[Peace-discuss] [OccupyCU] Chomsky on BDS

ewjohnson via Peace-discuss peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
Tue Aug 12 02:19:39 EDT 2014 

Seriously I don't think there is any preeminent evil greater than that 
offered
by Hillary Clinton.  She will indeed turn out the vote because there are 
a great number
of Hillary-haters out there who usually don't bother to vote.

I would be almost certain that HC will be the Democrat candidate. But I 
do not
believe that any committed anti-war citizen would vote for "Hillary Hawk".

*

    "This is why I keep pushing to take back the Democratic Party. Step
    by step.  Inch by inch. "


Hillary will certainly take the Dems back to being the War Party. Not 
that they haven't
done that pretty well with O-bot.

*
I don't really like Rand Paul.
No, I should say I really don't like Rand Paul.

He does share a number of his principled old man's views
although Rand Paul is not really libertarian per se and he is certainly not
genuinely anti-war.  But he would be less a hawk than Hillary.

I don't see the neo-con wing of the GOP supporting a Rand Paul, and 
AIPAC and their ilk would not really want to permit anything like a Ron 
Paul as president.  The 1% would be tickled to death to have Hillary 
Clinton in the puppet strings, so I fully expect the Republicans to 
nominate someone to continue to back the neo-con and quasi-neo-con line 
-- either a nauseating scumbag goof like Romney-Dole or some real 
asshole like McCain .

Likely peace activists who vote their conscience will go 3rd party.







On 08/12/2014 07:37 AM, C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote:
> Suppose the Republican wants to close foreign bases and bring US 
> troops (and other mercenaries) home?
>
> That was of course Ron Paul's view.
>
> Although the son may lack the father's resolve, he may turn out to be 
> a more moderate murderer than Clinton or Obama.
>
> A Paul/Clinton presidential election would surely bring out the 
> lesser-evilists for Paul.
>
> We'd also hear a good bit of ABC - Anybody But Clinton.
>
>
> On Aug 11, 2014, at 6:31 PM, Stan via Peace-discuss 
> <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net 
> <mailto:peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>> wrote:
>
>> Yes I am. Extremism only works for those willing to kill all those 
>> that disagree with them like the leadership of ISIS.
>> BTW I have never been a Hillary fan. However she is better than any 
>> Republican.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Aug 11, 2014, at 12:33 PM, "C. G. Estabrook" 
>> <carl at newsfromneptune.com <mailto:carl at newsfromneptune.com>> wrote:
>>
>>> Are you really recommending "moderation" and "compr(om)ise" with 
>>> National Socialism?
>>>
>>> I guess you are ready for Hillary, Stan:
>>>
>>> "We should have bombed Syria in the first place. Then there would be 
>>> no Caliphate."
>>>
>>> "The Caliph will attack Europe and the US ('I’m thinking a lot about 
>>> containment, deterrence and defeat.')"
>>>
>>> "Israel has a right to defend itself. And it’s all Hamas fault."
>>>
>>> "...So her doctrine/organizing principle will be 'We came, we saw, 
>>> he died.'"
>>>
>>> http://www.theatlantic.com/ 
>>> <http://www.theatlantic.com/>international/archive/2014/08/hillary-clinton-failure-to-help-syrian-rebels-led-to-the-rise-of-isis/375832/?single_page=true
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 11, 2014, at 10:00 AM, Stan via OccupyCU 
>>> <occupycu at lists.chambana.net <mailto:occupycu at lists.chambana.net>> 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> For the record we do not live in the thirties. We need to move 
>>>> forward from today and quit saying this or that can not work 
>>>> because it is outside the absolutism of a few. My guess is that 
>>>> there were absolutists in the thirties that prevented moderation 
>>>> then as you do today. They may have been called Communists of their 
>>>> day but their refusal to comprise only weakened the possibility for 
>>>> reform as absolutists of today do. We know what happened to many of 
>>>> those absolutists.
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 10, 2014, at 6:58 PM, "C. G. Estabrook" 
>>>> <carl at newsfromneptune.com <mailto:carl at newsfromneptune.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> An immensely silly thing to say. Is Germany outside of history? 
>>>>> Are the 1930s?
>>>>>
>>>>> But Roosevelt and the American 1930s are models? Another example 
>>>>> of "American exceptionalism"?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Aug 10, 2014, at 6:54 PM, Stan <swag901 at ymail.com 
>>>>> <mailto:swag901 at ymail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> They say the first to make a Hitler comparison loses. In this 
>>>>>> instance it applies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Aug 10, 2014, at 6:51 PM, "C. G. Estabrook" 
>>>>>> <carl at newsfromneptune.com <mailto:carl at newsfromneptune.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If only the good liberals had pushed to "take back" the NSDAP in 
>>>>>>> 1933. Maybe they did.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Aug 10, 2014, at 6:46 PM, Stan via OccupyCU 
>>>>>>> <occupycu at lists.chambana.net 
>>>>>>> <mailto:occupycu at lists.chambana.net>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have heard the Goodman broadcast and now I read it. It seems 
>>>>>>>> Chomsky is warning against absolutism because it frequently 
>>>>>>>> hurts those it is intended to help. This is why I keep pushing 
>>>>>>>> to take back the Democratic Party. Step by step.   Inch by inch.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Aug 10, 2014, at 11:07 AM, "C. G. Estabrook via OccupyCU" 
>>>>>>>> <occupycu at lists.chambana.net 
>>>>>>>> <mailto:occupycu at lists.chambana.net>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Important and indeed essential.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Aug 10, 2014, at 10:58 AM, Paul Mueth via Peace-discuss 
>>>>>>>>> <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net 
>>>>>>>>> <mailto:peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For the record from the web extra on Dem Now
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *AMY GOODMAN:* Noam, I wanted to ask you about your recent 
>>>>>>>>>> piece 
>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.thenation.com/article/180492/israel-palestine-and-bds> for 
>>>>>>>>>> /The Nation/ on Israel-Palestine and BDS. You were critical 
>>>>>>>>>> of the effectiveness of the boycott, divestment and sanctions 
>>>>>>>>>> movement. One of the many responses came from Yousef Munayyer 
>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.thenation.com/article/180590/responses-noam-chomsky-israel-palestine-and-bds#munayyer>, 
>>>>>>>>>> the executive director of the Jerusalem Fund and its 
>>>>>>>>>> educational program, the Palestine Center. He wrote, quote, 
>>>>>>>>>> "Chomsky’s criticism of BDS seems to be that it hasn’t 
>>>>>>>>>> changed the power dynamic yet, and thus that it can’t. There 
>>>>>>>>>> is no doubt the road ahead is a long one for BDS, but there 
>>>>>>>>>> is also no doubt the movement is growing ... All other paths 
>>>>>>>>>> toward change, including diplomacy and armed struggle, have 
>>>>>>>>>> so far proved ineffective, and some have imposed significant 
>>>>>>>>>> costs on Palestinian life and livelihood." Could you respond?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *NOAM CHOMSKY:* Well, actually, I did respond. You can find 
>>>>>>>>>> it on /The Nation/ website 
>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.thenation.com/article/180756/israel-palestine-and-bds-chomsky-replies>. 
>>>>>>>>>> But in brief, far from being critical of BDS, I was strongly 
>>>>>>>>>> supportive of it. One of the oddities of what’s called the 
>>>>>>>>>> BDS movement is that they can’t—many of the activists just 
>>>>>>>>>> can’t see support as support unless it becomes something like 
>>>>>>>>>> almost worship: repeat the catechism. If you take a look at 
>>>>>>>>>> that article, it very strongly supported these tactics. In 
>>>>>>>>>> fact, I was involved in them and supporting them before the 
>>>>>>>>>> BDS movement even existed. They’re the right tactics.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But it should be second nature to activists—and it usually 
>>>>>>>>>> is—that you have to ask yourself, when you conduct some 
>>>>>>>>>> tactic, when you pursue it, what the effect is going to be on 
>>>>>>>>>> the victims. You don’t pursue a tactic because it makes you 
>>>>>>>>>> feel good. You pursue it because it’s going—you estimate that 
>>>>>>>>>> it’ll help the victims. And you have to make choices. This 
>>>>>>>>>> goes way back. You know, say, back during the Vietnam War, 
>>>>>>>>>> there were debates about whether you should resort to violent 
>>>>>>>>>> tactics, say Weathermen-style tactics. You could understand 
>>>>>>>>>> the motivation—people were desperate—but the Vietnamese were 
>>>>>>>>>> strongly opposed. And many of us, me included, were also 
>>>>>>>>>> opposed, not because the horrors don’t justify some strong 
>>>>>>>>>> action, but because the consequences would be harm to the 
>>>>>>>>>> victims. The tactics would increase support for the violence, 
>>>>>>>>>> which in fact is what happened. Those questions arise all the 
>>>>>>>>>> time.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately, the Palestinian solidarity movements have been 
>>>>>>>>>> unusual in their unwillingness to think these things through. 
>>>>>>>>>> That was pointed out recently again by Raja Shehadeh, the 
>>>>>>>>>> leading figure in—lives in Ramallah, a longtime supporter, 
>>>>>>>>>> the founder of Al-Haq, the legal organization, a very 
>>>>>>>>>> significant and powerful figure. He pointed out that the 
>>>>>>>>>> Palestinian leadership has tended to focus on what he called 
>>>>>>>>>> absolutes, absolute justice—this is the absolute justice that 
>>>>>>>>>> we want—and not to pay attention to pragmatic policies. 
>>>>>>>>>> That’s been very obvious for decades. It used to drive people 
>>>>>>>>>> like Eqbal Ahmad, the really committed and knowledgeable 
>>>>>>>>>> militant—used to drive him crazy. They just couldn’t listen 
>>>>>>>>>> to pragmatic questions, which are what matter for success in 
>>>>>>>>>> a popular movement, a nationalist movement. And the ones who 
>>>>>>>>>> understand that can succeed; the ones who don’t understand it 
>>>>>>>>>> can’t. . . .
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net 
>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> OccupyCU mailing list
>>>>>>>>> OccupyCU at lists.chambana.net <mailto:OccupyCU at lists.chambana.net>
>>>>>>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/occupycu
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> OccupyCU mailing list
>>>>>>>> OccupyCU at lists.chambana.net <mailto:OccupyCU at lists.chambana.net>
>>>>>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/occupycu
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> OccupyCU mailing list
>>>> OccupyCU at lists.chambana.net <mailto:OccupyCU at lists.chambana.net>
>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/occupycu
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net 
>> <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20140812/541fc085/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Peace-discuss mailing list