Your email is not valid
Recipient's email is not valid
Submit Close

Your email has been sent.

Click here to send another


Park Slope Coop Rejects Israel BDS Referendum

One-tenth of membership votes by decisive margin

Print Email

The Park Slope Food Coop battle is over: a resolution to hold a referendum on whether the Brooklyn cooperative should cease to sell products made in Israel (currently a small number) was defeated at last night’s monthly meeting by a vote of 1,005 to 653. Because it’s a hot-button issue, with the referendum’s supporters explicitly allied with the international B.D.S. (boycott, divestment, and sanctions) movement, in a heavily Jewish neighborhood in the country’s largest media market, the debate, which is really over consumer preferences in a small corner of the world, has received wildly outsize attention, including from this blog. While the meeting, held off-site (in Fort Greene, scandalously!) to accommodate the expected crowds, had to be delayed 45 minutes as a line wended around the block, reports over Twitter (somewhat limited, as live-tweeting was apparently discouraged) suggest that the gathering, at which about four dozen members spoke for a few minutes each and then the vote was held, was relatively subdued, at least more than expected. The meeting was only open to members; this reporter was therefore unable to attend. For fuller reports, I suggest @ChadwickMatlin and Tablet Magazine’s @saraivry and @irincarmon.

I did get some audio snippets, including of the supporters’ initial presentation. This proved that each side has its own “did you know?” series, such as, to quote one: “And you never hear that three former Israeli prime ministers have compared the situation to apartheid” (Peres, Barak, and Olmert, no?). “Collective action is what makes boycotts effective,” noted another. The best argument this side had was that the vote last night was merely for the referendum: “Only a full vote is truly democratic and keeping with the Coop’s values and precedents,” declared a third. “Voting yes to referendum is not a yes to boycott. It simply allows every voice to be heard.”

But Joe Holtz, the Coop’s original employee and current general manager, made the anti-referendum case specifically on those grounds, as opposed to political ones. “We didn’t get here by passing the responsibility from a meeting to a referendum where people don’t have to think about facing each other and really thinking about the issues,” he said. “Our form of governance is a higher form than the referendum. Occasionally, the members of these meetings have authorized a referendum. But the Coop probably wouldn’t exist today if we were a referendum coop.”

Rabbi Andy Bachman, of Park Slope’s Congregation Beth Elohim, an opponent of the referendum, was one of the folks selected at random from the names of those who requested to speak (contra some suggestions on Twitter, he swore that his name, as far as he knows, was selected at random). “We motored through and it was rejected overwhelmingly,” Bachman said, and said as much in a longer blog post.

Indeed. And yet, here’s betting a lot more people know what BDS is now than did two months ago.

And I’m not even counting the Daily Show segment.

Food Coop Rejects Efforts to Boycott Israeli-Made Products [NYT]
BDS Referendum Defeated: Reflections [Water Over Rocks]
Earlier: Much Ado About … Well, Something

Print Email

Daily rate: $2
Monthly rate: $18
Yearly rate: $180

Tablet is committed to bringing you the best, smartest, most enlightening and entertaining reporting and writing on Jewish life, all free of charge. We take pride in our community of readers, and are thrilled that you choose to engage with us in a way that is both thoughtful and thought-provoking. But the Internet, for all of its wonders, poses challenges to civilized and constructive discussion, allowing vocal—and, often, anonymous—minorities to drag it down with invective (and worse). Starting today, then, we are asking people who'd like to post comments on the site to pay a nominal fee—less a paywall than a gesture of your own commitment to the cause of great conversation. All proceeds go to helping us bring you the ambitious journalism that brought you here in the first place.

Readers can still interact with us free of charge via Facebook, Twitter, and our other social media channels, or write to us at Each week, we’ll select the best letters and publish them in a new letters to the editor feature on the Scroll.

We hope this new largely symbolic measure will help us create a more pleasant and cultivated environment for all of our readers, and, as always, we thank you deeply for your support.

jacob arnon says:

I doubt the coop would have survived a boycott of Israeli goods.

Had they passed such an antisemitic bigoted resolution all true liberals would have boycotted the coop.

Nice post by Rabbi Bachman.

Binyamin in O says:

Bachman claims their were virulent anti-semitic statements made by several of the speakers at the membership meeting.

“This attitude helped me tolerate the intolerable comments I heard from a few speakers that night: Jews control the media; Jews control Congress; Jews in America have shut down the debate about Israel.”

Read more:

If its true these statements were made then its a scandal Tablet did not report them.

If its false, then Bachman is a repulsive prevaricator and is guilty of libel.

Binyamin. Israel was accused of ethnic cleansing, and genocide. American media was accused of “silencing the debate” and AIPAC was accused of controlling Washington. I heard all of that with my own ears. Each statement either explicitly anti-Jewish or well-known code language for Jewish control of the media and Congress. It is morally reprehensible, in my view, that those ideas are “opinion” alongside others trying to have a reasoned debate.

While I was not there, I would note that had charges of ethnic cleansing and genocide been made against Israel (as Rabbi Bachman states) then that would have been clear libel, as not only are ethnic cleansing and genocide serious crimes, but that the charges are not supported by evidence: namely bodies of victims, eye-witness accounts, documentary evidence (film, video, written orders, emails, intercepted phone calls), or secondary metrics of population or economic decline.

So yes, had there been libelous charges of genocide or ethnic cleansing against Israel made by the BDS supporters, then yes,it would have been fair to label the speakers as “anti-Semitic” especially if coupled with the usual canards about Jewish power.

Binyamin in O says:

Ian and Andy: There was no mention in Bachman’s account of “ethnic cleansing” or “genocide” as the basis for his claim that “intolerable” anti-semitic comments were made by the BDS speakers.

Bachman’s quote speaks for itself.

Your failure (and his) to document the disgusting charge contained in the quote must lead a reasonable observer to conclude that it cannot be documented.


Your comment may be no longer than 2,000 characters, approximately 400 words. HTML tags are not permitted, nor are more than two URLs per comment. We reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments.

Thank You!

Thank you for subscribing to the Tablet Magazine Daily Digest.
Please tell us about you.

Park Slope Coop Rejects Israel BDS Referendum

One-tenth of membership votes by decisive margin

More on Tablet:

Obama: Denying Israel’s Right to Exist as a Jewish Homeland is Anti-Semitic

By Yair Rosenberg — The president draws a line in the sand in his latest interview