<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
NOAM CHOMSKY: ...there are important tasks of education and
organization that have to be addressed seriously if US policies are
to be shifted. They should lead to actions focusing on specific
short-term objectives: ending the savage and criminal siege of Gaza;
dismantling the illegal "Separation Wall," by now a de facto
annexation wall; withdrawing the IDF from the illegally annexed
Golan Heights and from the West Bank (including illegally annexed
"Greater Jerusalem"), which would, presumably, be followed by
departure of most of settlers, all of whom, including those in East
and expanded Jerusalem, have been transferred (and heavily
subsidized) illegally, as Israel recognized as far back as 1967; and
of course ending all Israeli construction and other actions in the
occupied territories. Popular movements in the US should work to end
any US participation in these criminal activities, which would,
effectively, end them. That can be done, but only if a level of
general understanding is reached that far surpasses what exists
today. That is not a very difficult task as compared to many others
that popular movements have confronted in the past, often with some
success. In fact, it pretty much amounts to insistence that we act
in conformity with domestic and international law, and that we adopt
the "decent respect to the opinions of mankind" called for in the
Declaration of Independence. Hardly a radical stance, or one that
should be difficult to bring to the general public, with enough
effort. This by no means exhausts what should be our concerns.
Others include the desperate conditions of refugees outside of
Palestine, particularly in Lebanon. An immediate concern is to
relieve these conditions, though what we can do in this case is more
limited. There is no shortage of immediate tasks to be addressed.<br>
<br>
QUESTION: What is your view of the current approaches of those
opposing the Occupation -- globally, as well as in the US? Where do
you stand on BDS in its various forms? Your position on BDS has, at
times, been challenged by anti-occupation activists. Has your
position evolved over time? Is BDS more appropriate in Europe than
in the US? And, what other strategies and tactics do you think
people opposing the Occupation should focus on?<br>
<br>
CHOMSKY: The most important tasks, I think, are those I just briefly
sketched, particularly in the US but also in Europe, where illusions
are also widespread and far-reaching. There are many familiar
tactics and strategies as to how to pursue these crucial objectives.
They can also be supplemented by various forms of direct action,
such as what is now called "BDS," though that is only one of many
tactical options. Merely to mention one, demonstrations at corporate
headquarters, especially when coordinated in many countries, have
sometimes been quite effective. And there are many other choices
familiar from many years of activism.<br>
<br>
As for what is now called BDS, my views are the same as when I was
engaged in these actions well before the BDS efforts crystallized,
and I am unaware of any challenge to them apart from inevitable
disagreement on specific cases that are unclear. BDS is a tactic,
one of many, and not a doctrine of faith. Like other tactics,
particular implementations of BDS have to be evaluated by familiar
criteria. Crucial among them is the likely consequences for the
victims. As those seriously involved in anti-Indochina war
activities will recall, the Vietnamese strongly objected to
Weathermen tactics, which were understandable in the light of the
horrendous atrocities but seriously misguided, predictably
strengthening support for state violence. The Vietnamese urged
nonviolent tactics that would help educate public opinion and
increase popular opposition to the wars, and didn't care whether
protesters "feel good" about what they are doing. Similar issues
arise constantly, in the case of BDS as well. Some implementations
have been highly constructive, both in educating the public here --
a primary consideration always -- and in raising the costs of
participation in ongoing crimes. Good examples are boycotting
settlement products and US corporations that are engaged in support
for the occupation. Such actions both impose costs and help educate
the public here, by emphasizing what should be our prime concern:
our own major role in these criminal actions, which is what we can
hope to influence. It would be sensible to go far beyond: for
example, to join the appeal of Amnesty International for termination
of all military aid to Israel, which violates international law as
AI observes, and domestic law as well. Unfortunately, there have
been other initiatives that were poorly formulated and played
directly into the hands of hardliners, who of course welcome them.
Again it is easy to identify examples. We should at least be able to
learn from ample experience, as well as to understand the reasons
for these different consequences.<br>
<br>
Careful evaluation of tactical choices is sometimes disparaged as
"lacking principle." That is a serious error, another gift to
hardline supporters of violence and repression. It is the tactical
choices that have direct human consequences. Evaluating them is
often difficult, and reasonable people may have different judgments
in particular cases, but the principle of selecting tactical choices
that help the victims and rejecting those that harm them should not
be controversial among people concerned about the Palestinians. And
it should also not be controversial that those who differ in
particular judgments should be able to unite in pursuing the common
goals of helping the victims, and should avoid the destructive
tendencies that sometimes arise in popular movements to try to
impose a Party Line to which all must conform. Norman Finkelstein
has recently warned that BDS is sometimes taking on a cult-like
character, another tendency that has sometimes undermined popular
movements. His warnings are apt.<br>
<br>
Tactical priorities should be somewhat different in Europe and the
US, because of their different roles. The US stand is a decisive
factor in implementing Israel's policies, and therefore tactics here
should aim to bring to the fore the US role, which is what activists
can hope to influence most effectively. Tactics in Europe should be
directed to what Europeans should know about and can directly
influence: their own role in perpetuating the crimes against
Palestinians...<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20100726.htm">http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20100726.htm</a><br>
<br>
On 12/13/10 8:29 PM, Morton K. Brussel wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:D9CBE118-F625-4515-9248-EDDBE9E2B1E8@illinois.edu"
type="cite">Chomsky turned 82 not 92. Aside from that error in the
article below, I think his argument reeks. <b>One does what one
can!</b> He should realize that he himself is boycotted from the
other side, to considerable effect. Boycotting Israeli academics
implicated in their governments policies is a useful tool.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Many do try to boycott institutions and businesses in the USA
that support our belligerence, so I believe he's off key here. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>How does one boycott, for example, the Harvard Kennedy
School? Don't go there? Don't invite their government implicated
professors? How about those of the UIUC? In general, it's just
too impractical, but it is not impractical to reject Israeli
academics who defend or participate in their government's
policies from conferences and collaborations in the USA.
<div>--mkb
<div><br>
<div>
<div>On Dec 13, 2010, at 6:54 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>December 13, 2010<br>
Chomsky’s boycott<br>
By Semra E. Sevi<br>
<br>
Israeli academics, having led the way in the fields of
biomedical,<br>
semiconductor, and weapons technologies, have much to
provide the world.<br>
<br>
However, the ensuing conflict between Israel and
Palestine has impeded<br>
this development. The Boycott, Divestment, and
Sanctions campaign<br>
against Israel has been an extremely contentious issue
on campuses<br>
around the world. Its supporters see the campaign as
an effective means<br>
of pressuring Israel to uphold international law. On
the other hand, its<br>
critics see it as rife with double standards and as a
counterproductive<br>
approach to resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict.<br>
<br>
Attempting to censor and silence the dialogue is never
the answer. Only<br>
an open exchange of ideas from all academics will lead
to a true<br>
understanding and, ultimately, a resolution. There is
always hope in<br>
education.<br>
<br>
Boycotts of researchers or research institutions
contravene the purpose<br>
of academia, which is deeply rooted on the freedom of
inquiry and<br>
freedom of speech.<br>
<br>
Recently, I coproduced an interview with Noam Chomsky
for TVOntario, in<br>
which he discussed the Middle East, America’s foreign
policy, and the<br>
BDS campaign. In that interview, when asked if he
supported BDS, Chomsky<br>
stated that he is unconvinced of the tactic.<br>
<br>
“I would not support an academic boycott. I did not
even support them on<br>
South Africa, apart from specific racist practices,
like hiring,” said<br>
Chomsky.<br>
<br>
In correspondences with Chomsky, he elucidated his
stance on the issue,<br>
“I have always been skeptical about academic boycotts.
There may be<br>
overriding reasons, but in general I think that those
channels should be<br>
kept open.”<br>
<br>
Supporters of the academic boycott argue that Israeli
academics cannot<br>
exempt themselves from a boycott on the grounds of
academic freedom<br>
while they fail to speak up for the academic freedom
of Palestinians. To<br>
this I say, it does not make it right to censor an
academic just because<br>
they do not shed light to the Palestinian plight. It
truly is<br>
unfortunate that Palestinians are denied education,
and I wish we could<br>
change that, but students in many places are denied
education. And if we<br>
boycott Israel it does not end there. Why not boycott
the whole world?<br>
Simply because you cannot. Why, then, should the
Palestinian cause be<br>
more important?<br>
<br>
Chomsky has been directly connected to BDS from its
roots, signing a<br>
controversial Harvard-MIT petition in 2002, which he
agreed with in<br>
principle. It called for making U.S. government aid
conditional on<br>
dismantling settlements, the divestment of Harvard and
MIT assets from<br>
U.S. companies that sell weapons to Israel, and the
divestment from<br>
Israel all together. However, Chomsky was against the
last tactic, which<br>
called for divestment from Israel.<br>
<br>
“There's not much to say. I've been involved in BDS
activities since<br>
long before the term was invented. It's a tactic, not
a principle. Like<br>
any tactic, one has to evaluate particular proposals.
Some are fine,<br>
some counterproductive,” stated Chomsky.<br>
<br>
Former Harvard University president and Director of
the National<br>
Economic Council Lawrence H. Summers’s sentiment
regarding the academic<br>
boycott of Israel was resounding, “I found it shocking
and deeply<br>
troubling that a substantial group of faculty members
at major<br>
universities would propose seriously, and indeed seek
to pressure, for<br>
universities like Harvard to sell, to divest, any
stock, any company<br>
that did any business with Israel. It seemed to me
that such a boycott<br>
that singled out Israel was profoundly misguided.”<br>
<br>
When asked about boycotts in general, Chomsky asked,
“Why boycott Israel<br>
and not boycott the United States? The U.S. has a much
worse record.<br>
Apart from Israel, the United States is by far the
world’s major arm<br>
supplier.”<br>
<br>
In specific to academic boycotts, Chomsky iterated
that, “Harvard<br>
University has always been deeply implicated in
implementing U.S.<br>
foreign policy, from providing the leading personnel
for major war<br>
crimes (Bundy, Kissinger, etc.) to the activities
carried out in the<br>
[Kennedy] Government School, and much else. These
vastly exceed<br>
University of Tel Aviv’s contributions to war crimes –
quite apart from<br>
the fact that Israeli crimes are in fact US crimes, a
tiny fraction of<br>
them.”<br>
<br>
“Bundy and Kissinger are two of the major war
criminals of the modern<br>
era. There is a long list of others. The [Kennedy]
Government School is<br>
utterly outlandish. Among its more ‘benign’ activities
is having the<br>
head of the [Carr] Human Rights Center, [Sarah
Sewell], write the<br>
introduction for David Petraeus’s famous [military]
counterinsurgency<br>
manual.”<br>
<br>
Universities are probably the least malign of all the
actors in this<br>
conflict. “If we want to boycott those directly
involved in atrocities<br>
let us go after the corporate system, the governments,
and the citizens<br>
who pay taxes, etc.,” said Chomsky<br>
<br>
“Academic institutions are among the least of the
participants, and they<br>
offer some of the best hope for confronting these
crimes. However,<br>
they’re not above the fray by any means.”<br>
<br>
Chomsky, one of the many staunch supporters of
Palestine is still<br>
fighting, having turned 92 today. When asked if the
fire still burns<br>
inside of him at his age, he responded with a
resounding yes.<br>
<br>
Semra E. Sevi, a staff writer at The Varsity, is a
political science<br>
concentrator at the University of Toronto.<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2010/12/13/israel-chomsky-boycott-academic/">http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2010/12/13/israel-chomsky-boycott-academic/</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Peace-discuss mailing list<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss">http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>