Yea Paul! (0.00 / 0)

I live in a true blue state--I will have a choice in November

---

by: LeeNYC @ Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 22:51:38 PM UTC

So what? Thoughts on how to proceed, one state, boycott (4.00 / 3)

Paul, you make clear the justice of the Palestinian position about as well as it can be made.  But what we run up against is that Israel is overtly committed to ignoring anything but force, and the U.S. government is about as monolithic in support of Israel as can be imagined.  Then what is our leverage?  What are the fault lines that can be hammered?

Here are a few points to consider as I essentially think out loud:

(1)  The 2-state solution is becoming less and less viable with each passing day.
(2)  A 1-state solution would mean the death of Israel as an explicitly Jewish state.  The irony here is that Israel, by missing the chance of a 2-state solution, is courting its own destruction.
(3)  World opinion, including Europe, the Arab world, and U.S. liberalism, is generally aligned in favor of a 2-state solution around something like the 1967 borders.
(4)  As Bowers recently pointed out, Israeli opinion agrees that the current situation is effectively one of apartheid, even though, once again, American liberal opinion lags behind Israeli public opinion.
(5)  The word "boycott," which has generally been the province of academics, is popping up more and more recently.

The question regarding any tactic is whether it can achieve critical mass to become effective, unlike the "one little candle" schemes that sound good and go nowhere.  I think there has been a shift in world and even U.S. opinion, in response to the latest round of horrors, that can give it that critical mass within a very few years.  (South African apartheid was brought down, but over how many years?  We've got to think beyond the latest atrocities.)

A boycott has to have specific ends.  Boycott Israel until it jumps into the sea?  Boycott Israel until it promises to be good?

The task of progressive leadership is not to simply support what is popular, which is not leadership, or to put forward its most ideal demands.  I mean, I have some very strong ideas about how the world should be run, but impotent isolation is not my idea of a good time.  The task is to develop a position (and tactic) that intersects popular movement but is slightly ahead of it.

Thus boycotting Israel in demanding a 2-state solution fails to lead, and locks us into a solution that is becoming unviable daily.  Boycotting Israel in demanding a 1-state solution puts us in a state of splendid isolation.
But what goals would be compatible with and advance both 1- and 2-state solutions:

(1)  Stop settlement expansion and close down (at least) the Hebron settlement.
(2)  Free travel for Palestinians.  Close the checkpoints, open up Gaza.
(3)  End Israeli military incursions into the West Bank and Gaza.  Allow Gaza full access to the world economy.

The above is not a fixed plan of action.  Rather I set forth a methodology that can give us tactical relevance and can be built upon.  There are many questions that remain unanswered.  In the real world, not all questions have to be answered.

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...

---

by: jeffroby @ Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 22:55:45 PM UTC

Great post (4.00 / 2)

Avi Shlaim also wrote an article for the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl...

Which covered much of the same ground. Interestingly, Shlaim focuses on the military's wish to avenge itself for the embarassment of its conflict in Lebanon.

Two issues to consider:
Firstly, does the Israeli military operate more autonomously than say the US military from the central Government.

Secondly, in a country with conscription the IDF's image and success are measured by more aggressive standards.

http://www.entangledalliances....

---

by: leopardismo @ Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 23:14:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I Agree With The Gist Of Your Thinking (4.00 / 3)

I'm not sure what the answer is, but I agree re the sort of strategic thinking.  The goals you suggest are a good starting place for discussion, at the very least.

One concern I have re boycotting is that it seems to have been far too easy for these to be spun as anti-Semitic.  So thought needs to be given to that as well.

A more targetted boycott--of goods produced in the occupied territories, for example--might have less actual economic impact, but be a lot more politically effective, in that it could bring more of the American people into some level of committed political action.

What do others think?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 23:26:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Boycotting and divestment -- for human rights, & (4.00 / 2)

to stop the blockade/siege, and the isolation of -- and restrictions on -- Palestinians. That should be enough in itself -- and as a start.

Regardless of our own desired solutions, Palestinians absolutely need to be able to have lives and opportunities that aren't dependent on Israel's military, politics -- and pathologies.

A functioning economy, trade and import/export with other nations by sea if not by land, education, health, joint ventures and freedom of NGOs/Aid groups, etc. ...

An economic and academic and cultural boycott of Israel -- and pressure on countries who have trade agreements with them (like Mercosur/South America), etc -- even if our govt doesn't change -- has a great impact. (and our govt was supported Botha and South Africa all along at the time then too.)

Money talks -- and Israel needs trade and contracts with foreign companies to survive -- and to keep their younger population home and employed, too.

Even some Israelis are for it -- http://www.freegaza.org/en/hom...

And from Naomi Klein's piece -- http://www.globalresearch.ca/i... --

... Several days into Israel's Gaza assault, Richard Ramsey, the managing director of a British telecom company, sent an e-mail to the Israeli tech firm MobileMax. "As a result of the Israeli government action in the last few days we will no longer be in a position to consider doing business with yourself or any other Israeli company."

When contacted by The Nation, Ramsey said his decision wasn't political. "We can't afford to lose any of our clients, so it was purely commercially defensive."

It was this kind of cold business calculation that led many companies to pull out of South Africa two decades ago. And it's precisely the kind of calculation that is our most realistic hope of bringing justice, so long denied, to Palestine.  ...

---

by: amberglow @ Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 00:16:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

even w/out a boycott, contacting US companies (4.00 / 1)

that do business there is very important -- to let them know that we disapprove, and/or will no longer purchase their products.

(Especially when it's companies known for their social activism -- for being "good" and liberal, like Ben & Jerry's.)

---

by: amberglow @ Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 00:20:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

even the World Bank -- (0.00 / 0)

World bank assails Israeli chokehold on West Bank  -- http://electronicintifada.net/...

there's billions in aid that can't get into Palestinian areas -- all because of Israel's actions. (Companies wanting in might even get involved if they smell profit, i bet.)

---

by: amberglow @ Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 01:01:52 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Exactly (4.00 / 1)

The AIPAC noise machine creates a view of the world for Americans that is completely out of synch with the rest of the world.  Boycotting Israel is not some kooky, far-out leftist thing.  It plays across dangerous fault lines in the bloody empire.  If we start pointing out that the emperor has no clothes, it will start cracking like the dam in Force 10 from Navarone.

As an old 60's poster said:

Have you every heard an empire crumble?  Listen ...

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...

---

by: jeffroby @ Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 01:50:17 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

& in the Netherlands -- (0.00 / 0)

Holland supermarkets boycotted on rumors of Israel donations -- http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/s...

---

by: amberglow @ Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 03:22:41 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

There's no reason to not support a boycott. It's ridiculous to speak of the US (4.00 / 1)

as "isolated." Do you mean the isolation of the left? Isn't the left already isolated? No one's going to starve in Israel because of a US boycott. The question was more difficult with regard to apartheid SA and the possible suffering of SA blacks, and boycotts and divestment proved to be the right choice.

One thing that we can do is to create a political price for what is going on here. I and many others think of torture as a defining issue: I will not support anyone who supports or defends torture. Yet pols are allowed to slide on issues that create far more death and suffering. Clinton, Schumer, Paterson: these guys are getting nothing from me, ever. I will never support them for anything. I don't believe that Clinton is a "good person" just because she happens to advocate a health plan that is an improvement. She and her husband don't give a damn about innocent life. If Obama starts speaking to us as if we were AIPAC, then I'll vote Green. We really need to start demanding more from our politicians.

---

by: jcr @ Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 03:08:25 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

on history and pre-history -- (0.00 / 0)

Lawrence of Cyberia has some very eye-opening docs up from the early 20th century --

Nobody Could Have Predicted -- http://lawrenceofcyberia.blogs... -- excerpts from the Atlantic, 1920

No, Really; Absolutely Nobody Could Have Predicted --  http://lawrenceofcyberia.blogs... -- excerpts from an official US Govt. report to President Wilson, 1919

---

by: amberglow @ Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 02:22:34 AM UTC

Well, Don't Forget (4.00 / 2)

Europe had been mucking about Africa and Asia for hundreds of years by then, and had yet to really experience any serious sort of blowback at all.  They actually thought they could just going doing whatever they pleased forever.  And we were the new kids on the block then.  The degree of hubris was simply unfathomable.

Just like with the Bush Administration, in fact.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 04:02:14 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

also, it was during ongoing British rule (0.00 / 0)

and (i guess) all the League of Nations stuff, too, no?

---

by: amberglow @ Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 04:38:41 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Boycott Problems... (4.00 / 3)

This has been considered in the past -- and there have been problems with each effort.  This isn't to say it isn't an idea to be explored, but some of the "failures" need to be understood.  

About four years ago, the Presbyterian Church USA decided to sell off stock in Caterpillar earth moving Equipment because it was being used to destroy houses on the W. Bank.  It was something of a symbolic effort -- but it raised quite a storm in the US, with AIPAC and associates going head to head with the Presbyterians.  Sadly, it was also at a time when Caterpillar was very much at odds with its UAW Union, and that was brought into the mix, causing the Presbyterians to back off, as the UAW Union was brought into the dispute, very much making a mess of the symbolic action the Presbyterians had intended.  They never intended to be engaged in a Labor Management dispute.  A few good things came of it -- some Presbyterian Congregations were well read on the issues, and had provocative discussions and conferences over the multiple issues with neighboring Jewish Congregations -- but it was not well organized, and remained local.

I tend to think something similar to what the Presbyterians attempted could work -- assuming the intent is to open honest dialogue on Israeli Occupation Tactics, if it had been better planned, hadn't been open to fuzzing the issue with the Labor issue -- and if it had been planned on a much broader basis...more than just Presbyterians.    

---

by: Sara @ Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 04:12:31 AM UTC

I think we are in new territory (0.00 / 0)

My premise is that the latest round of atrocities by Israel has caused a shift in both U.S. and world opinion, although AIPAC tries hard to obscure this here.

I think we need to think in terms of being part of a world-wide boycott MOVEMENT.  A movement, as opposed to a specific organization or campaign, contains a wide variety of organizations, campaigns and issues, as in the 60's.  Its essence is a seemingly ephemeral but quite real sense that the world is moving in a certain direction, a sense of hope, and a sense that acting as part of this is effective and personally meaningful.  I think such a movement is developing.

Obama, whatever he does in office, provides a sense of hope, if nothing else that the U.S. will not continue to be the stupidest country in the world.  He has provided a symbol.  The people dancing in the streets weren't doing so because they had read his policy statements.  There is something much bigger afoot, and in some ways he is a catalyst (an element whose presence causes change without necessarily changing itself).

What I tried to delineate above is a general approach for OpenLeft members to contribute to such a movement.

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...

---

by: jeffroby @ Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 07:52:17 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

on a "2 state solution" (0.00 / 0)

very interesting piece -- http://www.religiondispatches.... -- Pakistan and Iran, a War on Two Fronts --

... The moral of this strange tale is two-fold. First, the arbitrary construction of a country composed of two non-contiguous parts is doomed from the start. The second lesson is even more troubling: "Two-state solutions" do not work. Built into the model at its inception is the premise that these potentially hostile groups cannot co-exist peacefully. What is taken off the table at the start is the possibility of peaceful coexistence and the creation of a multi-ethnic, multi-religious, genuinely cosmopolitan society. If you assume at the start that you need two separate countries because the relative populations cannot coexist, then you should not be surprised if these two countries fight periodic wars from then on. Conflict, after all, was the very premise that named the problem for which two states allegedly provided a solution.

We have the makings of this same situation in Israel today. The nominal Palestinian "state" is an even more bizarre non-contiguous territory constituted by the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Since Hamas's victory in the most recent elections (they won a plurality rather than a strict majority, but that is beside the current crisis), we have been moving toward an Israeli-sponsored civil war between the two parts of this quasi-Palestinian state (the two Palestinian parties involved, Fatah versus Hamas, have come to symbolize the conflict, and the stakes). Israel has invested heavily in assuring that this quasi-state cannot succeed.  ...

---

by: amberglow @ Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 04:45:38 AM UTC

The difference between the '48 and '67 lines (0.00 / 0)

is that while the former were far more catastrophic for Palestinians at the time--vastly more refugees were created, intentionally, via violence and intimidation, in '48 than in '67--the former ended up being internationally recognized in the '49 armistice (except, of course, by the Arab world and some other countries), while the latter have never been, and almost certainly will never be, recognized, as legitimate. And yet, over the 40+ year span that Israel has occupied the territories that it captured in '67, the suffering endured by Palestinians in those territories has arguably been worse than that endured by the '48 refugees.

While I realize that many would dispute this, Israel arguably had a right to temporarily occupy at least some of the lands captured in both wars, out of military necessity and even legal justification--it was attacked in '48, and blockaded and on the verge of being attacked in '67. Armies that legitimately capture territory (from which they have been or are about to be attacked) as a consequence of war are generally not expected to vacate them immediately, at the very least to give them time to withdraw in a safe and orderly manner and perhaps repair any damage that they did to the local infrastructure. And in Israel's case, there were arguably legitimate defensive reasons to continue to occupy at least some of these territories, until some sort of guarantees could be arranged with its enemies to assure it that it wouldn't be attacked from them once it withdrew, with perhaps some UN presence.

But that is not what Israel did. While my understanding is that it made some efforts to offer to return these lands in exchange for peace deals (which were rebuffed, for various reasons), at the same time it began to colonize them, and at the same time restrict the freedom of its inhabitants. While a case could be made for a purely military (and of course humane) temporary occupation of territories of genuine national security value to Israel, in lieu of a peace deal that would obviate the need to hold onto them, no legitimate case could be made for a civilian occupation of any of them, via settlements, new roads and infrastructure intended for the sole use of settlers, a military above and beyond that which would legitimately be needed to protect Israel proper, etc.--let alone the brutal suppression of its legitimate inhabitants, via its Bantustanization.

Basically, my problem with the occupation isn't with the original reasons for it, or that Israel held onto these territories for some time after capturing them, out of purely national security reasons, but with the length and nature of, the and motivation for, this occupation, which has been decades too long, incredibly brutal and oppressive, and for entirely unjustified reasons, namely land-grabbing, nationalistic hubris, a fatally flawed and clearly self-defeating view of national security, and a crazyass version of religious Zionism.

The smartest thing that Israel probably ever did was give back the Sinai for peace with Egypt. Why that hasn't happened with the rest of these territories is beyond me. It's just land, of ultimately and undeniably negative net value to its ongoing occupier. The most obvious thing to me about the occupation, beyond its brutality, immorality and illegality, is its stupidity.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

---

by: kovie @ Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 09:13:34 AM UTC