Is this a put up or shut up moment for people like Arthur Waskow?
Phan Nguyen
March 26, 2012 12:26 pm
This is the second time Waskow has argued against BDS in a debate on Democracy Now. He did so two years earlier against Omar Barghouti.
His arguments are specious, but here I just want to point out his false suggestion that Martin Luther King would never support a boycott against an entire country:
Even when Dr. King clearly, publicly, vigorously opposed the Vietnam War, he did not call for a boycott of all American products and producers. He didn’t do that in Europe or in the United States. He targeted where he was aiming. And I think BDS, as presently framed, doesn’t target.
In reality, MLK supported full boycott, divestment and sanctions against Apartheid South Africa as early as 1962:
From a joint statement by MLK and Chief Albert J. Lutuli, dated 9 October 1962 and again on 10 December 1962, addressed to the international community:
Urge your Government to support economic sanctions;
Don’t buy South Africa’s products;
Don’t trade or invest in South Africa;
Translate public opinion into public action by explaining facts to all peoples, to groups to which you belong, and to countries of which you are citizens until AN EFFECTIVE INTERNATIONAL QUARANTINE OF APARTHEID IS ESTABLISHED.
From a speech in London, December 1964, en route to Oslo to receive the Nobel Peace Prize:
Our responsibility presents us with a unique opportunity. We can join in the one form of non-violent action that could bring freedom and justice to South Africa—the action which African leaders have appealed for—in a massive movement for economic sanctions.
In a world living under the appalling shadow of nuclear weapons do we not recognize the need to perfect the use of economic pressures? Why is trade regarded by all nations and all ideologies as sacred? Why does our Government, and your Government in Britain, refuse to intervene effectively now, as if only when there is a bloodbath in South Africa—or a Korea, or a Vietnam—will they recognise the crisis?
If the United Kingdom and the United States decided tomorrow morning not to buy South African goods, not to buy South African gold, to put an embargo on oil; if our investors and capitalists would withdraw their support for that racial tyranny, then apartheid would be brought to an end. Then the majority of South Africans of all races could at last build the shared society they desire.
Today, in our opulent society, our reliance on trade with South Africa is infinitesimal significance. No real national interest impels us to be cautious, gentle, or a good customer of a nation that offends the world’s conscience…
The time has come to utilize non-violence fully through a massive international boycott which would involve the USSR, Great Britain, France, the United States, Germany and Japan. Millions of people can personally give expression to their abhorrence of the world’s worst racism through such a far-flung boycott. No nation professing a concern for man’s dignity could avoid assuming its obligations if people of all States and races were to adopt a firm stand. Nor need we confine an international boycott to South Africa. The time has come for an international alliance of peoples of all nations against racism.
Newclench
March 26, 2012 1:19 pm
Rabbi Waskow is a long time courageous fighter for peace, human rights, and dignity for the Palestinian people. He has paid a price for this, professionally, that would have been easy to avoid.
His basic argument is that BDS against Israel and Israelis will be less effective than the mass adoption of surgical BDS against specific targets that highlight the occupation or specific issues with Israel.
In the end, it’s a strategic question. Do you adopt tactics that unify Israel’s opponents, or unity Israelis and their supporters? Waskow is in favor the former, indiscriminate BDS is the latter. But both share the same goal of Palestinian liberation.
Bill in Maryland
March 26, 2012 2:22 pm
Why can’t rank-and-file Americans hear this debate? Why is it confined to Amy Goodman’s audience and the blogosphere? Why we don’t see this on Rachel Maddow or the Ed Show is why the Mondoweiss focus on the power and influence of the American Jewish establishment is so critical.
DICKERSON3870
March 26, 2012 2:51 pm
RE: “Barghouti and Waskow debate BDS on Democracy Now”
MY COMMENT: I have considerable respect/admiration for Waskow, but we simply disagree on BDS. Consequently, I refuse to buy computers with Intel “blood processors”, and instead buy computers with AMD processors. After all, Sponsoring Tomorrow starts Today!™
SEE: Intel chip plant located on disputed Israeli land, by Henry Norr, San Francisco Chronicle, 7/08/02
(excerpts) Just how diligent was Intel’s due diligence when it chose to build a multibillion-dollar chip plant in Qiryat Gat, Israel? . . .
…Intel calls the plant Fab 18 (“fab” being chip-industry jargon for a facility where the silicon wafers that are eventually turned into working chips are fabricated). The fab, which went into production in 1999, was the fruit of a $1 billion investment by the Santa Clara company, supplemented by a $600 million grant from the Israeli government. . .
…But from a legal and historical point of view, Qiryat Gat happens to be an unusual location: It was not taken over by the Israeli military in 1948. Instead, it was part of a small enclave, known as the Faluja pocket, that the Egyptian army and local Palestinian forces had managed to hold through the end of the war.
The area was surrounded by Israeli forces, however. When Israel and Egypt signed an armistice agreement in February 1949, the latter agreed to withdraw its soldiers, but it insisted that the agreement explicitly guarantee the safety and property of the 3,100 or so Arab civilians in the area.
Israel accepted that demand. In an exchange of letters that were filed with the United Nations and became an annex to the main armistice agreement, the two countries agreed that “those of the civilian population who may wish to remain in Al-Faluja and Iraq al Manshiya (the two villages within the enclave covered by the letters) are to be permitted to do so. . . . All of these civilians shall be fully secure in their persons, abodes, property and personal effects.” … . . . Within days, the security the agreement had promised residents of the Al- Faluja pocket proved an illusion. Within weeks, the entire local population had fled to refugee camps outside of Israel.
Morris presents ample evidence that the people of the Al-Faluja area left in response to a campaign of intimidation conducted by the Israeli military. He quotes, among other sources, reports filed by Ralph Bunche, the distinguished black American educator and diplomat who was serving as chief U. N. mediator in the region. Bunche’s reports include complaints from U.N. observers on the scene that “Arab civilians . . . at Al-Faluja have been beaten and robbed by Israeli soldiers,” that there were attempted rapes and that the Israelis were “firing promiscuously” on the Arab population. . .
Is this a put up or shut up moment for people like Arthur Waskow?
This is the second time Waskow has argued against BDS in a debate on Democracy Now. He did so two years earlier against Omar Barghouti.
His arguments are specious, but here I just want to point out his false suggestion that Martin Luther King would never support a boycott against an entire country:
In reality, MLK supported full boycott, divestment and sanctions against Apartheid South Africa as early as 1962:
From a joint statement by MLK and Chief Albert J. Lutuli, dated 9 October 1962 and again on 10 December 1962, addressed to the international community:
From a speech in London, December 1964, en route to Oslo to receive the Nobel Peace Prize:
From a speech in New York for Human Rights Day, 10 December 1965:
Rabbi Waskow is a long time courageous fighter for peace, human rights, and dignity for the Palestinian people. He has paid a price for this, professionally, that would have been easy to avoid.
His basic argument is that BDS against Israel and Israelis will be less effective than the mass adoption of surgical BDS against specific targets that highlight the occupation or specific issues with Israel.
In the end, it’s a strategic question. Do you adopt tactics that unify Israel’s opponents, or unity Israelis and their supporters? Waskow is in favor the former, indiscriminate BDS is the latter. But both share the same goal of Palestinian liberation.
Why can’t rank-and-file Americans hear this debate? Why is it confined to Amy Goodman’s audience and the blogosphere? Why we don’t see this on Rachel Maddow or the Ed Show is why the Mondoweiss focus on the power and influence of the American Jewish establishment is so critical.
RE: “Barghouti and Waskow debate BDS on Democracy Now”
MY COMMENT: I have considerable respect/admiration for Waskow, but we simply disagree on BDS. Consequently, I refuse to buy computers with Intel “blood processors”, and instead buy computers with AMD processors. After all, Sponsoring Tomorrow starts Today!™
SEE: Intel chip plant located on disputed Israeli land, by Henry Norr, San Francisco Chronicle, 7/08/02
ENTIRE ARTICLE – http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/07/08/BU162036.DTL