Trending Topics:

Nobel peace laureates and celebrities call for military embargo on Israel

Activism
A BDS logo

A BDS logo

“With the establishment of a relationship of oppression, violence has already begun. Never in history has violence been initiated by the oppressed. …There would be no oppressed had there been no prior of violence to establish their subjugation.”
Paulo Freire

Israel has once again unleashed the full force of its military against the captive Palestinian population, particularly in the besieged Gaza Strip, in an inhumane and illegal act of military aggression. Israel’s ongoing assault on Gaza has so far killed scores of Palestinian civilians, injured hundreds and devastated the civilian infrastructure, including the health sector, which is facing severe shortages.

Israel’s ability to launch such devastating attacks with impunity largely stems from the vast international military cooperation and trade that it maintains with complicit governments across the world.

Over the period 2009-2019, the US is set to provide military aid to Israel worth $30bn, while Israeli annual military exports to the world have reached billions of dollars. In recent years, European countries have exported billions of euros worth of weapons to Israel, and the European Union has furnished Israeli military companies and universities with military-related research grants worth hundreds of millions.

Emerging economies such as India, Brazil and Chile, are rapidly increasing their military trade and cooperation with Israel, despite their stated support for Palestinian rights.

By importing and exporting arms to Israel and facilitating the development of Israeli military technology, governments are effectively sending a clear message of approval for Israel’s military aggression, including its war crimes and possible crimes against humanity.

Israel is one of the world’s leading producers and exporters of militarized drones. Israel’s military technology, developed to maintain decades of oppression, is marketed as “field tested” and exported across the world.

Military trade and joint military-related research relations with Israel embolden Israeli impunity in committing grave violations of international law and facilitate the entrenchment of Israel’s system of occupation, colonisation and systematic denial of Palestinian rights.

We call on the UN and governments across the world to take immediate steps to implement a comprehensive and legally binding military embargo on Israel, similar to that imposed on South Africa during apartheid.

Governments that express solidarity with the Palestinian people in Gaza, facing the brunt of Israel’s militarism, atrocities and impunity, must start with cutting all military relations with Israel. Palestinians today need effective solidarity, not charity.

Signed by:

Adolfo Peres Esquivel, Nobel Peace Laureate, Argentina
Ahdaf Soueif , Author, Egypt/UK
Ahmed Abbas, Academic, France
Aki Olavi Kaurismäki , film director, Finland
Alexi Sayle, Comedian, UK
Alice Walker, Writer, US
Alison Phipps, Academic, Scotland
Andrew Ross, Academic, US
Andrew Smith, Academic, Scotland
Arch. Desmond Tutu, Nobel Peace Laureate, South Africa
Ascanio Celestini, actor and author, Italy
Betty Williams, Nobel Peace Laureate, Northern Ireland
Boots Riley, Rapper, poet, arts producer, US
Brian Eno, Composer/musician, UK
Brigid Keenan, Author, UK
Caryl Churchill, playwright, UK
China Mieville, Writer, UK
Chris Hedges , Journalist, Pulitzer Prize 2002, US
Christiane Hessel, , France
Cynthia McKinney, Politician, activist, US
David Graeber, Academic, UK
David Palumbo-Liu, Academic, US
Eleni Varikas, Academic, France
Eliza Robertson, Author,
Elwira Grossman, Academic, Scotland
Etienne Balibar, philosopher, France
Federico Mayor Zaragoza, Former UNESCO Director General, Spain
Felim Egan, Painter, Ireland
Frei Betto, Liberation theologian, Brazil
Gerard Toulouse, Academic, France
Ghada Karmi , Academic , Palestine
Gillian Slovo, Writer, Former president of PEN (UK), UK/South Africa
Githa Hariharan, Writer, India
Giulio Marcon, MP (SEL), Italy
Hilary Rose, Academic, UK
Ian Shaw, Academic, Scotland
Ilan Pappe, Historian, author, Israel
Ismail Coovadia, former South African Ambassador to Israel
Ivar Ekeland, Academic, France
James Kelman, Writer, Scotland
Janne Teller, Writer, Denmark
Jeremy Corbyn, MP (Labour), UK
Joanna Rajkowska, Artist, Poland
Joao Felicio, President of ITUC, Brazil
Jody Williams, Nobel Peace Laureate, US
John Berger, artist, UK
John Dugard, Former ICJ judge, South Africa
John McDonnell, MP (Labour), UK
John Pilger, journalist and filmmaker , Australia
Judith Butler, Academic, philosopher, US
Juliane House, Academic, Germany
Karma Nabulsi, Oxford University, UK/Palestine
Keith Hammond, Academic, Scotland
Ken Loach, Filmmaker, UK
Kool A.D. (Victor Vazquez), Musician, US
Liz Lochhead, national poet for Scotland, UK
Liz Spalding, Author,
Luisa Morgantini, former vice president of the European Parliament, Italy
Mairead Maguire, Nobel Peace Laureate, Ireland
Marcia Lynx Qualey, Blogger and Critic, US
Michael Lowy, Academic, France
Michael Mansfield, Barrister, UK
Michael Ondaatje, Author, Canada/Sri Lanka
Mike Leigh, writer and director, UK
Mira Nair, filmmaker, India
Monika Strzępka, theatre director, Poland
Naomi Wallace, Playwright, screenwriter, poet, US
Nathan Hamilton, Poet ,
Noam Chomsky, Academic, author, US
Nur Masalha, Academic, UK/Palestine
Nurit Peled, Academic, Israel
Paola Bacchetta, Academic, US
Phyllis Bennis, Policy analyst, commentator, US
Prabhat Patnaik, Economist, India
Przemyslaw Wielgosz, Chief editor of Le Monde Diplomatique, Polish edition, Poland
Rachel Holmes, Author, UK
Raja Shehadeh, Author and Lawyer, Palestine
Rashid Khalidi, Academic, author, Palestine/US
Rebecca Kay, Academic, Scotland
Richard Falk, Former UN Special Rapporteur on Occupied Palestinian Territories, US
Rigoberta Menchú, Nobel Peace Laureate, Guatemala
Robin D.G. Kelley, Academic, US
Roger Waters, Musician, UK
Robin Yassin-Kassab, Writer, UK
Roman Kurkiewicz, journalist, Poland
Ronnie Kasrils, Former minister in Mandela’s gov’t, South Africa
Rose Fenton, Director, the Free Word Centre, UK
Sabrina Mahfouz, Author, UK
Saleh Bakri, Actor, Palestine
Selma Dabbagh, Author, UK/Palestine
Sir Geoffrey Bindman, Lawyer, UK
Slavoj Zizek, Philosopher, author, Slovenia
Sonia Dayan-Herzbrun, Academic, France
Steven Rose, Academic, UK
Tom Leonard, Writer, Scotland
Tunde Adebimpe, Musician, US
Victoria Brittain, Playwright and journalist, UK
Willie van Peer, Academic, Germany
Zwelinzima Vavi, Secretary General of Cosatu, South Africa

Sign your name here – http://www.bdsmovement.net/stoparmingisrael

Palestinian BDS National Committee
About Palestinian BDS National Committee

The Palestinian BDS National Committee (BNC) is the largest coalition in Palestinian civil society. It leads and supports the global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. For more information, visit www.bdsmovement.net/BNC.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

22 Responses

  1. amigo
    amigo
    July 20, 2014, 11:20 am

    I dont know how many names are there but they can have a very effective contribution to the goal of forcing Israel to en it,s ceaseless crimes.

    There are of course many , many names missing from that list , so lets hope the organisers can add those missing names.

  2. Justpassingby
    Justpassingby
    July 20, 2014, 11:59 am

    Still no western state have even summoned israeli envoys!
    How many palestinians will be killed this time? 500? 1000? 5000?

    It IS a genocide thats not quesiton about it anymore.

  3. traintosiberia
    traintosiberia
    July 20, 2014, 5:12 pm

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/20/john-kerry-israel_n_5603389.html

    Is Kerry waking up? Is Wallace offerring an escape hatch or a lullaby ? Fox is so inured to violence against Muslims and Arabs that it can’t bring itself to admitting the fact that the visceral reaction to the death could be something other than an automatic sympathy for the Israeli murderers.

  4. Keith
    Keith
    July 20, 2014, 8:31 pm

    “Israel’s ability to launch such devastating attacks with impunity largely stems from the vast international military cooperation and trade that it maintains with complicit governments across the world.”

    Funny, I see no mention of the Israel lobby. Is the Palestine BDS National Committee a bunch of Chomskyites?

    “We call on the UN and governments across the world to take immediate steps to implement a comprehensive and legally binding military embargo on Israel, similar to that imposed on South Africa during apartheid.”

    Who signed? Among others, Chris Hedges, Cynthia McKinney Illan Pappe, John Pilger and Noam Chomsky. I search in vain for Chas Freeman, Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, among other Mondo stalwarts. Perhaps some sort of oversight? Easily corrected if they click on the link and add their names.

    • W.Jones
      W.Jones
      July 20, 2014, 10:16 pm

      Hello, Keith.

      I did not see John Walt on the list, but I did see Cynthia McKinney, and she was at the National Summit in Washington along with Phil Weiss this year, and they joined Walt in talking about the Lobby. She discussed how the Lobby was powerful enough to wreck her career and that of others. Chomsky on the other hand said in a debate with the ADC that it is a “small” lobby.

      It’s nice that Chomsky signed the petition about a military embargo. Is that the same thing as sanctions? Because Chomsky has said in the past that he opposes sanctions.

    • W.Jones
      W.Jones
      July 21, 2014, 11:07 am

      TEAR-STAINED UZI: “it’s frustrating that he provides cover now for PEPs.”

      KEITH: Curious, how expressing an honest opinion on certain aspects of BDS can be considered as providing cover for PEPs.

      http://mondoweiss.net/2014/07/concentration-delusion-recognize.html#comment-688926

      Hello, Keith.
      In his interview with Frank Barat (Part 4/4), Chomsky said “It’s 100 times times worse in the US, or in England, or anyplace else you talk about” and concluded from this that BDS is “pure antisemitism”.

      This provides cover for PEPs, because PEPs say the same thing. They emphasize how much better the system is than elsewhere and claim that opposition is antisemitic.

      • Keith
        Keith
        July 21, 2014, 3:42 pm

        W JONES- “Chomsky on the other hand said in a debate with the ADC that it is a “small” lobby.”

        The size and strength of the lobby depends upon how one defines the lobby. If we just talk about the professional lobbyists, it is probably small. If we include all the “friends of Israel,” then the lobby is enormous and includes what I (and I assume Chomsky) would consider domestic concentrations of power. Chomsky answers this question differently at different times depending upon how the question is phrased within the specific context of the interview. My opinion on Chomsky is based primarily upon his books. I have neither the time nor inclination to view all of his video interviews. Apparently you have devoted considerable time and effort looking for isolated quotes to impugn him. The Frank Barat interview appeared to me when I initially saw it as a hostile interview by a BDS supporter who was hectoring Chomsky looking to provoke an ill-considered response.

        Jones : “In his interview with Frank Barat (Part 4/4), Chomsky said “It’s 100 times times worse in the US, or in England, or anyplace else you talk about” and concluded from this that BDS is “pure antisemitism”.

        You continue to alter your phraseology slightly on this to imply something which I don’t think reflects Chomsky’s views. First of all, the crimes of either the American empire or the British empire were much worse than anything that Israel has done so far. This is not to excuse Israel, but to acknowledge that Americans who focus laser like on Israel while ignoring the crimes of empire are hypocrites. Focusing on Israel while ignoring Americas crucial support does lend a certain credibility to charges of anti-Semitism, however, his argument that BDS should be limited to certain types of actions is not tantamount to calling BDS per se as “pure anti-Semitism,” a blatant misrepresentation. Arguably, American efforts should focus on ending US support for Israel, however, that could be too big an effort to be productive.

        Jones (from a previous closed thread): “…on certain topics related to the Palestinian Conflict, like the Lobby, Apartheid, BDS, the Right of Return, and whether a society should ideally be divided on religious lines, Chomsky takes a PEP position.”

        This is an outrageous misrepresentation of Chomsky. You are labelling any deviation from the BDS party line as non-progressive. As for dividing a society along religious lines, this, apparently, is your misrepresentation of Chomsky favoring a two state solution as being the more realistic option. All of your caveats aside, based upon your links alone, you are obviously a charter member of the anti-Chomsky brigade. The reason I even bother responding to some of this anti-Chomsky drivel is that it has become apparent to me that there is an orchestrated anti-Chomsky effort afoot. Initially, this was centered on the Right, however, as society has moved ever rightward, certain elements on the Left have found a niche in vilifying critics of empire, Chomsky being the most visible. Christopher Hitchens the best known example. As empire progresses towards neo-feudalism, some folks alter their perceptions in search of funding as full spectrum dominance includes the doctrinal system. And, all of your excuses aside, any website which praises Freeman, Hagel or Kerry while vilifying Chomsky has some serious issues.

      • W.Jones
        W.Jones
        July 21, 2014, 6:33 pm

        his argument that BDS should be limited to certain types of actions is not tantamount to calling BDS per se as “pure anti-Semitism,” a blatant misrepresentation.

        It’s not a misrepresentation. In the interview I linked, he tells Frank Barat that the Harvard BDS petition was called “pure antisemitism. Unfortunately that was with justice”. (4:37 youtube.com/watch?v=H5hY-gffV0M )

        You made a good point that “Arguably, American efforts should focus on ending US support for Israel, however, that could be too big an effort to be productive.” Perhaps I would say that it’s at least a bit productive, but it still doesn’t mean that BDS is antisemitic, like Chomsky said above.

        “…on certain topics related to the Palestinian Conflict, like the Lobby, Apartheid, BDS, the Right of Return, and whether a society should ideally be divided on religious lines, Chomsky takes a PEP position.”

        This is an outrageous misrepresentation of Chomsky.

        Saying that it’s “quite inaccurate” and “inappropriate” to call it Apartheid, saying that BDS is antisemitic, that there is no international law behind the Right of Return, and that we should have political parties dedicated to a single religious, national community are simply not progressive positions.

        You are labelling any deviation from the BDS party line as non-progressive.

        Each of BDS’s three demands are for basic human rights. To oppose demands for basic human rights is not progressive.

        As for dividing a society along religious lines, this, apparently, is your misrepresentation of Chomsky favoring a two state solution as being the more realistic option.

        I am “OK” with the two state solution, but I don’t see it as the best ideal. I see nationalistic political parties there as something the UN can allow within a 2SS, but I see them as reactionary when they want to divide society along religious lines.

        Rather, my criticism is that he was a nationalist youth leader dedicated to a nationalistic political party and worked on a nationalist kibbutz, which was envisioned as an ideal model for society. He says that his views on nationalism have not changed. My issue is not whether one approves the idea of two states. It’s that I see his ideal model of basing society on nationalist political parties and economic organizations as reactionary. If the Democrats were for one nationality and religion only, then that would be reactionary too.

        Chomsky’s political party, Hashomer, had a leftist aspect and a reactionary aspect, because it wanted socialism but it also dedicated itself to one religion only in a country made of three major religions. There were not many non-nationalist parties dedicated to both peoples there, but one of the few was the Communist Party.

        there is an orchestrated anti-Chomsky effort afoot. Initially, this was centered on the Right, however, as society has moved ever rightward, certain elements on the Left have found a niche in vilifying critics of empire, Chomsky being the most visible.

        Actually, what really happened – if you are interested, is that the US Left has become much more active and aware about the situation of Palestinians. Ten years ago, Chomsky and Finkelstein railing against Israeli abuses was extremely radical. In fact, I would say that their eloquence is still appreciated. However, the student movement, Solidarity, and BDS have gathered steam, and now a position that denounces BDS as “antisemitism” is something that many Solidarity activists recognize clearly as reactionary. The real change is that BDS has entered the mainstream of Left activism, and that is why Chomsky’s article attacking BDS gets criticism, not because, say, Ali Abunimah is right wing. Obviously if Ali A. and others want to advocate for BDS, they are not going to just accept that their campaign is “antisemitic” and hypocritical but are express their clear disagreement with their denouncers, whether they are Chomsky or others.

      • Keith
        Keith
        July 21, 2014, 8:44 pm

        W JONES- “Rather, my criticism is that he was a nationalist youth leader dedicated to a nationalistic political party and worked on a nationalist kibbutz….”

        A nationalist youth leader? He was a cultural Zionist who has always opposed a Jewish state. He accepts the reality of Israel, a member of the UN. He says that nowadays he would be described as an anti-Zionist. Philosophically, he would like to see the dissolution of all nation states in the future (I disagree with him on this). You have, once again, blatantly misrepresented him. I find your fixation on Chomsky curious. Perhaps your link to the Allison Weir website with the picture of Jeffrey Blankfort provides a clue? I might add that it is difficult to respond to you insofar as you pack so much misinformation and disinformation in your comments, all “supported” by links to videos or radio interviews (hostile ones) which I have no time or desire to listen to. Based upon my readings of Chomsky’s work (primarily books), your characterization of him is way off base.

        W Jones: “Chomsky’s political party, Hashomer, had a leftist aspect and a reactionary aspect, because it wanted socialism but it also dedicated itself to one religion only in a country made of three major religions.”

        Whoa, partner. First of all, I am not aware that Chomsky is a member of any political party. Was he a member of the Hashomer youth movement in his youth? Are you saying that it is reactionary for a Christian to practice Christianity in a region with three religions? Reactionary for a Muslim to practice Islam in a country with three religions? Or is it only Jews who are reactionary for practicing Judaism in a country with three religions? What is your point, except to falsely imply that Chomsky is a reactionary? As a matter of fact, Chomsky is not religious at all and has never advocated for a Jewish state or suggested that an ideal society be divided along religious lines. I am sure that he supports religious freedom for all in a pluralistic society, and other forms of cultural diversity. Yet, you seem to insinuate that this constitutes sectarianism. More misrepresentation from you. You are a regular “Energizer Bunny” of disinformation.

        You have obviously devoted a lot of time and effort trying to find things to use against Chomsky, therefore, you can hardly be accused of ignorance. I don’t object whatsoever to honest criticism of any of Chomsky’s positions, however, I find the ongoing misrepresentation of him offensive. I find it interesting that Mondoweiss attracts so many anti-Chomskyites like you.

      • W.Jones
        W.Jones
        July 21, 2014, 10:48 pm

        Hello, Keith.
        Yes, Chomsky said that “I became a Hebrew teacher myself, a Zionist youth leader”. http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people2/Chomsky/chomsky-con1.html As you may know, Zionism is a for of nationalism.

        And in the interview with Alison Weir I mentioned he sad that his views haven’t changed.He describes his life on the Hashomer party’s kibbutz to Amy Goodman:

        At that point, at that time, most of those details weren’t known, although I must say I saw some of it, enough to have a sense right at the time, and later when I was living—I was living in Israel a little bit later for a while.

        AMY GOODMAN: When?

        NOAM CHOMSKY: Fifty-three, in a kibbutz, a Hashomer Hatza’ir kibbutz, a very left-wing kibbutz. And it was near Haifa, but everything is near a border, so not that far from the borders. But I remember going out on guard duty with older friends some evenings,

        http://www.democracynow.org/2004/11/26/the_life_and_times_of_noam

        You asked a good question:

        Are you saying that it is reactionary for a Christian to practice Christianity in a region with three religions? Reactionary for a Muslim to practice Islam in a country with three religions?

        I think it’s fine and healthy for people of each of the three major religions to practice their religion. The problem is setting up parties dedicated to just one religion and setting up religion-defined economic entities (like kibbutzes) as a model for society. Yes, I would find it reactionary if the Democratic and Republic parties chose to be formal “Christian” parties dedicated to making society ‘Christian’ from the ground up, because I want separation of Church and state. Certainly businesses and parties have a right to be Christian and diversity is nice, but it’s not a progressive model for a whole society from the top down.

        As a matter of fact, Chomsky is not religious at all
        I don’t know what his private life is like, but Israeli history has had plenty of nationalists like Jabotinsky who were not religious, and yet have dedicated themselves to one religious community only. No, Chomsky is not the equivalent of Jabotinsky, but nonetheless the nonstate “anarchist Zionist” model was still flawed, because a system of nationalist parties is still flawed when it comes to the Holy Land.

      • W.Jones
        W.Jones
        July 21, 2014, 11:03 pm

        Hello again, Keith.

        The main principle is that we are allowed to see public figures in complex ways. We can admire Abraham Lincoln for freeing the slaves, and still criticize him for fighting the Indians.

        With Chomsky, it’s similar. He has an admirable history, and his radical overall views are inspiring. He is one of the more outspoken people on Palestinians’ rights. And yet does he have weaknesses like other famous people in history? I believe so. It doesn’t mean that he is not good overall, or that we can’t come away with a positive view about him.

        If we ask what that weak point could be when it comes to Palestinians, it starts with his work as a “Zionist youth leader.” He was involved in the movement for Israeli nationalism and that’s why he went to live on the Hashomer kibbutz, where he served as a guard against Palestinians who had been expelled from their homes. (http://www.democracynow.org/2004/11/26/the_life_and_times_of_noam) He explains that this was the school of anarchist Zionism of Martin Buber, and he says that this is no longer considered Zionism because it did not advocate a nationalist government. of course that’s true- anarchists don’t want government at all. But nonetheless he was in fact still a kind of nationalist – albeit an anarchist one. And as he told Allison Weir, he still has the same kind of political views that he did then.

        The main problem I see with this is not of course which religion he belonged to or how observant he was, but that I find the idea of nationalist political parties dedicated to a single religion problematic. The problem of the kibbutz system on which he served was that it was dedicated to just one religious community alone. I believe that Chomsky’s past attachments to the state have biased him and this is why he emphasized that it is not Apartheid, even though elsewhere he said it was.

        So in conclusion, we can come away with a good feeling about Chomsky for being a radical and outspoken about Palestinian rights, but if we want the whole picture we can also consider his professed anarchist Zionism. Even though it was anarchist, I still find his version of Zionism to still be problematic as a model because nationalist parties and organizations serve to divide society along nationalist lines rather than overcome divisions.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        July 22, 2014, 5:41 am

        It’s not a misrepresentation. In the interview I linked, he tells Frank Barat that the Harvard BDS petition was called “pure antisemitism. Unfortunately that was with justice”. (4:37 youtube.com/watch?v=H5hY-gffV0M )

        Of course it was, and it still is a deliberate misrepresentation on your part. I already brought that fact to your attention. http://mondoweiss.net/2014/07/chomsky-bds-consensus.html#comment-680056

        Unlike you, many of us have to honestly engage real Zionist activists and family members, who are not complete idiots. They are only too happy to point out that terror organizations, including Hamas and Islamic Jihad, are fully represented in the organizations that style themselves as the BDS National Committee. They invariably sidetrack debates about BDS into ad hominem arguments about the anti-semites and terror organizations that they claim are officially represented in the Palestinian BDS National Committee – who have called for the destruction of Israel by violent means. That was the subject that Chomsky was actually talking about and the one you studiously ignored. The fact that you are still repeating the baseless charges, simply illustrates your bad faith.

        FYI, for those of you, like Jones here, who still need a clue: a) The Palestinian BDS National Committee is portrayed as a wide coalition of the largest Palestinian organisations, trade unions, networks and NGOs, including the major Palestinian political parties and their paramilitary government council and resistance forces, e.g. the “Council of National and Islamic Forces in Palestine” – the very first organization listed in the endorsements to the 2005 BDS Call to Action. http://www.bdsmovement.net/call

        The Council of National and Islamic Forces in Palestine claimed they were coordinating their BDS activities with the Palestinian National Authority in a joint declaration made in 2001, which called on civil society organizations to establish and coordinate the BDS movement itself:

        Following is the statement issued by the National and Islamic Forces on February 10, 2001; signatories are: Palestinian National Liberation Movement (Fateh); Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP); Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas); Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP); Palestinian People’s Party (PPP); Palestinian Democratic Union (FIDA); Palestinian Popular Struggle Front; Palestinian Liberation Front; Islamic Jihad Movement; Arab Liberation Front; Palestinian Arab Front; Popular Front—General Command; Islamic National Salvation Party; and Popular Liberation War Pioneers (Sa’iqa):

        The National and Islamic Forces are looking forward to see the reinforcement of the roles of all forces in the Palestinian people in comprehensive confrontation; the forces call on the popular institutions and organizations to activate the activities of the committees of right of return and boycotting Israeli products and against normalization. The forces stress on the need to organize popular conferences in which the national and Islamic forces will join the civil society institutions in activating their role in the Intifada. Coordination of these activities between these forces and the PNA institutions reflects the integration and interaction of the struggle climate that reinforces the escalation, development and sustainability of the blessed Intifada.

        http://goo.gl/mtFMPK

        The fact that Fateh, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, et al were listed among the main instigators of the 2005 call for action; were represented as members of the Palestinian BDS National Committee (via the Council of National and Islamic Forces in Palestine); and were designated as terror organizations in many countries, may have escaped Frank Barat’s notice, but it did not go unnoticed by Israeli officials or the Lobby. The Zionists invariably note that those organizations engaged in incitement, anti-semitic propaganda, and holocaust denial programs sponsored by the PNA, e.g. See:
        *The ADL’s entry on the Palestinian National and Islamic Forces
        http://archive.adl.org/terrorism/symbols/palestinian_national_islamic_front.html
        *The WINEP page on official Hamas positions on the myth of the Holocaust and examples of Palestinian anti-semitism http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/palestinian-holocaust-denial
        * The protocols to the Middle East Quartet’s Performance based Road Map that required “All official Palestinian institutions to end incitement against Israel.” http://www.un.org/news/dh/mideast/roadmap122002.pdf

        The Mondoweiss peanut gallery can dodge those issues, but Chomsky doesn’t have that luxury. He has to respond to folks, like Deshowitz at Harvard/MIT, and pundits like Israeli Ambassadors Dore Gold, Michael Oren, and Dr. Alan Baker. Mr. Jones still hasn’t acknowledged or responded to the latter’s comments about the hypocrisy of calling those organizations forces “non-violent Palestinian civil society organizations”. They were literally 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).

        link to ambassadoralanbaker.com

        I pointed out in a private email to Phil, that:

        I disagree with Chomsky and Finkelstein on the subject of the applicability and pertinence of international law to the subject of the right of return and minority rights in Israel. But, that is a subject that requires nuanced discussion and education. I decided that, after more than 10,000+ comments on that and related subjects, I really have nothing left to say at MW that is likely to change anyone’s attitude on the subject.

        Chomsky and Finkelstein have attracted a lot of undue attention and criticism for saying exactly the same things about “the right of return, in principle” versus “what is attainable” that Rashid Khalidi and other Palestinians were saying almost 20 years ago in essays like “Truth, Justice and Reconciliation: Elements of a Solution to the Palestinian Refugee Issue” (in the Ghada Karmi & Eugene Cotran eds. The Palestinian Exodus – 1948-1988, Ithaca Press, 1999). Other than labelling things as “hypocrisy” and “fringe thinking,” I can’t imagine anything that Chomsky or Finkelstein have said on the subjects of: 1) what is likely to come next; 2) the role of a 2SS as a possible incremental step on the road to a 1SS; 3) doubts about the immediate “effectiveness” of BDS as a form of non-violent resistance; 4) the need to educate the public about BDS; 5) the strengths and weaknesses of the Israel Lobby; and 6) the role of American imperialism and the responsibility of the United States government in facilitating, prolonging, and worsening the conflict that can’t be found in “Palestinian” sources, like Khalidi’s works or public statements, including: “Truth, Justice and Reconciliation: Elements of a Solution to the Palestinian Refugee Issue”; “Sowing Crisis: the Cold War and American Dominance in the Middle East”; “Resurrecting Empire: Western Footprints and America’s Perilous Path in the Middle East”; his video welcoming address to the PennBDS seminar; and “Brokers of Deceit: How the US Has Undermined Peace in the Middle East”. Electronic Intifada has taken Khalidi to task in the review of his latest book for the failure to mention the global BDS movement, but it would be mental masturbation to suggest that those works and statements reflect the author’s liberal Zionist views or that Khalidi and other Palestinians who express them are “PEP”.

        P.S. Like Chomsky, Khalidi downplays the role of the Israel lobby in American policy-making across the Middle East. http://mondoweiss.net/2013/04/rashid-khalidi-israel.html

      • ritzl
        ritzl
        July 21, 2014, 11:53 pm

        I respect you all, but would you please give the book-length Chomsky discussions a rest. For about a year? He’s a great man, his insights are intriguing, maybe even challenging, and instructive, but he’s just not THAT relevant to current events, and we lost Hostage in a big IAMRITE! fight over Chomsky minutiae.

        Please?

      • W.Jones
        W.Jones
        July 22, 2014, 1:02 am

        Ritzl,

        I/P is one of the most contentious issues out there. Friendships break up over it, or people who stay friends avoid discussing it. The NLG lost a huge section of its members in the 1970’s because it has taken a progressive stance. Some past liberals have become full Neoconservatives over the issue. Some of the most leftwing houses of worship have even formally decided that they won’t talk about it. The fact that this comments section is only now limited to two days must reflect that. And yet at the same time, it’s very important that we discuss this topic, with our friends if we want attitudes to change.

        Personally, I wish that Hostage was still here because he was smart and made good references. He didn’t indicate that he was going to leave, otherwise I would have been more praising of Chomsky. His eruption of how the right of return meant the state’s “destruction” and therefore antisemitism, despite my claim that it could accommodate a two state solution was a surprise for me. had I not discussed Chomsky so much with him, I am not sure he still would have lasted, seeing that Phil’s article to which Hostage objected was followed by a response by Suarez and then a collection of responses in The Nation.

        I do think it’s important to discuss Chomsky, not just because of his own contributions, but because of his impact on others, like his student Finkelstein, and because he reflects a field of opinion that lies between that of JVP on the left and J Street to his right.

        This raises the larger question of how we should address groups like J street with whom we have some agreement on people’s rights, but other disagreements, such as whether the special relationship should not be criticised. Should we avoid discussing criticisms with them for fear of offending them? I believe not. On one hand, it’s important to show that we don’t have hostility toward others, but at the same time we have to make clear our belief in Palestinians’ rights and our belief in progressive campaigns to uphold people’s rights.

        This must be the point of open discussions, free speech, and even friendly debates – a sense of working together to achieve progressive goals. This is a challenge, because if we offend people into breaking friendships, we fail, but if we freeze and tie ourselves so that we cannot advocate and discuss openly about the rights of the oppressed, then we have also failed- and perhaps the failure is even greater because we have chosen silence about human suffering over risking friendships.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        July 22, 2014, 6:20 am

        I respect you all, but would you please give the book-length Chomsky discussions a rest. . . . but he’s just not THAT relevant to current events, and we lost Hostage in a big IAMRITE! fight over Chomsky minutiae.

        Please?

        I’ve dropped in to explain why I’m giving MW a rest. I’ve never liked to see all these articles about Blankfort, Chomsky, Finklestein, Corsanti, Slater, Atzmon, Berlin, et al. I’ve even suggested articles on other news and issues that I thought might be of more interest. These mini-seminars on political correctness and ankle biting tend to drown-out that other stuff and never resolve anything. The recent policy of quickly closing comments on articles has made it almost impossible to carry-on a thoughtful or intelligent conversation down here in the peanut gallery in any event.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        July 22, 2014, 6:46 am

        Don’t make the rest too long. We miss you.

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        July 22, 2014, 7:59 am

        Hostage

        I never read the Chomsky stuff. Your other output is superb. Some very good peanuts . Enjoy the break.

      • just
        just
        July 22, 2014, 8:09 am

        Miss you, Hostage.

      • W.Jones
        W.Jones
        July 22, 2014, 10:40 am

        Thanks for poking in, Hostage.
        One thing I will agree with you on – and hopefully I have enough time to on this thread – is that the comments deadline makes deeper conversations harder.

        Have a pleasant summer vacation.

        Peace.

  5. xanadou
    xanadou
    July 20, 2014, 9:01 pm

    Have signed and am sharing the links to this article and call. I don’t think this action will accomplish much, but by its existence, it WILL give israel, hopefully, a permanent, black eye.

  6. kharrow
    kharrow
    July 20, 2014, 11:39 pm

    The African Literature Association has passed a resolution in support of BDS:
    http://africanlit.org/about-the-ala/ala-resolutions-and-executive-letters/
    At the 2014 ALA Meetings in Johannesburg, the following resolution was passed by the membership:
    BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions)
    The ALA supports the Academic Boycott of Israeli Academic Institutions.
    Whereas the African Literature Association is committed to the pursuit of social justice, to the struggle against all forms of racism, including anti-semitism, discrimination, and xenophobia, and to solidarity with aggrieved peoples in Africa and in the world; Whereas Israel’s occupation of Palestine and the expansion of illegal settlements and the Wall in violation of international law, as well as in supporting the systematic discrimination against Palestinians, has had documented devastating impact on the overall well-being, the exercise of political and human rights, the freedom of movement, and the educational opportunities of Palestinians; Whereas there is no effective or substantive academic freedom for Palestinian students and scholars under conditions of Israeli occupation, and Israeli institutions of higher learning are a party to Israeli state policies that violate human rights and negatively impact the working conditions of Palestinian scholars and students; Whereas the African Literature Association is dedicated to the right of students and scholars to pursue education and research without undue state interference, repression, and military violence, and in keeping with the spirit of its previous statements supports the right of students and scholars to intellectual freedom and to political dissent as citizens and scholars; it is resolved that the African Literature Association (ALA) endorses and will honor the call of Palestinian civil society for a boycott of Israeli academic institutions. It is also resolved that the ALA supports the protected rights of students and scholars everywhere to engage in research and public speaking about Israel-Palestine and in support of the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement.
    ________________________________________
    Rationale: The resolution is offered in the spirit of the past boycott of Apartheid South Africa, one of the ALA’s earliest efforts at political coalition politics. This boycott has been endorsed by Bishop Desmond Tutu. ln the spirit of his endorsement, and of our commitment to the liberation of dominated people everywhere, we are resolving to act against a state that has taken actions that have resulted in the dispersal of millions of Palestinian people around the Middle East and North Africa (including Egypt and Tunisia), that has targeted African refugees by placing them in internment camps indefinitely, and that has collaborated with authoritarian regimes in Africa, either by their work in extractive industries, or in the shipment of arms to repressive regimes. The resolution, like the long boycott of South Africa and of Southern Rhodesia, is intended to awaken the world’s conscience to a situation that must change.

  7. oldgeezer
    oldgeezer
    July 21, 2014, 2:40 am

    Impressive. I have signed. With my real name! One can only hope it grows.

Leave a Reply