The Monstrous Origins
and Effects of ‘Israeli
Apartheid Week’
BY ABIGAIL DARWISH
E very year in the Diaspora, anti-Israel
activists on university campuses worldwide
unite to host “Israeli Apartheid Week.” This
event does not promote any productive — let
alone constructive — solution to the Arab-Israeli
conflict. Instead, it fosters a hardline, absolutist
approach that creates a hostile environment
for Jewish and Israeli students.

This approach is promoted quite effec-
tively by the boycott, divestment and sanc-
tions movement, which is at the forefront of
“Israeli Apartheid Week.” A self-proclaimed
“movement for freedom and equality,” BDS
purports to be modeled on the measures
taken against apartheid South Africa in the
late 20th century. But behind the façade
of a “just” social cause that seeks political
change, the movement is, in fact, deeply
rooted in antisemitism.

Over the last century, one way in which
antisemitism has manifested itself is through
boycotts of “Jewish goods” and “Zionist
goods” — which in practice have been more
or less the same thing. Indeed, the “Don’t
Buy” stickers plastered on Israeli products in
the Diaspora are disturbingly reminiscent of
Nazi Germany’s “Don’t buy from Jews” slo-
gan. This was the basis of the German par-
liament’s decision in 2019 to pass legislation
denouncing BDS as reminiscent of the most
“terrible chapter in German history.”
Alongside the Nazis’ boycotts in Europe
were those undertaken in the Arab world. In
1933, the Palestinians’ Arab Executive com-
mittee, headed by Nazi collaborator Haj Amin
al-Husseini, declared and enforced boycotts
of Jews in what was then British Mandatory
Palestine. In December 1945, the Arab League
organized the Arab Economic Boycott of
Jewish goods and industries — couched, of
course, in the language of “anti-Zionism.”
In this context, it is entirely reasonable
to ask whether BDS is simply another man-
ifestation of the long tradition of antisemitic
boycotts. Indeed, the very act of singling out Israel
as the “perpetrator of the world’s worst iniq-
uities,” as historian Simon Schama put it, to
the extent that a week every academic year
is dedicated to highlighting Israel’s alleged
illegitimacy, does tend to make one’s moral
compass — if one has a moral compass at
all — appear highly questionable.

Pro-Palestinian groups on campus have
exacerbated this issue by inviting anti-Israel
speakers who regularly engage in the most
vicious hate speech imaginable. This year, for
example, King’s College London’s Palestine
Society — along with 19 other Palestine
Societies nationwide — hosted the leader
of the BDS movement, Omar Barghouti.

Barghouti, despite having studied at Tel Aviv
University, has accused Israel of “apartheid,”
“ethnic cleansing” and “Nazi practices.”
In another case, 21 Palestine Societies
co-hosted Mohammad El-Kurd at an “Israeli
Apartheid Week” event. El-Kurd has com-
pared Israelis to Nazis, negated the historic
Jewish connection to the Land of Israel and
vilified Jews. He has also used his social
media platforms to spew gross and inflam-
matory statements, many of which employ
traditional antisemitic rhetoric.

Notably, El-Kurd evoked the blood libel
in May 2021, tweeting that Zionists have
an “unquenchable thirst for Palestinian
blood” and that Zionism is “bloodthirsty.”
He has also employed Holocaust inversion,
stating that Israel is guilty of “lynching,”
“Kristallnachting” and “gassing” Palestinians.

It goes without saying that the presence
of this kind of rhetoric and activism creates
a hostile environment for Jewish and Israeli
students on campus, the vast majority of
whom consider the Jewish state an import-
ant part of their cultural, ethnic and religious
identity. Worse still, this environment is tol-
erated by the universities themselves, who
appear unconcerned about the safety and
security of their own students.

But more than anything else, the zero-sum
approach to the conflict advocated by events
like “Israeli Apartheid Week” makes construc-
tive dialogue, and thus peace, impossible. JE
opinions & letters
Gun Law Changes More Likely Than Second
Amendment Changes
As always, Jonathan Tobin’s Opinion Column (“The Only
Honest Discussion About Guns Rests on the Second
Amendment,” June 2) is straightforward and insightful. Tobin
argues that the Second Amendment is at the heart of our gun
issues, and thus should be at the heart of the gun debate.

He apparently believes that no meaningful solution to the
gun problem can occur without changes to or a repeal of the
Second Amendment.

The practical realities are that changes or repeal will
not happen. The principal process for amending the U.S.

Constitution requires an affirmative two-third vote of both
houses of Congress, and a three-fourths vote of the state
legislatures. There is no chance of that occurring on this issue.

Therefore, we must pursue those fixes that are politically
attainable, such as the Manchin-Toomey initiative still pending,
or the recommendations to come from the Murphy-Cornyn
efforts now underway. Voters must make politically attainable
and legally sustainable fixes a priority and make that priority
known to their representatives.

Steven Stone, Maple Glen
Op-ed a Bad Editorial Decision
I am writing in regards to an editorial decision that was made
to print an op-ed by Jonathan S. Tobin regarding gun con-
trol (“The Only Honest Discussion About Guns Rests on the
Second Amendment,” June 2).

Tobin is entitled to his opinion. It is misguided at best (and
out-and-out chillul Hashem at worst), but he is certainly enti-
tled to express it.

However, a line must be drawn when Tobin makes statements
that are false. For example, in part of his dismissal of com-
mon-sense gun laws, he states: “Efforts to ban certain kinds of
guns, like assault rifles, including the widely popular AR-15 that
has been used in mass shootings, ignore the fact that the differ-
ence between these weapons and others is largely cosmetic.”
That is an obviously false statement. An assault rifle is a mili-
tary-grade weapon that fires bullets in rapid succession, mow-
ing down many people at once. It hardly even needs to be
aimed to be deadly. There is a reason the AR-15 has been the
weapon of choice in many mass shootings. It is — obviously —
because this weapon is designed for … mass shootings.

Jewish Exponent editorial staff, please be responsible, and
do not publish an outright falsehood like this in your pages.

Carol Fleischman, Ardmore
Beth Sholom Article Hit the Spot
As a Beth Sholom congregant for the past 27 years, thank
you for Sasha Rogelberg’s nice piece on our shul and its
“storied roots” involving architect Frank Lloyd Wright (“Beth
Sholom Congregation Celebrates Storied Roots,” June 9).

Your wonderful article would be incomplete without
Abigail Darwish is a student at University mention of our “Minyanaires” — a group of devoted mem-
College London and a fellow for the U.K. bers who for the past 40-plus years meet each weekday at
CAMERA on Campus organization.

7:30 a.m. to daven Shachrit with intensity, pride and love
for Judaism and G-d. It is a rich tradition; it is the kindling
that keeps the flame of Beth Sholom burning so intensely
Letters should be related to articles that have run in the print or online editions of the JE, and may be edited for space and and a major inspiration in my life and the lives of so many
clarity prior to publication. Please include your first and last name, as well your town/neighborhood of residence. Send others. JE
letters to letters@jewishexponent.com.

Simon Rosen, Melrose Park
JEWISHEXPONENT.COM 11