Chomsky still believes in the old Israel. I did too, once upon a time

US Politics
on 76 Comments

On Aug. 8, we published a piece about Noam Chomsky’s objections to the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign targeting Israel. The writer, a frequent contributor, posted this as a comment on the piece but agree to expand it for a post. –Ed.

My issue with Chomsky’s position is what it always was: he operates from a prism that is strongly colored by the Israel that was once upon a time, perhaps 50-60 years ago. Chomsky was around then to hear and witness the many idealistic statements of the then Israeli intellectuals and political leaders. And if he was impressed by the would-be forging of a come-from-behind wandering, wondering and sometimes-much-persecuted people into a socialist just society, why, it would be hard to blame him. Thus was Israel presented to the world and to itself. I believed it too, once upon a time.

I don’t want to open a debate on whether that “old” Israel, that ephemeral citadel on a hill, that light unto the nations, was ever real or not (well, we know there’s no great light without much darkness….right?). Fact is, it was real enough in the minds of many, both inside Israel and outside it. Especially educated Jewish people, who must have felt a certain kinship with the nascent little country that could beget great thinkers, writers and humanitarian visionaries in such short order. Chomsky is old enough to have at least some of his opinions and judgments imprinted by those once-upon-a-time impressions.

Unfortunately, while he clearly processed that Israel has changed greatly, and not for the better, he still tends to lay the blame on the “occupation” (in parenthesis, because it’s really an occupation of the mind that took place, right along with the physical one). In that he finds confirmation among many of his fellow intellectuals, including the fine left-leaning ones in Israel, who passionately mourn the Israel that was and could have been and has now turned stray. Their very existence continues to give Chomsky hope about fine things like “International Law” and “Human Rights” and “Justice”. Sometimes, as much as I hate to say it, he sounds almost child-like, hanging on to these civilized concepts, as if they were life rafts (perhaps they are. Not for me to say).

Chomsky is probably too old now to change his own paradigm, just as many, including the founders of Gush Shalom, are. Yet, there has been a major paradigm change – a catastrophic one, really. The Israel that is is not the one that was, and definitely not the one that was imagined. The Israel that is is a different beast altogether. One could say, it’s almost a monster, a not altogether sane incarnation begotten to impress with great new might but now unleashing mostly fright and terror in its wake, as it flails, ever so powerful but still feeling frail and persecuted. There is no talking to most Israelis these days about fine concepts like “international law”, “justice” and “rights”, as those be taken as fighting words. There is no convincing them that one needs to give a little to get a lot, because all they care about is how to make the “little” into minuscule, vanishingly so. This Israel has little use for some elusive human “rights”, unless they are Jewish-Israeli rights, and not just any Jews, but the “right kind” of Jews.

To my mind, and based on what I read of him, Chomsky processes much that is true and deep, yet little does he process just how depraved Israeli society has become in moral terms. Probably because the people he knows do not appear depraved in the slightest. Little does Chomsky know what collective insanity really looks like because he does not come face to face with its frightful daily manifestations. Little does Chomsky know – except in the deepest recesses of his mind – what the Gaza ghetto is really all about, because to know what the plan for Gaza is, is to give up on erudite chit-chats with even the finest Israelis. Who know, of course, what Gaza is, and what it is to be, but manage to put it out of their well-tuned minds.

I like Chomsky a lot for his clear-eyed views on many issues that are important to anyone considering themselves a progressive. But I find it difficult to deal with his refusal to look reality in the face on a whole host of matters; from BDS to Human Rights to the Rule of Law, be it in Israel or the US. While he rails ever so eloquently against the encroaching corporate state, he still speaks as if half-measures and fine talk will have any effect on its rapacious ascent. And while he rails – ever so capably – against the ravages of neoliberalism, surely he can see for himself how well we have all been doing battling that particular beast. More like batting our eyelashes and clutching our pearls, while losing every skirmish, I’d say.

I don’t hold it against him that he holds out hope for the best in human nature to prevail. I don’t expect him to sink into intellectual despondency seeing the enormity of humanity’s challenges. But even as I take great comfort in hearing him speak, so lucidly, so humanely on matters of great import, I find myself wishing he could reach for more effective tools that go just a bit beyond the usual arsenal of laws and rights. After all, law can be bent into lawfare and rights can be twisted into boomerangs. But Chomsky alas, is not one to whistle for the dragons, and in all fairness, perhaps it’s not his task.

Likewise, because of his rose-colored glasses I believe that Chomsky may simply not be the right authority to take on something as potent as BDS, be it as a tactic or a movement. Just as he may not be the right one to lead a Sanders-like revolt against the ruling classes (ultimately, even Sanders will not suffice for the revolt that needs to happen, if and when the time arrives for it. Which it will). BDS, regardless of its platform, has so far been the only tool that has shown some serious teeth. It showed it has the power to shake the Israeli consensus, not because it wrecks major economic damage but because it highlights the Achilles heel of Israelis – their need and craving for approval, even love. Especially from fellow Jews.

We know BDS has had an effect because otherwise, why would Congress consider passing a law to criminalize it? Why has Israel already passed a law doing just that?  Why do so many Israelis discombobulate at the mere mention of a possible boycott of a little concert or a cultural event? No matter that some prefer a “targeted’ BDS, while others would rather see it applied more broadly, as it did to apartheid South Africa. Fact is, of all the actions and lawsuits and flotillas undertaken over the years, BDS alone showed itself capable of shaking the corridors of power and that is already plenty. And while some day “international law” may take its course, for Palestinians, whose land is the one gobbled up and whose lives and livelihoods are thoroughly compromised, time is not exactly on their side.

As for Chomsky, for once he fails to tell the wheat from the chaff. It is not the platform or the call for the Right of Return that’s the problem, because that is but a vision, and visions are what we all know them to be. It is, I suspect its very effectiveness that’s the problem for BDS, as he sees it. Movements like this represent citizens’ action that is besides, if not outside the law, and Chomsky, who has great respect for law as a civilizing instrument, cannot bring himself to see that when confronted with a bellicose, determined adversary, half-crazed with power, sometimes a few dragons can come in handy.

And that statement about Israel using nuclear weapons before allowing refugees in? That is very telling. I think Chomsky’s subconscious is sometimes wiser than his — oh so lucid — conscious mind. He should listen to what it’s telling him, perhaps.

About Danaa Marec

Danaa Marec is the pen-name of a Hungarian-born American scientist. She grew up in Israel and then immigrated to the U.S., in the 1970's in her early 20's. She comments on our site as Danaa.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

76 Responses

  1. goldmarx
    August 12, 2017, 1:27 pm

    Chomsky erroneously believes BDS is inherently anti-Zionist, and that mistake in his thinking leads him to his current position.

    For a Zionist position in full support of BDS, check this out:

    http://socialistcurrents.org/?p=2914

    • echinococcus
      August 12, 2017, 6:17 pm

      Goldbags,

      For a Zionist position in full support of BDS, check…

      That is precisely why the redefinition of aims by the official “BDS” stinks to heaven and those actions by the official campaign limited to post-67 occupation remain highly suspect.
      We don’t have to be used for Zionist purposes.

      • goldmarx
        August 12, 2017, 6:48 pm

        “…those actions by the official campaign limited to post-67 occupation remain highly suspect.”

        Yeah, but no. Sodastream is now in Israel proper, not in the Occupied Territories, and it is still on the BDS list of targets. It’s just easier to get companies on the West Bank to move out than those behind the June 4 1967 borders. As BDS gets stronger, it will be easier for it to get in the face of companies that invest in Israel as a whole.

      • echinococcus
        August 14, 2017, 10:22 am

        Goldmarx,

        I said “those actions that…”, and the reason they are suspect is that they are the majority of actions. A concert boycott here and there is nice, but campaigning on the basis of occupation outside “Israel” is helping Zionist propaganda, is helping push further the idea of some Zionist legitimacy. That is precisely why the Zionists love participating in limited BDS. By boycotting “settlements” they reinforce the invasion and buy it legitimacy in the eyes of the Western public.

        The aim of boycott and sanctions is not to directly inflict major economic damage on an entity that the US (together with others) is committed to keeping on life support forever. That would be silly. The aim is mainly to educate, agitate, organize the Western population so that the Western governments’ margin for maneuvering is restricted, and to hit the enemy’s morale and prestige. If our education and agitation are channeling Zionist propaganda on the Z entity’s (initial, liberal-Z) so-called legitimacy by concentrating on post-67 occupation, specifically invoking the 1967 conquest, what kind of educating and agitating are we performing? If our action only hits the “settlers” and crazies and reinforces the goody-two-shoes “liberal” genocidaires, what kind of war are we waging?

        So the baby-steps strategy is obviously working against the declared aim of mobilizing against Zionist aggression. It does target “excesses”, and that is valuable in itself, but the propaganda effect summarized above looks to me like a net loss.

    • eljay
      August 12, 2017, 10:48 pm

      || goldmarx: … For a Zionist position in full support of BDS, check this out … ||

      The “Democratic Zionist” is just a kinder, gentler version of the “State Zionist”. He refers to Israel as the “homeland of the Jewish people” rather than the “homeland of all Israelis” because, like every other type of Zionist, he envisions Israel as a “Jewish State” primarily of and for Jewish Israelis and non-Israeli Jews.

      • Elizabeth Block
        August 14, 2017, 11:05 am

        Sodastream has moved from stolen land in the West Bank to land stolen from Bedouin citizens of Israel. How is that an improvement? Of course it’s still on the boycott list.

  2. Paranam Kid
    August 12, 2017, 1:31 pm

    A good & welcome article. I too have a lot of respect for Chomsky too, but I have serious questions about his evaluation of BDS, and that article about Israel using nukes against refugees for me means that perhaps it is time for Chomsky to retire, that the world has evolved beyond a point where he at his age can follow it. Having said that, his past published work is still the kind of stuff many people should read.

  3. JWalters
    August 12, 2017, 6:10 pm

    Chomsky, like Benny Morris, was one of the early voices blowing the whistle on Israel’s massive injustices to the people of Palestine. My bet is that they have been somehow coerced into undermining their own analyses. That would be well within Irael’s methods.
    “Terrorism: How the Israeli state was won”
    http://mondoweiss.net/2017/01/terrorism-israeli-state

    • Paranam Kid
      August 14, 2017, 9:14 am

      @JWalters
      The book reviewed in that article is “State of Terror” by Tom Suarez.

      • Elizabeth Block
        August 14, 2017, 11:06 am

        Excellent book. You should all read it, if you haven’t already.

      • Paranam Kid
        August 15, 2017, 8:58 am

        @Elizabeth Bock
        I am reading it at present, am amazed and learning a lot.

  4. ritzl
    August 12, 2017, 6:45 pm

    Shouldn’t “the old Israel” (implying a transient reality of benign glory even though neither were even remotely considered nor implemented) be/mean “the old myth of Israel” of the Leon Uris novel and Andy Williams song (meaning pure fiction)?

    • Rob Roy
      August 13, 2017, 8:08 am

      ritzi, I agree. There never was an “old Israel” that was admirable, though it took many of us quite a while to grasp that fact. The prime ministers of Israel from the first were terrorists themselves. When Ben Gurion was asked, “what shall we do with the Arabs?” he replied, “expel them.” The old Israel was an illusion and the new Israel intends to press on toward that “Greater Israel” that they feel they so deserve. In the meantime, the Israelis will use the evangelistic USA as their lapdog to achieve their goals.

      • ritzl
        August 13, 2017, 10:40 am

        Yes Rob Roy. Me too. Fully subscribed in my early 20s. Kinda makes my skin crawl now that I ever bought in so completely and so ignorantly.

        As an aside, the only sliver that I’ve been able to find of the “old Israel” myth merging with some bit of reality was via a guy named Ben Dunkelman. He truly believed in the vision of “good” Israel to such an extent and consistency that he disobeyed a direct order from Ben Gurion to cleanse Nazareth of Palestinians. He wouldn’t do it. A real-life hero in my book.

        He paid the price though. Immediately relieved/fired, but by that time the broad cleansing process had wound down (I think the world was beginning to notice the irreconcilable gap between Israeli promises and deeds in the 47-48 time frame which complicated the international politics of seamlessly integrating Israel into the post-WWII world community/morality as a member in good standing.), so Nazareth survived.

        Ben Dunkelman!

        (Though “strangely” he is never touted as an example of good ole foundational Israeli values.)

      • Jack Green
        August 13, 2017, 10:51 pm

        Rob Roy

        The goal of Zionism is a majority Jewish state.
        Annexing land with millions of gentiles would result in a minority Jewish state.

      • jon s
        August 14, 2017, 2:19 am

        Rob roy,
        Where and when did Ben Gurion say “expel them”?

      • eljay
        August 14, 2017, 8:35 am

        || Jack Green: … The goal of Zionism is a majority Jewish state.
        Annexing land with millions of gentiles would result in a minority Jewish state. ||

        No problem: Zionists can simply ethnically cleanse or murder enough gentiles to tip the scale back to Jewish supremacism.

        For the past ~70 years, Zionists have demonstrated their willingness to commit such (war) crimes, which we’ve been told are a “necessary evil”.

        And while something like ethnic cleansing is “currently not necessary”, that doesn’t mean Zionists won’t make it “necessary” once more if it’ll suit their needs.

        Give Zionists (yourself and your co-collectivists) their due.

      • echinococcus
        August 14, 2017, 9:42 am

        “Green” looks more and more like the typical product of growing more than one generation entirely in Zionist hothouses.

        The goal of Zionism is a majority Jewish state.
        Annexing land with millions of gentiles would result in a minority Jewish state.

        That is exactly what you murderers did in 1947-48. Strange, nobody ever tells you a thing.
        Minority not a problem: you just genocide the majority, duh. Just exactly as you already did.

      • amigo
        August 14, 2017, 9:49 am

        “Rob roy,
        Where and when did Ben Gurion say “expel them”?” Jon S.

        “The Israelis wanted the region cleared of its large Arab population and hoped that the inhabitants of the two towns would flee as a result of the fighting. When this did not happen, Israeli commanders confronted the question of what to do with them. Their fate was sealed at a meeting attended by Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion and top IDF commanders on July 12. “According to the best account of that meeting,” Israeli historian Benny Morris tells us, “someone, possibly [Operation Dani commander Yigal] Allon, proposed expelling the inhabitants of the two towns. Ben-Gurion said nothing, and no decision was taken. Then Ben-Gurion, Allon and [Allon’s deputy Yitzhak] Rabin left the room. Allon asked: ‘What shall we do with the Arabs?’ Ben-Gurion made a dismissive gesture with his hand and said, ‘Expel them’ (garesh otam).” [1]

        Over the next several days, tens of thousands of Palestinian men, women and children were forced out of Lydda and Ramla with the few possessions they could carry, most of them walking miles to the Arab Legion’s lines without food or water under a hot summer sun. Many had their money and valuables stolen as they passed through IDF checkpoints; some died along the way. The towns they left behind were thoroughly looted by Israeli soldiers and civilians.”

        http://www.merip.org/mer/mer152/original-sin

      • Misterioso
        August 14, 2017, 10:58 am

        @amigo

        Re: “Where and when did Ben Gurion say “expel them”?” Jon S.”

        BINGO!!

        Also:

        Ben-Gurion did not want to formally approve expulsion during the meeting with the army officers, preferring to keep his decision unrecorded. As Benny Morris puts it: “Outwardly, he [Ben-Gurion] continued until very late in the day to pay the requisite lip service to the grand humanist-socialist ideals…. On the ground, however, he made sure that what he wanted done got done, and he carefully avoided leaving tracks; his name rarely adorns an actual expulsion directive.” (Benny Morris, “The Eel and History,” Tikkun, January-February, 1990, p. 82; quoted by Norman Finkelstein, “Debate on the 1948 Exodus: Finkelstein,” J of P S, Volume XXI, Number 1, Autumn 1991, p. 77)

        That same afternoon an order signed by Yitzhak Rabin was sent to the commander of the Yiftah Brigade occupying Lydda. It read: “The inhabitants of Lydda must be expelled quickly without attention to age…. Implement immediately.” “[A] similar order was apparently communicated to Kiryati Brigade [occupying Ramleh] at about the same time.” (Benny Morris, ibid)

        The paramount objective of the Israelis was the expulsion of all Arab inhabitants of Lydda and Ramleh, including those of “military age” who had not yet been rounded up. Lydda’s railroad workers, however, were not to be expelled or taken prisoner. They were needed to keep the trains running.

        In the early evening of July 12, Ramleh’s inhabitants began to stream out of their town, most in Israeli driven trucks and other vehicles, but many on foot and some on camels. The following day Haganah loudspeaker vans announced the final order for expulsion of all residents of both towns.

        How the Zionist leadership saw the situation during the expulsion of the Arab inhabitants of Haifa, was clearly revealed by Ben-Gurion during a visit to the city on May 1. After witnessing the departure of Arabs the head of the Jewish Agency proclaimed it “a beautiful sight” and later he told a group of the city’s Jewish leaders that “It is not our duty to see to it that the Arabs return.” He also criticized a Jewish official who was trying to convince Arabs to remain (as labourers, no doubt) by asking, “Doesn’t he have anything better to do?” (Michael Palumbo, The Palestinian Catastrophe, p. 76)

      • Mooser
        August 14, 2017, 11:57 am

        “The goal of Zionism is a majority Jewish state.
        Annexing land with millions of gentiles would result in a minority Jewish state.”

        Just because we can’t have sex “nearly half the time” and have made ourselves into a minority is no reason to take it out on others. Why not make more time available for making more Jews? We seem to have (so to speak) fallen down in that department.

      • Mooser
        August 14, 2017, 12:08 pm

        “Rob roy,
        Where and when did Ben Gurion say “expel them”?

        “Jon s”, please stop fussing over the details. The important thing is that people believe that Ben Gurion favored expulsion.

      • Mooser
        August 14, 2017, 1:42 pm

        “Where and when did Ben Gurion say “expel them”?” “Jon S.”

        “Jon s” take my advice, don’t become a gambler. You come up snake-eyes every time. You didn’t know that one was a sure loser?

      • amigo
        August 14, 2017, 3:45 pm

        ““Jon s” take my advice, don’t become a gambler. You come up snake-eyes every time. You didn’t know that one was a sure loser? ” Mooser

        One would have thought a professional pedagogue schooled in the history of Israel would have encountered that gospel truth somewhere in his past.

        Hell , if a Paddy , ( Me ) with pigs in his parlor , who reads Benny Morris by candle light, is aware of this part of Israeli history , one might expect our jon s to be up to scratch .

      • amigo
        August 14, 2017, 3:51 pm

        Misterioso.

        Thank for that addition.

        It should keep our consummate scholar , Jon S busy for a while coming up with a response.Let me guess–Benny Morris is a self hating Jew who told lies to sell his book.

      • echinococcus
        August 15, 2017, 2:21 am

        Amigo,

        Let me guess–Benny Morris is a self hating Jew who told lies to sell his book.

        Even more self-hating is Ben Gruen’s official biographer, very Zionist MK Bar Zohar, who reports the same, and also specifically addresses that Mr Green’s question: he tells how the Great Man had a cow when he went to Nazareth: “Why are there so many Arabs, why didn’t you drive them out?”

      • jon s
        August 15, 2017, 4:30 am

        Of course I’m aware of the expulsion from Lod and Ramle in 1948, as is anyone who knows a bit about the War of Independence /Nakba. I think that Ari Shavit has written about it recently.
        My point was -and maybe I should have elaborated in my earlier question/comment- that Ben Gurion never ordered the expulsion of “the Arabs” per se, all of them. There were places where expulsions occured ,other places where the Palestinian population fled the war without being expelled. There was no premeditated “master plan ” of total ethnic cleansing. And even where expulsions occured, including Lod and Ramle, part of the population remained .
        There WAS a decision not to allow those who had departed, under any circumstances ,to return to their former homes. That was the crucial decision, in my opinion.

      • Mooser
        August 15, 2017, 6:18 pm

        “Of course I’m aware of…”

        Try not to OD on us, “Jon s”. I’m not sure if the site is prepared to administer Zionoxone.

      • Emory Riddle
        August 16, 2017, 8:14 am

        Benny Morris, in his 1988 The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949 quoted from Ben-Gurion’s letter in the paragraph discussing the Negev: “We must expel Arabs and take their places…”, having taken the quote from the English version of Shabtai Teveth’s 1985 Ben-Gurion and the Palestine Arabs.

      • jon s
        August 16, 2017, 10:50 am

        emory riddle,
        That’s a falsified quote. Actually Ben Gurion wrote the opposite: We do not want to and do not need to expel…

      • YoniFalic
        August 16, 2017, 11:49 am

        Ben-Gurion’s 1937 letter to his son is not obviously related to whether Ben-Gurion ordered expulsions in 47-48.

        Here is the letter.

        http://www.camera.org/images_user/scribbled%20ben-gurion%20letter.pdf

        The first line that is not crossed out states the following in Hebrew.

        אנו צריכים לגרש ערבים ולקחם מקומם

        “We must expel Arabs and take their place.”

        This wiki page discusses the debate over the letter.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1937_Ben-Gurion_letter

        It is not surprising that Morris supports my translation above. Morris considers genocide to be something good.

        Overall the letter with even slightly reasonable analysis supports both Morris and Pappé. I consider Ephraim Karsh to be a liar and propagandist. Karsh is not a genuine historian by any stretch of the imagine.

        I repeat.

        How does one know a Zionist is lying? Check for breathing.

      • Mooser
        August 16, 2017, 12:09 pm

        “That’s a falsified quote. Actually Ben Gurion wrote the opposite:” “jon s”

        “Luck if you’ve ever been a lady to begin with
        Luck be a lady tonight.”

      • amigo
        August 16, 2017, 1:13 pm

        Jon S

        “emory riddle,
        That’s a falsified quote. Actually Ben Gurion wrote the opposite: We do not want to and do not need to expel…”

        So what did he mean when he said the following ????.

        “A partial Jewish State is not the end, but only the beginning. … I am certain that we well not be prevented from settling in the other parts of the country, either by mutual agreements with our Arab neighbors or by some other means. . . [If the Arabs refuse] we shall have to speak to them in another language. But we shall only have another language if we have a state.”

        As quoted in Chomsky, Noam, Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel, and the Palestinians (Updated Edition) (South End Press Classics Series).”

        Give it up Jon S.

        Save your money to pay for your inevitable aliyah to the US.

      • Mooser
        August 16, 2017, 3:37 pm

        “Save your money to pay for your inevitable aliyah to the US.”

        And when you get here, “Jon s”, stay out of the casinos.

      • amigo
        August 16, 2017, 5:40 pm

        “And when you get here, “Jon s”, stay out of the casinos.”Mooser

        Jon S probably already knows there is a Beersheba in the US –Tennessee. It too has lots of White supremacists but I am not sure if they have a soccer team.

        If Jon feels the need to have a flutter , he can always go Beloxi.

        https://www.google.ie/search?q=beersheba+usa&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b&gws_rd=cr&ei=LbiUWavtFaKLgAaOiJ6gBg

      • RoHa
        August 16, 2017, 8:03 pm

        “Actually Ben Gurion wrote the opposite: We do not want to and do not need to expel…”

        Whatever he wrote, expel he did.

      • ritzl
        August 16, 2017, 9:53 pm

        @Misterioso August 14, 2017, 10:58 am

        Thanks Misterioso. That was my read. Ben Gurion had cutouts for his ethnic cleansing needs/policy. God knows he wouldn’t want to directly, and with paper trail, be seen as ordering such human rights abuses at the exact same time that “Never Again!” was becoming a/the post WWII legal norm. Pfft.

        It absolutely was his/zionist policy to the point where it became counterproductive in the broader concept (UN acceptance in real time, at the time).

  5. DaBakr
    August 12, 2017, 11:11 pm

    chomsky toppled by the fringe radicals for not sufficiently hating everything connected to israel and zionism. he understands the language that groups use and he’s probably nauseated by much of what he might read here in the commentary or at the other one or 2 prominent hate sites.

    • Jack Green
      August 14, 2017, 9:55 pm

      Mooser

      Israelis are not taking it out on others.

      • Mooser
        August 15, 2017, 12:00 pm

        “Israelis are not taking it out on others.”

        Don’t put words in my mouth.

      • Jack Green
        August 15, 2017, 12:18 pm

        Mooser

        See Mooser August 14, 2017, 11:57 am

  6. mcohen..
    August 12, 2017, 11:23 pm

    I agree one hundred percent with the ckompsky analysis.times have changed and israel has changed from those were the days my friend.
    But so have the arabs and are they any better than the Israelis.this point seems to be lost on the author.
    If you are going to judge then you must judge both sides equally
    That is the problem.israel withdrew from gaza and what followed surely is not only the fault of the israeli side.
    Zionism and political islam are one and the same beast.
    Bds is war by other means and will be countered in the same manner.
    Time is on israels side as technology begins to change the balance of power.that is what chompsky was referring to when he suggested nuclear power opposing bds.
    How can you possibly believe that the arab side is more moral.the suicide bombing campaigns of the 2000’s is no different to the bombing of gaza.
    Judge one judge all

    • Jack Green
      August 13, 2017, 3:12 pm

      mchohen

      “the suicide bombing campaigns of the 2000’s is no different to the bombing of gaza.”

      The bombing of Gaza targeted rockets. The Israelis warned civilians to evacuate before bombing the buildings where they believed that rockets were being stored.

      The suicide bombers targeted civilians. The terrorists didn’t warn people to evacuate because they were targeting the people.

    • Danaa
      August 13, 2017, 4:52 pm

      I don’t think that passing judgments was the point here, other than between the lines of course, which obviously you are reading. It is ultimately history and people of good will and great insight who will one day, in the distant future pronouce the final verdict – was the israeli experiment a net good or a net evil? that’s how we usually judge historical events and historical powers – in the end.

      But yes, some of us like to jump the gun a bit. So we might muse – will israel in the end be judged as the british Empire was? (some good, some terrible, lots of great oratories and civil bureaucracies but at a cost of much misery on the ground and bloody sectarian conflicts. Yet, still – it beget the US, didn’t it? which cleansed out the Indians, but then produced a functioning democracy, which has now been all but subverted. And so on and so on.). Or will israel be judged as Spanish colonial rule was (mostly bad, horrible evil in its wake, massacres galore and little grandiose ideas to sweeten oppressive regimes’ excesses – leaving behind countries with huge disparities, dysfunction in the corridors of power, corruption galore and civil societies still struggling to emerge against all manner of oppression)? or will it be seen in the end as the Ottomans of old who must have left something behind – just that we keep struggling to figure out what it was exactly?

      I think that in the end palestinian resistance will be viewed as all resistance movements throughout history were. Perhaps not unlike the Algerian resistance, or Garibaldi’s fights against the Austrian occupying power, or Simon bolivar’s challenge to the ruling authorities of his day. Will Arafat be some day compared to Che Guevara or to the basques? The details of what shape the resistance took matter only insofar as there was an alternative that was less violent. In most case, subjugated indigenous forces never have had much of a choice. By definition. Just ask the British, or the French. Or the Spanish. Or even the Chinese for that matter.

      But never mind. This wasn’t the topic – Chomsky the intellectual was.

      As for Gaza – yes, Israel did leave. At the cost of turning it into an oppressive penal colony, surrounded on all sides and deprived of all sustenance. A penal colony turned into an internment camp turned into a ghetto, surrounded on all sides by extreme brutal means to prevent exit or entrance, or livelihood. You might want to research the Warsaw ghetto a bit – did you know that people from Warsaw (and supporters outside) carried out violent raids against Germans and poles resulting in numerous death of noon-combatants? check it out – aren’t you a disciple of history?

      • DaBakr
        August 13, 2017, 9:28 pm

        @d

        . You yourself might want to research Sharon’s disengagement from Gaza. There was no immediate blockade and it took the Palestinian peoples electing the Hamas to rule them and then the Hamas justifying their launching rockets into southern Israel that caused the crackdown leading to the current state of misery for certain neighborhoods and certain sectors of Gaza society. There is of course blame to go around on both sides but glossing over the basic facts that occurred (and that could have occurred but did not) on the ground is not going to help Gaza’s achieve anything close to what they want.

      • Keith
        August 13, 2017, 10:07 pm

        DABAKR- “There was no immediate blockade and it took the Palestinian peoples electing the Hamas to rule them and then the Hamas justifying their launching rockets into southern Israel that caused the crackdown….”

        Bullshit! One never knows with you apologists for Israel whether or not you actually believe your propaganda. Israel has intentionally destroyed the infrastructure and economy of Gaza. Noam Chomsky to set the record straight:

        “The official story is that after Israel graciously handed Gaza over to the Palestinians, in the hope that they would construct a flourishing state, they revealed their true nature by subjecting Israel to unremitting rocket attack and forcing the captive population to become martyrs to so that Israel would be pictured in a bad light. Reality is rather different.

        A few weeks after Israeli troops withdrew, leaving the occupation intact, Palestinians committed a major crime. In January 2006, they voted the wrong way in a carefully monitored free election, handing control of the Parliament to Hamas. The media constantly intone that Hamas is dedicated to the destruction of Israel. In reality, its leaders have repeatedly made it clear and explicit that Hamas would accept a two-state settlement in accord with the international consensus that has been blocked by the US and Israel for 40 years. In contrast, Israel is dedicated to the destruction of Palestine, apart from some occasional meaningless words, and is implementing that commitment.

        The crime of the Palestinians in January 2006 was punished at once. The US and Israel, with Europe shamefully trailing behind, imposed harsh sanctions on the errant population and Israel stepped up its violence. By June, when the attacks sharply escalated, Israel had already fired more than 7700 [155 mm] shells at northern Gaza.

        There should be no need to review again the horrendous record since. The relentless siege and savage attacks are punctuated by episodes of “mowing the lawn,” to borrow Israel’s cheery expression for its periodic exercises of shooting fish in a pond in what it calls a “war of defense.” Once the lawn is mowed and the desperate population seeks to reconstruct somehow from the devastation and the murders, there is a cease-fire agreement. These have been regularly observed by Hamas, as Israel concedes, until Israel violates them with renewed violence.” (Noam Chomsky)
        http://zcomm.org/znetarticle/outrage/

      • YoniFalic
        August 14, 2017, 5:27 am

        Israel shut down Karni/al-Mantar Crossing at least one week and probably two before the January elections. Such harassment and abuse of Palestinians were probably contributory factors in the later election of Hamas to run the PNA.

        I have to add. How does one know a Zio is lying? Check for breathing.

    • Misterioso
      August 14, 2017, 11:09 am

      @mcohen

      Re: “That is the problem. israel withdrew from gaza and what followed surely is not only the fault of the israeli side.”

      Reality:

      Human Rights Watch, 2005: “…Israel will continue to be an Occupying Power [of the Gaza Strip] under international law and bound by the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention because it will retain effective control over the territory and over crucial aspects of civilian life. Israel will not be withdrawing and handing power over to a sovereign authority – indeed, the word ‘withdrawal’ does not appear in the [2005 disengagement] document at all… The IDF will retain control over Gaza’s borders, coastline, and airspace, and will reserve the right to enter Gaza at will. According to the Hague Regulations, ‘A territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised’. International jurisprudence has clarified that the mere repositioning of troops is not sufficient to relieve an occupier of its responsibilities if it retains its overall authority and the ability to reassert direct control at will.”

      The International Committee of the Red Cross: “The whole of Gaza’s civilian population is being punished for acts for which they bear no responsibility. The closure therefore constitutes a collective punishment imposed in clear violation of Israel’s obligations under international humanitarian law. The Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, ratified by Israel, bans collective punishment of a civilian population.”

      “In practice, Gaza has become a huge, let me be blunt, concentration camp for right now 1,800,000 people” – Amira Hass, 2015, correspondent for Haaretz, speaking at the Forum for Scholars and Publics at Duke University.

      “‘The significance of the [then proposed] disengagement plan [implemented in 2005] is the freezing of the peace process,’ Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s senior adviser Dov Weisglass has told Ha’aretz. ‘And when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda….’ Weisglass, who was one of the initiators of the disengagement plan, was speaking in an interview with Ha’aretz for the Friday Magazine. ‘The disengagement is actually formaldehyde,’ he said. ‘It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians.’” (Top PM Aide: Gaza Plan Aims to Freeze the Peace Process, Ha’aretz, October 6, 2004)

      • Jack Green
        August 14, 2017, 8:18 pm

        Misterioso

        Is Egypt also an occupier of Gaza since it blocks Gaza at its border with Egypt?
        Is the UK an occupier of Gaza since it “it retains the ability to reassert direct control at will?”
        Why does Israel have any responsibility for Gaza since the occupation was the result of Gaza’s aggression against Israel?

      • amigo
        August 15, 2017, 7:11 am

        “Is Egypt also an occupier of Gaza since it blocks Gaza at its border with Egypt?” jacko

        The US gives some 1.5 billion to the dictators in Egypt to be nice to the zionist entity and aid and abet them in their crimes against the Palestinian People , so while they may not be occupying the place , they are co conspirators in Israel,s crimes , as is the US.

        “Is the UK an occupier of Gaza since it “it retains the ability to reassert direct control at will?”.jacko

        Where do you come up with this nonsense.The Mandate ended decades ago.

        Provide link please to this claim OR STFU.

        “Why does Israel have any responsibility for Gaza since the occupation was the result of Gaza’s aggression against Israel?” jacko

        So , for future ref , Israel is occupying Gaza –right jacko.

        Remember , your posts are there for all to read in your archive.

      • Jack Green
        August 15, 2017, 11:30 am

        amigo

        Why do you say that Israel is occupying Gaza, but Egypt is not occupying Gaza even though Egypt also blocks Gaza at its border with Egypt?

        Is the US a co conspirator in Palestinians’ crimes against Israelis since the US gives aid to the Palestinians?

      • Jack Green
        August 15, 2017, 12:15 pm

        Amigo

        Mooser also said that “Israel will continue to be an Occupying Power [of the Gaza Strip] under international law and bound by the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention because it will retain effective control over the territory.”

        If Israel has ” effective control over the territory,” how were the Gazans able to fire thousands of rockets killing or injuring 2,000 Israelis?

      • amigo
        August 15, 2017, 1:04 pm

        jacko “Why does Israel have any responsibility for Gaza since the occupation was the result of Gaza’s aggression against Israel?”

        Amigo in response!.

        “So , for future ref , Israel is occupying Gaza –right jacko.”

        To which the uncomprehending jacko responds with.

        “Why do you say that Israel is occupying Gaza, but Egypt is not occupying Gaza even though Egypt also blocks Gaza at its border with Egypt? ”

        Jacko ,

        Egypt does not control Palestinian Airspace/Population registry/Palestinian territorial Waters etc etc.

        But just to please you we will accept that Egypt occupies Gaza with Israel.

        There , feel better now that Israel is in the company of a dictatorship –ie Egypt.

        BTW , I am still waiting for an answer to my three questions????.

        1, Are You Jewish.

        2 Are you a zionist .

        3, Do you believe in God and if so , prove he /she /it exists.IE , dna /fingerprints/blood type/colour of hair/colour of skin/home address/occupation/next of kin/criminal record/hobbies , (exclude dabbling in real estate) / name of spouse /name of children / Marital status/religion and any additional information you can provide to aid us in resolving this ancient mystery.

        I will wait.

      • Mooser
        August 15, 2017, 1:09 pm

        “Mooser also said that “Israel will continue to be an Occupying Power [of the Gaza Strip] under”

        “Jackila” , people who put words in other people’s mouths get to be roundly disliked, and become a hissing and a by-word.

    • Misterioso
      August 14, 2017, 3:16 pm

      @mcohen

      “Time is on israels side as technology begins to change the balance of power.that is what chompsky was referring to when he suggested nuclear power opposing bds.”

      Au contraire, time is not on Israel’s side.

      To be brief:
      America is Israel’s only financial backer and principle protector in the international arena. However, Israel is also America’s number one geopolitical liability, a millstone around its neck. As the US military has repeatedly indicated, Israel is a useless ally. (BTW, as I write, Saudi Arabia is making overtures to Iran with Iraq as the “middle-man.”)

      Meanwhile, the world is becoming increasingly disgusted and enraged at Israel for its well documented accelerating violations of international humanitarian law. Its stature in the U.S., including among Jews and youth generally, is steadily dropping and worldwide Jewish immigration to Israel is in free fall while emigration is soaring. ( Non-Jews now constitute about 25% of Israel’s population and are also the most rapidly growing segment.)

      In 20-25 years there will be about 3 billion Muslims worldwide, including around 10 million Palestinians between the River and the Sea, 600 million Arabs, 150 million Iranians and 150 million Turks. Can there be any doubt as to where America and the world’s long term geopolitical and economic interests lie? Certainly not with expansionist, racist Israel.

      Also, for what should be obvious reasons, the use of nuclear weapons by any country in the region would be a disaster for all of its inhabitants.

      Most significantly, you also fail to note that it is the Palestinians (and other Arabs) who are the victims. They are belligerently/illegally/ brutally occupied, oppressed, tortured, imprisoned without charge, subjected to “collective punishments” and dispossessed by Israel, their victimizer.

      • Jack Green
        August 14, 2017, 8:10 pm

        Misterioso

        Former Supreme Commander of NATO and U.S. Secretary of State Gen. Alexander Haig described Israel as “the largest US aircraft carrier, which does not require even one US soldier, cannot be sunk, is the most cost-effective and battle-tested, located in a region which is critical to vital US interests. If there would not be an Israel, the US would have to deploy real aircraft carriers, along with tens of thousands of US soldiers, which would cost tens of billions of dollars annually, dragging the US unnecessarily into local, regional and global conflicts.”

      • Nathan
        August 14, 2017, 8:14 pm

        Misterioso – If, indeed, you believed that time in not on Israel’s side, you wouldn’t be so busy writing comments about her illegitimacy. There’s no reason trying to convince the world that Israel shouldn’t exist when you really believe that she’s doomed anyway.

        Anyway, Misterioso, you might find it interesting to note that the fastest growing segment of Israeli society are the religious Jews. Perhaps, you have forgotten that recently more than a million immigrants arrived in Israel from the former USSR – so, there is really no reason to pretend that “worldwide Jewish immigration to Israel is in free fall”. Israel is having a population explosion.

        What I find particularly interesting in your comment is the use of phrases such as “accelerating violations” or “increasingly disgusted” or “belligerently/illegally/ brutally occupied” or “expansionist, racist Israel”. Just as you don’t really believe that Israel is doomed, and just as you don’t really believe that the masses are abandoning Israel – so, too, your hyperboles leave one incredulous.

      • eljay
        August 15, 2017, 8:14 am

        || Jack Green: … Former Supreme Commander of NATO and U.S. Secretary of State Gen. Alexander Haig described Israel as “the largest US aircraft carrier … ||

        So…according to former Supreme Commander of NATO and U.S. Secretary of State Gen. Alexander Haig, the “Jewish State” of Israel – the Ancient and Eternal Homeland of the Jewish People – is basically just a piece of military hardware designed to do America’s dirty work. Huh.

        || … which does not require even one US soldier, cannot be sunk, is the most cost-effective and battle-tested, located in a region which is critical to vital US interests. If there would not be an Israel, the US would have to deploy real aircraft carriers, along with tens of thousands of US soldiers, which would cost tens of billions of dollars annually, dragging the US unnecessarily into local, regional and global conflicts.” ||

        Someone had better notify former Supreme Commander of NATO and U.S. Secretary of State Gen. Alexander Haig that:
        – the existence of the U.S. aircraft carrier “Israel” costs billions of dollars annually;
        – it drags the U.S. unnecessarily into local, regional and global conflicts;
        – while it may be unsinkable, it is not immune to incineration; and
        – its absence would not require the U.S. “to deploy real aircraft carriers, along with tens of thousands of US soldiers” to the Middle East.

      • Jack Green
        August 15, 2017, 11:38 am

        eljay

        for the defense of the US, not for “dirty work”

        We give Israel $3.8 billion, but Haig said that without Israel we would have to spend “tens of billions.”

        Haig said that “its absence would require the U.S. “to deploy real aircraft carriers, along with tens of thousands of US soldiers” to the Middle East.
        You said that “its absence would NOT require the U.S. “to deploy real aircraft carriers, along with tens of thousands of US soldiers” to the Middle East.”
        Why should I believe you rather than Haig?

      • Annie Robbins
        August 15, 2017, 12:38 pm

        We give Israel $3.8 billion, but Haig said that without Israel we would have to spend “tens of billions.”

        when did haig say this? what decade? was it during the reagan, ford or nixon administration? we’ve already spent “tens of billions” on israel and more than that (trillions) on the middle east.

        Haig said that “its absence would require the U.S. “to deploy real aircraft carriers, along with tens of thousands of US soldiers” to the Middle East.

        did he say this before or after the WOT and our invasion of iraq (and we can thank netanyahu, the israel lobby and the neocons for pushing that disaster)? because we’ve already deployed “real aircraft carriers, along with tens of thousands of US soldiers” to the middle east this century, or haven’t you noticed? clearly, haig was wrong.

        could you please let us know what year haig made this statement and in what context from a reliable source, because in a quick search i can only find it on pro israel hasbara sites. don’t you think it’s a tad outdated?

      • eljay
        August 15, 2017, 12:17 pm

        || Jack Green: eljay … ||

        Jack.

        || … for the defense of the US … ||

        The United States does not require an aircraft carrier “Israel” in the Middle East for its defense.

        || … We give Israel $3.8 billion, but Haig said that without Israel we would have to spend “tens of billions.” … ||

        That’s what he said. I don’t believe him. Meanwhile, the aircraft carrier “Israel” actually costs Americans $3.8B/yr.

        || … Haig said … Why should I believe you rather than Haig? ||

        I’m more reasonable that Haig.

      • Annie Robbins
        August 15, 2017, 12:56 pm

        Meanwhile, the aircraft carrier “Israel” actually costs Americans $3.8B/yr.

        it costs us a LOT more than that in reputation, blood and treasure. when you take into consideration the cost of the (failed) diplomacy for the ‘peace process’, the invasion of iraq, the constant pressure to attack iran and syria, the cost in both focus and funds expended through our legislative system to cater to all the aipac written bills, the legislatures in state after state catering to their anti bds bills — the court costs dealing with all their stupid lawsuits. seriously, this list goes on and on and on. the idea we spend 3.8bil on israel a year is a fantasy! if only!!! israel costs us a fortune.

        just last week israel threw a conniption fit because they didn’t get their way, their demands met, relating to the US/russia agreements wrt syria. as if the US is there to serve israel’s whim. so what happens? Tillerson throws a press conference and says just what israel wants. i mean seriously, how much money was expended alone just for all those meetings? and how much will it cost the US to ensure israel’s demands, that iranian forces are no longer in syria??? how much? that is like an impossible demand (because it is not up to the US who syria authorizes to be in their country) and will be another “red line” they can pressure us with down the road. it is just endless, these demands for israel’s so called “security” which appear by design to earmark US longterm commitment towards more conflict in the middle east, not less.

      • Keith
        August 15, 2017, 6:36 pm

        JACK GREEN- “for the defense of the US, not for “dirty work”

        Surely you jest. Defense from who? The only conceivable defense is the “defense” of US imperial interests in the Middle East primarily by defeating pan Arabism and helping to support the Gulf monarchies against popular uprisings. Dirty work for sure!

      • YoniFalic
        August 15, 2017, 11:57 pm

        $3.8 billion is only official foreign military aid. There are many other forms of cash transfers at federal, state, and municipal levels. In addition, Israel receives many US subsidies, and the US suffers many costs to facilitate Israeli trade, and these costs should also count as subsidies. Germany also occurs similar costs, and provides similar but lesser subsidies and aid. The UK and France are in similar situations but provide less money.

        The head of my research team believes (1) that at least half of Israel’s yearly GDP comes from various foreign transfers and subsidies (including cancellation of US loans as well as payment of loan guarantees, which make it possible for Israel to borrow money at rates that should not be available to Israel) and (2) that Israel is basically insolvent without this infusion of money from external sources.

        Israel is also in the forefront of stealing US IP, which is then used as the basis of Israeli startups, which are used in pump-and-dump schemes to bring in more money. Many “US” companies that are qualified to accept US military vouchers are actually Israeli owned or controlled so that US workers that are supposed to receive some benefit from aid to Israel never see any benefit.

        In many regards, I consider the situation quite medieval, and I hope that over the next few years we will be able to bring some elucidation to Israeli finances and who actually pays for Israeli atrocities against the peoples of the Levant.

  7. JohnSmith
    August 13, 2017, 12:54 am

    Here’s an excellent essay by a professor in London, Yossi Mekelberg, about the ethnic-cleansing game in Jerusalem:

    http://www.riyadhvision.com.sa/2017/08/09/israels-demographic-game-in-jerusalem/

  8. JLewisDickerson
    August 13, 2017, 2:37 am

    RE: “My issue with Chomsky’s position is what it always was: he operates from a prism that is strongly colored by the Israel that was once upon a time, perhaps 50-60 years ago… Unfortunately, while he clearly processed that Israel has changed greatly, and not for the better, he still tends to lay the blame on the ‘occupation’ . . . he sounds almost child-like, hanging on to these civilized concepts, as if they were life rafts …” ~ Danaa Marec

    FRANZ FANON:

    “Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that doesn’t fit in with the core belief.” ~ Frantz Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth (1961)

  9. Ossinev
    August 13, 2017, 2:09 pm

    @McCohen
    “If you are going to judge then you must judge both sides equally”

    So you must judge the thief,liar,Fascist,ethnic cleanser,the war criminal and the victim of all of the aforesaid equally.

    Inverted Zio logic at it absolute moronic best.

    • mcohen..
      August 14, 2017, 1:15 am

      Ossinev

      The truth and reconciliation commision in south africa was a sucess on some levels because both sides agreed to take responsibility for there crimes.note that the level of violence both sides committed against each other never reached anywhere near the level as that of the i/p conflict.
      Bear in mind that your claims of ethnic cleansing are a lie.the arab population in israel and the west bank and the the diaspora have never stopped expanding and is out growing the jewish population.

      Here is an appropriate definition.

      Gregory Stanton, the founder of Genocide Watch, has criticised the rise of the term and its use for events that he feels should be called “genocide”: as “ethnic cleansing” has no legal definition, its media use can detract attention from events that should be prosecuted as genocide.[36][37] Because of widespread acceptance after media influence, it has become a term used legally, but carries no legal repercussions as there is no legal definition.

      In 1992, the German equivalent of ethnic cleansing” (German: Ethnische Säuberung) was named German Un-Word of the Year by the Gesellschaft für deutsche Sprache due to its euphemistic, inappropriate nature.[38]

      • Elizabeth Block
        August 14, 2017, 11:11 am

        Sodastream has moved from stolen land in the West Bank to land stolen from Bedouin citizens of Israel. How is that an improvement? Of course it’s still on the boycott list.

      • Elizabeth Block
        August 14, 2017, 11:18 am

        I was in Palestine in March of last year, part of a Christian Peacemaker Team. (You don’t have to be a Christian!) We were briefed by a woman from the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, who said she doesn’t use the word “genocide” for what is happening now. She is waiting for it to actually begin.

        As for South Africa: The whites wanted to control and exploit the blacks. They needed them for cheap labour. They didn’t want them to just disappear, which is what the Israeli Jews seem to want the Palestinians to do.

        And back to Ben Dunkelman: His story is in Max Blumenthal’s “Goliath.” He had negotiated an agreement with the city leaders of Nazareth, and refused to break it, to expel the people, without a written order from Ben-Gurion, which B-G refused to give – clearly, he didn’t want to leave a paper trail. But with a written order, he would have done it. So: modified heroism.

      • Rusty Pipes
        August 14, 2017, 9:03 pm

        Elizabeth Block, Ilan Pappe has been using the term, “genocide” to describe the situation in Gaza (where over 95% of the water, which is essential for life and health, is undrinkable) for several years. With the siege conditions that have been imposed by Israel for over a decade, it’s amazing that a cholera epidemic, like that in Yemen, has not hit Gaza.

      • Nathan
        August 14, 2017, 10:22 pm

        Rusty Pipes – If, indeed, 95% of the water in Gaza is undrinkable, and yet there hasn’t been a cholera epidemic – perhaps, instead of being amazed, you might want to question the accuracy of your information. Ilan Pappe, your source of information, might have had an ax to grind. In Gaza, there is a population explosion and a very long life expectancy. So, with “no cholera” but “yes population explosion” – maybe the “genocide” and the “undrinkable” water are somewhat exaggerated.

      • jon s
        August 15, 2017, 4:44 am

        Elizabeth Block,
        Sodastream should be commended for pulling out of the WB and relocating in the Negev. Their facility is in Rahat, a Bedouin town (not far from where I’m writing this), so they have not “stolen” Bedouin land.
        I’ve got an idea: ask the good men and women of Rahat if they would want Sodastream to close their Rahat facility. Ask them, ask their elected leaders, take a poll. Tell them that you’re boycotting Sodastream for moving to Rahat, see what they have to say.

  10. ritzl
    August 13, 2017, 2:52 pm

    Thanks Danaa. Always appreciate and learn from your takes on things.

  11. dvered
    August 14, 2017, 8:46 am

    What Chomsky calls “old Israel” is no less than a Colonial settler State . In the time of so called “Old Israel” the settlers ethnic cleansed the Palestinians under the slogan of fake socialism. The Kibbutzim and the collective settlements were for “Jews Only” – pure Racism . Today the ethnic cleansing continues under the banner of re-populating the biblical Israel and the new settlements are populated by National Religious settlers who give biblical names to the new settlements thus creating the impression they continue where Jews left of 2000 years ago.So in essence there is no difference between “the Old Israel” and the so called “New Israel” .
    Today’s settlers continue the Zionist project which leads inevitably to the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.

  12. Misterioso
    August 14, 2017, 11:43 am

    Must read:

    https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/08/11/why-i-cannot-be-a-zionist-an-open-letter-to-emmanuel-macron/

    AUGUST 11, 2017
    Why I Cannot be a Zionist: an Open Letter to French President, Emmanuel Macron
    by SHLOMO SAND

Leave a Reply