"The most effective strategy to stop increasingly bloody occupation is to ensure that Israel will become the target of the same sort of global movement that stopped the apartheid in South Africa." Naomi Klein writes in The Nation ( http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090126/klein?rel=hp_currently ) recalling how some Palestinian groups call for years to lead initiatives boycotts and divestment against Israel similar to those that were applied to South Africa in the apartheid years. ( http://www.bdsmovement.net/ ). The intervention of Klein comes as the controversy over here, the embarrassment, the confusion between anti-Zionism, criticism of the government of Israel, join the troubling problems of the left to mobilize against the massacre in Gaza.
the cause of the economic boycott against Israel - recalls Klein - have joined in recent days about 500 Israeli artists and scholars. These "have sent a letter asking for foreign ambassadors to urge their governments to restrictive measures and sanctions." "The South Africa boycott - goes on to cite the letter - it was effective. But Israel is treated with kid gloves. This international support should cease. " "Many of us - still reflects Klein - still fail to embrace this cause. The reasons are complex, emotive and comprehensible. But simply not worth enough. Economic sanctions are the most effective weapon in the arsenal of non-violence. "
Naomi Klein goes on to analyze and refute four possible objections to the economic boycott of Israel. The first: "The punitive measures alienate rather than persuade Israel." The 'constructive engagement "that the world takes in against Israel - here, Klein notes - is tragically failed. " In fact the last time Israel has enjoyed strong growth of its diplomatic relations, cultural and trade links with a variety of allies. " 'E' in this context that Israeli leaders have begun their last war, with the certainty that they would not have faced significant reactions. "
Second objection:" Israel is not South Africa ". Naomi Klein cites in this regard to the opinion of Ronnie Kastrils, a South African politician. They noted that "the architecture of segregation seen at work in the West Bank and Gaza is infinitely worse that of apartheid. " "The boycott - adds the Canadian artist - not a dogma, it is a tactic in a country so small and dependent on trade can work."
Third objection: "The boycott restricts communication and we need more dialogue." Naomi Klein cites personal experience in this regard: he says he stopped publishing his books in Israel with the publisher Babel and chose instead the smaller independent Andalus, "a militant publishing house, deep in convolta movement against the occupation, the only publishing house that translated texts Israeli Arabs in Hebrew. "Our little plan to publish - yet Klein says - has prompted dozens of calls, sms and email exchanges between Tel Aviv, Ramallah, Toronto, Paris, and Gaza City. I mean, just start a boycott strategy dialogue grows so strong. The argument that the boycott produces a separation is specious given the availability of low cost technology that we have in our hands. " The last objection
analyzed by Naomi Klein is this: "Do you not know that many of these tech toys come from his Israeli research centers, world-leading information technology"? Klein, in this regard, cites the case of Richard Ramsey, head of a British company specializing in Internet technologies. After the start of the assault on Gaza, Ramsey broke relations with the Israeli company MobileMax with this email: "Due to the action of the Israeli government in recent days we are not longer in a position to do business with you or with any another Israeli company. " "Ramsey - explains Klein - said that his was not a political decision, just do not want to risk losing customers." Klein concludes, "It 'was this kind of cold business calculation that led many industries to break off relations with South Africa, twenty years ago. It is precisely this calculation represents our most realistic hope of making the justice for Palestine that was so long denied. "
[Naomi Klein]
the cause of the economic boycott against Israel - recalls Klein - have joined in recent days about 500 Israeli artists and scholars. These "have sent a letter asking for foreign ambassadors to urge their governments to restrictive measures and sanctions." "The South Africa boycott - goes on to cite the letter - it was effective. But Israel is treated with kid gloves. This international support should cease. " "Many of us - still reflects Klein - still fail to embrace this cause. The reasons are complex, emotive and comprehensible. But simply not worth enough. Economic sanctions are the most effective weapon in the arsenal of non-violence. "
Naomi Klein goes on to analyze and refute four possible objections to the economic boycott of Israel. The first: "The punitive measures alienate rather than persuade Israel." The 'constructive engagement "that the world takes in against Israel - here, Klein notes - is tragically failed. " In fact the last time Israel has enjoyed strong growth of its diplomatic relations, cultural and trade links with a variety of allies. " 'E' in this context that Israeli leaders have begun their last war, with the certainty that they would not have faced significant reactions. "
Second objection:" Israel is not South Africa ". Naomi Klein cites in this regard to the opinion of Ronnie Kastrils, a South African politician. They noted that "the architecture of segregation seen at work in the West Bank and Gaza is infinitely worse that of apartheid. " "The boycott - adds the Canadian artist - not a dogma, it is a tactic in a country so small and dependent on trade can work."
Third objection: "The boycott restricts communication and we need more dialogue." Naomi Klein cites personal experience in this regard: he says he stopped publishing his books in Israel with the publisher Babel and chose instead the smaller independent Andalus, "a militant publishing house, deep in convolta movement against the occupation, the only publishing house that translated texts Israeli Arabs in Hebrew. "Our little plan to publish - yet Klein says - has prompted dozens of calls, sms and email exchanges between Tel Aviv, Ramallah, Toronto, Paris, and Gaza City. I mean, just start a boycott strategy dialogue grows so strong. The argument that the boycott produces a separation is specious given the availability of low cost technology that we have in our hands. " The last objection
analyzed by Naomi Klein is this: "Do you not know that many of these tech toys come from his Israeli research centers, world-leading information technology"? Klein, in this regard, cites the case of Richard Ramsey, head of a British company specializing in Internet technologies. After the start of the assault on Gaza, Ramsey broke relations with the Israeli company MobileMax with this email: "Due to the action of the Israeli government in recent days we are not longer in a position to do business with you or with any another Israeli company. " "Ramsey - explains Klein - said that his was not a political decision, just do not want to risk losing customers." Klein concludes, "It 'was this kind of cold business calculation that led many industries to break off relations with South Africa, twenty years ago. It is precisely this calculation represents our most realistic hope of making the justice for Palestine that was so long denied. "
[Naomi Klein]
0 comments:
Post a Comment