What BDS really wants: A one-state solution, minus the Jewish state

[oberliner]

The boycott, divestment and sanctions movement has consistently demonized Israelis and Diaspora Jews, irrespective of their widely varied views on resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Last month, a prominent Australian BDS advocate, Associate Professor Jake Lynch from the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Sydney was publicly accused of anti-Semitism. Lynch had waved banknotes in the face of (and threatened to sue) an elderly Jewish woman who had thrown water in his face from a drink bottle, following an aggressive disruption by pro-Palestinian activists of a talk at the university by a retired British army colonel and pro-Israel speaker, Richard Kemp. Lynch was cleared of allegations of anti-Semitism this week, but is still being investigated by the university for possible breaches of its behavioural code of conduct.

Lynch's actions at this event were consistent with a long pattern of discriminatory, McCarthyist behaviour directed at Israeli Jews and left-wing Jewish supporters of Israel’s right to exist.

In early 2013, Lynch chose to boycott the visiting Israeli academic Dan Avnon, a Hebrew University political scientist renowned as the only Israeli scholar to draft national civics curriculums aimed jointly at both Jewish and Arab children. His work has often been attacked by hardline Israeli nationalists. Despite the fact that Avnon is involved in combatting intolerance and promoting peace and conflict resolution, Lynch refused contact on the grounds that Avnon is affiliated with an Israeli university.

http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.654282?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

For those interested in reading the book:

Boycotting Israel is Wrong: The Progressive Path to Peace Between Palestinians and Israelis

http://www.amazon.com/Boycotting-Israel-Wrong-Progressive-Palestinians/dp/1742234143

[King_David]

1. You're about to get a flurry of posts linking to one particular BDS website

Proving that "BDS supports 2 states" because of omission of it supporting a single state and don't you know American "armchair militants for Palestine" actually know better than real Palestinian leaders what the goals of BDS are.

[Israeli]

2. In reply to : " Boycotting Israel is Wrong:".....

The Progressive Path to Peace Between Palestinians and Israelis

http://www.amazon.com/Boycotting-Israel-Wrong-Progressive-Palestinians/dp/1742234143

I give you why boycotting Israel is the only way left to those of us that wish to see an end to the injustices of the occupation .....by The Post-zionist Path to Peace Between Palestinians and Israelis

Notice the date BTW oberliner.

The Israeli patriot’s final refuge: boycott

With Israel entering into another round of diplomatic inaction, the call for an economic boycott has become a patriotic requirement.

By Gideon Levy | Jul. 14, 2013

Anyone who really fears for the future of the country needs to be in favor at this point of boycotting it economically.

A contradiction in terms? We have considered the alternatives. A boycott is the least of all evils, and it could produce historic benefits. It is the least violent of the options and the one least likely to result in bloodshed. It would be painful like the others, but the others would be worse.

On the assumption that the current status quo cannot continue forever, it is the most reasonable option to convince Israel to change. Its effectiveness has already been proven. More and more Israelis have become concerned recently about the threat of the boycott. When Justice Minister Tzipi Livni warns about it spreading and calls as a result for the diplomatic deadlock to be broken, she provides proof of the need for a boycott. She and others are therefore joining the boycott, divestment and sanction movement. Welcome to the club.

The change won’t come from within. That has been clear for a long time. As long as Israelis don’t pay a price for the occupation, or at least don’t make the connection between cause and effect, they have no incentive to bring it to an end. And why should the average resident of Tel Aviv be bothered by what is happening in the West Bank city of Jenin or Rafah in the Gaza Strip? Those places are far away and not particularly interesting. As long as the arrogance and self-victimization continue among the Chosen People, the most chosen in the world, always the only victim, the world’s explicit stance won’t change a thing.

It’s anti-Semitism, we say. The whole world’s against us and we are not the ones responsible for its attitude toward us. And besides that, despite everything, the English singer Cliff Richard came to perform here. Most Israeli public opinion is divorced from reality ? the reality in the territories and abroad. And there are those who are seeing to it that this dangerous disconnect is maintained. Along with the dehumanization and demonization of the Palestinians and the Arabs, people here are too brainwashed with nationalism to come to their senses.

Change will only come from the outside. No one ? this writer included, of course ? wants another cycle of bloodshed. A non-violent popular Palestinian uprising is one option, but it is doubtful that will happen anytime soon. And then there’s American diplomatic pressure and the European economic boycott. But the United States won’t apply pressure. If the Obama administration hasn’t done it, no American administration will. And then there’s Europe. Justice Minister Livni said that the discourse in Europe has become ideological. She knows what she’s talking about. She also said that a European boycott would not stop at products made in West Bank settlements.

There’s no reason it should. The distinction between products from the occupation and Israeli products is an artificial creation. It’s not the settlers who are the primary culprits but rather those who cultivate their existence. All of Israel is immersed in the settlement enterprise, so all of Israel must take responsibility for it and pay the price for it. There is no one unaffected by the occupation, including those who fancy looking the other way and steering clear of it. We are all settlers.

Economic boycott was proven effective in South Africa. When the apartheid regime’s business community approached the country’s leadership saying that the prevailing circumstances could not continue, the die was cast. The uprising, the stature of leaders like Nelson Mandela and Frederik de Klerk, the boycott of South African sports and the country’s diplomatic isolation also contributed of course to the fall of the odious regime. But the tone was set by the business community.

And it can happen here too. Israel’s economy will not withstand a boycott. It is true that at the beginning it will enhance the sense of victimhood, isolationism and nationalism, but not in the long run. It could result in a major change in attitude. When the business community approaches the government, the government will listen and also perhaps act. When the damage is to every citizen’s pocketbook, more Israelis will ask themselves, maybe for the first time, what it’s all about and why it’s happening.

It’s difficult and painful, almost impossibly so, for an Israeli who has lived his whole life here, who has not boycotted it, who has never considered emigrating and feels connected to this country with all his being, to call for such a boycott. I have never done so. I have understood what motivated the boycott and was able to provide justification for such motives. But I never preached for others to take such a step. However, with Israel getting itself into another round of deep stalemate, both diplomatic and ideological, the call for a boycott is required as the last refuge of a patriot.

Source: http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.535596

[oberliner]

3. Gideon Levy keeps on keeping on

He has been writing the same article over and over for going on a decade now. Probably longer.

The idea that he speaks on behalf of Israeli patriots is mildly amusing.

Curious to know if you've read the book that I linked to.

[Israeli]

4. Why is it " mildly amusing " oberliner ?

You consider yourself more an Israeli patriot than he is ?



He is an Israeli sabra oberliner......and you are ??????????????????

No American ....I have not read the book that you linked to .

[oberliner]

5. Because he is usually critical of Israeli nationalism

Have you never read any of his articles before?

He himself has (proudly) admitted to being frequently called “the most hated man in Israel”

You must certainly be aware of his anti-nationalistic statements and writings over the years.

That’s why I found it amusing (mildly).

[Israeli]

6. oberliner.....

Gideon Levy says it as it is .....and that is why he is “the most hated man in Israel” .

Just as Shulamit Aloni said it as it was ....and why she was the most hated woman in Israel .

Something in his article you wish to discuss ...like :............

The change won’t come from within. That has been clear for a long time. As long as Israelis don’t pay a price for the occupation, or at least don’t make the connection between cause and effect, they have no incentive to bring it to an end. And why should the average resident of Tel Aviv be bothered by what is happening in the West Bank city of Jenin or Rafah in the Gaza Strip? Those places are far away and not particularly interesting. As long as the arrogance and self-victimization continue among the Chosen People, the most chosen in the world, always the only victim, the world’s explicit stance won’t change a thing.

It’s anti-Semitism, we say. The whole world’s against us and we are not the ones responsible for its attitude toward us. And besides that, despite everything, the English singer Cliff Richard came to perform here. Most Israeli public opinion is divorced from reality ? the reality in the territories and abroad. And there are those who are seeing to it that this dangerous disconnect is maintained. Along with the dehumanization and demonization of the Palestinians and the Arabs, people here are too brainwashed with nationalism to come to their senses.

.....or do you want to continue attacking the messenger and not the message ???

Do you believe the change will come from within ??

From where oberliner ??.......as y'all keep reminding us ...we are the minority ...nobody cares what the Israeli Left has to say anymore .

So from where oberliner ????

His argument is that change will only come from the outside.

Argue that .

[oberliner]

11. I attack the message, not the messenger

I do not support a boycott of Israel.

I find it amusing that Gideon Levy thinks it is the only patriotic thing to do.

There is no attack on anyone.

My position is that talking to one another will do a lot more good than refusing to talk to one another.

I understand that you think this is some kind of radical position, but I would argue that it is a pretty mainstream view.

[King_David]

7. What's wrong with that?

In this group we have so many wannabe Palestinians that are far more nationalistic than any real Palestinian.

We have in this group an Irish American that considers himself not only Palestinian but actually takes offense at Israeli Arabs being called Arabs because he's so much more Palestinian than any real Palestinian citizen .

So what's your objection again?

LOL

[shira]

9. The vast majority of Israelis are more an Israeli patriot than Gideon Levy.

They believe he's an idiotic, hateful, hypocrite.

[azurnoir]

10. you mean the one by the 2 Australians that also authored your OP?

the ones you give more credit than an Israeli author ?

[oberliner]

12. Yes

One can be Israeli and be misguided about what it means to be a patriot.

Look at their Prime Minister, for example.

[azurnoir]

15. Israel's PM is against BDS too I hear, isn't he?

[shira]

21. Yep, along with somewhere between 95-99% of all Jews worldwide. n/t

[azurnoir]

8. But wait a minute the Australian guy who wrote this article knows much better than the Israeli guy

Last edited Thu Apr 30, 2015, 05:43 PM - Edit history (1)

who wrote what you posted

[Israeli]

14. Gideon is all about ...

...ending the occupation azurnoir.

...these Australian guys I know nothing about .

..didnt get an answer did I ....so do you think change will come from within ???

[azurnoir]

16. Same here I am quite familiar with Gideon Levy

not to mention his usual detractors here but these 2 Australians not so much

[shira]

22. Most Jews want the occupation to end, but Gideon Levy wants the BDS 1-state solution...

I don't think Rabin would've ever gone that far, do you?

[guillaumeb]

24. when you wrote: "most Jews want the occupation to end"

are you talking a majority of Jews in Israel, or a majority of Jews worldwide?

If the former, why then do they vote for politicians who intensify the occupation? Why are these supposedly occupation averse Jews not protesting against the occupation? Or is this a silent, internal protest?

Netanyahu has made it clear by his statements that his vision of Israel includes most of what was Palestine pre-1948. It is also clear from his statements that his vision is of a Palestinian free homeland. The world can only judge Israel by its actions, not by diplomatic statements spoken merely to provide political cover.

[shira]

26. I mean both, majority in Israel and worldwide...

Poll: Most rightist Israelis would support Palestinian state, dividing Jerusalem
http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/poll-most-rightist-israelis-would-support-palestinian-state-dividing-jerusalem.premium-1.490926

American Jews Overwhelmingly Back Two-State Solution
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-elsner/american-jews-overwhelmin_b_6107430.html

If the former, why then do they vote for politicians who intensify the occupation? Why are these supposedly occupation averse Jews not protesting against the occupation? Or is this a silent, internal protest?

It's not that they're pro-occupation. Security come first. No one wants more death and destruction. As much as they want the occupation to end, they will not support an end if it results in Lebanon (after 2000) or Gaza (after 2005). When Israel ends occupation w/o peace, wars break out, more death, more destruction. Ending occupation in the W.Bank is far more riskier than ending it in Gaza and Lebanon. It puts Iran (through its proxies like Hamas) just feet away from civilian doorsteps.

Netanyahu has made it clear by his statements that his vision of Israel includes most of what was Palestine pre-1948. It is also clear from his statements that his vision is of a Palestinian free homeland. The world can only judge Israel by its actions, not by diplomatic statements spoken merely to provide political cover.

Bibi knows he can never go that far. He'd be out of office in a hurry.

[guillaumeb]

27. Then what is to be done?

1) The occupation is unsustainable in the long term. It creates enemies with every humiliation visited upon Palestinians by the occupying Israeli troops. Every house destroyed, every orchard uprooted, presents more obstacles to peace.

2) The act of occupying is brutalizing the Israeli people.

3) The occupation is causing Israel to be seen as a pariah by other nations. The Israeli/Palestinian situation is analogous to the China/Tibet situation. Not good company to be in.

4) The occupation is economically unsustainable.

Finally, my animus is directed against the Israeli government. It is the government that is making the decisions, but individual Israelis have a moral obligation to resist also. The Nuremberg Trials established the principle that "following orders" is not a defense in war or peace. Individual Israeli civilians and soldiers have an obligation to NOT violate the law.

[shira]

28. What can be done if the Palestinians keep saying no to everything?

In 2010, Abbas rejected 60% of the W.Bank to get negotiations started...
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3879974,00.html

What's funny is that I've found ALL the so-called "anti" occupation (Israel Sucks Brigade) agree with Abbas, as they are all against this. Against having 60% of the occupation ended, with more negotiations to follow.

[guillaumeb]

29. Negotiations started after the 1967 War

and have been going in intermittently ever since. Perhaps the negotiations should be called "The Hundred Year Negotiations". But to call them negotiations is to fall for the Israeli propaganda because negotiations imply a willingness to withdraw from ALL the stolen territory. And the Israeli government is not willing to do so.

[oberliner]

31. Everything that you've written here is incorrect

Negotiations did not start after the 1967 War.

The Israeli government has withdrawn from territory since that time.

Israel tried to return territory to Jordan and Egypt but they didn't want it back.

[guillaumeb]

32. At the rate that the Israelis are returning some of the stolen land,

it will be millennia before all of the stolen land is returned.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

30. Jews or Israelis, shira?

[Little Tich]

13. Some dirt on Nick Dyrenfurth and Philip Mendes (from 2010)

Overland and bias: a response to some critics

Source: Overland Literary Journal, May 3, 2010

A few days ago, we received a letter (published below) signed by six Australian academics: Professor Bernard Rechter, Professor Douglas Kirsner, Professor Andrew Markus, Dr Bill Anderson, Dr Nick Dyrenfurth and Associate Professor Philip Mendes. They were, they said, collectively writing to the board of Overland and to its patron, Barry Jones, about ‘recent editorial bias on Israel/Palestine’.

We cannot speak for the OL Society. But editorial decisions are the responsibility of the editorial staff. We make the allegations against us public, partly because they are too serious for closed-door insinuations, and partly because, by seeking to exert organisational pressure on editorial policy, the letter illustrates, in a small way, the obstacles to debating Israel/Palestine in this country.

Let us begin with the obvious point that accusing an overtly political journal of ‘bias’ makes no sense whatsoever. When Overland launched in 1954, it proclaimed its ‘bias’ (literally) with a famous phrase borrowed from Joseph Furphy. That slogan was meant to signal that the journal gave a voice to the Left, just as Overland does today.

But we suspect that by employing words like ‘bias’, ‘prejudic[e]’, ‘demonise’, Mendes and co. intend to imply something rather darker – that the Overland editorial team is anti-Semitic. If that is what they mean, they should come out and say so. For the record, any allegation that Overland publishes, accepts or otherwise endorses anti-Semitism or any other form of racial discrimination is utterly scurrilous, and we reject it entirely.

In relation to our coverage of Israel/Palestine – which consists, it might be noted, of a debate over three years between four Jewish writers, some of whom uphold a two-state solution and some of whom do not – Mendes and co. write:

We can all agree that the Australian Left has no consensus on this issue. Nevertheless, it is fair to say that a wide majority on the Left today support a two-state solution which encapsulates recognition of both Israeli and Palestinian national rights. It is also fair to say that those fundamentalists who advocate the elimination of Israel and its replacement by an Arab State of Greater Palestine represent a small, if sometimes vocal, minority.

Yet it is precisely these marginal views, which demonize Israel and infantilize the Palestinians, that seem to have captured Overland’s agenda in recent years. We note, for example, the three recent articles that appeared in issues 187 by Ned Curthoys, 193 by Antony Loewenstein, and 198 by Michael Brull. […] Our principle [sic] question is why Overland has chosen to highlight these vexatious voices who contribute only fanatical polemics and represent nobody in either the Jewish community or the Left, and chosen to ignore or actively censor the large group of Jewish (and broader Left) voices who are able to present serious contributions on the complexity of the conflict. (emphasis theirs)

Read more: http://overland.org.au/2010/05/overland-and-bias-a-response-to-some-critics/



From the letter referenced to at the link:

(cherrypick 4th paragraph, snip)
Equally there appears to be a concern to promote miniscule groups such as the Committee to Dismantle Zionism and the Independent Australian Jewish Voices group as in some way representing a significant Jewish dissenting voice. This is a complete nonsense. In fact, they represent a tiny minority even within the wider Jewish Left, and their simplistic viewpoints are overwhelmingly rejected by progressive Jews. Highlighting their views means implicitly excluding the perspectives of 99 per cent of Australian Jews from your journal.
(end snip)

[Little Tich]

17. In a way Lynch could be partially right, as the creation of Ariel University means

that all Israeli universities are part of the settlement project, and therefore deeply involved in illegal and immoral practices.

However, while this is completely Israel’s fault, I think that just BDSing settlements and universities connected to the settlements without exception is unfair. I think an exception should be made for Dan Avnon.

[shaayecanaan]

18. Professor Lynch was cleared of anti-semitism

Sydney University held that threatening to sue someone or to cause them to lose money is not inherently anti-Semitic. Obviously if it were so then it would be anti-semitic to sue anyone who happened to be Jewish.

The university also accepted that Lynch had no idea of the identity of the person who allegedly assaulted him (he says that Barkas kneed him in the groin, she denies it), and would not have known whether she was Jewish or not in the first place, which seems reasonable.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/academic-jake-lynch-cleared-of-antisemitism-in-ugly-stoush-at-sydney-university-20150426-1mtdk1.html

As it happens, Lynch was sued by Shurat Hadin for his pro-BDS views. It even got to the High Court of Australia. Most of the case was thrown out at the interlocutory stage and eventually Shurat Hadin agreed to discontinue and to pay Lynch's costs.

But of course, should someone like Lynch even threaten to sue someone, its anti-semitic.

http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/asa-winstanley/academic-boycott-israel-now-fireproof-australian-court-challenge-fails

[Israeli]

19. " eventually Shurat Hadin agreed to discontinue and to pay Lynch's costs. ".....

Shurat Hadin would lynch Gideon Levy and every member of Gush Shalom if they could .

There is no occupation shaayecanaan......dont you get it ???

You cannot boycott something that does not exist !!!!

This land is our land .....its the promised land ....by our god not yours ...so fuck off already ...or ....!!!!!


Or ...we could try living together.....:

....but that makes us Left wing traitors and Arab lovers .....which brings us back to Shurat Hadin .....and the occupation which does not exist ....and to BDS .

So what do you think shaayecanaan ?

Do you believe the change will come from within ??

Or do you think Shurat Hadin who lost to the High Court of Australia.....will win when it comes to those of us that dares stand against them over here .......cos I dont .

Thats why BDS is necessary .....

I give you Ilan Pappe from 2012 :

https://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/ilan-pappe-boycott-work-israeli-perspective/

[oberliner]

20. Asa Winstanley, Electronic Intifada

He loves throwing the "anti-semitic" thing around.

Here's how it works:

Anytime anyone speaks out against Israel they are labelled anti-semitic!

<someone says something anti-semitic and is called out for it>

See, I told you!

He tries to create a chilling effect on anyone who dares point out obvious anti-semitism because if they do - it just proves his thesis.

It provides cover for actual anti-semites to do their thing.

[shira]

23. Obie, let's be antisemitic according to that idiotic reasoning.....

I think all illegal settlement outposts have to go. Israel's courts have ruled the same. So it needs to be done, no questions asked. Israel hasn't done that and who knows when they will...

Now that I've criticized Israel, I'm antisemitic.

Winstanley said so!

[shaayecanaan]

25. Unfortunately, your hasbarado compatriots are largely to blame for that

he wouldn't have material to work with if there weren't so many spurious allegations of anti-semitism being made to begin with. Even just referring to the allegations one sees on this forum (Pink Floyd putting the star of david on their inflatable pig, or yellow stickers on West Bank produce) many of them are highly dubious if not outright laughable.

In this case, the statement alleged to be anti-semitic was as follows:-

"I am going to sue you. You are going to lose a lot of money" (waves $5 note)

This is far from obvious anti-semitism. I would say that reading it in its very worst light it is perhaps very, very faintly reminiscent of anti-semitism.

Frankly, if the person who made that statement was anyone other than Jake Lynch, I doubt that it would have gone anywhere, and that is sort of the point. This seems to me to be more of an effort to take Jake Lynch down than any substantive concern about the remark itself.