This Wednesday (December 15) I will debate/discuss the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions campaign with Jewish Voices for Peace Executive Director Rebecca Vilkormerson and J Street U Director Daniel May at Princeton University. Princeton’s Students for Justice in Palestine chapter recently attempted to pressure the school into offering an alternative in the cafeteria to Sabra Hummus, an Israeli product made by the Strauss Group, which has sponsored the IDF’s Givati Brigade (see heartwarming Givati t-shirts here). They failed to get the votes they needed, (I don’t know why more students didn’t vote for an alternative solely on health grounds, since Sabra contains the carcinogenic, extremely unhealthy preservative sodium benzoate), but in my opinion the SJP kids won by forcing the community to debate the occupation and discriminatory nature of the Israeli state. The debate I will participate in on the 15th represents, in my opinion, the role BDS has played in fostering a more open discussion about the Israel-Palestine conflict. Though Daniel May disagrees with the BDS approach and will argue against it, he and J Street have also played a crucial part in creating space for open and honest debate about the conflict. Unfortunately, I learned yesterday that Whig Clio, Princeton’s debating society, could not convince any high profile “pro-Israel” figures to join the panel. The rumor is that no one they asked wanted to face me in a debate about the I-P conflict. I have no idea if this is true, and wonder why it would be, but whether it is or not, the fact that BDS opponents have resorted to empty terms like “delegitimization” in place of substantive arguments is evidence of how thin their case has become. You would think that this would be a debate they would be eager to engage in. But what can they say when Israeli quasi-governmental groups are partnering with anti-Semites to demolish villages inhabited by Israeli citizens? Not much, apparently.