[Peace-discuss] [OccupyCU] On Holocaust Remembrance Day: A call to stop falsely accusing activists of anti-Semitism

[C. G. Estabrook]

ya'aQov, of course I appreciate your charitable concern for my pathologies, but you're not exerting yourself in keeping up to date with them:

I've made it clear on my UPTV programs that I don't support university boycotts (in spite of the obvious corruption of universities, Israeli and American) and that I share Chomsky and Finkelstein's views about the usefulness and the dangers of the BDS movement. Chomsky is not often quoted accurately on the matter. For a corrective, see, e.g., 

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

Q: 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?

Noam 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.*

...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...  [Emphases added]

Regards, CGE

PS: Talking of pathologies, we might wonder about your last line, below?


On Apr 28, 2014, at 9:50 AM, ya'aQov <yaaqovz at gmail.com> wrote:

> So you CGE chose to leave out from Chomsky's talk his opposition to
> BDS and his lack of support to boycotting Israeli Universities, using
> Chomsky as a hiding place for your pathological obsessions.
> 
> The Holocaust Remembrance Day addresses people all over the world,
> including those who sacrificed their safety in order to rescue Jews,
> or those who struggled against Nazi's persecution of Jews.  In Israel,
> today is also a day for the remembrance of the gay people who died on
> the Holocaust.
> 
> Finkelstein's points were well and timely articulated and taken.  Yet
> you CGE could have waited a few days, before expressing your
> pathology, your Palestinian Menstruation Syndrome to David Green.