[Peace-discuss] Chomsky's boycott

[C. G. Estabrook]

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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...

http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20100726.htm

On 12/13/10 8:29 PM, Morton K. Brussel wrote:
> Chomsky turned 82 not 92. Aside from that error in the article below, I think 
> his argument reeks. *One does what one can!* 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.
>
> Many do try to boycott institutions and businesses in the USA that support our 
> belligerence, so I believe he's off key here.
>
> 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.
> --mkb
>
> On Dec 13, 2010, at 6:54 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>
>> December 13, 2010
>> Chomsky’s boycott
>> By Semra E. Sevi
>>
>> Israeli academics, having led the way in the fields of biomedical,
>> semiconductor, and weapons technologies, have much to provide the world.
>>
>> However, the ensuing conflict between Israel and Palestine has impeded
>> this development. The Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions campaign
>> against Israel has been an extremely contentious issue on campuses
>> around the world. Its supporters see the campaign as an effective means
>> of pressuring Israel to uphold international law. On the other hand, its
>> critics see it as rife with double standards and as a counterproductive
>> approach to resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict.
>>
>> Attempting to censor and silence the dialogue is never the answer. Only
>> an open exchange of ideas from all academics will lead to a true
>> understanding and, ultimately, a resolution. There is always hope in
>> education.
>>
>> Boycotts of researchers or research institutions contravene the purpose
>> of academia, which is deeply rooted on the freedom of inquiry and
>> freedom of speech.
>>
>> Recently, I coproduced an interview with Noam Chomsky for TVOntario, in
>> which he discussed the Middle East, America’s foreign policy, and the
>> BDS campaign. In that interview, when asked if he supported BDS, Chomsky
>> stated that he is unconvinced of the tactic.
>>
>> “I would not support an academic boycott. I did not even support them on
>> South Africa, apart from specific racist practices, like hiring,” said
>> Chomsky.
>>
>> In correspondences with Chomsky, he elucidated his stance on the issue,
>> “I have always been skeptical about academic boycotts. There may be
>> overriding reasons, but in general I think that those channels should be
>> kept open.”
>>
>> Supporters of the academic boycott argue that Israeli academics cannot
>> exempt themselves from a boycott on the grounds of academic freedom
>> while they fail to speak up for the academic freedom of Palestinians. To
>> this I say, it does not make it right to censor an academic just because
>> they do not shed light to the Palestinian plight. It truly is
>> unfortunate that Palestinians are denied education, and I wish we could
>> change that, but students in many places are denied education. And if we
>> boycott Israel it does not end there. Why not boycott the whole world?
>> Simply because you cannot. Why, then, should the Palestinian cause be
>> more important?
>>
>> Chomsky has been directly connected to BDS from its roots, signing a
>> controversial Harvard-MIT petition in 2002, which he agreed with in
>> principle. It called for making U.S. government aid conditional on
>> dismantling settlements, the divestment of Harvard and MIT assets from
>> U.S. companies that sell weapons to Israel, and the divestment from
>> Israel all together. However, Chomsky was against the last tactic, which
>> called for divestment from Israel.
>>
>> “There's not much to say. I've been involved in BDS activities since
>> long before the term was invented. It's a tactic, not a principle. Like
>> any tactic, one has to evaluate particular proposals. Some are fine,
>> some counterproductive,” stated Chomsky.
>>
>> Former Harvard University president and Director of the National
>> Economic Council Lawrence H. Summers’s sentiment regarding the academic
>> boycott of Israel was resounding, “I found it shocking and deeply
>> troubling that a substantial group of faculty members at major
>> universities would propose seriously, and indeed seek to pressure, for
>> universities like Harvard to sell, to divest, any stock, any company
>> that did any business with Israel. It seemed to me that such a boycott
>> that singled out Israel was profoundly misguided.”
>>
>> When asked about boycotts in general, Chomsky asked, “Why boycott Israel
>> and not boycott the United States? The U.S. has a much worse record.
>> Apart from Israel, the United States is by far the world’s major arm
>> supplier.”
>>
>> In specific to academic boycotts, Chomsky iterated that, “Harvard
>> University has always been deeply implicated in implementing U.S.
>> foreign policy, from providing the leading personnel for major war
>> crimes (Bundy, Kissinger, etc.) to the activities carried out in the
>> [Kennedy] Government School, and much else. These vastly exceed
>> University of Tel Aviv’s contributions to war crimes – quite apart from
>> the fact that Israeli crimes are in fact US crimes, a tiny fraction of
>> them.”
>>
>> “Bundy and Kissinger are two of the major war criminals of the modern
>> era. There is a long list of others. The [Kennedy] Government School is
>> utterly outlandish. Among its more ‘benign’ activities is having the
>> head of the [Carr] Human Rights Center, [Sarah Sewell], write the
>> introduction for David Petraeus’s famous [military] counterinsurgency
>> manual.”
>>
>> Universities are probably the least malign of all the actors in this
>> conflict. “If we want to boycott those directly involved in atrocities
>> let us go after the corporate system, the governments, and the citizens
>> who pay taxes, etc.,” said Chomsky
>>
>> “Academic institutions are among the least of the participants, and they
>> offer some of the best hope for confronting these crimes. However,
>> they’re not above the fray by any means.”
>>
>> Chomsky, one of the many staunch supporters of Palestine is still
>> fighting, having turned 92 today. When asked if the fire still burns
>> inside of him at his age, he responded with a resounding yes.
>>
>> Semra E. Sevi, a staff writer at The Varsity, is a political science
>> concentrator at the University of Toronto.
>>
>> http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2010/12/13/israel-chomsky-boycott-academic/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20101213/d9655b3f/attachment-0001.html>