====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
> How much of a tool would it make me if I agreed with Waskow (in this one, > very limited instance, ripped from its original context of extreme > toolishness: http://www.democracynow.org/2010/3/4/bds)? I do think that for > American citizens, our government's massive (and largely unknown) funding of > the apartheid state is a far more opportune target than the dealings of > individual businesses. Not that I'm criticizing anyone who organizes against > corporate collaborators; let a hundred flowers bloom, and all that. But I > often wonder how much more they could accomplish if they were instead > mobilized in a national campaign for the biggest sanction of all. I agree that Americans should target their own government, but unfortunately I don't believe the US left is capable -- not even close, in fact -- of influencing its government's policy toward Israel. I think (or at least I hope) that Israel, as its status as international pariah only deepens, will accomplish this, as it further exposes itself as a liability. I still think Americans should protest their government's role in everyway they can, but, right now, I don't see this as a viable strategy for actually affecting things. On the other hand, the BDS campaign might have an impact -- and their is evidence that it already is. If businesses start pulling out of Israel, and if business with Israel begins creating PR problems, it could make the Israeli ruling class anxious. Some of the victories discussed in the article don't seem insignificant. But I think more importantly is the "legitimacy" issue, which Israelis obsess over. Every victory for the BDS movement -- from initiatives on US college campuses, to concert cancellations by big-time stars, to businesses reneging on their work with Israeli companies complicit in the occupation -- contributes to the wider conviction, in Israel and among global opinion, that the occupation needs to end (though, of course, it emboldens the Israeli rightwing -- though we'll see how long that dynamic can last). Unlike with a movement against US government aid to and support of Israel, the BDS movement can actually achieve small, day-to-day victories that will constantly be read about in the pages of Ha'aretz, the J-Post, BBC, and so on. Lastly, there is the "solidarity with the Palestinains" aspect. I'm normally skeptical of a lot of "international solidarity" work. When I see antiwar marches that try to incorporate every anti-imperialist demand under the sun (Nepal, Philipines, Palestine, Iraq, etc.) as a way to show "international solidarity," I get the sense people are not thinking that strategically, and that their "solidarity" is more about feel-good gestures, empty symbolism, catharsis. I agree with Louis Proyect that international solidarity is meaningful, objectively, when protest can become mainstream and exude real pressure on the government to alter policy. I don't think certain segments of the US left have this imperative in mind when they function. However, the BDS movement is truly an international solidarity movement in the most concrete sense. The Palestinians called upon their international supporters to build the movement, and it's clear what this entails. It's something concrete that we can do in our respective countries that ripples back to Palestine and supports the efforts and consensus will of its inhabitants. There are direct links, and when, say, Evergreen students or the Berkeley student council can raise the issue (successfully or not), the effects hit Palestine and Israel in both concrete and morale-boosting ways. ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: [email protected] Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
