I have a lot of respect for Chomsky, and rarely do I find my thoughts in conflict with his own. My introduction to the Arab-Israeli conflict and to anarchism and the Kibbutz movement is all thanks to his writing. His views on BDS are not mainstream and he has several criticisms of it. Below is a summary from the following interview by Frank Barat:
Chomsky argues that BDS must be principled. Why should Tel Aviv university be boycotted, when American universities that are complicit and actively participate in far greater war crimes are not being challenged, he argues? What makes Israeli crimes special? Why should Israel be boycotted when its enabler and biggest supporter, the US, which is also responsible for far greater crimes is not facing a call for BDS. This picking on Israel could hurt the Palestinians. Just because some Palestinians have asked for BDS against Israel, doesn't mean we should blindly follow it, but should first ask whether these actions are going to hurt the Palestinians. Action needs to be principled, he says, and if they're not it will be a gift for Israeli right and Zionist sympathizers and will cause cries of antisemitism which will make it even harder to talk about Palestine, and therefore, it's counterproductive.
Chomsky believes that the one state solution is not much more than a slogan, similar to asking for a no-state solution. He says that there is no reason to worship imperial boundaries and he would like to see all states with their oppressive institutions and boundaries dissolved. He says he does not know of any advocacy of the one state solution, all he keeps hearing is a slogan that we should all live in peace. He says the two state solution which is the international consensus should be advanced. One of the ways this could happen is if the IDF pulls out of the West Bank, which will only happen after withdrawing US support. When that happens almost all of the illegal settlers will move to Israel proper, and et voila, a functioning Palestinian state, which the Palestinians in exile can return to. With time, he says, the borders between Israel and the future Palestinian state could begin to erode, and there might be some settlement in the future where both states are combined and the descendants of the refugees of 48 could return right back to their original hometowns in Israel. Regarding the right of return of the refugees he says the right should be affirmed but it is never going to happen because there is absolutely no support for it, and if there were, Israel would use nukes to prevent it from happening. He says that resolution 194 doesn't mention the right of return of the descendants although certain organisation have interpreted it to include them. Sooner or later he says Israel will accept resolution 194 because there will be no one left.
Well, if Israel continues to build its settlements as it has been doing since 71, and making it even more difficult for a two state solution, it will eventually realize it has no option but for the one state solution. But according to Barghouti the BDS movement has was overwhelmed the progress has made and it might be sooner or later that Israel is pressed to do something. I just ordered his book.
Chomsky argues that BDS must be principled. Why should Tel Aviv university be boycotted, when American universities that are complicit and actively participate in far greater war crimes are not being challenged, he argues? What makes Israeli crimes special? Why should Israel be boycotted when its enabler and biggest supporter, the US, which is also responsible for far greater crimes is not facing a call for BDS. This picking on Israel could hurt the Palestinians. Just because some Palestinians have asked for BDS against Israel, doesn't mean we should blindly follow it, but should first ask whether these actions are going to hurt the Palestinians. Action needs to be principled, he says, and if they're not it will be a gift for Israeli right and Zionist sympathizers and will cause cries of antisemitism which will make it even harder to talk about Palestine, and therefore, it's counterproductive.
Chomsky believes that the one state solution is not much more than a slogan, similar to asking for a no-state solution. He says that there is no reason to worship imperial boundaries and he would like to see all states with their oppressive institutions and boundaries dissolved. He says he does not know of any advocacy of the one state solution, all he keeps hearing is a slogan that we should all live in peace. He says the two state solution which is the international consensus should be advanced. One of the ways this could happen is if the IDF pulls out of the West Bank, which will only happen after withdrawing US support. When that happens almost all of the illegal settlers will move to Israel proper, and et voila, a functioning Palestinian state, which the Palestinians in exile can return to. With time, he says, the borders between Israel and the future Palestinian state could begin to erode, and there might be some settlement in the future where both states are combined and the descendants of the refugees of 48 could return right back to their original hometowns in Israel. Regarding the right of return of the refugees he says the right should be affirmed but it is never going to happen because there is absolutely no support for it, and if there were, Israel would use nukes to prevent it from happening. He says that resolution 194 doesn't mention the right of return of the descendants although certain organisation have interpreted it to include them. Sooner or later he says Israel will accept resolution 194 because there will be no one left.
Well, if Israel continues to build its settlements as it has been doing since 71, and making it even more difficult for a two state solution, it will eventually realize it has no option but for the one state solution. But according to Barghouti the BDS movement has was overwhelmed the progress has made and it might be sooner or later that Israel is pressed to do something. I just ordered his book.
I just wanted to thank you for your analysis and say that your recent commentary on BDS (both here and in 972mag.com) were on my mind today.
ReplyDeleteI was interviewing a Jordanian man today who had spent nearly a decade of his life advocating for Palestinian water rights in the Occupied West Bank. He told me that, because of the nature of this work, he had to cultivate relationships with some Israeli officials and administrators, because they retain oversight over the bulk of Palestinian water sources. However, as a result of his attempts to coordinate with Israeli water administrators in order to get more water into Palestinian villages, he was repeatedly threatened and even physically assaulted for being a "normalizer"; apparently the last straw occurred when he was shot while leaving his office. Thankfully he escaped mostly in one piece, but he has since given up his work on Palestinian water rights.
To me, his story was certainly more ambivalent than some of the incidents you've described (since he was actively working with Israeli administrators). But it also made me wonder about the perils of ignoring the occupation or simply refusing to deal with its administration of Palestinian land, water, and resource rights. Might there be a way to advocate for Palestinian water rights without talking to the Israelis? Maybe, but I really can't imagine how successful it would ultimately be. Anyway, just a sobering thought... thanks for your provocative writings and please keep up the good work!