Chomsky supports portions of BDS agenda, but faults others, citing realism and int’l consensus

Israel/Palestine
on 275 Comments

 

Noam Chomsky

Noam Chomsky

Today The Nation published a piece by Noam Chomsky opposing some aims of the BDS movement (boycott, divestment and sanctions) chiefly on realist grounds, because he says those efforts are and will be ineffective in countering the international consensus on the conflict and US power in maintaining it. The piece is sure to be controversial on the left and get a lot of attention and criticism. What does Chomsky say? 

Chomsky refers to the movement as BD: 

Meanwhile, a BDS movement (calling for “boycott, divestment and sanctions”) has been formed, often citing South African models; more accurately, the abbreviation should be “BD,” since sanctions, or state actions, are not on the horizon—one of the many significant differences from South Africa.

Chomsky then addresses the three goals of the BDS movement: 1, end the occupation, 2, gain full equality for Palestinian citizens of Israel, and 3, support/promote the right of return of Palestinian refugees. Here is a portion of his critique:

if we’re concerned about the fate of the victims, BD and other tactics have to be carefully thought through and evaluated in terms of their likely consequences. The pursuit of (1) in the above list makes good sense: it has a clear objective and is readily understood by its target audience in the West, which is why the many initiatives guided by (1) have been quite successful—not only in “punishing” Israel, but also in stimulating other forms of opposition to the occupation and US support for it.

However, this is not the case for (3). While there is near-universal international support for (1), there is virtually no meaningful support for (3) beyond the BDS movement itself. Nor is (3) dictated by international law. The text of UN General Assembly Resolution 194 is conditional, and in any event it is a recommendation, without the legal force of the Security Council resolutions that Israel regularly violates. Insistence on (3) is a virtual guarantee of failure.

Though Chomsky seems to suggest that the right of return is a good thing. But he dismisses a one-state outcome as no less implausible than his view that there should be no states at all:

The only slim hope for realizing (3) in more than token numbers is if longer-term developments lead to the erosion of the imperial borders imposed by France and Britain after World War I, which, like similar borders, have no legitimacy. This could lead to a “no-state solution”—the optimal one, in my view, and in the real world no less plausible than the “one-state solution” that is commonly, but mistakenly, discussed as an alternative to the international consensus.

He says that U.S. discrimination is worse than Israeli discrimination, so seeking to grant Palestinians full equality is hypocritical:

The case for (2) is more ambiguous. There are “prohibitions against discrimination” in international law, as HRW observes. But pursuit of (2) at once opens the door to the standard “glass house” reaction: for example, if we boycott Tel Aviv University because Israel violates human rights at home, then why not boycott Harvard because of far greater violations by the United States?

Predictably, initiatives focusing on (2) have been a near-uniform failure, and will continue to be unless educational efforts reach the point of laying much more groundwork in the public understanding for them, as was done in the case of South Africa.

Chomsky rejects the South Africa analogy. Here he cites international opinion of the Israel/Palestine situation, which is more favorable to Israel than it was to South Africa, e.g., Warren Buffett, and suggests that the actual outcome in Palestine is worse than apartheid.

the South African analogy…  is a very dubious one. There’s a reason why BDS tactics were used for decades against South Africa while the current campaign against Israel is restricted to BD: in the former case, activism had created such overwhelming international opposition to apartheid that individual states and the UN had imposed sanctions decades before the 1980s, when BD tactics began to be used extensively in the United States. By then, Congress was legislating sanctions and overriding Reagan’s vetoes on the issue.

Years earlier—by 1960—global investors had already abandoned South Africa to such an extent that its financial reserves were halved; although there was some recovery, the handwriting was on the wall. In contrast, US investment is flowing into Israel. When Warren Buffett bought an Israeli tool-making firm for $2 billion last year, he described Israel as the most promising country for investors outside the United States itself.

While there is, finally, a growing domestic opposition in the United States to Israeli crimes, it does not remotely compare with the South African case. The necessary educational work has not been done. Spokespeople for the BDS movement may believe they have attained their “South African moment,” but that is far from accurate. And if tactics are to be effective, they must be based on a realistic assessment of actual circumstances.

Much the same is true of the invocation of apartheid. Within Israel, discrimination against non-Jews is severe; the land laws are just the most extreme example. But it is not South African–style apartheid. In the occupied territories, the situation is far worse than it was in South Africa, where the white nationalists needed the black population: it was the country’s workforce, and as grotesque as the bantustans were, the nationalist government devoted resources to sustaining and seeking international recognition for them. In sharp contrast, Israel wants to rid itself of the Palestinian burden. The road ahead is not toward South Africa, as commonly alleged, but toward something much worse.

The outcome:

The road ahead leads not to South Africa, but rather to an increase in the proportion of Jews in the Greater Israel that is being constructed. This is the realistic alternative to a two-state settlement. There is no reason to expect Israel to accept a Palestinian population it does not want.

Chomsky says John Kerry’s view that apartheid is down the road is a “mirage.” And he says that the U.S. will continue to support Israel no matter what it does, and suggests that the only thing that will end American support is a power struggle with a global rival. (Other realist/left analyses involving the power of the Israel lobby and the growth of anti-Zionism inside the Jewish community are absent from the piece.) He concludes by saying that Cuban forces in Namibia did more to liberate southern Africa from white oppressors than anyone. But Palestinians “can hope for no such savior.” And therefore “should avoid illusion and myth” and devise tactics that answer the particulars of this conflict. It is not clear from the piece what Chomsky thinks those tactics should be.

Update: I’ve twice changed the headline on this post to attempt to more accurately reflect Chomsky’s views.

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

275 Responses

  1. Cliff
    July 2, 2014, 10:39 am

    Chomsky is committed to losing and being a passive-aggressive whiner.

    He is a liberal Zionist – the best one and the most human and sincere one.

    I think he may support the 1ss as an endgame achieved first through a 2ss but what the FUCK does he expect to happen now post-Cast Lead?

    Did he think activists were going to do nothing?

    BDS is a tactic.

    Not a MOVEMENT.

    The other side/pro-Jewish terror camp has many tactics. Why can’t we use BDS?

    Chomsky and Finkelstein have betrayed the Palestinian people with their petty bullshit.

    • Donald
      July 2, 2014, 11:11 am

      “Chomsky and Finkelstein have betrayed the Palestinian people with their petty bullshit.”

      I wouldn’t go that far–Chomsky says that the treatment of Palestinians in Gaza and the WB is worse than apartheid and without using the term, predicts that the Israeli endgame is going to be ethnic cleansing (or that’s what I think he was getting at).

      But yeah, his criticism of “BD” doesn’t make much sense. He wants the public to come to the same near-universal level of understanding regarding Israel that it had on South Africa. Fine. How does he expect ordinary people to hear how bad Israel’s behavior is without a movement like BDS? He and Finkelstein have written good books on this topic for decades and so have others. Articles are written, blogs talk about it and so forth, but the only way the pro-Palestinian position ever makes an appearance in the mainstream press is when some BDS action has to be covered.

      • Cliff
        July 2, 2014, 11:21 am

        So what if they call it worse than apartheid.

        Chomsky was a great figurehead for the past several decades but he is totally out of step now.

        You begin with Chomsky. He is inspiring, but has now become a pedantic gatekeeper.

        Palestinians do not need people to tell the world about Israeli apartheid.

        There are plenty of people doing that now. Thanks in-part to Chomsky and Finkelstein of course.

        But neither of them are helping the Palestinians anymore.

        We have people on the ground in the trenches doing actual activism.

        Chomsky is old so he understandably cannot do much, but hearing him issue these conditions to which activists must supposedly meet to even begin considering boycotting is infuriating. Made doubly more so by his status as a wise old grandpa or something.

        Pretentious is an overused adjective but Chomsky on BDS is fucking pretentious.

        Its 2014. Its time to fucking DO SOMETHING.

        There are tons of issues in the world and in the West, we have all sorts of tactics – made even more proactive with social networking.

        Chomsky wants us to STOP AND WAIT for what? For people to read a book about the conflict?

        Maybe he wants us to talk ourselves to death.

        Fuck that.

      • Chu
        July 2, 2014, 11:31 am

        Chomsky is buying more time for the occupation to expand.

        Chomsky seems to say it’s inevitable:
        ‘The road ahead leads not to South Africa, but rather to an increase in the proportion of Jews in the Greater Israel that is being constructed.’

      • Shingo
        July 2, 2014, 8:08 pm

        Chomsky is buying more time for the occupation to expand.

        That’s taking it a bit far. I would say that as with J Street, he is simply buying time to shield Israel from accountability and recriminations.

      • Shingo
        July 2, 2014, 8:10 pm

        ‘The road ahead leads not to South Africa, but rather to an increase in the proportion of Jews in the Greater Israel that is being constructed.’

        Which highlights another contradiction. Both he and Fink are critical of one staters and insist that the 2ss is the only legitimate one, while at the same time admitting one state is inevitable.

      • Donald
        July 2, 2014, 11:37 am

        Chomsky is an old guy who has suddenly found himself bypassed–for decades he was one of the only people in the US telling the truth about Israeli crimes and was vilified for it. So I respect him for that. The fact that he now writes somewhat confused pieces advocating public education while criticizing the only movement that is doing public education on this issue is sad, but the solution is obvious–point out the contradiction and ignore his advice.

      • Shingo
        July 2, 2014, 8:07 pm

        Pretentious is an overused adjective but Chomsky on BDS is fucking pretentious.

        I suspect that Chomsky and Fink believe that since they have devoted so much of their lives to activism on the subject, and in Fink’s case, sacrificed career, that they have earned the right to remain leaders and the ultimate authority on the matter.

      • markolopa
        July 2, 2014, 11:27 am

        For me “betraying the Palestinian people” is compatible with saying that “Israel is worse than apartheid” or that “the Palestinians will be ethnically cleansed”. Just like saying that “rape is inevitable” is against women even if one doesn’t avoid the term “rape”.

      • jewishgoyim
        July 2, 2014, 12:44 pm

        ““Chomsky and Finkelstein have betrayed the Palestinian people with their petty bullshit.”

        I wouldn’t go that far–”

        I would.

        You cannot pretend to be on the forefront of the left on the issue and be so unequivocally against BDS. It’s where the rubber meets the road.

      • Hostage
        July 2, 2014, 7:51 pm

        But yeah, his criticism of “BD” doesn’t make much sense.

        Really? I agree completely with Chomsky’s assessment that the movement is out to lunch when it comes to the 2005 call for members to pressure their governments to adopt sanctions against Israel. It was no accident that the UN drafted three international conventions that prohibited apartheid and made it a crime punishable by international tribunals, and that the same thing never happened to political Zionism.

        There’s an old adage that says what Arab leaders say and what they actually do are two different things. The government of Palestine quietly introduced a resolution in the UNHRC to dispatch an independent international fact-finding mission to investigate the implications of the Israeli settlements on the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of the Palestinian people throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/04FF85F46E9EFD8B85257A00004C5AD2

        Its findings included a recommendation that all rapporteurs and other mandate holders, including the Working Group on Human Rights and Transnational Businesses examine the issue of civil and criminal liability of corporations that do business in the settlements or facilitate them. The fallout from those reports, including the 6 June 2014 statement of the working group, triggered divestments by the large EU pension funds and the recent warnings from 5 of the biggest EU states to their citizens and businesses to avoid investments in the settlements. Articles here implied that those successes were attributable to the efforts of the BDS movement alone. The call for government action on business that profit from the settlements has been a very effective tactic and the movement should be educating the public about it and calling for sanctions, not just warnings.

        You might hear about demands to get the ICC Prosecutor to stop making excuses and take action to stop the illegal settlements and persecution on the basis of the Palestinian Article 12(3) Declaration in the comments section here, but you don’t read much about that subject above the jump or in articles at EI or BDSmovement.net. See for example, Disentangling the Knots: A Comment on Ambos’ ‘Palestine, ‘Non-Member Observer’ Status and ICC Jurisdiction’ http://www.ejiltalk.org/disentangling-the-knots-a-comment-on-ambos-palestine-non-member-observer-status-and-icc-jurisdiction/

        I agree with Chomsky that some of the movement’s tactics are ineffective, but disagree that international law is completely silent about the right of return with respect to the various categories of refugees. I’ve mentioned before that commentaries in the early 20th century said that Article 46 of the Hague rules regarding family rights and private property rights would prohibit ethnic cleansing, among other things. Hague rules that required an occupying power to respect exiting laws apply to the Palestinian nationality law that conferred citizenship on children born while their parents were living abroad. So there is an argument to be made about the descendants of refugees on the basis of family rights under an armistice occupation regime.

        The US and many other states are parties to one or more conventions, like the Constitution of the International Refugee Organization (Adopted by resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 15, 1946. US Public Law 146, 80th Cong., 1st sess., S. J. Res. 77) which stipulate that “as regards displaced persons, the main task to be performed is to encourage and assist in every way possible their early return to their country of origin;” and “that genuine refugees and displaced persons should be assisted by international action, either to return to their countries of nationality or former habitual residence, or to find new homes elsewhere, under the conditions provided for in this Constitution; or in the case of Spanish Republicans, to establish themselves temporarily in order to enable them to return to Spain when the present Falangist regime is succeeded by a democratic regime;” http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/decad053.asp

        So the hasbara about the Arab obligation to assimilate unwilling Palestinians instead of establishing them temporarily until the repressive, criminal regime in Israel is replaced by a legitimate one, is merely hasbara that is contrary to actual customary and conventional state practice.

        In any event, Israel is a party to the fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, which is applicable de jure to Palestinian and all Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967. Article 6 requires the repatriation of hundreds of thousands of persons displaced as a result of Israeli actions taken since 1967. Article 85 of the 1st Additional protocol makes undue delay in repatriation a grave breach and a war crime. If Chomsky is scrupulously dealing with the facts, he is miseducating the public on this particular point. The public can’t be expected to know about these things if we only parrot talking points about General Assembly resolution 194. The fact that there is so little public support for the right of return calls for more efforts to educate the public.

      • Shingo
        July 2, 2014, 8:04 pm

        I agree completely with Chomsky’s assessment that the movement is out to lunch when it comes to the 2005 call for members to pressure their governments to adopt sanctions against Israel.

        In which case, it must be pretty embarrassing given that Chomsky doesn’t agree with you. Chomsky’s notion of intentional consensus is stuck in the late 60s when sanctions weren’t even a consideration.

        There’s an old adage that says what Arab leaders say and what they actually do are two different things.

        It sounds like you are channeling Abba Eban. Name one political leader of any country that doesn’t do the same thing every working day.

        You might hear about demands to get the ICC Prosecutor to stop making excuses and take action to stop the illegal settlements and persecution on the basis of the Palestinian Article 12(3) Declaration in the comments section here, but you don’t read much about that subject above the jump or in articles at EI or BDSmovement.net.

        Again Hostage, you seem to be residing in a parallel universe where the BDS movement has some unique recognition at the UN. If the ICC can make excuses about not considering Palestine’s requests on technical grounds over status of statehood, how can they possible listen to the BDS movement? Last time I looked, I could not find a state called BDS on a map.

      • Hostage
        July 3, 2014, 2:43 am

        In which case, it must be pretty embarrassing given that Chomsky doesn’t agree with you. Chomsky’s notion of intentional consensus is stuck in the late 60s when sanctions weren’t even a consideration.

        Please read the article, he points out that government sanctions were adopted as a valuable preliminary step before the South African BDS movement even existed and that US Congress overrode Reagan’s attempts to stop the adoption of sanction in the 80s.

      • Shingo
        July 3, 2014, 6:49 am

        Please read the article, he points out that government sanctions were adopted as a valuable preliminary step before the South African BDS movement even existed

        What government? The South African BDS movement began in 1959. According to Wikipedia, the boycott attracted widespread support from students, trade unions and the Labour, Liberal and Communist parties .

        The first British politicians who joined the movement were a handful in 1960. There are already a few British politicians, like Gerald Kaufmann who have called for BDS.

        The only governments that matter are the US and UK, and they only joined the party at the 20 years later.

        And yes, there were UNGA resolutions calling for boycott in the 60s. in 2008, the UN General Assembly President, Father Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann of Nicaragua, called for an international boycott of Israel after accusing it of being an apartheid regime.
        http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3628618,00.html

        The difference is that the US is playing much dirtier at the UN today than they did in the 1960s so is going to extraordinary lengths to defeat such motions.

      • Hostage
        July 3, 2014, 11:22 am

        What government? The South African BDS movement began in 1959. According to Wikipedia, the boycott attracted widespread support from students, trade unions and the Labour, Liberal and Communist parties .

        Then the South African BDSers were 13 years late in joining the struggle. The government of India applied diplomatic sanctions and filed a formal application for action by the UN with the General Assembly’s 1st (International Security) and 6th (Legal) Committees in 1946 during the very first UN session. It complained about the treatment of Indians in the Union of South Africa. It pointed out that the policy of apartheid violated treaties between the two countries and South Africa’s obligations under the UN Charter to promote equal rights without distinctions based upon race, sex, language, or religion. The General Assembly adopted resolution 44(1) “Treatment of Indians in South Africa” stating that because of the treatment which was not in conformity with treaties between the countries and the UN Charter, relations between the two countries had been impaired, and would be further impaired, unless the situation was corrected. It ordered the two countries to report back during the next sessions on the measures they had adopted to correct the situation. That started the stepwise application of state and UN sanctions against the intransigent and racist South African apartheid regime. http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/Res/44%20%28I%29

      • W.Jones
        July 3, 2014, 1:13 pm

        Shingo,

        Chomsky talked about how sanctions were put on South Africa before the boycott movement started. Hostage gave India as an example from the 1940’s.
        If all one needs to see is that another country has applied sanctions, then one can point out that Arab countries applied sanctions on the Israeli State in the 1940’s-1970’s too.

        Thus, if the preexistence of sanctions is all that is required before one can launch BDS, then hasn’t the criterion been met?

      • Shingo
        July 3, 2014, 10:40 pm

        Thus, if the preexistence of sanctions is all that is required before one can launch BDS, then hasn’t the criterion been met?

        Excellent point WJ. Hard to disagree with that.

      • Hostage
        July 3, 2014, 7:54 pm

        If all one needs to see is that another country has applied sanctions, then one can point out that Arab countries applied sanctions on the Israeli State in the 1940′s-1970′s too.

        Citizens and businesses in the US were never prohibited from supporting Indian and UN sanctions by anything like the US antiboycott laws under the Export Administration Act or the Ribicoff Amendment to the 1976 Tax Reform Act (TRA). I think Chomsky addressed that issue by pointing out that Congress blocked attempts by the Reagan administration to do the same sort of thing to the South African boycott in the 80s.

      • W.Jones
        July 2, 2014, 8:37 pm

        Dear Hostage,

        it was funny when you wrote that you completely agree with Chomsky and then added “the movement should be educating the public about it and calling for sanctions, not just warnings. ”

        It’s funny, because Chomsky says that the movement should not even call itself BDS, but just BD, because sanctions are “unrealistic.” If the movement follows his advice and drops the S, then how will it be following your advice and calling for “unrealistic” sanctions?

        Chomsky’s whole point to the article is that BDS should put aside its “illusions” because they hurt Palestinians, he claims, and one of the illusions is apparently the unrealistic goal for sanctions. Thus you are saying the opposite of Chomsky.

        I’ve mentioned before that commentaries in the early 20th century said that Article 46 of the Hague rules regarding family rights and private property rights would prohibit ethnic cleansing, among other things. Hague rules that required an occupying power to respect exiting laws apply to the Palestinian nationality law that conferred citizenship on children born while their parents were living abroad. So there is an argument to be made about the descendants of refugees on the basis of family rights under an armistice occupation regime.

        Now your gears are rolling. Good job.

      • Hostage
        July 3, 2014, 2:57 am

        It’s funny, because Chomsky says that the movement should not even call itself BDS, but just BD, because sanctions are “unrealistic.”

        No, and you are not even trying to quote what he said in good faith: “Meanwhile, a BDS movement (calling for “boycott, divestment and sanctions”) has been formed, often citing South African models; more accurately, the abbreviation should be “BD,” since sanctions, or state actions, are not on the horizon—one of the many significant differences from South Africa.”

        I agree completely, and that is a shortcoming on the part of the members of the movement. I’ve commented here on many occasions that the 2005 call to action explicitly requested that all of us take action to pressure our governments to adopt sanctions against Israel. That sort of thing is unheard of in these parts. The commenter’s here reject the idea of applying pressure to the US government so strongly that they actually attack Chomsky for suggesting the idea.

      • Shingo
        July 3, 2014, 4:27 am

        I’ve commented here on many occasions that the 2005 call to action explicitly requested that all of us take action to pressure our governments to adopt sanctions against Israel. That sort of thing is unheard of in these parts. The commenter’s here reject the idea of applying pressure to the US government so strongly that they actually attack Chomsky for suggesting the idea.

        That’s a load of bull and you know it Hostage. Again, you’re buying into Chomsky’s fantasy that we should abandon one strategy is favor of a futile one. It’s nut that BDS proponents so not want to pressure their political leaders, it’s that they realize it is a waste of energy. Politicians listen to lobbyists, not constituents. They even ignore the DOD when they tell congress they don’t need or want outdated weaponry like the Hercules plane and cognitive to order them anyway.

        Chomsky apparently wants BDS proponents up tire themselves pushing Sh#t up hill rather than pursue avenues where they can achieve something. He also ignores his own earlier statements that boycott only became effective against Apartheid South Africa once it gained international momentum. He admits it took many years. Yet he’s quick to declare BDS a failure for nut achieving all it’s goals overnight.

      • just
        July 3, 2014, 6:52 am

        “all of us take action to pressure our governments to adopt sanctions against Israel. That sort of thing is unheard of in these parts. The commenter’s here reject the idea of applying pressure to the US government so strongly that they actually attack Chomsky for suggesting the idea.”

        Bingo.

        It’s not Chomsky that is maintaining the status quo, it is the US government!
        I have a lot of respect for Professor Chomsky…he’s been caring, speaking, writing and working for justice for a long, long time. I certainly don’t think he deserves some of the vitriol he gets here, there, and everywhere.

        Is he in charge of US policy? No, he is not. And obviously he’s not being listened to in the halls of power/justice, or we would have changed our ways long ago. His grasp of ideas and facts is vast, but alas he’s pretty deep and thoughtful.

        He’s worth paying attention to wrt issues re: US foreign policy, justice, activism, dissent, and so much more. You don’t have to agree 100% of course.

        Perhaps he finds this thread ‘interesting’…

      • Shingo
        July 3, 2014, 6:58 am

        And obviously he’s not being listened to in the halls of power/justice, or we would have changed our ways long ago.

        Nor are they listening to the public today. Polls show that the US public is increasingly on the fence with respect to Israel and it’s belligerence, but even if there was a large public uprising, Congress still wouldn’t change because they know where the campaign donations are coming from.

        Kerry himself has warned Israel that they may face sanctions if the peace process fails. Clearly Kerry and other in Washington are aware of the movement and it’s wide appeal and believe it will grow – what’s more, Kerry believes the US will not be able to stop it.

      • W.Jones
        July 3, 2014, 9:32 am

        I’ve commented here on many occasions that the 2005 call to action explicitly requested that all of us take action to pressure our governments to adopt sanctions against Israel. That sort of thing is unheard of in these parts. The commenter’s here reject the idea of applying pressure to the US government so strongly that they actually attack Chomsky for suggesting the idea.

        When the 2005 call says to pressure their government, what kind of pressure did the authors mean? Are they asking us to lobby our government or are they asking us to boycott it?
        The commenters here don’t reject lobbying the government for sanctions.
        But some of them criticize Chomsky for unrealistically demanding in his “glass house” mis-analogy that we boycott the US government before we are allowed to boycott the Israeli State.

      • W.Jones
        July 3, 2014, 9:42 am

        Hostage,

        As for your claim ” you are not even trying to quote what he said in good faith”, just compare:
        Chomsky: ((the abbreviation should be “BD,” since sanctions, or state actions, are not on the horizon))
        Me: ((Chomsky says that the movement should not even call itself BDS, but just BD, because sanctions are “unrealistic.”))

      • Hostage
        July 3, 2014, 10:34 am

        When the 2005 call says to pressure their government, what kind of pressure did the authors mean? Are they asking us to lobby our government or are they asking us to boycott it?

        They are asking everyone to apply “pressure” in any way possible to obtain sanctions against Israel, the occupation, and the settlements. That can include simply speaking out about the fact that US and Israeli officials routinely violate the ICCPR prohibition of propaganda for war and inciting national, racial or religious hatred. They publicly defend extra-judicial killings that amount to murder and do so in taxpayer subsidized forums where use of appropriations for propaganda is prohibited. There’s no need to present both sides in a public debate on campus when one side is advocating violations of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. Violations of Common Article 3, including Murder, are defined as War Crimes under the 1996 US War Crimes Act and the Rome Statute.

        During the Vietnam war and the Civil rights movement it was not uncommon for people to hold sit-ins, demonstrations, and get arrested for civil disobedience while pointing out those kinds of facts. But Chomsky asks others why wouldn’t they boycott the United States too or take actions similar to the ones against Israel? Medea Benjamin interrupted an Obama speech on drones. Months before the US government killed Anwar al-Aulaqi in a drone attack, I commented on the illegality of his case here at Mondoweiss and noted that:

        the government can kill you if it suspects you of being suspicious. No one is accountable for explaining how or when your name got added to the kill list. That might reveal sensitive (and faulty) classified intelligence sources and methods like the highly publicized errors found in the TSA no-fly list.

        link to mondoweiss.net

        Why aren’t other countries boycotting the US and its culture of militarism? They sure as hell rewarded Obama with a Nobel prize when they mistakenly thought he opposed it. Why wouldn’t you divest from US arms companies that make Apaches, F-16s, Hellfire missiles, M-16s, M-4s, & etc. and call for sanctions against the US and other countries that supply arms to Israel in violation of UN “Uniting for Peace” resolutions?

      • Shingo
        July 3, 2014, 11:55 pm

        Why aren’t other countries boycotting the US and its culture of militarism?

        The answer is so obvious one can only assume you are being argumentative for the sake of it. You cannot seriously believe that anyone on this forum, BDS, or Palestinian activists have investments in Lockheed Martin.

        As for the rest of the world:

        1. The US controls the international unit of trade, the dollar.

        2. It holds vast sums of foreign investment, both commercial and through sale of government bonds.

        3. The US also controls the international system of exchange, SWIFT, which is why it can unilaterally impose crippling sanctions on other states .

        4. The US not only has a veto at the UNSC, but it controls the ICC and other UN bodies die to the fact it is the largest contributor

        5. The US is the world’s largest arms manufacturer and commercial planes exporter. It’s monopoly on these markets makes it existing clients entirely dependent on the US to provide spare parts and maintenance.

        In short, the US has the world in a choke hold, so span crooning the US is akin to sanctioning oxygen.

        This beings us back my earlier point. The reason Chomsky insists on sanctioning the US before sanctioning Israel us because he knows it is impossible. Thus, he presents a false choice under the ruse that he is taking a principled position.

        In that regard, he’s just another Zionist stonewaller.

      • W.Jones
        July 3, 2014, 10:50 am

        ((that is a shortcoming on the part of the members of the movement. I’ve commented here on many occasions that the 2005 call to action explicitly requested that all of us take action to pressure our governments to adopt sanctions against Israel. That sort of thing is unheard of in these parts. The commenter’s here reject the idea of applying pressure ~Hostage))

        They are asking everyone to apply “pressure” in any way possible to obtain sanctions against Israel, the occupation, and the settlements. That can include simply speaking out about the fact that US and Israeli officials routinely violate the ICCPR prohibition of propaganda for war and inciting national, racial or religious hatred. ~Hostage

        OK. Well in that case, the commenters here have not rejected putting pressure on the US government to obtain sanctions. Probably at this point more energy may be put into the B part of BDS than the S part because it is more achievable.

        If your goal is to do a triathalon, and the last leg is the hardest, it is normal to do the first part first. After a big enough boyccott movement is achieved, perhaps sanctions will be easier, since Civil society seems easier to move on this issue than government officials. So the movement is not really making a blunder. In fact, reducing aid would probably come before sanctions, and there are calls from people who belong to the BDS movement to reduce aid.

        The BDS movement is a small one by a conquered people and some Solidarity activists. It’s not really “pure antisemitism”, etc, but motivated by humanitarian concerns. If you want to encourage such a small movement, it would be much better to write encouragingly.

      • Hostage
        July 3, 2014, 11:32 am

        Nor are they listening to the public today. Polls show that the US public is increasingly on the fence with respect to Israel and it’s belligerence, but even if there was a large public uprising, Congress still wouldn’t change because they know where the campaign donations are coming from.

        You said the same thing here when I pointed out that my Congress critter was listening to the public and rejecting Obama’s and AIPACs call for strikes against Syria. I replied to you then that AIPAC can’t get you re-elected if you piss-off your own power base.
        http://mondoweiss.net/2013/09/dubious-intelligence-and-iran-blackmail-how-israel-is-driving-the-us-to-war-in-syria.html#comment-589837

        Ask Eric Cantor what good it did him to know where his donations were coming from?

      • Shingo
        July 3, 2014, 11:53 pm

        You said the same thing here when I pointed out that my Congress critter was listening to the public and rejecting Obama’s and AIPACs call for strikes against Syria.

        It was not AIPACs idea to strike Syria , it was Obama’s. He turned to AIPAC to help him ratchet up support for it.

        Furthermore, it wasn’t the public that forced Obama to back down , it was head of the Joint Chief’s of Staff, who knew the intelligence on the CW attacks was bogus. That and the fact senior members of the CIA were threatening to resign over the administration’s efforts to politicize the intel.

        Ask Eric Cantor what good it did him to know where his donations were coming from

        While that is true, one example hardly proves the point. The very fact that Cantor’s loss came as such a shock to his party and the lobby suggests his fete was the exception rather than the rule.

      • Hostage
        July 3, 2014, 4:27 pm

        The commenters here don’t reject lobbying the government for sanctions.

        Well I know that the members of JVP and the Campaign to End The Occupation have mission statements, petitions, and advertisements calling for an end to US foreign aid and arms sales to Israel. Some of the credit for that goes to Chomsky, who has been calling for that as both an activist and advisor longer than some of the commenters here, “who don’t reject” the idea, have alive.

      • W.Jones
        July 3, 2014, 5:14 pm

        Dear Hostage,
        You write:

        ((“sanctions… [are] unheard of in these parts. The commenter’s here reject the idea of applying pressure to the US government so strongly that they actually attack Chomsky for suggesting the idea.”))
        ((The commenters here don’t reject lobbying the government for sanctions. ~W.Jones))
        Well I know that the members of JVP and the Campaign to End The Occupation have mission statements, petitions, and advertisements calling for an end to US foreign aid and arms sales to Israel. Some of the credit for that goes to Chomsky, who has been calling for that as both an activist and advisor longer than some of the commenters here, “who don’t reject” the idea, have alive. ~Hostage

        Just to clarify, the pro-human rights commentors here generally don’t reject the idea of asking politicians for sanctions, but Chomsky did in his interview with Safundi:

        One of the important tactics against the apartheid government was the eventual use of sanctions. Do you see that as a possibility?

        Chomsky: No. In fact I’ve been strongly against it in the case of Israel. …calling for sanctions here, when the majority of the population doesn’t understand what you are doing, is tactically absurd-even if it were morally correct, which I don’t think it is.

        Chomsky’s current article, demanding we “avoid illusion and myth” and drop the “S” from BDS to make it just “BD” “since sanctions are not on the horizon” is a continuation of his longstanding rejection of sanctions.

      • Hostage
        July 3, 2014, 5:49 pm

        Hostage, As for your claim ” you are not even trying to quote what he said in good faith”, just compare:
        Chomsky: ((the abbreviation should be “BD,” since sanctions, or state actions, are not on the horizon))

        The fact is that organizations, like JVP and the Campaign to End the Occupation, can raise money to send representatives to TIAA-CREF shareholder meetings; Methodist and Presbyterian conventions; Occupy AIPAC, & etc. Nobody is inviting us to testify before Congressional hearings on foreign assistance, the arms trade treaty, & etc. If you’ve seen the reception that Medea Benjamin has received on Capitol Hill, I’d go out on a limb and guess that an arms embargo against Israel isn’t in the cards right at the moment. That doesn’t mean that I oppose sanctions, as you suggest in the case of Chomsky, just that there is no realistic prospect or effective grassroots action to produce such an outcome.

      • W.Jones
        July 4, 2014, 12:00 am

        The reason Chomsky insists on sanctioning the US before sanctioning Israel us because he knows it is impossible.

        In that regard, he’s just another Zionist stonewaller. ~Shingo.

        You and Hostage are bringing us dialectically to the sad truth, Shingo.
        Zionist? ✓
        Stonewaller? ✓

      • Hostage
        July 4, 2014, 12:49 am

        Just to clarify, the pro-human rights commentors here generally don’t reject the idea of asking politicians for sanctions, but Chomsky did in his interview with Safundi:

        Just to clarify, there is no doubt that Chomsky supported BDS to end the occupation in 2004.

        Palestinian citizens of Israel object to the idea of being included in a Palestinian state. In 2004, when Chomsky gave the interview they were not calling for a boycott of Israel proper, only BDS aimed at ending the occupation. Chomsky did not say that permission was needed from the Israeli perpetrators as you and other have falsely alleged. He said that BDS harms the victims along with everyone else in the targeted country and that it should not be imposed, unless the victims are on board and calling for it, like the earlier example in South Africa. He talked about the need to educate them on the subject. In any event, we’ve crossed that threshold a long time ago. There are Israeli groups, academics, and individuals who have called for BDS until Israel complies with international law regarding equal rights for Israelis.

      • W.Jones
        July 4, 2014, 1:26 am

        In 2004, when Chomsky gave the interview they were not calling for a boycott of Israel proper, only BDS aimed at ending the occupation.

        In 2010 he told Allison Weir about boycotting the Israeli State proper:
        “Boycotts? Yeah I still oppose boycotts”.
        (28:30)
        youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=t_LygPVxY8A

        Chomsky did not say that permission was needed from the Israeli perpetrators as you and other have falsely alleged. He said that BDS harms the victims along with everyone else in the targeted country and that it should not be imposed, unless the victims are on board and calling for it

        He did not specify the victims, but rather “the majority” of the Israeli population, who are not the victim Palestinians.

      • Hostage
        July 2, 2014, 8:22 pm

        How does he expect ordinary people to hear how bad Israel’s behavior is without a movement like BDS?

        He actually spells that out by explaining all of the preparatory steps and government sanctions that foreshadowed the South African BDS movement and the lack of allies, like Cuba, and parallels in the steps taken by the Palestinian movement so far. I though it was a good article, although I don’t agree with some of his legal conclusions.

      • unverified__5ilf90kd
        July 3, 2014, 3:12 am

        “Chomsky and Finkelstein have betrayed the Palestinian people with their petty bullshit.”

        Exactly – total BS – not BD – Chomsky is only trying to slow up the process in order to expand greater Israel. Chomsky is hoping to dilute the impact of BDS by calling it BD instead. This is a simple marketing canard designed to dilute and confuse, that Israel uses often to dismiss the Palestinian struggle. He lists (1) the fight against occupation (2) the fight for Palestinian equality and (3) the right of return as the goals of BDS – let’s not call it BD. He is splitting hairs on the obvious agenda we all understand. His obfuscation is a typical Zionist tactic designed to confuse the unbeliever with false intellectual rigor. Even his remarks about the right of return are irrelevant. This area is upper level stuff, even for people who support Palestine. Most people know the refugees want to return but returning to the West Bank will be just as good as returning to Israel so it is a moot point as far as I am concerned. If I was a Palestinian refugee I would prefer to be in the new Palestine rather than in racist Israel.

      • Hostage
        July 3, 2014, 12:13 pm

        “Chomsky and Finkelstein have betrayed the Palestinian people with their petty bullshit.”

        Exactly – total BS – not BD – Chomsky is only trying to slow up the process in order to expand greater Israel.

        You obviously didn’t read the article, because he said exactly the opposite. He explained that he supports the no state solution; that the status quo of territorial erosion through expanding settlement is much more likely than either the 1ss or 2ss; and that ineffective BD tactics won’t change that situation.

      • DaBakr
        July 3, 2014, 1:09 pm

        @uv *&
        “moot point” to whom? or are you saying that international treaties should be based on what everybody “knows” wink wink, not what the language of the treaty spells out? I would submit that it only ‘moot’ because the Plaestinians have no intention of giving up the right to continue to pursue land and sovereignty within Israel pre-Oslo, pre’67 or pre-’48 and BDS tactics or language wont change this. Only an explicit and enforceable treaty can solve this issue.

      • Shingo
        July 4, 2014, 12:56 am

        or are you saying that international treaties should be based on what everybody “knows” wink wink, not what the language of the treaty spells out?

        You should be posing that question. to Israelis, their leaders and apologists who’s spilled endless ink trying to feed the world endless deal about the true meaning of San Remo, League on Nations Mandate and UN resolutions.

        Plaestinians have no intention of giving up the right to continue to pursue land and sovereignty within Israel pre-Oslo, pre’67 or pre-’48 and BDS tactics or language wont change this.

        And you base this on what evidence? Something you real on the door of a public Latrobe in Jerusalem?

        Only an explicit and enforceable treaty can solve this issue.

        Israel will only ever sign an explicit and enforceable treaty if it is authored exclusively by them and their lawyers in Washington, and leaves then enough wiggle room to completely violate the treaty while trying up the Palestinians so tightly they can’t even go to the bathroom without Israel’s agreement.

  2. Woody Tanaka
    July 2, 2014, 10:40 am

    Typical PEP.

    • Krauss
      July 2, 2014, 2:02 pm

      Yes.

      Both Chomsky and Finkelstein are crypto-Zionists who can’t defend Zionism to the left, so they keep trying to make the whole “it isn’t possible” argument.

      Chomsky’s statement that the left shouldn’t be too critical of Israel because the U.S. is worse(which it isn’t, actually, because Israel within the green line today is the same as Jim Crow South in the 1940s) is exactly the kind of typical Zionist claptrap we hear all the time:

      “Oh why do you pick on Israel? What about Syria or Iran?”

      Chomsky’s version is to change Syria/Iran to America, but the basic motivation is the same.

      Honestly Chomsky has fallen so much in my eyes because of his persistent attempts to attack BDS in his transparent quest to protect Israel. It’s his latent Zionism he has never been able to cast off. Finkelstein’s better but not by much.

      Judging by the comments, so are a lot of other people. Now the question is: when will people start to ignore Chomsky/Finkelstein on I/P just like we do Beinart(who accepts a state where Palestinians don’t have full and equal rights) or even a bigot and an extremist like Dershowitz?

      • W.Jones
        July 2, 2014, 3:45 pm

        Chomsky’s statement that the left shouldn’t be too critical of Israel because the U.S. is worse… is exactly the kind of typical Zionist claptrap we hear all the time

        Yes.
        It is one of the four pillars of Hasbara. If you debate nationalists enough, you recognize their arguments.

        Honestly Chomsky has fallen so much in my eyes because of his persistent attempts to attack BDS in his transparent quest to protect Israel.

        Right. There was no compulsion for Chomsky to write this article attacking the main attempt at pushback by a brutally conquered people whom Chomsky says are heading in the direction of being eliminated (the removal of their “burden”, as he says it.). MIT did not tell him to write this article, claiming that we should not even call it a “movement for BDS” because S – sanctions are not on the table.

        You added: Finkelstein are crypto-Zionists who can’t defend Zionism to the left
        I have trouble understanding Finkelstein. What did he say in his doctoral thesis on Zionism? Didn’t he criticize it? It is hard for me to understand where he is coming from on his needless attacks on BDS. It is hard for me to think that he, someone who grew up in the 1960’s-70’s is a nationalist.

        The only thing I can think about is that he has said that Chomsky has been his career mentor since his Maoism ended. Chomsky is an intellectually valuable person for our generation to have along, because it reveals to us what the left Zionists of the 1950’s would have been like if they saw today’s product. He has changed over the decades, but not totally.

      • Citizen
        July 2, 2014, 6:20 pm

        Yeah, I see this the same way.

      • Pat Nguyen
        July 2, 2014, 10:58 pm

        Krause says “… because Israel within the green line today is the same as Jim Crow South in the 1940s)”
        That is patently not true. So i stopped rewarding at this point

      • Shingo
        July 3, 2014, 1:54 am

        That is patently not true. So i stopped rewarding at this point

        Yes it is true, and no one gives a crap about what you want to reward.

    • W.Jones
      July 2, 2014, 2:33 pm

      Woody,

      His “It’s 100 times worse anyplace else, so it’s hypocritical and pure antisemitism to do BDS against the Israeli State” (from his Frank Barat interview) is practically one of the four pillars of Hasbara.
      http://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com/2013/07/four-step-hasbara-fifth-anniversary.html

      Normally, one might expect a leftwing activist professor to be quiet or grudgingly put down radical activism because he does not want to be painted negatively by the establishment. But this article obviously comes from his own motivation. No one “made” him write an article attacking BDS.

      His point is that Sanctions and the right of return are not realistic now, so one should not advocate for them. But that is not the spirit behind MLK Jr asking for an end to segregation. Saying that Sanctions are not realistic against an abuser or ending Apartheid is not realistic in South Africa and then concluding that an activist movement should not concern itself with them is not the inspiration of a progressive soul.

    • Hostage
      July 2, 2014, 8:12 pm

      Typical PEP.

      Chomsky doesn’t say that he objects to the aims of the movement, only that some of its tactics are ineffective and will not, and have not accomplished their stated aims. The responses from some BDSers are perfunctory ad hominems. Chomsky is progressive on Palestine and makes a lot of useful points. I think that he and Finklestien are incorrect about support in international law for aims “2” and “3” (the BDS movement demand that Israel fully comply with international law by doing “1”, “2”, and “3”. They are correct that international support is weak, but that is not because the law is silent on the subject. It’s because the public hasn’t been educated about the law by the movement. At one and the same time the public has been bombarded with racist agit-prop against the refugees.

      • Shingo
        July 2, 2014, 8:25 pm

        Chomsky doesn’t say that he objects to the aims of the movement, only that some of its tactics are ineffective and will not, and have not accomplished their stated aims.

        Which is rich coming from someone who’s failed to achieve squat in decades of so called activism, while BDS has only been around less than a decade.

        Chomsky is progressive on Palestine and makes a lot of useful points.

        That’s the problem Hostage. Because of his credentials, he is able to poison the well in that regard.

        It’s because the public hasn’t been educated about the law by the movement.

        Again, you are parroting them. As Donald has pointed out:

        The fact that he now writes somewhat confused pieces advocating public education while criticizing the only movement that is doing public education on this issue is sad, but the solution is obvious–point out the contradiction and ignore his advice.

      • W.Jones
        July 2, 2014, 8:47 pm

        Chomsky is progressive on Palestine.
        Chomsky is outspoken in terms of admitting abuses, but he is is a liberal or anarchist nationalist for the dominant nationalist group when it comes to Palestine. If you say that Jim Crow is bad, but you are against doing anything about it because it’s worse somewhere else, that is not a very “progressive” opinion. That’s Chomsky’s “glass house” analogy to BDS.

        At one and the same time the public has been bombarded with racist agit-prop against the refugees.
        Perhaps Chomsky, while sympathizing to some extent with the refugees, is not immune from being affected by this agit prop either, having done guard duty against returnees. I could see him chewing and chomping disturbed in the Frank Barat interview when he was told about the refugees.

        I am happily surprised though that you disagree with Chomsky on the international law issue.

  3. Chu
    July 2, 2014, 10:48 am

    Chomsky does his best to protect Israel and Zionism. Lays blame at the US government for the mess, but fails to mention the Israel Lobby (at all) as part of the systemic problem.

    He should have full disclosure (end of article) that he worked on a kibbutz in Israel in the 1960’s.

    • Giles
      July 2, 2014, 11:07 am

      Exactly.

      When all is said and done Chomsky is first and foremost a self admitted Zionist. Selling the idea that the US government always supports Israel due, not to internal politics and the Lobby, but for American interests.

      He is as full of it as the Netanyahus and Liebermans of the world

    • jon s
      July 2, 2014, 4:10 pm

      Chomsky spent some time on a kibbutz belonging to the Hashomer Hatzair movement in the early 1950s, not the 60s.
      Hashomer Hatzair was a movement that, prior to 1948, subscribed to the “bi-national state ” idea.

    • Hostage
      July 2, 2014, 8:15 pm

      Chomsky does his best to protect Israel and Zionism.

      You’re reading a different article than the one I read. Nothing he said in this one protects Israel from anything.

      • W.Jones
        July 2, 2014, 8:25 pm

        Hello Hostage.
        It’s nice to see you on the thread.

        By saying that BDS is throwing stones while living in a glass house, Chomsky is of course protecting the “target” of BDS’ “stones”. Were we to follow his analogy, we could only use BDS if we also used it on Harvard.

        Danaa does a surprisingly insightful job showing the problem with Chomsky’s “glass house” analogy, as she points out the disparities on Tel.Av. University’s campus that are not at Harvard.

        Also, by saying that activists should not ask for sanctions because they are “unrealistic”, he effectively dampens the calls for them, even though demanding them now may add momentum that could make them more likely down the road.

      • Shingo
        July 2, 2014, 8:26 pm

        Nothing he said in this one protects Israel from anything.

        You missed the part about a statement he made calling BDS anti semitic.

      • Talkback
        July 3, 2014, 9:13 am

        You missed the part about a statement he made calling BDS anti semitic.

        I didn’t know he was that stupid.

      • W.Jones
        July 3, 2014, 9:20 am

        Talkback. It’s in the Frank Barat interview, where he says that it’s “pure antisemitism” because it’s “100 times worse” “any other place you talk about”:

        youtube.com/watch?v=H5hY-gffV0M

      • Hostage
        July 3, 2014, 12:08 pm

        You missed the part about a statement he made calling BDS anti semitic.

        I didn’t know he was that stupid.

        The idea that he said the whole BDS movement is anti-semitic is just an urban legend. He noted that he was involved in BDS against Israel before there was even a movement. He said some tactics are a gift to hardliners. i.e. the notion that the descendants of the refugees are going to return to Israel and drive out the illegal Jewish colonists is a common meme. He explained that those words could be, and actually were labeled anti-semitic, with some justification, by his adversaries at Harvard and MIT and derailed any intelligent discussion of the issues there for several months on one occasion.

      • Shingo
        July 3, 2014, 11:21 pm

        He said some tactics are a gift to hardliners. i.e. the notion that the descendants of the refugees are going to return to Israel and drive out the illegal Jewish colonists is a common meme

        Which goes to show what a hypocrite he is and how willingly he indulges in double standards. As us is often the case, we constantly hear far more inflammatory rhetoric from Israelis – including their leadership – and none if that rates a mention. The attitude being that Zionists will be Zionists and we have to accept it.

        But when it comes to Palestinians and their supporters, it’s an entirely different matter. Every word uttered from anyone in their camp is parsed and scrutinized piece by piece. It’s them that gave to prove to Chomsky and the other gatekeepers that they are worthy of human rights and self determination. And should they ever fall off the wagon, even after episodes like Cast Lead, it shows they are out if step with the “international consensus” and anti Semitic.

      • W.Jones
        July 3, 2014, 12:42 pm

        The idea that he said the whole BDS movement is anti-semitic is just an urban legend. He noted that he was involved in BDS against Israel before there was even a movement. He said some tactics are a gift to hardliners. i.e. the notion that the descendants of the refugees are going to return to Israel and drive out the illegal Jewish colonists is a common meme. He explained that those words [in the BDS petition] could be, and actually were labeled anti-semitic, with some justification

        First, I think that you just showed that he called the BDS petition anti-semitic.

        Second of all, the BDS demand for refugees’ return is not “anti-semitic”, because it is not about racism, but about refugees’ rights. And if borders are redrawn, it could occur without removing the Israeli State.

        Third of all, Chomsky was actually not calling the right of return in particular antisemitic., but BDS against the Israeli State. The quote was: “Those words [“divestment… from Israel”] were attacked as pure antisemitism. And that was with justice. It’s a hundred times worse in the US or any other place you talk about.”
        In fact, saying “it is a hundred times worse” elsewhere and calling BDS antisemitic are frequent talking points made by PEPs.

      • Shingo
        July 3, 2014, 11:24 pm

        In fact, saying “it is a hundred times worse” elsewhere and calling BDS antisemitic are frequent talking points made by PEPs.

        Never mind PEPs – it’s a frequent talking point made by Likudniks.

      • Hostage
        July 3, 2014, 5:19 pm

        First, I think that you just showed that he called the BDS petition anti-semitic.

        Second of all, the BDS demand for refugees’ return is not “anti-semitic”, because it is not about racism, but about refugees’ rights. And if borders are redrawn, it could occur without removing the Israeli State.

        No, you act as if you’ve never heard anyone comment about giving the western or European Jewish colonists their comeuppance once the Palestinians become the majority and the refugees return. Opponents, like Dr. Alan Baker, point to the Palestinian civil society organization at the top of the list of Unions, Associations, and Campaigns that endorsed the 2005 BDS Call to Action:

        The list of endorsing organizations includes illegal associations, terror organizations, and their affiliates, such as the Council of National and Islamic Forces in Palestine, which is a coordination forum for all Palestinian terror organizations in their ongoing fight against Israel. This forum includes Hamas, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the Palestinian Liberation Front (acknowledged as a terrorist organization by the U.S., EU, and Canada) and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (acknowledged as a terrorist organization by the U.S., EU, UK, Japan, Australia, and Canada).

        http://ambassadoralanbaker.com/manipulation-and-deception-the-anti-israel-bds-campaign-boycott-divestment-and-sanctions/

        It may come as a great surprise to you, but some of those groups call for the destruction of Israel in words that can, and have been, labeled as anti-semitic, with some justification.

        So Chomsky listened patiently to the so-called BDS petition and pointed out that fact – and nonetheless stated “Yes, all of those are the right thing to do.” He noted that it wasn’t a very effective tactic to discuss the right of return in that context, because serious BDS discussions at Harvard and MIT had been sidetracked by some, not Chomsky, who claimed it was anti-semitic.

        Whether Hamas or Likud are racists is not my top concern. If your aim is to guarantee equal fundamental rights for everyone in a single state, then you need to understand they apply to the little rock throwing kids on either side of the conflict, whether they grow-up to be Likudniks or members of Hamas. Their “human rights are universal and inalienable; indivisible; interdependent and interrelated.” Once you are born in a country, you become a legal fact on the ground. You have a right to be there, and to leave and return to your country of origin, even if your ancestors were colonists.

        Read in that light, comments about discarding the international consensus 2ss can, and have been, decried as anti-semtic because they supposedly deny Jews the right to self-determination and Israel’s right to exist. Mankind will never get back all of the time wasted answering that canard in courtrooms, on campuses, or Internet forums. The only logical way to end the mental masturbation is to either impose GA 181 and 194 and SC 242, 338, 1515, and 1860 or demand that the UN repeal the 2ss.

      • W.Jones
        July 3, 2014, 5:58 pm

        Dear Hostage,

        Apparently my statement that including the Right of Return in the BDS petition was not antisemitic set off a serious countereaction from you:

        Once you are born in a country, you become a legal fact on the ground. You have a right to be there, and to leave and return to your country of origin, even if your ancestors were colonists.

        Read in that light, comments about discarding the international consensus 2ss can, and have been, decried as anti-semtic because they supposedly deny Jews the right to self-determination and Israel’s right to exist.

        First of all, I never said anything about denying Israelis’ or Likudniks’ right to be in the Israeli state, nor does the BDS petition. What drives you to go into all this about land rights in the Levant, Hostage, when it is not something I rejected? I don’t see BDS as denying Israelis’ presence in the Levant, do you?

        Second, I repeatedly said that the right of return could be arranged logistically in keeping with the 2SS if borders were redrawn based on where people were living. Look at all the millions people who are stuffed into tiny impoverished Gaza while the settlements around it lay like sparse rural suburbs. Are you claiming that it is so unsustainable for them to return to their orchards that they must be stuck into such a tiny space?

        Third, isn’t the right to self-determination subject to other laws and rights, especially because Chomsky denies that states do not have a “right to exist”? In 1948, could the Israelis say that they have the right to self-determination so that trumps Palestinians’ right to their homes and so they can be expelled? Can the Roma people return to India and declare an independent country?

        Fourth, just because an umbrella organization that includes a few bad groups signs a petition does not mean that the petition itself is good or bad. If the petition asked for water to help thirsty Palestinians, should we oppose it because it is trying to make Israeli cities dry out? A petition supporting Palestinians’ right to return is not something bad, since as you pointed out, it is something in international law. It would be those extremist groups’ illegal action, separate from the good petition, that would be objectionable, not the petition for people’s rights itself.

        Fifth, To clarify: While you see the BDS petition, apparently, as anti-semitic for including the right of return, Chomsky on the other hand sees it as “pure antisemitism” for a different, incorrect reason in the interview: because it’s allegedly “a hundred times worse anyplace else”. I did not see Chomsky saying that it was the right of return was anti-semitic. Chomsky even went as far as to say elsewhere that states do not have a “right to exist.”

  4. Kay24
    July 2, 2014, 10:51 am

    Chomsky is disappointing. Obviously he can criticize when he decides it is appropriate, but does not want the world to do anything about it.
    I have admired his thinking and speaking, but this is totally unlike him.

    • bilal a
      July 2, 2014, 11:10 am

      there is a strong evolutionary psychology argument that Progressive except Palestine is in fact part of a group strategy of destroying a host culture’s resistance to group incursions, completely logical and highly effective tactic of a hostile elite , even if they do not recognize it.(self deception). Chomsky may offer the seinfeld peace plan -chicken and romantic liberation of Palestinian women.

      • tokyobk
        July 3, 2014, 12:26 am

        Wow. Points. Pretty sneaky.

        So Chomsky, Seinfeld and -Larry David (the person actuality in your clip) are not individuals but members and representatives of the, ahem, “hostile elite,” eternal and essential, no doubt feeding on the pure and innocent host.

  5. joecommon
    July 2, 2014, 11:06 am

    The palestine israeli dilemna is a world concern. The lack of action on behalf of the palestinians by other countries is an indication of racial biases world wide. Egyptian democracy failed because of israeli american interference and support for racism. This is not about religion.

  6. Tzombo
    July 2, 2014, 11:06 am

    I have often thought Chomsky is vastly overrated. I’m disappointed but not even that surprised.

  7. Phan Nguyen
    July 2, 2014, 11:09 am

    Chomsky does not outright oppose BDS as a tactic. Note the carefully (but nevertheless ambiguously) worded conclusion:

    [T]hose who are sincerely dedicated to the Palestinian cause should avoid illusion and myth, and think carefully about the tactics they choose and the course they follow [my emphases].

    Chomsky has long occupied a vague space in relation to the BDS movement, with one foot in the door. He has continued to offer support for divestment from US-based companies that prop up the occupation, and though he does offer a roughly different set of goals to work for, he doesn’t offer tactical alternatives.

    Chomsky should be faulted for attacking the specifics of BDS—primarily for their specificity—and then subtituting them with uncertain conclusions and the vaguest of prescriptions (“Think carefully”).

    In many ways it is typical of an academic who is distanced from activism—a charge he himself has often confessed to.

    His analysis of South Africa is also simplistic and misleading, though that’s tangential here.

    • Shingo
      July 2, 2014, 8:16 pm

      Chomsky does not outright oppose BDS as a tactic. Note the carefully (but nevertheless ambiguously) worded conclusion:

      Yes, that’s something I have come to realize about Chomsky. He muddies the waters so much with vague statements that he merely confuses the issue. I can’t help but wonder if he and Fink are deliberately trying to derail the BDS movement from the inside.

      After all, it’s statements from Fink and Chomsky that have become pure gold for the anti BDS crowd as you can see from sjarjour’s comment.

      • Hostage
        July 2, 2014, 8:32 pm

        Yes, that’s something I have come to realize about Chomsky. He muddies the waters so much with vague statements that he merely confuses the issue.

        It doesn’t help that Phil summarizes what Chomsky actually said about ineffective tactics and adds the embellishment that Chomsky opposes some aims of the BDS movement.

      • W.Jones
        July 2, 2014, 8:49 pm

        The third aim is the right of return. It sounds like Chomsky is saying that it is unrealistic and should be dropped as a demand. That does not sound very supportive of it as an aim of BDS.

  8. mikeo
    July 2, 2014, 11:11 am

    Chomsky is full of s**t…

    “sanctions, or state actions, are not on the horizon”

    Former EU leaders urge sanctions for Israel settlements

    “U.S. discrimination is worse than Israeli discrimination”

    I have absolutely no idea what he means by this , but it is unsurprising to find that Chomsky does not attempt to support the claim with a concrete example.

    “there is virtually no meaningful support for (3) beyond the BDS movement itself”

    The same line of argumentation could be taken on any number of actions Chomsky has himself been a proponent of…

    It didn’t stop him making unpopular arguments.

    With both Chomsky and Finkelstein their reaction against BDS is so contrary to their past records as dissenters and iconoclasts (as opposed to consensus followers) that I struggle to find any explanation except the ethnic solidarity component…

    • Donald
      July 2, 2014, 12:48 pm

      Chomsky mentioned the EU action

      “One way to punish Israel for its egregious crimes was initiated by the Israeli peace group Gush Shalom in 1997: a boycott of settlement products. Such initiatives have been considerably expanded since then. In June, the Presbyterian Church resolved to divest from three US-based multinationals involved in the occupation. The most far-reaching success is the policy directive of the European Union that forbids funding, cooperation, research awards or any similar relationship with any Israeli entity that has “direct or indirect links” to the occupied territories, where all settlements are illegal, as the EU declaration reiterates. Britain had already directed retailers to “distinguish between goods originating from Palestinian producers and goods originating from illegal Israeli settlements.”

      I don’t think he’s very clear, but as best I can tell, he’s making a distinction between actions aimed at the occupation itself, and more general sanctions aimed at Israel.

      As for his motives, I take him at face value. He says the occupation is worse than apartheid–I would love to see this sort of piece appearing in the mainstream. The Nation is close enough–precisely because he is critical of BDS he might reach people who read the Nation, but don’t live, eat, and breathe the I/P conflict.

      I think he’s wrong in his criticism–let a hundred flowers bloom should be the attitude here. Some people want to boycott Israel, others only companies that profit from the occupation. Some of the latter (like the Presbyterians) separate themselves from the former and they are still called anti-semites. In my opinion that’s helpful–it demonstrates to anyone paying attention that many self-proclaimed liberal Zionists who claim to oppose the occupation are not sincere about this. We could of course bash the Presbyterians, who distanced themselves from BDS, or we could recognize that what they did probably moved things forward in an American context.

      As for the US being worse than Israel, he’s talking about Israel’s treatment of its Palestinian citizens vs the US record. (He’s not talking about the occupation, which he says is worse than apartheid). I’m not sure what he means either. If he’s talking about the past, he’s obviously right. Slavery and Jim Crow were horrible. If he’s talking about the present, I don’t know. The US industrial prison complex, the war on drugs, our treatment of illegal immigrants, our unwillingness to discuss reparations (see Ta Nehisi Coates in recent weeks) all make it a little hard for me to wave the flag and proclaim our moral superiority.

      Anyway, I think he’s wrong to criticize BDS, but I suspect that with the people who read the Nation he might have done more good than harm. Here’s someone who opposes BDS and still thinks the occupation is worse than South African apartheid. I’d welcome more opposition couched in those terms.

      • goldmarx
        July 2, 2014, 2:58 pm

        “We could of course bash the Presbyterians, who distanced themselves from BDS, or we could recognize that what they did probably moved things forward in an American context.”

        Ah, but there is virtually no bashing of the Presbyterians here, just of Chomsky and Finkelstein. Care to hazard a guess as to why that is? Never overlook the obvious…

      • Woody Tanaka
        July 2, 2014, 4:09 pm

        “Ah, but there is virtually no bashing of the Presbyterians here, just of Chomsky and Finkelstein. Care to hazard a guess as to why that is?”

        Yeah because they passed this divestment. Not nearly far enough, but enough to say, “ok, they’re doing there part.”

        “Never overlook the obvious…”

        What? That you’re a pathetic paranoid?

      • goldmarx
        July 3, 2014, 10:31 pm

        “Yeah because they passed this divestment. Not nearly far enough, but enough to say, “ok, they’re doing there part.””

        Nope. Both Chomsky and Finkelstein have had no objection to what the Presbyterians did. And the Presbyterians went out of their way to distance themselves from BDS, in rhetoric that both Chomsky and Finkelstein would support. The point is, there’s no logical reason to condemn C & F without going after the Presbyterians as well.

        Of course, there is a time-honored illogical reason to do so…

        “What? That you’re a pathetic paranoid?” Well, let’s roll back to what you posted in the “Double Standards” thread started on March 14, 2013, in response to Hophmi’s comments on European Jews:

        HOPHMI: “The Jews stood up for themselves and they’re doing well today.”

        WOODY TANAKA: “They didn’t stand up for themselves, they ran away and preyed upon a people who weren’t as militarily strong as they were and raped their daughters, murdered their fathers and brothers in cold blood and stole their land.”

      • Donald
        July 2, 2014, 6:27 pm

        “Care to hazard a guess as to why that is? ”

        I don’t think it’s what you’re implying, not in most cases anyway. I think it’s the rigidness that you get from morally outraged activists who start seeing anyone who isn’t exactly like them as the enemy, along with the fact that in Finkelstein’s case he was extremely insulting towards BDS. That’s Finkelstein’s normal way of arguing with people, as best I can tell, but it stings when it comes from an alleged ally. In Chomsky’s case, he was a pioneer, but now he’s been left behind. It’s sorta natural for the newer people to see him as hopelessly retrograde.

        At Mondoweiss people are sick to death of hearing about the right to a Jewish state, given that it was attained via ethnic cleansing, so they have lost all tolerance for any sort of concession to liberal Zionism. And then there’s the usual conspiratorial thinking–nobody ever disagrees because they think differently. Their arguments can’t be taken at face value (and I think Chomsky’s arguments are wrong, taken at face value). No, it’s really a dastardly plot to strengthen the Zionists.

        And we spend much of the day talking to each other. The activists in the Presbyterian Church had to talk to ordinary people who weren’t obsessed with this topic and they had to face up to the fact that most of what people hear in the press is heavily biased against the Palestinians. So they achieved what they could. I think Chomsky is claiming that the same is true of the US in general and he has a point there. But I don’t think the BDS movement should take his advice. His advice, I think, is to concentrate on point 1, the occupation, and ditch points 2 and 3. But I don’t think there has to be a single monolithic approach and anyway, Palestinian intellectuals simply aren’t going to take this advice. (No reason why they should.) Giving up the right of return at the very start doesn’t seem too smart to me even if one were going to settle for a 2SS in the end. The Israelis often win arguments before they begin by shifting the Overton Window far, far in their direction, to the point where they paint the rather mild and frankly liberal Zionist action taken by the Presbyterians as “antisemitic”.

      • peeesss
        July 3, 2014, 3:07 am

        Chomsky writes, 3). While there is near-universal international support for (1), there is virtually no meaningful support for (3) beyond the BDS movement itself. Nor is (3) dictated by international law. The text of UN General Assembly Resolution 194 is conditional, and in any event it is a recommendation, without the legal force of the Security Council resolutions that Israel regularly violates. Insistence on (3) is a virtual guarantee of failure.
        The UN General Assembly Resolution recognizing the Partition of Palestine and the creation of the State of Israel also was a recommendation without the legal force of a Security Council Resolution. Apparently when it comes to Israel even its founding legal status is rather dubious.

      • Hostage
        July 3, 2014, 1:17 pm

        The UN General Assembly Resolution recognizing the Partition of Palestine and the creation of the State of Israel also was a recommendation without the legal force of a Security Council Resolution. Apparently when it comes to Israel even its founding legal status is rather dubious.

        I think Chomsky has written things that most here haven’t even read which say that the whole Zionist project, including the partition, was dubious and artificial:

        “In 1936-9, the Palestinian Arabs attempted a nationalist revolt… David Ben-Gurion, eminently a realist, recognized its nature. In internal discussion, he noted that ‘in our political argument abroad, we minimize Arab opposition to us,’ but he urged, ‘let us not ignore the truth among ourselves.’ The truth was that ‘politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves… The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country, while we are still outside’… The revolt was crushed by the British, with considerable brutality.” Noam Chomsky, “The Fateful Triangle.”

        If Palestine ever does gain independence in something like the terms of the overwhelming international consensus, it is likely that its borders with Israel will erode through normal processes of commercial and cultural interchange, as had begun to happen in the past during periods of relative calm. Anyone familiar with Mandatory Palestine knows well how artificial and disruptive any partition must be. — Noam Chomsky: American University of Beirut commencement 2013 speech

        The UN Charter itself doesn’t mention the word “resolution”, much less say that they are non-binding. It only mentions the power of organs to adopt certain types of decisions, to make recommendations, or adopt measures. The entire practice is governed by customary rules and depending upon the content, resolutions can come in several varieties and mixtures. For example, no matter how many recommendations resolution 181 might contain, Articles 10, 18, 73, 80, 81. and 85 of the UN Charter give the General Assembly the requisite authority to say “The City of Jerusalem shall be established as a corpus separatum under a special international regime and shall be administered by the United Nations.”

        Article 81 says: The trusteeship agreement shall in each case include the terms under which the trust territory will be administered and designate the authority which will exercise the administration of the trust territory. Such authority, hereinafter called the administering authority, may be one or more states or the Organization itself.

        Article 85 says :The functions of the United Nations with regard to trusteeship agreements for all areas not designated as strategic, including the approval of the terms of the trusteeship agreements and of their alteration or amendment, shall be exercised by the General Assembly.

        Article 18 says: Decisions of the General Assembly on important questions shall be made by a two- thirds majority of the members present and voting. These questions shall include: . . . questions relating to the operation of the trusteeship system.

        Resolution 194(III) wasn’t merely a recommendation either. It reaffirmed many of the things contained in resolution 181(II), including the decision to establish a Corpus Separatum. But the operative paragraph on refugees used qualified language (should) that only amounted to a recommendation. That’s not really all that important, since the situation was governed by the customary and conventional law in force at the time, not just UN resolutions. One of the conventional agreements in force, was the minority protection plan contained in resolution 181(II) and the Constitution of the International Refugee Organization, December 15, 1946.

    • Hostage
      July 2, 2014, 8:42 pm

      Chomsky is full of s**t… “sanctions, or state actions, are not on the horizon” Former EU leaders urge sanctions for Israel settlements

      The recent round of official warnings from the EU and its members states about doing business in the settlements were the result of the initiative of the government of Palestine to dispatch the first fact finding mission on settlements, since the Security Council’s mission in 1968. It reported that corporations doing business in the settlements were not being subjected to civil or criminal sanctions. The subsequent calls from UN organs, rapporteurs, and working groups had an impact on investors and governments, but had little to do with pressure from the BDS movement, which has been taking all of the credit, while badmouthing the Palestinian government that was instrumental in “getting the ball rolling”.

      • W.Jones
        July 2, 2014, 8:51 pm

        Doesn’t matter, Hostage. Chomsky said that sanctions are not on the horizon and so they should just call it a BD movement. Mikeo debunked Chomsky by showing that sanctions have been invoked.

      • mikeo
        July 3, 2014, 9:13 am

        The subsequent calls from UN organs, rapporteurs, and working groups had an impact on investors and governments, but had little to do with pressure from the BDS movement, which has been taking all of the credit, while badmouthing the Palestinian government that was instrumental in “getting the ball rolling”

        That is a perfectly valid interpretation of events – however it has nothing to do with Chomsky’s statement which was:

        “sanctions, or state actions, are not on the horizon”

        That statement is patently untrue as sanctions have been discussed at an inter-governmental level (albeit they are unlikely to be applied except to the settlements in the near future) and many articles (including many at this site) have covered this topic.

      • Hostage
        July 3, 2014, 3:36 pm

        That is a perfectly valid interpretation of events – however it has nothing to do with Chomsky’s statement which was:

        “sanctions, or state actions, are not on the horizon”

        That statement is patently untrue as sanctions have been discussed at an inter-governmental level

        They aren’t getting discussed at a grassroots level among the US BDS movement. There was a 2011 international call for an immediate and comprehensive embargo on military assistance to Israel. http://www.bdsmovement.net/2011/military-embargo-call-7497

        I’ve seen lots of local and national actions on TIAA-CREF, Methodists, and Presbyterians. There were calls for coordinated action on the Visa waiver program and the Prawer Plan, but I can’t remember the last time any demonstrations or petitions were organized in support of a US arms embargo. The same thing applies to criminal sanctions.

        Hell the last time I signed a petition that demanded the Attorney General investigate racketeering or corrupt charitable organizations that funnel tax deductible contributions to illegal Israeli settlements was back when J-Street (J-Street!) asked everyone to take action. That was so long ago that the original web page disappeared down the rabbit hole. See “J Street Calls for Treasury Investigation Into Settlement Charities” link to web.archive.org

        I’ve commented constantly here and elsewhere about the US treaty obligation to deal with Palestine as another state in accordance with the Vienna, Geneva, and Hague Conventions. That would automatically entitle it to pursue claims in US Courts. About ten percent of the illegal settlers are US Citizens. Chomsky has cited international lawyer John Whitbeck’s efforts to gain recognition of Palestine.

      • W.Jones
        July 3, 2014, 3:59 pm

        ((“sanctions, or state actions, are not on the horizon”
        That statement is patently untrue as sanctions have been discussed at an inter-governmental level ))
        They aren’t getting discussed at a grassroots level among the US BDS movement. There was a 2011 international call for an immediate and comprehensive embargo on military assistance to Israel.

        A) If there is a 2011 call, then some people are discussing it on the grassroots level. In fact, yes, I have heard and seen grassroots people asking for an end to military aid based on Israeli abuses.
        B) Even if not, Mikeo is still right that they are on the horizon WRT settlements
        C) Even if they were being discussed, mere discussion is not Chomsky’s criterion. Chomsky’s criterion is whether they are “on the horizon”, AKA realistic. He wants BDS to call itself BD “since sanctions are not on the horizon”.

      • Hostage
        July 4, 2014, 12:28 am

        Even if they were being discussed, mere discussion is not Chomsky’s criterion. Chomsky’s criterion is whether they are “on the horizon”, AKA realistic. He wants BDS to call itself BD “since sanctions are not on the horizon”.

        You don’t seem to be able to tell the difference between criticism of the movement and the desirability of sanctions, like those that were imposed on South Africa and ineffective tactics. Chomsky is not saying that sanctions should be abandoned, because they are ineffective, he is sarcastically suggesting that they should be pursued with much more vigor or the letter should be dropped from the name.

      • W.Jones
        July 3, 2014, 1:35 pm

        Hostage,

        Thanks by the way for your surprising, interesting information on US officials’ (including FDR’s) approval of the concept of the Nakba:
        http://mondoweiss.net/2014/06/israeli-netanyahu-responsible.html/comment-page-1#comment-679167

        From what you are saying, the US looked the other way when it came to supplying the illegal Israeli forces, but did not actually have US agencies supplying arms to them?

      • Hostage
        July 3, 2014, 7:35 pm

        but did not actually have US agencies supplying arms to them?

        Of course the War Department was disposing of surplus military equipment at the end of World War II when the federal government was reducing a massive inventory of surplus military equipment by selling it to civilians. In those days serving in the armed forces of another country could result in loss of US citizenship, so the War Department’s blessing was necessary for individuals like Col. Mickey Marcus to serve in the Israeli military. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/marcus.html

        The US government looked the other way when Machal volunteers involved in war crimes or crimes against humanity returned to this country after the war of independence. http://www.mahal-idf-volunteers.org/about/Machal.pdf

      • peeesss
        July 4, 2014, 2:18 am

        Hostage. I was, obviously, commenting on Chomsky’s point that UNGA resolutions are “recommendations”, “conditional” and not of legal standing without a concurrent Security council resolution in support. Chomsky also states “nor is it {Right of Return}dictated by International Law”. May I ask with or without UNGA or UNSC resolutions doesn’t the Universal Declaration of Human Rights state that all refugees disposed from their homes during war, conflict have a right to return. From what I can ascertain you disagree with Chomsky on this.
        My point about the legal status of the creation of the Israeli State being “dubious” was , again, obviously to the point Chomsky makes that General Assembly Resolutions are conditional and just a recommendation without a Security Council Resolution affirming it. A Security Council Resolution affirming the creation of the State of Israel never took place. And one of the requirements, recommendation by the UN for the acceptance of the State of Israel into the UN was for the Return of the Refugees to homes lost through war and conflict. Prime Minister David Ben Gurion agreed to this stipulation and Israel was accepted into the UN based on this . However, as we know, Israel never permitted the Return of Refugees .
        With this history how can Chomsky be so cavalier to dismiss the right of return with, apparently, just a smirk.

  9. ckg
    July 2, 2014, 11:28 am

    Desmond Tutu certainly understands apartheid more than Chomsky. Here is Tutu’s June 10 comment about the South Africa analogy:

    I know firsthand that Israel has created an apartheid reality within its borders and through its occupation. The parallels to my own beloved South Africa are painfully stark indeed. Realistic Israeli leaders have acknowledged that Israel will either end its occupation through a one or two state solution, or live in an apartheid state in perpetuity. The latter option is unsustainable and an offense to justice. We learned in South Africa that the only way to end apartheid peacefully was to force the powerful to the table through economic pressure.

    • Hostage
      July 2, 2014, 8:51 pm

      Desmond Tutu certainly understands apartheid more than Chomsky.

      Probably, but you can get the same life sentence for the crime of persecution without having to engage in fruitless discussions about the similarities and differences between the South African apartheid regime and the Zionist regime. That’s because the necessary groundwork to declare apartheid a crime against humanity was completed, while efforts to do the same thing with respect to the platform of the political Zionist movement were left undone. That’s one of the issues this article touches upon.

    • DaBakr
      July 3, 2014, 3:04 pm

      Desmond Tutu is entitled to his opinion like anybody else but its it just false that there is any analogy between the two. Israel has no official policy and has been open to signiong a treaty that ‘ends the conflict’ (notice-I didn’t say Israel was jumping to make peace. Peace-with an enforceable treaty ending the conflict once and for all-is what Israel has been willing to negotiate.Not the predetermined ‘Arab/Saudi plan that draws yet another imaginary boundary that didn’t exist before at the ’67 armistice line)
      I have been pretty much floored by the open hostility to Chomsky here on MW. This thread was really an education as I would have guessed he was more vaunted here then elsewhere. I can almost-but not really-feel sorry for him since it now appears he is much maligned by all sides in the conflict. I mean really, if you guys don’t like him who the heck does? And the comments about him being a “crypto-zionist”…oooooo, so scary and sinister sounding. More secret cabal stuff afaic.

      But I can see now that most of the voices that have any respect in the anti-Zionist movement are Arab-which is neither surprising nor hard to understand. I am just much more skeptical about exactly who is for an actual peace treaty or who is for an imposed resolution then I am sskeptical of the groups that are advocating for the outright destruction of the ‘Zionist Project’ .
      I guess he should return to writing about linguistics and maybe he’ll come up with something revolutionary before he checks out of here.

      • Woody Tanaka
        July 3, 2014, 3:51 pm

        “Desmond Tutu is entitled to his opinion like anybody else but its it just false that there is any analogy between the two.”

        Yeah, go Ziosplain to Tutu that he doesn’t know Apartheid when he sees it.

      • DaBakr
        July 3, 2014, 6:08 pm

        eh. Tutu doesnt impress me in the least. Mandela? he is impressive. And I know he mentioned something akin to parallels. My problem is with Tutu and not what he thinks about Israel or not. And after reading the dump-on-chomsky here I am surprised there is so much respect for Tutu. whatever floats your boat.

      • Shingo
        July 4, 2014, 12:47 am

        Desmond Tutu is entitled to his opinion like anybody else but its it just false that there is any analogy between the two.

        The only sense in which the analogy fails is that Israel is as Tutu describes, far worse. Other than that, Tutu us the expert on apartheid, and took now nothing about it, so it goes without saying that you are making the false argument.

        Israel has no official policy

        Actually it does, which has been confirmed by numerous Supreme Court Rulings.

        The pathetic argument that Israel had been open to signing a treaty that ‘ends the conflict’ gas been refuted by Nentenyahu himself as well as numerous MKs who rejoiced that “peace had been averted”.

        imaginary boundary that didn’t exist before at the ’67 armistice line)

        There was no ’67 armistice dufus. There was a ’49 armistice. But as we all know, UNSC 242 demands that Israel withdraw from beyond the 1967 lines, and these have become defacto borders.

        I am just much more skeptical about exactly who is for an actual peace treaty or who is for an imposed resolution then I am sskeptical of the groups that are advocating for the outright destruction of the ‘Zionist Project’ .

        There you go with your “destruction”hysteria, but let’s turn that around shall we and say we are skeptical about Israel’s desire for peace or whether they simply want to compete the genocide they started 65 years ago.

  10. Bob Feldman
    July 2, 2014, 11:35 am

    Coincidentally, MIT professor Chomsky was also against boycotting U.S. universities like MIT and Harvard that invest in U.S. corporations which profit from their investments in Palestine/Israel during the second intifada of early 21st-century. The legal interpretation of UN General Assembly Resolution 194 that Professor Chomsky (who is not an anti-war movement lawyer) is now promoting seems to contradict the legal interpretation of 194 that anti-war movement lawyer Marjorie Cohen provided in the March 3, 2014 Consortium News article at following link:

    http://consortiumnews.com/2014/03/24/israels-war-against-bds-movement/

    • Hostage
      July 2, 2014, 9:03 pm

      The legal interpretation of UN General Assembly Resolution 194 that Professor Chomsky (who is not an anti-war movement lawyer) is now promoting seems to contradict the legal interpretation of 194 that anti-war movement lawyer Marjorie Cohen provided in the March 3, 2014 Consortium News article at following link:

      link to consortiumnews.com

      Who cares? If you claim that a Chapter VII UN Security Council resolution can form the basis of customary international law in a room full of lawyers, a hockey match will breakout. See “Are Security Council acts relevant to the formation of Customary International Law?” http://opiniojuris.org/2014/06/26/security-council-acts-relevant-formation-customary-international-law/

      Practically no one defends the proposition that General Assembly resolutions are legally binding, except in rare cases like 194(III), where the state concerned was specifically questioned about the subject and agreed to accept and implement the terms. Most people are not aware of the historical details, and arguing about international law outside of the courtroom has never solved anything.

      • Bob Feldman
        July 2, 2014, 11:05 pm

        Most people in the United States still don’t believe governments should violate international laws like the UN charter, the Nuremberg Accords or UN General Assembly resolutions like 194; and Professor Chomsky’s assertion that 194 is “conditional” and just a “recommendation” seems to be an inaccurate interpretation. The Journal of Palestine/Israel, for example, characterized the meaning of Resolution 194 in the following way:

        “UN General Assembly Resolution 194 (III) and the Right of Return2
        UN resolution 194, paragraph 11, establishes the framework for a solution to the plight of Palestinian refugees. It identifies three distinct rights that Palestinian refugees are entitled to exercise under international law – return, restitution and compensation. Resolution 194 further affirms that those refugees choosing not to exercise their Right of Return are entitled to be resettled and receive compensation for their losses. It also instructs the UNCCP to facilitate repatriation, resettlement, compensation, and economic and social rehabilitation. The emphasis on repatriation as the preferred solution for Palestinian refugees reflects several principles, including the right of displaced persons to return to their homes, as well as the prohibitions against arbitrary denationalization and mass expulsion, that were customary norms of international law by 19483. Several principles are relevant to the implementation of the right of return as delineated in resolution 194.
        First, the resolution clearly identifies the exact place to which refugees are entitled to return, i.e., to their homes4. Second, the resolution affirms that return must be guided by the individual choice of each refugee. According to the UN Mediator’s report, it was an “unconditional right” of the refugees “to make a free choice [which] should be fully respected”5.
        Third, resolution 194 identifies the time frame for the return of refugees, i.e., “… at the earliest practicable date.” The UN Secretariat concluded that “the Assembly agreed that the refugees should be allowed to return when stable conditions had been established. It would appear indisputable that such conditions were established by the signing of the four Armistice Agreements” in 1949. Fourth, resolution 194 imposes an obligation on Israel to re-admit the refugees. Finally, resolution 194 was drafted to apply to all refugees in Palestine. While the first two drafts of paragraph 11 used the term “Arab refugees” the final draft approved by the General Assembly on 11 December only used the term “refugees.”
        The fact that the General Assembly made Israel’s admission as a member to the UN conditional upon implementation of resolution 194 clearly indicates that the Assembly considered Israel bound to ensure full implementation of the Palestinian refugees’ Right of Return6. The UN General Assembly has reaffirmed resolution 194 annually without diminution since 1948.

      • Parity
        July 3, 2014, 12:02 am

        On the signature page of Resolution 194 is written “Recognizing the difficulty of implementation.” Israel seems to think that gets them off the hook.

  11. Taxi
    July 2, 2014, 11:49 am

    Even the mere mention of Chomsky’s name and my brain goes into immediate zzzzzzz.

    His books should be prescribed by doctors to patients suffering from insomnia.

  12. American
    July 2, 2014, 12:06 pm

    I continue to be astounded that there is a single soul that doesnt see thru the Chomsky fraud.
    He is first and foremost a zionist clinging to his idealized version of socialist and labor zionism…..that is what informs all his views and pontificating and shifting of blame to everyone, particulary the US, except zionism itself.
    He wants everyone to believe that the US ‘corrupted Isr and zionism’ on is own for its own purposes and lumps the US “purpose’ under the general US empire meme—-and that there is no such thing as the jewish/israel lobby that had anything to do with the US policy on israel.
    I cant believe anyone buys his simple minded one note johnny story on isr and zionism—its an insult to those of even average intelligence who have any knowledge of Israel/USA/P/I.
    His lies and misrepresentations which are nothing but a tactic to direct people away from where this cancer actually ‘stems from’ cancels out his pathetic mewing about Palestine suffering.
    Whether he is deliberately lying or just another zionist who has ‘deluded himself’..I could care less—he’s not deserving of any respect either way.

    • MRW
      July 2, 2014, 12:39 pm

      Well, he’s not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

    • Hostage
      July 2, 2014, 9:19 pm

      He wants everyone to believe that the US ‘corrupted Isr and zionism’ on is own for its own purposes and lumps the US “purpose’ under the general US empire meme—-and that there is no such thing as the jewish/israel lobby that had anything to do with the US policy on israel.

      It never ceases to amaze me when people fabricate things or repeat hearsay instead of responding to what Chomsky actually says. He has never said that there is no such thing as the Israel Lobby. He says its one of the two major interest groups that determine US foreign policy in the Middle East. If you want to know whether it would succeed it getting the other powerful interest group to convince the US to attack Syria or Iran, you should listen Chomsky. He’s been right so far in saying that the Israel Lobby is not all powerful.

      • W.Jones
        July 2, 2014, 10:29 pm

        Hello, Hostage.
        OK. Here’s what Chomsky says:

        The Israel Lobby?
        But recognizing that Mearsheimer-Walt took a courageous stand, which merits praise, we still have to ask how convincing their thesis is. Not very, in my opinion.
        …what is at stake is a rather subtle matter: weighing the impact of several factors which (all agree) interact in determining state policy: in particular, (A) strategic-economic interests of concentrations of domestic power in the tight state-corporate linkage, and (B) the Lobby.
        The M-W thesis is that (B) overwhelmingly predominates

        http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20060328.htm
        I am not sure that the M-W thesis is that B “overwhelmingly predominates”, but that it has a leading influence on foreign policy in the Middle East.

        Further, I question whether it is really in the “US strategic interest” to get bogged down in wars in the Middle East. The OPEC embargo was another blow to the US economy and to the oil companies that was not in the US interest.

        In another article, he says that if the US decides to abandon its support for the state, then the lobby “will probably disappear”:
        http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20001229.htm

        Next he says that the Lobby does “not really [have] power over public opinion.” http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20090228.htm

        Here’s another quote:

        Senator Reid and Congresswoman Pelosi as part of 20 Democrats shamed Maliki for speaking out against Israel.

        Chomsky: First of all notice that this has virtually nothing to do with an Israeli lobby.

        I don’t think AIPAC played much of a role in [the first Gulf War]

        http://www.leftcurve.org/LC29WebPages/Chomsky.html

        Speaking about Bush Sr’s criticism of the Lobby in 1992, Chomsky wrote:

        At the time of the US-Israel confrontation, it took scarcely more than araised eyebrow from the President for the Israeli lobby to collapse

        http://www.leftcurve.org/LC29WebPages/Chomsky.html
        In fact, the lobby did not collapse, and Blankfort describes the lobby’s campaign work against Bush’s second election.

      • American
        July 2, 2014, 10:36 pm

        ” He’s been right so far in saying that the Israel Lobby is not all powerful.”……. Hostage

        Please….I have gone to the trouble of actually reading many of his speeches and interviews–I know what he has said and what he hasnt—and how he ‘implies and plants’ the ideas he wants to and ‘deflects’ from other ideas about Israel and the lobby and so forth.
        Dont ‘twist’ the lobby issue by “inflating” what what some of us have actually said– —no one or at least I have never said the ‘ lobby is all powerful’.
        However it has been powerful enough to get the US in one pile of hypocritical shit after another, suck a trillion dollars out of US taxpayers and have our “US’ politicians pledge allegiance to f**king rabid dog foreign country and make us ‘complict’ in an illegal occupation.
        If you want to defend Chomsky’s ‘shading’ of the US-Isr-Zionism -P/I story have at it—but be aware no one here just fell off the turnip truck yesterday.
        If Chomsky had to go up against a real political historian and defend some of his inaccurate nonsense he’d bleed out on the stage.

    • DaBakr
      July 3, 2014, 3:27 pm

      @amer
      “I continue to be astounded that there is a single soul that doesnt see thru the Chomsky fraud.
      He is first and foremost a zionist clinging to his idealized version of socialist and labor zionism…”

      wow! who knew? I mean, i guess y’all here on mw knew how much you didn’t like Chomsky but you sure have the pro-Israel world fooled. I couldn’t pick a better icon for your movement on the surface then NC-but that only means I was not aware of the deep disdain that existed for him. I guess he really is a relic of the US middle class 60s thing. I had a cousin who was proZionist and was mentored by Chomsky at MIT. I don’t know when it happened but at some point before his death he became active in the US/Jewish/Elite Scholar anti-Zionist movement. I would say that many in his extended secular family had a hard time understanding why the “brilliant one” changed from kibbutznik to whatever. But he died so I can;t ask him if he was really a ‘crypto-zionist’ LOL. And I do not think I am giving my identity away by mentioning that this man co-wrote an interesting book called ‘Saving Remnants’ about ‘Feeling Jewish In America’. This was in his post-Zionist phase but its still quite an interesting take on a very popular theme of the owner of this blog: What makes one ‘Jewish’ and how does that have anything to do with Israel, or not.

      I think its funny that it was a VERY big topic of discussion within circle that both Chomsky AND Dershowitz were slated to attend his funeral/ commemorative assembly. HORRORS! {pretty sure it didnt happen either} I met Prof. C once and, naturally, he is pleasant funny guy, as many peeps are. It was a quick handshake with no words spoken. I only mention this because meeting the man had absolutely no baring on my disagreement with his politics. It was as if the physical body bore NO relation to the ideas I knew he was attached to. Maybe thats how it should be? not really sure.

      • American
        July 3, 2014, 6:53 pm

        DaBakr says:
        ” I couldn’t pick a better icon for your movement on the surface then NC-but that only means I was not aware of the deep disdain that existed for him.”>>>>

        My disdain for Chomsky is because he distorts history and events to ‘shade’ the truth of Isr/zionism/USA and ‘leads’ people astray.
        If you’re going to hold yourself out as some human rights guru or ‘expert’ on US empire and international relations and I/P you should at least have an ounce of knowledge about what you’re talking about and tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but.
        I dont want a liar or someone who doesnt put the real facts out on my side—lies always come back to kick you in the ass.
        And I have no desire to shift any blame for I/P away from the US….I am no defender of past or present US policies or actions…but I am a defender of the truth and facts.

        Here is but one example of his dishonesy :

        In Chomsky’s take down of W&M’s The Israel Lobby , this is what he said in defense of Israel to portray it as the servant of the US:

        http://www.chomsky.info/article…>’’……That leads to (2). As noted, the US-Israeli alliance was firmed up precisely when Israel performed a huge service to the US-Saudis-Energy corporations by smashing secular Arab nationalism, which threatened to divert resources to domestic needs. That’s also when the Lobby takes off (apart from the Christian evangelical component, by far the most numerous and arguably the most influential part, but that’s mostly the 90s). And it’s also when the intellectual-political class began their love affair with Israel, previously of little interest to them. They are a very influential part of the Lobby because of their role in media, scholarship, etc. From that point on it’s hard to distinguish “national interest” (in the usual perverse sense of the phrase) from the effects of the Lobby. I’ve run through the record of Israeli services to the US, to the present, elsewhere, and won’t review it again here.”

        What was one of his claims that * Israel serviced the US by smashing Arab nationalism* based on?..why Israel’s Six Day War!”

        http://books.google.com/books… Chomsky says in his book—>‘’Nasser was the symbol and the center of secular Arab nationalism the US was wary of so Israel smashed Nasser and destroyed the threat of secular nationalism.’’

        So what was the REAL Story?..of Israel’s service to the US in ‘smashing Arab nationalism in its Six Day War?

        First —- President Johnson told Israel NOT to attack Nasser and that the Suez issue would be handled diplomatically.
        Second —-no other country had a damn thing at stake in Nasser closing the Straits of Tiran—BECAUSE he only blockaded ships to and from Israel—no one else’s.

        What is the Third nugget in the ridiculous lie that the Six Day War was because the US wanted Israel to smash Arab Nationalism and Isr did it for the US?

        Its this— Johnson even after warning Israel ” Not ” to start a war—was so influenced by the Lobby that he initiated their bright idea of ‘land for peace’ as a way to resolve the Jew-Arab conflict in Palestine leaving Israel with control over the Sinai peninsula, the Golan Heights, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem…even thought it was against international law. Proving what you ask?..that yes indeed the jewish/israeli influence in US politics and the US ‘assuming’ responsibility for Israel was so strong that the US didn’t even pretend to adhere to international law by demanding Israeli return the land with no conditions—totally rejected it in favor of Israel position that they needed to hold the land for future peace settlement.
        http://2001-2009.state.gov/r..

        You dont have to be a f****** genius to understand that Israel seizing that land did anything BUT tamp down Arab nationalism…it increased it.

        And we ALL know how that has worked don’t we? But it’s the US’s fault Israel hasnt given the land back for peace during these 45 years of peace talk crapola isnt it?

        Now,no one can make up shit and lie about the real facts like Chomsky does——–and as I said earlier if he ever had to face a real political historian he’d be disemboweled and bleed out on stage.

        This example of which there are others is why I disdain him and have no respect for the fraud no matter how he mews on about the poor Palestines.
        He’s either a deliberate ‘half truth’ liar or he’s deliberately kept himself ignorant and stupid—take your pick…..and keep him on your side, we dont want him.

    • aiman
      July 4, 2014, 8:58 am

      “clinging to his idealized version of socialist and labor zionism…..”

      Yep. That’s his limitation, all thinkers should be open to critique. Nothing complicated about Chomsky’s limitations. He is wrong on Israel-Palestine, too emotionally invested all attempts at rational analysis notwithstanding.

  13. libra
    July 2, 2014, 12:13 pm

    Oh dear, I hope Keith doesn’t read all these nasty comments about Professor Chomsky.

    • seanmcbride
      July 2, 2014, 12:38 pm

      libra,

      I am looking forward to Hostage’s defense of this Noam Chomsky article. :) Meanwhile I am commenting on it here:

      https://friendfeed.com/mondoweiss-on-friendfeed

      One remark: Many liberal and progressive Zionists complain about Israeli policies but go to extraordinary lengths to obstruct any actions to change those policies — that is how this game is being played. Make ineffectual progressive sounds while the settlements continue to expand.

      • Hostage
        July 2, 2014, 9:28 pm

        I am looking forward to Hostage’s defense of this Noam Chomsky article. :)

        I think its a good article that is correct on many points, but not on the issue of international law and minority rights in Israel (BDS demand 2) or what international law has to say about the right of return for the various refugee groups (BDS demand 3). I’ve explained all of that so many times before, that I’m not going to go over it again any great detail. He’s right that the BDS movement has done a poor job of educating the public and it’s efforts in demanding government sanctions is almost non-existent. I take issue with Phil’s summary that says Chomsky objects to some of the aims of the movement, because that’s not really what Chomsky was driving at.

      • W.Jones
        July 2, 2014, 10:49 pm

        He’s right that the BDS movement has done a poor job of educating the public

        I wonder what the budget and paid staff size of BDS is compared to the Lobby?

    • Keith
      July 2, 2014, 4:48 pm

      LIBRA- “Oh dear, I hope Keith doesn’t read all these nasty comments about Professor Chomsky.”

      Always a pleasure to know that you are thinking of me. As for the nasty comments, they are hardly new to Mondoweiss. Every now and then Phil likes to rally the Mondo cadres with an orgiastic display of anti-Chomsky animus more befitting a Moriarty or a Valdemort than Chomsky. When it comes to absolutely insane anti-Chomsky vitriol, the “Unfair to Chomsky” thread can’t be topped. http://mondoweiss.net/2010/11/unfair-to-chomsky.html

      The anti-Chomsky bias among a large chunk of Mondoweiss commenters is somewhat interesting. Here is someone lauded by the likes of Glen Greenwald, Chris Hedges, Richard Falk, Arundhati Roy, etc., yet denigrated by less-than-luminary Mondoweiss commenters, one even criticizing Chomsky’s linguistic work. Some folks consider Chomsky a threat to their worldview. Lyndon LaRouche hates Chomsky and had his followers disrupt some of Chomsky’s talks in the 1970’s, making death threats, etc. While the main stream media mostly ignores Chomsky, significant elements of the fringe left and fringe right viscerally dislike him, which is different from merely disagreeing with him. There are things about which I disagree with Chomsky, however, I greatly respect him and the contribution he has made. I think that his book “Year 501: the Conquest Continues” should be required reading in high school. I might add that many of his critics come close to being apologists for empire.

      • W.Jones
        July 2, 2014, 6:09 pm

        Every now and then Phil likes to rally the Mondo cadres with an orgiastic display of anti-Chomsky animus more befitting a Moriarty or a Valdemort than Chomsky.

        So it’s Phil’s fault that Phil posted an article by Chomsky that was picked up by the Guardian?

        Here is someone lauded by the likes of Glen Greenwald, Chris Hedges, Richard Falk, Arundhati Roy, etc.,…
        While the main stream media mostly ignores Chomsky, significant elements of the fringe left and fringe right viscerally dislike him, which is different from merely disagreeing with him. There are things about which I disagree with Chomsky, however, I greatly respect him and the contribution he has made.

        Overall, I like Chomsky. But one must understand a person’s various sides. The PEP phenomenon does exist. People have their biases, Keith. For a long time, Ireland was kicked down by Britain and yet the Catholic Church as an institution had too tight a hold on Irish communities, so that orphanages could be too brutal without people questioning it. An Irish nationalist, who is quite righteous, may have a weak spot when it comes to their orphanages.

        If one looks at the movement for Palestinian rights, Chomsky has been quite outspoken. And yet, he also has a weak spot due to bias in his background. He himself has said that his personal connections to the state may play a role in his thinking. Unfortunately, his statements like “it’s 100 times worse… anyplace else” are reflections of a PEP mindset. That’s how the PEP mindset works – the person may have very good views, but due to a personal bias, there is a social issue where he/she does not have the solid progressive position that he/she would otherwise.

      • Hostage
        July 2, 2014, 9:40 pm

        So it’s Phil’s fault that Phil posted an article by Chomsky that was picked up by the Guardian?

        LoL! You’ve almost proven yourself incapable of opening your mouth about Chomsky without quoting him out of context and trimming off the parts that negate your arguments; embellishing his position with things he actually never said about Zionism or Israeli Jews; and etc. Even after these distortions are pointed out, you keep repeating them. If you disagree with Chomsky that’s fine. But it’s sad that you can’t do that, while making an unblemished, good faith argument.

      • W.Jones
        July 2, 2014, 10:34 pm

        Hostage,

        Are you counterarguing against me in favor of Keith’s claim about Phil’s article: Every now and then Phil likes to rally the Mondo cadres with an orgiastic display of anti-Chomsky animus

        If so, what about Phil’s article did you disagree with?

      • Keith
        July 3, 2014, 3:41 pm

        W JONES- “So it’s Phil’s fault that Phil posted an article by Chomsky that was picked up by the Guardian?”

        No, it’s Phil’s fault that he posted this article on Mondoweiss eliciting the predictable and irrational anti-Chomsky vitriol. From the get-go, Mondoweiss has maintained an anti-Chomsky outlook which appealed to the core commenters who gravitated to the Mondo website. Many are America Firsters who can’t abide trenchant analysis of imperial depredations or their responsibility as US citizens, preferring to focus on Israeli crimes while downplaying US support for those crimes. Your comment about the Guardian is an irrelevant non sequitur.

        W Jones: “People have their biases, Keith.”

        Obviously, however, on Mondoweiss there is a form of an echo chamber where like-minded individuals come together as a social network to bask in the reflected glow of shared bias, deluding themselves that making numerous comments on the internet constitutes activism. Any honest review of the comments on this thread will quickly indicate that Mondoweiss has a solid core of commenters who viscerally dislike Noam Chomsky all out of proportion to anything he has said or done, and, in fact, have to distort his statements and positions to create a straw man to attack. One gets the impression that there are those Mondoweissers who feel that the biggest obstacle to peace and justice in Palestine is Noam Chomsky. Furthermore, anyone who thinks that these intermittent Chomsky bashing sessions perform a useful function is seriously delusional.

        W Jones: “The PEP phenomenon does exist.”

        So does the POOP phenomenon (Progressive Only On Palestine). Anyone who refers to this harsh critic of Israel as PEP is so far out of touch with reality as to be beyond the pale. Chomsky begins the Nation article with the observations that Israel couldn’t do what it is doing without US support, and that as long as Israel has US support it will continue to do what it is doing. I concur completely. The Israel lobby notwithstanding, US foreign policy is key. How to change it? Beats me, but I don’t think throwing bricks at Noam Chomsky is a positive approach.

        Did you click on the link I provided for Libra? If so, you’ll see that Chomsky bashing is a hallowed Mondoweiss tradition which reflects a culture which Phil has cultivated, although he denies it.

      • Danaa
        July 3, 2014, 5:55 pm

        Keith – were it only as simple as you say – the PEP vs the POOP…..

        There’s much more than visceral anti-Chomsky gangerism turd-hurling fun-fest to the critiques elicited by Chomsky. For one, he has always cut a larger-than-life appearance BECAUSE he was so erudite and articulate about the issues, and bBECAUSE he presented himself as siding with justice rather than relishing power. Chomsky said much that was right on, not just on I/P but the darn Imperialism and plutocratism of it all. His “manufacturing Consent’ was one of the great masterpieces – laying our orwellian reality out as well and as convincingly as anyone could.

        But people who reach the grand status of “prophetism” eventually encounter the cut-down-to-size phenomenon. Really not at all unlike the more common celebrities. There is, among humans, a tendency to put some of their own on pedestals, which then get hoisted so high that the figure head sitting upon the “throne’ acquires almost trans-human characteristics. As they get nearly “deified’ they appear to lose touch with humanity, at which point resentment creeps in and they become “fair game”.

        This happens quite a lot among the liberal side of the fence. One example – few are as bitter and vitriolic about Obama’s failures (real and perceived) then those who actually believed in the Hope and Change message. from lionized-qua-Leninized to Stalinized is but a short stop.

        In another example, I have every expectation that this is about to happen to Glenn Greenwald too. Too many were too eager to put him on a pedestal so high that there was only one way out and that’s down. Now that his ‘grand finale” has gotten the kibbosh, I expect the chorus of lamentations to reach fever pitch any minute.

        All that being said, there’s another phenomenon going on and it is one that I think both you and Hostage need to take into account (sorry for lecturing. It’s a problem, I know): BDS is a Palestinian civil society initiative, not a jewish one (though many jewish people are riding this train, at least for now, even if some begin to behave as conductors). Boycott is sometimes the ONLY tool left for those who have been defeated, and Palestinians, unlike the Jewish activists and sympathizers who support them, taste the bitterness of defeat every day. That is why the BDS platform is what it is and that is why RoR is here to stay – be it from a true yearning for justice or as a strategy. Palestinians were not brought up on Talmudic debates, of “on the one hand, on the other hand”. They were brought up among the ruins of their homeland, living to see it taken over, destroyed and rebuilt for another people, who they justly see as usurpers and conquerors. That this was allowed to happen may indeed have had something to do with the Empire (cf. colonialism as a tool) but to the palestinians this matters only a little, only in the debating clubs and the hallowed halls of academia and activists’ workshops. The jewish sympathizers, the anti-zionists and the post-zionists of all stripes labor to make it appear as if “we are all in this together”. But we are not, are we? At the end of day, the post-zionist’s home is safe from destruction and his life has built-in protections even during the worst of demonstrations.

        Why am I repeating the know and obvious here? because to me it seems that people like Chomsky and Finkelstein have come to symbolize the gap between the victors and the vanquished. when a member of the victors’ class – and Chomsky is certainly that on more than one level – takes issue with one or more of the meager tools available to the vanquished – why, he can expect the sky to come falling down on his head. If he doesn’t and didn’t then he must have forgotten his human roots….just a little.

        Those people who feel most strongly the bitingly sour taste of defeat (be they Palestinian or not) have earned the right to be disappointed – in Chomsky, Finkelstein, Goldstone or Slater. Even in you Keith if you come out too hard and fast on the battlefield where too many of the wounded still lie, visibly in pain, and the dead have hardly even been buried properly. You can’t blame people if they feel that Chomsky is now bringing the terms of surrender. However artfully the arguments are presented, it has the look and feel of “we won, you lost, so get the best terms you can”. It smacks of rubbing in the salt, of partaking in the triumphant celebrations of the undeserving. And it reminds me of the conquistadors’ “gift” of Christianity presented to the vanquished natives of South America, even as the the jewish conquerors do not in any way even bother to offer the ‘gift” of “Judaism”.

        I like much of what you say, keith. But sometimes it’s important to see the psychology at work, not just the [geo] politics, or the finer points of tactics. If some people see Chomsky’s hand wringing over “international consensus” and other silly artefacts as a Trojan horse, it’s perhaps better not to try and paint the horse brighter colors, as if that would serve better to hide the defeat is nigh message hidden within.

      • W.Jones
        July 3, 2014, 6:48 pm

        Any honest review of the comments on this thread will quickly indicate that Mondoweiss has a solid core of commenters who viscerally dislike Noam Chomsky

        I happen to like Noam overall. I showed his video on the media’s bias to a campus group when I was in college. He did a good job. But so long as we are talking about the IP issue, I am just forced to look at his articles and see how much I agree with them, like this one.

        As a rationally thinking person, I have to consider his article’s main point: Is it so bad and counterproductive that BDS is not avoiding the “illusions” of the right of return and of sanctions? No, I don’t. The right of return is a right, and sanctions are a method to motivate states to uphold people’s rights. I don’t see it as bad that BDS does not call itself just BD and limit itself. So while I might agree with Noam on many things and like him on average, on this topic I have to point out my disagreement.

        I actually do think that it’s useful, if not important, for people to think in a critical way about his claims like we do in the comments section.

        Actually question whether “Israel couldn’t do what it is doing without US support”. If the US became completely neutral, the Israeli state might still be brutalizing Palestinians and denying the ROR, especially because it has nukes. It may also form some kind of weak alliance with Russia, but it would not be in a very strong position if it did so.

        I checked the link you gave. Was there something in particular you object to that Phil wrote in the article on Chomsky’s recent Nation essay?

      • goldmarx
        July 3, 2014, 10:37 pm

        Keith, you make excellent points. The America First movement has had lots of anti-Semites in its ranks.

        “The POOP phenomenon” – brilliant!

      • Shingo
        July 4, 2014, 12:34 am

        Many are America Firsters who can’t abide trenchant analysis of imperial depredations or their responsibility as US citizens, preferring to focus on Israeli crimes while downplaying US support for those crimes. Your comment about the Guardian is an irrelevant non sequitur.

        What a pile of delusional and dishonest crap!! There is not a single participant on this forum that could remotely be described as “America Firsters who can’t abide trenchant analysis of imperial depredations”.

        You are a insufferable liar Keith. Phil himself started this blog not because of the IP conflict, but because of the Iraq war. I would go so far as to say no one here disagrees with any of Chomsky’s criticisms of the US.

        In fact your stupid argument shows what an ignoramus you are. Most of us were seduced by Chomsky from way back because of him critiques if US imperialism and war crimes. Indeed, my introduction to him was the documentary “Manufacturing Consent”.

        In fact, it’s not until recently when he began discussing BDS that I lost respect for him.

        Any honest review of the comments on this thread will quickly indicate that Mondoweiss has a solid core of commenters who viscerally dislike Noam Chomsky all out of proportion to anything he has said or done

        That’s for the individual to decide, but generally speaking, it’s only human to feel a greater sense of betrayal when someone who has been such a leader for the Palestinian cause among academia, not only turns around and undermines the movement, but offers such absurd arguments riddled with contradictions and inconsistencies.

        So does the POOP phenomenon (Progressive Only On Palestine).

        Rubbish. The suspension of liberal values is unique to Zionism. I challenge you to cite one example of anyone who’s progressive and pro Palestinian who has betrayed those values outside the IP conflict.

        The fact that yon are probably the only person who has dreamed up the non existent concept of “POOP ” is so far out of touch with reality as to be beyond the pale.

        Chomsky begins the Nation article with the observations that Israel couldn’t do what it is doing without US support, and that as long as Israel has US support it will continue to do what it is doing. I concur completely.

        No one here has ever challenged that notion genius.

        Beats me, but I don’t think throwing bricks at Noam Chomsky is a positive approach.

        Bears me how throwing bricks at BDS is a positive approach either.

        If so, you’ll see that Chomsky bashing is a hallowed Mondoweiss tradition which reflects a culture which Phil has cultivated, although he denies it.

        Actually your links prove quote the opposite – how coddled Chomsky has been.

        The word uber lame comes to mind.

      • Keith
        July 4, 2014, 9:53 am

        SHINGO- “What a pile of delusional and dishonest crap!!…. You are a insufferable liar Keith….In fact your stupid argument shows what an ignoramus you are.”

        Your infantile temper tantrum indicates that I struck a sensitive nerve. Good.

        Shingo: “I would go so far as to say no one here disagrees with any of Chomsky’s criticisms of the US.”

        Since I began commenting on Mondoweiss, I have been labeled a “Chomskyite” numerous times, my strategic perspective attacked as a de facto defense of Israel, that is blaming EVERYTHING on some vague entity known as ‘empire’ as opposed to the visible “Lobby.” Something that many here claimed Chomsky does. Jeffrey Blankfort constituted an extreme form of anti-Chomsky animus, claiming that Noam was a “gatekeeper” who was hobbling Jeffrey’s noble efforts in spreading 911 Truth. Any attempt to point out the geo-strategic importance of control of access to oil was met with hoots of derision. Your statement about general Mondoweiss agreement with Chomsky concerning US foreign policy is ludicrous in the extreme.

        Shingo: “I challenge you to cite one example of anyone who’s progressive and pro Palestinian who has betrayed those values outside the IP conflict.”

        One person? More like the whole website. Notice how a true progressive like Chomsky is vilified while someone like MJ Rosenberg, who hasn’t got a progressive bone in his body, is warmly regarded on Mondoweiss just because he coined the phrase “Israel Firster.” How about professional imperialist Chas Freeman who devoted his career to pursuing imperial objectives but is something of a Mondo hero because he opposes the lobby. Most of Mondoweiss was rooting for career imperialist Chuck Hagel simply because the Lobby opposed him. How is that working out? ‘Hagel, Hagel, he’s our man, if he can’t do it Kerry can!” In all of these the only thing which mattered was opposition to the Lobby, progressive values played no role whatever.

        Shingo: “Bears me how throwing bricks at BDS is a positive approach either.”

        Chomsky’s thoughtful criticism of certain aspects of BDS is hardly throwing bricks, whereas, the ad hominem slurs against Chomsky, reaching well beyond his limited comments on BDS, is an attempt to discredit him personally. I am not objecting to principled disagreement with Chomsky on this or any issue, what I object to is the vitriol and distortion and outright misrepresentations, part of a broader effort to discredit Chomsky which is part of the Mondoweiss worldview.

  14. Chu
    July 2, 2014, 12:59 pm

    Chomsky translated: let’s talk about the pizza, while we eat the pizza.

  15. MahaneYehude1
    July 2, 2014, 1:58 pm

    @Philip Weiss:

    Yesterday evening, Israel published the record of the phone call of one of the kidnapped teens (Gil-Ad). This is the headlines in all Israeli media. I very surprised that you ignore this publication, I just can guess why.

    • Justpassingby
      July 2, 2014, 4:05 pm

      Mahane

      Recording lol yeah like those other recordings israel have created earlier.

      • Talkback
        July 3, 2014, 9:39 am

        @ Justpassinby

        After a few hours of analysis I stopped counting the audio manipulations of Israel’s so called flottilla recording. As if the IDF’s audio engineer (probably only a forensic analyst) wanted the world to know that it’s manipulated from the beginning to the end.

  16. W.Jones
    July 2, 2014, 2:12 pm

    Chomsky writes:

    Gideon Levy, a columnist for Haaretz, who writes that… “Israel should be condemned and punished…”
    He is surely correct

    So Chomsky believes that the Israeli State should be sanctioned?
    Next he says that the US undermines the 2SS. He mentions boycotts of companies working in the OPT and then wrongly says that it should just be called BD. In fact, the S is important, because Sanctions are part of the movement’s goals, whether or not they are “on the horizon.” A Utopian movement can still be called Utopian, even if the Utopia is not on the horizon.

    Next, he says that “Respecting, protecting, and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194” is the third goal of BDS, but says that “there is virtually no meaningful support for (3) beyond the BDS movement itself.” This is incorrect. If there were “no” support for their right to return at all, then there would not have been a UN Resolution stipulating it in the first place. If the UN members states did not support the refugees’ return, they would not have passed the Resolution recommending it.

    • W.Jones
      July 2, 2014, 3:33 pm

      “Israel boycott campaign risks backfiring, says Noam Chomsky”
      The Guardian, July 2
      US philosopher argues that parallels between BDS campaign and action against apartheid-era South Africa are misleading
      http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/02/bds-boycott-campaign-israel-noam-chomsky

      The Guardian article says:

      Chomsky invokes the “glass house” principle, writing that if Tel Aviv University is boycotted because Israel violates human rights at home, “then why not boycott Harvard because of far greater violations by the US?”
      “In sharp contrast, Israel wants to rid itself of the Palestinian burden. The road ahead is not toward South Africa, as commonly alleged, but toward something much worse.”

      This is so weird, my fellow MW readers. He says that we are hypocritical if we don’t boycott Harvard, and yet he says that the Israeli state wants to eliminate the Palestinians and is heading toward something much worse. Please tell me which is a single population in the world that the US plans on and has the overwhelming means to eliminate? If there isn’t one, then isn’t the situation heading in a direction worse than current US violations? If so, then, like Phil asked, what is Chomsky’s non-hypocritical prescription? To boycott Harvard and Tel Aviv?

      Or to just say that since we don’t want to be hypocritical, we might as well drink Sodastream. After all, supposedly the US is far worse than Sodastream, from Chomsky’s Point of View?

      We have some good commentary on this over on the Mondoweiss Friendfeed section from Danaa, an Israeli emigrant:
      https://friendfeed.com/mondoweiss-on-friendfeed/2cf59fde/chomsky-opposes-bds-citing-realism-and-intl

    • Hostage
      July 2, 2014, 10:19 pm

      So Chomsky believes that the Israeli State should be sanctioned?

      Yes, despite your best efforts to obfuscate that fact.

      Next he says that the US undermines the 2SS.

      That’s an undeniable fact. On 2 May 2014 the Secretary General of the UN advised the US government that its treaty obligation to deal with Palestine as a state party to the Vienna Conventions on the Law of Treaties; Maintenance of Diplomatic Relations; and Consular Affairs had entered into force. Secretary Kerry subsequently advised, in violation of the treaties, that it was doing business with the Palestinian Authority interim Unity regime, but there was no question of recognition of a government, because the state of Palestine does not exist.

      and then wrongly says that it should just be called BD. In fact, the S is important,

      Actions speak louder than words. One of the only webpages on BDSmovement.net that actually mentions the subject in context is an attempt to peddle a book to the public. http://www.bdsmovement.net/2012/the-case-for-sanctions-against-israel-8690 That’s a very ineffective tactic for getting government officials to impose sanctions. That sort of information needs to be out front, not behind a paywall. Your argument is another straw man.

      Next, he says that “Respecting, protecting, and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194″ is the third goal of BDS, but says that “there is virtually no meaningful support for (3) beyond the BDS movement itself.” This is incorrect. If there were “no” support for their right to return at all, then there would not have been a UN Resolution stipulating it in the first place. If the UN members states did not support the refugees’ return, they would not have passed the Resolution recommending it.

      That argument is a tautology. It also ignores the fact that resolution 194 subjected the right of return to certain terms and conditions that Israel has always employed to render it moot or postpone any action. If there was effective international support for the return in the first place, it would have already happened in the intervening 65 years. If I drop you from the roof of the UN building, the “law of gravity” takes over then and there. Whatever international law is reflected in resolution 194, it has never been triggered or had any effects to date.

      • Shingo
        July 2, 2014, 10:29 pm

        So Chomsky believes that the Israeli State should be sanctioned?

        Yes, despite your best efforts to obfuscate that fact.

        Which just goes to show what a hypocrite he is. He argues against sanctioning Israel because there is little international will to do so, yet suggests we push for sanctions against the US – even though there is even less will to do so.

        So in typical Chomsky fashion, he is proposing we give up one strategy (on the grounds is it futile) in order to pursue an even more futile one.

        It also ignores the fact that resolution 194 subjected the right of return to certain terms and conditions that Israel has always employed to render it moot or postpone any action.

        What kind of a lame argument is that? Israel has done that with UNSC242 and every other resolutions against it. You made the same spurious argument that BDS was responsible for providing Israel with loopholes. The simple fact is that Israel is able to get away with it because the US is there to veto any more seruous measures by the UN.

        If there was effective international support for the return in the first place, it would have already happened in the intervening 65 years.

        That’s about as vacuous as arguing if there was effective international support for the end of the occupation in the first place, it would have already happened in the intervening 47 years.

      • W.Jones
        July 2, 2014, 11:48 pm

        Next he says that the US undermines the 2SS. ~W.Jones
        For clarification: Chomsky is right about this. I was just noting that it was one of his article’s points before he took issue with calling the movement BDS.

        ((and then wrongly says that it should just be called BD. In fact, the S is important,))

        Actions speak louder than words. One of the only webpages on BDSmovement.net that actually mentions the subject in context is an attempt to peddle a book to the public. link to bdsmovement.net That’s a very ineffective tactic for getting government officials to impose sanctions. That sort of information needs to be out front, not behind a paywall. Your argument is another straw man.

        Chomsky’s criticism in his article is that sanctions are “unrealistic”. His main point is that the BDS movement needs to recognize its illusions and drop the S off of its name.

        Were Chomsky in agreement with you and considered that BDS should advocate for sanctions, he would not recommend them to drop the S, but to keep the S and advocate for it. Instead, we get Chomsky’s mantra of sticking to “realistic tactics”.

        While Finkelstein has oddly called BDS a “cult”, reinterpreting a leader to make him conform to one’s ideals seems more cultlike to me than BDS does. By saying this, I am not singling out Chomsky’s admirers. I myself overall admire Chomsky, and could see him in the vein of other “great thinkers.” I deeply admire the Union in the US Civil war, but part of me questions how much criticism I would give them.

        I don’t know why you say that I am making a tautology.
        Chomsky claims that there is “virtually no meaningful support” for the Right of Return outside of the BDS movement. I believe that the nations who voted for the Resolution show that their support for it has meaning. Now you may counterargue that the nations are not going to intervene or don’t care very much. That’s true, depending on the nation. But still, there are nations whose support have “meaning”. It at least meant enough to pass a resolution, and a resolution has meaning, or else people would not be arguing over it. I think that some Arab countries like the right of return, but they are too weak to implement it. Even if that support has not been “effective” to date, it can still have meaning.

        Your law of gravity example only proves the point. While the law may not have been effective in bringing someone down 20 stories, the moment they are in are it will be. The law has meaning. And the nations’ approval for the resolution has meaning. It has meaning in the hearts of a mass of refugees, at the least you will agree be, because they would like compensation for being abused and expelled by the nationalists.

      • Hostage
        July 3, 2014, 2:59 pm

        Chomsky’s criticism in his article is that sanctions are “unrealistic”. His main point is that the BDS movement needs to recognize its illusions and drop the S off of its name.

        No, you still haven’t quoted Chomsky and are clueless about the fact that Chomsky has called attention to Israel’s efforts to stop what it “perceives as “delegitimation” — that is, objections to its crimes and withdrawal of participation in them — and a parallel campaign of legitimation of Palestine.”

        He highlights efforts to end US foreign assistance and military arms sales to Israel, until it complies with international law and recognition of the State of Palestine as methods for breaking the deadlock:

        The “delegitimation,” which is progressing rapidly, was carried forward in December by a Human Rights Watch call on the U.S.”to suspend financing to Israel in an amount equivalent to the costs of Israel’s spending in support of settlements,” and to monitor contributions to Israel from tax-exempt U.S. organizations that violate international law, “including prohibitions against discrimination” — which would cast a wide net. Amnesty International had already called for an arms embargo on Israel. The legitimation process also took a long step forward in December, when Argentina, Bolivia and Brazil recognized the State of Palestine (Gaza and the West Bank), bringing the number of supporting nations to more than 100.

        International lawyer John Whitbeck estimates that 80-90 percent of the world’s population live in states that recognize Palestine, while 10-20 percent recognize the Republic of Kosovo. The U.S. recognizes Kosovo but not Palestine. Accordingly, as Whitbeck writes in Counterpunch, media “act as though Kosovo’s independence were an accomplished fact while Palestine’s independence is only an aspiration which can never be realized without Israeli-American consent,” reflecting the normal workings of power in the international arena.

        I’ve lost count of the number of times that I’ve pointed out that Israel cannot acquire territory from UN member states by force and that the international boundary treaties, that Israel is obliged to respect, preserved the Syrian, Lebanese, and Palestinian/Transjordanian fishing and navigation rights on Lakes Huleh and Tiberias, and the Jordan river – plus all of the existing grazing rights on both sides of the new mandate era boundaries. I’ve noted that the UN plan of partition created states that were independent in name only, because it required the acceptance of existing treaties; imposed terms of internal government under a minority protection plan; and established regional government through a plan for economic union and right of transit. The UN explicitly acknowledged that the common use of currency, road, rail, communications, resources, and transit to holy sites and extended family members was necessary to the viability of the new states. Chomsky calls that erosion of boundaries through commerce and culture the “No State Solution”, which he describes as his real preference. But he notes that will not happen if the US is allowed to continue to block international consensus and support Israel’s continued expansion of an exclusive “Greater Israel”. He explains that much work needs to be done to educate the public about this subject.

        Get back to me if you ever finish obfuscating things and want to be serious, otherwise there’s no need to keep beating this dead horse.

      • W.Jones
        July 3, 2014, 4:11 pm

        ((1.Chomsky’s criticism in his article is that sanctions are “unrealistic”.
        2. His main point is that the BDS movement needs to recognize its illusions and
        3. drop the S off of its name.))

        No, you still haven’t quoted Chomsky ~Hostage

        Here you go:

        1. and 3.
        a BDS movement… has been formed, often citing South African models; more accurately, the abbreviation should be “BD,” since sanctions, or state actions, are not on the horizon

        2.
        His concluding sentence is:
        those who are sincerely dedicated to the Palestinian cause should avoid illusion and myth, and think carefully about the tactics they choose and the course they follow.

      • Hostage
        July 3, 2014, 11:17 pm

        No, you still haven’t quoted Chomsky ~Hostage Here you go:

        Once again you still haven’t shown me what government sanctions the movement has called for with respect to Israel proper in recent years, that haven’t been completely watered down. You haven’t mentioned what effective actions the movement has taken that obtained government sanctions against Israel proper. What does putting an “S” in the acronym and arguing about it do for you, if its this devoid of meaning and content? I couldn’t agree more with Chomsky’s criticism, but he is not condemning the use of sanctions as you suggest. He’s saying the Emperor has no clothes and the name should really be BD based upon its actions.

      • Shingo
        July 3, 2014, 11:46 pm

        What does putting an “S” in the acronym and arguing about it do for you, if its this devoid of meaning and content?

        You really have for to put down that remote Hostage. Moving the goal posts every time you lose the argument makes you look irrational.

        In spite of having provided Chomsky’s quote re S in BDS, you claimed he had not provided it. When he cited it again for the 6th time, you dismissed it and want to argue the merits of whether the S in BDS has meaning.

      • W.Jones
        July 3, 2014, 11:55 pm

        Chomsky never says that BDS’ sanctions have been too watered down, that the S in BDS has no meaning or content, or that he supports advocating for sanctions against the Israeli State. Instead, Chomsky’s statement was: “the abbreviation should be “BD,” since sanctions are not on the horizon”.

        Were the BDS movement lobbying their pro-Israeli elected officials with great effort and skill but, naturally, without success, Chomsky could still reply: “the abbreviation should be “BD,” since sanctions are not on the horizon”.

        And in any case, sanctions are on the horizon in Europe due to BDS efforts, as the BDS movement reports:

        Responding to ever-increasing public anger with Israel’s occupation and denial of basic Palestinian rights, a number of governments have started to introduce sanctions against Israel:
        – Turkey and Norway have both announced decisions to suspend military relations with Israel
        – A call from Palestinian civil society for a comprehensive military embargo on Israel last July was supported by Nobel Peace Prize winners Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Mairead Maguire, Betty Williams and Adolfo Pérez Esquivel and civil society groups around the world representing millions of people.

        http://www.bdsmovement.net/victories

        According to Omar Barghouti:
        there is an increasing sanctions campaign, mainly in Europe, against Israeli banks and other finance bodies all due to the growing pressure exerted by the global Palestinian BDS movement.
        http://www.polity.org.za/article/sa-statement-by-boycott-divestment-and-sanctions-south-africa-anti-israel-campaign-palestinian-author-and-co-founder-of-boycott-against-israel-movement-present-in-south-africa-27062014-2014-06-27

        Onward.

      • Hostage
        July 4, 2014, 1:31 am

        In spite of having provided Chomsky’s quote re S in BDS, you claimed he had not provided it. When he cited it again for the 6th time, you dismissed it and want to argue the merits of whether the S in BDS has meaning.

        Lol! Chomsky’s quote? You mean in spite of have cobbled together two or three related ideas snatched from different parts of the article and trying to restate Chomsky’s entire proposition. That’s not providing a quote.

        Frankly this kind of article has convinced me to pull my subscription here and pick-up my remote.

  17. ckg
    July 2, 2014, 3:45 pm

    Chomsky claims “The text of UN General Assembly Resolution 194 is conditional…” Chomsky’s claim, of course, is nonsense. Article 11 states

    Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.

    Furthermore UNGA 3236 states

    Reaffirms also the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return.

    • jon s
      July 2, 2014, 4:14 pm

      The condition is right there: “live at peace with their neighbors…”
      Which is probably the reason the Arab states opposed the resolution.

      • Shingo
        July 2, 2014, 5:47 pm

        Israel has never been interested living at peace with their neighbors…

        The Jews apparently accepted resolutions 181 and 242 as well , but has violated both egregiously and with contempt

    • Hostage
      July 2, 2014, 10:50 pm

      Chomsky’s claim, of course, is nonsense.

      It’s irrelevant, but he’s correct. The resolution is full of qualified language that only amounted to a recommendation. For example, “should” was used, instead of shall in the operative clause and the exercise of the right was conditioned on the basis of practicality, as determined by the belligerent Israeli and Jordanian authorities (the earliest practicable date). That provision was held in abeyance by the Article 40 provisional measures in the armistice agreement, adopted under Security Council auspices, which cited the law of war and prohibited civilians from crossing the permanent lines of demarcation, pending a final negotiated settlement. It was also strictly limited to non-belligerents which allowed the authorities some discretion in the matter: “the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours”.

      FYI, the verbatim minutes of the meetings indicate the subsequent resolutions, like the one that you mentioned, were adopted to correct the perceived defects in the wording of the original.

  18. Justpassingby
    July 2, 2014, 4:04 pm

    And what does chomsky put forward instead? Nothing apparently.

    • Woody Tanaka
      July 2, 2014, 4:37 pm

      Of course nothing. He’s a PEP. He knows that the Jews in Israel aren’t ever going to provide justice to the Palestinians; they have no real sense of justice, it seems. But instead of following the alleged principles he has, he lets his desire for Judeo-supremacism rule.

      The options as he sees it are all Jewish domination, either a continuation of the Apartheid setup that now exists, a Bantustan (“2 state solution”), or further ethnic cleansing/genocide of the Palestinians at the hands of the Jews. Since Palestinians are the only people which the PEP does not believe is entitled to human rights (seeing how it conflicts with the Jews dominance of Palestine), he wants the Palestinians to meekly accept the Jewish boot on their throats and not make a fuss about it, because if they do then he might have to actually think about the fact that he favors permitting one people to strip another of human dignity for no reason than their ethnoreligious background.

      Of course, he doesn’t understand that BDS is designed to change that dynamic — to squeeze the Israelis until they squeal so that they will provide a bit of justice to their prey.

      • American
        July 2, 2014, 9:48 pm

        Woody says…..

        ”The options as he (Chomsky) sees it are all Jewish domination,”’

        That is the uncommented on common thread that runs thru what the PEPs like Chomsky, Slater, MJ, Beinart ,etc etc. put out for public consumption.
        It is their ‘conclusion” put out as ‘fact’ that nothing will done about Israel because it is Israel..i.e. a “Jewish” state.

        Whether it is Slater telling us not to pressure the dems on Israel cause the Dems would never give it up and the domestic cost isnt worth it –or mj bragging the Israeli mlitary is too powerful for anyone and therefore the jewish state will always exist —-or Chomsky claiming there is no international consensus on any ROR for Palestines therfore it will never happen—-they all want us to believe that Israel will do as Israel pleases and we are all spinning our wheels on BDS and helpless in the face of it.

        They want to impart and reinforce to Isr critics that Israel with eternal Jewish rule is a ” fait acompli’ and we should accept that Isr will only change when and if it ever wants to and there is nothing anyone can do about it.
        Chomsky promotes this fait acompli of continued Jewish rule under the cloak of ‘realism’.
        I dont think it is realism…the world has a way of intruding on people’s cherished fantasies when their fantasies create too many problems .

      • DaBakr
        July 3, 2014, 5:50 pm

        don’t know what a pep is but if I understood-Chomsky said he has basic disdain for either all borders or all artificial borders (which is another whole topic) but if I remember correctly-isn;t that in keeping with the Quaker tradition that borders are all basically…wrong. And if so- why does Chmsy disappoint so much? If he is against borders in the area of Pal/Isr and we can assume from that that he prefer a borderless region (and please explain how this would work because I am really interested in how a secular ‘caliphate’ would work today-or if you really DO support borders and disagree with Chmsky on this but then why is he such a ‘crypto-zionist’ if he doesnt support a bordered nation. Is it because it won’t advocate for physical action to be taken such as bds (he seems for it mostly) or much more forceful action such as international imposition of terms, borders and so on? I guess I am trying to find out if many here who have disdain for chmsky are shy about their support for physical action to be taken (not saying your war-mongers but in effect-are you for a violent force as long as Israel is in the position where it can be dictated to in the following: “Either abide by UN resolutions (even the ones where you think purposely vague language was imposed by Zionists) in peace or if not by force”. This is one of those topics thats a hot-button imo. Chomsky obviously is not advocating for a war-even one he considers ‘just’ if he even believes in the ‘just war’ concept. Is he hated because he, by default, is advocating or saying “realistically” the status quo is whats going to happen for unforseen future and BD with the S wont help things? Or is it that people here feel there is enough evidence to convict chmsky of not being anti-Zionist. Being partial due to his past experience on kbbutz? Isn;t everyone a bit partial with their upbringing?
        Just trying to get a handle on why the chmsky hate here when he’s already pretty well despised by center-right Israelis and for sure is hated by religious fanatics. Why doesnt the “my enemies enemy is friend clause apply here? (sorry-to lazt to spell check english tonight)

      • Taxi
        July 4, 2014, 7:19 am

        PEP = Progressive Except for Palestine.

      • seanmcbride
        July 4, 2014, 9:46 am

        DeBakr,

        Just trying to get a handle on why the chmsky hate here when he’s already pretty well despised by center-right Israelis and for sure is hated by religious fanatics. Why doesnt the “my enemies enemy is friend clause apply here?

        Quite a few people mistrust Noam Chomsky at this point because he falls into the by now well-established pattern of liberal and progressive Zionists playing the role of de facto stonewallers for Likud Zionism and Greater Israelism. Liberal Zionists express pretty sentiments about universal human rights while obstructing the application of any effective pressure on the Israeli government to change its policies.

        Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein are basically in the same camp as Dennis Ross and Shimon Peres — all pretty talk, no effective action. Don’t listen to their words, watch their actions and pay close attention to the trajectory of Israeli policies in the real world, which are moving towards the realization of Greater Israel, step by inexorable step.

        Chomsky has been especially evasive and devious about handling the issue of the Israel lobby in American politics — and especially the role of the Jewish lobby within the Israeli lobby. Clearly that subject agitates him and he would prefer not to talk about it — for reasons that he knows best and about which we are free to speculate.

        Without effectively countering the power of the Israel lobby in American politics, how will it ever be possible for the United States to pressure the Israeli government to stop building new settlements in the occupied territories and to arrive at a fair and equitable peace agreement with the Palestinians? But Chomsky has consistently downplayed the influence of that lobby — whenever the issue comes up, he tries to distract his audience by speaking in vague generalities about the evils of American imperialism.

        I can easily think of a few dozen thinkers and writers who are much more credible and impressive on Mideast and Israeli politics than Noam Chomsky — including Stephen Walt, John Mearsheimer, Jeffrey Blankfort, Paul Pillar and Stephen Sniegoski. I find the blind admiration of Keith and Hostage for Chomsky to be baffling. He hasn’t been a meaningful voice in the great Mideast debates for quite a few years now.

      • Shingo
        July 4, 2014, 9:48 am

        but if I understood-Chomsky said he has basic disdain for either all borders or all artificial borders

        In which case, you did not understand Chomsky. Israel’s borders were declared in 1948. The 1967 borders are artificial insomuch as Israel gets to gave 22% more on Palestine.

        but if I remember correctly-isn;t that in keeping with the Quaker tradition that borders are all basically…wrong.

        WTF do Quakers have to go with Chomsky or Israel ?

    • W.Jones
      July 2, 2014, 5:57 pm

      Chomsky puts forth educating people about the issue, until it becomes a big movement like the opposition to South African Apartheid. In other words, some students will have a talk at their school, the other students who are loaded down with homework and dozens of other issues will become invigorated by the talks, and then they will tell their parents and friends about it. Then they will mention it at work, and their boss will be OK with them caring about Palestinians, or they will mention it at a truck stop and the cashier will really care about the issue because people on another continent mean a lot to her.

      After there is enough “education”, then you will have a big movement, with liberal organizations and spokespeople like democratic party PACs and Rachel Maddows talking about it on the corporate media. At that point, the movement will be big like the opposition to South Africa. The main NYT editors and columnists on the issue like Tom Friedman and Judi Rudoren will be writing eloquent essays preaching one man one vote. And this will just be the beginning.

      • W.Jones
        July 2, 2014, 7:49 pm

        ^I could go through what I just proposed each step of the way and show why it is “unrealistic.”

        Chomsky says that they shouldn’t even call it BDS because sanctions are unrealistic. But what Chomsky proposes is unrealistic.

    • Hostage
      July 2, 2014, 10:52 pm

      And what does chomsky put forward instead? Nothing apparently.

      How many pages did you read? None apparently.

      • Justpassingby
        July 3, 2014, 6:49 am

        Hostage

        I browsed the article, what does he put forward then?

      • W.Jones
        July 3, 2014, 9:37 am

        Just Passingby,

        He puts forward that we should educate people about the issue only, instead of using BD against the State or calling for “S” – “unrealistic” sanctions. Now what if you talk to someone and they ask “If you think it is so bad, why don’t you ask for sanctions”, and the answer is that it’s “unrealistic”, it has a demoralizing effect. BDS is about seeking justice in the face of defeat.

      • Hostage
        July 3, 2014, 11:44 am

        He puts forward that we should educate people about the issue only, instead of using BD against the State or calling for “S” – “unrealistic” sanctions.

        No he explained that in the case of the South Africa BDS movement, their tactics were effective because government sanctions were imposed before anything else and that the US Congress overrode Reagan’s attempts to block the adoption of sanctions later on. He was criticizing the lack of effort on the part of Palestinian solidarity activists to pressure governments for sanctions by saying the movement should only be called BD and you are too f*cking stupid or biased to read and comprehend or admit what he actually said. I’ve pointed out your bad faith comments on the subject repeatedly.

      • Justpassingby
        July 3, 2014, 11:50 am

        W.Jones

        Thanks W.Jones, then chomsky isnt realistic (about educating).

      • W.Jones
        July 3, 2014, 1:04 pm

        Hello, again, Hostage.
        Why are you so offended by criticisms of Chomsky’s attacks on BDS?
        As I mentioned earlier, I like Chomsky overall because he is outspoken and usually progressive, but I also love Palestinians because they are suffering. I see BDS as one of the foremost efforts by activists for their rights, and Chomsky as one of the foremost figures on IP topics, which demands that we consider whether we agree with what he is saying.

        You wrote:

        He was criticizing the lack of effort on the part of Palestinian solidarity activists to pressure governments for sanctions by saying the movement should only be called BD

        In fact, Chomsky said:

        a BDS movement… has been formed, often citing South African models; more accurately, the abbreviation should be “BD,” since sanctions, or state actions, are not on the horizon

        Chomsky’s criticism of calling the movement BD”S” was that sanctions are not on the horizon, not that activists lack effort in asking officials for sanctions.

        Even if activists lobbied their strongly pro-Israeli US politicians for sanctions, they would not meet Chomsky’s requirement for the “S” in BDS, without the sanctions being “on the horizon”.

      • Hostage
        July 3, 2014, 4:12 pm

        Hello, again, Hostage.
        Why are you so offended by criticisms of Chomsky’s attacks on BDS?

        Because you are such an arrogant and artless prevaricator. Chomsky has written entire volumes that amount to criminal indictments regarding the Israeli and US partnership in war crimes against Palestine, Lebanon, and Syria and has called for sanctions to address those crimes. He has endorsed calls for termination of foreign assistance to Israel and Egypt and an arms embargo in addition to writing entire volumes about that subject too. See “Fateful Triangle” or “Power and Terror” :

        US foreign aid is the most miserly by far of any of the major industrial countries. And if we take away the component that goes to one rich country and another middle-range country [because of its associations with the rich country], namely Israel and Egypt, there’s almost nothing left. However, if you count everything, it’s still grotesquely marginal, and it is declining. But there is, nevertheless, some aid, and quite a lot of military aid, in fact. — Power and Terror by Noam Chomsky, p. 46 , May 25, 2002

      • Shingo
        July 3, 2014, 10:25 pm

        Because you are such an arrogant and artless prevaricator. Chomsky has written entire volumes that amount to criminal indictments regarding the Israeli and US partnership in war crimes against Palestine, Lebanon, and Syria and has called for sanctions to address those crimes

        That’s Chomsky resorting to the rationale that Israel is irrational and thus cannot be held singularly responsible for it’s actions. So he demands we bundle the US in with Israel accountability and widen the nett so much that it becomes diluted and meaningless.

        It’s similar in many ways to Abe Foxman’s rule for acceptable criticism of Israel -and story listing every other country that has ever commuted the same crimes – otherwise it’s anti Semitism.

      • W.Jones
        July 3, 2014, 4:54 pm

        Dear Hostage,

        You and I both want Palestinians’ rights to be upheld. They are going through one of the longest and largest refugee crises in history. And I respect that you know a lot about international law and have applied it to help Palestinians.

        When it comes to the IP conflict, I like to look at things in a sincere, straightforward way. That includes of course Chomsky’s statements that denounce BDS.

        Let’s look at this in a straightforward way.

        Chomsky said:

        the abbreviation should be “BD,” since sanctions, or state actions, are not on the horizon

        You replied that Chomsky

        “has called for sanctions to address those crimes. He has endorsed calls for termination of foreign assistance to Israel and Egypt and an arms embargo”

        Can you please show me where exactly Chomsky said he wants the Israeli State to be “sanctioned”?
        The quote you gave from “Fateful Triangle” is a complaint that the US is gives little foreign aid, except to a rich country (the Israeli State). It is not an explicit call for an arms embargo.

        Instead, Chomsky told Safundi in 2004, 20 years after writing “Fateful Triangle”:

        Safundi: One of the important tactics against the apartheid government was the eventual use of sanctions. Do you see that as a possibility?

        Chomsky: No. In fact I’ve been strongly against it in the case of Israel. So calling for sanctions here, when the majority of the population doesn’t understand what you are doing, is tactically absurd-even if it were morally correct, which I don’t think it is. The country against which the sanctions are being imposed is not calling for it.

        Who is the majority of the Israeli population, and how likely is it that they will want sanctions?

      • DaBakr
        July 3, 2014, 6:04 pm

        I seriously hope you folks here on MW realize that you, in general, and the Chomsky haters in specific, run tortuous circles around circles and intricate weavings of policy, ethics and justice into one damn confusing stew. its not exactly a criticism as it can be a vigorous work-out to defend ones pro-Zionist beliefs here without resorting to lies and fantasies. I can imagine one answer might be “just get out of WB and its simple” but somehow I think that were Israel to do this w/o a firm treaty-it would not be a simple matter and the conflict will continue on and on. (and until-as MANY chant in the bds movement, “from the river to the sea…etc”. So then whats in it for Israel is what? The Jews get to live. Doesn’t Cmsky at least jhave a point that political realities should be considered -and I don;t recall him calling for bds to halt and cease. Isn’t his more or less a tactical critique? Unless people here are really and truly convinced that bds has ‘turned the tide’. then i suppose I understand. but I would have to say-its wildly optimistic,imo and I am not ‘quaking in my ‘zionist’ boots’ at the prospects of continued success here and there of bds and ‘qualified’ bds as most Israelis know the issue isn’t going away and I believe they do not mind the external pressure as much as many think since it is ultimately pushing for resolution- though you here would say Israleis see that much more through their rosy lenses then would Palestinians.

      • Hostage
        July 3, 2014, 7:59 pm

        Chomsky’s criticism of calling the movement BD”S” was that sanctions are not on the horizon, not that activists lack effort in asking officials for sanctions.

        Chomsky didn’t say that you did. Whatever tactics activists are using to pressure US officials to adopt sanctions, they have certainly been ineffective so far.

      • Shingo
        July 3, 2014, 10:28 pm

        Whatever tactics activists are using to pressure US officials to adopt sanctions, they have certainly been ineffective so far.

        That is true, but that’s not the point you have argued so strenuously. You’ve argued that they haven’t tried.

      • W.Jones
        July 3, 2014, 8:17 pm

        CHOMSKY: a BDS movement… has been formed, often citing South African models; more accurately, the abbreviation should be “BD,” since sanctions, or state actions, are not on the horizon
        W.JONES: Chomsky’s criticism of calling the movement BD”S” was that sanctions are not on the horizon, not that activists lack effort in asking officials for sanctions. –
        HOSTAGE: Chomsky didn’t say that you did. Whatever tactics activists are using to pressure US officials to adopt sanctions, they have certainly been ineffective so far.

        Chomsky said “the abbreviation should be “BD,” since sanctions are not on the horizon”.
        He nowhere mentions in his article that better “tactics” would succeed in getting our pro-Israeli politicians to put US sanctions on the horizon.
        In fact, he told Safundi that he opposes sanctions because most Israelis don’t understand them.

      • Hostage
        July 4, 2014, 1:05 am

        W. Jones you are resorting to the same rhetorical device to put words in Chomsky’s mouth that he never uttered.

        He was saying that sanctions harm everyone, and you can’t impose sanctions on victims, when they aren’t on board and already calling for them. He never said a word about obtaining the consent of the perpetrators of the crime of apartheid or persecution in either Israel or South Africa. He was drawing a comparison between the victims in both cases and saying that the majority in Africa supported them and were demanding them, while the majority in Israel were not as of 2004. He never changed the subject or mentioned “Israeli Jews” in the interview as you and others keep trying to suggest. While some subjects of international law require the consent of all the parties concerned, that doesn’t apply to international criminal law where individual consent is irrelevant.

      • Hostage
        July 4, 2014, 1:17 am

        That’s Chomsky resorting to the rationale that Israel is irrational and thus cannot be held singularly responsible for it’s actions. So he demands we bundle the US in with Israel accountability and widen the nett so much that it becomes diluted and meaningless.

        No describing a situation as “a joint criminal enterprise” (JCE) is so common that the international criminal tribunals have developed doctrines covering several modes of liability for war crimes and crimes against humanity. I’ve commented here on many occasions that the illegal settlements are a joint criminal enterprise involving both Israeli and US government officials.

      • Hostage
        July 4, 2014, 1:20 am

        That is true, but that’s not the point you have argued so strenuously. You’ve argued that they haven’t tried.

        The overwhelming majority of organizations that have signed-on to the 2005 call haven’t tried anything.

  19. sjarjour
    July 2, 2014, 4:17 pm

    Norman Finkelstein and Mouin Rabbani (actual scholars on the topic) show in this video why one-staters don’t have a clue what they’re talking about. Go home cultists. You’re doing more harm than good for the Palestinians.

  20. seafoid
    July 2, 2014, 5:09 pm

    I think Chomsky is right to say the RoR will be a harder sell but that he underestimates the effect of the ageing of Israel’s core supporters in the West and the “stickiness” of the generation that comes after them, who only see IDF atrocities and have never read Leon Uris.

  21. Tal
    July 2, 2014, 5:17 pm

    Bottom line: Beinart’s Zionist BDS is progressing, anti-Israel BDS is failing.

    EU is sanctioning settlements , that church in the US is divesting from companies which profit from the occupation and at the same time supports Israel’s right to exist and the 2SS. Signs of progressing Zionist BDS.

    Best indicator for failing anti-israel BDS – the list of performing international artists in Israel had never been larger than of this year: Rolling Stones, lady gaga, Neil young, beyonce are just few of the names.
    Other indicators: no Israeli companies within the green line have suffered from BDS till now, the Israeli economy is actually growing (although the majority of citizens’ personal income remain the same but that’s a worldwide capitalist malady)

    That is because the good people of the world know that the occupation of the West Bank is very immoral but at the same time the Palestinians’ demands for the entire land of Israel/Palestine (by right of return and other means) are unreasonable and immoral because they will lead to a counteracting injustice to the Israeli people. No nation in the world would have sustained following a huge immigration/repatriation wave of a rival ethnicity.

    • W.Jones
      July 2, 2014, 6:47 pm

      As Hostage, Taxi, and I discussed, the right of return can be enacted logistically without stopping the 2SS. Borders need only be redrawn accordingly.

      • Hostage
        July 2, 2014, 11:14 pm

        As Hostage, Taxi, and I discussed, the right of return can be enacted logistically without stopping the 2SS. Borders need only be redrawn accordingly

        I don’t know what you are talking about, unless you’re referring to polls which indicate that 9 out of 10 refugees will opt for compensation and resettlement instead of return. The Arab Peace Initiative implicitly envisioned resettlement and naturalization of refugees who opt-out of repatriation.

        I’ve stated that I was involved in setting up Vietnamese refugee camps in the Philippines and the USA and that it was a logistical nightmare on that much smaller scale. A number of other countries were providing asylum. But that wouldn’t be the case here. There has never been any attempt to relocate, house, and feed, 5 million people. Full stop. There is no logistical support available for that sort of thing. Even if there were, there simply aren’t enough natural resources now to support the existing population without relying heavily on vulnerable technologies, like desalinization. You could accomplish it over a period of years, but I don’t see any way around problems like that one.

      • W.Jones
        July 2, 2014, 11:56 pm

        Hello, Hostage.

        There are two ways to look at this to show that the ROR is feasible.
        First, under your way, 9/10 supposedly don’t want their homes back, in which case the right is far more easier to implement. Their right can be accepted, but unimplemented by their consent, with 1/10 of them returning.
        The second way is that Yes, all the refugees can return. I believe that this is logistically possible. The Israelis are such geniuses that they made the desert bloom and get tons of Nobel prizes and desire for a full aliyah of millions of people to be accomplished. With all that genius, I am sure that they would be able to arrange for refugees to go back to their hones if they wanted to. Anyway, the Israeli State’s territory is rather more bountiful than the arid lands the refugees’ often squalid camps are on. I am sure it can be made to work.

      • Talkback
        July 3, 2014, 9:51 am

        The Israelis are such geniuses that they made the desert bloom …

        Sure. The Negev desert is the best example. Full of birds and trees and lakes … LOL.

    • RoHa
      July 2, 2014, 7:59 pm

      Why is it unreasonable and immoral for Palestinians to ask for equal rights in all Palestine? Israeli Jews will not lose any rights. They may lose some privileges, but the inequity in those privileges shows that such immoral privileges should be lost anyway.

      • Pat Nguyen
        July 2, 2014, 11:26 pm

        They will lose their sovereignty and be exposed to a hostile population.

      • Shingo
        July 3, 2014, 1:56 am

        They will lose their sovereignty and be exposed to a hostile population.

        So you therefore admit Israel is Jim Crowe or apartheid. Funny, one minute you are justifying why apartheid is necessary, the next you are denying it exists.

      • RoHa
        July 3, 2014, 2:59 am

        “They will lose their sovereignty”

        If Jews and Palestinians have equal rights in the land, then the Jews will have as much sovereignty as the Palestinians, just as Jews in Australia have as much sovereignty as the rest of us. How is that a loss or an injustice?

        “and be exposed to a hostile population.”

        The Palestinians will also be faced with the residual hostility from some of the Jews. A deliberate effort at reconciliation between the two groups will be necessary for them to become a single group with equal rights for all.

        But that is not an injustice to anyone.

      • Talkback
        July 3, 2014, 9:54 am

        Pat Nguyen says: They will lose their sovereignty and be exposed to a hostile population.

        So you critize Zionism for exposing the Palestinians to a hostile population which wanted to take over Palestine and undermined Palestinian souvereignity from the get go?

      • Hostage
        July 3, 2014, 1:35 pm

        They will lose their sovereignty and be exposed to a hostile population.

        No, the concept of sovereignty or the exercise of jurisdiction over other people has been graveyard dead in international law for decades.

        That’s why “the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples” is indivisible and there is a legal obligation under the UN Charter for all states to promote it without regard to race, sex, language, or religion. Attempts to circumvent that obligation, like apartheid, have been prohibited and made the subject of international penal sanctions.

    • Shingo
      July 2, 2014, 8:19 pm

      Bottom line: Beinart’s Zionist BDS is progressing, anti-Israel BDS is failing.

      Bottom line Beinart’s Zionist BDS exists only in your imagination, and BDS is gaining momentum. There is no such thing as anti-Israel.

      Other indicators: no Israeli companies within the green line have suffered from BDS till now

      Wrong. Israeli banks have indeed suffered.

      • Pat Nguyen
        July 2, 2014, 11:30 pm

        Shingo says:
        “.. and BDS is gaining momentum”.
        No, not really. That is why this article is making you and the other denizens here upset. One of your own is pointing out the truth. BDS will never be more that an odd coalition of college students, co-op members, extreme Palestinian supporters, and professional haters.
        “There is no such thing as anti-Israel”
        Surely you jest.

      • Talkback
        July 3, 2014, 9:57 am

        Oh Pat,

        it’s good to know that you are very shortsighted and don’t understand that this is a conflict about morality and humanity and Zionism is fighting an allready lost battle.

      • Hostage
        July 4, 2014, 12:20 am

        “It’s a hundred times worse any place else” is not a sacred cow.

        I notice that you continue to misquote what he actually said. Worse still, the only evidence you produce comes from a video interview of him speaking extemporaneously. He and Barat spend 40 minutes talking about the situation and Chomsky points out that there are two different languages and cultures and that the solution is going to be a bi-national state, unless you impose a solution and want to reproduce the bloody history of Europe.

        So lets cut through some of the obfuscation. What he actually said about “the three steps” was a reply made to Frank Barat. “Yes I mean all of these things are the right thing to do. It’s a 100 times worse in the United States, or England, or in any other country you [i.e. Frank Barat] talk about.”

        Frank Barat is a human rights activist that doesn’t talk about “the Scandinavian countries” as you suggested. He talks about the wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq, but mostly talks about Israel-Palestine and the Israeli occupations of parts of Lebanon, and Syria. Chomsky was commenting about Barat’s “perspective”, not the audience’s perspective.

        I own a copy of the book Barat co-authored with Chomsky and Pappe and I’m familiar with his other English-language work. You obviously can’t dismiss the hundreds of thousands of dead that the US and UK have inflicted in their decade long wars, or the numbers of dead in the wars in Lebanon and Syria. So you misquote Chomsky and employ a shift of the rhetorical device in question from “the perspective of the subjects that Barat talks about”, to “any place else” at all. If you can find support for your thesis in Chomsky’s published works, then it might be more convincing than misquoting what he said a dozen times.

      • W.Jones
        July 4, 2014, 12:49 am

        What he actually said about “the three steps” was a reply made to Frank Barat. “Yes I mean all of these things are the right thing to do. It’s a 100 times worse in the United States, or England, or in any other country you [i.e. Frank Barat] talk about.”

        Frank Barat is a human rights activist that doesn’t talk about “the Scandinavian countries” as you suggested.

        Thanks for giving the full quote, Hostage.

        It’s not a 100 times worse “in” England than in the Israeli State.

        There are more than 50 Israeli laws that discriminate against Palestinian citizens of Israel in all areas of life, including their rights to political participation, access to land, education, state budget resources, and criminal procedures.

        http://mondoweiss.net/2013/03/comprehensive-discriminatory-legislation.html
        I don’t see things being 100 times worse than that in the UK.

        Secondly, how do we know what “any other place you talk about” refers to? Is Chomsky referring to specific countries that Barat talks about in his writings? Or is Chomsky throwing it out there as an all-encompassing term, as in “I don’t read dramas, romances, or any other kind of novel you talk about”?

        As regards the US, the war on Iraq that you mentioned is not 100 times worse than Israeli actions, because as Ray McGovern says, the Israeli State was a major reason for the invasion. Nor are Israeli actions unrelated to US actions in other countries in the Middle East.

      • W.Jones
        July 4, 2014, 1:10 am

        What he actually said about “the three steps” was a reply made to Frank Barat. “Yes I mean all of these things are the right thing to do. It’s a 100 times worse in the United States, or England, or in any other country you [i.e. Frank Barat] talk about.”

        Frank Barat is a human rights activist that doesn’t talk about “the Scandinavian countries” as you suggested.

        In his interview with students who were coming for a BDS conference, he told them that the countries around the Israeli State, like Egypt, were “much worse”.
        youtube.com/watch?v=HV9w3fcZarg

        While Egyptian society, especially now under the Israeli-support Sisi government, is rather authoritarian, Egypt for its part is not preventing the return of a refugee population almost half its size that it expelled, nor is it involved in an apparently unending cycle of aggression against its neighbors, a permanent colonization project of occupied territories, etc.

      • Hostage
        July 3, 2014, 3:06 pm

        Shingo says:
        “.. and BDS is gaining momentum”.
        No, not really. That is why this article is making you and the other denizens here upset.

        Well, no. The article enrages individual BDSers because it offers a critique of some sacred cows. But the move to impose government-backed sanctions moves on at an increasing pace, despite the lack of grassroots action.

      • W.Jones
        July 3, 2014, 4:04 pm

        Danaa and I agree that this is one of the most misinformed Chomsky comments in the article:

        pursuit of (2)[ending discrimination] at once opens the door to the standard “glass house” reaction: for example, if we boycott Tel Aviv University because Israel violates human rights at home, then why not boycott Harvard ~Chomsky

        The article enrages individual BDSers because it offers a critique of some sacred cows. ~Hostage

        Sorry, Hostage. It may stir up some BDSers that Chomsky, a common speaker on IP issues, is repeating nationalistic talking points, but those are not really sacred cows.

        “It’s a hundred times worse any place else” is not a sacred cow.

      • Shingo
        July 4, 2014, 12:03 am

        The article enrages individual BDSers because it offers a critique of some sacred cows

        That might be true, seeing as one of those sacred cows is Chomsky.

      • Jackdaw
        July 4, 2014, 2:12 am

        @Hostage

        The “Bulldozer” claims that he, himself, fired the PIAT. This directly contradicts Kahanovich and allows for the presumption that all of Kahanovich’s testimony may be false. Falsus en uno.

        If several Palmachnik’s have already testified that the mosque contained armed combatants who were attacking the Palmach, than no massacre occurred in the small mosque.
        Eshet’s testimony about the massacre of the burial detail is contradicted by the Arab who was a member of the burial detail, to wit; no massacre of the burial detail.

        Kahanovich, who’s veracity is all ready in question, testified that he shot at or shot to death refugees who left the escape route.
        Worse case scenario, Kahanovich is guilty of a committing atrocious war crimes, but not of committing a massacre (by himself?).

        Obsidian never said that no one was killed on the march. He said, ‘It wasn’t the Bataan Death March’, wherein 75,000 Filipino and American troops on Bataan were forced to make an arduous 65-mile march to prison camps, subjected to harsh treatment by Japanese guards, and thousands perished.

      • Shingo
        July 4, 2014, 12:01 am

        No, not really. That is why this article is making you and the other denizens here upset.

        Not really. Chomsky’s verbal diarrhea has nothing to do with how BDS is gaining momentum.

        The Israeli government is holding freque to emergency meetings about BDS and Kerry himself has warned Israel that in the event that talks fail, there is little the US can do to protect Israel from BDS.

        BDS will never be more that an odd coalition of college students, co-op members, extreme Palestinian supporters, and professional haters.

        That ‘a already demonstrably false. The EU is in the process of passing trade sanction on Israel.
        http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21595948-israels-politicians-sound-rattled-campaign-isolate-their-country

        Sorry to burrs your bubble

    • Hostage
      July 2, 2014, 11:31 pm

      No nation in the world would have sustained following a huge immigration/repatriation wave of a rival ethnicity.

      People fail to observe that Chomsky supports the right of return, and always has. Chomsky acknowledges that indifferent and hostile attitude on the part of Zionists, but does not approve of it. He simply notes that the regime will use every weapon in its arsenal to prevent the fulfillment of the demand that it comply with international law and allow the refugees to return. He doesn’t think boycotts or symbolic divestments will be effective and asks “What are the other alternatives?” for accomplishing that aim or a “just settlement for the refugees.” I think in the long term a combination of economic, criminal, and military sanctions would work. But I agree that there’s not much support or evidence of crippling sanctions on the horizon at the moment.

      • Shingo
        July 3, 2014, 1:58 am

        He simply notes that the regime will use every weapon in its arsenal to prevent the fulfillment of the demand that it comply with international law and allow the refugees to return.

        And yet he and Fink keep demanding that the Palestinians stick religiously to international law and pursue it unreservedly.

        One can only assume they want the Palestinians to commit mass suicide given that what they recommend will, as you say, be met with very weapon in its arsenal.

  22. ThorsteinVeblen2012
    July 2, 2014, 5:26 pm

    Whenever I read Chomsky he refers to the United States as though it is a huge monolith as he does here.

    American policy to Israel and the Palestinians are dictated by specific people it’s not Americans views or even AIPAC that controls to message and the policy.

    It is a few extremely wealthy and influential people like Paul Singer, Sheldon Adelson and Hiam Saban. These people fund the think tanks, the lobbying groups and finance the candidates. Chomsky never names them.

    • Citizen
      July 2, 2014, 6:37 pm

      Chomsky never names the big jewish machers who pour so much money into the US political campaign system. He doesn’t show how much jewish money is involved in total main political party financing. He’s very weak in showing reality.

      • DaBakr
        July 3, 2014, 6:23 pm

        why would chomsky have to state the obvious. do you think his typical audience doesn’t know these names? whats the point? you think he is secretly in league with Sheldon Adelsen? oy.

    • Hostage
      July 3, 2014, 12:37 am

      Whenever I read Chomsky he refers to the United States as though it is a huge monolith as he does here. It is a few extremely wealthy and influential people like Paul Singer, Sheldon Adelson and Hiam Saban. These people fund the think tanks, the lobbying groups and finance the candidates. Chomsky never names them.

      * Noam Chomsky: America’s corporate doctrine of power a grave threat to humanity
      The United States’ foreign policy is increasingly guided by the concerns of the few — at a terrible cost to us allhttp://www.salon.com/2014/07/01/noam_chomsky_americas_corporate_doctrine_of_power_a_grave_threat_to_humanity/

      *And the presidential election — it was almost over 2 billion dollars this time. Now there is a lot of talk about how money didn’t work, because Sheldon Adelson spent 100 million dollars and didn’t get what he want. But that’s not true. Everyone who funded got what they want. The candidates who are in office thanks to the huge funding are beholden to the funders. They are the ones who bought their positions effectively, and if they want to stay in office they are going to have to go back to them. So it means they have to do what they want. — Noam Chomsky interviewed by Edward Radzivilovskiy, Deputy Opinion Editor, Washington Square News February 27, 2013 — http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20130227.htm

      Once again, for those with poor critical reading skills, Chomsky said that “all agree” that the Israel Lobby is one of the two key factors that interact in determining US state policy:

      M-W make as good a case as one can, I suppose, for the power of the Lobby, but I don’t think it provides any reason to modify what has always seemed to me a more plausible interpretation. Notice incidentally that what is at stake is a rather subtle matter: weighing the impact of several factors which (all agree) interact in determining state policy: in particular, (A) strategic-economic interests of concentrations of domestic power in the tight state-corporate linkage, and (B) the Lobby.

      — The Israel Lobby?, Noam Chomsky http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20060328.htm

  23. Tzombo
    July 2, 2014, 5:48 pm

    “And he says that the U.S. will continue to support Israel no matter what it does, and suggests that the only thing that will end American support is a power struggle with a global rival.”

    So from this issue of Foreign Policy: “U.S. diplomats believe the Israeli-Palestinian status quo is ultimately not sustainable. Support for Israel — as it becomes more isolated, delegitimized, and resolved to maintain the occupation — could, in time, boomerang against the United States as Washington is put in the unenviable position of defending increasingly indefensible Israeli behavior. Already, Obama has hinted that the United States will no longer be able to carry diplomatic water for Israel the same way that it has in the past.

    The current Israeli government does not feel the same sense of urgency.”
    (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/07/01/the_democrats_are_finally_turning_their_back_on_israel_and_its_high_time_they_did, it’s subscription only and the article is titled: The Democrats Are Finally Turning Away from Israel, And it’s high time they did. )

    This will and already is undermining US support. Not as fast as Europe, but even the US is not prepared to carry Israel forever.

    • unverified__5ilf90kd
      July 3, 2014, 2:46 am

      Chomsky is partially wrong about Israel just as he was partially wrong about B.F. Skinner and Verbal Behavior. This was Chomsky’s earliest controversy. When I was an undergraduate in 1967 Skinner told me that he was sure that Chomsky did not read Skinner’s book “Verbal Behavior” and did not understand it. Chomsky had written a 55 page review of it which Skinner thought was mainly about Chomsky and was total rubbish. Skinner told me that Chomsky was an idiot and was significantly overrated. In some ways Skinner was right. In the case of Israel, Chomsky learned about Israel from his family as a child under highly emotional circumstances and therefore he is partially irrational about Israel as are many Jews. Chomsky only talks to left-wing sycophants who are a rarified group found mainly in large cities and he fails to understand that the U.S. will “not” continue to support Israel no matter what it does. I live in Memphis and I can tell you that even the simple working class people down here in the South already understand that Israel has perverted and is perverting the course of US foreign policy. For example, when they see Michael Oren and Wolf Blitzer on CNN they get it right away. This is because at the present time the level of Zionist hubris by people such as Oren and Adelson et cetera in our media is so far over the top that even very ordinary folks can detect it as distasteful. I also think that some of the people who voted Cantor out were reacting to these excesses.

      • Shingo
        July 3, 2014, 5:43 pm

        In the case of Israel, Chomsky learned about Israel from his family as a child under highly emotional circumstances and therefore he is partially irrational about Israel as are many Jews.

        You’ve got the nail in the head. That it why he cannot bear to blame Israel for Israel’s crimes and insists everything comes down to oil and arms and that Israel is America’s secret weapon in the region.

        As with Hitchens, the fact that he is erudite has allowed him to confuse and blind his followers, but the spell has broken of late. Now he comes across as a senile old man.

      • aiman
        July 4, 2014, 8:53 am

        “In the case of Israel, Chomsky learned about Israel from his family as a child under highly emotional circumstances and therefore he is partially irrational about Israel as are many Jews. Chomsky only talks to left-wing sycophants who are a rarified group found mainly in large cities and he fails to understand that the U.S. will “not” continue to support Israel no matter what it does. ”

        Second that. Best comment on the thread IMO that says it how it is.

  24. yonah fredman
    July 2, 2014, 6:41 pm

    Chomsky and Finkelstein are indeed wearing two hats: analyst and activist. in their role of analysis they are putting themselves in the shoes of Israel supporters and measuring how that group can be convinced to force an end to the occupation. this requires them as analysts to accept certain arguments that true believers would never accept and those arguments are enumerated above.

    To me regarding Israel/Palestine the essential question is:What will be and how will it come about. To Chomsky and finkelstein an Israeli withdrawal to 67 lines is tantalizingly close in comparison to the one state proposal. Like generals who sense a weakness in their enemy’s front line, they want to put all their firepower in probing that weakness. To them every thing except for that weakness is besides the point, a distraction. Thus goals 2 and 3 are counterproductive.

    I don’t know that Chomsky and Finkelstein are right. For one thing, maybe in comparison to one state the international consensus is tantalizingly close, but in fact it is really far and therefore how can something be a distraction, when this so called weak position will survive a long time in any case, might as well build a 40 or 50 year movement with large goals, because there is not going to be a 10 year movement that will achieve the limited goal of two states.

    My own comment: Finally I hear someone comparing Israel to South Africa in terms of the economic pressures brought to bear and Chomsky tells me that South Africa was already suffering a business disinvestment in the 60’s (and didn’t collapse until 89 or so) and Israel’s position is totally different. People here sometimes state that they prefer the South Africa outcome to the Algerian outcome. Good enough. But for someone who is not up to doing the real research on the South Africa economic model and the Israel economic model, there is no way of measuring how this will play out. But finally here comes someone and throws a few nuggets (facts) into the mix so that I can attempt to understand how one strategy (South Africa) was achieved and begin to understand the strategy in regards to Israel. In fact the strategy in regards to Israel is in its infancy and still being formulated. So I understand both the impatience for the near 2 state from chomsky and finkelstein and the desire for ideological self truth of the stated 3 goals of BDS.

    • Donald
      July 2, 2014, 11:33 pm

      That was a pretty good summary, Yonah. I think you’ve hit the nail on the head–Chomsky and Finkelstein think they are being pragmatic, seeing a target they think is almost within reach, which is a consensus for a 2SS along the 67 lines. They think that is achievable, while the idea of a 1SS is a much tougher nut to crack. So they are trying to get everyone on the same page. Advocates for a 1SS hear this as a sellout.

      As you say in your third paragraph, their opinion on what is or is not achievable (leaving aside what is desirable) may no longer be accurate. It was and still is conventional wisdom that a 2SS is the only possible solution, but it seems highly unlikely that Israel would make an offer that any Palestinian leader would accept.

      • MHughes976
        July 3, 2014, 8:53 am

        I would be very surprised if Israel ever made a proposal that involved any form of sovereign Palestinian state, let alone an offer that Palestinians might be inclined to accept. That is because Zionists cannot, without compromising their core beliefs, accept any inherent right, ie one not dependent on their own grace, for any non-Jewish person to live in Palestine. The whole policy is to ‘live without a solution’.

  25. Danaa
    July 2, 2014, 6:54 pm

    People may be interested to note that RT just had an interview with max Blumenthal who mentioned BDS and Chomsky and allusions were made to Mondoweiss as well (with regard to eg, information known about the kidnapped teen settlers). I didn’t catch the whole segment but I think Abby martin should be lauded for broaching subjects and having guests on that no one else in the MSM dares to approach (that despite the fact that Abby’s mannerisms unfortunately get to me now and then).

  26. atime forpeace
    July 2, 2014, 6:56 pm

    Prof Chomsky

    To be uncertain is to be uncomfortable, but to be certain is to be ridiculous.
    Chinese

  27. Patrick
    July 2, 2014, 7:00 pm

    I think that one aspect of Chomsky’s criticism of the BDS campaign makes some sense. This is his criticism of (3) [support/promote the right of return of Palestinian refugees]. He is right that this is unrealistic, and support of this position will, in fact, undermine the BDS movement.

    One the other hand, Chomsky’s support of the 2SS also seems unrealistic. He knows, or should know, that there is no reasonable two-state or one-state that Israel is prepared to accept. The occupation grinds on. The settlements and settlers are deeply entrenched and will not be removed by Israel. It seems highly unrealistic to expect otherwise. Perhaps he is hoping that if it is put under extreme international pressure, then Israel might relent. But what is BDS if not a way to put pressure on Israel.

    What is most bizarre in Chomsky’s opposition to the position of BDS regarding (2), equal rights for Palestinians in Israel. What will he say when Palestinians in the occupied territories throw in the towel on the 2SS and simply ask for equal rights in a greater Israel/Palestine?

    My own view is that BDS should clearly of its objective: equality rights and human dignity for Palestinians living in Greater Israel. This should be coupled with recognition that the 2SS has been eclipsed by the facts on the ground that Israel has created. It should criticize the ‘peace process’ as hopeless failure that will never lead to a reasonable and just 2SS.

  28. Danaa
    July 2, 2014, 7:24 pm

    The “money quote’ from Chomsky:

    “There are “prohibitions against discrimination” in international law, as HRW observes. But pursuit of (2) at once opens the door to the standard “glass house” reaction: for example, if we boycott Tel Aviv University because Israel violates human rights at home, then why not boycott Harvard because of far greater violations by the United States?

    Predictably, initiatives focusing on (2) have been a near-uniform failure, and will continue to be unless educational efforts reach the point of laying much more groundwork in the public understanding for them, as was done in the case of South Africa.”

    This by far is Chomsky’s worst misunderstanding/malinterpreting. The way he speaks of Palestinians rights in Israel shows he has no clue as to what their status really is like. Similarities have been drawn to the Jim Crow South, but that is not accurate. Neither are comparisons to something akin to the old “Dhimmi” status of non-believers in Muslim countries. The closest comparison, IMO is to the caste system in India – the way it was – and still is in many places. The Jewish Ashkenazi have effectively the status of brahmins, while the Mizrahi descendants are somewhere below the merchant class. The Palestinians unfortunately are not second class citizens, as some would have it. They are effectively ranked below third class, even as Israel has been trying hard to relegate them to a new kind of “untouchables”. One cannot and should not underestimate the huge efforts being mounted in Israel to enforce greater separation between Arabic and so-called Jewish populations. Prohibitions against miscgenation, while not entirely written into law, are nonetheless enforced as common practice – by consensus and by societal pressures – and sometimes through deliberate barriers in the law. it’s not just that Palestinian Israelis are “discriminated’ against, as say, blacks are in the US in parts of the at least parts of the US. It’s that there is an active policy meant to ensure they are regarded – and treated – as a separate – and inferior – caste. It is that obvious policy (not always enshrined in pretentious articles of law that are hardly ever followed) which makes comparisons by Chomsky to racial practices in the US bordering on the pernicious.

    Tel Aviv Univ should be boycotted not only because of israel’s ethnic persecution and oppressive policies against Palestinians in the West bank and the internment camp of Gaza. It should be boycotted because it tacitly provides support – by hook and by crook – to the extreme educational disparities between palestinians and Israeli jews, be it through discriminatory admission policies (carefully papered over), secret quotas, preferential scholarships, dormitory assignments and carefully designed channels for encouraging ‘separation” while pretending to do otherwise. To the best of my knowledge, harvard does nothing of the sort. In fact, I am quite sure that were hrvard to impose (secretly of course) the kind of policies TAU does on Jewish applicants, why – the land could not contain the cries of the multitudes, with Chomsky no doubt leading the voices of outrage.

    I can see and understand people going all berchleft at the mere mention of RoR – I disagree of course, but I see how people have been brainwashed for 70 odd years to see Right of Return as an existential threat, ie, Palestinians coming back = Israel not “jewish” any more. How sad…. Of course, the reality of the demand for RoR is quite different than the hysteria surrounding the issue, but unfortunately, there’s a large contingent of erudite and intelligent jewish people – who won’t – and can’t bring themselves to view the RoR question realistically. So knee-jerk reactions is all we get.

    Having said all that, the bottom line is, I think a lot simpler: BDS was a Palestinian, not a Jewish initiative. It is therefore suspect, almost by definition. When push comes to shove, Chomsky, like Finkelstein, simply care less about Palestinians, their view-points and their initiatives than they would, were those to come from the Jewish side. These progressive luminaries won’t weigh Palestinian initiatives (and viewpoints) fairly because they are still part of the tribe, even as they move along its outer reaches – carefully laboring not to overstep some invisible line.

    • PeterAgur
      July 3, 2014, 2:56 pm

      Danaa – those are some serious accusations you are making against TAU – do you have any proof?
      AFAIK, admission to TAU is pretty transparent – based only on high school grades and the Israeli equivalent of the SAT. While such a system can perpetuate inequality (since most Arabs, as well as other disadvantaged Israelis, obviously have less access to a good education to begin with), I doubt Tel Aviv actually has discriminatory admission practices.
      As opposed, btw, to Harvard, which, like most elite American school, admits candidates based on a completely non-transparent mix of grades, essays and extra-curricular activities (debate team, lacrosse team etc.), which is the only legal way in America to keep the numbers of White students disproportionately high…

      • Danaa
        July 4, 2014, 2:45 am

        PeterAgur, I realize the accusations are serious – but that does not make them any less true. I know what admission system to TAU is like, and it is not nearly as transparent as you suggest. There are numerous exceptions on the matter of grade on matriculation exams and/or the entrance exam. All kinds of extenuating circumstances are taken into account – though only for jewish, not palestinian applicants. For the latter, it’s maximum “transparency”, right? example – I have a family member who managed to get into TAU with far less than adequate grades. But her mother was widowed hence some consideration was extended, both on acceptance and tuition waiver (that lovely relative is now a trophy wife par excellance, to the best of my knowledge, using that education that she got, somewhat minimally. Oh well, happens everywhere, I suppose, and that is definitely NOT Chomsky’s fault).

        But besides the underground discrimination, such as age, you yourself bring up the most obvious grounds for discrimination. Israel is making sure that the schools in palestinian towns remain inferior and underfunded AS A MATTER OF POLICY. Not only that, but there is the matter of the subjects tested on which again, disadvantage palestinian students (look into that if you wish). Harvard, at least is making at least some attempts on bringing a modicum of fairness through eg, affirmative action towards the disadvantaged, even as it continues to accept disproportionate number of “legacy” students (which is how the jewish undergraduate population can reach that staggering 30% level – clearly not on merit alone). In israel, they make lip service to support for ‘disadvantaged” students but it is just that – lip service.

        I have some links to the situation in israeli higher education as far as the Palestinians are concerned. If this thread stays open long enough I’ll go and find them for you. If not, you can look for the material yourself – not very hard to find.

    • Hostage
      July 3, 2014, 9:47 pm

      This by far is Chomsky’s worst misunderstanding/malinterpreting. The way he speaks of Palestinians rights in Israel shows he has no clue as to what their status really is like.

      I seriously doubt that. Chomsky is citing the glass house reaction of others, not himself and saying that they need more education on the subject before the tactics will be effective. If you look at the public reactions to the ASA boycott, it’s hard to take issue with him at this point in time.

      When people ask me questions about the state of the law, they often get angry at the answers I provide and jump to the conclusion that I approve of the work done by lawmaking bodies or the courts. That’s the sort of thing that happens with Chomsky all of time.

      • W.Jones
        July 3, 2014, 10:02 pm

        Chomsky is citing the glass house reaction of others, not himself and saying that they need more education on the subject before the tactics will be effective

        So he is not reacting himself by saying that BDS activists are throwing stones and living in a glass house because they don’t boycott Harvard?

        If so, then why did he say in 2010

        Boycotts? Yeah i still oppose boycotts… and the reason is that it is so hypocritical that it discredits the whole effort.

        It’s so utterly hypocritical that it’s basically a gift to the hardliners. They can say, ‘Look, you’re calling for a boycott of Israel, but you’re not calling for a boycott of the United States which has a much worse record… So therefore, if your position… is that hypocritical, how can we even take you seriously?

        (28:30)
        youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=t_LygPVxY8A

      • Shingo
        July 4, 2014, 10:01 am

        It’s so utterly hypocritical that it’s basically a gift to the hardliners. They can say, ‘Look, you’re calling for a boycott of Israel, but you’re not calling for a boycott of the United States which has a much worse record… So therefore, if your position… is that hypocritical, how can we even take you seriously?

        Hostage’ stake in this is that Chomsky is not speaking for himself here but describing the arguments that “hard liners” would make. But that’s just another example of him poisoning the well while trying to maintain the facade of indifference and objectivity.

        I guess one could respond that progressives might interpreted. Chomsky’s remarks as evidence he us a closet Likudnik who simply demands the Palestinians roll over and die while Israel has it’s way.

      • Danaa
        July 4, 2014, 2:27 am

        Hostage, I understand Chomsky is speaking of the reactions of others and not necessarily himself. However, this particular passge I quote indicates Chomsky’s own belief that “they” (Presumably the public-at-large) need more “education” before the tactic can be “effective”. Now, now – education, really? like the palestinians have another hundred years before they are totally done away with? and who will conduct this “education” exactly? educators? our MSM columnists? Roger Cohen? Ruth marcus? how about Max Blumenthal, for example? seen anyone lately invite him on a main stream channel (other than RT, DN, etc)? better yet – hasn’t Phil Weiss been trying to do just the sort of “education” needed for over a decade now (or longer)? haven’t you?

        And what’s the outcome? anyone learning anything that wasn’t inclined to learn in the first place?

        The emphasis on (2) makes a lot of sense to me as does Point (3) in the BDS platform. Those two points have already done more to educate multitudes (of the not-so-jewish variety in particular) than all the great jewish explainers and educators in the past 20 years.

        Chomsky is simply wrong on this issue (of point #2) not because he doesn’t have some idea of just how bad the palestinians’ situation is in Israel now, but because he does and is willing to let it go on, while making meek little whoispers about “education”.

        I can only repeat what I said above – the palestinians citizens of israel are treated not just as a lower race of people, but as a lower CASTE. And that is so and will remain so because nothing is more terrifying to israelis than the idea of inter-marriage. This is the greatest taboo – the fear of assimilation. It is far greater than any concept of “honor” they keep hurling at the Arab society. Israelis will not rest and will continue to labor mightily until such a time that the Israeli Palestinians can be finally relegated to the status of “untouchables”. And just because a caste system is not enshrined in law, does not mean that it is not practiced de facto. Besides, in a way it is the law as long as archaic halachic “laws” handed down straight from the middle ages is what governs family law.

  29. Ron Edwards
    July 2, 2014, 7:46 pm

    H’m. Boycotting Harvard is quite attractive. Not seeing the downside.

  30. piotr
    July 2, 2014, 9:51 pm

    I see three points worth discussion:

    a. what is the value of realism?
    b. is the slogan of “sanctions” productive?
    c. is the right of return a right?

    Starting from a. realism cannot be accepted if it does not produce logically consistent description of reality. Chomsky had a number of outstanding contributions over the years, but his very success makes difficult for him to accept his limitations. He “helpfully” observes that war is even more effective than sanctions. Does it mean that we should just wait for the second Salah-ed-Din, spending our time doing something sufficiently innocent not to attract some unwanted attention of the powerful? To me, non-war solutions are preferable, and also, solutions that COULD work are preferable to solutions that CANNOT.

    b. Boycott and disinvestment alone will not solve the problem. Sanctions, or fear of sanctions may. Lack of fear, the conviction that Israel can get with anything, or that at the very least, patriotic leaders must probe how far they can go and still get away with it, is removing oxygen from putative moderate forces in Israel. For better or worse, Israel does not have capacity to consider doing X or refraining from doing Y just because X is right and Y is wrong. Instead the questions are: which is a more proper Zionist response to the situation, and what can Israel get away with. The perspective of “human rights” labels an Israel (or American Jew?) a member of Radical Left, moderate voices argue their points by claiming that Israel would not get away with doing otherwise. After decades of moderates being proven wrong, Israeli Jews have a choice of being radicals, idiots or right wingers. Sanctions have to be “on the table” as the only possible tool for the non-war and non-Aparheid solution.

    c. Right of return is a right, it is important to Palestinians. Israel is of course free to offer something of comparable value.

  31. Patrick
    July 2, 2014, 10:20 pm

    A cleaned-up version of my earlier comments (& apologies for the previous sloppy version):

    I think that one aspect of Chomsky’s criticism of the BDS campaign makes some sense. This is his criticism of (3) [support/promote the right of return of Palestinian refugees]. He is right that this is unrealistic; advancing this position will, in fact, undermine the BDS movement. It’s a self-defeating position too adopt.

    On the other hand, Chomsky’s support of the 2SS also seems unrealistic. He knows, or should know, that there is no reasonable 2SS state that Israel is remotely prepared to accept. As the occupation grinds on, the settlements expand and settlers have become ever more deeply entrenched; it’s plainly evident that they will not be removed by Israel. It seems highly unrealistic to expect otherwise. Perhaps Chomsky is hoping that if Israel is put under extreme international pressure, then it might relent. But what is BDS if not a way to put pressure on Israel.

    What is most bizarre is Chomsky’s opposition to the position of BDS regarding (2), equal rights for Palestinians in Israel. What will he say when Palestinians in the occupied territories throw in the towel on the 2SS and simply ask for equal rights in a greater Israel/Palestine? That is coming because the 2SS is dead as a door nail.

    My own view is that BDS should be very clear of its central objective: equality rights and human dignity for Palestinians and indeed for all people living in Greater Israel. This should be coupled with recognition that the 2SS has long been eclipsed by facts on the ground that Israel has created. It should criticize the ‘peace process’ as hopeless and endless charade that will never lead to a reasonable and just 2SS, and which is used cynically by Israel to gain acceptance with western nations.

    • Shingo
      July 2, 2014, 10:30 pm

      Perhaps Chomsky is hoping that if Israel is put under extreme international pressure, then it might relent. But what is BDS if not a way to put pressure on Israel.

      Exactly. If there were any scope for putting Israel under extreme international pressure, he’d probably oppose it.

      In fact, if he were true to form, he’d argue it is immoral and anti semitic without the same being applied to the US.

      It’s becoming clear that the reason Chomsky prefers to heap all responsibility on the US for Israel’s actions is because he knows the US is entirely immune to any international sanctions or isolation.

      • Hostage
        July 3, 2014, 2:26 am

        It’s becoming clear that the reason Chomsky prefers to heap all responsibility on the US for Israel’s actions is because he knows the US is entirely immune to any international sanctions or isolation.

        It’s becoming clear that most of the people commenting here are conducting a witch hunt.

      • Shingo
        July 3, 2014, 6:43 am

        It’s becoming clear that most of the people commenting here are conducting a witch hunt.

        No. The guy is doing what he has always done and pulling his usual contrarian crap. He used to be able to bedazzle the faithful (ie. many of us here) by pulling the poker face, lowering his gravelly voice and in a detached monotonic voice, making controversial statements while denying they were controversial. He used to be so clever and so cool.

        The fact we are seeing through this facade isn’t a with hunt, it means he’s a one trick pony.

      • W.Jones
        July 3, 2014, 9:45 am

        He used to be able to bedazzle the faithful (ie. many of us here) by pulling the poker face, lowering his gravelly voice and in a detached monotonic voice, making controversial statements while denying they were controversial. He used to be so clever and so cool.
        That’s a good way of putting it.

      • Hostage
        July 3, 2014, 10:45 am

        That’s a load of bull and you know it Hostage. Again, you’re buying into Chomsky’s fantasy that we should abandon one strategy is favor of a futile one.

        Thank you for taking the time to reply in such a specific and intellegent manner to the things Chomsky and I actually said (not!)

        It’s becoming clear that most of the people commenting here are conducting a witch hunt.

        No. The guy is doing what he has always done and pulling his usual contrarian crap.

        You are actually one of the people I had in mind. The criticism here is content free ad hominem, arguments about things he didn’t say, and people pretending they read the article and complaining that he “never says” things that he actually did address.
        No. The guy is doing what he has always done and pulling his usual contrarian crap.

      • W.Jones
        July 3, 2014, 11:17 am

        The criticism here is content free ad hominem, arguments about things he didn’t say, and people pretending they read the article and complaining that he “never says” things that he actually did address.

        My main foundational criticism of Chomsky on IP is what he sees as the ideal. He does not believe in a state for one nationality only, which is admirable of him. However, the “bi-national” model that he advocated for seemed to be one that was made up of economic, political, and social organizations like Hatzomar that were dedicated to one nationality in particular. Thus he says that he was a nationalist “youth leader” and would have returned to the kibbutz were he not accepted at MIT.

        Were America to be divided in its economic and political organizations along nationalist or religious lines, we would have a society that might have been even more segregated than Jim Crow. While there were whites-only bathrooms, etc., at least we did not have whites-only political parties. The racism of the 1950’s was more unofficial. Now, I am sure that Chomsky saw Palestinians as equal human beings, but the difficulty I see in his model is that it leads to separation of a society along nationalist lines, even if the political advocates are not intolerant racists. This is because as Brown vs Board of Education said, “Separate but Equal is Inherently Unequal.”

        Take stock, Hostage, of the fact that intolerance has actually increased in Israeli attitudes since the state was founded. Living in a state that is openly dedicated to one nationality only and has this as its driving force can have this effect over time, whether intended or not. Now, I don’t think “it’s all Israel’s fault” either, because the presence of conservative Muslims will increase tensions. But my point is that when it comes to a model of society, Chomsky was working for a movement that although economically egalitarian did not really reach across nationalist limitations.

        In my opinion, his model of an Israeli society made up of economic and political organizations dedicated to one nationality or the other is the foundational problem in his analysis and political approach to IP issues. I am also not against the idea of the religious community’s return to the land, against a cultural revival, or against having a swath of religious or cultural organizations dedicated to one religion or culture. the problem is rather when this singularity becomes the basis of the society’s political and economic operations. What I would really be looking for from Chomsky might be a statement to that effect in relation to the anarchist Israeli nationalist movement, his model, and his past (eg. being a nationalist youth leader was a mistake). That’s alot to ask from someone, I admit, and everyone, both you and I have their own setbacks- for a long time I had a status quo view of Palestinians myself. I am not trying to make a personal judgment against him, and overall I admire Chomsky.

      • Hostage
        July 3, 2014, 6:19 pm

        You might try reading his Influences article again, because you are not actually doing a good job of describing or summarizing his views, which he explains are considered to be anti-Zionist nowadays. http://www.chomsky.info/books/reader01.htm

        Take stock, Hostage, of the fact that intolerance has actually increased in Israeli attitudes since the state was founded.

        Because Deir Yassin, the forced evictions of Ramle and Lyyda, the punishment imposed on Kafr Qasim for violating the curfew, and the imposition of martial law and the Defense Emergency Regulations from 1949 to 1966 were so progressive and liberal by the standards of civilization that applied at the time?

      • Shingo
        July 3, 2014, 10:58 pm

        Because Deir Yassin, the forced evictions of Ramle and Lyyda, the punishment imposed on Kafr Qasim for violating the curfew, and the imposition of martial law and the Defense Emergency Regulations from 1949 to 1966 were so progressive and liberal by the standards of civilization that applied at the time?

        Yes Cast Lead is clear evidence that Israel has progressed since Deir Yassin.

      • Shingo
        July 3, 2014, 11:02 pm

        You might try reading his Influences article again

        Very revealing. He states that his opinions were formed prior to reading literature and were not swayed by subsequent reading.

        So he pretty much admits he’s an ideologue.

      • W.Jones
        July 3, 2014, 7:07 pm

        Hostage,

        ((Take stock, Hostage, of the fact that intolerance has actually increased in Israeli attitudes since the state was founded.))

        Because Deir Yassin, the forced evictions of Ramle and Lyyda, the punishment imposed on Kafr Qasim for violating the curfew, and the imposition of martial law and the Defense Emergency Regulations from 1949 to 1966 were so progressive and liberal by the standards of civilization that applied at the time?

        Hostage, Blumenthal reported that the attitudes of intolerance have increased in Israeli society. Chomsky himself quite recently said that it has gotten so bad that he would not want to live there anymore. This is what a state divided on nationalistic lines grows into. I don’t see how the Nakba of 1948 proves that Israeli society is no more intolerant, since they don’t allow the Nakba to be recognized.

        And if those events were so reactionary -and they were- then why was the progressive, “realistic” Chomsky doing going to a Kibbutz and planning on immigrating to one that had just carried out the Nakba, unless he may actually have had a weak spot when it came to the nationalist movement’s involvement?

      • W.Jones
        July 3, 2014, 7:35 pm

        I commented that Chomsky’s binational nonstate model reflected basing society in part on economic, political, kibbutz, and social organizations based on a single national group.

        You replied: “You might try reading his Influences article again, because you are not actually doing a good job of describing or summarizing his views, which he explains are considered to be anti-Zionist nowadays.

        Thanks for the link.

        Chomsky does say that his ideas are now not called “Zionist.” That is because he was “opposed to the deeply antidemocratic concept of a Jewish state (a position that was considered well within the mainstream of Zionism)”, while Zionist typically today is thought of as a nationalist state. Personally though, I question whether even today anarchist nationalism cannot be considered a version of Zionism. If one is an anarchist and wants a society to be based on nationalist lines, then I think that it is still a form of nationalism.

        Further, he writes: ” I was interested… in the kibbutzim and the whole cooperative labor system that had developed in the Jewish settlement there (the Yishuv)… I liked it very much in many ways. Abstracting it from context, this was a functioning and very successful libertarian community”.

        He begins to recognize the problem when he says:

        What I did not then face honestly was the fairly obvious fact that these are Jewish institutions and are so because of legal and administrative structures and practice. So, for example, I doubt if there’s an Arab in any kibbutz, and there hardly could be, because of the land laws and the role the institution plays in the Israeli system… As for intellectual life, this kibbutz was Buberite in origin

        However, I would go farther. I would say that even if the legal and administrative structures were removed, that it is still problematic to belong to an organization that is devoted to one national group only in a land that is made up of two. In other words, even the “Buberite” version of Zionism that is no longer considered “Zionist” is problematic.

        Granted, Hostage, I would be interested in seeing if Chomsky no longer even accepts the Buberite or anarchist version of nationalism, since he says that he did not “face honestly the fact” that the anarchist kibbutzes were nationalist organizations. Maybe that is what he is saying.

        He still is pretty positive about the kibbutzes in other interviews:
        http://libcom.org/library/relevance-anarcho-syndicalism-noam-chomsky-interviewed-peter-jay
        Although he may be approving of them apart from their uni-nationalistic aspect.

      • W.Jones
        July 3, 2014, 9:03 pm

        I commented that Chomsky’s binational nonstate model reflected basing society in part on economic, political, kibbutz, and social organizations based on a single national group.

        You replied:

        “You might try reading his Influences article again, because you are not actually doing a good job of describing or summarizing his views, which he explains are considered to be anti-Zionist nowadays.

        Thanks for the link.

        Chomsky does say that his ideas are now not called “Zionist.” That is because he was “opposed to the deeply antidemocratic concept of a Jewish state”, while Zionist typically today is thought of as a nationalist state. I am fully aware of that.

        However, even reading the interview, I see that my reading of his model is correct, as he says:
        “I remain a Zionist in the sense that was of Zionism in the 1940’s. Zionism has changed. It doesn’t mean my views have.” (7:40)
        youtube.com/watch?v=t_LygPVxY8A

        I don’t see religious or cultural organizations, or a return to the land, or a cultural revival as necessarily a problem- and in fact they can be inspiring. Rather, the problem is that the nationalist movement, even the binational anarchist part in the 1940’s, was built on nationalist organizations from top to bottom, thereby leading to a deep nationalist division in society.

      • Keith
        July 3, 2014, 4:05 pm

        HOSTAGE- “It’s becoming clear that most of the people commenting here are conducting a witch hunt.”

        You got that right, and it’s not the first time either. Below are two links, the first to “Unfair to Chomsky,” the second to a Jeffrey Blankfort’s intellectually dishonest screed, both of which may interest you. In many ways this is a shocking thread.
        Link to “Unfair to Chomsky” http://mondoweiss.net/2010/11/unfair-to-chomsky.html
        Link to Blankfort http://www.leftcurve.org/LC29WebPages/Chomsky.html

      • libra
        July 3, 2014, 5:17 pm

        @Keith

        Keith, just because Jeff Blankfort takes apart your view of the US-Israel relationship doesn’t make him intellectually dishonest.

        And what is it you find shocking about this thread? I hope Mondoweiss serves up comments this interesting on a regular basis like it used to.

      • Keith
        July 3, 2014, 8:07 pm

        LIBRA- “Keith, just because Jeff Blankfort takes apart your view of the US-Israel relationship doesn’t make him intellectually dishonest.”

        If you followed the link, you would know that Blankfort attacks Chomsky, not me or my view of the US-Israel relationship. Suggesting that he does is intellectually dishonest, a somewhat common tactic among the fans of Blankfort.

      • Shingo
        July 3, 2014, 11:13 pm

        You got that right, and it’s not the first time either. Below are two links, the first to “Unfair to Chomsky,” the second to a Jeffrey Blankfort’s intellectually dishonest screed, both of which may interest you. In many ways this is a shocking thread.

        Blankfort’s criticism is right on the money. Chomsky’s whole war for oil thesis about Iraq has been shot to pieces, but he remains immovable on that topic just like he was about his screw up over the Kmer Rouge.

        As for the apology by Phil, I feel he was too quick to back down. There is no way to know for sure if Chomsky’s take on W&Ms book was based on scientific reading or not without reading his mind. As with other cases, it appears Chomsky didn’t even bother to read their book and some of the arguments he has made to counter their thesis have subsequently been exposed as erroneous.

      • Hostage
        July 4, 2014, 12:32 am

        just because Jeff Blankfort takes apart your view of the US-Israel relationship doesn’t make him intellectually dishonest.

        In the past, I’ve pointed-out that Blankfort’s accusation that Chomsky is determined to keep Israel and Israeli Jews from being punished by sanctions is not consistent with Chomsky’s published views on the subject. For example, the Chomsky Reader (1987) criticized the US government for blocking sanctions against Israel, despite the fact the Carter Administration had repeatedly declared the settlements to be illegal.

        I agree with much of what Blankfort has to say on a variety of subjects, but his article on Chomsky is tendentious ankle biting.

      • W.Jones
        July 4, 2014, 1:18 am

        the Chomsky Reader (1987) criticized the US government for blocking sanctions against Israel

        The only place I found in the book on the topic says:
        “the United States never suggested sanctions against Israel to punish it for its attacks… the United States wants to ensure the maximum possible suffering in countries that have been so ignoble as to resist American aggression”.
        The full context is one where Chomsky contrasts American punishment of some criminal acts by some countries with its lack thereof with the Israeli State. He does not actually advocate sanctions against the State, as shown by the fact that in 2004 he told Safundi that he opposes sanctions against the State.
        http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20040309.htm

    • Hostage
      July 3, 2014, 2:33 am

      On the other hand, Chomsky’s support of the 2SS also seems unrealistic.

      FYI, Chomsky says he prefers the no state solution. If you’d read the article, you’ll see he doesn’t think the 2SS solution stands any realistic chance of being fulfilled. He ask why Israel would accept it, without any real pressure from the US? He predicts more of the status quo.

      • Shingo
        July 3, 2014, 6:45 am

        If you’d read the article, you’ll see he doesn’t think the 2SS solution stands any realistic chance of being fulfilled.

        And yet, he then goes back to lecturing pro Palestinian activists that they have no choice but to stick to the international consensus.

        So by his own admission, he’s insisting they stuck to a futile strategy and spin their wheels indefinitely

      • Hostage
        July 3, 2014, 10:54 am

        So by his own admission, he’s insisting they stuck to a futile strategy and spin their wheels indefinitely

        He admitted no such thing and was explaining how the South African BDS model was different, overcame such problems, or why its tactics were more effective at building international consensus.

      • W.Jones
        July 3, 2014, 6:58 pm

        Chomsky says he prefers the no state solution.

        Right, because he is an anarchist. That is hardly a discriminatory or intolerant preference by him. What is more objectionable about his binational ideal, in my view, is that the leftwing Hatzomair movement he was a nationalist youth leader in wanted to in effect divide society along nationalist lines, rather than be a mass political, economic organization composed of both national groups.
        it’s admirable that he notices the racism that there was and complains that they excluded Arabs, but I would go further and question the very model of dividing businesses, the major social organizations, and parties on national lines.

  32. Dan Crowther
    July 2, 2014, 11:07 pm

    This comment thread is something else.

  33. jayn0t
    July 3, 2014, 12:59 am

    Chomsky’s piece in The Nation begins “The misery caused by Israel’s actions in the occupied territories has elicited serious concern among at least some Israelis.”

    This sums up his approach to the Israel/Palestine question. He does say “in the occupied territories, the situation is far worse than it was in South Africa” but surely the phrase “occupied territories”, which he uses several times, deliberately misses the point. Israel is occupied territory. It’s not “Israel’s actions in the occupied territories”: Israel is an ongoing project of ethnic cleansing.

    • Hostage
      July 3, 2014, 2:22 pm

      This sums up his approach to the Israel/Palestine question.

      No it doesn’t, that sums up your short attention span. He actually said:

      Much the same is true of the invocation of apartheid. Within Israel, discrimination against non-Jews is severe; the land laws are just the most extreme example. But it is not South African–style apartheid. In the occupied territories, the situation is far worse than it was in South Africa, where the white nationalists needed the black population: it was the country’s workforce, and as grotesque as the bantustans were, the nationalist government devoted resources to sustaining and seeking international recognition for them. In sharp contrast, Israel wants to rid itself of the Palestinian burden. The road ahead is not toward South Africa, as commonly alleged, but toward something much worse.

      Likewise he says the crucial question is whether the US will continue to undermine international consensus in order to support Israel’s crimes? He has written a plethora of articles on the subject. Chomsky and the JVP mission statement call for an end to foreign assistance and arms sales to Israel until it complies with international law. He has written about efforts to delegitimize Israel’s actions and says that similar actions are needed to delegitimize the US role as an arms supplier/honest broker in order to break the deadlock. See Breaking the Israel-Palestine Deadlock, http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20110103.htm

      He has also underlined US refusal to recognize Palestine, like the majority of other countries, and the disadvantages that entails. Arms embargoes, abstaining from the use of its veto on Security Council resolutions about illegal situations created by Israel, and recognizing Palestine inside the armistices lines – pending a final settlement, are all examples of things that we can pressure the US to do That’s especially true when international law and simple equity requires the US to do all of those things in the first place.

      • W.Jones
        July 3, 2014, 2:40 pm

        ((Within Israel, discrimination against non-Jews is severe; the land laws are just the most extreme example. But it is not South African–style apartheid.~Chomsky))
        By the way, you can’t really go on what Chomsky is saying here about Apartheid. Has contradicted himself in his interview with Safundi and in his lecture at IAW at Harvard about whether there is Apartheid inside or outside the Green Line. In his interview with Safundi he said that there was Apartheid in the Green Line

        Uri Davis… protested real apartheid, inside Israel. This had been going on for the whole history of the state… Israel has a technique for dispossessing Israeli citizens-non-Jewish citizens-that’s apartheid.

        Safundi: So it’s similar to the forced removals that were happening in South Africa.

        Chomsky: Kind of, yes… [Uri] started doing scholarly work on what he calls “Apartheid Israel.” And that’s the internal structure of the society-in fact, I’ve written about it, too

        http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20040309.htm

        Yet at Harvad’s IAW he talked for over twenty minutes about how calling it “Apartheid” is “very inaccurate”, inappropriate, etc. etc.

      • Hostage
        July 3, 2014, 9:55 pm

        But it is not South African–style apartheid.~Chomsky))
        By the way, you can’t really go on what Chomsky is saying here about Apartheid. Has contradicted himself in his interview with Safundi and in his lecture at IAW at Harvard about whether there is Apartheid inside or outside the Green Line. In his interview with Safundi he said that there was Apartheid in the Green Line

        I don’t have any trouble parsing that at all. Israeli Apartheid isn’t like South African-style Apartheid and we’d all waste a lot less time by simply calling it “the crime of persecution” ala the Nuremberg Charter and the Goldstone report. I’ve said as much myself right here at MW.

      • W.Jones
        July 3, 2014, 10:09 pm

        Hostage: Israeli Apartheid isn’t like South African-style Apartheid

        Safundi: with the coincidence of the Oslo meetings and the end of apartheid, you’ve drawn comparisons between both places…

        Chomsky: As many people have.

        In fact, even the legal conditions would be very familiar in apartheid South Africa

        http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20040309.htm

    • W.Jones
      July 3, 2014, 2:31 pm

      Jaynot,

      I think you are getting onto something here. Chomsky is OK with boycotting settlements, but he is not OK with boycotting the Israeli State proper. He draws a distinction between them, like you are saying. And his justification is that it’s “100 times worse… anyplace else”, as he said in the Frank Barat interview (Part 4/4).

      • Hostage
        July 3, 2014, 10:58 pm

        Chomsky is OK with boycotting settlements, but he is not OK with boycotting the Israeli State proper.

        Chomsky’s books support an arms embargo, termination of foreign assistance to Israel, and termination of the special relationship. He says that BDS is the right thing to do. He simply adds that it invites the glass house argument and is the height of hypocrisy if you don’t also call for BDS against others too. Whether you care to admit it or not, Israel relies on the special relationship and it won’t abandon the status quo, so long as we are willingly covering its ass. The US has committed genocides in its own right, more than once, just ask a Native American or a Filipino. Its numerous wars in Asia, have resulted in millions of deaths and millions of refugees. It can’t find the decency to release the innocent prisoners from Guantanamo that have long-since been cleared of any charges by our own Combatant Status Review Tribunal. We can’t get our own Nobel peace prize winning President to stop using his fleet of CIA drones to murder civilians, including innocent bystanders in countries around the globe.

      • W.Jones
        July 3, 2014, 11:09 pm

        Chomsky’s books support an arms embargo, termination of foreign assistance to Israel

        May I please ask you to be more specific about which passage in the books say that? The quote from the Fateful Triangle didn’t call for one.

        Chomsky is OK with boycotting settlements, but he is not OK with boycotting the Israeli State proper. ~W.Jones

        He simply adds that it invites the glass house argument and is the height of hypocrisy if you don’t also call for BDS against others too. ~Hostage

        1. Why is it OK to boycott settlements, but not the Israeli State proper if the U.S. is worse than either?
        2. Even if the US is worse like you say, that still does not make it hypocritical because of an important difference in boycotting the two: practicality. For example, it is much easier for an American shopper to avoid buying Israeli products like Haifa oranges than to avoid buying American products.
        Another one is effectiveness: Israelis rely more on foreign trade because they are a small country and are worried about boycott effects, and Sodastream’s value tanked. The US, as an economically self-sufficient superpower, has less to be concerned about.
        3. I question whether the US really is worse than either today. The Israeli system is designed around one nationalist group being above another. That is not the case in the US legal system, and while disparities exist, I doubt that they are worse for US minorities than for Palestinians. And while the US has an imperialist policy, according to Chomsky the Israelis may be planning to rid themselves of the burden of the Palestinian population and are heading in that direction. I am not sure that there is a population that the US has currently targeted for elimination, fortunately. Additionally, the wars that you cite in the Near East were to a significant extent at the instigation of the Israeli lobby, so I am not sure that in carrying them out on its behalf that the US was really “worse” than the State.

      • Shingo
        July 3, 2014, 11:49 pm

        He simply adds that it invites the glass house argument and is the height of hypocrisy if you don’t also call for BDS against others too.

        That makes him the hypocrite, because I don’t recall him ever arguing that boycotting South Africa invited any glass house arguments or was hypocritical because it failed to call for boycott of other racist African nations with worse human rights records.

        Like I said, Chomsky’s revealing his inner Abe Foxman.

  34. plenty
    July 3, 2014, 2:02 am

    When he speaks of consensus, isn’t he speaking about Governments?? Isnt BDS the answer to those governments? I think that he believes we are all powerless, no power to the people here. Noted, is that he offers no way forward, i cant think of anyone that wants to go back to the time of hand wringing and writing sad notes to our elected officials only to be insulted by a hasbara ridden reply. BDS is a gift to all of us that care for Palestine. AND BDS always educates, so win or lose i know i was NOT complicit….and BTW love the posters here, i have learned a lot.

    Did he really pull hasbara tactic#43. can we somehow make this about Harvard? cheeky monkey!

    • Hostage
      July 3, 2014, 1:41 pm

      When he speaks of consensus, isn’t he speaking about Governments?? Isnt BDS the answer to those governments? I think that he believes we are all powerless, no power to the people here. Noted, is that he offers no way forward, i cant think of anyone that wants to go back to the time of hand wringing and writing sad notes to our elected officials only to be insulted by a hasbara ridden reply.

      No. So stop asking rhetorical questions and constructing straw men and just stick to what he actually said in the article.

      • plenty
        July 3, 2014, 2:32 pm

        Then tell who is the *consensus* he speaks of?, and see if you can do it with being nasty.

      • W.Jones
        July 3, 2014, 4:31 pm

        Plenty,
        Here’s how I felt when I read in the Nation that Chomsky would be writing an article about BDS:

      • Hostage
        July 3, 2014, 10:25 pm

        Then tell who is the *consensus* he speaks of?, and see if you can do it with being nasty.

        Surely, on an official level the majority of the world’s population lives in countries that recognize the State of Palestine. The numerical majority of countries recognize Palestine. A simple majority of countries recognize both Israel and Palestine.

        Most international intergovernmental organizations have formally endorsed the two state solution. The relevant General Assembly resolutions 181(II), 194(III), 67/19 (2012) and Security Council resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973), 1515 (2003), and 1860 (2009) have long since been incorporated in the framework of conventional international agreements like the Camp David and Oslo accords and the Quartet Road Map.
        In the West, a plethora NGOs, churches, and PACS with the largest number of members favor a 2ss.

        At the grassroots level, opinion polls show most people support a two state solution, whether they think it will ever happen or not. Many people who prefer a single state solution think a two state solution could be a precursor to a single state, e.g. http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/poll-most-palestinians-see-two-state-solution-as-precursor-to-single-state-1.325793

    • W.Jones
      July 3, 2014, 2:19 pm

      i cant think of anyone that wants to go back to the time of hand wringing and writing sad notes to our elected officials only to be insulted by a hasbara ridden reply. BDS is a gift to all of us that care for Palestine.

      BDS offers a way to circumvent the “Iron wall”. When a US university is involved in abuses in IP world, the students don’t just have to limit themselves to talking about it, they can propose BDS resolutions to their student governments.

  35. G. Seauton
    July 3, 2014, 2:14 am

    Chomsky makes an excellent point, which is that there is a third possibility, not so easily discounted. Israel could continue its oppression and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians indefinitely and expand into what remains of the West Bank and even farther, into Jordan. What’s to stop it? As Chomsky says, the vote that counts is that of the U.S. Chomsky points out in his interview with Frank Barat (on youtube) that if we want the right of return and equal rights for Palestinians, we need to change U.S. policy. End funding for Israel and force the withdrawal of the IDF from the West Bank. Once the West Bank is in the hands of the Palestinians and the settlers are no longer subsidized by the Israeli government, most settlers will return to Israel, where they can be subsidized to live there.

    I support the boycott. But ultimately, I have great difficulty seeing how Israel can be forced to change if the U.S. continues its support. The Palestinians would have had a state years ago if the U.S. hadn’t been funding Israel and supplying it with so much military aid.

  36. phacepalm
    July 3, 2014, 5:43 am

    Wow – this thread is on fire. I realize most of you are far more knowledgeable on this subject than me but I will add my 2 cents.

    As seems to be the case with other commentators, I am someone who used to have extreme respect for Prof. Chomsky but I’ve grown disillusioned with him over the past few years. I remember reading all the wonderful stuff he would write on the I/P issue, yet every now and then he would throw a line that was totally unexpected – something straight out of the hasbara manual. I used to not read too much into it until I read his opinion on the Walt/Mearsheimer book in which he practically denied the influence (or even the existence) of the israel lobby and instead came up with some bullshit US imperial interests thesis, as if fighting every arab nation in the ME is to the US imperial interests. His latest rants on the BDS movement (and make no mistake about it because that’s what they are) sealed it for me. He is a zionist at heart and his tribalism came through – although at a very late stage in his life.

    Now as others pointed out, his main argument is that israel is so powerful that nothing can be done about the sanctions business (or really anything at all the Palestinians and their supporters can do about it). They should simply accept their fate and roll over and die.

    The thing to remember about this is that Chomsky is a big fan of the following quote which he has used many times:

    “The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must”
    (Melian dialogue from Thucydides “History of the Peloponnesian War”

    Which although it’s true and the strong *will* do what they can, that does not mean that the weak should simply accept their fate. Far from being ineffective, BDS is actually doing quite well – hey, we are talking about it right now aren’t we? And if Chomsky does not think it’s gone enough then that’s not the reason to abandon it. Maybe if he provided real alternatives then I could take him seriously – but he doesn’t. BDS is a good tactic to fight back – a great tactic if you ask me – and probably the only one left at this time.

  37. Hostage
    July 3, 2014, 11:56 am

    I remember reading all the wonderful stuff he would write on the I/P issue, yet every now and then he would throw a line that was totally unexpected – something straight out of the hasbara manual. I used to not read too much into it until I read his opinion on the Walt/Mearsheimer book in which he practically denied the influence (or even the existence) of the israel lobby and instead came up with some bullshit US imperial interests thesis, as if fighting every arab nation in the ME is to the US imperial interests.

    Chomsky actually said the Lobby was one of the two prime factors that interact to determine US policy in the ME. I take it from your comment that you are one of those unfortunate souls who still can’t figure out why AIPAC couldn’t get Syria or Iran bombed after it dispatched 300 Lobbyists to the Hill in support of Obama’s request for an AUMF? Maybe you should stop reading things “into” what Chomsky says, and reexamine your definition of bullshit and hasbara.

    • jayn0t
      July 3, 2014, 12:12 pm

      “Chomsky actually said the Lobby was one of the two prime factors that interact to determine US policy in the ME”. Not in his major work on the subject, “Fateful Triangle”. “AIPAC couldn’t get Syria or Iran bombed after it dispatched 300 Lobbyists to the Hill”. The lobby isn’t omnipotent.

      • W.Jones
        July 3, 2014, 2:22 pm

        I don’t think AIPAC played much of a role in [the first Gulf War]~Chomsky

        Note however the “Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf, the organization set up in 1990 by Perle, Ann Lewis (the former political director of the Democratic National Committee), and former Congressman Stephen J. Solarz (D-NY), to lobby for the first Gulf War.”
        http://mailstar.net/iraq-war.html

        AIPAC, «was widely credited with having played a key role” in rounding up the necessary votes in the Senate to give Pres. Bush his majority. “[B]ecause of the extreme sensitivity to the issue, AIPAC was anxious to camouflage its role to avoid providing evidence for the accusation…

        http://www.voltairenet.org/article143703.html

      • Hostage
        July 3, 2014, 9:30 pm

        I don’t think AIPAC played much of a role in [the first Gulf War]~Chomsky

        I don’t think so either. There were already 500,000 US personnel alone in the Gulf before the Congress adopted the “Authorization of the Use of U.S. Armed Forces Pursuant to U.N. Security Council Resolution 678 with Respect to Iraq (P.L. 102-1, 105 Stat. 3, January 14, 1991 [H.J.Res. 77])”, on January 14, 1991. They had been there for six months. http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/P.L.-102-1-105-Stat.-3-January-14-1991-H.J.Res_.-772.pdf

        The text of the statute noted that the previous, 101st Congress had adopted resolutions that condemned Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait and declared their support for international action to reverse Iraq’s aggression” (H.J.Res. 658 and S.Con.Res. 147). Most experts agreed that the Commander-in-Chief already had the necessary authorizations on that basis and the strength of the UN resolutions and the new AUMF was just icing on the cake.

        There were about 900,000 personnel in all who thought it was pretty much an after thought. The UN Security Council and a coalition of 30 other countries had already authorized the use of force and had long since issued their ultimatums.

        Chomsky was talking about AIPAC, but your sources are talking about “The Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf”. That Committee was non-existent and irrelevant when the first elements of the US Armed Forces deployed to the Gulf on 8 August 1990. AIPAC and the Congress were not even in the picture at that point.

      • W.Jones
        July 3, 2014, 9:47 pm

        I don’t think AIPAC played much of a role in [the first Gulf War]~Chomsky

        I don’t think so either. ~Hostage

        Its efforts to persuade U.S. lawmakers to go after Iraq date back to the first Gulf War. In an interview shortly after the 1991 Gulf War began, Thomas Dine, then president of AIPAC, told the Wall Street Journal that his organization had been busy behind the scenes building support for the war. “Yes, we were active,” said Dine. “These are the great issues of our time. If you sit on the sidelines, you have no voice.”

        A key AIPAC supporter at the time who actively worked to get congressmen on board the Gulf War resolution was Rep. Stephen Solarz (D-NY). Solarz, who later became a supporter of various Project for the New American Century (PNAC) initiatives, personally lobbied Sen. Al Gore, who voted for the resolution, as well as several other fence-sitters among the Democrats, whom Solarz accused of being “tragically shortsighted” in their view of the Israeli-American relationship. Solarz also pushed AIPAC to play a more public role in supporting the use of force, as well as several other pro-Israel lobbies, including the Reform Jewish Movement.

        http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/american_israel_public_affairs_committee#sthash.SMRSL4Od.dpuf

      • Hostage
        July 3, 2014, 8:06 pm

        Not in his major work on the subject, “Fateful Triangle”.

        That was about the United States, Israel, and Palestine. His article on the specific subject said it and it explained why the Lobby isn’t omnipotent. See The Israel Lobby? http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20060328.htm

  38. DaBakr
    July 3, 2014, 12:31 pm

    So Chomsky puts the kabbosh on the myth of the SA apartheid slander. Of course he says whats happening in the west bank is :”worse’ but not because of the human rights abuses by Israel. It is ‘worse’ in the WB because Israel wants to jettison the WB and its Palestinian citizens from Israel. But why no mention of the fact that Palestinians want to jettison Israel from their midst as well? Of course they naturally do not want to jettison anything until they can claim [or reclaim] as much land and resources as possible but they are also not interested in any new war.
    So-by my reading Chomsky is certainly no fan of Israel, no fan of borders in general, and no great fan of the US either. He believes that israelis discriminate but then qualifies this by saying they are no worse (and actually, better) then some US institutions.
    I also belive he is engaging in what many MW commenters accuse pro-Israelis of in the ‘whatabout’ charge. But then, I have always maintained this charge is just a gimmick to deflect honest debate. ‘whatabout’ should be killed as a legitmate word, attack or response.
    So-the big take-away from this afaict is:
    Chomsky States the Obvious. He simply tells the hyper-bds cheerleaders what Zionists have been telling them for years. That point [3] completely delegitimizes points 1 and (less so)2 and will continue to meet with failure despite the slight uptick in college and the pcusa victories this past spring/summer. To Chomsky it is simply a matter of ;’reality’ but to Zionists it has always been a matter of legitimacy. we have said from day one after readign Barghoutis BDS manifesto that it was nothing more then another attempt to destroy the nature and character of the Jewish Nation of Israel by having the Jewish majority’s sovereignty over-ridden by the influx of the ‘refugees-for-life-and every-generation-there-after’ granted to nobody else but the Palestinians by UNHCR and UNRWA (which makes Palestinians more ‘special’ then Jews, Sudanese, Syrians, etc). Why the BDS continues to believe it can pull the wool over ordinary folks (g-d forbid-not the ‘lofty’ elites like Chomsky) eyes with point 3 of the BDS book is beyond my guess. Maybe now that the word has come down from ‘on high’ there will be a response. But I wouldn’t count on any meaningful change. At best some extremely clever lawyers and pr guys will hatch something which seems to siften the ror delegitimization ploy into softer, less obvious language.

    But I admit I am surprised that Chomper commented on this at all. we know its not out of love for Israel. And-to be honest-if bds actually did ‘get real’ and drop the ror part of their demands I imagine that-just like NC predicts-there would be a groundswell of support for a BD movement. But then if the ror clauses were remove from BDS they could be removed from the other ‘charters’ as well and then there might actually be some movement towards a treaty. but no. Nobody here really wants a treaty and an end to the conflict do they?

    • Hostage
      July 3, 2014, 8:02 pm

      So Chomsky puts the kabbosh on the myth of the SA apartheid slander. Of course he says whats happening in the west bank is :”worse’ but not because of the human rights abuses by Israel.

      You wish, but it’s only in your feeble imagination at play.

      • DaBakr
        July 3, 2014, 10:13 pm

        “worse’ but because Israel will eventually go on to ethinically cleanse the WB is what I was referring to as opposed to the kind of human rights abuses that he claims exist 100x worse in other places. So what part of this is in my “feeble” imagination. I’m definitely no chomsky expert bu I can read english. Ok-he didn’t say “slander”, I did but it not very imaginative. He did put the kabbosh on the parallel though-though saying its “worse’ is hardly a reason to reign hatred against the guy from the rabid anti-zionist camp. or is it?

    • talknic
      July 3, 2014, 10:05 pm

      @ DaBakr “It is ‘worse’ in the WB because Israel wants to jettison the WB and its Palestinian citizens from Israel”

      A) the West Bank isn’t in Israel and B) if Israel wanted to jettison the West Bank why is it illegally dispossessing non-Jews and encouraging stupid Israelis to illegally settle there? Which leads one to think that maybe C) Israel wants to jettison non-Jews from territory it covets and doesn’t actually care if its citizens are endangered in the process by breaking GC IV

      “But why no mention of the fact that Palestinians want to jettison Israel from their midst as well?”

      You must be really thick if you need to be told the occupied aren’t happy with “Israel, the Occupying Power in their midst, busy slaughtering almost every day, dispossessing, destroying, illegally using non-Israeli resources to enrich Israeli coffers, illegally claiming non-Israeli territory?

      “Of course they naturally do not want to jettison anything until they can claim [or reclaim] as much land and resources as possible “

      Strange, they offered, at the UN in front of the world, to accept only 22% 0f their rightful territories for peace with Israel. I guess you’re paid to miss that kind of information and write bullsh*t instead. Honest folk might be interested tho. Thanks for the opportunity in countering your crappolla, to show them verifiable on the record information

      Meanwhile, Israel offered NOTHING except to build even more ILLEGAL settlements, dispossess and kill more non-Jews, demand more non-Israeli territory while crying victim

      “.. another attempt to destroy the nature and character of the Jewish Nation of Israel by having the Jewish majority’s sovereignty over-ridden by the influx of the ‘refugees-for-life-and every-generation-there-after’ granted to nobody else but the Palestinians by UNHCR and UNRWA”

      Weird. The claim for RoR to Israel is under UNGA res 194 which afforded Jewish refugees the same rights and UNGA res 194 was adopted in 1948 before UNRWA was formed 1949. UNGA res 194 cannot possibly refer to the UNRWA definition unless you have a ziopoop fueled time machine.

      Futhermore:
      A) UNRWA was formed and catered for Jewish refugees in Israel until 1952 when the Israel finally decided to actually care for them offering them citizenship, whereupon they no longer had refugee status, (although they were given non-Jewish homes from which non-Jewish folk had been illegally cleansed)

      B) Israel is refusing RoR of non-Jewish people who had a RIGHT TO ISRAELI CITIZENSHIP in 1948, aka ISRAELIS! What f&cked up country refuses RoR to people who have a right to citizenship?

      “(which makes Palestinians more ‘special’ then Jews, Sudanese, Syrians, etc).”

      It’s amazing to see that some moron thinks the war between Israel and Palestine was in Sudan! Sudanese refugees are covered by the UNHCR. UNRWA on the other hand was formed to care for refugees of the Israeli Palestine conflict, incl Jewish refugees. So how exactly does it make Palestinians more ‘special’ than Jews? Especially now there are no Jewish refugees. Having taken citizenship in countries other than their countries of return, they are no longer refugees!

      “Why the BDS continues to believe it can pull the wool over ordinary folks .. eyes … I wouldn’t count on any meaningful change.”

      Uh huh. Is that why for example SodaStream is suddenly building a factory in Israel in the Negev instead of expanding in Occupied Territories? Is it why British outlets are dropping SodaStream? Is it why the EU is advising people not to invest in Israel’s illegal activities and illegal settlements in the Occupied Territories?

      “And-to be honest..”

      Read your brief… honesty isn’t allowed

      “if bds actually did ‘get real’ and drop the ror part of their demands”

      Why should a legal right be dropped?

      “But then if the ror clauses were remove from BDS they could be removed from the other ‘charters’ as well and then there might actually be some movement towards a treaty. “

      Refusal of RoR was the tactic from day one. BDS exists because there has been NO movement towards a treaty between Palestine and Israel in 66 years, while Israel has taken more and more non-Israeli territory.

      “Nobody here really wants a treaty and an end to the conflict do they?”

      Odd, read the Palestinian offer of sacrificing their rightful territory for peace, read the Arab states peace initiative. Then read Israeli offering nothing, demanding more and more without any legal basis what so ever!

      There is only one party refusing to adhere to the law. Only one party occupying, only one party illegally encouraging and assisting its citizens to illegally settle in non-Israeli territory it occupies. Only one party illegally selling illegally acquired territory to its stupid illegal settlers!

      Israel could end the conflict immediately, it prefers more non-Israeli territory … go figure

  39. unverified__5ilf90kd
    July 3, 2014, 4:53 pm

    Headline in Haaretz today “Israel boycott could harm Palestinian cause, says Noam Chomsky”. Amazing – the same old story – if you criticize Israel they will continue to be criminals. And Chomsky is supposed to be a genius ?

  40. UshPhe
    July 3, 2014, 6:05 pm

    “The pursuit of (1) in the above list makes good sense: it has a clear objective and is readily understood by its target audience in the West, which is why the many initiatives guided by (1) have been quite successful—not only in “punishing” Israel, but also in stimulating other forms of opposition to the occupation and US support for it.”

    In this quote when he says “initiatives guided by (1) is he referring to the campaigns against Caterpillar and G4S among other companies which profit off Israeli occupation? I fail to see how these campaigns have had any tangible “punishing”effect on Israel as of yet. Not saying they won’t but they haven’t yet.

  41. W.Jones
    July 3, 2014, 9:07 pm

    EPIC CHOMSKY CLIPS:

    Chomsky as the keynote speaker at Israeli Apartheid Week explains why it isn’t Apartheid:
    http://www.radio4all.net/files/[email protected]/727-3-QandA.1.mp3

    Chomsky explains why it’s Apartheid:
    http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20040309.htm

    Chomsky calls the BDS petition “pure anti-semitism”:

    Chomsky explains that the pro-Israeli Lobby is “one of the smaller lobbies”:

Leave a Reply