Boycotting Zionism

Gavin

booty bass intellectual
Hey, come on - I'm not going to sit here and argue about how many unarmed people have to be killed in order for a massacre to qualify as a genocide. I'm also not so naive as to think all Bosnians and all Croats were merely innocent victims of Serbian aggression. However, it remains the case that the mass killing of Bosnian prisoners by Serbian troops is one of the most egregious instances of inhumanity in that particular war, or series of wars - ZNet certainly doesn't deny it took place - and I'm asking "how much worse could the death toll have been if an external force (in this case NATO) hadn't intervened?"

If you read the article, it argues that the Bosnian military withdrew from Srebrenica, facilitating the massacre of Bosnians by Serbs BECAUSE CLINTON WOULD NOT INTERVENE UNLESS MORE PEOPLE (specifically, at least 5000) DIED. In effect, THE POSSIBILITY OF NATO INTERVENTION PRECIPITATED THE MASSACRE. Furthermore it distracted from the equally reprehensible atrocities committed by the West's Croat allies, who met no justice, intervention, etc. even though EVERYONE knew they were ethnically cleansing as much as the Serbs. Clearly the idea that NATO troops were there to prevent massacres is unsound -- they were there for OTHER REASONS.

I'm certainly not saying "therefore intervention is not imperialistic". I'm saying it need not be imperialistic. Otherwise, you just end up in this hand-wringing situation where people say "Yes, there's this terrible war/massacre/genocide going on, but we mustn't intervene, because Intervention Is Imperialistic".

I'm saying MILITARY INTERVENTION BY FOREIGN FORCES IS ALWAYS BAD, that foreign troops are ALWAYS in service to their country of origin, which in the case of the West is ALWAYS in service to Capital. This is not to say we should take no action, but we should avoid actions that ARE ALWAYS IMPERIALISM DRESSED IN HUMANITARIAN CLOTHING. You have not demonstrated military interventions that are otherwise; your only rejoinder to me was Bosnia, which I disproved.

People being forced from their homes, raped, tortured or killed probably care more about whether some troops from another country are going to turn up and stop it fucking happening than whether such action would qualify as 'imperialistic' to a group of right-on political theorists thousands of miles away.

Right, I'm sure the Iraqis being killed by Shi'ite death squads are crowing for more foreign troops. Oh wait, they increasingly pick up weapons, aiming at FOREIGN TROOPS (who incidentally fund the government's death squads). In fact, they even resist foreign intervention from the "Islamofascists" of Al-Qaeda. Your ludicrous hypothetical situation doesn't even support your own assertions!

And your sarcastic quotes around imperialism signify your belief that imperialism is some sort of leftist boogeyman, something not to take seriously (except as an indicator of effeminate, impotent left-wingers helplessly wringing hands), when in fact imperialism has been the chief engine of destruction for hundreds of years and continues to kill, maim, and impoverish millions. You advocate MORE of the PROBLEM as the solution -- how compassionate!
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Essential? Ontological? Is there a nougaty Islamofascist core to these people?Or is radical Islamic militancy is an articulation of anti-imperialism through locally applicable lenses (the left having been liquidated in these countries under the auspices of the West, leaving the clerical class the only opposition to the state), and largely a boogeyman since the people taking up arms in Afghanistan and Iraq are NOT militantly religious, but nationalist (often working across religious lines) in their opposition to foreign occupation.

Oh here we go again, the old "Islamism is purely a product of Western imperialism" schtick.
I think you'll find a great many people taking up arms in the Islamic world are militantly religious (otherwise, why the Sunni-Shia civil war in Iraq? Why not simply join forces to kick out the imperialist aggressor?). This is without even touching on the horrific human rights abuses going on in places that aren't even war zones (female genital mutilation, anyone? Forced marriage? 'Honour' killings? Oh, sorry, that's just part of their culture, innit....).

Anyway, while I'm certainly not claiming that Western intervention in the Middle East, whether military or covert, has had a positive or even neutral effect on the region - there's the formation of Israel in the first place, American and British interference in Iran, the arming of the future Taliban, and so on - I think it's equally specious to say that a desire to wage jihad against the entire world is a justified response to these actions.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Wait just a second here - a few posts ago you were charicaturing my position as this:
So in the name of being FAIR and REASONABLE we should all do jack shit, except perhaps make smug messageboard posts.
So now I'm the imperialist, because I think it'd be a good idea to do something about terrible situations around the world? And by 'do something about', I mean 'intervene miliarily'.

Let me summarise your apparent position, then: it'd be awful to leave people to their fate at the hands of various warlords, militias and governments around the world. But military intervention is invariably an excuse for imperialist expansion. So the only option left to us is to boycott Iraqi, Rwandan and Sudanese academic institutions. Hmm, I bet that's got the Sunni insurgency and the Janjaweed positively crapping themselves...
 

Gavin

booty bass intellectual
Oh here we go again, the old "Islamism is purely a product of Western imperialism" schtick.
I think you'll find a great many people taking up arms in the Islamic world are militantly religious (otherwise, why the Sunni-Shia civil war in Iraq? Why not simply join forces to kick out the imperialist aggressor?). This is without even touching on the horrific human rights abuses going on in places that aren't even war zones (female genital mutilation, anyone? Forced marriage? 'Honour' killings? Oh, sorry, that's just part of their culture, innit....).

Did you ever think perhaps the West should worry about cleaning up its own substantial atrocities before using the atrocities of others as a pretext for further atrocities? Really, this is most of what I'm asking, and I'd appreciate if you respond to the content of my posts instead of attempting to ascribe my beliefs to some sort of schtick. You're pasting all sorts of ridiculous things I didn't say and don't believe on me in your furtive attempt to shore up your egregiously flawed position, and, since I have little at stake in this debate because you obviously have these discussions for reasons other than gaining new perspectives on important issues, I don't particularly feel the need to engage you in this any further.

Anyway, while I'm certainly not claiming that Western intervention in the Middle East, whether military or covert, has had a positive or even neutral effect on the region - there's the formation of Israel in the first place, American and British interference in Iran, the arming of the future Taliban, and so on - I think it's equally specious to say that a desire to wage jihad against the entire world is a justified response to these actions.

An explanation, however dispassionately delivered, does not make for a justification. Why do you think they wage jihad? Irrational hatred of our freedoms? Perhaps just part of their culture?
 

Gavin

booty bass intellectual
Ah, I suppose I can't resist yet.

Wait just a second here - a few posts ago you were charicaturing my position as this:

So now I'm the imperialist, because I think it'd be a good idea to do something about terrible situations around the world? And by 'do something about', I mean 'intervene miliarily'.

Yes, I think you are an apologist for imperialism because you support Western military intervention in the Third World on false pretexts. I'm glad we came to some agreement.

Let me summarise your apparent position, then: it'd be awful to leave people to their fate at the hands of various warlords, militias and governments around the world. But military intervention is invariably an excuse for imperialist expansion. So the only option left to us is to boycott Iraqi, Rwandan and Sudanese academic institutions. Hmm, I bet that's got the Sunni insurgency and the Janjaweed positively crapping themselves...

There are many options, of which boycotts are but one.
 

Gavin

booty bass intellectual
One last thing, seriously.

Would you be so sanguine about military intervention if it didn't imply the West invading brown/black countries?

Let's say we classify the U.S. War on Drugs as an atrocity in which thousands upon thousands of the poor are unfairly beaten, killed, and imprisoned, communities destroyed, etc. Would this justify foreign intervention, say Russian troops occupying LA, disarming/attacking the LAPD, setting up checkpoints, arming segments of the civilian population? Would this solve anything or make it worse? And would we assume the Russians were doing it in the name of justice, or in their interests?
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Yes, I think you are an apologist for imperialism because you support Western military intervention in the Third World on false pretexts. I'm glad we came to some agreement.
This argument has been done over and over in the 'Manifesto' thread. I am not, in any way, in favour of military intervention in the interest of large corporations wishing to exploit natural resources. Four years ago I was in favour of the invasion of Iraq because I thought the lot of the average Iraqi would be improved by it despite the obviously ulterior motives of the US, and by proxy the UK. More fool me, I had no idea the invaders had such vague and ineffectual plans about how to try and restructure the country afterwards. The whole thing is pretty much a textbook example of how not to intervene, if one's main concern is the wellbeing of the populace.
But as I said in the other thread, I don't think it has to be this way. Maybe I'm just hopelessly naive and optimistic, but I think a UN that isn't a toothless waste of time could be a real force for positive change in the world. That's what it was set up for, after all.
There are many options, of which boycotts are but one.
Well I can't see much less than a well-armed, well-trained military force having any appreciable effect on the Janjaweed incursions into Darfour. I certainly can't see an academic boycott having much effect, nor an economic boycott, given that the country must be so fucked by now it scarcely has an economy.
 
I think there is a good bit of controversy about whether this was genocide (the ICTY ruled it was not, although it was certainly an atrocity). This article is worth a look: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=8244

As a long-standing rule, when 'they' (those 'ethnic' Other ones, the tribal essentialist ones, or any long-standing Enemy) commit internecine atrocities on a large scale, its genocide; when we beautiful, sacred Westerners do so, its humanitarian intervention, Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Infinite Justice.

Darfur: dead estimated at 255,000 up to May 2006; 2.5 million-plus refugees.

Versus 'international interventions':

Iraq: dead estimated at 655,000 up to June 2006; 3 million-plus refugees. [And this after the 1m-plus deaths attributable to a decade of UN-approved sanctions, following the mass-slaughter of over 200,000 retreating Iraqi soldiers during Gulf War I in 1990/91].

Afghanistan: a black hole - dead conservatively estimated at minimum of 100,000; unknown number of refugees.

[BTW, how could there ever be a Western 'international humanitarian intervention' in Israel-Palestine when Israel itself is an influential part of that West and supported in its policies by elites in those very those countries who deliberate over such interventions?]

If Sean Coleman wishes to play the numbers game with regard to Darfur and Iraq, he would be best advised to compare like with like. To quote the ‘most credible’ source on Iraq, as he does in relation to Darfur, he would be obliged to cite the Lancet survey of 2006, which estimated 655,000 deaths in Iraq with a 95 per cent confidence interval of 393,000 to 943,000 ‘excess’ deaths. In other words, there is a 95 per cent chance that the minimum number of Iraqis killed as a result of the conflict up to June 2006 is more than the maximum number of deaths – 255,000 through May 2006 – attributed to the conflict in Darfur by the Science magazine article quoted by Coleman.
-----London School of Economics

Moreover, at the peak of the violence in Darfur in 2004 international aid workers rejected the claim of 'genocide', while Mercedes Taty of Medicins Sans Frontieres also concurred: "I don’t think that we should be using the word "genocide" to describe this conflict. Not at all."
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
One last thing, seriously.

Would you be so sanguine about military intervention if it didn't imply the West invading brown/black countries?

Let's say we classify the U.S. War on Drugs as an atrocity in which thousands upon thousands of the poor are unfairly beaten, killed, and imprisoned, communities destroyed, etc. Would this justify foreign intervention, say Russian troops occupying LA, disarming/attacking the LAPD, setting up checkpoints, arming segments of the civilian population? Would this solve anything or make it worse? And would we assume the Russians were doing it in the name of justice, or in their interests?

Aargh, why does it always have to boil down to race?!?! Do you think if I was really a racist I'd give a shit about 'a bunch of darkies slaughtering each other'? Surely I'd be perfectly happy to let them get on with it?

If there were a real reason to support intervention by a foreign power in the US, and I thought it would do some good (in other words, disregarding the fact the US is by far the world's military superpower, and that Russia is an even more internally brutal and corrupt country than the US ), then yes, I would support it. I think the so-called war on drugs in an attrocity in itself. (and talk of 'black/brown' people is a bit of a red herring here, since most victims of the war on drugs are black or Hispanic - although white people would obviously be casualties of an invasion, of course).
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
As a long-standing rule, when 'they' (those 'ethnic' Other ones, the tribal essentialist ones, or any long-standing Enemy) commit internecine atrocities on a large scale, its genocide; when we beautiful, sacred Westerners do so, its humanitarian intervention, Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Infinite Justice.

Oh for pity's sake...

I've already made clear my stance that this war was fought for the wrong reasons and was a catastrophic mistake. You may also like to consider that the majority of deaths in Iraq since the war have been caused by Iraqis, not coalition forces. And your quoting of the figures you give sounds, I have to say, like an unexamined appeal to Authority, which in The Book Of HMLT is a pretty whopping naughty-naughty,if my experience on this forum is anything to go by....
 

matt b

Indexing all opinion
Hey, come on - I'm not going to sit here and argue about how many unarmed people have to be killed in order for a massacre to qualify as a genocide.

why do numbers (of people killed or breaches of UN resolutions, for example) not matter in this case, whereas they do in the Isreal boycott case?
 

matt b

Indexing all opinion
Four years ago I was in favour of the invasion of Iraq ...

Maybe I'm just hopelessly naive and optimistic, but I think a UN that isn't a toothless waste of time could be a real force for positive change in the world. That's what it was set up for, after all.

so you're in favour of going to war whilst disregarding UN agreements, yet want the same UN agreements to be observed?
 

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
so you're in favour of going to war whilst disregarding UN agreements, yet want the same UN agreements to be observed?

You're only referring to one UN - Tea referred to the UN as-it-is and a hypothetical UN that's as-it-should-be.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
I think maybe if the invasion had been led by the UN, and not simply an American jaunt with UK support to give it the veneer of a 'coallition', the situation now would probably be a lot better.

m_b's appraisal of my statements about the UN is correct, btw.
 

elgato

I just dont know
the key hypothetical issue in what you say is that of the invasion, not the UN

if you were in favour of the invasion as it was, then that was a belief totally incompatible with a desire for a stronger, more cohesive UN. the acts of the US (and UK) over Iraq, while only the latest of a long line of decentralisation on security, were a huge shot to the status of the UN, both legally and politically

as an aside (slightly off-topic but related), an interesting article re the Israeli judiciary
 
Last edited:

crackerjack

Well-known member
Did anyone else see Dershowitz on C4 News? This boycott is the moral equivalent of Nazi attacks on Jews and any Jew who supports it is self-hating etc etc

The boycotters should fly this hectoring loud-motuhed prat over asap. He'll win their case for them single-handed.
 
to bring the thread back to the boycott...

quite (i thought) well argued reasons for it in guardian comment today
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/comment/story/0,,2100391,00.html

With U.S. threats and actions now escalating, the prospects are grim for an effective U.K. boycott (under pressure from the U.S., this is always the case, the British always ultimately acquiesing back into their role of subservient, junior partner, in matters of U.S. for pol, no matter how outrageous).

I've just been watching the U.K.'s Channel 4 evening news programme, featuring seriously-deranged-and-dangerous Alan Dershowitz [and what an ugly bastard he is: he makes even the likes of Kissinger seem positively Apollonian] - fresh from his gloating over destroying the career of internationally renowned and respected academic Normal Finklestein (see below) - the 'prominent lawyer and Harvard law professor', boasting about how he has mustered a team of 100 high-profile lawyers on both sides of the Atlantic to "devastate and bankrupt" anyone acting against Israeli universities.

"If the union goes ahead with this immoral petition, it will destroy British academia," Dershowitz threatened. "We will isolate them from the rest of the world. They will end up being the objects of the boycott because we will get tens of thousands of the most prominent academics from around the world to refuse to cooperate and refuse to participate in any events from which Israeli academics are excluded. It will totally backfire."

Finkelstein loses his job for flawlessly questioning the claims of Zionism while Zionist thug and apologist for Israeli atrocities Dershowitz basks in glory, goading himself on to yet further acts of intimidation and censor. If he resided in Britain, wouldn't you lot have him, er, 'Sectioned'?

Don't be coerced into meek silence, into giving in now to this outright criminal and his ilk ...

DePaul denies tenure for controversial professor

06.09.2007 | Chicago Sun-Times
BY MAUDLYNE IHEJIRIKA AND DAVE NEWBART Staff Reporters

For a man who has just lost his job after a highly public battle, DePaul University assistant political science Professor Norman Finkelstein is calm and accepting.

That's because Finkelstein, whose tenure bid drew widespread interest because of the Jewish professor's blunt criticism of Jews and the state of Israel -- and the attack on those views waged by Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz -- stands firmly on the beliefs that may have got him fired.

"There is a song by the folk singer Keith Seeger, 'Die Gedanken sind frei,'" the controversial academic reflected in a rare interview with the Sun-Times.

"That means, 'thoughts are free.' No one can deny that 'die gedanken sind frei.' They can deny me tenure, deny me the right to teach. But they will never stop me from saying what I believe."

What Finkelstein -- the son of Holocaust survivors -- believes is that his people are culpable in the plight of the Palestinians. He drew wrath from prominent Jewish leaders when he accused some of exploiting Jewish suffering to block criticism of Israel, and made other enemies when he accused some survivors of conducting a "shakedown" to get payments from Germany.

Dershowitz, author of The Case for Israel, called Finkelstein's writings full of distortions about Jews in general and himself in particular, and was one of many weighing in on a normally closed-door process. He implored DePaul to reject Finkelstein's tenure.

A debate over Finkelstein had raged among students and faculty, including universities nationwide and internationally.

"Over the past several months, there has been considerable outside interest and public debate concerning this decision," DePaul's president, the Rev. Dennis Holtschneider, said Friday.

"This attention was unwelcome and inappropriate and had no impact on either the process or the outcome of this case."

DePaul said the political science department and the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences recommended tenure for Finkelstein, but the college's dean and the University Board on Promotion and Tenure recommended against it and were upheld by Holtschneider.

"I would be disingenuous if I said I were not disappointed," Finkelstein said.

"On the other hand, both of my parents survived the Nazi death camps. Growing up, what I remembered most was my late mother used to say, 'Some people are beasts, and there's nothing to be done with them. But what about the silence of everyone else? That I cannot understand.' Those were thoughts that left a deep mark on me."

Finkelstein has a year left at DePaul. "I met the standards of tenure DePaul required, but it wasn't enough to overcome the political opposition to my speaking out on the Israel-Palestine conflict," he said.

"As it happens, I was just this past week teaching about Paul Robeson in my political science class. When Robeson was crucified for his beliefs, he said, 'I will not retreat one-thousandth part of one inch.' That's what I say to the thugs and hoodlums who are trying to silence me. They don't want to talk about what Israel is doing to the Palestinians. So they make Norman Finkelstein the issue."​
 

turtles

in the sea
I'd just like to chip in here, cuz I'm avoiding thesis writing :)
Four years ago I was in favour of the invasion of Iraq because I thought the lot of the average Iraqi would be improved by it despite the obviously ulterior motives of the US, and by proxy the UK. More fool me, I had no idea the invaders had such vague and ineffectual plans about how to try and restructure the country afterwards. The whole thing is pretty much a textbook example of how not to intervene, if one's main concern is the wellbeing of the populace.

I really love that last sentence, quite the kicker. So you knew the US/UK had other things than the well being of the populace in mind when they invaded iraq, but you supported it anyway, and then were surprised when they didn't act like thy had the wellbeing of the populace in mind and fucked things up??? Ahhh, yes, I see. Sometimes it's hard to remember what you wrote two sentences ago. The US/UK never had the best interests of the Iraqi people in mind (which you freely admit), and consequently they screwed them over pretty damn bad. By you're own reasoning, how can you find that surprising?

For a person continually batting for the side of "objective" and "empirical" thought, you seem all too willing to consider the theoretical role of how the UN is "supposed" to be, how intervention is "supposed" to help out nations, without looking at the track record of intervention, which is pretty damn bad. And not because they keep screwing up at attaining their lofty ideals, but because they had no intention to in the first place.

(btw. Gavin OTM throughout this thread).
 
As Britain's The Guardian waters down the controversy, Francis A. Boyle, one of America's leading law professors, articulates what's actually at stake, while describing Dershowitz as "a self-incriminated war criminal":


Letter from Francis Boyle: De Paul & Dershowitz v. Finkelstein
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In my opinion it is Professor Finkelstein who far better represents the real values and ethos of the Jewish People. In any event, it is a shame that the University named after St. Vincent DePaul has allied itself with Dershowitz against the courageous Norman Finkelstein.

To the Editor:

I think I have read almost every book Professor Norman Finkelstein has written. He is on my "automatic buy" list along with Noam Chomsky and a handful of others. Professor Finkelstein is an outstanding scholar who has had and will continue to have a momentous impact on Middle East Studies.

It is a disgrace that DePaul University--which purports to be Catholic--succumbed to political pressure and inflicted this grave injustice upon Professor Finkelstein at the behest of Alan Derhsowitz and his Neo-Conservative confederates.

As for Dershowitz, he is a self-incriminated war criminal who publicly admitted that he serves on a Mossad Committee that authorizes the murder and assassination of Palestinians, which constitutes a grave violation of the Geneva Conventions and thus a serious war crime. Dershowitz is also infamous around the world for being this country's foremost advocate for torture.

In my opinion it is Professor Finkelstein who far better represents the real values and ethos of the Jewish People. In any event, it is a shame that the University named after St. Vincent DePaul has allied itself with Dershowitz against the courageous Norman Finkelstein. Unlike Dershowitz, Professor Finkelstein has always spoken the Truth to those in Power. By comparison, Dershowitz is nothing more than an Errand Boy for those in Power. But as St. Vincent DePaul University should have understood: "You shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall set you free!"

Francis A. Boyle
Professor of Law
University of Illinois College of Law​
 
Top