[Pen-l] Robert Pollin's disgusting reply to Naomi Klein's call for a boycott/divestment campaign

[Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx>]

A letter in the Jan. 20 Nation Magazine:

Amherst, Mass.

I strongly oppose Naomi Klein's proposal to begin boycotts and 
divestment initiatives against Israel, similar to the approach used 
against South Africa in the apartheid era ["Lookout," Jan. 26]. Klein 
anticipates four objections to her proposal and offers responses. But 
her list ignores the most important and obvious objection: it is 
entirely one-sided both in blaming Israel for the horrible cycle of 
violence in the region and in meting out punishment.

I agree entirely that the Israeli occupation is brutal. But Hamas is 
also brutal. To date, the only thing preventing Hamas from being less 
lethal than Israel in the damage it inflicts is its limited resources. 
Hamas is deliberately firing rockets into Israel with the aim of killing 
and terrorizing civilians. Should Iran, for example, succeed in 
supplying Hamas with more effective weapons, Hamas will become more 
successful in killing and terrorizing Israeli citizens. Rockets are 
beginning to land only twenty miles south of Tel Aviv.

The toll on Palestinian civilians of the current Israeli attack on Gaza 
is horrible. But let's also recognize that Hamas is deliberately using 
civilians as human shields. The bomb that hit the home of Hamas leader 
Nazar Rayyan in Jabaliya tragically killed his wives and children as 
well as himself. Why was Rayyan exposing his family to such danger?

I agree with Klein that economic levers probably have the best chance of 
dramatically shifting the status quo (even while, given the history and 
emotions involved, economic initiatives could never offer a sufficient 
solution on their own). But instead of a one-sided boycott to punish 
Israel, why not pursue a positive agenda of economic development that 
would benefit both sides? Consider, for example, a development aid 
package on the order of $10 billion, spread over two to four years, with 
funds supplied on an equitable basis from the United States, the 
European Union and the Arab oil-exporting countries. This amount would 
be enough to: (1) undertake a massive infrastructure investment and job 
creation program in Gaza and the West Bank to help create an 
economically viable Palestinian state; and (2) comfortably resettle the 
roughly half-million Israelis now living in the occupied West Bank and 
East Jerusalem and turn over these communities and homes to 
Palestinians. This second initiative would entail a large-scale 
home-building, community infrastructure and job-creation program in 
Israel, perhaps concentrated in the less well-developed northern and 
southern regions.

The amount of money I'm suggesting seems large, of course. But $10 
billion is only about 7 percent of what the United States spent in Iraq 
in 2007 and 5 percent of Saudi Arabia's $194 billion in oil revenues in 
2008. In short, the amount is modest in comparison with the 
opportunities it will create to contribute to an equitable and lasting 
peace in the region.

ROBERT POLLIN, co-director,
Political Economy Research Institute
University of Massachusetts
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l