concerns to the GA, then how can JVP who proudly publicize these concerns possibly be given a space at the GA’s table to present their concerns? Even if the GA HAD allowed JVP to speak, my money says Bibi would have cancelled rather than share the stage with them. And theres no way the Jewish Federation would have allowed that.

    Anyways, I wanted to reiterate that Matthew seems to have addressed your questions about the JVP relationship to the GA, which were, I think, the strongest part of your critique. I think it would be fair of you to acknowledge that.

    I don’t expect you to. But it would be an immensely respectable thing to do, and it’d be interesting to see how the discourse would develop from there if you still think this inadquately addresses your concerns.

  15. Chris
    November 10, 2010 at 7:44 pm #

    Okay, lets talk.

    I believe the actions of the JVP members were VERY effective. Individual protests rarely convince the previously unconvinced. Thats not their function. Their function is to bring pressure to bear on people with power. Usually this isn’t accomplished by any single action either, but rather by a whole series of actions that have the effect gathering together forces and forcing new facts into the considerations of the powerful.

    JVP’s actions make a great deal of sense if you understand that them in terms of gathering forces. The fact is that while there are lots of Jews who reject the outlook of the major jewish organizations on Israel, those forces are largely scattered, inactive and unorganized. The first task then if ones objective is to change the terms of debate withion the Jewish community is to break down the feelings of isolation and powerless among those dispersed dissenting voices and to draw as many as possible into organized activity.

    The action at the GA undoubtedly antagonized the vast majority of the people in the room. But they also quite clearly inspired lots of Jews and non-Jews across the country and attracted many of those people to make contact with JVP. This will undoubtedly redound to JVP in the formation of new chapters and new recruits to existing ones. thats how movements grow. They “cause a scene and make headlines for themselves” and by so doing disrupt the false appearances of unanimity and encourage new people to step forward and take a stand too.

    Anyone who doubts the effectiveness of these sorts of actions wasn’t listening to Netanyahu’s speech which was all about the threat posed to Israel by those who he is characterizing as “delegitimizers.” The fact is that Israel is facing a crisis of legitimacy in the international community and that crisis is reaching into the Jewish community, especially among the young. JVP’s action planted a pole that is gathering dissenting yound Jews around them.

    What is the end game here? Do you JVP thinks that the Jewish Federations are going to sign on to BDS? Of course they aren’t. What is far more likely to happen is that their claim to speak for the Jewish community as a whole on the question of Israel will be broken and THAT advances the fight for Palestinian human rights precisely by creating political space in which elected officials and other people in power can put some daylight between themselves and Israel policies.

  16. Ronen
    November 11, 2010 at 6:42 am #

    I understand that ending racism in Israel cannot be considered “a vision” according to the writer. Talk about the Jewish left loosing their way, brain, courage and decency in order to appease the racists in our midst, BibI Netnyahu included. BORING, boring post that remindes me of Obama’s policies.

  17. Shoshie
    November 11, 2010 at 11:24 am #

    Ben, I totally get what you’re saying, but I disagree. Protests have many points. But changing hearts and minds is frequently not one of them. Protests are there to bring attention to a cause, to increase solidarity among those who believe in that cause, to get a voice out in public that has been silenced, and to open a dialogue (not between the protesters and those they are protesting against, necessarily, but among the general public). It seems that the “Bibi 5” have been successful, if those were their goals. People are talking, and that is important.

    I also think that Chris has a really good point about publicity for JVP and showing that the Jewish establishment does not speak for all of us.


  1. Bibi’s hecklers | Jewschool - November 10, 2010

    […] leaders now head Jewish organizations and I’m honored to have some of them as mentors. But New Voices’ editor Ben Sales compares that event with today’s stunt, saying, “Far from articulating a positive and […]

  2. Jewish Yelling for Peace | Innermost Parts - November 18, 2010

    […] they were justified. For the “their tactics deligitimize their cause” argument, see Ben Sales’ piece in the New Voices magazine. For an opposing view, read the comments to his piece, and also read the […]

WordPress Backup
Read previous post:
The Reading List: BDS Meets Lady Gaga

Say what you will about the wisdom of BDS, but everyone should agree that these protesters find their inner pop...