Chomsky and Palestine

Now now, he wasn't saying anything of the sort.  Open ended trade sanctions that include food, medicine and agricultural products, as I've said before in another thread, will increase the suffering of the Palestinians far beyond what we can see and imagine now.  Military hardware, technology, economic divestment, intellectual and political boycotts, things of that nature would be just as effective.

Cueball wrote:

But, there is another point to be made here. The context of Chomsky's position is based in his position within the discourse of US politics, Israel's number one military supporter. In that context and from that perspective: "What we ought to do is push for changes in US policy. Now it makes good sense to press for not sending attack helicopters to Israel, for example," might seem a whole lot more effective, since most real trade that Israel does is with the EU.

Let's not forget that Americans are in a position to influence the political discourse in a completely different manner, than the rest of us.

On that particular occasion when he made those remarks, it was to a US audience, and in the context of US politics. He opposes the BDS campaign there, and everywhere else in the world. His message is no different on that score when he is being interviewed for European or South American consumption.

In the same paragraph he says "I don't think divestment from Israel would make much sense, even if such a policy were imaginable (and it's not)." He does not acknowledge that the campaign for divestment from South Africa was not only "imaginable" but actually had an impact.

To end apartheid in South Africa it was not necessary for black South Africans to wait around until the USA changed its policy. Chomsky wants to tell the Palestinians "we'll support you not by a BDS campaign against Israel, as you ask, but by pushing for changes in US policy."

His recipe for changing US policy on Israel? As I have noted, his only strategy seems to be to vote for the Democratic Party.

Cueball wrote:

Those santions against Palestinians are already in force, as I explained to you before. Nor did you suggest that sanctions against Israel would be genocidal. But in that light, would you consider the comprehensive trade sanctions and blockade against Gaza to be "genocidal"?

It doesn't require consideration.  I am against sanctions on any country that would limit the distribution of food and medicine to the general population, and hinder the ability to maintain crops and livestock.  Having worked in countries that have been under international sanctions of this nature, and seeing it's effects, ghastly images of which are seared in my mind permanently it seems, I wish it upon no one.

Slumberjack wrote:

Cueball wrote:

Those santions against Palestinians are already in force, as I explained to you before. Nor did you suggest that sanctions against Israel would be genocidal. But in that light, would you consider the comprehensive trade sanctions and blockade against Gaza to be "genocidal"?

It doesn't require consideration. I am against sanctions on any country that would limit the distribution of food and medicine to the general population, and hinder the ability to maintain crops and livestock. Having worked in countries that have been under international sanctions of this nature, and seeing it's effects, ghastly images of which are seared in my mind permanently it seems, I wish it upon no one.

Excelent, you seem to spending a lot of time creating the ideological background upon which Israel is allowed to impose those conditions upon Palestinian people by talking up "theoreticals" about imagined dire consequences of a supposed BDS program that will never take on the form that you are proposing, in terms of Israelis.

What this program will do, in the best case scenario, is make Israel pay for its intransigence, and make it not economincally feasible for it to impose those conditions upon Palestinians. Quite clearly our goverments are not going to take a stand on this issue, so any kind of civil boycott, will do little more than make Israelis uncomfortable. Again, I am stressing that this is the best case scenario, were the boycott even to be marginally effective.

No one is talking about starving Israelis the way Israel is starving the Palestinians. That is your fantasy. Even the term "geoncidal" is being bandied about freely as if this is legitimate comment, and not mere scaremongering.

I am talking about reality, here.

Please find for me the exact section of the proposed BDS program where it suggests that Israel should have its food and medical supplies cut off? Or even anyone of note who has even suggested such a thing. 

If you can't find it, please tell me why you are talking about it?

And this differs from the present situation how?

You know, the only excuse the Israeli's have ever needed to commit atrocities against Palestinians has been the mere presence of Palestinians.

Fidel wrote:

Cueball wrote:

Fidel wrote:

Cutting off military aid to a US proxy doesnt amount to genocidal trade sanctions.

You are an idiot. And if you submit the idea that recommending a boycott against Israel is tantamount to anti-semetic genocide, I will ask for you to be banned for right wing trolling. I'll help you a bit. The NDP does not have a position on sanctions. Maybe you should follow suit.

Imposing genocidal trade and commerce sanctions on any country is a lesson in supreme stupidity. As I was saying before, ghettoizing Israel to prove that ghettoizing Gaza is wrong, is wrong.

You are engaging in slander and smearing the Palestinian Solidarity movement, with implied anti-semitism and trolling by suggesting that the BDS movement is advocating genocide. I asked you to stop. Now I am going to report your activity as I said I would.

No one anywhere has suggested any kind of genocide against Israeli people. You have walked of the pier and into the sea fantasy.

Israel is the fourth most powerfule military power in the world, and the most powerful regional power in the middle east bar none, your charactherization are not only obscene smears agains the Palestinian Solidarity movement, but also rank distortions of the facts.

If you had actually bothered to read Chomsky on this issue, as opposed to trying to pidgeon hole him as some kind of Jack Layton parrot, you would know that Chomsky has debunked the "little Israel" myth over and over again. You could do him a favour and read what he says on the subject.

Cueball wrote:

If you had actually bothered to read Chomsky on this issue, as opposed to trying to pidgeon hole him as some kind of Jack Layton parrot, you would know that Chomsky has debunked the "little Israel" myth over and over again. You could do him a favour and read what he says on the subject.

I'm not the one who tried to write off Chomsky's reluctance to support the convenient cowardice of sanctions as being down to his "Zionist origins" Because that was you, mate.

How many Israels and South Africas should there be before lefties decide to deal with the problem head on - abate the problem at the source and root cause? Why are lefties afraid to confront the bully of all bullies, that central factory for all fascist abominations and supplying Israel with money donations and miltary aid every year? Ever play whack a mole? Played lawn croquet with the master of disaster? There has to be a strategy of cooperation, or the master croquet player wins every time.

There are over 700 US military bases or soldiers stationed around the world and the only remaining superpower with nuclear weapons floating around the seven seas and planted on foreign soil. This particular vicious empire doesnt give up real estate so easily. In fact, they are back to to the bullshit of surrounding Russia and China with missiles all over again.

And BDS is right that Israel is not South Africa. Israel is nuclear armed and a permanent front line state for the vicious empire. Hawks in the US wont give up supplying Israel with money and weapons of oppression any time soon. Not unless Iraq became the same willing partner that Israel is except with a lot more oil. Or perhaps Iran would see the light after a ten year-long medieval siege to soften them up with mass die off of children and adults, a subsequent shit-kicking and permament stoogeocracy installed. Then and only then would the US lose all interest in Israel as a Middle East toe hold in the grand chess board scheme of things.

Down with the USSA, the last aggressive superpower and escalating colder war and nuclear weapons proliferation since 1991. Then its minions of doom will fall one by one until there are no more vicious empires.

Cueball wrote:

Fidel wrote:

Cueball wrote:

If you had actually bothered to read Chomsky on this issue, as opposed to trying to pidgeon hole him as some kind of Jack Layton parrot, you would know that Chomsky has debunked the "little Israel" myth over and over again. You could do him a favour and read what he says on the subject.

I'm not the one who tried to write off Chomsky's reluctance to support the convenient cowardice of sanctions as being down to his "Zionist origins" Because that was you, mate.

No. That was Blankfort who I critiqued quite thoroughly.

Did you or did you not say this: "So what if Chomsky occassional gets sentimental about Israel or his Zionist origins?"

Because that sounds as if you werent disagreeing very strongly with Blankfart that Chomsky's Zionist origins might have something to do with his reluctance to support sanctions against Israel. In fact, you went on to say in a subsequent post that Chomsky's reluctance to support sanctions against Israel is curious as far as you are concerned.  

And just prior to you and Slumberjack stating that you are both stupefied as to Chomsky's reluctance - which is apparently due to Chomsky's "Zionist origins" as a child for lack of anyone here actually defending the now senior Chomsky - I was not as curious and stated that it was more likely that Chomsky realizes that Israeli hawks' sugar daddy is the USSA. You know, that vicious imperial master nation with permanent UNSC membership with the authority to veto any real and effective UN-led sanctions, you moron! 

Quote:

You have moved on I see from distorting Chomsky and lying about the aims of the Palestinian solidarity movement by suggesting that they are advocating genocide against Isralis to lying about what I have said.

bla bla bla grow up

Well I guess you told me a thing or two.

Quote:

Do you even have a clue what the phrase "So what" means. I won't even bother trying to explain what it means in context. You will distort any explanation, just as you distort everything else.

So what in that context meant that you werent disagreeing with Blankfart about Chomsky's Zionist roots or that old Chomper may even be  sentimental about Israel from time to time. If you didnt want anyone to draw a straight line between old Chomsky's sentimentality for Israel and his reluctance to support vicious sanctions, then why did you yourself bother to address Blankfart on that particular comment?

But then again you and Slumberjack are still mystified as to why Chomsky doesnt support sanctions. So I suppose you're only a little guilty of ageism and defamation of Chomsky's character while remaining stupefied as to Chomsky's reluctance to endorse BDS.