Screen shot from Tony Bourdain’s show – Parts Unknown – S02E01

In my last post, I emphasized the need to speak up about injustice, focusing on Israel-Palestine and the boycott, divest, sanction (BDS) movement.  I was explicit that speaking up about injustice often creates or increases controversy but that this is necessary.

Yet even in controversial topics, how do we have good conversation and try to find common ground?  It’s easier said than done. It seems like some people don’t even value that anymore. It’s more about winning, being right, or discharging righteous anger.

Florida Republican Senator Marco Rubio published a piece in the NYT on Feb 6 critical of the BDS movement.  That’s fine and I was curious to see what he had to say.  For instance, I’m not immediately dismissive of examples of over the in boycotts of Israel.  As a thought experiment or extreme example, does boycotting every business that happens to be in Israel necessarily advance justice?  No. I think it’s important to have an open mind and be open to any criticism that is founded.

That said, I was disappointed that Rubio broadly painted the BDS movement as aiming “to eliminate any Jewish state between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.”  First off, I had to look up those boundaries, well, because I’m American and I suck at geography. But having done that, it’s an absurd statement. Can’t we have facts here, Senator Rubio?

His self-proclaimed “cursory” look at evidence that BDS proponents want an end to Israel itself falls short. This website lists statements from only a handful of people – many quoted several times – who are BDS supporters.  Some of the statements are pro-BDS and reasonable, while other statements are blatantly anti-Israel. But are these handful of people truly representative of the broad, complex, and diverse BDS movement?  Is it fair to just slap a person’s anti-Israel quote on there and list them as a “BDS supporter” and therefore dismiss the BDS movement?

Unfortunately, there are a small number of cruel or fringe people people in any movement or demographic group.  That does not automatically discredit the movement or reflect on the group as a whole. There is a small number of women out there who espouse violence against men and call themselves feminist.  Is feminism therefore violent? No. Many men are jerks toward women. Are all men evil? Of course not. (Do more men need to embrace feminism? Yes!!) There are people in the Green Party who believe in Chem Trails.  Is the Green Party therefore ridiculous? Maybe. Ha, just kidding. No, that one fact does not make the Green Party ridiculous.

Anyway, Rubio’s reasoning is frustrating, and is clearly more polarizing than useful. He gives another example that does have potential to be a reasonable critique of BDS. The SodaStream company makes little home kits that allow you to carbonate any home beverage.  The company was apparently driven out of areas of Palestine. I couldn’t tell from the article if the company actually set up its factory in disputed territory or within illegal Israeli settlements in Palestine.  Is it possible that the factory wasn’t in these locations (the article says “near” them) and that activists may have overreacted in the case of SodaStream? Sure, it’s possible. I don’t know enough, unfortunately.  But it does often happen that when we have a strong position on a topic and read something that seems to fit within our sense of injustice on that topic it is possible to react strongly without all the facts.

Overall, the point I want to make is that even “the other side” can have pieces of the truth.  Sometimes they are only very tiny pieces of the truth – almost inconsequential. But it can still help to recognize the pieces because that decreases frustration, polarization, and is just a very human way to build trust and have a conversation.  I do believe peace and goodwill can come out of controversy, but it is all too rare these days.