******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. *****************************************************************
I am sure Amith is reporting accurately the views of the milieu he is in touch with and/or knowledgeable about. What he describes of their backwardness does not however match anything I've seen. Quite the opposite: the direction of the less radical parts of the Palestine solidarity movement in recent years has been pleasantly surprising, with more and more activists supporting right of return and taking on Zionism per se. On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 10:02 PM, A.R. G via Marxism < marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote: > ******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** > #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. > #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. > ***************************************************************** > > His position is one with which I sympathize, although not completely. > > His point is essentially that the US Jewish and liberal community is not > ready to accept the right of Palestinian refugees to return and see it as > the destruction of Israel, so activists should use the brief window of time > that they have when Netanyahu is going ape shit to settle for ending the > occupation. > > I don't think right of return should be sacrificed. But I also know that > his summation of the political situation among even those on the "left" (if > you can even call it that) is more or less accurate. It is weak and filled > with people who hold racist/colonialist or at least Zionist-sympathizing > views. > > Ideally I would think that the best thing is to continue challenging those > factions, but I can still see Finkelstein's point that the movement as a > whole is basically unable or unwilling to do so. And you can tell > particularly with BDS-related activities. PACBI often takes credit for > "BDS" initiatives in which the Palestinian right of return is axed and the > State of Israel is recognized (i.e. European bds-ish moves; the Stanford > divestment). They are willing to take credit for watered down versions of > BDS that do not meet the three-plank BDS call, which essentially means > they're willing to cede. If they are willing to cede, then how can we > expect more from others? > > Finkelstein's point in the past was that the conditions that exist do not > enable most activist groups to go beyond planks 1 and 2 of the BDS call > (equality for Palestinian citizens of Israel; ending the Israeli > occupation), and leave out plank 3 (right of return). So, as long as most > groups are going to cede these rights anyway, he argues, they might as well > cede them openly by recognizing the right of Israel to exist (for pragmatic > reasons) and disavowing the refugee right of return. It would enable the > liberal elements and the J-Street types to endorse, giving heavy weight to > BDS resolutions. > > My belief is that recognizing any state's "right to exist" essentially > gives that state a massive gift, and totally waters down opposition to it. > It's hard to challenge the legitimacy of a state's actions while > essentially greenlighting its existence (and by implication, anything it > does with a claim of "self-defense" or "national security"). But as for > disavowing the right of return, it is harder for me to deal with this part > of his argument. I have pushed long and hard to make sure the divestment > resolution on my campus mentions UNGA 194 and the rights of Palestinian > refugees. But even that was a struggle. It really shouldn't be among people > who care about Palestine, but for some reason it is. Either the people in > the group simply do not take it seriously, or they worry that not enough > faculty/students will support it. It also doesn't create the same sense of > blatant injustice as the Wall, the tanks, the Gaza bombardment, etc. The > sight of a refugee camp in Lebanon -- assuming they think about it at all > -- makes them upset with Lebanon, not Israel (and that is on some level > understandable). > > It is also a sign that the US "solidarity" movement has little contact with > the dispossessed and largely focuses on the communities that are most > directly connected to the Israeli state itself (i.e. Palestinians under > occupation). The western "left" still essentially sees the conflict through > the eyes of the left wing of the Israeli settler population, not through > the eyes of Palestinians. My understanding of Finkelstein's argument is > that that is essentially something that we cannot easily get around and so > Palestine activists should settle for less, and indeed, many of them > already are. > > On the other hand, I think it can be addressed in other ways. Throughout > the history of the movement, there has been one taboo after the next that > slowly stopped being a taboo -- whether or not Palestinians even exist as a > distinct people; the Zionist lobby; so on and so forth. We can address the > taboo of refugee rights by making sure activist groups begin to engage the > subject, by organizing trips to Lebanon and Jordan, by mobilizing more > activities and programming around the Palestinian refugee issue, etc. But > people have to get off their asses and do that and until they do it's hard > to really get around the wall that Finkelstein has pointed out. > > - Amith > > On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 5:00 PM, Louis Proyect via Marxism < > marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote: > > > ******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** > > #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > > #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. > > #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. > > ***************************************************************** > > > > On 3/29/15 4:38 PM, Joseph Catron wrote: > > > >> One small technical note, probably only of interest to movement geeks: > >> I'm not sure it's correct to say Finkelstein "opposes" BDS anymore. > >> His current position is difficult to summarize, and perhaps a little > >> confused (not necessarily in a pejorative sense). > >> > >> http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/peace-or-palestinian- > >> surrender-interview-norman-finkelstein-1768836682 > >> > >> > > > > Thanks, I just got off the phone from an old friend and Israel-hating Jew > > like me who asked me to summarize Finkelstein's position. I had to admit > > that I wasn't up to speed on it. I will post your comment under my > article. > > > > _________________________________________________________ > > Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm > > Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/ > > options/marxism/amithrgupta%40gmail.com > > > _________________________________________________________ > Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm > Set your options at: > http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/acpollack2%40gmail.com > _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
