My role model and hero in life is Martin Luther King, Jr. His views on civil disobedience, on boycotts, and on the civil rights movement are commendable and I only wish I could live like he did. I try. I really do. Of course, when I started hearing about BDS, I was excited to see a non-violent, positive movement that I truly felt had the potential of changing things for the better, for the world and specifically for Palestinians.
I became a supporter of BDS, without ever truly getting involved in any specific actions. I started reading up more and more about it, and, because it was using a non-violent approach, I supported it.
But I was uneasy. I couldn’t put my finger on what was making me uneasy, but I felt that the movement was not as empowering as I wished it would be.
And then Mashrou3 Leila announced that they were opening for Red Hot Chili Peppers in Beirut.
***
I applaud Mashrou3 Leila for their decision to pull out of their performance. It was probably the toughest decision they ever had to make, and by pulling out, they have helped the BDS movement and shown solidarity with Palestinians.
This is far from being a victory for the BDS movement though. True, the cause and message has reached new audiences and thousands of people in the region have discussed the movement over the past week. But to claim this as a victory is to believe that Machiavellian methods are justified.
All of this has helped me better understand my discomfort with the movement. I have thought about it quite a bit over the last few days, and have managed to pinpoint issues that have made me uneasy. I point them out here not to attack BDS or discredit it, but rather to open a discussion on the issues, in hopes of finding ways to address them.
1. Where does it stop?
I can understand the boycott of Red Hot Chili Peppers. They have chosen to perform in Israel, and that directly violates what BDS stands for. Mashrou3 Leila has not. As far as I know (and admittedly I don’t know much about their touring plans), they don’t plan to ever perform there. If we decide to attack them for opening for someone who is playing in Israel, then we’ve moved down one degree. And if that’s the case, then we should be attacking the airline that flew RHCP in, the hotel that is hosting them, the restaurants that are feeding them, the venue that is hosting them, the designers of the clothes they will be wearing on stage, the makers of the instruments they will be using on stage. And if we move down degrees, then where does it stop? Do we then boycott people who own Mashrou3 Leila’s CDs? Do we boycott places that host Mashrou3 Leila in the future? I feel the attacks can be justified when there is a first degree link to Israel. Once you move to second, third, or eighth degree, then the justification becomes delicate.
2. Focusing on a weaker party
The campaign against RHCP, which I am told dates back to 6 months ago, has not been very successful, thus far. Understandably so. The Chili Peppers are one of today’s biggest rock group and their fans are everywhere. They are established, rich, and well-represented. They can withstand attacks. Mashrou3 Leila cannot. They are a local band, with a strong fan base that is still developing. They still depend on every single fan. In that aspect, they are weak. That makes them an easy target for BDS campaigns. Deciding to attack someone who is weak is called bullying. I have a problem with that. True, people are more emotionally attached to them, but that should be more of a reason to understand the weak position they come from.
3. “You’re either with us, or against us”
Activists across the world have tried for years to fight the damaging effect of the Bush’s administration black and white approach to things. It is a pity to see BDS using such tactics. If Mashrou3 Leila decided to play the concert, it would not have meant that they are traitors, Israeli supporters, or part of the Apartheid regime. The enriching thing about a boycott is that people consciously, willingly, and freely decide to partake in it. Bullying Mashrou3 Leila into pulling out put them in a situation where they had to decide if they were for BDS or against it. It doesn’t leave room for the grey areas, such as, for example, that some people may not believe that cultural boycotts are an effective way of fighting the Israeli machine.
4. Tactics
While the overwhelming majority of messages posted on the group’s Facebook page were calm, as time passed by without a word from the band, messages got more aggressive. Posts varied in calling them shit (visual included), to expressing hate, to calling them traitors, to linking them to the death of Rachel Corrie. In addition to this, the campaign took on such proportions that their wall was flooded with messages, in a way that must have clearly been overwhelming. It took on elements of guerilla warfare, attacking a helpless target. Ideally, BDS, as a movement, should have used more positive tactics, focused on encouraging the band to join their movement, as opposed to pressuring them and bullying them into it. I am fully aware that BDS is not one cohesive group. But the movement and its leaders should advocate for different tactics.
5. Loss of focus
At some point, the conversation went from “Is it wrong to open for RHCP because of BDS?” to “Can they survive as a band if they don’t boycott?” BDS loses its effectiveness when it bullies people into agreeing with it, as opposed to encouraging them to do it out of their own free will. It became more about hurting Mashrou3 Leila, should they decide to perform, than about hurting Israel.
6. Beyond criticism
It’s been less than 24 hours since Mashrou3 Leila have announced that they were not performing at the RHCP concert. The message was cause for celebration for thousands of fans, but, regardless of how you feel about it, it had a touch of sadness to it. I have no proof of this, it is just a feeling I got when I saw the message, which was short, simple, and lacking emotions (except for emotions linked to capitalization and punctuation, but that’s a whole different post). And as a result of the statement, there has been quite a bit of talk about the decision and BDS in general, with criticism popping out on social media. The criticism is not being taken well by BDS supporters. That is unfortunate. I strongly believe that BDS supporters need to take this opportunity to engage the public, and try to learn from what happened here. That is precisely why I decided to write this article. BDS should not be beyond criticism. On the contrary, it should engage people and build on the criticism it receives.
***
Mashrou3 Leila will now be celebrated as heroes, as the band that stood up to apartheid, as people who gave up the opportunity of a lifetime to stand up for something, as a group who has paved the way for other local bands.
That’s a good thing. They should be applauded, celebrated, thanked, cheered, and supported. That’s what BDS should be about. By celebrating their actions, the BDS movement encourages others to follow in the footsteps of Leila. It shifts the focus from bullying to encouraging.
Next time though, we should be more aware of the tactics we use to create the heroes of the BDS movement.
ohmyhappiness 
the sish
September 5, 2012
Hi Raja,
I agree with most of your points. It’s your perceptive eye that is what keeps me coming back to this blog, subscribing to it, and telling my friends about it.
There’s one thing I disagree with you on, however. For me the call for Mashrou3 Leila to boycott may have walked the fine line between bds and the scary whirlpool of boycotting until-there’s-nothing-left-to-boycott, but it was also very personal. For many of us, Mashrou3 Leila are more than just a band that produces great music, they also stand for an idea. They were activists who spoke the language of many of us disgruntled young people in the Arab world, they spoke on behalf of the weak and the oppressed, and they challenged hegemonic discourses. Many in their fanbase are activists. So despite the flimsy connection to Israel, there should have been a moral stand taken by the band. They should not have agreed to perform– in theory. That would have violated much of what they sang about, would have alienated their fanbase, it simply wasn’t a Mashrou3 Leila thing to do. And in that sense, their fans asking them not to perform was much different than boycotting the airline that flew RHCP or the hotel they stayed in, etc.
If Leila had performed I would have been disappointed, and also sad. Because it would have sent a really depressing message: that this band that gave me hope that I wasn’t alone in my frustrations, my heartbreak, my dreams, was only an illusion. I would never have boycotted them, but it certainly would have been cause for disillusionment among many of their fans. So they should have boycotted RHCP, despite the flimsy connection. In my eyes there’s no fine line there.
Having said that, I agree with everything else you’ve mentioned about tactics and approach of BDS in this case. I think you’ve captured one of my favourite quotes, by Foucault, that goes: “‘My point is not that everything is bad, but that everything is dangerous, which is not exactly the same as bad. If everything is dangerous, then we always have something to do. So my position leads not to apathy but to hyper- and pessimistic – activism.”
In this light, the bds campaign has approached dangerous territories, and you’re right to raise this point. And I agree with you wholeheartedly: the approach was sometimes ugly. Disappointment is one thing, but to actively threaten, bully or boycott Mashrou3 Leila themselves was taking it too far and makes this victory bittersweet. You’ve highlighted all the reasons such an approach is dangerous, so I won’t repeat them other than to say that I agree and, if there was any doubt in my mind about the ends justifying the means, this blog post has changed my mind. It wasn’t right to bully a weaker band and then celebrate this as a success. It was ugly and violated the whole point to BDS, which was about inclusion and positivity. It was also uncalled for, since Mashrou3 Leila were never performing in Israel anyway, and probably have no intention to until the occupation ends.
7ob ou gharam, as Mashrou3 Leila would say.
S xxx
943n
September 5, 2012
Without going into the whole boycott nonsense,
forcing mashrou3 leila to cancel their performance only affected the band and its fans.
israel doesn’t care (if anything, they’re making fun of us), rhcp doesn’t care.
the only party that benefited the whole thing is the ego of a bunch of reactionary activists.
one displaced
September 5, 2012
The point that seems most relevant here concerns the exact parameters of the boycott. With respect to your discussion of tactics, I disagree entirely. Non-violent action rarely takes the form of an academic debate; its means are almost entirely coercive. The Montgomery bus boycott did not succeed because King and his compatriots convinced the good white people of that city that African Americans were inherently deserving of better treatment in public accommodations. It succeeded because the boycott cost Montgomery enormously, both in terms of the loss of revenues in bus fares, and because of the negative attention the city received from outside the state and region. In any case, I’m not sure that nasty notes left on a Facebook page can be credited as “guerilla warfare” nor do they stand as evidence of a specific BDS position or campaign. Further, it’s worth pointing out that the conversation about “poor tactics” is one that generally rears its head when those tactics are just beginning to work. (See King’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”.) Oppressed groups are constantly hearing about how they are fighting their oppression in an inappropriate way, and if they would just “do it the right way” everything would work out okay in the end. It seems to me that this has been a particularly pernicious dynamic with respect to Palestine and Palestinian activists. During the first and second intifadas, the call came from around the world: “If only you didn’t constantly make recourse to violence, if only your movement was non-violent, we could support you.” (Imagine that said with a great deal of hand-ringing and chest clasping.) In the last five years, as a non-violent joint Palestinian-Israeli post-Zionist movement has grown, this has changed to: “If only your non-violent passive resistance movement didn’t scare the settlers so terribly, we could support you. Why can’t you be more friendly?” It’s a colonial double-bind: the colonized can never be civilized enough for the people who have appointed themselves the guardians of civilization. We should certainly be able to discuss tactics, including which tactics are most appropriate and most effective and when, as well as how much discipline the leadership of the BDS movement should demand of those who claim membership in its ranks. In this instance, however, I think your critique–while well meaning–is a bit off base.
ohmyhappiness
September 5, 2012
There is a clear difference between this and the Montgomery boycotts. Here, the bullying is being used to force someone to participate in the boycott. It is the equivalent of people bullying people to participate in the boycott, changing the target from the bus company and the city to the people.
When I talk about tactics, again, I am referring to the tactics used to force people to join the movement. That’s where I have a problem.
In terms of guerilla warfare, it was a quick, overwhelming campaign that basically took over the band’s page.
Sent from my iPhone
A response
September 6, 2012
I too don’t believe that BDS should be above criticism, and I say that as a Palestinian who strongly believes in the movement. So I welcome your views and I want to respond to them.
BDS is a political, grassroots-activist movement. It is not an ideology. The members of the movement go after what they believe they can get some success from. That means, it doesn’t have to be 100% consistent 100% of the time. Yes, there was a campaign to request from Mashrou3 Leila specifically that it not legitimize RHCP’s actions. And it was successful. That doesn’t mean that BDS activists are now morally obligated to call for a boycott against every single person involved in RHCP’s tour. That level of consistency would be idiotic and would not help the fundamental purpose of BDS which is to raise awareness around the world about how Israel punishes the Palestinian people.
The campaign focused on Mashrou3 Leila because people believed that a political band, one that supports the Arab Revolutions, would understand better than anyone else why they shouldn’t perform with RHCP. If they had decided to play, they wouldn’t have been traitors but they would have willfully turned their backs on an opportunity to stand with the Palestinian people. Let me say, that when Arabs abandon us, we feel the knife twist in our hearts a little more than when it’s other people. If even Arabs won’t say, “I’ve got your backs,” who will?
That said, I don’t believe that you can use Facebook comments as proof that there was a bullying campaign. I saw some insults thrown (some of it directed at BDS supporters in English and in Arabic), but the vast majority, as you yourself say, was mature and respectful. I was more aware of the campaign on Twitter, and I can honestly say I saw no one insult the band or their talents at all. The thing is this was a campaign mostly by fans of the band. We don’t hate Mashrou3 Leila, actually we love it. Which is why it was important that they refuse to play for RHCP.
Pressure on a band is not bullying. Passion is not bullying. Fans organizing a coordinated campaign on their Facebook Wall or on Twitter is not bullying. It can only be described as bullying if the fans were rude or insulting. Since again, you and I both agree that the majority of comments were respectful, how can it be called bullying? Referring to it as “guerrilla warfare” is incredibly unfair. We didn’t kill or injure anyone. There was no behind the scenes backstabbing. It was all out in the open for everyone to see.
I don’t understand how BDS leaders or activists are supposed to control the behavior of everyone who claims to support their cause. Some people will be rude and mean. It’s the internet, that’s unavoidable. I don’t believe that Mashrou3 Leila can’t handle it, especially when they have so, so many fans, Palestinian, Lebanese, and otherwise, who are proud of their work.
walid ataya
September 6, 2012
I see this charade from a different point of view. Mashou3 Leila should have not been put in that position in the first place. A young and upcoming band in an era of drought should not be opening to a band that is long dead. Lately there has been no band coming up onto the music scene, the DJ syndrome squashed creativity. Our nostalgia for live music allowed some disbanded groups from the past to perform again. Why should we accept mediocracy and deja vu and heard? Why are we raising the dead? Leila should not open for any of those second run around.
Marc
September 6, 2012
What a mess!
I am in total confusion, therefore I won’t judge!
I do have a lot of questions torturing my reasoning mechanism though!
1- Will every Lebanese artist have to check the touring schedule of an international band before accepting to perform as an opening act? What if their Tel-Aviv stop was not scheduled yet? In other words, if RHCP had announced its Tel-Aviv act after its show in Beirut, Mashrou3 Leila would have performed. Wil lit be bullied by pro-BDS activists nonetheless???
2- All major artists that performed in Beirut, will undoubtedly perform in Israel in the near future (if they did not already), therefore how distant in time should that next concert in Tel-Aviv be in order to take a stand or not?
3- All major international band have performed in Israel, should we then decide not to host any of them? Funnily so, In order not to be refused entry, artists are coming to Beirut with an Israel stamp-free passport and then visiting Tel-Aviv: a ridiculous stratagem to cope with a not so intelligent ban from the local authorities!
4- All countries, including most of the Arab ones, have diplomatic relations with Israel and therefore indirectly or directly approve of its crimes in the Palestinian territories. Will Mashrou3 Leila choose not to perform in any of them and settle for a limited local artistic career?
5….I will spare you all my internal dilemma and wait patiently to see the outcome of that issue. I would have naively wished for arts and politics not to mix, but this is should always relate to context in all possible ways.
Layal
September 6, 2012
What difference does it make if they open for the Red Hot Chili Peppers?It’s not as though they are praising Israel or the Israeli army for their horrendous crimes against the Palestinian people.True solidarity with Palestine would have meant not opening for the Peppers in the first place.They only canceled because they were pressured to do so by their fans who thought that it would be rude to Palestine,seeing as RHCP will be playing in Tel Aviv soon.This is just plain silly.Why are we incorporating politics into everything,including arts?!It’s not like the Peppers are directly funding the Israelis or insulting the Palestinians-Music should transcend all barriers such as race,political preference etc!They’re just being pig-headed and hypocritical by pressuring Mashrou3 Leila to do such a thing!Why don’t they boycott books,seeing as the books they all read are being read in Israel too?All the electronics they’re using?All the restaurants and fast food chains they’re eating at?The clothes they’re wearing?!Not everything is as black and white as they think it is.Playing in Tel Aviv doesn’t mean that they disrespect Palestine or the Palestinians or that they support the Israelis-they’re merely doing what their FANS want them to do and that’s good for them!And so what if they boycott the concert or cancel it?Will Palestine be freed?Will world peace be established?NO!NONE of that will happen!It’s just all very useless.
SOS
September 6, 2012
http://www.bdsmovement.net/bdsintro
R
September 6, 2012
As a big fan of Mashrou` Leila and an Israeli (there are quite a lot fans of the band here) I don’t feel that I can intervene in your debate but I would like to give my viewpoint nevertheless:
I’m waiting for the time you’ll understand that we Israelis are also victims of the political powers in the region including our government of course. A change will happen only when we, the people of the middle east, will unite against the system to stop this, for a different and better political situation. But for this to happen you must stop seeing us as ultimate devils. In boycotting (or boycotting those who don’t boycott, or boycotting those who don’t boycott those who don’t boycott) you’re just helping the forces of hatred to the interest of the governments, and certainly not helping the Palestinian cause.
J
September 7, 2012
I really appreciate your comments and am glad that someone from “the other side” is talking some sense…people in Lebanon forget that the music is being played for the general Israeli public and not for the regime. They forget that all the people in the middle east are but mere pawns for their regimes. And i think part of that is because their is no real dialogue between the people, all we hear are your leaders on the news always casting lead on Gaza, building more settlements in the West Bank, and threatening Lebanon and Iran continuously.
To be honest i recently fell in love with the Israel loves Iran campaign… and i think its time to have an Israel loves Palestine Campaign…
On a second note, i would like to talk about the impact one can have by engaging rather than boycotting.
A few weeks ago Ban Ki Moon went to the NAM summit, and the west viewed this as “a blow to western attempts to isolate the Islamic republic over its disputed nuclear programme and is made in defiance of Israeli and American calls to boycott the event”
But rather what happened was something much better than a boycott…he got to tongue lash both Iran and Syria from with-in Iran, embarrassing them in front of all their guests. And following that the new Egyptian Prime Minister also used his speech time to ridicule both state also…the Syrian envoy even walked out of the speech.
To me, that act was much stronger than anything a boycott could have done. And rather, a boycott of the UN from the NAM summit would have legitimized Iran and the NAM summit even more, because then Iran would be free to say that the UN is the US’ puppet, and not an impartial international agency.
So what I believe should have happened is that Mashrou3 Leila should have been the opening act, and they should have used their backstage time with RHCP to “enlighten” them onto the issues in the hope to affect them in a positive way. Then, when RHCP goes next to Telaviv it could use the opportunity to promote peace between the people and to tongue lash the Israeli political powers that are prolonging the war and the misery of the Palestinians.
R
September 8, 2012
Thanks for your response, I agree with everything you’ve said.
From our side we get just a mirror image of what you described: Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas threatening Israel.
In order to make a change, we must at first listen to each other because we all have something to tell. Boycotting the people is just doing the opposite thing, it’s not that RHCP are doing their gig in Tel Aviv to Bibi, just as (I guess) Nasrallah and Geagea were not among the audience in Beirut.
I have to say than when travelling in Europe, I am frequently disappointed to encounter unwillingness to listen usually from younger and politically aware Arabs.
Btw I think there is already Israel loves Palestine campaign, but what about Israel loves Lebanon?
majd.
September 13, 2012
If I may reply to your points below with my thoughts:
1. – An important thing to keep in mind about boycott is that it is a tool, it is not the ultimate power or solution, the campaigns in my opinion need to be chosen wisely, so the campaign against RHCP, is a smart choice because of the popularity of the band.
Some might think that you could go as far as boycotting everything in relation to the event, like the examples you gave, the hotels, airline…etc. but that wouldn’t be a strategically smart thing to do, and plus in essence you are not boycotting them you are asking and yes pressuring them to join you in your boycott, just as was done with ML. When people say “if you don’t boycott them, we will boycott you” I don’t think that statement should be taken literally, as in ML would be boycotted because they are seen as “mutabi3een”, it is more of “You have disappointed us and so we are no longer your fans”. That I feel is the right of every fan, if ML represents something to the fans and the band failed at living up to that image then in my opinion the band has done something wrong.
In the region is was again a good strategic move to pressure ML to back out, they have a wide fan base in the region. This being said the band could have easily decided to go ahead and perform. What were the attacks? That they will lose some of their fans, I don’t see that as “aggressive”, it puts a lot of pressure I agree, but again they still had a choice.
2. Here again I raise the point that ML could have decided not to pull out and deal with the consequences. Regionally they are not weak, if they were, people wouldn’t have reacted so strongly. And I think one of the reasons the pressure & campaign seemed stronger on ML than it was on RHCP is because ML is one of us, its harder to forgive them for ignoring the call for boycott, for someone like RHCP we can always say “Yes well those westerners don’t understand our struggle”.
3. I personally didn’t read any of the comments sayng that ML would be considered as part of the Apartheid regime, if that did indeed happen, then yes it is taking it too far.
But the word traitors could be more of being traitors to their message, many people were using ML’s lyrics when addressing the band, and so for this specific case I think this is why the blow was harder than if lets say Hayfa Wahbe decided to open. Fans believed ML should practice what they preach, and so when they don’t then yes people will feel betrayed.
4. Guerilla war fare is a bit dramatic I think, becoming too sensitive about these things and over dramatizing the actual impact of people posting comments on a wall is also a problem, boycott is tool of resistance, and so yes some people’s words may seem harsh, but its not personal its targeted towards a band…an influential band, I don’t agree with the assumption that they are “helpless”.
Also expecting the boycott movement to be able to control everyone who believes and supports the movement is asking too much, there is no screening system in check, people express what they feel, this cannot be blamed on the movement itself I believe.
5. I think it goes without saying that if ML did indeed decide to open for RHCP they would have lost some fans, and that was all that was said in the posts as far as I know. This to me is not bullying, these are facts; “If you do this, then we will do that”, plain and simple. Every action has its consequences. If you were to tell me that ML was threatened violently, then I’d definitely tell you that yes the boycott movement has strayed from its path (although even here if you do get one person to stray, the movement should not be blamed as individual people cannot be controlled).
6. Boycott is tough, I’ve been finding it hard to understand some elements of it as well, but what I do know is that yes it is extreme, and many things have to become black or white, cause if you delve in to the grey nothing starts to make sense. The important thing I think is to choose your battles wisely. And no, you don’t have to agree with everything that falls under boycott, but whats important is also not to discredit it because you don’t understand it (not saying that you don’t I just mean in a general sense)
คลิปโป้
December 16, 2015
Right now it sounds like WordPress is the preferred blogging platform available right now.
(from what I’ve read) Is that what you’re using on your blog?
หนังxxx
February 9, 2016
If you want to take much from this post then you have to apply
these techniques to your won weblog.
หนังเอ็ก
March 18, 2016
Hey there, I think your blog might be having browser compatibility issues.
When I look at your website in Firefox, it looks fine but
when opening in Internet Explorer, it has some overlapping.
I just wanted to give you a quick heads up!
Other then that, wonderful blog!
หนังโป
April 12, 2016
This post wiⅼl assist the internet users for
creating new web site or even a weblog from start to end.