Even you, Chomsky!

Most interested in political affairs Chomsky know and appreciate his views, no one can deny the role and impact of the large in the political arena. I personally admire and appreciate it very much Bchomski Klgoah and interested in politics, but my Chomsky does not mean consent to all views; especially his recent article published in The Nation newspaper, which he criticized the Palestinian boycott campaigns and predicted its failure. 

Chomsky begins his article by focusing on the key role played by the United States of supporting the military, economic and diplomatic and ideological Zionist entity, then moves on to talk about the Israeli boycott campaigns that began to emerge in protest against the racist practices of the entity and settlement. Chomsky then focused on the rest of his article to criticize the boycott campaign of the Palestinian BDS and hardship, where Chomsky says that the reason for the failure of his prediction campaign is the lack of sufficient support her. The arguments that builds upon this Tenbuh are two arguments: first, the lack of similarity between the systematic segregation between Israel and South Africa, and the second of the three terms of the campaign. 

Chomsky began his criticism of the boycott campaign of the Palestinian BDS as often rely on the similarities between apartheid regimes in Israel and South Africa, where he says that the differences between these two systems are more fundamental points of similarity between them. 

And put three points for this difference: 

1. Economic support. 

2. Military support. 

3. Ill apartheid regime. 

That builds upon the argument that Chomsky prediction lame excuse and not binding at all. The fact that different systems does not mean that the need for the failure of the Palestinian boycott campaign. All it means is that the two different systems, and this is natural to vary the nature of the boycott campaigns directed towards any of them, and in return, this does not mean that there should be similarities between the two systems in order to guarantee the success of the boycott campaigns! 

As for the points of difference highlighted by Chomsky I'll Btfnidha the following: 

Mentions Chomsky in his article that one of the reasons for the collapse of the apartheid regime in South Africa is the economic boycott him, but the difference between the apartheid regime in South Africa and the apartheid regime in Israel, is that many of the countries decided to boycott the apartheid regime in South Africa, causing the pressure of great economic Thus, in the case of the Zionist entity, we find that the United States give it support a comprehensive economic terms pumped three billion dollars a year to him. In this sense Chomsky expected failure of the Palestinian boycott campaign. For the support of the U.S. economy of the Zionist entity, I agree with Chomsky on the need to put pressure on the U.S. government to stop this support, but I'm not naive enough to expect that the U.S. government this, Israel is not, in fact, only pocket colonial Western ensures that Western interests in the region will not be waived easily. May not succeed boycott campaign Palestinian destroy Israel's economy but they certainly succeeded in influencing him considerable influence, has been successful boycott campaign recently - for example but not limited to - the closure of a factory Israeli soft drinks, including their success acclaimed in pushing the European Union to agree to boycott Israeli products , and the threat of the Zionist entity to impose international isolation it, disengagement of many European banks and companies linked to him. This is in addition to that predicted the failure of the county economically does not mean absolute failure. The boycott is working on more than one level; economic, cultural, academic and athletic, and artistic, the most important from the point of my own campaigns is the cultural and academic boycott. This is because the most dangerous thing Israel is doing is not only the campaigns of genocide ongoing, but the danger greatest lies in its attempts Standing to erase the Palestinian presence in history through the warping constant of history and culture of Palestine and we see a lot in their attempts desperate in the proportion of all that is Palestinian has to bestow on its colonial presence of some historical and geographical legitimacy, most recently was trying ratios Kenafa Nabulsip to Israel. Contrary to what was said by Chomsky, the crimes Israel humanity were not the motive behind the boycott campaigns cultural and academic, but it is because of what Israel is doing is seeking actively to falsify history and the looting of identity and heritage and the history of an entire people, a campaign designed to encircle the occupation and racial discrimination does not punish him for war crimes committed by . It may be the success of the economic boycott is a significant impact because of the support of the United States, but the academic boycott succeeded in criminalizing Israel globally and increasing international pressure, which resulted in the announcement of many universities and research institutes across the world to stop the exchange of scientific and research with universities and institutes entity, was also prevented entity of hosting the Games in 2014 to the European, and other models dazzling success of this campaign, and which you will find on their site *. If this is not clear criterion for the success of the boycott campaign of the Palestinian BDS I do not know what Chomsky is standard for success! Especially if we look at the age of campaign small compared with those that had done in South Africa. Chomsky did not find surprising that criticizes the Palestinian boycott campaign on the lack of success that a little in the beginning compared to international sanctions not imposed on the apartheid regime in South Africa only after decades of struggle! Not worth the Palestinian campaign that hailed the rapid accomplishment achieved compared to South Africa? 

The second point of the points of difference between the systems of segregation, which support the military, Chomsky recalled that Cuba was providing military support to the opposition in South Africa, while it lacks the Palestinians. I do not know the truth on what Chomsky postulated built this! It is no secret that one of Iran provides military support for Hamas and the Palestinian resistance factions in the Gaza Strip and the West. Iran, which supplies the Palestinians with weapons and Iranian-made missiles through tunnels linking Gaza and Egypt. Iran has also given the Palestinians technology manufacturing Iranian missiles such as the dawn of one of the Palestinian factions, which enabled the manufacture of weapons and homemade rockets. Thus, we find that if we follow the method of comparison upon which Chomsky in predicting the failure of boycott campaigns, there is no difference at this point on the strangeness. 

Finally, Chomsky predicts the failure of the Palestinian BDS boycott campaign in the struggle against the apartheid regime in the Zionist entity, because the latter is far worse than the presumption in South Africa. This fact can not familiar with the details of any Palestinian conflict undeniable. But money is understood Chomsky: that this difference should be a motivation to continue in this campaign to criminalize racial occupation is not the cause of his failure to anticipate! 

This is about the first argument, the argument Chomsky second on which the prediction and criticism, Vtaatmhor on the terms of the boycott campaign three; namely: First, demand an end to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land identified in 1967, Second: ending racial discrimination against Palestinian Arabs inside Israel and equal rights as citizens Israelis, and the least: to claim the return of refugees who have been displaced Palestinians after the Nakba. Chomsky starts criticizing the need to delete the character of the shortcut S BDS, which symbolizes the word Sanctions sanctions, because the claim to impose sanctions on Israel will not be achieved any time soon! As if this requirement difficult to achieve in the near term means the impossibility achieved at all! 

Chomsky does not object to the first requirement, and felt that it is not logical forms of it. But the problem lies in items II and III, as the second item ambiguous and may open the door to a debate-type glass house and the need to boycott America for its support of Israel, and this idea naive largely contrasts with the expectation Chomsky failure of the campaign, which raises this question, after he called for the momentum of the great campaigns of boycott in American Universities and pressure for a boycott of the Zionist entity because of the crimes of inhumanity committed by, "Is it not a fortiori be prompted to boycott American universities themselves because of the crimes of America inhuman?" How predicts Chomsky failure boycott campaigns, he says that they succeed in their pressure on American universities? This first, second, committing America to crimes against humanity is real and must be criminalized, but it's not a battle boycott campaign of the Palestinian BDS focused only works only for the criminalization of the Zionist entity and expose the practices of terrorist and did not allege days a movement calling for human rights in total. The focus on Israel does not mean they agree on the atrocities committed by America also alludes to that question. So why does Chomsky mixing exotic securities that way here? The question in this flattening and disregard the significant role played by the boycott campaigns to expose the occupation and its practices. It was the first to claim Chomsky campaigns County specializes in exposing the crimes of America rather than criticizing the Palestinian boycott campaign to focus on exposing Israel. Since the multiplicity of boycott campaigns and the multiplicity of issues that work for them does not conflict in any way with the boycott campaign of the Palestinian BDS or cancel each other. Also, did not explain the mystery Chomsky points in the second item and only with vague as it did not deny the existence of racism against Arabs in Israel. Has Nadia Abu Yousef responded to this point at length in an article titled: "How Chomsky eclipsed the reality of Israel," published in the same journal *. Nadia detail the racist practices of the Israeli legally documented through Adalah (The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel), and stated the need to expose these practices and the role of the Palestinian BDS boycott campaign is important to do so. 

The third item, a claim the right of return of refugees, Vchumski considered to assert this right - even though the United Nations recognized the right of the Palestinians - will lead to the failure of the campaign, certainly, because the only way to achieve - by Chomsky - is to remove the limits imposed by Britain and France after World War II. The reason for the failure is because Israel refuses to obey the laws of the United Nations. From the above it is clear that the expectations of Chomsky unwarranted only the difficulty of achieving the terms of the campaign, directly or through a short period. 

Astrdadk be difficult for your rights does not mean the need to abandon them, or be conceited your opponent does not mean the need to waive him. 

The boycott campaign in South Africa did not work directly within a short period as mentioned Chomsky himself in the same article - but continued to struggle against the apartheid regime more than four decades ago to succeed in dismantled completely in 1994, and Astelzmanm it two decades before moving the United Nations and issued decisions to boycott this system in 1962. 

Finally .. predicts Chomsky failure of the boycott campaign of the Palestinian BDS, and allegedly would harm the Palestinian cause more than her testimony, while the truth is that the boycott campaigns that did not succeed in ending the apartheid regime in the Zionist entity, they will not harm the case at all, because everything that contributes to expose this system will help and criminalization of the case regardless of how or reasons