Michael Pugliese wrote:
> http://www.leftcurve.org/LC29WebPages/Chomsky.html
> Sanctions hurt the population. You don't impose them unless the
> population is asking for them. That's the moral issue. So, the first
> point in the case of Israel is that: Is the population asking for it?
> Well, obviously not.
The vast majority of South Africans are black. They also comprise the underclass; the class that always gets hit hardest by a boycott. So, if they want the boycott nonetheless, then surely a great deal of thought has gone into the decision by the very ones who will suffer most, therefore it is much easier to justify the action morally.
Not so in the case of Israel and therefore any question of an
"Apartheid" equivalence statement by Chomsky.
>
> Obviously not. But is it acceptable to make such a decision on the
> basis of what the majority of Israelis want? Israel, after all, is not
> a dictatorship in which the people are held in check by fear and,
> therefore, cannot be held responsible for their government's actions.
> Israel has a largely unregulated, lively press and a "people's army"
> in which all Israeli Jews, other than the ultra-orthodox, are expected
> to serve and that is viewed by the Israeli public with almost
> religious reverence. Over the years, in their own democratic fashion,
> the overwhelming majority of Israelis have consistently supported and
> participated in actions of their government against the Palestinians
> and Lebanese that are not only racist, but in violation of the Geneva
> Conventions.
What is your point? First you knock Chomsky for his not wanting to declare the Israeli/Palestinian situation to be the equivalent of Apartheid, and then you spend the last paragraph here explaining why the situation is in fact quite different than the South African experience. IOW, you just explained why it would be intellectually lazy for someone to do it, yet you complain that Chomsky won't. So why do you think he should? Just because the sound-bite is catchy?
Gary Williams