What Mr. Chomsky is saying sounds interesting, especially when it comes to a full all-out boycott. Boycotting the good would hard the movement. But his perspective is misleading & frankly downright insuling at times. It's a chicken & egg situation: Does the Palestinian liberation movement need to gain a certain level of maturity/momentum/acceptance through education/awareness before before BDS can be applied or does the application of BDS actually raise the awareness and education level for the public to understand and act against oppression. I disagree with him that this is a "feel-good" movement-- quite frankly that is insulting. BDS has been growing consistently year after year and it is a natural extension of a movement that exists for decades. The comparative analysis with South Africa is based on an incorrect assumption. US/Western foreign policies in Africa were not "owned" by White African interests. The Israeli lobby, which Chomsky has exposed in several of his own books, literally dictates what the US should and should not do with the Palestinians. In addition, everyone knows that if the US did not head the call for boycott against SA, there would be have been a massive back lash by the African American community, especially post-civil rights area. Anyway we Palestinians and Arabs, Muslims and Christians, just can't be compared to the African-American experience. But does that mean that we need to reach that same kind of influence to call for BDS? I surely don't think so. People are being randomly killed, incarcerated, blockaded and kicked out from their homes. It is insulting that Chomsky fails to realize that 64 years of Palestinian activism has led us to call for BDS. And it has been succeeding. If you consider that apartheid lasted from 1948 to 1994, then a movement without BDS, which is a non-violent, completely legal, and efficient way to hold Israel accountable for crimes against humanity, would ultimately lead us to no where. So why not BDS?

I believe that Professor Chomsky has failed to realize that Academic Boycotts have an impact on Academics. They are compelled to ask "do I or do I not support this". In so doing they often learn why the boycott is demanded. He also ignores the role that Israel's academic play in trying the re-legitimize Israel by going to Universities and propagandizing for Israel. As a Academic, I support selective boycotts of Israeli academics, who fail to fight for Palestinian rights. That, of course, does not apply to those Academics who doe fight for Palestinian rights.

Tactics have always been agreed/disagreed upon. I think Chomsky has reserved the right to given an opinion and be attacked based upon it. Lib zionists slogans are unhelpful and uncalled for though. Students here in Gaza berated him on his positions about the one/two state solution, and he ultimately did tell them "this is up to Palestinians," and "I'm only voicing my opinion." Much respect to the man for breaking the siege on Gaza. Believe me, its no easy task.

With friends like Chomsky, who needs enemy.
Ever since entering Palestine, Zionist have committed genocide against Palestinian Arabs.
BDS is a weapon in our non-violent arsenal.
We are not Barbarians.
One way to kill a rat, is to starve it.

Here is a useful link to the Alternative Information Center’s 64-page 2009 booklet on the Complicity of Israeli Academic Institutions in the Occupied Territories:

http://usacbi.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/economy_of_the_occupation_23-24.pdf

On page 40-41, (number 23) they list reasons (with documentation) to boycott Tel-Aviv University:

1. T-A U takes pride in having conducted 55 research projects with the Israeli army.
2. T-A U hosts a convention about weapons’ development for the Israeli army.
3. T-A U hosts a convention, part of which directly deals with weapons’ development for the Israeli army.
4. T-A U is a sponsor of the Psagot academic reserve program.
5. T-A U is located on the destroyed Palestinian village of Sheikh Muwanis, whose residents have been deported, and has never recognized this fact.
6. T-A U appointed a military colonel whose military past includes overseeing and approving military attacks on civilians during the 2008 Gaza attacks, to a lecturer on international law.

The Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel is not directed at individual Israeli scholars but is directed at institutions. Please read UCLA history professor Robin D. G. Kelley’s Mondoweiss interview on the necessity of academic boycott. He is a board member of the U.S. Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (USACBI).

http://mondoweiss.net/2012/02/a-level-of-racist-violence-i-have-never-seen-ucla-professor-robin-d-g-kelley-on-palestine-and-the-bds-movement.html

... "Joe C" who comments above is a different one than me. We are legion, and my own opinions are a little more nuanced.

Based on Dr. Chomsky's past statements on BDS and Palestine in general (not to mention other international human-rights issues), I hope supporters of Palestine will soon determine that he's no longer a credible ally. We should also remember that the call for academic boycott has come from Palestinian civil society itself, and (as HHM's comments above indicate) to oppose the boycott of Israeli academic institutions is to actively support an arm of the occupation.

Dr. Chomsky's decades-long criticism of Zionism's denial of justice or honesty in dealing with a subjugated, defenseless Palestinian population cleansed from its' own lands remains a legend. All the more surprising, therefore, is the convoluted, unconvincing, rationalization which he offers in opposition to academic and cultural institutions in Israel. Or is it surprising? Consider the abject apology of the author of The Goldstone Report and his public retraction for having stated that the Israeli Army planned the immoral, illegal, war-crime of genocide against the Palestinian citizens of Gaza ( where 361 children under the age of 13 were barbecued with American-made phosphorous bombs). Consider the Israeli historian, Benny Morris, who sanatized his classic documentary history of Zionist aggression in the founding of Israel, to reflect an innocent version of the crimes which traumatized the indigenous Palestinian population. Yes. This is the same Benny Morris who recently stated that "there are historical precedents which justify ethnic cleansing". Finally, consider, Norman Finkelstein. His international best-seller, The Holocaust Industry, resulted in his dismissal from his professorship from at DePaul University in Chicago - following pressure from the Anti-Defamation League. Since his dismissal in 2010, Norman Finkelstein's criticism of Zionist policies and practices have undergone a transformation. They now sound like gentle critiques or outright excuses or rationalizations for Israel's activities which impinge on the rights and welfare of Palestinians throughout the region. The question then becomes: What is the meaning of the obvious change of heart and mind in the foregoing four examples of principled critics of a reviled regime, noted for its' mockery for any definition of justice that does not conform to its' own tribal agenda? Answers?

We had a lively discussion between ODS supporters regrading Chomsky's position in this interview. For most of us his declaration of support for ODS seemed like thin smoke screen for his declared support of Israel. The acid test is the position from the Right of Return of Palestinian refugees to all the area where they expelled from. For reading the 5-page hot and refreshing arguments between us - you may enter the FREE HAIFA post at:
http://freehaifa.wordpress.com...