Web Letters: Israel: Boycott, Divest, Sanction

Many of these letter writers demonstrate why any independent, rational discussion is practically impossible in the US. If you want to have a serious discussion of Israel, Israeli policies you have to do it with Europeans, Latin Americas, even many Israelis. But you cannot have it "in" America, because you will be met with nothing but smears and reflexive and inflammed defense of whatever Israel does. Zionism in the US justifies any violence Israel wants to use. It doesn't matter whether that violence is proportional or legal. It doesn't matter how many Palestinian civilians it kills. Forget BDS. In America, it still isn't possible to criticize Israel without guilt-inducing provocation. If those who write these letters of "support" for Israel are so certain in their viewpoint, why the self-righteous personal attacks on Klein?

Here's why. Those who write these letters are used to having a monopoly on speech in the US about Israel, and now that their monopoly is challenged, they are upping the ante at every turn. Oh Naomi, you are a Jewish anti-Semite. How dare you, Naomi? How could you want Hamas to take over the world?! Naomi, you should be ashamed of yourself!

This tone belies something psychotic. When people accuse Jews of being anti-Semitic for wanting to stop Israel's occupation, put an end to it once and for all, because it's gone on too too long, and because Israel has a high-tech military and keeps using increasing amounts of violence against Palestinians--extra-judicial killings, phosphorous bombs, DIME, tanks and missiles on a densely populated civilian area, when Israel is now poised to bring in a proto-fascist into government and threatens to deport its Arab citizens if they don't sign a "loyalty oath," there is something rotten in Israel's "defense" that evidences the need to support Klein's call.

Deborah Gordon

Wichita , KS

Reading the letters on this page merely confirms my suspicions of how grossly misinformed the American people, through no fault of their own, are of the situation in Israeli-Palestinian conflcit. First of all, I must say that I am no fan of Naomi Klein, but here her position is a generally received opinion on the European left.

I am an internationalist, and I sincerely believe that the most universal justification for morality is the rule of law. The occupation of Palestine is illegal. The six-month cease-fire was violated by an Israeli administration attempting to garner support in an upcoming election--in which a right-wing politician is likely to win.

The Israeli government accuses the democractically elected governmnent of Hamas of terrorism. No matter how unplatable that government is, its rise is indicative of the despair felt by the Palestinian people--and its methods are interchangeable with those used by Israeli Zionist fighters during the 1930s.

The UN Charter states quite explicitly that a people who have their homeland occupied are permitted--by international law!--to contest that occupation through armed struggle.

The Israeli government is guilty of violating every single rule of the Genenva Conventions, and of international law. The US government supplies them with $2 billion in military aid--and will continue to do so even in this time of economic decline. The West has permitted Israel to develop nuclear weapons in direct contravention of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.

In short, the occupation is illeagal, and indicative of the same fascistic ideology that motivated the Nazi "living space" occupation of Eastern Europe which caused the Holocaust in the first place.

U.H. Dematagoda

Manchester, United Kingdom

To boycott or not to boycott: that is the question.

Naomi Klein is right: The use of economic boycott and divestment as legetimate weapons of the nonviolent protest arsenal of the peace camp has proven most effective, coupled with other means, in a number of cases throughout history, the South African apartheid regime being one of them.

Naomi Klein is wrong: In tha case of Israel, not only is this strategy not the most effective one, but it has led in the past and will lead in the future to the very opposite results than the ones sought by BDS.

Why? Because by geographic, economic and political "necessity," the emergence of a viable Palestinian state depends directly not on the weakening but in the strenghtening of its past enemy and future partner: Israel. Likewise, Israel cannot hope to achieve a measure of normalization without a strong partner: Palestine.

One or two states: The correct answer is one and two states. There is no reason why Israel should renounce its Jewish identity. Nor is there any reason why Palestine should renounce its own Palestinian identity, which sets it apart from all other Arabic and Muslim states. Both peoples have suffered too much for too long to give up their dreams of a normal life among other nations. But in order to do so, they must agree at the very beginning of the next round of peace talks to recognize the necessity of setting up a permanent "clearinghouse" or some other political device to sort out their divergences as well as to identify their common needs and projects. In that perspective, and that perspective only, will Palestinians and Israelis become able to contemplate potential residence accomodation scenarios, meaning that an Israeli could eventually elect to live in Palestine and a Palestinian in Israel. And from that point on, the sky is the limit for what these two peoples can dream to achieve.

Boycott the boycott: It follows, as Spinoza could put it in one of his futuristic and still-to-be-written political opuses, that BDS and Naomi Klein might wish to consider a bold reassessment of their strategy, amounting in fact to no less than a revolution.

Normand D. Paquin

Wotton, Quebec, Canada

Thank you, Naomi Klein. I've been boycotting Israel as an individual consumer for years, and am happy to read about organized efforts. US support for Israel is unconscionable, yet unlikely to change for some time. We simply need to raise our voices louder and louder for as long as it takes.

Ellen Benoit

Jersey City, NJ

Thank you Ms. Klein for having the courage to write about the "right" thing to do. A boycott is absolutely needed, and its potential effectiveness is obvious.

I can't help chuckle at all of the letters you've received in response to your article. That you are the anti-Semitic, self-hating Jew for daring to endorse this Godawful plan to put pressure on an economy that feeds off of a brutal occupation is laughable in a very depressing way.

But don't let it bother you; everyone who actually knows something about the true nature of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict supports your suggestion and the letter-writers' days of yelling "traitor" are numbered.

I've never read The Nation before, but now that I've "discovered" you, I will.

Fadia Badrawi

Basling Ridge, NJ

I think Ms. Klein has an ingenious idea--very similar to one from a few years back, I'm sure you are aware of the anti-Semitic actions that were taken by the europeans before WWII. Yes, the best way to combat Islamic extremism is to attack the only democracy on that side of the planet. May you never experience the constant attack the Israelis are subjected to--simply for existing. Kudos to you, Ms. Klein, for taking us backwards in our ideological ways.

As one man put it: "When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You're talking anti-Semitism."--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

elana moss

Los Angeles, CA

Naomi, dear, I have a feeling you are lost. Your roots are in the same tribe who build Israel, without it you'd be a faded memory of written articles that got some exposure during your life. Speaking about memories: Golda Meir said: "We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children. We cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill their children. We will only have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us"

And Bibi Netantahu added recently: "When the Arabs put their weapons down, we'll have peace. When Israel will put their weapons down, there will be no Israel.

From your academic couch, and Western background, you developed into the bright star(let) you are. However, if ever you are hunted by enemies, or become more familiar with the Arab world, and maybe inspect your roots to find family members murdered for their religion, your 180-degree turn would be immediate.

I hope you'll never need to save your life and run from the comfortability of your life, and if you do ever need to... where will you go? Israel, despite and beyond the disputes, will always be there to save lost sons and daughters !

Avinoam Ashrov

Haifa, Israel

My key concern in regard to this article is that Ms Klein states the essence of anti-Semitism without fully understanding this. According to her, a boycott should be instituted against Israel because it is feasible, not because it is based on any unique offense. In fact, Ms Klein admits that the USA and the UK allegedly commit similar offenses, but are too big (too powerful?) for a boycott to work.

Jews throughout history have been singled out because of their vulnerability due to small numbers.

I believe that all peoples and all nations should be judged under a universal moral standard, not whether they are small and vulnerable enough to make punitive actions feasible.

Failing to understand this fundamental unfairness seriously weakens the sincerity of Ms. Klein's viewpoint.

Martin Coyne

Los Angeles, CA

Well, this shows the ambition of global critics who imagine themselves fit to judge all and everything on earth. The call for an anti-Semitic global boycott of Israel indicates the scale and the danger for Jews nowadays.

In Paris Jewish magasins and synagogues were attacked by Muslims with the justification that they are Jews.

It is sad to observe that the Islamists have established strong ties with parts of the misled Western lefts. In the past it had been the communist parties in the West led by the Soviet Union who denounced Israel as an outpost of Western imperialism. Now we have a so-called anti-imperialistic, "pacifistic" left who calls for UN intervention and human rights, but does not know that only democratic states can guarantee these rights, not an Islamist movement, not the UN, not an anti-imperialistic left.

Therefore, the best guarantee for a safe Israel is to become a member of the NATO. Nothing else will guarantee the security of Israel.

No treaty with Arabic-Muslim states will secure even a truce, just think of Egypt. President Sadat was murdered due to the treaty with Israel. The treaty sealed a cold peace and the return of Sinai, which disproves the claims of the "anti-imperialists" that Israel extends its borders as "colonialist" power. This absurdity of "colonialism" just shows how big a place Israel takes in their mind and how little room remains there for facts. Look on the map of Near East and the extension of the Arab world. So these accusations are the remains of a great ambition, of the anti-colonialist struggle, but has nothing to do with the realities, only with the ideological narratives of some strange lefts.

So why Egypt? The USA subsidizes the Egypt regime in order to prevent Egypt from becoming an Islamist state. What will happen if the Muslim Brotherhood, the organization that founded Hamas, grabs the power?

Ludwig Csepai

Vienna, Austria

Isn’t the situation in Israel significantly different than that in South Africa? In many ways, the segregation of the Palestinians and the unsustainable Swiss-cheese Palestine looks like the South African Bantustan. I have been concerned by this for over twenty-five years. But this war in Gaza… Could this not be the outrage of two suicidal nations?

If Palestinians--everyone likes to differentiate Hamas from the Palestinians although they did win a legitimate election--fire rockets on Israel, is this not an act of war? If rockets flew from Mexico and the government of Mexico could not or would not stop it, then the United States would have a right to defend itself. Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter declares that it is justified to go to war to defend your borders.

Israel has an apparent strategy of total annihilation. Being justified is different than overwhelming force. Is it unreasonable force?

Rumors fly, saying that they are using human shields in Gaza. Firing rockets from schools and population areas to put children and civilians at risk. How much of the Palestinian death toll are civilians being put in the way of harm as a tactic?

I receive Israeli propaganda that asks for sympathy for the soldiers forced into harm’s way to protect Israel against rockets flying from Gaza. It uses various devices to make you feel sympathy for the soldiers. But it never once mentions Palestinian civilians and sympathy.

I receive Palestinian propaganda that asks for condemnation of the brutal attacks of Israel upon Gaza. It complains about the inordinate amount of force used and the numbers of women and children killed. But never once does it mention the rockets that precipitated, and keeps on flying, the fighting.

Naomi Klein, you are wrong. Your comparison with South Africa is false. In South Africa, the manifesto of the Liberation Struggle was the Freedom Charter that called for a non-racist, non-sexist South Africa. The peace in South Africa was a negotiated settlement. In Palestine, the PLO charter calls for driving the Zionists into the sea. This makes for a difficult negotiating point. If Hamas is actually putting their own people at risk as human shields, then this is not the leadership to be negotiating for you. Israel could possibly even create a case for liberating Palestinians--of course, not under the present circumstances.

"We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children. We cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill their children.We will only have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us." Golda Meir said that. It almost seems quaint today. At face value, it would seem that the Palestinians have not changed, but the Israelis certainly have. No leader today could ever be caught dead saying this.

Howard Katzman

Brooklyn, NY

I do believe Ms. Klein's article was written as a passionate response to terrible events at Gaza, but surely passion should not prevent us from contemplating chances for success and possible consequences. Which she hasn't. So here I go:

Chances for success: not good. Economic sanctions do not make nations change their government or their basic policies. Didn't work in Iraq, Yugoslavia, Iran nor North Korea. Wouldn't work in the US if the world decided to punish them for the unspeakable acts they have been committing in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, sanctions make it easier for the government to control the population, both politically and economically. See above-mentioned examples.

Perhaps, however, Klein holds Israel to be more flexible or "rational" than nations that have been sanctioned in the past. I doubt it. Let's remember: Israel is arguably the only nation in the world that can justify its paranoia (see WWII). Israelis are insensitive to moralizing and judgment of the '"world community," because of lack of it when they were in trouble. So, no, I don't think economic sanctions would change Israelis' minds.

What sanctions could achieve, however, brings us to consequences. What sanctions are good at is weakening a nation's economy. Ultimately, they might make a nation an easy pickings for a military invasion (Iraq, for example). Israelis know this, they do read. So, what do you think would happen in Israeli politics if they were to face such prospects? What sort of political parties would win power? What actions would they take? Would they go for a total annihilation of their "enemies" before their economy collapses? Do they have nuclear weapons (yes, they do!)? Is Ms Klein trying to start WWIII?!

Don't be silly, of course she isn't. Like I said, it's a passionate reaction to terrible suffering of Palestinians. A scream for some sort of justice. But when we seek peace, I'm afraid sometimes justice is the last thing we can afford...

(Unless it's poetic justice. Poetic justice is above all, surely! To achieve it, Israel must apply to Palestinians a solution Europeans applied to Jews: give them a spot far away where no one likes them. Yes, we can: Palestinians get Utah!)

Peter Jugovic

Brisbane, Australia

Naomi Klein is the most misinformed writer on The Nation's generally well-guided staff. How dare she compare Israel's existence since its inception to South Africa, or any other country?

Israel has already faced sanctions--it was called the Holocaust, and since that time her neighbors have continually called for its total extinction, a second Holocaust.

Israel is not perfect and most clear-thinking Jews will admit to that. However, it is and always has been a model of a free society that only wants to live in peace with its Arab neighbors.

Israel is America's staunchest ally in a part of the world that has never known peace. It might very well be the launching point of Armageddon. Only a fool can't see or understand that, and your column was anti-Semitic.

How often do both of our national parties, the left and the right, virtually every cable news outlet, and most churches and synagogues all agree on anything? That's a rhetorical question; it just doesn't happen. For the very first time, those who think they know and have a voice, are in perfect harmony and insisting that like us, Israel has a right to defend itself.

Naomi... get on your keyboard and look at a map of the Middle East. We have Mexico and Canada on our borders, and, we'd nuke them too if they attacked, and at the very same time swore to destroy us.

Israel's neighbors consist of almost every rogue terrorist group known in the world. That's the mandate of most if not all of the Mideast leaders willing to sell their souls to get the Bomb. Once you include the other evil empires of power scattered around the globe, this new generation of Americans will become as familiar with air-raid drills as I was.

Do you really believe that America's enemies will suddenly become our friends if we disown Israel? Are you that naïve?

Why can't you see the many ways the United States benefits from our relationship with Israel? The exchanges of technology and information that takes place daily could never be replaced.

And I hope Mr. Obama understands that.

Steven Waxman

Chicago, IL

I don't care how brilliant Ms. Klein is (and she is). Her call for a boycott of Israel and, similarly, the marches by tens of thousands in support of Hamas are just, plainly said, morally wrong. Horrifically morally wrong.

This is not about Israeli "occupation"--it certainly predates the resurrection of a Jewish national presence in the Holy Land.

It's about stopping tyranny and genocide. It's about stopping misogyny and maniacal hatred. Hamas is part of a movement aimed to wipe out basic human rights and the religiously justified murder of non-believers, especially Jews. It is not born from "the occupation" (it's not even born from the existence of Israel, although that fact does represent a thorn in the side of the movement). And Jews alone are not its only victims. God help women caught up in this, and God help gays and others who don't "conform." And they want the world, not just some lousy piece of scrub land joining Africa and Asia.

No, Hamas is, along with the Taliban and the Muslim Brotherhood, the twenty-first century Nazis. They hate, they want to kill Jews and others, and they want to subjugate women. It has nothing to do with Islam, just as Nazism has nothing to do with socialism. Just ask the Muslim women of Afghanistan who were forced into illiteracy as a matter of policy. Just ask the Muslim gay community of Iran. And they are not ashamed of it either, just as the Nazis were not ashamed of it. Read their materials and policies. Watch their videos. Attend their rallies. It's all there to see, read and hear (did you ever wonder why pro-Hamas rallies call for "death to Jews," while pro-Israel rallies call for peace?)

This is a truly sick ideology. And when Ms. Klein calls for a boycott, or when thousands march in support of Hamas in the cities of the world, then they are (I hope for most it is unwittingly) supporting pure, unadulterated hate.

Let us think of this situation in the context of sixty-five years ago. The Jews of Warsaw, surrounded by tyranny, fight back against a majority that is either actively determined by ideology to exterminate them or by masses who care not to rise up in defense. And further, in defense of their ideology, it is the Nazis who claim to be oppressed--Hitler's justification for his actions is that the nations of the world, led by the Jew, have kept the Aryan down.

According to Ms. Klein's position, she would have condemned the Jews of Warsaw for resisting the tyranny.

Why do I suggest this conclusion? Well, here we have a group of Jews, a minority surrounded by millions of Muslims. And there are arises a group (Hamas, et al.) who, by open ideology, is determined to exterminate the Jews. They resist. They fight back. And Ms. Klein suggests a boycott against the minority, supporting Hamas instead. She is, by all historical analogy, supporting Nazism. My God, what has happened to us human beings, have we not learned a thing from the past?

(Incidentally, in supporting Hamas, we are doing a disservice to the rest of the Muslim world--they too are victims of this tyranny, just as many Germans were victims of Nazism).

I pray for a revelation for Ms. Klein, so she may see that she has been supporting the Nazi-like hatred of Hamas. I pray that she will see she has made a fundamental mistake and that her next article calls for a boycott of Hamas and and Nazi-like tyranny. Even better, I hope her next article calls for supporting Muslim resistance against the shackles of tyranny--it's time we helped them throw off the burden of Hamas and their ilk!

A.J. Hyman

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

The Turks governed what is now Israel and Palestine from 1517 to 1917. In 1917 the area was assigned to Great Britain by the League of Nations.

Then in 1948 two states were created, Palestine and Israel. The Palestinians decided all the land should be theirs, did not recognize Israel, and invaded Israel. They, surprisingly, lost and have been losing ever since.

The Israelis want to give them their original UN-mandated state. But they consistently reject that. Instead, they doggedly insist on not recognizing Israel's right to exist.

Until Israel's right to exist is guaranteed by secure borders, and Hamas and Hezbollah drop their goals of destroying Israel, the violence will continue.

Tragic but true. Israel has returned the Sinai and Gaza. At least with the Sinai they achieved peace with Egypt.

An Israeli boycott will solve nothing. That is because the pathway to peace first must include Hama and Hezbollah recognizing Israel and stopping their continuous state of war.

Hamas broke the six-month treaty, not Israel. Arafat refused to accept a very generous settlement in 2000 negotiated by Bill Clinton.

After that the Israeli peace movement collapsed, since the flexibility and tolerance Israel demonstrated was rejected by Arafat. Arafat was offered 95 percent of his demands. What to do?

David Scheinman

Houston, TX

Regarding Klein, I think we should deal with her bigotry this way: beat, ravish, rape!

eli wurtziger

Haifa, Israel

Shame on you, Naomi Klein. For eight years Hamas, whose very charter calls for the destruction of Israel, bombards Israel with rockets. Where is your outrage over this? Where is your outrage as Palestinian children are trained to grow up to be suicide bombers, and taught to repeat mantras about how they want to "kill the jews?" Where is your outrage over Hamas deliberately hiding their weaponry and attack machines among civilian populations, and then staging photo ops by dragging corpses onto piles of rubble?

What would you have Israel do? Do you not realize that when Hamas refers to the "occupied territories" or to the "Zionist entity" they mean all of Israel, and not just Gaza and the West Bank? Do you not realize that if they could they would exterminate all of the Jews in the region?

As a Jew myself, who is generally liberal and aligned with leftist policies and thought, I am forever baffled by my left-leaning colleagues who have somehow taken it upon themselves to see the Palestinian cause as one of martyrdom. Certainly, I feel sympathy for the Palestinian people who are suffering under the regimes on the West Bank and Gaza. But I must also take into account the history of how they got there, and why they are in this situation, before simply blaming mean old Israel. The fact remains that the initial charter for partition, had the Arabs accepted it, would have given the Palestinians a territory much larger than they will ever now have (excluding the very real possibility of a destroyed Israel), and larger than pre-1967 Israel. They rejected it because they would have rejected any plan that included any territory at all for the Jews.

The very reason that Gaza and the West Bank were occupied in the first place is because Israel's neighbors were massing their armies on her borders, with the intent of launching a coordinated attack to wipe her out once and for all, having failed to do so in previous confrontations in 1948 and 1956. Israel launched a pre-emptive strike, and took the territories as a defensive measure.

I agree that it is long past time to give those territories back--but to whom? They were not taken from any Palestinian state. They were taken from Egypt and Jordan. Why was it that neither of those countries ever integrated the refugee populations in those territories into their nations? Where does their responsibility come into play? Why were those countries never boycotted?

To take matters further--why are there no calls for boycotts of Egypt for its flagrant human rights violations? I think that you have been blinded by misguided sympathy for what you see as the "underdog," failing to recognize that that very underdog would annihilate your people given the chance. Their response to Israel's withdrawal from Gaza was a barrage of rockets.

The only hope for peace in this region starts with the removal of Hamas from power. If the party with whom you are trying to make peace has no interest in that peace, and is concerned only with your destruction, you do not have a partner for peace. While I too am saddened by what I see the people of Gaza going through, I believe Israel is doing what it must if it is to have any chance at all of a secure future.

Andrew Schreiber

London, England

Although the idea of a boycott isn't itself bad, coming from the United States, when we invaded Iraq without any justification or provocation, it might seem a tad hypocritical.

Thomas Paul

Plainview, NY

The incredible naïvté and moral blindness of Ms. Klein is clear to see in her failure to distinguish between a state and people threatened by extinction by a neighboring tyranous entity whose very ethos incorporates the murder and extinction of her neighbor.

Where is it required in international law (or common sense, for that matter) that a state constantly attacked by her neighbor and experiencing the killing of its citizens thereby should provide free passage through her border of goods or services to such a neighbor?

Was the British blockade of shipping of all kinds during the First and Second World Wars to her avowed enemy Germany illegal or immoral? And the Germans were not advocating the slaughter of each and every Briton.

Such far leaning leftist posturings of moral equivalence in the struggle of the Israeli people to survive again another threatened Holacaust has only the effect of sound thinking liberals washing their hands of such "liberals" as Naomi Klein and her ilk.

Benjamin Copito

West Palm Beach, NY

Dear Ms. Klein, your utter disgust and deep-rooted hatred of your own people and most likely yourself is driving this mindless desire to boycott Israel. Your claims of being joined by some other radicals in Israel merely proves that there are a few crazy self-hating individuals there too. I understand your concern for the loss of life, it is a concern of mine too, though I am a staunch supporter of Israel and the current military campaign. You are not helping peace or the Palestinians you care so much about with this boycott. Your comparisons of Israel with apartheid-era South Africa are small-minded and simplistic. Every country and every conflict has its own dynamic. For example, Nelson Mandela never spoke of killing all the whites of South Africa as the Hamas leadership speaks of killing all the Jews. Nelson Mandela never sent suicide bombers into crowded cafes. He had a vision of a united and peaceful South Africa even when he was fighting against apartheid. Hamas has no such vision.

Also, enough with the Gaza concentration camp analogies. They're insulting and ridiculous. If Israel wanted to do to the Palestinians what the Nazis did to the Jews, they could have done it with one massive bomb and avoided endangering their soldiers. Your hateful writing may inspire some socialists and "peace" activists to boycott Israel, but it also encourages people like myself and others, who see the injustice and bias in your calls, to purchase more Israeli products. Personally, after reading your article in the Guardian I went out and purchased two cases of wine from a Golan Heights vineyard called Yarden. I don't like Israeli wine but I did it as an act of defiance. You inspired me. I was sitting at my computer and thinking to myself what have the employees of Yarden (half of them Arab) done to deserve your wrath?

I'm not a hypocrite, I don't support any boycotts. They are foolish, hateful and rarely effective--and completely uncalled for in this case. You should also be careful, as you are playing with fire. An Italian labor union in Rome started out boycotting Israeli businesses a couple years ago and has recently upgraded to Jewish businesses. Something last done during Mussolini's time in charge. Just in case you've forgotten your name is Naomi Klein, so its just a matter of time until your followers turn on you and decide to boycott you too. Please stop the ignorance! Learn a little about the issue from the other's perspective and you'll see it's a lot more complicated an issue than you make it out to be. You are not helping, just pushing both sides farther apart and Israelis and Palestinians farther from peace.

Mark Rabinovich

New York, NY

Israeli universities continue to collaborate with the Israeli war machine that commits war crimes in violation of the Nuremberg Trial Accords and the UN Charter in Gaza every day. At Tel Aviv University, for example, Tel Aviv University professors are working on sixty-four campus war research projects. So it's about time that US antiwar activists began more actively supporting an academic boycott of Israeli universities by US universities.

bob feldman

http://bfeldman68.blogspot.com/2009/01/tel-aviv-universitys-comp, MA

What the apologists for the IDF keep forgetting to mention is that far more Gazans have died in a few hours of one day of the multi-week-long Israeli assault than have killed by all the rocket attacks launched over the past decade and a half. (Many if not most of the rockets don't have payloads; that's why they don't cause nearly as much damage as the IDF can and does.)

They also don't mention the use of incendiary chemicals such as white phosphorus against Gazan civilians by the IDF.

They especially don't mention the slow starvation that Gaza has undergone since Israel "pulled out of" and then cordoned off Gaza in 2005.

Did they cheer when Yitzhak Rabin was murdered for daring to consider treating Palestinians as human beings?

Tamara Baker

St. Paul, MN

"In other words, I am boycotting the Israeli economy but not Israelis." And "Ramsey says that his decision wasn't political; he just didn't want to lose customers. "We can't afford to lose any of our clients," he explains, "so it was purely commercially defensive." OK, so perhaps Israel should take away all those toys that we have all grown accustomed to? After all, they invented them.

Does anyone really believe Ramsey when he says it's not political? I have worked in the US for a very long time, was a CEO of a software company, and have never ever seen an issue made about where the software tool was made having any impact on business decisions. Sorry, Ramsey, your argument reminds me of all those people who say they are anti-Zionist but not anti-Semitic or anti-Israel (really weird). Let's put it this way: the slogan anti-Zionist by definition is being against a national home for the Jews. It is often uttered by people who have a national home--in England, France, Germany, US, Canada--but who for some reason believe the Jews shouldn't have one. Often these same people, who naturally believe they are entitled to such a place, also believe the Palestinians should have a national home--but not the Jews. Bizarre.

Now, what about the boycott? Can Ms. Klein explain how boycotting the Israeli economy will not result in a boycott of Israelis? After all, an economic boycott means refusing to purchase the goods and services, in this case of Israelis. In Ms. Klein's simplistic statement is buried a war crime--starve the Israelis! Presumably this will teach the Jews a lesson.

What I find offensive about Ms. Kelin is not so much her argument (offensive as it is) but that no one--she certainly has not--made those arguments against the Chinese for taking over Tibet and repressing Tibetan rights. Is Mr. Ramsey refusing to buy Chinese products? Is Ms. Kelin refusing to buy Chinese goods? Is anyone? Boycotts begin and end with popular causes. Today the popular cause is liberty and justice for Palestinians. The fact that there is a Palestinian state already--Jordan--and two more in the making, albeit struggling, the West Bank and Gaza, each ruled by a different political entity, is simply below the radar of anyone's knowledge.

Were there any calls for a boycott of Arabs when they rocket Israel, was there a call by Ms. Klein to mobilize the world against Hamas rockets into kindergartens and schools in Israel for eight years prior to the Israeli response? Finally, should we not slap Hamas on the wrist just a little bit for importing guns into Gaza when Israel exited Gaza instead of importing knowledge and capital to build an Arab Singapore.

Oh and one more thing. I believe Ms. Klein is from Canada. I wonder what she would think about what America would if rockets were lobbed from Canada towards Buffalo? What does she believe the US would do first? (A) Negotiate with the Canadian government (b) Investigate (C) Bomb Canada. I think we know the US would do all of the above but it would start with the bomb. So would any other country--except Israel; it waited eight years!

Ran Kohn

New York, NY

The boycott promoted by Naomi Klein offers only an unconstructive diversion from finding a solution to the perennial Israeli-Palestinian conflict. More attention should be given to addressing the root problems that have made a negotiated solution elusive and seemingly unachievable.

While this conflict has been usually couched as a battle between Jews and Muslims, the greater battle is between moderate and extremist Muslims. While we in the West seem to have overcome (arguably) our greatest periods of religious imperialism of, say, the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition centuries ago. In the Muslim world, there are similar delusions of conquest sanctioned by God today, and a competition for the soul (or at least voice) of Islam. Israel is a cause célèbre for the extremists.

The other problem is that such groups as Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda that exemplify today's religious extremism are not state actors, and therefore are not accountable to any moderating influences. Even Iran has to act with caution, as not all citizens subscribe to the government's strict Islamist views and Tehran does have a "return address" should it directly attack another country (i.e., Israel). Extremist groups, unlike states, have a self-selecting membership who are closely aligned philosophically with their group's goals and tactics. The presence of a Jewish nation on so-called Islamic soil provides an opportunistic lightning rod for these groups to exploit anti-Jewish, anti-Western and anti-democratic sentiment among the disenchanted and deprived in the occupied territories and elsewhere in order to build their own support. Ultimately, such groups wish to impose Sharia law in Lebanon, Palestine, Egypt and across the Muslim world.

There are better approaches to the problem than Naomi Klein's boycott, which is superficially one-sided and would be wholly ineffective anyway (the Israeli fear of missiles from Hamas will rightly far outweigh the fear of economic sanctions from US consumers). Ms. Klein naïvely misses the point that Hamas actually wants this war, and benefits from the Israeli bombardment as the images outrage Muslims worldwide and therefore strengthen them in Palestinian public opinion. Hezbollah "won" their war against Israel since they increased their strength, support and political influence in Lebanon--their ultimate goal-- and Hamas seeks to achieve the same.

The solution--that is, allowing both sides to step away from the brink and save face, and create the quiet that may allow a long-term peace process to take root--requires the following:

1. Encourage moderates (especially clerics) throughout the Islamic world to speak out against extremism and the perverse interpretation of Islam that Allah considers killers of civilians as "martyrs." This requires Israel to avoid Palestinian casualties (and maybe take more of their own) in the interest of avoiding undermining Arab moderates such as Mahmoud Abbas, Egypt's Hosni Mubarek, Turkey's Erdogan, and Jordan's King Hussein.

2. Encourage wealthy moderate Muslim states to build infrastructure (e.g., schools, hospitals) and an economic foundation in the occupied territories to undermine Hamas's strategy of "buying" support among moderate Palestinians through their own "charitable" programs and projects.

3. Give the Israeli's better assurances (possibly through NATO-like treaties) that the US and EU would stand behind them firmly should the country's existence truly be threatened, but ask in return that they take the risk of not attacking Hamas (or Hezbollah) with overwhelming force, which simply increases sympathy for these terrorist groups.

4. Make greater use of Islamic mediators such as Turkey and Egypt, as the United States has deflated credibility in the Islamic world.

5. Push the UN and Arab League to help disarm non-state actors, as only governments should control the armed forces within a country. For example, both Hezbollah and Hamas silence the moderate voices within their populations through intimidation, since they control the most powerful armies within Lebanon and Palestine, respectively.

6. Accept that Hamas will not change its charter to eliminate Israel as a precondition to direct negotiations with them. "Respect" is critical in the Islamic world. We must start with a cease-fire (however imperfect), and work for as long as it takes to undermine the support for extremist groups by providing Palestinians with a better alternative, rather than trying to defeat a portion of their population to "save them from themselves."

Simple, feel-good reactions to the conflict, such as boycotts, provide unhelpful alternatives that alienate moderate Jews and Israelis who wish to focus on finding a consensus approach that really could make a difference.

Robert Fisch

South Orange, NJ

Yet again Ms. Klein takes a very simplistic view to make her point. It is well known fact that Israel has and continues to commit injustices toward the Palestinian people. However, (without offering justification) they are not acting in a vacuum. Israel is surrounded by states and non-state organizations that strive to see its destruction.

Let's assume that this boycott is successful beyond one's wildest dreams and Israel removes all illegal settlements, recognizes Palestine as an fully independent state and allows the unhindered passage of legitimate goods and services and people in and out of Palestine. Will Hamas and its supporters suddenly decide that Israel has a right to exist?

Israel's current offensive has resulted in terrible and unacceptable losses of civilian lives however you conveniently overlook Hamas' culpability. Hamas does not primarily target military personnel and installations. Hamas fires rockets and sends suicide bombers into Israel with the hope of killing and injuring as many civilians as possible.

The solution to the conflict will only come about when the infractions that have and continue to be committed by both sides are addressed. Unfortunately, when the ultimate goal of one of the players is the complete destruction of the other, I'm not sure a lasting peace can be reached.

Glenn Lamothe

Wakefield, Quebec, Canda

Naomi, I absolutely love you, and you are a blessing to those of us with righteous indignation.

However, I doubt that any efforts proposed by you to defeat Israel will have any effect, as the US government is still blindly and loyally voting for military and economic support of Israel. This money cannot be stopped. These politicians will never vote against Israel. In the face of some of the most heinous war crimes in recent history, our Congress still votes overwhelmingly in favor of Israel.

The boycott--if it should be effective--should be of US goods. The establishment here in the US needs to be depleted of its resources to the point where Israel cannot get funding, lest it deprive our own citizens of any quality of life.

Sadly, I don't trust that our Congress would vote against Israel's policies even in the face of something that dire.

Thor Menowski

Chicago, IL

It seems unrealistic to expect a boycott to become popular enough to have an effect on the situation, as long as Hamas and its partners rely on terror to wage their fight against Israel. This of course was not the case in South Africa when the ANC used violence. But while it is true that the way in which Israel manifests its power in the occupied territories is quite apartheid-like, Israel itself is quite a different story. Perhaps a movement to support nonviolent opposition to Israel's policies by Hamas and Jihad would empower a truly effective boycott movement. Perhaps if people who sympathize with the Palestinian cause raised their voices for nonviolence, true change could come about. Maybe even without a boycott. As long as the battle is being led by fundamentalist zealots every bit as bloodthirsty as the worst elements in Israel (or anywhere else), it is unlikely that a boycott will gain adherents outside the most far left and right (as you can see today in Italy.

Danny Baron

Los Angeles, CA

This time I wished I was a subscriber of The Nation. Why? Because in that case I would have an incomparable pleasure in canceling my subscription to it.

Jacob Metelitz

Basking Ridge, NJ

And then what, Ms. Klein?

Bombs, raids, walls, occupation, checkpoints, settlements, blockades etc... All this is sad, regrettable and very undesirable to Israel. No one likes to live like this, whatever side of the border you're on.

Yet when you have a very small territory (the size of Wales) and a very small population (same as Switzerland--though 20 percent of them are Israeli Palestinians), and you're surrounded by people who do not accept your right to exist, who instigate hate from the most tender infancy, who almost exclusively target civilians, who advocate for martyrdom... what else can you do?

How many demonstrations were there during the so-called "truce," while Hamas's rockets kept raining down by the dozens every day over Jewish civilians? I remember none. How many world leaders called Hamas to order then? No one. Where was the media and the TV crews (and Naomi Klein)? I don't recall any pictures/footage of Israeli kids crying in shock when a rocket blew their houses down (except in Israeli newspapers, of course). This is the frustration in Israel, and what they refer to when they talk about the "unbalanced media." If the world would have stood up to Hamas then, we wouldn't be where we are now.

Suppose Israel withdraws its army and stops all attacks on Gaza. Suppose they remove all settlements (whatever may remain), go back the pre-1967 borders, tear down the walls and eliminate the checkpoints and all restrictions on passages. Suppose Israel says: "OK, guys, there's your country, here's ours; let's live in peace." In other words, suppose Israel gives the Palestinians pretty much everything they want. What do you think will happen? Will Hamas & Co. miraculously change their position, accept Israel as a legitimate state and renounce to violence? Yeah, I doubt it too.

As Daniel Finkelstein, from the Times, wrote this week: "The Palestinians need only say that they will allow Israel to exist in peace. They need only say this tiny thing, and mean it, and there is pretty much nothing they cannot have. Yet they will not say it. And they will not mean it."

No. Until Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Sirya, Iran, etc say and mean this, there's very little hope for peace. What guarantees does Israel have that by removing its army, its checkpoints and its walls it is not digging its own grave? Who will come to Israel's rescue if these people, then in a much better position to do so, launch full-scale attacks on us? The UN? The EU? Naomi Klein?

I do not agree with everything Israel does. I think they are tragically stupid when it comes to diplomacy. I believe they are playing along Hamas's game. And I think some of them become shockingly indifferent to human suffering sometimes.

But I understand where all that comes from. And Naomi Klein doesn't.

Ezequiel Brodsky

London, UK

This article is totally absurd. Apartheid? How many intelligent people can believe such BS is beyond me. What kind of apartheid have Arabs living in the middle of a country with all the benefits of citizenry, with all the power to vote and representation in government, like Israel does? How the world can stand and condemn Israel is totally beyond me. Israel left the Gaza Strip, left buildings and factories as they agreed to do. Israel stood aside and allowed a terrorist group, Hamas, to be elected and then when Hamas decided to smuggle in guns and rockets supplied by Iran and use humanitarian funds to do so instead of bread and food and medicine, Israel is the villain? Excuse me?

Have you not read what Hamas and Hezbollah are determined to do? Their prime motivation is to kill every Jew (with collateral damage to Arabs living in Israel) and drive them into the sea! And along the way they will do what they have always done to any property left to them--strip and destroy. This is what you think is apartheid? When Hamas and Hezbollah take care of the needs of their people and stop sending rockets into Israel--where the only reason more people have not been killed in the attacks is because Israel provides shelters and sirens to warn their own, instead of like Hamas putting rocket launchers and mortars and arms smack dab in the middle of homes, hospitals and mosques--then maybe there can be peace and all the economic benefits that go along with the cessation of armed conflict. Stop being an apologist for terrorists. Stop this nonsense.

Rachele Levy

Ulster Park, NY

Naomi Klein reveals a complete misunderstanding of what can be done to solve the Palestine problem. What is needed ia a full engagement with Israel and the Palestinians by the international community to impose a two-state solution along the lines of the road map with boundaries along the 1967 lines with minor modifications. A boycott is a copout.

Israel is very different from South Africa. Israeli hard-liners want a Greater Israel, with all the Arabs "transferred" to the Arab world. One example where this policy has worked is the former German city of Konigsberg, now the Russian Kaliningrad, with all its German citizens "transferred" to Germany.

During the much-publicized boycott of South Africa, with lip service by the Soviet Union, the Soviets were partners in the largest diamond cartel in the world and carried on business as usual. If the West boycotts and breaks off contacts with Israel, Putin will be happy to take over and make Israel a Cuba of the Middle East. Putin will have no objection to a Konigsberg solution of the Palestine problem if it improves Russian position in a coming new cold war with the United States.

We must all work together to help save Israel from itself. Hopefuly, Barack Obama will find a way to lead us there.

Harry J. Lipkin

Rehovot, Israel

I have real difficulty understanding people who think Israel should not defend their nation and populace. Israel is under attack and is constantly in a state of war or in a shaky truce with people who have pledged to destroy them. If the Palestinian people really want to live in peace, why won't they stop the attacks?

To say Palestinians are persecuted is beyond dumb. They persecute themselves by electing and supporting idiots that won't truly respect any peace agreements. The PLO, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Fatah are all wings of terrorist organizations and cannot or will not represent or protect the Palestinian people. These organizations make war on the legitimate authorities, The Palestinian Authority, and steal its money and power. I submit that in the last fifty years there have been many times that Israel would have and actually did at times, agree to lay down its arms. They have been attacked and lied to but in the last few years they have, in spite of the lies and attacks, tried to give the Palestinians land for peace. Instead of peace, however, they have been fired on at every opportunity.

You rail on about the financial support and trade Israel enjoys but fail to remember that the Palestinian Authority has received billions of dollars and euros and promises of trade to lay down its arms. It did not lay down its arms. Instead, Yassar Arafat instituted the first and second intifadas. The leaders pocketed the money or spent it on arms rather than on their people, trade or infrastructure. They have placed military and terrorist weapons in civilian homes and buildings to use the people in them as human shields and propaganda opportunities. They do not really care about the people, only their agenda. Instead of this boycott, you should encourage your Palestinian friends to stop the rocket attacks and terrorist acts and engage in real and sustainable agreements. The violence will stop and they can then build their Palestinian state and prosper in it. There will be no peace until they stop the aggression toward Israel and contain their rogue elements.

Carl Smith

Hutchinson, KS

Ms. Klein, occupying the moral high ground is no substitute for occupying Gaza!

Angus McFarlane

Bucharest, Romania

If Naomi Klein has written anything that makes sense, I've yet to read it. As usual, a completely one-sided, skewed version of the situation, and an almost childish moral reaction that anyone with an objective set of values will find abhorrent, like most of her views.

To those who also find Klein's views repulsive and would like to counter her boycott plea by supporting Israel through the buying of Israeli goods, you can do so here.

Jason Sharke

New York, NY

The fact that some Israeli artists think that Israel should not defend itself against terror does not mean they speak for the nation. On the contrary, I have read that most Israelis support the invasion of Gaza. The fact that some artists have the freedom to express these views is a testament to the viability of Israel as a free country, and it shows just how much they have to lose if Israel becomes the victim of an American boycott.

Klein imagines that by boycotting Israel she is doing the Jewish State a "favor" of some kind. Perhaps she fancies it's a kind of "tough love." Boy, would I hate to have her doing favors for anyone I cared about. Israel is an ally. You stand with your allies when they are under attack. You don't kick them in the stomach. A boycott is not just a tactic; it is a form of aggression. When you boycott a nation you are trying to destroy it.

Hamas is the roadblock to peace. They can't win this war. They have held onto power at the expense of their own people long enough. It is time for them to recognize Israel. They are re-enacting Hitler's last days in the bunker.

Justin K. Hertog

Montclair, NJ

Naomi Klein disappoints me. I can see her anger at Israel if Israel had rejected the French-Egyptian cease-fire proposal this week and Hamas had accepted it. But in fact, the Israelis accepted the proposal and Hamas rejected it.

The UN resolution from yesterday (January 8) only demands Israel withdraw but does not require Hamas to stop hitting Israel with rockets. It was still rejected by Hamas, and more correctly rejected by Israel.

One of Hamas's leaders, on the English version of Al Jazeera, said yesterday or today that Hamas will not accept a cease-fire unless Israel unilaterally withdraws, and even so, Hamas will not stop its rocket attacks. The leader also said he was not concerned with civilian casualties, as it was all for the glorious anti-Israel cause.

This is not the time to write an article attacking Israel. It is the time for an article attacking Hamas for not wanting a bilateral cease-fire, which is really redundant. Has anyone ever used the word cease-fire in a conflict between two sides that did not mean bilateral?

I am not a Chris Hitchens or Ron Silver here. I still oppose Israel's settlement policies, its blockade of Gaza, and generally oppressive policies towards Palestinians. But Hamas wants this war, they are getting this war, and they are welcoming the casualties. Why there are no cries for Hamas to agree to a bilateral cease-fire?

Mitchell J. Freedman

Poway, CA

Ms. Klein's line of thinking is based on a false premise, that Israel occupies these territories because in the past it was the aggressor. Israel only "occupies" these territories because in 1967 the then-less-than-7,000-square-mile nation was attacked synchronously by Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, and with troops from at least five other Arab countries. When the outmanned Israelis won the war in six days, they had also conquered land that had previously belonged to these aggressor nations. That is the land that is under contention today. If that issue were resolved by an Israeli appeasement, then history tells us that Israeli's enemies would continue to seek more land. In support of this, Hamas, the terrorist group elected by the Arabs living in Gaza and the West Bank to represent their interests, calls for Israel's destruction.

International pressure needs to be applied for peace, but this needs to first be applied on the parties that have chosen exclusive military options, or that have walked away from the negotiating tables or from their agreements. Hezbollah and Hamas attacking together, in 2006 and now again--Gilad Shalit remains kidnapped by Hamas. (An aside--where is the call for Shalit's release? ) Arafat walking away from the Camp David agreements in 2000 that appeared so promising, in which Israel was ready to shake hands. The utter lack of oil-rich Arab nations to provide economic or educational assistance for Gaza and the West Bank that would improve their livelihoods in a manner that would make peace a realistic option.

How is Hamas innocent, in Ms. Klein's view, when as soon as the cease-fire ended they began sending rockets into Israel? What did they expect? Is this the action of a responsible government, or one that promotes terrorism and should be stopped, even if an extreme response is required to do so to ensure that a peace process has some chance of future success? Israel suffers in the public light because it acts through the international system (the UN etc.), despite being attacked with barbaric methods. As Hamas evades any responsibility and paints its own citizens as victims, it gains sympathy for them. I feel sympathy for them as well, but I have no delusion that the pressure that needs to be borne has been perverted in Ms. Klein's interpretation of the situation.

There are no angels in a bloodbath. But Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza do not deserve pity or sympathy for electing terrorists to do their bidding. Those terrorists have engaged in kidnapping and rocket attacks, and the argument that the scale of this war is not fair is rather hollow.

As liberals, we have picked the wrong cause in this (long-term) fight, and perhaps that is contributing to its escalation continuation.

Mark Mandel

Madison, WI

It is time that someone has articulated the only plausible reconciliation to this situation with the clarity, consistency, and economy of Klein. To address those dissenters who still refuse to believe that Israel is an occupation, let us remember that despite the need for reparations to be made to the Jewish community by the world community after the Holocaust, it was unacceptable to take away part of someone else's homeland. We must never forget the magnitude and scope of the tragedy that is the Holocaust, but it is not a justification for occupation.

Britt Bell

Queens, NY

Good idea--but how to inform consumers? I, for one don't know what products I buy and consume are from Israel. We need to know which companies do the most business with Israel to effectively boycott.

Christopher Kruger

Evanston, IL

Typical far left garbage. Where was Naomi Klein when Hezbollah sent 10,0000 katusya rockets targeted at Israeli cities? Why was she silent when Hamas sent in waves of suicide bombers to Israeli supermarkets, restaurants, schools and buses and murdered hundreds of innocent men, women, and children?

I am Jewish and I support a two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli dispute and I am supportive of Kadima, the centrist party in Israel, not Likud. I am not a devotee of greater Israel and believe that Israel must give up the West Bank and East Jerusalem in any settlement but 100 percent of all refugees from 1948 must be resettled in a Palestinian, not in an Israeli State.

What leftists like Ms. Klein do not understand is that every time Israel's adversaries showed they wanted a true peace with Israel, they received all their land back in return for a peace agreement and security guarantees for Israel. Hamas, from the day they came into power, announced they would not accept any agreements signed by Yasser Arafat or Mohammed Abbas. They also announced they were committed to the destruction of the state of Israel, no ifs, ands or buts.

Israel removed all their settlers and all their soldiers out of Gaza. In return, all the settlements that were used to produce food and medicine were destroyed by the Palestinians and used to launch more than 6,000 missles targeted indiscriminately against Israeli schools, cities, and towns.

No, the occupation has not been benign. However, when you have an enemy that is sworn to your destruction and delights in the murder of your children, you have no choice but to protect your citizens. Ms. Klein, there is evil in this world. It is Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, the rulers of North Korea and the Sudan and Iran. It is not the liberal, democratic state of Israel.

Mark Jeffery Koch

Cherry Hill, NJ

Oh, you are all so brilliant. Yes, Israel should just take down the walls, open up the borders, allow the Muslims to blend in so that they can more easily riot, kill, maim, behead, blow up any civilian man woman or child Dhimmi (please research that word and how such people are and have been treated in Muslim communities throughout history). These actions are after all respectable, religious rituals in their religion, particularly relished in doing so to Jews. Mohammed did it, so it is the ultimate service of his followers. Please do your research, start with "Khaybar."

Let's see, if Israel stops "the color-coded IDs and travel permits, the bulldozed homes and forced displacement, the settler-only roads," then surely Israeli citizens and visitors can have confidence that these people will let go of their religious beliefs and threats and live peacefully with Israel forever. They won't strap on any more suicide belts or hide them under their kids, sneaking through the checkpoints in those friendly ambulances. The roads will be safe for all. No more gunning down families, throwing rocks at cars, and blowing up animals for fun. And let's not forget the recent bulldozing incidents.

What about the forced displacement of the Jews in Arab lands? Before the State of Israel, there were 850,000 Jews in Arab lands. By the mid '80s there were less than 30,000 (see the World Organization of Jews from Arab Countries, research how they were killed/expelled). The Arabs made room for the Palestinians by killing and booting out the Jews from their lands. Common culture, common religion, they would adapt well. But no, no, that would be an insult, to let Dhimmis displace Muslims! "How dare they. Keep the Palestinians in their refugee camps, don't let them come to our oil rich countries for a better life. They must stay there as our excuse to fight the occupation." And yes, I've heard it before; it's Israel's fault for creating suicide bombers by causing the inhumane conditions of the Gazans. Give me a break! These people kill and steal from their own people.

You dabble in looking behind the corporate news stories. Why don't you look a little closer at how the PLO, Fatah and now Hamas get the big donor money and throw measly scraps to their people to make them feel oppressed and agitated, blaming their conditions on Israel, so they have a plentiful supply of hatred to fuel their human sacrifices? Why don't you appeal to these Muslim resistance groups to stop the oppression of their people, slaying them at times like dogs without any judicial review.

You're all for democracy. Palestinians overwhelmingly voted for Hamas to rule them, and now they suffer from Hamas's actions. They ironically appear to enjoy their martyrdom, despite the front they put on (see how the women perform for the cameras and how different they perform for their family videos).

Why don't you spend your charitable efforts and money from your books in helping the women and children from beatings, honor killings and female genital mutilation? Promote peaceful education of their children so that future generations can live in peace in this world. "If they would start loving their children more than they hate the Jews, there would be peace"

It's so much easier for good dhimmis like you to just tell the state of Israel to lay down their guns (and be sitting ducks/dhimmis for the fanatics of Mohammed to perform their ritual Jew-hating parties and beheadings), then to tell the Palestinians et al. to stop their death cult destructive religion.

Jana Burd

Miami, FL

Naomi Klein is quite simply a Jewish anti-Semite. Her religion is left wing liberalism and she is a secular extremist, just like bin Laden is a religious extremist. Leftists like Klein learned nothing from WWII and the Holocaust. Instead of learning that moral democracies must "fight evil," Naomi and her fellow twisted liberal leftists learned that "fighting is evil."

Had the Allies worried about all the poor dead babies in Dresden, Ms. Klein would be a lampshade today and Americans would be speaking German. Naomi's grandparents are surely turning over in their graves to see what their little ignorant grandchild is saying about one of the most moral nations in history--Israel--an army that calls civilians on cell phones, e-mails, text messages and drops flyers over areas to warn the enemy population to get away from the bombs.

Who ever heard of any other military force in history doing anything more moral?

Irwin Graulich

New York, NY

I generally consider myself a liberal. I voted for Obama, and most of my views lean to the left.

On this, though, I'm afraid I lean to the right.

Hamas could be using its resources to develop Gaza; instead it attacks Israel, and it began doing so immediately after Israel ended its occupation of Gaza.

To suggest that those living in Gaza are the victims of violence that is similar to what was going on in South Africa is to forget one simple, brutal fact: Hamas has been sending missiles into Gaza, sending suicide bombers into Gaza, and doing everything it can to fulfill one of its stated goals: the annihilation of Israel. There was nothing like this happening in South Africa.

Please be sure to print the list of companies to be boycotted; I want to know which companies I need to support.

Gary Scott

Greenville, SC

So Israel stops trying to get rid of the people who have been shooting indiscriminately at Israeli citizens from behind the schools, mosques, and hospitals of terrified civilians in Gaza. Then what should Israel do?

Surrender its borders and its citizens to intimidation and attacks? Move somewhere else? Dissolve its sovereignty, and send all the Jews, Christians, Muslims and others who live there off to other lands?

For that matter, then what should the people of Gaza do? Or the Palestinian Authority? And what leverage do you think we might have over that?

Tell me what happens after the shelling stops, Ms. Klein. It's your boycott.

Prove to me that it won't be the same pattern of broken promises we've seen over and over again. While you're at it, make me believe that the people of Gaza will be better off, too.

If it sounds like a legitimate improvement over what we have now, you might get me to agree that it's worthwhile. I'm not closed-minded. But I am cautious.

Kelli Madison

Hayward, CA

There is one significant objection to what Naomi Klein is proposing that she did not address: Israel is not the major obstacle to a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians; Hamas is.

Let's say that boycotts and sanctions and divestment worked and Israel agreed to a two-state solution and to evacuation of settlements and sharing Jerusalem. My guess is that the next day, Hamas would still be in charge of Gaza and still firing rockets at Israeli population centers.

I suspect this would be the case because, in fact, Israel's last several governments have all supported a two-state solution and the sharing of Jerusalem and even the evacuation of every settler from Gaza. And what has been the Palestinian response? The election of Hamas and the unleashing of barrages of rocket fire.

The truth is that the last time that Israel was the major obstacle to Mideast peace was in 1992 under the Likud Party and Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir. Shamir and Likud rejected even the concept of land for peace. Then-President George H.W. Bush bravely applied financial sanctions, conditioning loan guarantees on a halt to settlement activity. Israeli voters promptly got the message and elected Labor's Yitzhak Rabin, who paid with his life for negotiating the Oslo Accords and for shaking Yasser Arafat's hand on the White House lawn.

But the Oslo process fell apart for two principal reasons: Palestinian bombings of Israel civilians and Arafat's fateful decision in 2000 to walk away from the negotiating table and open a shooting war with Israel rather than finally concede that the Palestinian "right of return" is a dream that, like "Greater Israel," can never be realized.

Ongoing Israeli settlement activity is and always has been an obstacle to peace. But it is not the principal obstacle. Israeli public opinion polls continue to show what Israel proved in 2005 in Gaza--that Israel is ready, willing and able to evacuate settlements. Sadly, the Palestinians have done everything since that time to support Israeli right-wing arguments that settlement evacuations and military withdrawals are bound to backfire and make Israel less safe.

Tragically, the Palestinians have largely themselves to blame for the current round of violence.

Given this context, how can we expect Naomi Klein's boycotts, sanctions, and divestment to advance the cause of peace when they are aimed at the side that has already proven its willingness to make the painful concessions required?

Matthew Weinstein

Baltimore, MD

I am pretty outraged at what's happening in Gaza. There have been other humanitarian crisis around the world recently, such as those in Darfur and Mumbia, but this hits particularly close to home for me for several reasons:

1. My father is Palestinian. So even though I grew up living with my mom, who is Hispanic, I still consider these people being killed in Gaza my people. If most of my family (two of my father's uncles were killed) hadn't been lucky enough to have escaped (leaving their homes and businesses behind) to Kuwait in 1947, they could have been stuck in one of the refugee camps in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Jordan etc.--many of which have seen conflicts with massive Palestinian civilian casualties. Even in Kuwait, things weren't great for my family. It is a very rich country, but my family was never given citizenship there and was consistently discriminated against. Then when Iraq invaded, they had to flee again; this time to Sweden. Now several of my aunts, uncles and cousins are spread out in Europe, the Mideast and even Asia...

2. The US gives a massive amount of military and financial support to Israel. "Israel receives about $3 billion in direct foreign assistance [from the US] each year, which is roughly one-fifth of America's entire foreign aid budget." (Source: The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt). Those planes, bombs, and tanks Israel is using in Gaza are made in the USA. In many minds around the world, the US and Israel are synonymous. Many Muslims and Arabs see this as a continuation of the atrocities carried out in the Crusades. That religious war is spreading. It fuels the tension between Muslims extremists and the West more than most people here in the States realize. If the Israeli-Palestinian conflict didn't exist, I can just about guarantee you 9/11 would not have happened.

3. The Israeli government is run by some real nuts... the only time it wasn't and there was a real prospect for peace, a Zionist extremist assassinated his own prime minister (look up Yitzhak Rabin). Hamas is the first religious Palestinian organization to gain prominence. Fatah, the PLO... they were all secular. If history has taught us anything, religious wars are bad--really bad. And there is a growing danger as the world is becoming more and more religiously polarized. This war can spread. Israel, with its vastly superior military, should be the first to show restraint. Instead it's massacring people in Gaza. When other opposing religious faction gain more military power, such as Iran, will they show restraint or just follow Israel's example. Then if Iran does attack Israel, will the US get involved--who else? This conflict can easily turn into WWIIII. The US should break ties with Israel. There is no benefit to being allied with them.

4. The whole idea of a religious state like Israel is a really, really bad one. Israel should not exist--that doesn't mean Israelis should be exterminated. Instead a secular, diverse country with equal rights for all minorities should exist in the region. Yeah, I know, it's a seemly unachievable utopia, but I really don't see peace coming any other way. Unfortunately, each death in the conflict only deepens the culture of vendetta and it becomes increasingly difficult for either group to ever forgive the other. South Africa is a good example of how peace can be achieved after decades of atrocities. The US should be boycotting and sanctioning an entity like Israel instead of supplying it with weapons.

I don't usually write about this topic, because many American do blindly support Israel and are quick to label me as anti-Semitic for not doing the same. But I have to argue that some of the voices I most agree with come from Israel itself. Obviously, these people aren't anti-Semitic because they are Jewish themselves and they understand the events happening in the region better than any of us here in the States because they are living them.

For example, I've been reading a blog titled The Magnes Zionist, which is penned by an orthodox Jewish studies professor who divides his time between Israel and the US under the nom de plume Jeremiah Haber. His views are fairly well aligned with my own.

I am also eagerly anticipating the wide release of an Israeli movie titled A Waltz with Bashir. It is about an Israeli soldier's lost memories of the senseless violence he experienced during the 1982 Lebanon. During the war an estimated 3,000 Palestinians were massacred in refugee camps, after most of the Palestinian combat fighters had been evacuated to Tunisia per a treaty signed between Israel and Lebanon.

Matthew Falkenberg

Atlanta, GA

Ms. Klein certainly has a skewed view of Israel. Perhaps she does not know that the State of Israel was created as a Jewish state. The reasons for it were and are quite clear. I know that it is easy now to dismiss the Holocaust and the slaughter of 6 million. I know that it is easy to forget the constant pogroms against Jews in many countries throughout the world. Perhaps many also forget that the Arab nations were complicit with Hitler. I know that it is now easy to dismiss and forget the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and foregt about the alliance with Germany against the USA, Great Britain, etc. Many of us, however, do not forget.

In 1948, the world finally understood that Jews required a safe haven. As Jews had been persecuted and accused of all kinds of heinous acts (including the blood libels and the Protocols of Zion--still read and published in Arab countries), Jews required a place of their own. So, no, Israel is not South Africa--it was created by the world community. Please stop with the apartheid nonsense. It does no good and it helps no one.

Perhaps you might ask Hamas wheteher a Jew--or a Christian, for that matter--could live in peace in Gaza or in the portions of the West Bank controlled by the Palestinian authority. May a Jew live as an equal citizen in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya? Or live at all in any of those places? Where is your question of apartheid with respect to those countries and territories?

Have you ever read the Hamas Convenant? I suggest that you do and maybe you will note that you call for the boycott of the wrong party to the conflict. Please, do yourself a real objective favor and read it. You may find it illuminating or you may continue your strange belief that Israel should simply stand by and take rocket barrages that destroy schools and other portions of civilian areas that you choose to ignore.

I feel sorry for someone who fails to understand that a sovereign nation owes its citizenry protection from attack. If rockets were raining down on you and your town, do you think that you should just sit there and hope that the rocket attacks stop? Hope that an organization that seeks your complete elimination will come to an understanding, by itself, as it sends rockets in that maybe we should talk peace and compromise with Jews? I think that is a standard that no nation should be held to.

When you find a partner for peace with Israel, please let us know. Israel will be only too happy to live in peace and security. As you know, Israelis would much prefer to spend their time benefitting the world--not in war. So, get your Hamas and Hezbollahs to come to the peace table--then you will have made a real contribution to the humanitarian and peace process. Until you can convince them to cease their desire to destroy Israel, there will be no peace. See what happens if you put the pressure for peace where it really belongs, on Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Syria, and if you can convince them to allow Israel to live in peace and security, see how fast the humanitarian situation will be solved. I am surprised that supposedly intelligent people cannot see that.

Leonard S. Miller

Fair Lawn, NJ

Bingo! Why has it taken so long for someone to articulate exactly what is needed? I have been recommending international sanctions against Israel for some time, but my comments are constantly censored because Israel and its supporters (i.e., the American media) do indeed value world opinion.

As an ex-South African, I would say BDS worked there brilliantly. This genocide was rehearsed and trained for during the past eighteen months, and is being used for political purposes to generate votes for the Israeli elections. The United States and Israel are the only countries in the world I know of to wage wars so as to influence political elections. Israel wants the world to consider it as the victim, just as the Holocaust industry was used to be exploited for monetary and political gain.The Jewish Solution for the Nazis has morphed into the Palestinian Solution for the Israelis.

Israel values its PR image throughout the world. That's why the animated propaganda film Waltz With Bashir was made outrageously to coincide with the current Palestinian genocide, to whitewash the conviction of Sharon in the World Court and gain sympathy for Israel. What are we, fools?

The apartheid segregation in the West Bank and Gaza is far worse and far more brutal than that practiced by the Afrikaner government. Israel needs to be isolated and treated as the pariah it is. No travel, no trade, even ignoring Israeli citizens. It worked in South Africa without a drop of blood being shed, and it can work with Israel.

The US won't like it, but it doesn't value human life, just as Israel does not. You saw that in Iraq. Ditto for the Armenian holocaust. The US has become persona non grata anyway, and its irrelevance in the world will only be enhanced by its continued support for these purveyors of genocide and holocaust.

stanley hersh

New York, NY

Certainly these activities can have some effect, but historically, Israel has relied on the use of force to obtain its foreign policy goals, and as a country, it has to realize that force alone is not enough. It is possible that Hamas and Hezbollah may teach them that lesson. The IDF may have the firepower to win a tactical "victory," but it does not have the numbers to hold the ground. The rockets will fly again, and the only way to stop them is through diplomacy.

Pervis James Casey

Riverside, CA