Here is an exchange at KPFA in California between Noam Chomsky and Ali Abunimah and Jeff Blankfort touching on BDS and the Israel lobby. Actually, Chomsky declined to engage with Abunimah and Blankfort, so host Khalil Bendidb interviewed Chomsky on an earlier show, then on this show he asked Abunimah and Blankfort to respond.
I find it somewhat uncomfortable.
Chomsky is a giant, and Abunimah and Blankfort are friends of this site, and there is a sense of a torch being passed here, or of the older left not being suited for the new conversation about Israel/Palestine. Chomsky is defensive and a little brittle here; at his worst moment, he compares BDS to breaking a store window during the Vietnam War upheaval. It feels good, it doesn’t achieve anything, he says. I don’t follow the analogy. It is very hard to quarrel with Abunimah’s logic about BDS–Palestinian civil society has asked for it, the cultural targets are organizations such as this dance troupe that is burnishing Israel’s global image, even as Palestinian dancers can’t get out of the goddamn territories–or Blankfort’s belief in the Israel lobby, that American establishment Jews, empowered in D.C. and the media, have a particular and large responsibility for pushing the special relationship. Hey, I write about that all the time here.
That said, I find I have some emotional sympathy for Chomsky as someone from the Jewish world who is still attached to the ideals of Zionism. His attachment is latent in this conversation. Though I’ve never been a Zionist, and was never called by Israel (I grew up in a very Jewish academic family with little community involvement, and then happily assimilated for 30 years) I acknowledge that in the 50s, 60s and 70s, there were leftwing Jews who felt called by Israel in an idealistic way. They didn’t know about the Nakba, or they accepted the lies. My great puzzle here is how we help American Jews climb down from that old feeling. Chomsky is still obviously attached to the idea of Partition, to preserve a redeemed Jewish state. He says that there is world consensus for Partition. Abunimah responds that Chomsky has never worried about world consensus in other situations. Good point. But Abunimah is less convincing when he says that Partition or Re-Partition is a bloodier process than the road to One State. I don’t know; the future all looks bloody to me. It feels as intractable as the slavery question felt before the Civil War. And as I have said before on this site, Partition has "worked" in many places around the world. (Would I have been for Partition in the U.S. before the Civil War? Sometimes I think, Yes; if I were 54 when the question was posed, I would have accommodated evil/secession rather than sent my children to fight it. I don’t trust intellectuals who support just wars they wouldn’t volunteer for.)
The problem with the two-state solution is that Partition wouldn’t have worked in India/Pakistan if India had been allowed to gobble up Pakistan. While the Jewish lib-left maintained its deliverance ideals of Zionism-and-the Jewish state in the American power structure, Partition was destroyed by a militarist-expansionist Israel (that Chomsky nobly opposed every step of the way); and today Abunimah can rightly say that the Nakba never stopped. How do we stop it now, and reinstate Partition? Or, how do we help Jews climb down from the idea of a Jewish state, and assure them they can still talk English in West Jerusalem, even if they can’t move there?
Listening to this conversation, I recall something Norman Finkelstein said a year or so back. Let us not have inquests in which people are asked, Are you now or have you ever been a Zionist? Perhaps he said that out of love of his mentor, Noam Chomsky.
For my part, I would just say that the anti-apartheid movement for Israel/Palestine should be an inclusive one; and more important, it is crucial that this debate leave the leftwing chambers and begin in the American mainstream now. I want Michael Ratner’s appalled discoveries about the reality of one-state with apartheid conditions that he has conveyed on this site recently to be openly discussed in both the Jewish left and the American mainstream. There’s no way forward till you deal with the reality.
Good post. I like Blankfort a lot and then I read his article on Chomsky’s views about BDS.
It’s still something weird to me, because Chomsky goes much further with other issues.
A personal note: I felt sorry for Chomsky, I have to admit. I witnessed attacks on him as one of the most prominent “Jewish antisemites” far too long from what felt far right “Anti-antisemitic establishment and/or science circles,” to not firmly approve one of his points, essentially: Why pick out me?
More to the point of weirdness. I have absolutely no doubt that both Chomsky and Finkelstein are correct to point out the deep entanglement between American Jewish “pro-Israel” and non-Jewish American business interests.
I respect both Abunimah and Blankfort but sometimes things aren’t what they look like on the surface.
In an interview Condi Rice had with the Der Spiegel over here during one of her visits after 9/11 Condoleeza told us German readers, I keep quoting this:
After 1989 everybody asked himself what would be our next enemy now. Then 9/11 happened and everybody knew.
Do you think she said this from a purely pro-Israel angle or more from the perspective of a new “market” for the American military complex, or maybe from her perspective common interests, with Israel as the leading expert in the field? a “pooling of interests”.
who would be …
There is clearly something egregious about Chomsky’s stance and laughable example comparing BDS to doing ‘no good’ and breaking glass, and behind dismissing the issue of 1948.
And the matter of the Lobby… which I think is a question of observing directionality. Chomsky gets the cause/effect direction the wrong way when he says, well, there isn’t a lobby because in addition to the media the whole corporate sector, all the high-tech companies support Israel and invest there. But this has been happening as a result of the lobby, Mr Chomsky! The lobby isn’t just a phenomenon we are noticing because Intel is investing in Haifa; we are noticing it as a causal ‘force,’ a mostly ethnocentric one, that has been advertising Israel, calling for protecting it, donating to it, etc. Which, as a result of both immediate and latent effects of this constant political and cultural lobbying, we see Intel and other companies today investing there like no place else. In fact, a preceding effect to this probably well-merited investment craze may have been Israel’s ascent, to become deserving of such hi-tech investment, due to all the previous money and ‘help’ which the lobby enabled for it to receive and therefore become a hi-tech prodigy among nations (an example of latent effect).
To be generous, I think maybe Chomsky’s particular linguistic mind may be partially getting in the way of accepting these concepts. Other reasons, one can only assume.
Israel is successful because of all the aid previously given to it, then why don’t the oil rich Arab countries produce anything? They have plenty of cash. Their populations should be starting up hi tech companies like crazy.
ok, I’ll bite. Why?
Kapok: A smart move. If Julian is a troll, he’ll ignore you. If he genuinely wants some kind of debate, he’ll answer.
Err, Julian, you conviently forget that those Arab countries’ regimes are heavily dependent
on USA foreign aid, and their populations are dirt poor.
I was answering jan_gdyn. He seems to feel that money is the reason for Israels hi tech success. A lot of the money Israel gets from the US goes into into buying US weapons from US companies. It doesn’t go into hi tech start ups.
Non secular countries don’t seem to do well in hi tech start ups. The best and the brightest often end up as religious leaders, because that’s what is admired in their society.
Oil rich Arab states do well economically, financially, and politically vis a vis the West just like Israel does.
Have you ever been to the Khaleej states? In particular places like Dubai, Kuwait city, Doha, Abu Dhabi?
The standard of living in these places is ridiculously high.
In any case I don’t even see what your point is.
Israel’s high tech success is almost entirely produced by Israelis outside of Israel or due to non Israeli multi-nationals setting up offices in Israel.
why then is Israel so afraid of Iranian competition that it has its plant in the US Treasury Dept, Stuart Levey, running around the globe trying to strangle investment in Iran? Is Israel afraid to compete on a level playing field?
Israel’s success is due to Affirmative Action, not to innate talent or skill.
btw, it wasn’t a mullah that was assassinated in Iran (quite likely by Mossad), it was an engineer. Ahmadinejad is a PhD civil engineer; Mousavi is a PhD architectural engineer. Education in Iran’s madrassas, where young men start on the road to become mullahs, is rigorous and combines religious education as well as intense training in languages, political science, economics, finance, foreign affairs. 90% of Iranians are literate; a majority of Iran’s young people are college educated; 60% of college students are women, and many of them are earning advanced degrees in engineering, biological and medical sciences.
Israel was the very first country to get special trade allowance with the USA; it also has ripped off US patents; it is constantly being given free USA cash to buy USA
products, especially in the realm of military and tek security products and services. And Israel is the only country in the world that gets to contract directly with USA countries sans any US government fire wall gate.
I mean contract directly with USA private corporations.
Israel also routinely violatesmilitary technology sharing agreements, often selling these technologies to US adversaries like China.
Well Julian that is only partially true, because Israel has a sweet deal that no other country has. The deal is that they can take 15% of that money given to them to invest in their own enterprises. Now, what is the sum total that Israel has received to date?
ALMOST 114 BILLION
That is the figure till 2008, it is now about 200 Billion, what is 15% of that figure? A pretty tidy sum, enough over the years to build quite an industry in high tech. US aid made Israel what it is in this area, and a good number of other areas. The US cuts Israel in sweet deals all over the world, those are just the facts Julian, something you are not too aware of, ever, in you’re multiple spurious posts.
Not to mention all the industrial espionage. They steal it.
I’m very happy to answer your question even if you ask it with repulsive intentions.
Success is not all about money. Money is important and in fact vital, but you also vitally need competent leadership that is willing to spend it wisely, share it with the populace, and care about that populace in the first place. Nowhere in the rich Arab countries do those conditions apply.
Actually they do in Dubai, jan_gdyn. Sheik Mo’ could have spent his dineros in the 70s in Paris and living the good life. Instead, he invested in the patch of sand that is now Dubai and got the other emirates to go along with a Free Zone area. For starters. The school kids in that kingdom have T1 lines, but who reads Arabic in this country. We dont hear about this stuff because the Media Hotel (per Blankfort) denies dissemination in our news sources.
It was Arabs, and not Jew,s who invented the university system over a 1,000 years ago; it was Arab culture that was the intelligentsia for centuries. This blanket posturing of Arabs and Muslims as kuckers and shnooks is a recent development borne of ignorance.
So Julian,
What equivalent of Dubai has Israel created?
Er, Madoff and the Fed Reserve system?
Actually, Shingo, it should be What equivalent of Dubai has Israel created without looting the US Treasury for 60 years?
It would be if Israel had built anything other than settlements for religious nutcases to inhabbit.
Chomsky has already staked out his position as a two-stater, which can only be maintained by the deployment of pretzel logic.
Rubbish. Chomsky has always said that a 2 state settlement would be unachievable.
It’s on the youtubes. NC debating that nice mr. Dearth O’Witz.
The primary argument for two states is practicality and isn’t that above logic?
Jan–gdyn makes a very good point that Chomsky has the cause and effect relationship backwards and that mistake would naturally flow from his refusal to acknowledge that not only has The Lobby/Jewish Establishment been responsible for Israel receiving ultra-VIP treatment at the hands of both the government and the media, but it has made it safe for US firms to invest there.
yes, Jeffrey Blankfort, the Israel lobby in the US “has made it safe for US firms to invest [in Israel” and equally importantly, the Israel lobby in the US has made it unsafe for American and other countries throughout the world to invest in Iran.
In a conference Richard Silverstein hosted in Seattle in December 2009, Keith Weissman, former AIPAC operative and, while in that capacity, contributor to the first set of sanctions US imposed on Iran (in 1995, under Clinton), said that the sanctions harmed American interests, and that sanctions have seldom, if ever, been effective in achieving their goal.
One has to conclude that the purpose of the sanctions against Iran that are constantly promoted by Israel lobbyists, is to benefit Israel economically and commercially, and to hell with any collateral damage, even to Israel’s great “ally.”
My own problem with BDS is effectiveness. I don’t think it will be enough. Too little and too late. Israel is creating facts on the ground as fast as it can – what progress are the Palestinians making?
I would like to think that, as in wrestling, they plan to use Israeli momemtum against them, but I am not confident.
I would answer Chomsky, and anyone who questions the effectiveness of BDS, that it actually serves a dual purpose. Apart from exerting pressure on Israel to change, it is a concrete expression of solidarity. In and of itself, it may not change Israeli policies, but it shows Palestinians that they are not alone, that many people around the world care and have not forgotten them. This is invaluable, and may ultimately make a difference in the way the Palestinians themselves confront their situation. As such, I see it as a moral imperative that goes well beyond its direct impact on Israel.
Very well stated Shmuel – the point you make encapsulates my feelings on the BDS issue perfectly. It’s not a cure but a behavior modification tool for Israel that has a second important function of a kind of group therapy for both palestinians and israelis – as well as supporters abroad – jewish and not. I am not sure the analogy is apt 9and wouldn’t carry it too far), but it’s hard not to notice that the arguments we see raging here and out there have therapeutic features. In the way solidarity can act to transform the consciousness of both victims and sympathizers – and hopefully turn some minds among the victimizers. To me, as I said elsewhere, the most important aspect of activities like the March For Gaza, is the way so many people from the west – jews and non jews alike – come together with arabs, palestinians and muslims from all places to unite in a common cause for human rights. As such – whether it’s BDS or the march or the ongoing demonstrations in the west bank – they transcend hamas or fatah or any other ruling party as long as the object of the struggle – the humans who are deprived of rights – are kept front and center. To others out there the quest may look quixotic, but many good fights started out that way.
Shmuel is on target again. I spent years in southern Africa, was active in the anti-apatheid movement, and I can add that another way sanctions worked there was that they showed the apartheid regime and its supporters that the U.S. and the rest of the West would not stand by them forever. It was an intangible but indispensable feature of the outside pressure. BDS is in its early stages, but as it grows I suspect an increasing number of Israelis may be fprced slowly to make similar calculations. Until now, they still have every reason to think the U.S. will endorse everything they do.
A just cause is highly solidifying–that’s why Lincoln made his Emancipation Proclamation despite he had no legal constitutional basis to so argue.
Are there other ways, or more specific BDS, that communicates the same “you are not forgotten”, than a blunt punitive instrument that is equally used for fascistic boycotts on ethnic grounds, or ethnic assertion grounds (Israel as assertion of Jewish self-governance – a prospective form of anti-semitism. I accept you as Jewish as long as you are assimilated.)
A blunt instrument is what is called for, and no, BDS has nothing to do with ethnic grounds. It is being directed at a state, the same way the boycott of South Africa was.
Israel is not being targeted for BDS because it is asseting Jewish self-governance, but becasue it is denying Palestinian self-governance.
You’re attempt to make this about anti semitism is so weak and pathetic, it doesn’t deserve a response.
A “blunt instrument is what is called for”.
Thats what racist Zionists say. As I’ve said lots of times, you have a lot in common.
Bomb the settlements.
matter- I feel that your sentiment might be explainable, but emotional outbursts aside, you are advocating murder.
What if they drop leaflets, first, giving the settlers an hour to escape?
That’s clever, potsherd. I never advocated for bombing those Gaza residents. I don’t understand Israel’s long range strategy and as such the entire campaign seems like a bloodletting which would have to be repeated at intervals and as such this seems like a reactive, unwise and deadly course of action.
Attacking the settlements might be a worthy tactic or not and advocating attacks in some detail deeper than four words might lead to thought about ends and means. But just a half sentence needs to be labeled as an emotional outburst advocating what?
Seriously, so now Witty has a disciple? You know, until you are willing to speak about what Israel does to Palestinian civilians as crimes, WJ, your rhetorical gymnastics and attempts to put other people on the defensive by trying to deflect questions back their way isn’t going to amount to much.
WJ, today I saw two things in Ha’aretz. One, that a quarter million Palestinians in the WB may be vulnerable to settler reprisals. There was nothing about the IDF planning to actually prevent these reprisals, or punish the settlers who commit them.
Two, that ten settlers from Yitzhar were actually arrested for firebombing the mosque last year.
Let’s say, then, advocating arresting the entire population from any settlement suspected of harboring such terror activities and bulldozing it to the ground, returning the land to the Palestinians and setting up a cordon to keep the settlers from returning and taking more vengeance.
Because Israel isn’t planning on leaving the WB or ending the occupation, ever. Given this, it is imperative that it seriously address Jewish terrorism.
Maybe my terminology in reaction to matter’s comment was not reflected in previous comments that I made in other situations. But matter should not be “allowed” to make such a statement without a request for further thoughts that back up and follow up this statement.
Or maybe WJ simply gave his login credentials to Witty. That’s another explanation.
“‘Thats what racist Zionists say. As I’ve said lots of times, you have a lot in common. “‘
Seeing as you suport the blockade of Gaza, a blunt instrument, that makes you a racist Zionist too.
“Thats what racist Zionists say. As I’ve said lots of times, you have a lot in common”
But you support the blockade on Gaza until it can be shown no weapons will get in. Collective punishment for a whole people, so yeah, as Shingo says, you are a racist Zionist by your own definition. Good to have that on the record.
As far as I know, you don’t even support the banning of weapons imports to Israel. That’s a humanitarian act if directed at Gaza (because the weapons might be fired at Israelis) but it’s not a humanitarian act if aimed at Israel (because, well, we all know, don’t we?)
WJ, don’t take ‘matter’ seriously. You know the regulars here do not support ‘bombing the settlements’.
And I never pegged you for a Cast Lead supporter.
I agree with your point on the issue of hypocrisy. Considering the crimes perpetrated against Palestinians are of greater frequency, greater scope and impact and also go virtually unpunished.
However, in this context, the guy WJ was replying to was a hit-and-run type of poster. If he were a regular, the msg would still be taboo and we’d be discussing it.
(i’m talking about the poster, ‘matter’)
Israel’s tactics of indiscriminate and often purposeful targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure is and act of evil (you don’t need to kill 6 million people to be ‘evil’). and i dont think we should imply a scenario where the situation is flipped. i think there are people you debate with on this issue, who clearly do NOT value Palestinian and Arab lives in general as being equal to those of Jews.
Dick Witty is an example. I don’t think WJ is like that.
To clarify, yes, drop leaflets first. Give them as much time as the “Israeli” Occupation Forces gave the people of Gaza. Heck, give them TWICE as much time. But then let them experience what they’ve been meting out to the Palestinians for DECADES. DECADES. Let me repeat that once more. DECADES of massacres, thefts, ethnic cleansing and apartheid. Let the Master Race of the settlers experience some pushback from their rapacious quest for Lebensraum.
I think the Palestinians have every right to defend themselves and to remove the occupation and colonization by themselves and by force if necessary.
But you’re basically trying to recreate Gaza but instead w/ the settlers as the Palestinians.
So while we might implement all these ‘generous’ conditions (twice the amount of time to run) – the point is that it’s about vengence. It’s basically about giving the Israelis a taste of their own cruelty and inhumanity.
Fight the IDF. Fight the settlers who are committing crimes. Don’t ‘become’ the oppressor and inflict pain/etc. to subjugate a people. That’s what ‘bombing the settlements’ would ultimately be about. To switch the tables and become Israel and make the Israelis, Palestinians.
I think Palestinians should try to imagine a life w/o Zionism and maintain their integrity and humanity. Fight their enemy but do not degrade themselves in the process. Their cause is just. They are fighting people who are STEALING from them. Their land, their resources, their humanity.
‘bombing the settlements’ gives off the impression that the Palestinians should become Zionists.
Should they then have a Dick Witty to issue apologetics about the scores of civilian deaths, racism, discrimination, etc.?
Donals,
The term “racist Zionist” is a tautology.
WJ, you have the right to ask him.
The root of the problem is Israeli exceptionalism, their presumption of impunity. They believe that they have to right to inflict whatever punishment on the people they make their enemies, but no one else has the right to defend themselves, to possess the means to defend themselves. This is the core of their deterrance doctrine, which is to inflict damage on others while not suffering any damage themselves.
While turning the tables is a temptation, a power that could bomb the settlements would have to be a power that could inflict such disproportionate punishment on Israel, which means the risk of a bloodbath on a far greater scale than we saw in Gaza.
The torch is being passed to Blankfort? What’s he 80. He’s been spewing the same stuff for the last 60 years.
Julian: You already tried this tactic with Henry Siegman. Why don’t you tell us specifically what is wrong with “the same stuff” that Blankfort is “spewing?” Astronomers since Galileo have been spewing the much same stuff, but it doesn’t automatically discredit them.
Julian will promptly find an article written by some fascist right-winger to speak for him.
It’s a classic tactic. You quote someone, to which the propagandist replies, “oh but we all know what s/he thinks” – as if words only have importance if they surprise. It’s a variant of the more intimate “well you would say that”.
Jeffrey Blankfort has more innate intelligence, morality, and kindness than many I have encountered in print in years. And the fact that he’s 80, if he is, makes him even more magnificent. I’m one of those who appreciate anyone who ages with grandeur and increasing intelligence as a national treasure.
You, Julian, aren’t fit to polish his shoes.
I agree completely. I’m glad Jeff contributes to this site too.
Sixty years ago, or maybe it was 61 I was watching my mother clean up the bathroom after Israel’s UN Ambassador Reuven Dafni, who had been staying at our house,had made a mess of it. “Never again,” she said, would he be welcome there. Moshe Sneh, the head of the Haganah, who had also been a house guest was a little more civilized, but as my father learned, he talked out of both sides of his mouth.
By 1956 my father was one of the few in the LA Jewish community to publicly oppose Israel’s invasion of Egypt and his first reaction to the 1982 invasion of Lebanon was to tell me on the phone, “they’re just like Nazis. Go back and read Deuteronomy.” I did and recommend it to all who wish to understand the Zionist mindset and that of Julian, as well, I suspect.
Oh, yeah, I am not as old as Chomsky but, unlike the Old[er] Man, I am enjoying a second childhood.
You’re a delight and a treat, Jeffrey Blankfort. As I’ve written elsewhere on this board a year or two ago, I was a raging right-wing Republican, a Limbaugh-listening, Michael Savage-loving specimen for what I thought should rule and be listened to until I encountered your writings in the late 90s, and I was drawn up short. (I was also an ultra Zionist because of my associations in NYC.) You can bet I verified everything you claimed. And so began my real education beyond the various masters degrees I have, and the stark realization that I had been lied to. Now you tell me I really owe it to your Dad. ;-)
link to ihrc.org.uk
I’ve been listening to your excellent talk here Jeff. You should compile your lectures/etc. on a website. I have hard time finding you on the net. And your argument in the lecture above is so detailed and compelling.
It really bothers me that Chomsky ignores these details.
Thanks MRW and Cliff, I do appreciate your comments and am glad that Phil has this site which has become one of the most important in enlightening people on issues relating to Israel/Palestine and opening their minds.
One of these days I’ll have a web site and put up some other earlier articles that I’ve written but at the moment I am working on a book. You all can easily guess the subject.
Jeffrey Blankfort – Do you know what worm eats at Ephraim Sneh’s soul such that he felt compelled to light on Iran and Iran’s nuclear ambitions as Israel’s enemy #1? It is my understanding that in 1992, Sneh, then deputy defense minister, made a series of presentations to Knesset asserting that Iran was a nuclear threat to Israel, and that Israel needed to spend more on its military preparedness to counteract that specific threat. At first, Knesset paid no heed, but eventually, Sneh won the day and project Target Iran was set in motion. American Jews responded swiftly and directly on the Clinton administration (inter alia).
What was happening in 1992 in Israel, and what “huge imago” drives Ephraim Sneh?
Best I can come up with for 1992 is that by this time, Iran had won its lawsuit against Israel and Israel was feeling the pinch two ways — no more revenue stream from either Iranian oil or from weapons sales to Iran; AND Israel had lost a billion dollar lawsuit; AND Israel was trying to absorb Russian Jews.
My understanding was that through the I/I war Israel was on the side of Iran, identifying Iraq as their primary threat. Towards the end of the war, they decided Iraq’s teeth had been pulled and moved on to the next potential enemy.
“‘He’s been spewing the same stuff for the last 60 years. “‘
That’s the thing about truth and facts Julian, they stand the test of time, unlike Hasbra and Israeli revisionism propaganda.
I think Ali Abunimeh demonstrated Chomsky’s point about the dangers of BDS as a blunt instrument for the purpose of “feeling good”.
There is an odd aspect of the dissenting movement declaring that Noam Chomsky is a reactionary now, as Blankfurt repeatedly describes.
Its a bashing session, with a fight for what is the politically correct stance. Old.
Its sad to see Phil get into this in any supportive way.
The investment of time, money, effort DOES distract from the two state development which is constructed by Palestinian institution building so that it is ready to be a state, so that the only action that has to happen is a change in sovereignty, rather than having to reinvent the wheel.
There is no possibility in my likely lifetime that Israelis will consent to a single-state, and the consequences of advocating for that are increased conflict, and increased violence.
If you are interested in that fifty-year escalation of violence, with a likely partition at the end of it anyway, instead of doing the uncomfortable work of supporting ONLY the factors that enhance a viable two-state approach, then you (whoever you are) are on the side of suppression and NOT on the side of liberation.
You “look cool” (street cred).
Actually, Abunimah illustrated the obvious. He made a good case for the rash comments Chomsky made characterizing BDS.
Chomsky at some point symbolized it as breaking windows. That’s just silly. It’s a tactic that everyday people can engage in that targets those who profit off of the occupation.
It is also supported by Palestinian civil society.
Chomsky does not give an inkling of what a possible alternative direction is – in any meaningful sense.
And I don’t think we have to ask oppressors what they want. There will always be struggle to make things right. I think a non-violent struggle towards one-state is a good thing and is already underway. The Palestinians should resist Israeli colonization in a way that undermines Israel’s strength of force.
BDS and non-violent protest is the way. We should promote one-state by educating people about the history of the conflict and focus on those Palestinian non-violent voices.
Meanwhile, Israel will continue to war-monger and inflict facts on the ground. We need to build on this by exposing Israeli criminality and bringing more people on board w/ us through civil disobedience/etc.
It’s a start and considering the forces that prevent any kind of legitimate justice, it’s the most tactically sound strategy. To use Israeli brutality and force against it by remaining steadfast and patient. Holding on to your heritage as a Palestinian and never forgetting you have every right to live on that land. Your ancestors lived there, and if not for the ethnic cleansing and Zionist movement, imperialism, etc. you would be there now too.
Don’t forget your history and don’t accept a solution that denies your basic rights and your dignity.
Certainly, do not allow the Dick Wittys of the world to lecture you about justice and truth and reconciliation. Withstanding Israeli brutality for decades on end, as well as all the lies is enough – Palestinians do not need your help Witty. They have a strength you will never know.
Well said Cliff.
We need to drop annual cash aid to Israel, also drop “loans” that are never paid, but always forgiven, making them in fact grants but without any monitored strings attached; and we also need to use current legislation to deprive not Russia, but
Israel of full trade status and trade funding–until they treat the Palestinians as humans.
“‘”Its sad to see Phil get into this in any supportive way.”‘
Facts and reality have always made you sad Witty.
Palestinians have some strengths that I will never know, resulting from struggle, and they have some baggage that I will never know, also partially resulting from struggle.
I am attempting to realize peace, which is a state of consented mutual humanization.
If social change results in a pendulum swing (a substitution of one form of suppression instead of a second), then I don’t consider that social progress. If social change results in a war (willing, then intended harms on the other) in the process to realize an incrementally improved social relations, then there might be a basis to it, but in MOST cases there isn’t sufficient justification.
To the extent that we have choice in the approach to realize good there (I know to the political analysis “good” is a secondary or maligned term, relative to “justice”), then a fair two-state solution is far far more optimal.
Zionism as a desire of most Jews in Israel is not a trivial choice of what flavor ice cream they prefer. Its alternately a need, a fulfillment.
To the extent that Zionism in some form is not a need or something primary to Israeli Jews (I’m not speaking of expansion or suppression but of “enough” Zionism), then civil political organizing of civilist parties would realize that, and blunt BDS would not be necessary. Rational electoral processes would suffice.
What CHOICE are we making? That Blankfurt notes that he is personally motivated to a repugnance for Zionist chutzpa and “entitlement” is interesting to me.
I don’t see the intensity of Blankfort, or the persistant presence of Abunimeh to be a democratic urge to realize a rational thoughtful reconciliation, but solely a motivated partisan justification for militancy.
The states of mind necessary to accomplish militancy resemble the states of mind to accomplish expansionist Zionism or other dogmatic approaches that I encounter. It requires believing to be true.
There is truth in the propanda, but it only survives the “right” questions, the choices.
Chomsky feels personally slighted by Abunimeh and Blankfort. Maybe the nationalist and solidarity community historically only reluctantly regarded Finkelstein and Chomsky as their standard bearers, and in some way resented it. Maybe they yearned for Arabic leadership stating non-compromising theses, and here is that point, their validation, their hope. (All stated in the name of freeing from the feeling of affinity that Phil describes that he feels, some reluctantly some appreciatively, when meeting Jewish like-minded intellectuals – not just like-minded intellectuals.)
I think if you are interested in effective, savvy, morally consistent views, you would run your militancy sincerely through the filter of “am I pursuing BDS because it is effective for realizing social good, or for some self gratification in some form.”
And, am I willing to accept a political result that suppresses or results in war, for an ideal, especially one that is definitively NOT CONSENTED by some number over 40% of the population considered. (There is no way to know if that is a permanent status or can be accomplished by persuasion or in the case of BDS by coercion, as a form of war in this case.)
“You say you want a revolution, we all want to save the world.
When you talk about destruction, don’t you know you can count me out”
That is MY civil disobedience against yours.
Another long essay from Witty that is utterly incoherent and filled with hypocrisy and doubel standards.
And the pronoun “I”
You know what I said.
You are willing to likely harm and likely suppress for an ideology that picks selections of history to consider important and selections unimportant, and some people’s concerns as deserving attention while ignoring others’.
All stated in the name of “justice”.
Your fear and loating of justice has long been on the record Witty.
As for BDS being fascistic, You have no problem suppoting the far more extreme blockadde of Gaza, or are you arguing that facism is a good thing?
I definitely have great fear and “loathing” for mob justice, for trivial definitions.
I am a great advocate of color-blind justice in which all sides perspectives, causal evidence are heard, and creative remedy applied.
I’m surprised that you are not an advocate for that as well.
Seriously, Witty, can you take the self-masturbatory rhetoric somewhere private? None of us really want to see you stroke your ego with both hands and tissue paper. Some of us actually don’t have a lot of time, so we blog and eat at the same time.
Great, so Arabs the world over, whether in the USA or elsewhere, should just accept
their second class citizenship as full humans. That’s the least they could do for saving
Israel so it can do whatever it wants to assure Jewish “continuity.” Uncle Sam can do no less. The Average American? They don’t even count. Let them watch Hollywood film potshots at B Spears’s cunt, getting out of her rented limo….
I’m afraid when it comes to BDS, Chomsky is opposed on ideological grounds. At least that’s the way it seems to me. Uri Avnery opposes the BDS too, and his explanation isn’t convincing either.
Exactly.
Every person opposed to BDS has never presented a real arguement against it.
In fact the only argument I ever hear is the old canard “The Israelis wont like BDS” bullshit.
I mean… isint that the point? If your occupying and oppressing a people subjecting them to apartheid and ethnically cleansing them while denying refugees the right to return to their homes… shouldn’t you be punished for that?
“‘I’m afraid when it comes to BDS, Chomsky is opposed on ideological grounds.”‘
That’s false Avi.
Chomsky argues that the boycott of South Africa only became effective once the Western powers adopted it. He argues that BDS won’t work unless it is embraced by the ruling elite, which is clearly not the case at this stage.
But, the fact that professor Chomsky refuses to acknowledge the power of The Lobby in shaping American policy, especially foreign policy, then how does he expect BDS to gain momentum in the US, which I presume is a major part in that “ruling elite” category?
Wouldn’t the first step toward getting the US and its ruling elite on board require some kind of acknowledgment of The Lobby’s influence and reach?
Chomsky and Finkelstein are on the same page with regard to the Lobby, and their arguments are compelling. The lobby doesn’t alway get it’s way, and when it does, it’s only because it is in line with our own foreign policy. This is not to be confused with our interersts, becuause it’s obvious that our foreing policy and our national interests are rarely one and the same.
For example, the US stated policy is to support a 2 state solution, but the real policy has been to oppose this outcome. If the consensus in Washington was to implement a 2 state solution, they could have it by summer.
“Chomsky argues that the boycott of South Africa only became effective once the Western powers adopted it. He argues that BDS won’t work unless it is embraced by the ruling elite, which is clearly not the case at this stage.”
I can appreciate Chomsky’s argument Shingo however it is somewhat half-baked. Long before elites adopted it there was a call for BDS and it was a working concern among people all over the world, and than eventually the elites adopted it. We are now at the stage when it is being recognized all over the world mainly with people involved on a grassroots level, and a few government officials from other countries have adopted the process. So it is following the natural course that the South African apartheid did, it remains to be seen if the elites will adopt it – however that does not stop the people from adopting BDS and letting it grow with intensity until it cannot be ignored.
I don’t disagree with you VR, but the argument Chomsky made last year when he gave his speech about Gaza, was that BDS is all well and good, so long as we accept it’s limitations. I think he’s on the fence on BDS, but that’s his position, not mine.
Personally, I am 100% for it.
Yes, I know you are Shingo, I was just addressing Chomsky’s position. We are all lucky to have dedicated people like yourself supporting this project.
I suspect in Chomsky’s defense that his fears are twofold (and I am somewhat pained with the same fear, though not to the same degree as Chomsky). This applies to both BDS and the Lobby. What he fears is the breaking loose of antisemitic forces, and he sees this for two reasons. In the attempt to put the onus on resistance to the greatest power involved here, the USA, he makes his emphasis of the greater fault being that of the USA and its “interests.”
In some ways his concerns are not unfounded, this is because many Americans understanding of the form and function of their own government is woefully inadequate. Even here we have individuals which seem to either not know or forget how this government operates, essentially as a franchise of the elite. That this country is merely a democracy in name, and it is primarily a polyarchy, which has literally devolved to an oligarchy in the sense that the “responsible class” does not even rule in the sense of benefit to the people any longer.
However, people who do not know this, and particularly those who embrace the ideas of American exceptionalism, while embracing the emphasis on the Lobby and the necessity of BDS in regard to Israel, lay entire blame on the moneyed and ruling class involved in this – hence “the Jews.” They think, in Chomsky’s mind, that there is something especially sinister about the “Jews” and he fears it reaching the possible pogrom level with an attended diaspora. This is what I suspect lies at the core of his emphasis.
This is why you have Chomsky making quips about BDS needing to be embraced by an elite. However, one has to ask, since when has Chomsky ever waited for the elite embrace of anything with his other views and positions? He has always sided with the people agitating whether it is embraced by elites or not, and in the end this also applies here.
In regard to his emphasis on the USA and the system being the major player and the form of this government not being known by a great mass of Americans (the majority), it is a matter of education of those who embrace BDS and have an emphasis against the Lobby. It is not necessary to disband and belittle the BDS movement or the emphasis on the Lobby, it is merely the stepping stone in the present situation to further address this entire system and dismantle it. The only question that remains is how is this done? Can it be done peacefully? I am not sure, power never willingly steps down, and those who make peaceful change impossible make a bloody revolution the only course (to paraphrase Kennedy).
Don’t get me wrong, I still think there is a confluence of interest among elites, the one pertaining to Zionism is merely the predominant or visible one with both the Lobby and Israel. So, by all means address it, I will heartily join you, but keep in mind that if you piece the husk and do not address the kernel the system will march on. Unless, of course, you think that all you need to do is get sympathetic elites, nd that you can preserve this monstrosity indefinitely.
If you think you can just change bodies (get more sympathetic elites), let me remind you that this system always devolves eventually to a crisis. The people are always eventually brought to misery and degradation – it is always the inevitable outcome. One constant remains when you look from a historical perspective from kingdoms, to feudalism, and now capitalism – and that is a small enriched elite, from kings to lords to CEO’s and chairman of the board they all enrich an elite. If you do not understand this and correctly address it, you are merely interested in your own personal peace and comfort and are no better than a hamster on a spinning wheel condemning your posterity to future commiseration -
REALITY
When I was young I got involved in union politics, and was starting to get interested in leftwing ideas. I was hanging out with old lefties, including some people in the ULWU, the Longshoreman, local 4 of the Typographical Union, and so forth. There was still a tradition of hard-drinking trade-unionism in San Francisco, there were a lot of ex-CP people there, and the old-time lefties had a million good stories. A lot of them were writers, friendly to the arts–they could show you the actual place where Archer, Bogie’s partner in the Maltese Falcon, bit the dust, that sort of romatic, left-wing San Francisco thing. I was just getting interested in writing, so the whole thing fit together nicely.
I heard about Chomsky, and the people I knew, the left-wing ones and also the liberal ones, told me that Chomsky had a form of mental illness–that he hated himself because he was Jewish. I mean, it wasn’t completely impossible, or so I thought at the time. I knew that the writer Nathanial West, whom I greatly admired, had been ashamed of being Jewish, and on college (Brown University) had even styled himself as some kind of fantastic Prussian aristocrat, Erich von Stroheim-style monacle and all. And I knew a Jewish family that had converted to Episcopalianism en masse, and were ashamed of their grandmother (the nicest person in the whole damn family) because she spoke Yiddish. Anyway, it wasn’t completely crazy, what they were telling me, so I believed it.
And it stuck with me, the idea that I didn’t have to take Chomsky’s ideas seriously because he was a self-hating Jew, because he had this mental illness. Later I interviewed him a couple of times when I was doing journalism, and found him to be a great guy, and I also became aware that the Muslim people I knew (I was married to a Muslim woman at that time) greatly admired him. So slowly I began to doubt what I’d heard before, and I allowed myself to read him without any pre-conceived notions. I discovered what a giant he was. He was the great prophetic intellectual of the second part of the 20th century in America, and I’d never bothered to read him for the longest time because of the lies and defamation that I’d heard when I was young, lies I had believed.
When I think about that, it occurs again to me what a monumental impact Zionism has had on America, that the cultural vigilantes of religious nationalism could make up stories like that, and other people like me could believe them for so long. It makes me angry and disturbed, mainly at myself but also at the situation.
A post-Zionist America can hopefully begin to shed this horrible mental habit of lying to oneself, and believing lies because it is easier to do than to look for the truth.
this debate between blankfort, abunimah on one side and chomsky on the other – all with excellent liberal non-particularist credentials – reminds me of another debate currently raging within the progressive left. Which kind of gives many of us the same vague feeling of discomfort that I think Phil is talking about. It’s between Glenn Greenwald and Paul Krugman about the significance of non-disclosure of interest in the jon gruber case. Greenwald is as consistent as usual arguing for across-the-board rules of disclosure to be applied to “good’ guys as much as “bad” guys. Krugman is threading the needle, calling it a “tempest in a tea-pot”, basically excusing the administration’s behavior, caught holding the stick on both ends, touting gruber as “independent, but failing to acknowledge the monetary support he receives from it and from congressional committees.
In this case, Chomsky plays the role of Krugman – it’s OK to support partition because there are “good guys” in israel who do and because he himself is a “good guy” with heart in the right place. In the process of putting faith before facts, Chomsky remains blind to both the magnitude of the reality that is the real – not imagined – israel as well as to the practical impossibility of stepping back from a policy that’s been pursued steadfastedly since 1967 if not 1948 (Nakba never ended, as Abunimah maintains). I think both Blankfort and Abunimah have the advantage of complete clarity on the issue(s) they are advocating – especially respect for human rights before all else. Much as Greenwald has the advantage of clarity on an issue he set as the one critical to a properly functioning democracy – transparency and full disclosure.
Like Krugman, Chomsky is willing to give up on principle, supposedly in the interest of a greater good, because the ones advocating or doing the compromising are “good guys”. So Obama is excused where Bush wasn’t, because krugman, on a gut level, believes Obama and administration – are “good guys” and the real battle is – or should be – with the bad guys (ie republican and tea partnicks). Similarly, israel is given the benefit of doubt by Chomsky because he has – deep down – a level of trust in some good intentions somewhere within it’s populance, so the “real” battle should be with the “bad guys’, cf radical settlers, bad governance and fundamentalists.
I am, of course, firm in the Greenwald camp, just as I am on Blankfort and abunimah’s side. The reason is simple: it’s the ‘slippery slope”. Once the compromising with principle starts, humans being what they are, it’s fair to assume – as history bears out that worse violations will follow. Loop-holes may come small and one at a time, but they eventually grow in number and size to puncture the dam. Unlike Chomsky, I lost my faith in the good intentions of the ‘average” israeli some time ago. Or, more accurately, I lost my belief in the sanity of the israeli collective – just as Abigail abrabanel has described so aptly (PG – did you provide the link here or did potsherd?). When the more powerful actor in the I/P drama is no longer capable of acting rationally, all bets are off. At that point, the only hope is behavior modification, which is what BDS is all about. Not that it’ll cure the disease, but it may help alleviate some of the worst symptoms. And perhaps wind the clock to doomsday flood by a few minutes forward.
With apologies to Phil et al, I obviously need to unveil my blog soon. Sorry for hogging. My only excuse is inspiration. Never could resist a good one.
You dont need to apologize, Danaa. Stay here and screw opening up your own blog.
hmm? “unveil” couldn’t that mean it exists already, but Danaa didn’t so far tell us about it.
I sure would like to know, if it’s that what she is telling us.
Besides, Danaa your responses do not contain one word too much, if “hogging” above relates to using up too much space. (… which could be an ?old? obsession…)
Good post Phil. I feel sorry for Chomsky for the same reasons you do. He’s been left behind, I suppose, but people today who disagree with him should not presume to act superior. He was writing about Israeli cruelty and atrocities and sticking up for Palestinian rights and exposing the hypocrisy of American defenders of Israel decades ago, when any advocacy of a two state solution would automatically get you labeled as an anti-semite or self-hating Jew. Chomsky could have almost invented the term “progressive except for Palestine”, because he was sharply critical of lefties who cared about Central America and the nuclear arms race but showed blind loyalty to Israel. So criticize his present position, but show a little respect.
I agree, Chomsky is still a moral force. He gets it from both sides because of that very fact.
PS: Greenwald rocks.
Chomsky is of course a giant, even if he is a little off in this case.
Yet another Mondoweiss article that articulates the thoughts in my head, thanks!
It doesn’t upset me that Chomsky doesn’t support BDS, and is a proponent of the two-state solution. Reasonable minds can differ on these issues and it is important to openly discuss and debate them. However, I did find it disturbing that Chomsky refused to appear with Ali Abunimah and Jeff Blankfort. I don’t know Mr. Blankfort, but from what I’ve read (including his comments above), he sounds like an intelligent, rational, calm individual. I know Ali Abunimah to also be intelligent and rational, as well as extremely polite even with people with whom he strongly disagrees. Perhaps Chomsky doesn’t do well in a panel discussion format? Or he is under some kind of pressure that would worsen if he appeared with Blankfort and Abunimah?
I think Prof. Chomsky picks his battles wisely. And I don’t think Blankfort is going to call him an antisemite. He’s going to deal w/ Prof. Chomsky on the facts and go into details.
This issue would not simply be about the issues, it would be about Chomsky himself (unavoidable). So kind understandably, Chomsky being an honest person isn’t going to put himself in that position.
I’m not trying to make a snappy comment btw – I truly don’t think Chomsky could last in a debate with them on this issue.
Chomsky is a classic case of a guy who was courageously objective, but then when it came to looking clearly at last at the prime mobile of the problem, he pulled himself up short and put on blinders.
So can I ask why partition is the solution of choice in the former Yugoslavia and not in Israel/Palestine.
Sure it would be great if everyone could just get along in one big happy country. But what if they can’t? What if enough people hate each others guts and fear each others intentions that a single state just leads to civil war and inter ethnic violence within the country?
In an ideal world we would have a “no-state” solution. As long as we are compromising why is one state more pure than two? Or why not have a United States of the Middle East? There are lots of neat ideas? The question is: what idea that has a modicum of justice also has a chance of being realized in our lifetimes?
Also as afar as I know the official position of the majority of the Palestinian leadership is (still?) for two states. Maybe they would like half a cake in their lifetimes than a full cake maybe never. So who are we, mostly armchair western observers, to tell them what to fight for?
As for BDS its a just a tactic. (And not a well defined one at that.) What is the goal? Seems to me that a lot of people with disparate goals are raising the banner of BDS.
Sydnestel: So can I ask why partition is the solution of choice in the former Yugoslavia and not in Israel/Palestine.
Partition was not a solution of choice in Yugoslavia. The country broke up when its constituent republics seceded from the federation. For the most part, the violence was in fact a consequence of secession – contested by minority groups within the respective republics and by the Serb-controlled federal government. There was no occupation. The differential treatment of citizens on the basis of ethnicity, was both a cause (eg. in Kosovo) and a result of the breakup. There were no external refugees. The historical territorial claims of the various national groups overlapped only partially. In short, I see no similarity whatsoever between Yugoslavia and I/P.
Sydnestel: The question is: what idea that has a modicum of justice also has a chance of being realized in our lifetimes?
I see no reason to believe that the two-state solution, as it has been presented so far, has any more chance of being realised than a one-state solution. To be frank, neither stand much chance. To the extent that a two-state arrangement might have been possible, Israeli settlement policies have effectively scuttled it – while continuing to pretend that it is the solution of choice. What is needed is a strategy of justice, which may not lead to a comprehensive solution in the forseeable future (nothing will), but will establish the parameters for future solutions and serve to mitigate the chronic violations of Palestinian human rights, by stressing their intrinsic equality to Israeli Jews. Personally, I see pursuit of a one-state solution as the best way of achieving this. A truly equal two-state plan might also do the trick (albeit in a somewhat more complicated fashion), but none of the two-state solutions proposed thus far have accepted the fundamental principle of Palestinian equality.
Sydnestel: Also as afar as I know the official position of the majority of the Palestinian leadership is (still?) for two states.
Palestinian civil society would appear to be overwhelmingly in favour of one state. As for the Palestinian leadership, Fatah is locked into the two-state idea for a number of historical and political reasons. Were it to abandon two states, it would, in all likelihood, cease to exist in its current form. If we look at Fatah’s probable future leadership, Marwan Barghouti has expressed support for one state. Hamas has never embraced two states as “gospel”, accepting it rather as a part of the process initiated by Arafat and the PLO.
Sydnestel: As for BDS its a just a tactic. (And not a well defined one at that.) What is the goal? Seems to me that a lot of people with disparate goals are raising the banner of BDS.
The Bilbao declaration is quite clear. And of course it’s a tactic. What else could it or should it be under the circumstances?
I see no similarity whatsoever between Yugoslavia and I/P.
I should have written Serbia/Kosovo rather than Yugoslavia.
I actually think the situation re Kosovo/Serbia mirrors Israel/Palestine (not exactly, but close enough). Kosovo is the “historic heartland” of Serbia – where the Sebian nation was forged in its opposition to Ottoman Turkish rule. Unfortunately (for the Serbs) they slowly over centuries migrated north and west, while Muslims from Albania migrated into Kosovo. Serbs became a minority in Kosovo. Now all this happened while neither Serbia nor Kosovo where independent, but part of larger empires, so the issue of who ruled was moot. In the 19th century Serbs, along with the rest of Europe, discovered nationalism. They (re)create the idea of an independent greater Serbia, mythologizing the great battles and glorious Serbian culture – centered in Kosovo. Serb nationalism triggered WWI. After WWI the West decides to support the Serbs idea of creating Yugoslavia as a sort of greater Serbia. While nominally a mutlti-ethnic Kingdom, it is dominated by Serbia. The King is a Serb and the capital of the Kingdom is Belgrade. While Croatia and Slovenia are provinces (states), Kosovo and Montenegro are part of Serbia. Fast forward to the 1990s, and you have Muslims in Kosovo as a second class citizens within Serbia, and radical nationalist Serbs who want to ethnically cleans Kosovo of Muslim/Albanians. Kosovo is populated with about 20% Serbs and 80% Albanians. The West (and most progressive type agree with this) supports Kosovo succession (Partition!) rather than insisting on equal rights for all within a multi-ethnic Serbia. Serbs overwhelmingly reject this. They feel no on understands them. They feel uniquely singled out. They feel that an independent Kosovo is ripping the heart out of Serbia and allow will result in the persecution and ethnic cleansing of Serbs in Kosovo.
Finally (and here is where the story diverges radically from I/P) the West says “too bad” to the Serbs, and bombs Serbia into submission, occupies Kosovo and sets up and independent Kosovo.
Justice you say? But why? Why not have insisted on a single democratic secular multi-ethnic, multi-religious state that treats all its citizens equally and fairly, where citizenship transcends ethnicity.
* * *
I also don’t see anyone advocating an re-uniting India and Pakistan to solve the Kashmir wars, or as a way of ending Muslim terrorism against India, or as a way of improving the lot of India’a 100 million Muslims who live as a discriminated against minority within India. I know several Pakistani intellectuals who say that partition was bad idea – but they realize they are in a huge minority and that in any case you cannot uncrack that egg.
I see no reason to believe that the two-state solution, as it has been presented so far, has any more chance of being realised than a one-state solution. To be frank, neither stand much chance.
I agree with that. I also agree that what people of conscience outside of I/P should be advocating for is social justice – which included end to the occupation, one way or the other, and ending gross de-jure discrimination based on ethnicity and/or religion. But we should not be committing ourselves to this or that political solution. Political solutions are always compromises. I would agree to whatever solution the parties would agree to. (Though I might have hopes for a particular solution.)
Palestinian civil society would appear to be overwhelmingly in favour of one state.
I am not sure how you know that (though it does seem to be the accepted wisdom on this site.) And does “civil society” (aka NGOs) really reflect the majority popular opinion? Officially, Fatah – the largest political grouping among Palestinians supports two states. (You may say they are corrupt, or old, or self interested, but that’s what they say, and I am not so sure they aren’t reflecting their supporters in this.) Hamas – the second largest political grouping among Palestinians, supports one state – but it is an Islamic state, where non-Mulsims (which, by the way, would include Christian Arabs) would be second class – so I don’t think thats a peg to hang your dreams on. As far as I can see, only a minority of independent intellectuals and leftist groupings (e.g. the Popular Front and the Popular Democratic Front) support a secular, democratic, multi-ethnic one state solution. And its also clear that these groups do not represent a majority of Palestinians. Illogical you say? Well, as Mr. Spock learned, humans are not logical. Having your own team at the World Cup, your own flag, your own national anthem, may trump ideas of absolute justice, or even economic benefit, at least in the popular imagination.
I do agree that we should frame a future that expresses our best hopes and dreams, and not start with compromises based on what we think is possible in the short run. But we should not be so arrogant as to force our vision down the throats of the parties, or so naive to think that we can. Nor should we dismiss the good out of hand because it is not the perfect. Nor should we denigrate and dismiss allies in the big struggle (Chomsky in this case) because they do not conform to our purity of vision.
Syd,
I’ve come across the Israel/Serbia comparison before, with regard to Kosovo, and have even used it myself, on occasion. I believe the similarity is rather superficial however. Had the entire issue been one of Albanian Kossovar cultural autonomy (which was the casus belli for the takeover) or self-determination, there would have been no sanctions and no military intervention – and no “partitition”. As a matter of fact, the real significance of the Serb takeover of Kosovo lay in its destabilisation of the Yugoslav Federation, and it was in fact the Serb actions in Bosnia and Herzogovina that precipitated sanctions and intervention. The imposed-negotiated solution had nothing to do with anyone’s visions or dreams, but with stabilisation and support of the newly-independent republics.
For the sake of argument however, let’s take the imperfect parallel with I/P a step further. Without outside military intervention, it is likely that the Serb-controlled federal army and various militias would have succeeded in creating a “Greater Serbia”, plagued with persistent or periodical eruptions of violence. Had Milosevic not been bombed into submission, Dayton would never have happened. I’m sure you are not advocating bombing Israel into submission (nor am I). So what incentive does Israeli have to reach any minimally just solution with the Palestinians – partitioned or otherwise?
My impression of the positions of Palestinian civil society is based partly on explicit statements in support of one state – by NGOs, trade unions and various other groups and individuals – but also on opinions that are tantamount to advocating a single state, such as support for ROR to all of Palestine (almost universal among Palestinians) and the demand that Palestinian-Israelis be treated as equals in a “state of all its citizens”.
I don’t see advocacating one state as trying to force a particular solution down anyone’s throat, or as a “purist” approach to the issues. On the contrary, I think that any “solution” that fails to adequately address certain core issues such as right of return and the status of Palestinian citizens of Israel, will be doomed from day one, and will never even make it out of Camp David – as we have seen. If anyone can come up with a mutually acceptable two-state arrangement that addresses these issues in a minimally just fashion, tfadal/bevakashah. I don’t see one-staters, whether Israeli, Palestinian or international, manning the barricades to stop the “travesty”. The one state idea is just a proposal, based on sound principles, not a holy grail. It is the principles – first and foremost the priciple of equality – that will make or break a negotiated solution – or vision, in the absence of a solution.
fast forward to the 1990s, and you have Muslims in Kosovo as a second class citizens within Serbia, and radical nationalist Serbs who want to ethnically cleans Kosovo of Muslim/Albanians. Kosovo is populated with about 20% Serbs and 80% Albanians.
You mean Operation Horseshoe? Joschka Fischer did his job well then, I surely remember, our defense minister could hardly keep his face straight. You should look closer into the genesis of these special “war drums”. Hint: Propaganda versus reality.
I think the reason that Serbia was bombed at all was because of the siege that Serbia enacted around Kosovo accompanied by very frequent and material mortar shelling of Kosovar cities by Greater Serb activists.
The constant active military violence was what shifted the tone of the US and EU from worry to active involvement.
The Yugoslav conflict was also triangular (Serb, Albanian, Croat, others) with shifting alliances, which greatly confused definitions.
One parallel that remains is the difficulty of retaining a national entity among a population that identifies more culturally/ethnically than federally.
THAT is the parallel, moreso than the “greater Serbia” theme described as parallel with “Greater Israel”, with the implications of politics based on assertions of ethnic privilege.
Partition is now peaceful, a compromise maybe from socialist ideals, but a better experience than war certainly.
“‘I think the reason that Serbia was bombed at all was because of the siege that Serbia enacted around Kosovo accompanied by very frequent and material mortar shelling of Kosovar cities by Greater Serb activists.”‘
This should put to rest the common cpomplani from the peanut gallery that Israel is always singled out and held to a higher standard than other contries.
Shmuel once again tells hard truths: “I see no reason to believe that the two-state solution, as it has been presented so far, has any more chance of being realised than a one-state solution. To be frank, neither stand much chance.” And: “What is needed is a strategy of justice, which may not lead to a comprehensive solution in the forseeable future (nothing will), but will establish the parameters for future solutions and serve to mitigate the chronic violations of Palestinian human rights, by stressing their intrinsic equality to Israeli Jews. ”
On the other hand. If you had asked me and my friends in the anti-apartheid movement in the early 1980s, we would have said the regime would last another 30, 40, even 50 years, and that hundreds of thousands of people would die to end it. We were happy to be proven wrong. And santions played an indispensable role in the change, partly because, as I commented above, they told the regime and its supporters the West would not stand by them no matter what.
So if I were Richard Witty (or Noam Chomsky), I would support BDS as the best way to promote a relatively peaceful change.
Yes, and what did the majority of South Africans receive Mr. North? They attained a bittersweet victory in the political realm, while all of the wealth of the nation remained in the same white hands as previous. They got the “vote,” which is like spending $20.00 dollars at the arcade on a game to get a 25 cent booby prize (mush worse than that, but it is just an analogy). This is because the cause fell short of complete liberation, and lost the opportunity for economic enfranchisement.
Now there is a small contingency of black “middle class” that sits around the midsection of the same elite. While the majority grind in poverty and the attendant commiseration. Also, do not kid yourself Mr North, even though there was not the level of violence you spoke of, there was enough to make the elite move – and deliver a thin veneer, an almost worthless sop to the masses.
You might say at this juncture “well, it is incomplete and just a partial victory, you have to take a step at a time, and eventually we will get there.” Is that so, what are the plans? The breaking of Apartheid was played up to the entire world as the epitome, everyone patted themselves on the back and danced to the tune. Now the party is over, and the low guttural cry of misery arises from the majority of people in South Africa – it calls for what I embrace. Take a lesson and apply it to what you want to accomplish with Israel through BDS Mr. North, the effective goals, and what we want to see happen in America -
DEMOCRACY
WHAT WE ARE UP AGAINST
Or you could look at it like this Mr. North, in the Kimberley process you had this proclamation of mining money not going to fund wars. So they set up this dog and pony show, the people are still in commiseration and are terribly exploited who work in the industry, and the money is still funneled to the war of choice (even settlements in Israel) – but you have this meaningless process that delivers nothing. That is what the fall of Apartheid in South Africa delivered to the majority of the people, a veneer, a distraction, a meaningless empty promise.
What a hint of what it is going to take?
WAKE UP
They didn’t know about the Nakba, or they accepted the lies.
They welcomed the lies.
Jeffrey Blankfort, do you support a state for the Kurds, Western Sahara, Berbers and the Black Christians of Sudan?
Baruch Rosen, so you support restoring land to Native Americans?
The Black Christians of Sudan are voting to get their own state in a year or two.
The Kurds have obtained virtual autonomy in Iraq.
Western Sahara is a cause supported by several Arab and Muslim countries and individuals.
In any case, crimes committed by countries like Turkey, Sudan, or Morocco don’t give legitimacy towards Israeli crimes against humanity.
I am not as familiar with the struggle for Kurdish independence as I am with that of the Palestinians but clearly, they should have had an independent state following WW1 but they lacked the clout of the Zionists and the opposition was formidable. They may yet get one although it might invite intervention by Turkey which has large Kurdish population which is considered by the US and the West as the “bad Kurds” as opposed that those that are in bed with Israel and the US who are considered, on this side of the water, if not in Arab Iraq, as “the good Kurds.”
But their struggle and those of others that you mention are qualitatively different from that of the Palestinians who were uniquely subjected to ethnic cleansing at the hands of a predominantly European born, Western-armed settler colonial settler population, an ethnic cleansing that continues against succeeding generations of Palestinians to this day.
Moreover, since this ethnic cleansing and the accompanying crimes of Israel, the state that was formed by and which required that operation, have been supported financially, militarily, and, of equal if not more importance, politically by the United States, all American citizens, regardless of their background, have an obligation to correct the injustices that have been made possible by their tax dollars and by their elected representatives. I don’t believe Baruch Rosen or any of Israel’s defenders can make that claim about any other political struggle and certainly not the ones he referred to.
re; “Actually, Chomsky declined to engage with Abunimah and Blankfort”
Chomsky is a Zionist.
I haven’t listened to the full Chomsky interview but I listened to the Abunimah and Blankfort reply. Three items stood out:
1. Abunimah said something about how by referring to the international consensus Chomsky is following what Israel and the U.S. want. I have a great deal of respect for Abunimah, and generally agree with him about most things, but this struck me as bizarre. Chomsky’s point has always been that it is the U.S. and Israel who are the ones opposed to the international consensus and blocking it, and so the argument is exactly the opposite of what Abunimah is attributing to Chomsky. (btw, somewhat related, on Finkelstein’s site somewhere there is a recording of a joint appearance he had with Abunimah a few years ago where this same issue came up, with Finkelstein and Abunimah disagreeing. )
2. Blankfort states that Chomsky “has been adamantly against a single state for the very same reason that the mainstream Zionist movement is against it,
because Jews would eventually become a minority and he’s written this.”
I’ve never seen Chomsky write or say anything like this. Is there a reference for this?
3. Blankfort states that “what’s interesting is that up till now he has never advocated in his talks anything that activists could actually do to stop Israeli occupation and change the situation such as ending arm sales to Israel”
This is just flat-out false, as I pointed out about similar statements in the last Chomsky thread. He has been a proponent for years of ending arm sales to Israel, and of universities divesting from companies such as Caterpillar. e.g.,
link to thedp.com
Also, as far as labor unions and pension funds and where Chomsky has spoken about this, take a look at e.g. his comments in Perilous Power, with Gilbert Achbar.
I have listened to the full Chomsky interview (30 minutes), and I find his arguments to be factual, lucid, and convincing. The weakest part of this whole argument is the claim that the Congress unifies only in support of Israel–Chomsky rightfully dismissed this. They unify about many aspects of foreign policy, especially those that involve the use of violence. I also find the interviewer (and Blankfort’s) assertion that Obama is somehow being pressured against his will to be the most misguided form of liberal apologetics. Chomsky is right that he never asserted a settlement freeze, because he offered no consequences. I know its open season on Chomsky, and there’s some ageism involved here. In fact, his combativeness in this interview is reminiscent of his younger days. He made this interviewer look like a obsessive fool. Worst of all is the assertion of “ethnic loyalty” or “dual loyalty.” It’s just ridiculous to think that neocons would endanger their status in the American system. Nobody who has experienced debates about Israel locally and first hand could possibly see “dual loyalty.” These people just think that U.S. and Israeli interests are one and the same–and for their own purposes, they are.
He didn’t make the interviewer ‘look’ bad. He came across as condescending.
Chomsky has never talked about the Lobby in detail. And when he’s questioned about it, he doesn’t give a compelling argument either for or against. In fact, sometimes he seems like he agrees and then other times he does not agree that a Lobby exists in any meaningful context.
And what exactly IS the ‘American system’? Iran-Contra? The continued immoral/illegal funding of the Latin/Central American psychos by the Christian Right during the 80s?
Neo-cons are part of this system. And Jews are part of the Establishment. So there is a collusion of interests. I think it’s fine to say that Jewish political figures who are relevant, may be acting on ‘ethnic’ or ‘religious’ interests. There are other things going on as well.
But whatever, it’s Chomsky who hasn’t debated Blankfort all these years. Yet, Chomsky will debate a guy like Dershowitz.
And Abunimah? Why not? Is Abunimah worse than Dershowitz?
Answers to Seth and David Green’s questions and comments can be found in my article, “Damage Control: Noam Chomsky and the Israel-Palestine Conflict.”
link to leftcurve.org from which most of what I write below was taken:
First, to respond to Seth,
(1) US policy since the days of Nixon , Chomsky’s opinion to the contrary not withstanding, has been to find a way to end the Israeli occupation of the land it captured in 1967, not for the benefit of those countries whose land Israel occupied or for the Palestinians but because a regional settlement would produce stability in a area that is crucial to what is perceived in Washington to be in the best interests of the United States.
The evidence for this, not only in the national media but in declassified White House and State Departments documents available in the National Archives, is overwhelming as it is for the successful actions of the pro-Israel Lobby over the years in trying to prevent any such settlement.
As Uri Avnery asked, rhetorically, in Ha’aretz in 1991, “”What happened to all those nice plans? Israel’s governments have mobilized the collective power of US Jewry – which dominates Congress and the media to a large degree – against them. Faced by this vigorous opposition, all the presidents, great and small, football players and movie stars – folded one after another.”
Not wishing to expend political capital challenging the Jewish establishment, Nixon withdrew support from the first ot those proposed by Secretary of State William Rogers, with his National Security Adviser, Henry Kissinger contributing to the sabotage.
Every single president since then who has tried to get Israel to withdraw has been publicly humiliated at the hands of whoever happened to be prime minister and Obama is but the latest and he has experienced it almost every week. Yet Chomsky would have us believe, offering not a shred of evidence, that the US really supports Israeli settlements and its continuing occupation of the West Bank.
Does anyone, not terminally addicted to his brand of Kool-Aid (Chomsky’s not Obama’s) actually believe that one US president after another would allow themselves to be publicly humiliated in such a manner in order to cover their secret report for Israel’s expansionist policy? Obviously not, yet Chomsky persists in peddling the line that it is the US, not Israel, that is the most responsible party in blocking a “peace agreement,” irrespective of its contents.
That being said, that Chomsky cites the “international consensus” to validate his support of the “two-state solution” is as valid as citing an earlier international consensus that led to and justifed the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.
(2) In 1975, Chomsky considered the possibility of “a unitary democratic secular state in Mandatory Palestine… an exercise in futility. It is curious that this goal is advocated in some form by the most extreme antagonists: the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and expansionist elements within Israel. But the documents of the former indicate that what they have in mind is an Arab state that will grant civil rights to Jews, and the pronouncements of the advocates of a Greater Israel leave little doubt that their thoughts run along parallel lines, interchanging “Jew” and “Arab” (Chomsky, Towards a New Cold War, Pantheon, New York, 1982, p. 231)
(3) Re Chomsky and US weapons to Israel, I will quote from my article in Left Curve:
“After speaking at the First Annual Maryse Mikhail Lecture at the University of Toledo, on March 4, 2001, Chomsky was asked:
‘Do you think it’s is a good idea to push the idea of divestment from Israel the same way that we used to push for it in white South Africa?
Chomsky replied:
‘ I regard the United States as the primary guilty party here, for the past 30 years. And for us to push for divestment from the United States doesn’t really mean anything. What we ought to do is push for changes in US policy. Now it makes good sense to press for not sending attack helicopters to Israel, for example. In fact it makes very good sense to try to get some newspaper in the United States to report the fact that it’s happening. That would be a start. And then to stop sending military weapons that are being used for repression. And you can take steps like that. But I don’t think divestment from Israel would make much sense, even if such a policy were imaginable (and it’s not).
‘Our primary concern, I think, should be change in fundamental US policy, which has been driving this thing for decades. And that should be within our range. That’s what we’re supposed to be able to do: change US policy. ‘
“Let us examine the response he gave at this event. Having stated forthrightly his opposition to pressuring Israel through divestment, he made no suggestion that his audience contact their Congressional representatives or senators regarding their support for aid to Israel. Mass appeals to Congress to stop funding, whether it was in opposition to the war in Vietnam or the Contras in Nicaragua, have been a basic element in every other nation-wide struggle against US global policy. Why not in this case? If Chomsky has ever called for any actions involving Congress, I could find no record of it. ”
That was what I wrote in 2004. Does anyone think getting a newspaper to publish an article about US weapons constitutes any call to action. If anyone could find Chomsky telling his audiences that they need to mobilize to stop weapons “sales” to Israel I would appreciate receiving such evidence, but since he almost never mentions Congress which would be the target of such a campaign I do not expect to find my email box filled with any such evidence.
Now, as for David Green, his statement that there are other issues in which the Democrats and Republicans march in the same lockstep as they do when it comes to Israel is not born out by the evidence. Whereas as Congress has taken votes supporting various war appropriations over the years, their respective counts do not begin to match those supporting Israel, and moreover, as the wars become unpopular the votes against them have risen.
As for Obama’s call for a settlement freeze, what your Chomsky never mentions was that after he did so, as I mentioned on that interview, 76 senators and 329 members of the House sent letters, circulated for signatures and probably written by AIPAC, to Obama, advising him not to pressure Netanyahu when they met, and as you recall Obama postponed their first meeting.
Then, as I mentiond in that interview but which Chomsky noticeably does not, is that during the Congressional recess, 55 members of Congress, 25 Republicans and 30 Democrats led by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer went to Jerusalem and held press conferences that were unreported in the Zionist dominated mainstream media in which they openly took the side of Netanyahu against Obama and particularly when it came to East Jerusalem. So what Chomsky fails to mention, and I will, add, deliberately so, is that Obama was left with a US Congress backing Israel and not him.
This is why I believe that what Chomsky has been doing for past three or more decades is providing damage control for Israel and its US supporters and one result of that is a US solidarity movement that is even afraid to talk about the subject, apart from this web site. If one wonders why the movement has been nothing less than ab utter failure in its efforts on behalf of the Palestinians he or she should begin by examining who are its “spokespersons.”
As an example of the depth of this problem, when Mearsheimer and Walt came out with their groundbreaking book, The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, Democracy Now’s otherwise excellent Amy Goodman chose not to interview either one but instead brought on, you guessed it, Chomsky to refute them.
I will close my reponse with another segment from my article, citing someone who knew quite a bit more about the Israel-Palestine conflict than Prof. Chomskym the late Prof. Edward Said:
“In his contribution to The New Intifada, entitled, appropriately, “America’s Last Taboo,” he wrote:
‘What explains this [present] state of affairs? The answer lies in the power of Zionist organizations in American politics, whose role throughout the “peace process” has never been sufficiently addressed—a neglect that is absolutely astonishing, given the policy of the PLO has been in essence to throw our fate as a people into the lap of the United States, without any strategic awareness of how American policy is dominated by a small minority whose views about the Middle East are in some ways more extreme than those of Likud itself. ‘
“And on the subject AIPAC, Said wrote:
‘ [T]he American Israel Public Affairs Committee—AIPAC—has for years been the most powerful single lobby in Washington. Drawing on a well-organized, well-connected, highly visible and wealthy Jewish population, AIPAC inspires an awed fear and respect across the political spectrum. Who is going to stand up to this Moloch in behalf of the Palestinians, when they can offer nothing, and AIPAC can destroy a professional career at the drop of a checkbook? In the past, one or two members of Congress did resist AIPAC openly, but the many political action committees controlled by AIPAC made sure they were never re-elected… If such is the material of the legislature, what can be expected of the executive? ‘”
Again, I invite those who want to see the real Chomsky to check out my article:
link to leftcurve.org
PS. Thanks Seth and David for providing the opportunity to get a little more of the truth out there for people to read it.
“Every single president since then who has tried to get Israel to withdraw has been publicly humiliated at the hands of whoever happened to be prime minister and Obama is but the latest and he has experienced it almost every week. Yet Chomsky would have us believe, offering not a shred of evidence, that the US really supports Israeli settlements and its continuing occupation of the West Bank.”
Jeffrey, it’s breathtaking that you actually believe this.
“Whereas as Congress has taken votes supporting various war appropriations over the years, their respective counts do not begin to match those supporting Israel, and moreover, as the wars become unpopular the votes against them have risen.”
OK, as Chomsky said, how many have supported ending the Cuba embargo? How many opposed the overthrow of Aristide?
Jeffrey, your understanding of U.S. foreign policy, and history of same, bears no resemblance to reality. But thank you for providing evidence as to why it’s so hard for the so-called left to organize around changing U.S. policy regarding the Middle East.
There is simply no point to Chomsky directly debating you. I understand and support his decision. He has absolutely nothing to answer for regarding a willingness to encounter serious critics. You’re not the least bit serious.
Jeffrey, I’ve actually been reading your criticisms of Chomsky for a while,
ever since that first National Guardian piece back in 1991, I think it was (I saved it
and still have it somewhere), and I was hoping you might do a bit more in your response than quote from your Left Curve piece. But a brief response:
1. Thanks for the history, none of which bears on the point I made about Israel, the US, and what Chomsky refers to as “the international consensus” that he supports as the framework for a solution. He is referring to votes such as this, which Finkelstein also highlights:
link to normanfinkelstein.com
in which as usual the US and Israel stand virtually alone in opposing a two-state solution. My question was simply why support for such votes should be viewed as Chomsky following what the US and Israel want, if I was understanding Abunimah’s criticism correctly.
2. The quote does not support the characterization you made of Chomsky’s views. In addition, as you must be aware, Chomsky has written quite a bit on the difference between a “unitary democratic secular state” and a binational state. But nowhere have I seen him reference fears about Jews “would eventually become a minority” in a single state of some sort and that’s why he’s against it.
3. Do you even read the Chomsky quotes you put forward as your evidence? He is against “divestment from Israel”, but “it makes good sense to press for not sending attack helicopters to Israel, for example…and then to stop sending military weapons that are being used for repression” . And this is evidence that
“he has never advocated in his talks anything that activists could actually do to stop Israeli occupation and change the situation such as ending arm sales to Israel”? Read it again. And your criticism is that he makes “no suggestion that his audience contact their Congressional representatives or senators regarding their support for aid to Israel.” ? Take your analogy to the contras seriously. Find a Chomsky speech from the 80s about Central America that ends with a rousing call to his audience to contact Congress to cut off aid to the contras. You probably won’t find that either.
Since I watched him sign the petition and speak out in support of the University of Pennsylvania to take action in divesting from firms supporting Israeli repression, together with his consistent statements on this topic, I find it very difficult to take your characterization of his views seriously.
There are plenty of things one can argue with Chomsky about, regarding both the substance of his views and the way he sometimes puts them across. I did listen this afternoon to the full interview, and the one good point I thought the interviewer had was his objection to Chomsky’s use of terms such as “dishonest” and “hypocritical” regarding those with different views about BDS, particularly with regard to Naomi Klein and Ilan Pappe. But why you feel the need to put forward obviously false statements about Chomsky’s views is beyond me.
According to you, Chomsky has done a valuable service with his “detailed descriptions of the injustices that had been heaped upon the Palestinians by the Israelis”, but that he “is providing cover for the pro-Israel lobby” because he still has “one foot still in Zion”. There is an obvious question here that you don’t address. If he still has such a “determination to protect Israel”, why would he have spent so much of his life documenting and publicizing the “injustices that had been heaped upon the Palestinians”? It seems to me it would have been much simpler to have simply not done that to begin with.
Seth wrote:
“1. Thanks for the history, none of which bears on the point I made about Israel, the US, and what Chomsky refers to as “the international consensus” that he supports as the framework for a solution. He is referring to votes such as this, which Finkelstein also highlights:
link to normanfinkelstein.com
in which as usual the US and Israel stand virtually alone in opposing a two-state solution. ”
If you read what they were voting against, Seth, you would have seen that it was for something more than a two-state solution. It called for the Palestinian right of return and for Israel to withdraw to the 1967 borders, both of which the US opposes. To claim that this vote was against the two-state solution while leaving out the rest is disingenuous but typical of Chomsky himself.
Since Finkelstein happens to look on Chomsky as his mentor, he tends to take identical positions, even when he is not familiar with the subject such as the Israel Lobby.
Seth wrote: “2. The quote does not support the characterization you made of Chomsky’s views. In addition, as you must be aware, Chomsky has written quite a bit on the difference between a “unitary democratic secular state” and a binational state. But nowhere have I seen him reference fears about Jews “would eventually become a minority” in a single state of some sort and that’s why he’s against it.”
That’s your interpretation. It clearly implies that Chomsky rejects the notion that Jews would would have only civil rights in an Arab dominated state and that he rejects that. In the same section (“Towards a New Cold War,” p. 230) he equates Israeli and Palestinian claims, that is those of the dispossessor with the those of the dispossessed, those of the ethnic cleanser with those of the ethnically cleansed .”Those who urge the demands of one or the other partner in this deadly dance,” he writes, “deaf to conflicting pleas, merely help to pave the way to an eventual catastrophe.”
Seth writes: 3. Do you even read the Chomsky quotes you put forward as your evidence? He is against “divestment from Israel”, but “it makes good sense to press for not sending attack helicopters to Israel, for example…and then to stop sending military weapons that are being used for repression” . And this is evidence that “he has never advocated in his talks anything that activists could actually do to stop Israeli occupation and change the situation such as ending arm sales to Israel”? Read it again. And your criticism is that he makes “no suggestion that his audience contact their Congressional representatives or senators regarding their support for aid to Israel.” ? Take your analogy to the contras seriously. Find a Chomsky speech from the 80s about Central America that ends with a rousing call to his audience to contact Congress to cut off aid to the contras. You probably won’t find that either.”
It doesn’t matter how many times one reads it, while criticizing the sale of these weapons to Israel he does not suggest that a campaign be initiated against it but, rather, suggests that his listeners try to get an article in their local newspaper about it. Perhaps, he might explain why the papers do not generally report such weapons transfers. As to the campaign against the Contras, it did not need him to raise the issue of aid, the activist groups were already doing that themselves. That it had not been done and has generally not been done in the case of Israel can not be laid completely at Chomsky’s front door but at those within the movement who might be described as crypto-zionists and who have seen to it that the demands never go beyond that useless slogan, “End the Occupation!,” the meaning of which the majority of Americans haven’t the slightest clue.
You mention my exchange with Chomsky in the old National Guardian. With regard for not telling his adoring fans to do anything, while blaming all the sins of the world on the elites in charge of US imperialism, I wrote that he “makes us spectators when history demands that we be participants.”
Seth wrote: “Since I watched him sign the petition and speak out in support of the University of Pennsylvania to take action in divesting from firms supporting Israeli repression, together with his consistent statements on this topic, I find it very difficult to take your characterization of his views seriously.”
Can you read English, Seth? Divesting from firms supporting Israeli repression is qualitatively different from divesting from Israel itself and that Chomsky opposes. Full stop, as they say.
Seth wrote: “According to you, Chomsky has done a valuable service with his “detailed descriptions of the injustices that had been heaped upon the Palestinians by the Israelis”, but that he “is providing cover for the pro-Israel lobby” because he still has “one foot still in Zion”. There is an obvious question here that you don’t address. If he still has such a “determination to protect Israel”, why would he have spent so much of his life documenting and publicizing the “injustices that had been heaped upon the Palestinians”? It seems to me it would have been much simpler to have simply not done that to begin with. ”
The answer is quite simple. His documenting “injustices that had been heaped upon the Palestinians” at the hands of Israel gave him the necessary credibility that enabled him to gain the confidence of most of those who support the Palestinian cause, including mine at one point, and make them susceptible to his distortions of the history of US-Israel relations and to accepting his theory that the pro-Israel lobby is, as he once described it, “a paper tiger.”
I should note that after our competing articles were published in the National Guardian in 1991 and he and I were still on amicable terms and he was subscribing to the Middle East Labor Bulletin which I edited, a NY activist proposed to Chomsky that he and I have a debate on the issue of the Israel Lobby at the next Socialist Scholar’s Conference. Chomsky politely declined, writing that “it wouldn’t be useful.” To whom, is the question.
1.
“If you read what they were voting against, Seth, you would have seen that it was for something more than a two-state solution. It called for the Palestinian right of return and for Israel to withdraw to the 1967 borders, both of which the US opposes. To claim that this vote was against the two-state solution while leaving out the rest is disingenuous but typical of Chomsky himself.”
You’re not quite getting the point here, which wasn’t even about anything you said but about Abunimah’s comment. Chomsky (and Finkelstein) both talk a lot about the “international consensus” as a framework for a solution, pointing out that the U.S. and Israel are the ones opposing it and blocking, and they point to these UN resolutions as representative of this international consensus. Since this is something that the U.S. and Israel explicitly oppose, I don’t see how supporting the international consensus, as defined by these sorts of votes, can then be viewed as following what the U.S. and Israel want, whatever one may think about this international consensus. It’s really a simple point, and at least for me, it stuck out when listening to Abunimah’s otherwise well-reasoned and fair comments. Either because I’m not being clear or you’re just not getting it for whatever reason, it seems pointless to continue this part of the discussion.
2. I don’t think this is a reasonable response. I was wondering about your statement:
“Blankfort states that Chomsky “has been adamantly against a single state for the very same reason that the mainstream Zionist movement is against it,
because Jews would eventually become a minority and he’s written this.”
Of course he’s been against a single state as described in your quote. He wrote a lot back then about civil rights and national rights in a binational state. But he’s never written, as far as I know, about concern regarding that “Jews would eventually become a minority”. It is that aspect of your claim that I found puzzling, and it’s obvious that he has never written that, contrary to what you said. If you want to view it as being implicit in his argumentation, that’s fine, but it’s obviously different from saying that “he’s written this”.
3. “Can you read English, Seth? Divesting from firms supporting Israeli repression is qualitatively different from divesting from Israel itself and that Chomsky opposes. Full stop, as they say.”
And here we go from what can possibly be described as miscommunication into something else. The point was never about whether Chomsky supports “divesting from Israel itself”. Of course Chomsky opposes that, as he’s said many times, and as I said last time you and I had an exchange. Your claim was that
“what’s interesting is that up till now he has never advocated in his talks anything that activists could actually do to stop Israeli occupation and change the situation such as ending arm sales to Israel”
which is simply false. You should be able to understand the difference between (A) calling for ending arms sales and divesting from firms supporting Israeli repression, and (B) “divesting from Israel itself”. You said Chomsky does not support (A). He does support (A). If you want to argue that he hasn’t done *enough* for (A), go ahead, but you claimed that he has “never advocated” (A). It’s just a flat-out falsehood, and you really should give it a rest already.
4. You write:
The answer is quite simple. His documenting “injustices that had been heaped upon the Palestinians” at the hands of Israel gave him the necessary credibility that enabled him to gain the confidence of most of those who support the Palestinian cause, including mine at one point, and make them susceptible to his distortions of the history of US-Israel relations and to accepting his theory that the pro-Israel lobby is, as he once described it, “a paper tiger.”
Wow. So Chomsky has been spending a good chunk of his life documenting and publicizing Israeli repression in order to throw people like you off the track regarding the pro-Israel lobby. I guess this neatly eliminates the possibility that he has spent so much time documenting Israeli injustices because he is opposed to those injustices, but that he has a different analysis of the role (and even definition) of the lobby than you do. I agree that your answer is quite
simple, but it is also highly irrational. You should consider the
possibility that other people disagree with you on the lobby because, well,
they have looked at the evidence and come to a different conclusion.
There was part of David Green’s comment that I can not let go unchecked. He writes:
“I know its open season on Chomsky, and there’s some ageism involved here. In fact, his combativeness in this interview is reminiscent of his younger days.”
I am five years younger than Chomsky and happily, unlike him, I did not grow up a Zionist and/or get brainwashed on a kibbutz. His combativeness has nothing to do with age. What you heard was a typical Chomsky reaction when someone on the left has the temerity to question him. His usual response, from my personal experience, is to accuse his critics of doing harm to the Palestinian cause while he claims to be its champion.
Green writes: “He made this interviewer look like a obsessive fool.”
Wrong. Chomsky’s attitude was nasty, patronizing, and condescending, and if I didn’t know that he displays the same attitude toward all his left critics, I would add, racist, as well. The questions he was asked by Khalil Bendib were legitimate. Chomsky’s problem is that when asked difficult questions he refuses to give straight answers.
Green writes, “Worst of all is the assertion of “ethnic loyalty” or “dual loyalty.” It’s just ridiculous to think that neocons would endanger their status in the American system. Nobody who has experienced debates about Israel locally and first hand could possibly see “dual loyalty.” These people just think that U.S. and Israeli interests are one and the same–and for their own purposes, they are.
Green may suffer from the same problem, to judge from his post. Certainly, even Chomsky owned up to his sentiments for Israel in his early writings.
Here’s Chomsky in “Peace and the Middle East,” written in 1975 which I cite in my article:
‘At the time of the Six Day War in June 1967, I personally believed that the threat of genocide was real and reacted with virtually uncritical support for Israel at what appeared to be a desperate moment. In retrospect it seems that this assessment of the facts was dubious at best.”‘ (P. 124)
“It was an honest expressions of his affection for Israel and a rare admission by Chomsky that he had erred. It was apparently his last. Given this background, some other questionable statements of Chomsky in that South African interview become comprehensible. When asked to explain the differences between Israel before and after statehood, he responded”:
‘The post-1967 period is different. The concept of settler-colonialism would apply to the pre-1948 period. It is plainly an outside population coming in and basically dispossessing an indigenous population.: … Without going into it, by 1948, that argument is over. There was a state there, right or wrong. And that state should have the rights of any state in the international system, no more, no less. After 1967, there is a quite different situation. That’s military conquest.’ (Safundi, Znet, May 10, 2004)
“What Chomsky seems to be saying here to the Palestinians after 1948, is ‘Get over it.’ Is that a misinterpretation? Could not the apartheid state of South Africa been defended on the same basis? And what was Israel’s war in 1948, if not military conquest?” (From Damage Control: Noam Chomsky and the Israel-Palestine Conflict)
Anyone who knows anything about the neocons and their connections to Israel, both through their politics and family members who live there, know that beyond their personal egos, their loyalty is not to the US but to Israel. They should not be considered separately from the pro-Israel Lobby and the Jewish establishment. They are not only part and parcel of it, they are among its key members.
“‘Anyone who knows anything about the neocons and their connections to Israel, both through their politics and family members who live there, know that beyond their personal egos, their loyalty is not to the US but to Israel”‘
This too is a flawed thesis , because while the neocons have strong ties to Israel, they have equally strong ties to the military state. In fact, they have been too the right of Likud in many respects. For example, they pushed for the Iraq invasion while Sharon and co were pushing for an Iranian one.
“What you heard was a typical Chomsky reaction when someone on the left has the temerity to question him.”
No, has the temerity to question him and not take an answer for an answer, but continually pester him on his “avoidance” of the Lobby or ethnic loyalty. He made the same astute analysis he always makes, and the interviewer wasn’t able to address Chomsky’s perspective–he just kept hammering away at the same points. The Lobby is taboo? Ethnic loyalty is taboo? Really!
The left, if it’s really a left and not an insane asylum, needs to get its act together to understand USFP in the Middle East and South Asia. This website is helpful in some ways, but this thread is an example of how it’s not.
Whaa?
Why doesn’t ethnic loyalty factor in?
There are tons of books written about the Christian Right and no one ever holds back. Why is there so much gate-keeping on this issue in the Left?
And Chomsky’s answers were shallow. As were his comments on BDS. ‘breaking windows’? ‘hurting’ the victims? Yea, because the Palestinians are really going to suffer more now.
Oh, and didn’t Chomsky also say he disagreed with BDS because the Israeli public (by that I assume Israeli Jewish public) did not accept it?
Why? Because you don’t agree?
The options that a President has are shaped by the various factors. And the Zionist lobby has made the choices very narrow.
I mean, who exactly is ‘the US’ – that Chomsky focuses upon so much? And is it possible that the same entities who steer policy, may also steer Israeli policy?
If so, then what are they and how do they function? What’s their ‘interest’?
I think all someone has to agree to, to be considered reasonable, is that there are many interests and lots of overlap.
Ethnic or religious loyalty is completely understandable. And politicians may use that to their advantage as well. Reagan the Christian Right – right?
All this has to do with, is ‘Jewishness’ and not being able to even think about the issue. Chomsky is a giant, but his answers were just lame. And you’re just doing PR for him. Did we listen to the same interview?
It might be that he simply doesn’t know what to say. Has he even done research on the lobby? I’ve read a lot of his work, watched and listened to numerous lectures/etc. but I’ve never heard him give one on the Lobby. He’s usually just agreeing to a very limited, one-sentence summary of what it is.
Just like BDS. He doesn’t go into detail. He just basically applies some vague conditions like whether it will ‘hurt’ the victims. But that’s BS, they are hurting every day.
BDS isn’t simply about BDS. It’s a recruiting tool. The language of BDS is important. It instills in people a sense of urgency. It’s a gateway for education and yada yada. It’s something to mobilize around and it lets the Palestinians know that people out there are doing something actively for them.
It’s a symbolic gesture.
Chomsky once said that Arafat was a symbol. Arafat, in spite of all his short-comings, was a symbol and that was ‘important’. Chomsky is obviously implying that it meant something to the Palestinians.
So BDS is a symbolic act. It boost the confidence of the Palestinian camp. It’s something to do that isn’t just theater (new slogans, new chants, new signs). It’s action.
I don’t understand him on this. And I would really like to know if one of Chomsky’s reasons for being critical of BDS, was that the Israeli public would not support it.
That would make this worse. As if we need to bring them along. Finkelstein is as bad on this sphere of issues. He left the Gaza march over the most petty thing.
When will there be another event like the Gaza march? Why wouldn’t he just suck it up for the Palestinians and go?
U.S. interests are to control Middle Eastern resources (oil). Our central alliances are with Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and Egypt in doing so. We also occupy Iraq. Israel is central to that endeavor, as Chomsky has always argues, as a “stationary aircraft carrier” and bully in the region. Our policy, in our (elite Americans) interest is that Israel can do what it wants with the Palestinians, as long as it doesn’t interfere with American interests, or get so blatant that Arab dictators have to deal with pro-Palestinian forces from their own people. The U.S.-Israel alliance, based on militarism, doesn’t exclude the “icing on the cake” of whiteness, Europeanness, ethnic loyalty, the Holocaust Industry, etc. All of this keeps people confused and ignorant. But the overriding issue is oil, and the position of the U.S. vis a vis China, Russia, etc. When Israel goes beyond those limits, it backs down, as Chomsky points out. On a more trivial level, why can’t the Lobby and Jews loyal to Israel get Jonathan Pollard released from prison after 25 (??) years?
David, you’ve terminally overdosed on Chomsky’s Kool-Aid. What you have produced in this post is simply a regurgitation of what Chomsky himself has written without supplying an iota of proof, and having read all of Chomsky’s books (which turned out to nothing but repetitions of his previous works) I was unable to find a single knowledgeable source for the notion that Israel is either “central” to our ensuring our access to Middle Eastern oil or America’s “stationery aircraft carrier.”
Quite the contrary, it was considered essential that it stay on the sidelines in both Gulf wars. Instead of exposing his and your academic limits, perhaps you can find us ONE good reference. I have many, from former State Dept. officials and CIA analysts who say quite the opposite and some you will find in my article. And please, don’t tell me that either Ronald Reagan or George Shultz qualified as experts in that field.
Regarding Israel going beyond its “limits,” as it did with certain sales to China, those were done behind The Lobby’s back and proved an embarrassment to its members until the story was shoved under the rug. Indeed, the views of Israelis, whose leaders by and large look at their American supporters with contempt, and those of the Jewish establishment differ.
Whereas the latter is solidly anti-communist and pro-capitalist (and views China with Cold War eyes), the Israelis will sell to virtually everyone except Iran and Syria. Even neoconman Doug Fieth felt blindsided and became unhinged when the report of Israel selling the Phalcon warning system to China was reported.
As for Jonathan Pollard, it is more than likely that he would have been released if he had kept his mouth shut and didn’t make accusations against the Labor government which made him to this day the darling of the extreme Israeli nutcases. Their fear, and that is within Washington and Israel, is that should he ever be released, he will go on a speaking tour and expose those who he claimed betrayed him. Meanwhile spies for Israel, right and left, are arrested and then “disappeared” from the mainstream press which also, unlike the Israeli media, reported on the Mossad agents who were arrested after a New Jersey woman watched these Middle East appearing me taking videos of the burning WTC on 9-11 while appearing to be celebrating. The story was in the Forward 3/15/02, with their names identifying them as Mossad agents and that they worked for a moving country that was a Mossad front. Since 9-11, at least three other pairs of so-called movers have been arrested in different parts of the country, New Mexico, Illinois and Maryland and turned over by local police to the FBI. The stories made the local papers but somehow not the national press and they too were “disappeared” as has been Stewart Nozzete, a high ranking space scientist with a top secret clearance who had been giving technical information to the Israel aviation industry for ten years. He was busted in an FBI sting by an agent pretending to be a Mossad spy. Nozette’s answer was “I thought I was already working for you guys.” (Yes, there are folks in Washington in the intelligence agencies who are wise to Israeli spy operations but their legit efforts to bust them have been thwarted by higher-ups or the US courts.
BTW, have you seen any story in the US press that the company in charge of security at the Amsterdam airport and which allowed the boxer shorts bomber to get on the plane was Israel, ICTS, and that it was responsible for security at all the airports involved on 9-11 and at Charles DeGaulle from which Richard Reid enplaned? No, you haven’t, but if you read Ha’aretz, which ran a critical article about it, you would have known. Do you think Chomsky would think that fact important? Seriously, quite apart from his positions on Israel-Palestine he has become infamous as the government’s “Gatekeeper” for 9-11, having subscribed wholeheartedly to the “official narrative” from the very beginning and having dismissed every effort to provide an alternative scenario.
As Chomsky says, Israel proved its worth to us by smashing Egypt and Arab nationalism in 1967. The result has been a compliant Egypt. Around the world, the central concern of U.S. foreign policy has been the prevention of “good examples,” countries that provide an alternative to great power capitalism in the global system. There’s no way that the U.S. could tolerate Israel (or Lebanon, or Jordan, or Iraq) becoming an example of a country that acts in the genuine interests of its own people (in an egalitarian sense), or provides a model for the region’s interests. Just as we can’t allow that in the ME, we can’t allow it in Latin America–therefore Venezuela strikes fear in the establishment. So where is the Venezuela Lobby to enforce this uniformity, in relation to a country that we could deal with perfectly sensibly on non-coercive terms regarding oil, etc. No, it’s a bad example. I think that the logic is clear, on a global basis. The last thing the U.S. will allow Israel to do (admittedly in an alternative universe) would be to lead the Middle East to a set of alliances that put the interests of the region first.
And yes, even though I don’t like the way the epithet is generally used, 9/11 conspiracy theories a another distraction from understanding how it was allowed to happen and how it was taken advantage of.
It’s not just that you don’t see the forest for the trees–you don’t really know much about the trees, either.
I forgot–tell me about the Congresspersons who object to the demonization of Venezuela. You’re welcome to have the last world.
I want to first start out by saying that my response is non-hostile, and that I honestly respect your opinion David. However, I do disagree with the notion that Israel is useful or has ever been useful to American foreign policy in the ME.
As Chomsky says, Israel proved its worth to us by smashing Egypt and Arab nationalism in 1967.
And unleashing the far more potent and capable Islamic movements throughout the region. Movements that pose a far more credible threat to American hegemony in the ME than Arab Nationalism ever did.
Also, I would argue that American support for monarchial dictatorial regimes like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc proved to be enough of a hurdle for Nasser to overcome with or without the Israeli threat. In fact it was a belligerent Israel that gave so much weight to Arab Nationalism and a cause to rally around (the Palestinians). In fact Israel probably did a lot to create unity amongst Arabs.
But yes I will admit that given hindsight perhaps Israels crushing of Arab nationalism may have been seen by the United States as beneficial even if it was not.
Nonetheless, this does not change the fact that Israel as of today and for the last 20-30 years and probably since its very inception provided very little to the United States. Our foreign policy in the region is a mess because we are constantly juggling our needs (securing oil) and Israeli expansionist desires.
For example if we needed to launch an invasion of say Syria, Iran, or Sudan, we can’t count on Israel to support us because the politics of the region would not allow that. We would count on Arabs from countries like Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia to back us up in these fights rather than Israel who would be forced and virtually coerced to ensure that its army remains stationary.
Furthermore, its the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that is preventing us from rallying our so called “moderate” Arab allies from doing anything substantial against Iran. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, and Egypt all believe that a powerful Iran would be the end of their dictatorial regimes in their respective countries. But they can’t do anything to stop Iran’s rise without first quelling the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
This simple fact alone will probably lead to America losing its grip in the Middle East, especially as Iran becomes stronger and as Iran gets closer to having the ability to either have a bomb or the ability to develop a bomb within short notice. The fact that Israel is the largest cock block to preventing American attempts to curb Iran is no small issue.
In all honestly I don’t see how Israel serves the purpose of American hegemony in the Middle East.
We have to be real here. If it were not for domestic pressure on American institutions, we would not have any real reason to support Israel. We would treat Israel like any other state, maybe even like a pariah state, and we would probably force them to make peace with the Palestinians so that we could get back to beating down on any Arab or Persian that decided to get too uppity.
At the moment Israel is curbing our ability to maintain complete dominance in the region.
I suspect the truth is somewhere between “the Lobby controls Mideast policy” and “the Lobby is powerless to push any policy opposed to America’s self interest as defined by amoral political calculations.” I mean, it seems like both sides of this debate can point to cases that support their view, so it’s likely there’s some truth to both. But people sometimes commit to all-or-nothing positions–not uncommon when Chomsky and his opinions are involved.
There is definetly overlap when it comes to both viewpoints.
But at the end of the day we should respectfully choose what to believe based on rational observations of the situation.
Finally, both viewpoints point to a similar common problem, all we have to do is come up with similar schemes to combating that.
One might think that I am the only one or one among an inconsequential number of individuals who question Chomsky’s interpretation of history. For those who have not read my article (which Chomsky refuses to do,or so he says) , I will share you some of the comments of our late mutual friend, Prof.Israel Shahak that he wrote to me in a letter in 1991 in response to a letter in which I complained how Chomsky had dismissed The Lobby’s role in pushing the US into the first Gulf War and which appeared in my article:
link to leftcurve.org
(excerpt)
“Much of what Chomsky tells us is “not controversial,” invariably proves to be very much so and particularly when it comes to the relations between Israel and the White House. The late revered Israeli scholar and human rights activist, Professor Israel Shahak pointed out that Chomsky’s analysis suffers from his ‘undoubted tendency of demonizing the American presidency and the Executive in general, while ignoring the Legislature, but also from his very mistaken, in my [Shahak's] opinion, tendency of assuming that not only the principles but literally everything concerning the American imperialism was laid in detail long ago, in 1944 or about that time, and from then on the policy is, so to say, a follow-up of instructions from a computer.’
‘This ignores not only the human factor in the US itself but also the completely different nature of the foes and the victims of the US during the last decades. There can be no doubt, in my own opinion, that the actual policies of the US are complex even when they are evil, influenced, as in the case of all other states, by many factors of which AIPAC is one and human stupidity (for which he never allows) is another.’
“And finally, this very insightful paragraph”:
‘But such simplistic theories, backed by his memory and ability to pick isolated examples (sometimes from a long time ago like his stock example of Eisenhower in the case of Israel while ignoring everything else from 1967 on) can appeal to [the] young who look for certainty and also for those who don’t want to [be] engaged in actual work and so find substitute for it in crude and useless display of emotion. ” ]……
‘I had the same, only greater, differences of opinion with Noam Chomsky, who is my personal friend for quite a time, on the subject of AIPAC and the influence of the Jewish lobby in general as you have. What is more, a number of mutual friends of Chomsky and me have also tried to influence him, in vain, on that point.
‘I am afraid that he is, with all his wonderful qualities and the work he does, quite dogmatic on many things. I have no doubt that his grievous mistake about the lack of importance of AIPAC, which he repeats quite often, helps the Zionists very much as you so graphically described. ‘
That’s from Israel Shahak, 19 years ago and Chomsky is still at it. I’ll rest my case, at least on this thread.
I recognize Chomsky in Shahak’s description. I’d attach more importance to Chomsky’s methodological rigidity than his emotional attachment to zionism. The cognitive linguists Lakoff and Johnson have a chapter on Chomsky’s thinking in their book ‘Philosophy in the flesh’. I wouldn’t expect Chomsky to be ‘wrong’ in his opinions. He makes few mistakes. But I also wouldn’t expect him to move from an elegant model with mediocre fit to a different model with better fit unless the first elegant model is proven wrong. The recommended approach then for moving on is to think in terms of fit instead of right and wrong.
The key to a solution in Palestine lies in the USA. And this key exists, if only it would be wielded by a substantial number of Americans. It is difficult to impress upon Americans that Israel is a gangster state. However, it is another story to show to Americans that their politicians have lied to them regarding the mass murder committed upon Americans on 9/11. When Americans will discover that their own government masterminded this mass murder, and that their Congressmen and women covered up the crime, they will reject the policies of these criminals, including the support of Israel and the wars against Arab and Muslim nations.
The time has come for those standing in solidarity with Palestinian rights to join the efforts of the 9/11 truth movement and oppose war. Almost all 9/11 truthers oppose war and support Palestinian rights, and probably for the same ethical reasons. It is important to widen the resistance movement to US imperialism.
Let no one on this forum respond to me that I am engaging in absurd “conspiracy theories”. As a veteran fighter for Palestinian rights, as a scholar on human rights, I affirm without any doubt that Muslims did not commit the mass murder of 9/11.
I couldn’t disagree more. The U.S. and Israel are both gangster states, and 9/11 was payback for that. Chomsky recognizes that.
unverified: The time has come for those standing in solidarity with Palestinian rights to join the efforts of the 9/11 truth movement
No it hasn’t. The Palestinians have enough trouble as it is. They’ve got a good, solid case, let’s try to fight it on it’s own merits. If you want to include the Palestinian struggle in your general fight against imperialism, more power to you, but a general linkage of Palestinian rights to 9/11 truthers is not a brilliant idea.
9/11 Truthers aren’t getting anywhere.
That doesn’t by-definition mean we should always accept the government’s official story and all that.
But you should appraise the tactical value of linking the Truth movement to the Palestinian cause.
It would do more harm than good.
We should focus focus on all aspects of the I-P conflict. Link them to past conflicts. Speak in a language that can resonate with people, through this linkage.
Example: BDS, colonization, apartheid
All are relevant to I-P, and also to past conflicts. We should educate people on the history of the conflict.
I think a lot of this is already happening. I think college students can keep an open mind and will come into the discussion without all the ideological brainwashing that Zionists are counting on.
I really admire Ilan Pappe and his advice on the issue of ‘recruitment’ I suppose.
link to youtube.com
He keeps thing grounded in reality and is proactive. I think he understands that BDS is a symbol. It is a symbol of resistance that we can all take part in. Even if it may not be logistically what we want, because of the forces we’re up against – it is showing others we’re doing something. It’s a way to recruit and to inspire. It connects this conflict to other conflicts like South Africa. And most importantly, it lets the Palestinians know they aren’t alone and that we’re doing something.
In spite of almost a century of struggle, the Palestinian people have not achieved independence, freedom, well-being and human rights. It is easy to blame Israel, Zionism and the imperial powers for this situation. However, as in every situation of oppression, the key to liberation lies with the oppressed, not with the oppressors. As long as the Palestinian people and its supporters are thinking mainly in tactical terms, they will not achieve anything. Those who achieve results think in strategic terms. The interests of the Israeli Jewish people and of the American people are not served by the Zionists. There is no better eye-opener than to demonstrate to the American people that their own government has murdered 3,000 people on 11. September 2001. Anybody who realizes this fact fully understands the criminal nature of the American political system and the collusion of its allies. The Israeli public will be served a good lesson knowing that their ally has been a criminal and murderous organisation, posing as a legitimate government.
Any of you who still believes in what Osama bin Laden supposedly said and what Bush reportedly said about 9/11, should begin to think independently of these luminaries and ask for the evidence regarding the most devastating mass murder in US history.
I would ordinarily with Emmett that the key to liberation lies with the oppressed but the Israel-Palestine conflict is an exception. Never has a liberation movement been engaged in a struggle where a whole critical element of its enemy is parked outside of the arena of struggle and therfore out of its reach. And not only is it, and by it I refer to the Amercican Jewish Establishment, out of its reach but it’s key role in the conflict is ignored or dismissed by most of those who pretend to be in support of Palestinian rights.
Twenty years ago, during the first intifada, everything was moving the Palestinians’ way and the supporting coverage though both editorials and cartoons in the US press would be unimaginable today. What they were not able to conquer of even penetrate, of course, was the US Congress which then, as now, was totally in thrall to Israel, which, thanks to Chomsky and the Chomskyites throughout the movement, went unnoticed and untouched as a target of the kind of political action that should have been obligatory. The lesson is this: Until and unless, those who claim to be in solidarity with the Palestinian people are ready to take on Israel’s supporters in Congress and the Jewish organizations and individuals that are responsible for that support, there will be no justice for Palestine. This should not be a subject for internet debate since what we are talking about is not an academic exercise but a people’s struggle for liberation. It’s long past time to separate those who are serious in their support for Palestinian rights and those who, whatever their motivations, have been actively subverting it.
As for linking that struggle with finding the truth about 9-11, as much as I question the official narrative, I also question adding that subject to that of the Palestinians which is already difficult enough. As with the assassinations of JFK, Malcolm X, RFK, and MLK Jr., (which may have been the most significant of all), we can never expect to learn the truth. The Palestinians have no such option.