The Legitimacy of Boycotting as a Tactic

Straw men and Resisting Oppression by Kim Petersen / August 3rd, 2010 Progressivism values solidarity, and within that solidarity there is respect for diversity. It is expected that there will be differences of opinion on the causes of injustices and solutions to the injustice. What best captures the essence of progressivism is its adherence to principles. It seems obvious to declare the right to non-violently resist an occupier/oppressor must be one of those principles. There appears, however, a schism on this principle within the progressivist movement. One renowned leftist, Noam Chomsky, is against boycotts as a tactic to resist oppression. Jeffrey Blankfort objected to Chomskys stand on boycotts and his stance vis--vis Israel.1 Jeremy Hammond objected to Blankforts criticism of Chomsky.2 Hammond, who usually writes quite articulately on social justice issues, began his recent offering in an intemperate manner: Tirades against Noam Chomsky never cease to amaze me. One might surmise from Hammonds opening sentence that he would address tirades against a man who is revered by a segment of the Left. Amazingly, what followed is best described as a tirade against Jeffrey Blankfort who dared to analyze and question the positions of Chomsky. Chomsky is an important thinker, but I do not believe that reasoned questioning of the words and actions of anyone is beyond reproach. Chomsky, for his part, does not show signs of relishing his celebrity status. Nonetheless, because of the spotlight afforded him, his reputation, and his articulation, his message has reach and influence. Consequently, if Chomsky were to be averse to a form of social justice activism, then the effect would not be beneficial for that activism. Blankfort, a well-informed thinker and proponent of social justice, examined the struggle of Palestinians and Chomskys repudiation of a non-violent form of resistance by Palestinians to their oppression; namely, the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) campaign. Because of Chomskys opposition to boycotts, among other points, Blankfort asks whether Chomsky is an asset or a liability to social justice for Palestinians. Hammond does not directly state that Blankforts piece was a tirade, but he accuses Blankfort of ignorance and deliberate misrepresentation. Those are heavy charges, and they should be backed up solidly.

Yet Hammond, himself, appears guilty of deliberate misrepresentation. An example is his discussion of Chomskys meeting with Palestinian prime minister Salam Fayyad. Blankfort wishes to know whether Chomsky considered the Palestine Authoritys endorsement of Israels blockade of Gaza, of its attempts to suppress a UN investigation of the Goldstone Report, and of the role played by its US-trained militia in protecting Israel. Hammond says that Blankfort implies that Chomsky favors Fayyad. This is a straw man. There is no such implication. Blankfort wonders why Chomsky would meet Fayyad. Given the history surrounding the Palestine Authority (PA), this is a fair question. Hammond likes to point out omissions, yet he omits mentioning that Fayyad is a member of a government which evades democracy. The electorally mandated term of Mahmoud Abbas, president of Palestine, expired in January 2009. Now why would a party that heads a government seek to avoid elections? Probably most people would answer that such a government is afraid of losing. Hence, any policies that the PA implements are lacking democratic legitimacy, whether Chomsky considers them quite sensible or not. Contrary to Hammonds assertion, Blankfort does not portray Chomskys support for a de facto Palestinian state as a blanket endorsement of the PA and all its actions. Blankfort calls into question the democratic legitimacy of the PA. Without the imprimatur of the Palestinian electorate, who does the PA represent? Many critics point to it as a stooge of Israel and the United States. With such a reputation, is it any wonder that the PA is afraid to face the electorate? The last election for the Palestinian legislature, in 2006, amply revealed how the Palestinian electorate responds to a disloyal government. Given that whatever democratic legitimacy the PA held had expired, Blankfort asked a serious question: Why had Chomsky been invited to speak at Bir Zeit in the first place? For those puzzled by that question, be assured that it is meant to be taken quite seriously. As for democratic legitimacy: how legitimate and representative are elections under occupation? How much credence should people give to such elections? Chomsky has the right to meet with whoever. He is not a representative of the Palestinians, and he is meeting with the US-backed prime minister (bearing in mind that Chomsky holds the US largely responsible for Israeli-committed crimes in Palestine) whose government is accused of collaborating in Israeli occupation of the West Bank. However, given Chomskys opposition to US imperialism and crimes against Palestinians, it is not unusual to wonder why he would meet Fayyad. One should be careful, though, in drawing any conclusions about such a meeting. If I had a chance to honestly dialogue with Fayyad, I would likeliest do so. Hammond employs the rhetorical device that he accuses Blankfort of throughout his article. Hammond constructs a straw man. He states that Blankforts intended

implication, of course, is that Chomsky supports the Zionist theft of Arab land, the Israeli blockade, the blocking of the Goldstone Report, and P.A. collusion with Israel. In Hammonds mindset, asking a question carries an implication. Hammond constructs a straw man, accusing Blankfort of misleading readers on what Chomsky did not mean by being a supporter of Israel. Nowhere is such interpretation by Blankfort apparent. Instead Blankfort left it for readers to draw their own conclusions. Hammond states taken together with his enormous body of work on the subject, clearly what Chomsky means by saying he is a supporter of Israel is not that he supports Israel as a Jewish state, that he supports Zionism in the contemporary understanding of the word, that he supports the occupation, or any other such asinine nonsense, but just the opposite that he opposes all of these policies. Its those who support Israels criminal policies, in Chomskys view, who in fact are acting against Israels own best interests by encouraging its moral degeneration. Chomsky bears some responsibility for the lack of clarity. He is a linguist, he must be aware of the connotations carried by his words. Hammond points to an interview where Chomsky explained what he meant by being a Zionist: What I said was that I remain a Zionist in the sense of Zionism in the 1940s. Zionism has changed. That doesnt mean my views have. This is an interesting explanation Hammond points to. Is it a clear statement? Do people understand what a Zionist was in the 1940s? Is it a Zionist like David Ben Gurion a Zionist in the 1940s? Yitzhak Shamir? How was being a Zionist in the 1940s different from now? Hammond constructs his next straw man when he insinuates that Blankfort alludes to Chomskys work to be lacking in merit on the Palestinian cause. Really? Blankfort wrote, Chomskys background is a reflection of the political culture of the American Left which was and remains substantially if not predominantly Jewish, particularly in its leadership positions. Support for Israel had become so ingrained and fear of anti-Semitism so deeply embedded in the psyche of American Jewish Leftists in the aftermath of World War 2, that if the Jewish state was to be criticized it had to be by someone from within the tribe who unequivocally supported its existence. Through Hammonds construction of straw men, one might infer that he seeks to evade the points Blankfort raises. Does Hammond deny a Jewish predominance in leadership positions in political culture of the American Left? 3 Does he deny the fear of pro-Palestinian rights activists of being smeared as an anti-Semite?4 Much of Chomskys work on Palestinian issues has merit; surely, Blankfort recognizes that. In Fateful Triangle, Chomsky identifies unequivocally the rampant racism against Arabs and abuses perpetrated against them.5 What would it mean though if someone both aids and hampers a social justice movement?

Hammond constructs another straw man when he writes, Chomsky has written extensively on which crimes he means, and anyone even modestly familiar with his work knows he is referring to U.S. financial, military, and diplomatic support for Israeli violations of international law He adds, But Blankfort doesnt turn to anything Chomsky has ever actually written about U.S. support for Israel for examples. Hammond has widened the scope of discussion. Of course, the US supports Zionism (along with other western governments), and it supports the Israeli occupation. Blankfort, in his article, focuses on what Israel does to Palestine. Chomsky points to who supplies the gun. Blankfort points to who fires the gun. Israel is the occupying state. It is Israeli soldiers that commit war crimes on behalf of Israel. Blankfort does not deny that US support for Israeli crimes exists. Yet, this does not restrain Hammond from constructing another straw man argument, alleging that Chomsky is here blaming Israel for the Zionist ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1948 and the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967 suggestions for which Blankfort offers no supporting evidence from any of Chomskys voluminous writings and talks on the subject. Hammond is way off base here. Blankfort does not blame; he mainly asks pertinent questions which Hammond does not deal with. Blankfort says Chomsky is shifting blame for Israels crimes against the Palestinians to the US. Blankfort is arguing against the notion that Israel never acts independently of the US. To illustrate this, Blankfort asks whether the Nakba or the Israeli takeover and occupation of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967 were also the fault of the US? To buttress his argument that Chomsky may be a liability to the Palestinian struggle, Blankfort analyzed an exchange between Alison Weir, of If Americans Knew on Jerusalem Calling, and Chomsky where the latter stated, What I have opposed, is BDS proposals that harm Palestinians. If we are serious about BDS or any other tactic, we want to ask what the consequences are for the victims. We have to distinguish always in tactical judgments between what you might call feel good tactics and do good tactics. There are tactics that may make people feel good in doing something, but maybe they harm the victims. The obvious question that arises from Chomskys statement: Why does Chomsky presume to speak on behalf of Palestinians? Do Palestinians not have the right to determine what hardship they would be willing to endure for an end to their occupation? Courageous writer Vittorio Arrigoni, in his eyewitness accounts of Israels Cast Lead massacre, lamented, Gazas muted Palestinians survive while others speak for them while they may not speak for themselves.6 Moreover, how is it that a Palestinian people already having suffered massacres, an illegal siege, and as Chomskys colleague Edward Herman states a slow-motion genocide might be further harmed by Israel? Chomsky said, It is so hypocritical why boycott Israel and not boycott the United States? The US has a much worse record.

This is true, and a boycott against the US would be justifiable, but does avoidance of hypocrisy stand up to logical scrutiny? Extrapolating from Chomsky: if all the criminals are not prosecuted, then none should be. No justice is better than a little justice. Another extrapolation: It is hypocritical to resist your resistible tormentors, if you do not or cannot defeat all your tormentors at once. This is a strategy doomed to defeat. Furthermore, a defeat of Zionism would also be a defeat for US imperialism, this by the very fact that it would signal to other people who suffer under the US yoke that US imperialism can still be defeated abroad. So, in effect, the success of the Palestinian-based BDS campaign would strike at the heart of US imperialism. Chomsky uses tu quoque argumentation.7 Because you do not resist all oppressions equally, does that mean all resistance is illegitimate and/or hypocritical? Because you do not resist all oppressions equally, does that mean all resistance is illegitimate and/or hypocritical? A Thought Experiment Imagine you have two groups of enemies. One group of enemies is three small boys who wake you up in the middle of every night. The second group is a gang of two dozen knife-wielding ruffians who encourage the small boys to carry out their nightly disturbances. You decide that you can deal with the small boys by reporting them to the police, but you fear reporting the gang of ruffians to the police. What do you do? Do you continue suffering the nightly disturbances of the small boys to avoid being a hypocrite?

Chomskys argumentation requires that a non-violent resistance be abandoned because there are more deserving calls for resistance elsewhere. This argument serves the Israeli occupiers and the supporters of Israels occupation. It does not serve the victims of occupation. Ergo, it could be reasoned that in some sense Chomsky sides with the oppressors over the victims of the oppressors. Nevertheless, to answer Chomskys boycott question is futile because if I understand correctly he rules out boycotts in every case since a boycott would harm the people of whichever state was being boycotted. Supporter of Israel Chomsky said, I dont regard myself as a critic of Israel. I regard myself as a supporter of Israel. This is a statement that on its face is suggestive, but given the history and meaning attached to Israel, it requires further clarification to get at its significance.

Based on Chomskys former desire to live in Israel, Blankfort suggests, that Chomsky seems to have no problem with the Jewish right of return to what, until 1948, was Palestine, but considers a similar demand by the Palestinians who were actually born there to be not only unrealistic but potentially dangerous. Chomsky did act to return to Israel knowing that Palestinians were denied the same right. Blankfort quotes Chomsky that there is no detectable international support for it [the 'right of return'], and under the (virtually unimaginable) circumstances that such support would develop, Two points: 1) International support? Chomsky must be referring to support expressed by governments. Since Chomsky writes often about and is well aware of US hegemony, that there should be no detectable international support for a position contrary to the hegemon should be unsurprising. Does the position of the governments of the international community abrogate the rights of an Indigenous people to land they have occupied for millennia? What does elementary morality posit here? If the international community is defying elementary morality, then why refer to such a community to seemingly exculpate a crime? 2) Virtually unimaginable? Is this not the pessimistic mindset that Chomsky so often battles when he refutes the gainsayers of those seeking social justice those who point out that resistance is futile and that things will never change by pointing to gains made by activists against slavery, for the right to vote, worker rights, womens rights, etc.? Hammond notes Chomskys opposition to BDS is specifically aimed at the boycott while Chomsky supports divestment. He takes issue with Blankforts contention and the paucity of his explanation on why the kind of divestment campaign Chomsky favors one targeting the U.S would fail and be harmful to Palestinians. I do not presume to speak for Blankfort, but he leaves unexplained what should be palpable. As Chomsky has noted, it is the investor class (i.e., the ruling class) that predominately invests. Why would this class move against its interests or desires? Divestment is a call for the ruling class to militate against themselves. Although there are some sizable retirement and union funds, such a call for divestment does, indeed, seem doomed to failure. Another straw man of Hammond follows: Blankfort next quotes Chomsky as saying, once Israel was formed in 1948, my position has consistently been that Israel should have all the rights of every state in the international system, no more and no less. We are supposed to draw the conclusion, apparently, that Chomsky views Israels creation through an act of ethnic cleansing as having been legitimate. Hammond has drawn a conclusion and presented it. His conclusion is a non sequitur though. Yes, readers are supposed to draw their own conclusions, and writers should

grant that readers can consider the facts cited, the views given, check sources, discuss otherwise writers would only be indoctrinators, of a sort. But Hammond persists with his straw men through conjuration. He takes issue with Blankfort not informing readers that Chomsky has explicitly rejected that Israel has a right to exist. It is as if Hammond realizes the weight of evidence that Blankfort presents bodes ill for Chomsky that he has to fish for ways to support his man. Hammond constructs straw men by alleging straw man building by Blankfort. Hammond claims that Blankfort chooses to ignore Chomskys own specific examples, which hes written on constantly and documented extensively, of how the U.S. is responsible for a lot of Israels criminal behavior, instead preferring to create a straw man argument by suggesting he was referring to Israeli actions in 48 and 67 This is disingenuous. It was sufficient to merely posit a few examples that supported his contention that Israel does act on its own initiative. That there are examples that do not suggest otherwise does not nullify what Blankfort stated. Hammond writes, Yet, after all this, Blankfort has the chutzpah to accuse Chomsky of intellectual dishonesty. This is bizarre considering that Hammond also has the chutzpah to accuse Blankfort of dishonesty in his article. Hammond ends with praise for his hero. One certainly can learn much from Chomsky. As for his place as a critic of Israeli crimes and as a supporter of Palestinian rights, that is something that history will decide. He has been a critic of Israeli crimes, and he has supported Palestinian rights. But he does not support the Palestinian right to urge a boycott of Israel. By not supporting the Palestinian-based BDS, Chomsky arguably takes away a non-violent means of resistance that further exposes them to Israeli crimes. The Gravamen Blankfort raised an issue, and it is a pertinent issue despite what Hammond opines whether a high profile progressive is hampering Palestinians attempt to nonviolently resist their occupation. Whatever other issues are raised by Chomsky to question his support for Palestinian rights, glaring is his lack of support for the BDS campaign. Thought Experiment 2 Imagine that you and your kith and kin have been dispossessed, your land occupied, and you have endured oppression and massacres for six decades. You are living under a brutal siege where people live in fear, where your children are malnourished and much, much worse. You are basically disarmed (backyard tin-can rockets hardly count), and your oppressor is a military heavyweight. The governments of the entire western world side with your oppressor. But you remember South Africa, you have heard how boycotts and sanctions brought an end to apartheid in that land. It is a nonviolent means of resistance. It is a campaign that provides a profile for your cause. It a campaign that allows the citizens of western countries to reject their governments collaboration with a racist regime of occupation and oppression by doing something

simple: not purchasing products of the occupier. It is a ray of hope for the oppressed people to resist. (And living with a ray of hope beats living with pessimism and despair.) Then a venerated professor of the Left living overseas in a nation that collaborates steadfastly with your oppressor tells you that a BDS campaign is wrong. He has inflicted a dent in your non-violent means of resistance, and he has given you no substitute means of resistance. The platform is seemingly pulled from under your feet. You wonder why, and you discover because the professor has determined that you will be harmed. It is not for you to decide. The professor has influence. Many people are followers of the professor, and his pronouncements have sway. The BDS campaign has been wounded. How do you as one of the oppressed people living under occupation feel about this? Palestinians Isolated Although this writer believes violent resistance to violent oppression is legitimate, BDS appears to be a legitimate, non-violent means to combat the occupation and oppression of the Palestinian people. Chomsky would seemingly take this non-violent tactic out of the hands of Palestinian resistance because it might harm the people who are behind the occupation and oppression of Palestinians. Since Chomsky rejects a tactic of Palestinian resistance, he should at least proffer a realistic means of ending the occupation and oppression of Palestinians. Viewing the devastation heaped upon Gazans, Arrogoni decried the absence of any tangible sign from the international community of a will to boycott these actions.8 Arrogoni argued, Its [sic] now our turn, as ordinary citizens without citizenship to get away from this hellish contraption.9 Arrogoni looked to the historical struggle against racism in South Africa: Refraining from boycotting the regime of apartheid back then was a little like being an accomplice of it. What has changed today?10 Does Arrogoni capture the will and right of Palestinians to resist their tormentor, or does the logic and elementary morality of the professor stand up to scrutiny? Chomsky Blankfort discussion goes on and on. Below there is a note of Shamir, a response of Chomsky, more of Blankfort and a wonderful rejoinder of Gilad Atzmon. [This argument goes for many years. I joined the fray in 2001, ten years ago, but Jeff Blankfort wrote his first critique of Chomsky much earlier. Provided the argument is not too violent, it is useful.]

Herodians and Zealots

By Israel Shamir

In his critique of Noam Chomsky, Jeff Blankfort accused Noam of crossing a forbidden line by meeting with Salam Fayad, the prime minister of PNA, Mahmud Abbas administration in Ramallah. This criticism was upheld and strengthened in many responses. God knows, there are many reasons to be dissatisfied with the PNA. But they are there; and they are not worse than other Arab regimes: that of Egypt, Jordan or Lebanon. It would be odd if PNA were more independent from Israel and the US than ostensibly independent Arab nations. Yes, one may and should criticize the PNA, but boycott them no, it would take things too far. The late great British historian Arnold Toynbee wrote of two possible responses to an overpowering challenge, like that the Roman Empire presented to the Middle East. He called them Herodian and Zealot responses. We could say: Vichy and Maquis, collaboration and Resistance. Now, both attitudes, both responses are valid and needed for a nation. Without a degree of collaboration, life for the occupied majority would be unbearable. Without a degree of resistance, they would lose their selfesteem. Salam Fayyad is doing good job, so the residents of the West Bank say. Houses and roads are repaired, there is some modest prosperity, some projects being completed. Sure, we all like a Hero, who refuses, rejects, fights and dies. But we do need a steady organizer who will seek compromise. Vichy? Yes. Without Vichy, there would be no France to visit today, it would be just one Oradour. Vichy will do until de Gaulle comes riding from London. In short: while accepting criticism of the PNA as valid, we should stop well short of its boycott, and therefore we may and should approve of Chomsky meeting Mr Fayyad.

Here is a response on behalf of Noam Chomsky:

Mr Chomsky has told me that he advocates a binational, democratic, egalitarian state and has done so for the last 40 and since he was a child. He has said that the continued existence of a state built around Jewish privilege and Jewish supremacy within it borders should not exists. He also believes, if I understand him, that such an egalitarian state should not be pursued directly because it has no chance of success, but rather should be pursued through stages beginning with a two state solution whose advocacy is underpinned by numerous UN resolutions and advocated by moderate politicians with some influence. He believes that advocating one egalitarian state plays into the hands of the Zionists because of its unlikelyhood of being accepted. This is my understanding based on numerous correspondence which I had had with

him which I am not at liberty to post. William James martin

More responses: Pro-Blankfort: http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/08/the-right-and-legitimacy-ofboycotting-a-non-violent-means-of-resisting-oppression/#more-20253 This article has enormous amount of responses. Pro-Chomsky: http://www.zcommunications.org/keeping-the-record-straight-byassaf-kfoury

Below; an interesting ad-hoc list discussion on the same subject

Jeff Blankfort (to Sara Kershnar of IJAN, Anti-zionist Jews)

Hi Sara, Thanks for getting back to me. I am sorry to disagree with you on a very important point. You write that it is not significant that there are so many pro-Israel Jews in the Obama administration or that they are Jews at all, that what is important is that they are aligned with the overall US agenda. Sorry, but that is like saying it doesn't matter if a woman or man is black or white when discussing race relations. It won't fly. I keep hearing the same nonsense about neocons. It is irrelevant, we are told, that all but a handful of them happen to be Jewish and not only Jewish but very pro-Israel and that the whole movement was Jewish and Zionist from the start. One can get a better read on what is happening in Washington, which seems to be an unknown zone to most Jewish anti-zionist activists and apparently to IJAN, by reading Dana Milbank in the Washington Post the day after Obama's abject surrender to Netanyahu at the White House. Milbank suggested that the White House should have run up the white flag and that he had learned the lesson of "domestic politics," not to cross the Israel Lobby. Now these pro-Israel Jews are not only carrying out proIsrael policies in their respective positions, but they are also influencing policy and what is very scary, they probably all have Top Secret clearances. At the same time, Obama has received more letters signed by 3/4 of the members of both houses telling him what his policy should be on Israel but not a word of this has been mentioned on Democracy Now! nor I suspect was it mentioned at that gather of anti-zionist Jews held recently in Detroit. If it was, I am sure you will correct me. If activists don't have the information about what is going on in Washington, in both

the White House and Congress, how do you expect them to be able to act intelligently on a local level? They haven't had that information provided by any group so far and the results are obvious, the movement has been an utter failure. If activists had just taken some of the same actions that we taken against South African apartheid, such as sitting in at El Al airways offices as activists sat in at South African airways and forced the closure of its offices, just one small thing, that would have been something considerably more effective than yammering constantly about ending the occupation even as that occupation expands. As you are no doubt aware, I have been against the formation of exclusively Jewish groups based on 40 years of seeing them come and go and accomplishing nothing except keeping the movement from expanding to reach a larger American public because while the problem in Israel-Palestine is a Jewish-Arab one it is not that anywhere else. In the US, non-Jews (and non-Arabs) who are engaged in the struggle are made to feel as outsiders by Jews claiming to be anti-zionist but who are ready to accuse an gentile activist of being anti-semitc or making the gentile feel that way as any Israeli flag waver. I have seen this and have found it disgusting. Either that or they are ignored as has been the excellent work of Alison Weir of If Americans Knew and Grant Smith of IRmep who has done the most amazing research on the history of AIPAC and the spying and theft by Israel of nuclear materials. having written four books about it, yet neither has been a guest on Democracy Now! or invited to speak at Jewish organized events around this issue. I find that shameful. If I'm wrong, please correct me. As regards Judaism vs.the other religions, I am only interested in Judaism because that is the religion of the people who dispossessed the Palestinians and oppress them to this day. Of course I am aware of the prophetic strains of the religion but from what I have seen in practice in my 76 years it has been largely absent. The number of rabbis who actually practice it and is ready to take uncompromising stands against Israel and the Jewish establishment is tiny. Even Michael Lerner, who pretends to be a great supporter of justice for the Palestinians threatened to join a boycott of the worker-owned Rainbow market in San Francisco if the workers voted to boycott Israeli products and he told them that ahead of time, and frightened for their jobs, they voted it down. Frankly, I am not interested in anti-zionist organizing, I don't even know what that is. I am interested in anti-Israel actions and there are people out in our communities ready to undertake such actions. It is not the role of IJAN or any Jewish group to determine the nature of those actions. Justice has waited far too long. From Debbie Menon

Wow! This has been an interesting, enlightening and required discussion. Thanks for articulating brilliantly for us Jeff Blankfort and Feroze Mithiborwalla. The term "Jewish or Zionist Capitalism" sounds valid to me, and is certainly one of the major weapons which Jewry, Zionists, and Israeli nationalists" have wielded in their offense, and defense, and is certainly open game for criticism, as are the people who used it, Jews, Zionists or otherwise.

Debbie

Sara responding to Debbie:

Jeffrey and Feroze, Perspectives like Debbies are the kind that you support with your analysis. Debbie, what the hell is Jewish capitalism. How is it different then Christian, European, Islamic, Arab Nationalist, State or Venture capitalism? This discussion is ahistorical and apolitical. It does not help us in confronting either Zionism or Capitalism and it can and will be used against us.

Shamir replies to Sara Sara, you've asked what the hell is Jewish capitalism? Usually, Jewish capitalism is understood as "financial capitalism" as opposed to capitalism of industrialists, the "Christian capitalism". As a matter of fact, in the US, the fabulous prosperity of some Jews which allowed them to influence politics was contemporary and coincidental with rise of financial capital. It is perfectly possible to fight against Jewish, i.e. financial capital - by limiting freedom of stock market, by nationalising money issue, by fighting speculators operations (shorts etc). Naturally it would not hurt the Jews like you, who stay clear of financial operations and it would free Palestine pronto.

Blankfort to Sara

Sarah, Debbie may have been reading Karl Marx who denounced Jewish capitalists in

scathing terms or Theodore Herzl who blamed anti-semitism on rich Jews who had never learned how to live with gentiles after Jews were emancipated from the ghettos. Regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict, it just happens to be the Jewish capitalists who make up 25% of the Fortune 500 who provide the bulk of the funding for the Democratic Party to the point where it has become a subsidiary of the Israel Lobby. In 2000, Mother Jones put out a list of the top 400 individual donors to both parties in the presidential election year. Seven of the top 12, 12 of the top 20 and at least 125 of the top 250 were Jewish at which point I stopped counting. Seventy-five percent went to the Democrats and the balance to the Republicans. In 2002, Haim Saban alone gave $12.3 million to the Democrats which was only about $1.5 million less than the arms PACs gave to both political parties. That's what she may mean by Jewish capitalism. Here is more on Jewish Capitalism and its connection to Jewish faith: http://www.haaretz.com/culture/books/economics-the-midas-touch-1.299423 Economics / The Midas touch If Jews excelled at commerce, it's because their faith saw it as natural and their host societies often forbade key aspects of it to themselves. Historian Jerry Muller looks at how it all led to catastrophe. By Steven Silber Capitalism and the Jews by Jerry Z. Muller Princeton University Press, 267 pages, $24.95 Theology, if not the Lord, works in mysterious ways. Medieval Christian thinkers, influenced by Aristotle, embraced the notion that it was sinful to lend money at interest. Jews, meanwhile, were informed by the Talmud that, as noted by Jerry Z. Muller in "Capitalism and the Jews," "Nothing is harder to bear than poverty." Talmudic law speaks of contracts, torts and prices, and considers the drives that motivate human behavior to be "the basis of both family and commerce," as Muller puts it. "Commerce, then, like marriage, was natural and providential." Against this backdrop, after the year 1100 or so, the church allowed Jews Read more

Gilad Atzmon to Sara Hello Sara and everybody else. This discussion is wonderful. Sara I am not that interested in the progressive salad you try to promote here.. "Capitalism, colonization, racism, economic and environmental exploitation, and sexism"

If you are as progressive as you claim to be, how come you operate within a racially orientated political cell? No intention to offend you but I am really curious, can a Palestinian Muslim join your 'Jews only club'? Also Sara I really want you to explain these words "We agree not only because we are Jewish" What do you mean? How do you agree as a Jew? Can Abed or Mohammed 'agree as Jews'? Do you Jews posses a particular form of rationality? Can it be taught or do you have to chop something first? A comment about Mick Napier. In spite of the fact that Israel is the Jewish state and in spite of the fact that its crimes are committed in the name of the Jewish people, Napier doesnt want us to elaborate on Jewish power. Interesting!!! Napier wants us to turn blind eye to Wolfowitz, Miliband, Lord Goldsmith, Lord Levy, Haim Saban, Rahm Emmanuel and too many others... Let me assure you, this is not going to happen. It is probably far more effective to turn deaf ear to Napier who anyway publish very little and contribute nothing to the public discourse. Not only we will keep up tracing Zionists in power, we also must be on guard and spot the Sayanim within our Solidarity discourse, gatekeepers who are determine to block free discourse and free intellectual exchange. Interestingly enough, I saw Jeff Blankforts intervention on every Pls solidarity site, I also see my own writing on every site. Yet it is long time since I saw Napier on any Palestinian solidarity outlet (this month he had one news item on google, this is not a lot...) By now we all know what we are up againstand if I may, we are all tired of elder Trotskyites telling us what we should talk about. Due to the collapse of the Judeo centric hegemony within our discourse, The Palestinian solidarity movement is becoming a mass movement. People out there realise that there is a continuum between Israel, The Conservative Friends of Israel, Rahm Emmanuel, Miliband, Lord Levy and so on. People also realise that those who attempt to dismantle our discourse within the Jewish Left and Left in general are actually part of that Zionist continuum. By now we know who is the enemy, and as it happens we also know who are the enemy within However, if people like Mick Napier or Sara Kershnar insist that we shouldnt discuss Jewish power they better produce a coherent intellectual argument rather than spinning Trotskyite empty terminology that has zero relevance and sounds more and amusing as we get older. Peace and love Gilad

Mick Napier from Scotland intervened accusing Shamir and Atzmon of collaboration with BNP, KKK, and eating Jewish children.

Gilad to Napier:

Hello, Chair Napier Please save us all of your victim spiel. Your attack on Shamir and myself was your own voluntary initiative. Now you also want to tell us who is "decent' and who isn't.. Let me advise you... to make people guilty by association doesn't make you look decent. How dare you associate me with BNP or KKK? Do you have any evidence to support it? I can promise you that I won't take you off this list unless you provide compelling evidence. And i can also assure you that if i ever see you associate me with BNP or KKK you will be taken to court. Your Jewish 'Anti-Zionist' friends can tell you about my legal team One of them tried me, and ended up with a nice legal bill attached to his neck. Napier, the banality of your argument talks for itself... as it happens we are tired of Stalinists and Stalinism in this movement. In my last visit to the SPSC I ended up wiping the floor with the very little that was left out of your dignity .I remember your SPSC members cheering me up. I suggest that you recover from that event, look in the mirror and find out why did they resent you so much. As you know very well , every time I give a concert in your town, your SPSC members set a meeting for me, you may want to ask yourself why... As far as i remember, you didn't let us talk about Jewish Power. Take or leave we will discuss Jewish power, and for the time being I regard you as a subservient subject to this power. I may mention that I also have a lot of respect to your activity for Pls . Hence, I will be very glad to change my view of you. But first you have to depart from your Stalinist attitude. We can disagree, but you cannot silence anyone!!!

From Ali Mallah: No doubts this debate is very important and I hope that we are big enough and brave enough to accept feed back and constructive criticism, I am very concerned with personal attacks on anyone on this list, but it appears some have chosen to unjustly attack Gilad, Debbie, Jeff and please forgive me if I don't lit all. The bottom line is that we need to have such debate and no one is above

critical challenge and positive criticism. Here is a 22 minutes interview with Chomsky, Please listen to every exchange, Maybe I am wrong, but failed to see any confusion about his statements. His "soft or not zionism is very clear" and how he " flip flop on the question of israel right to exist as a jewish state": http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25571.htm Jeff, Kim and all, Perhaps, Khoury would think that he could hide or camouflage this interview.
Another country heard from on Chomsky-Blankfort.Palestine! Peace, Ken

From: shamireaders-owner@yahoogroups.com [mailto:shamireaders-owner@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of magid shihade Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 4:35 AM

Dear Israel, Thanks for introducing this discussion. I think it is only when we go beyond what is prescribed by the powerful Jewish intelligentsia's accepted parameters of speech that we might get somewhere. Otherwise, the debates will remain hostage to a match between right wing and left wing Zionists. As your point about Fayyad, I am not in an agreement with the analogy nor with the purpose of the meeting of Noam with him. As far as the issue of boycott, it is Israel and its leaders that need to be boycotted, and here where Noam and others need to put some energy if they want to make a difference, at least in the eyes of the Palestinians. I do not think that Noam is an enemy as some have characterized him. I disagree with him, and with many other Jewish intellectuals who keep using the argument of the "possible" and "accepted" in their writings and public engagements. We are not political leaders, nor heads of states that are either obligated or chained by international forces to make policy choices. We are free citizens to think, propose, and push the debate so that the public is informed and encouraged to challenge accepted dogmas. To keep the debate between no state and two states is to aim at the middle point, which where were are now, and will remain this way for long time to come, with the possibility in the future of even having not only no Palestinian state, but no Palestinian people, and hence the ultimate success of Zionism. If you live in Ramallah, as I do now while teaching at Birzeit, you can see the direction where the third possibility is about to succeed. This will especially manage to become a reality if we leave the parameters of discussion framed by the U.S. establishment, Jewish elite (same), Israeli leaders, current Palestinian leaders, and people like Noam. As far as the right of Israel to exist, an argument made either instrumentally or ideologically, you need to live as a Palestinian citizen there to understand the full meaning of that argument. I have grown up there, and have seen that the situation there will be copied in the West Bank and elsewhere Palestinians live. To accept Israel's existence, is to accept its Jewishness, democratic or not, and hence accept Jewish racism and supremacy. Not only morally wrong, but also instrumentally and rationally this is receipt for a continuation of the disaster and more dangerous future not only for the Palestinians but for everyone in the region and many around the world especially Americans who will sent to war after war

so that Israeli agression and racism is normalized and dissent in the U.S. public is suppressed. (p.s. I am not saying here that the U.S. is great without the Jewish criminal lobby. Far from that, Israel is perfecting the Western criminal history against native peoples around the world. But the constant claim that the U.S. would have pursued the same policies in the Middle East regardless of the Jewish racist and criminal lobby is to ignore facts, and to cover up for Jewish power and its criminal history in the U.S. and through the U.S.). Next time, the U.S. attacks any country in the region, people should point at Jewish think tanks, lobbyists, and media lynch dogs rather than excusing them through the rhetoric of "U.S. imperialism." Yes, there is American imperialism, but the records of the Iraq war and its aftermath show only Jewish racism, brutality, theft, and genocidal minds aimed at destroying a state, its people, and its resources. Also, as a Palestinian citizen in Israel, I do find the claims of "Israel's right to exist" as offensive and racist, for it negates my existence, my humanity, and my dignity. You have turned us into present absentees and often absentees as humans, while rationalizing these arguments around what is "possible" and what is "accepted."

I salute people like Gilad and others who do not accept to be silenced and take on Jewish and other leftists name calling and accusations that aims at silencing, and directly or indirectly maintain the status-quo.

Yours respectfully, Magid