Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

King_David

(14,851 posts)
Tue Apr 2, 2013, 08:53 AM Apr 2013

Opinion: BDS — a new name for an old tactic

Opinion: BDS — a new name for an old tactic

Boycotts of Israeli goods do not cure injustice

By Rachel Bandler
STAFF COLUMNIST

March 15, 2013

On Apr. 1 1933, the Nazi regime implemented a nationwide boycott of Jewish businesses in Germany. Hitler’s Sturmabteilung storm troopers stood outside Jewish shops to prevent customers from entering, and vandals painted Jewish stars across doorways with slogans like “Germans! Defend yourselves! Do not buy from Jews” and “Go to Palestine!” This phenomenon quickly spread to other countries, with boycotts against Jews occurring in Poland and Hungary in 1935 and 1938, respectively.

Unfortunately boycotts targeting Jews, are not a unique product of the Nazi regime. On Aug. 22 1922, the 5th Arab Congress met in Nabulus and passed the following resolutions: no land sales to Jews, no Jewish immigration, and the boycott of Jewish goods to oppose a national Jewish homeland.

In 1945 the Arab League, an organization comprised of 23 Middle Eastern and African countries, also began a boycott of Jewish goods in the British Mandate territory of Palestine. After Israel’s independence in 1948, the Arab League boycott was formalized against Israel and widened to include three levels, which are still in effect today. The first prohibits the importation of Israeli goods and services, the second prohibits individuals from engaging in business with any entity that does business with Israel, and the third prohibits doing business with a company that has dealings with countries on the Arab League blacklist for their good relations with Israel, such as the United States.

http://tech.mit.edu/V133/N12/bandler.html

182 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Opinion: BDS — a new name for an old tactic (Original Post) King_David Apr 2013 OP
Old Tactic. Same old goal. aranthus Apr 2013 #1
BDS is anti-Jewish or antisemitic in the exact same manner that the BDS campaign against S Africa azurnoir Apr 2013 #2
Where the author is coming from, politically speaking. Yea, she's all about peace, uh, piece that is Jefferson23 Apr 2013 #3
I thought the equation of BDS to Nazism azurnoir Apr 2013 #8
Nutty hardliner, she has no problem ignoring the law..what else is new? n/t Jefferson23 Apr 2013 #28
Well, we're all Nazis really, under the skin, anybody that disagrees ... bemildred Apr 2013 #29
heh ya got me azurnoir Apr 2013 #32
Yep, me too. I don't doubt it for a minute. nt bemildred Apr 2013 #39
First to shout "Nazi!" loses the debate. The anti-BDS crowd never wrapped their heads around that. leveymg Apr 2013 #103
Bull. aranthus Apr 2013 #6
No it has not been "demonstrated to me " in fact the opposite azurnoir Apr 2013 #7
Of course it has. aranthus Apr 2013 #9
what has been demonstrated to me is that 'ProIsrael' posters here fear nonviolent resistance azurnoir Apr 2013 #10
You're denying. aranthus Apr 2013 #12
that depends does Israel have the right to maintain its Jewish character? azurnoir Apr 2013 #13
You are buying into a falsehood. aranthus Apr 2013 #18
lol switching goalposts okay I'll play azurnoir Apr 2013 #19
So your answer is no. aranthus Apr 2013 #25
except in the case of Israel over 1,000,00 of those 'different' people are citizens azurnoir Apr 2013 #33
I wholeheartedly agree shaayecanaan Apr 2013 #58
Fear BDS? leftynyc Apr 2013 #59
are you Israeli? azurnoir Apr 2013 #63
It's an abject failure, but the reason to oppose BDS..... shira Apr 2013 #71
Only the BDS supporters are yammering leftynyc Apr 2013 #74
Do go on. Tell us all about it. R. Daneel Olivaw Apr 2013 #78
again why "we" are you Israeli otherwise your original comment makes no sense azurnoir Apr 2013 #79
You're in denial. Abbas admits RoR means the end of Israel.... shira Apr 2013 #34
and who claims 5 million refugees will want to go to what is a hostile foreign country? azurnoir Apr 2013 #35
BDS wants it. If Israel honors RoR, it's saying.... shira Apr 2013 #36
IMO as long as there is a viable Palestinian state that is where most Palestinians will go azurnoir Apr 2013 #37
Still can't admit the lies associated with BDS? N/T shira Apr 2013 #38
IMO there's nothing to admit azurnoir Apr 2013 #40
Working towards the end of Israel (Abbas admits it) with so many lies..... shira Apr 2013 #41
ya I remember that trainwreck of a thread azurnoir Apr 2013 #43
Really? You think no one will die via the BDS version of 1-state? shira Apr 2013 #45
so much BS azurnoir Apr 2013 #47
yeah, bs from you... shira Apr 2013 #60
are you confused? Hamas is pushing fundimental Islam not the PLO azurnoir Apr 2013 #80
The PLO still claims a future Palestine will be governed according to sharia. n/t shira Apr 2013 #95
and I felt this deserved it's comment azurnoir Apr 2013 #81
So u want me to post b/c u don't believe the PLO rants about destroying Israel.... shira Apr 2013 #96
Nope that's not why nor is it so I can alert it and I would request that no one does either n/t azurnoir Apr 2013 #97
So if you know it happens & it's true, why do u want me to post proof of it? n/t shira Apr 2013 #100
I said I want ed you to post it if you wish azurnoir Apr 2013 #101
really? pelsar Apr 2013 #50
then tell us all about how Israel has treated African refugees azurnoir Apr 2013 #51
you shouldnt be sure.... pelsar Apr 2013 #52
well then give us the real facts okay azurnoir Apr 2013 #53
why pelsar Apr 2013 #54
well if you are so sure I am wrong then prove it azurnoir Apr 2013 #55
ah so you were playing games? well here's a few facts for you azurnoir Apr 2013 #56
yep i was just playing with you as per your rules... pelsar Apr 2013 #126
But as per the links I posted I am sure azurnoir Apr 2013 #127
too late... you already admitted it pelsar Apr 2013 #128
not really I was hoping you would be able to show us different but apparently not azurnoir Apr 2013 #129
you have your ideology.... pelsar Apr 2013 #130
Ideology interesting I never really thought of it like that azurnoir Apr 2013 #133
what now?...nothing, at least as far as i can see... pelsar Apr 2013 #134
but what about Israel's future? azurnoir Apr 2013 #135
if the occupation lasts... pelsar Apr 2013 #136
thank you and I agree with most of what you said azurnoir Apr 2013 #137
bibi is temporary.... pelsar Apr 2013 #138
well Bibi is the least of it right now azurnoir Apr 2013 #139
....look at it from this point of view pelsar Apr 2013 #140
Bullshit. What Israel does isn't racist/apartheid like SA.... shira Apr 2013 #11
Israel maintains 2 different standards of legality in it's occupied territories azurnoir Apr 2013 #15
BDS lies about Israel, saying apartheid is practiced within Israel... shira Apr 2013 #16
Because discrimination does exist within Israel like the Nakba law azurnoir Apr 2013 #17
I see the problem. aranthus Apr 2013 #20
Nope here from your own link azurnoir Apr 2013 #21
So are gays a race or a caste? aranthus Apr 2013 #23
No it says race caste ect Gays are a discriminated against group azurnoir Apr 2013 #24
Exept that by your definition everwhere is apartheid. aranthus Apr 2013 #26
only when certain groups are singled out by law azurnoir Apr 2013 #27
That's everywhere. aranthus Apr 2013 #30
you can expand when the discrimination is codified in law azurnoir Apr 2013 #31
So then... Shaktimaan Apr 2013 #144
That's been my point. aranthus Apr 2013 #146
are US states that have laws against Gay Marriage committing apartheid? yes or no? azurnoir Apr 2013 #147
No. n/t aranthus Apr 2013 #148
I asked 2 questions is it apartheid or mere discrimination? n/t azurnoir Apr 2013 #149
What do you mean by, "mere discrimination?" n/t aranthus Apr 2013 #150
discrimination vs apartheid azurnoir Apr 2013 #151
That doesn't clear things up, but I will try to. aranthus Apr 2013 #177
and IMO this is insulting to the LGBT population of the US azurnoir Apr 2013 #178
You are entitled to your opinion, of course. aranthus Apr 2013 #179
what is illogical about it? azurnoir Apr 2013 #180
mere discrimination? Shaktimaan Apr 2013 #152
are the laws that preventt Gay from Marrying in the US a form of apartheid yes or no n/t azurnoir Apr 2013 #158
As I said earlier... Shaktimaan Apr 2013 #159
so no not in your opinion thank you azurnoir Apr 2013 #160
So then Shaktimaan Apr 2013 #161
how does the marriage law keep gay people apart from straights? azurnoir Apr 2013 #163
How is that apart? Shaktimaan Apr 2013 #165
well if you think so but I disagree n/t azurnoir Apr 2013 #168
What about affirmative action? Shaktimaan Apr 2013 #162
only if you consider it discrimination azurnoir Apr 2013 #164
Well Shaktimaan Apr 2013 #166
if it does so it's as compensation for past and present discrimination(s) azurnoir Apr 2013 #167
I know what it's for. Shaktimaan Apr 2013 #169
" this system mostly works to aid wealthy minorities. It primarily hurts the white poor." azurnoir Apr 2013 #170
That sounds sort of like an accusation. Shaktimaan Apr 2013 #181
They are not np Shaktimaan Apr 2013 #156
An "old tactic" that seems to work in the long run. Challenger1 Apr 2013 #4
It's wrong, not necessarily ineffective. aranthus Apr 2013 #5
Look elsewhere? Challenger1 Apr 2013 #14
BDS is fraudulent because aranthus Apr 2013 #22
The establishment of Israel could not be achieved without violence... shaayecanaan Apr 2013 #42
That isn't true. aranthus Apr 2013 #44
Its perfectly true... shaayecanaan Apr 2013 #46
NO, there is a huge difference between wanting some and wanting it all. aranthus Apr 2013 #48
Give me half of your house then... shaayecanaan Apr 2013 #57
Going back to the 1920's, when Jordan was created.... shira Apr 2013 #61
But of course, comrade... shaayecanaan Apr 2013 #62
No false quotes, please. Ben Gurion's letter in 1937 stated the following: shira Apr 2013 #64
The quote is perfectly authentic shaayecanaan Apr 2013 #68
No, it's not. It's a lie. A fabrication you completely accept.... shira Apr 2013 #69
Yes it fucking is. I've linked to the original document... shaayecanaan Apr 2013 #73
Might want to consider who you are speaking/writing with before asking such an obvious question n/t Bodhi BloodWave Apr 2013 #76
JPS admitted to CAMERA they erred.... shira Apr 2013 #94
JPS didn't type the letter shaayecanaan Apr 2013 #111
Oh, Ben Gurion vascillated b/w peace/cooperation w/ Arabs... shira Apr 2013 #113
the correct spelling is "vacillated" shaayecanaan Apr 2013 #114
The JPS translation of that typed letter contains fabrications.... shira Apr 2013 #118
Thanks, that was an interesting read. I've saved a copy. nt delrem Apr 2013 #106
Message auto-removed Name removed Apr 2013 #84
Really poor analogy. aranthus Apr 2013 #82
Take a number and get in line... shaayecanaan Apr 2013 #102
Somewhat off-topic b/c it's based on your religion.... shira Apr 2013 #110
Nothing shaayecanaan Apr 2013 #112
Oh, I didn't know that (Roman Catholic Church). Jewish leaders praised.... shira Apr 2013 #115
As far as I know aranthus Apr 2013 #120
The homeland of the Phoenecians shaayecanaan Apr 2013 #125
Poor analogy Shaktimaan Apr 2013 #153
"It was never the Palestinians house to start." shaayecanaan Apr 2013 #154
Really? Shaktimaan Apr 2013 #155
BDS is fraudulent because...really? Challenger1 Apr 2013 #67
It's not about rights when that 1-state would be a totalitarian, theocratic Islamist nation.... shira Apr 2013 #70
As opposed to.... Challenger1 Apr 2013 #75
As opposed to 2 states, which the Palestinians have rejected since 1937. shira Apr 2013 #87
Tell it! Shaktimaan Apr 2013 #157
Hitler! Nazis! Holocaust! ???? BDS isn't that. delrem Apr 2013 #49
BWAHAHAHA! shira Apr 2013 #65
HITLER! NAZIS!! THE HOLOCAUST!!! AAAUUUUGGHHHH! delrem Apr 2013 #83
There were no refugees or calls for RoR prior to 1937 or 1947.... shira Apr 2013 #88
Because HITLER? Yes! NAZIS? Yes! nt delrem Apr 2013 #92
You didn't answer b/c u know you're full of shit. shira Apr 2013 #98
Yes, shira, your Hitler! Nazis! totally explains it. What more needs be said? nt delrem Apr 2013 #105
Well then, stop BS'ing that it's all about occupation, settlements, refugees.... shira Apr 2013 #108
Hitler and the Nazis, singing "I've got a lovely bunch of coconuts" delrem Apr 2013 #109
Message auto-removed Name removed Apr 2013 #85
Being a Jew is an ethnic group. Consider atheist Jews. shira Apr 2013 #89
Post removed Post removed Apr 2013 #131
Wow. How loathsome. cali Apr 2013 #66
BDS is for the destruction of Israel & denial of the Jewish right to self-determination shira Apr 2013 #72
"Jewish right to self-determination" R. Daneel Olivaw Apr 2013 #77
Ask yourself why the Palestinians rejected 2 states in 1937 & 1947.... shira Apr 2013 #90
Because they wanted to be ethnically cleansed? nt delrem Apr 2013 #93
Still waiting for a real answer to that. Be honest w/ yourself. n/t shira Apr 2013 #99
Be honest w/ yourself. n/t delrem Apr 2013 #104
Fail. Yet another deflection. n/t shira Apr 2013 #107
You're just anti-coconut. nt delrem Apr 2013 #117
Perhaps anti-coco but pro-nut? R. Daneel Olivaw Apr 2013 #124
trollonut? delrem Apr 2013 #141
Either you don't get it or you don't want to get it.... shira Apr 2013 #142
You may be "recent contributor", but it souds like you hit the nail on the head. R. Daneel Olivaw Apr 2013 #143
Better yet. How about this? R. Daneel Olivaw Apr 2013 #116
You're veering off course on another rabbit trail. I'm not playing along... shira Apr 2013 #119
It's not a rabbit trail, Shira. It's just that you are a poltroon when it comes to the simple truth. R. Daneel Olivaw Apr 2013 #121
Do you think Israel has any claim to the Western Wall or the Jewish Quarter.... shira Apr 2013 #122
I really don't give a hot bunies crap if it bothers you, Shira. R. Daneel Olivaw Apr 2013 #123
Simple truths are for simple minds. Shaktimaan Apr 2013 #145
Message auto-removed Name removed Apr 2013 #86
S.African blacks didn't make threats to annhilate the whites.... shira Apr 2013 #91
Message auto-removed Name removed Apr 2013 #132
so are you saying that South African Blacks were totally non-violent azurnoir Apr 2013 #174
No. You should read what I wrote. n/t shira Apr 2013 #175
I did that's why I asked and oh BTW when it comes to annilhilating Whites in South Africa azurnoir Apr 2013 #176
Bds is for the best. bravenak Apr 2013 #171
So Palistinian business suffered because of your personal BDS, King_David Apr 2013 #172
No. bravenak Apr 2013 #173
Godwin's Law evoked in the 6th word of this ridiculous piece! A new record! *nt Alamuti Lotus Apr 2013 #182

azurnoir

(45,850 posts)
2. BDS is anti-Jewish or antisemitic in the exact same manner that the BDS campaign against S Africa
Tue Apr 2, 2013, 02:05 PM
Apr 2013

was anti-white but the Nazi comparisons do speak volumes here

Jefferson23

(30,099 posts)
3. Where the author is coming from, politically speaking. Yea, she's all about peace, uh, piece that is
Tue Apr 2, 2013, 02:34 PM
Apr 2013

Bandler does not acknowledge nor recognize international law: Numerous UN resolutions have stated that the building and existence of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are a violation of international law, including UN Security Council resolutions in 1979 and 1980.[10][11][12
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law_and_Israeli_settlements

Opinion: Don’t settle for settlement condition
Settlements are not the main obstacle to Israeli-Palestinian peace
By Rachel Bandler
February 25, 2011

* The international community must stop using Israeli towns in the West Bank — land that everyone seems to have forgotten was won by Israel in a defensive war — as the primary gauge for peace. In order for long-lasting and meaningful peace to occur, Israel’s neighbors need to recognize her right to exist and not see Israel as a temporary problem to be done away with. The West Bank is currently in a period of growth and success, and Israel would like nothing more than to help facilitate Palestinian prosperity. However, Israel must ensure that her security needs are met and that her kindergartens are not at risk of mortar attack; the only way to guarantee this is to allow Israel to make peace as an independent and sovereign country and to not impose arbitrary negotiating conditions upon her.
http://tech.mit.edu/V131/N8/bandler.html

Same nonsense, different day.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
103. First to shout "Nazi!" loses the debate. The anti-BDS crowd never wrapped their heads around that.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 06:23 PM
Apr 2013

Regardless of the merits of the issue, their rhetoric is way over the top.

aranthus

(3,385 posts)
6. Bull.
Wed Apr 3, 2013, 02:46 PM
Apr 2013

Not only is it bull, but it's been demonstrated to you to be bull so many times before, that your continued misrepresentation of BDS is either because you are willfully delusional or else dishonest. You are aware, because you've been presented with the links, that the founder and leader of the BDS movement claims that it is about right of return. You are aware, because you've been given the link, that no one less than Norman Finkelstein recognizes that RoR means the end of Israel as a Jewish state. Your claim is not only false, but there is no excuse for you making it anymore. It's not even close.

azurnoir

(45,850 posts)
7. No it has not been "demonstrated to me " in fact the opposite
Wed Apr 3, 2013, 02:52 PM
Apr 2013

as far as ending Israel as a Jewish due to RoR that is quite paranoid IMO, but then again 'someone' **cough** once claimed to me that even with the existence of a Palestinian State the UN would force every Palestinian refugee to go to Israel,

aranthus

(3,385 posts)
9. Of course it has.
Wed Apr 3, 2013, 03:08 PM
Apr 2013

You were given the links. All you have given is your unsupported preposterous opinion. And the point I was making is that if RoR was enforced, then by definition every person who claimed refugee status would have the right to return to Israel whether Israel wanted them or not. That is what a right is. A claim that a government has to honor. By definition, if there is a right of return then Israel has no right to keep those people out.

azurnoir

(45,850 posts)
10. what has been demonstrated to me is that 'ProIsrael' posters here fear nonviolent resistance
Wed Apr 3, 2013, 03:12 PM
Apr 2013

and not much else

aranthus

(3,385 posts)
12. You're denying.
Wed Apr 3, 2013, 04:14 PM
Apr 2013

Serious questions. Do you think that it would be a good thing or a bad thing if Israel were to no longer be a Jewish state? Do you think that Israel has a right to maintain its Jewish character?

azurnoir

(45,850 posts)
13. that depends does Israel have the right to maintain its Jewish character?
Wed Apr 3, 2013, 04:24 PM
Apr 2013

does the US have the right to maintain its Christian character? Does Saudi Arabia have the right to maintain its Islamic character?
or will all three Israel, the US, and Saudi Arabia maintain their respective religious characters because of the power structure and populations and in that order?

aranthus

(3,385 posts)
18. You are buying into a falsehood.
Wed Apr 3, 2013, 05:19 PM
Apr 2013

In this instance, Jewish is similar to American and Arab rather than christian or Muslim. Does France have the right to maintain it's French character? Try again, or else it's pretty clear that your answer is no.

azurnoir

(45,850 posts)
19. lol switching goalposts okay I'll play
Wed Apr 3, 2013, 05:26 PM
Apr 2013

Frances so called "French" character maintained mostly by language is changing evolving just as America's American character is, Saudi Arabia is much slower in this respect but it's still happening. Israel will retain its Jewish character however that also will evolve at least hopefully

the question remains though, by what means should this 'right' be maintained?

aranthus

(3,385 posts)
25. So your answer is no.
Wed Apr 3, 2013, 05:44 PM
Apr 2013

First, if you think that the main thing "French" about France is the language, then you don't know anything about France or the French. Second, it's one thing for a nation to evolve slowly over time. It's quite another to force that state to take in millions of people of a different culture, language, religion, etc. How does France maintain its character? By controlling who comes into the country. By social studies classes in school. By peer pressure. By many other methods that all societies use to maintain their identity.

And calling you on a falsehood isn't switching the goalposts.

But the bottom line is that you would be okay with a right of return even if it meant that Israel had to take in millions of Arabs, and therefore became an Arab state, rather than a Jewish state, right?

azurnoir

(45,850 posts)
33. except in the case of Israel over 1,000,00 of those 'different' people are citizens
Wed Apr 3, 2013, 06:19 PM
Apr 2013

and you promote a country discriminating by ethnic group? Do you promote the same for the US too?

shaayecanaan

(6,068 posts)
58. I wholeheartedly agree
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 04:27 AM
Apr 2013
It's quite another to force that state to take in millions of people of a different culture, language, religion, etc.


Quite.

azurnoir

(45,850 posts)
63. are you Israeli?
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 06:44 AM
Apr 2013

"Why on earth would we fear something that is such an abject failure?"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=38337

because that is the only way that makes any possible sense and if it's such a failure why keep yammering on about it?

 

shira

(30,109 posts)
71. It's an abject failure, but the reason to oppose BDS.....
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 09:43 AM
Apr 2013

....is simple: It's hateful bigotry & warmongering masquerading as human rights.

That should be opposed whether BDS is successful or a failure.

 

leftynyc

(26,060 posts)
74. Only the BDS supporters are yammering
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 11:21 AM
Apr 2013

The rest of us live our lives and continue to use the same Israeli products and services we always have. But keep yammering - it's so incredibly helpful.

azurnoir

(45,850 posts)
79. again why "we" are you Israeli otherwise your original comment makes no sense
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 02:30 PM
Apr 2013

"Why on earth would we* fear something that is such an abject failure?"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=38337

and why if BDS is such an abject failure do we see thread after thread objecting to it?

* emphasis mine

 

shira

(30,109 posts)
34. You're in denial. Abbas admits RoR means the end of Israel....
Wed Apr 3, 2013, 06:34 PM
Apr 2013
"On numbers of refugees, it is illogical to ask Israel to take 5 million, or indeed 1 million," Abbas said, according to the details of the Palestine papers. "That would mean the end of Israel."


http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/abbas-deemed-it-illogical-for-israel-to-absorb-5-million-refugees-palestine-papers-show-1.338981

azurnoir

(45,850 posts)
35. and who claims 5 million refugees will want to go to what is a hostile foreign country?
Wed Apr 3, 2013, 06:35 PM
Apr 2013

those who do want any RoR as far as I can tell

 

shira

(30,109 posts)
36. BDS wants it. If Israel honors RoR, it's saying....
Wed Apr 3, 2013, 06:47 PM
Apr 2013

...that Palestinians have the right (if they choose) to end Israel. Pressure on the refugees from anti-Zionists and mideast regimes would be enormous WRT actually making the end of Israel happen.

You support what is essentially an entire industry of lies, defamation, slander, and malicious intent vs. Israel.

azurnoir

(45,850 posts)
37. IMO as long as there is a viable Palestinian state that is where most Palestinians will go
Wed Apr 3, 2013, 07:06 PM
Apr 2013

if one wants to see how Israel treats those it deems unwelcome one only need review Israel's recent history with African refugees

azurnoir

(45,850 posts)
40. IMO there's nothing to admit
Wed Apr 3, 2013, 07:34 PM
Apr 2013

BDS is what it is and IMO the very thought of a form of nonviolent resistance that has worked in similar situations in the past obviously frightens you or something

 

shira

(30,109 posts)
41. Working towards the end of Israel (Abbas admits it) with so many lies.....
Wed Apr 3, 2013, 07:42 PM
Apr 2013

....that are obvious examples of hate speech, it's pretty damned disingenuous to call BDS a nonviolent form of resistance. If they had it their way, their solution would lead to imminent warfare, chaos, massacres, and destruction.

Let's not pretend otherwise.

Remember the thread "How many have to die to achieve one state"?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/113416921

As Loewenstein wasn’t quite answering the question he was pressed further by Hoffman as to how many people Loewenstein thinks should die. First, Frank Barat, the Chairman, answered “200,000? (here is more on Barat). Then Loewenstein answered “Six million. That’s my answer. Write that down.“


Those 2 are among the biggest advocates for BDS and very popular within the movement.

A truly odious cause.

azurnoir

(45,850 posts)
43. ya I remember that trainwreck of a thread
Wed Apr 3, 2013, 07:48 PM
Apr 2013

but no one asked the real question so I'm glad you brought it up

why does anyone have to die to achieve a one state solution ?




 

shira

(30,109 posts)
45. Really? You think no one will die via the BDS version of 1-state?
Wed Apr 3, 2013, 09:06 PM
Apr 2013

1. Almost no Palestinians or Israelis want it (roughly 95%). It would be forced on them. That'll turn out well...



2. Hamas and the PLO don't want western style democracy, civil rights for women and gays, trade unions, no death penalty, better environment, separation of powers, open media, etc.

3. If imposed, Israel would fight not to allow for it to happen. It's an existential threat for Jews (you know very well what Hamas and the PLO think about Jews).

azurnoir

(45,850 posts)
47. so much BS
Wed Apr 3, 2013, 10:53 PM
Apr 2013

no but 2 states will cost 300,000 at least Israeli's their homes and you have stated that you think Palestinians are not 'ready' yet or some such so when?

and again and again you equate the PLO and Hamas as being the exact same is it that they're Arabs? or what?

and the nearest to honesty yet it is Israel who fight it, why if what you claim is true Hams wants it all as does the PLO (they say one thing in English and another in Arabic-a meme straight from the pages of Jihad Watch) would they fight except to defend themselves and which side is better armed?

 

shira

(30,109 posts)
60. yeah, bs from you...
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 05:39 AM
Apr 2013
no but 2 states will cost 300,000 at least Israeli's their homes and you have stated that you think Palestinians are not 'ready' yet or some such so when?

you've been provided polls of Palestinians showing maybe 10-12% support 1 secular democratic state. Don't pretend you didn't know this.

and again and again you equate the PLO and Hamas as being the exact same is it that they're Arabs? or what?

The PLO is for a state based on sharia law, and if u didn't notice there isn't really anything going on under PLO control in the WB showing they want to operate under western democratic norms.

and the nearest to honesty yet it is Israel who fight it, why if what you claim is true Hams wants it all as does the PLO (they say one thing in English and another in Arabic-a meme straight from the pages of Jihad Watch) would they fight except to defend themselves and which side is better armed?

The PLO constantly rants about destroying Israel and blowing up Jews in their media. I can provide like 100 examples if u want. Don't pretend u don't know this.

azurnoir

(45,850 posts)
80. are you confused? Hamas is pushing fundimental Islam not the PLO
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 02:37 PM
Apr 2013

Hamas is enforcing women wearing veils, segregated classrooms, ect not the PLO

how many Palestinians support the build now peace someday........ plan? How many Israelius support such a plan?

oh the PLO talks bad about its occupiers I'm sure the Jewish subjects of the British Empire in Palestine showed their occupiers only love

azurnoir

(45,850 posts)
81. and I felt this deserved it's comment
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 02:40 PM
Apr 2013
The PLO constantly rants about destroying Israel and blowing up Jews in their media. I can provide like 100 examples if u want. Don't pretend u don't know this.


well yes I do so post away we'll have own private collection all in one place here on DU we can call it the Jihad something corner
 

shira

(30,109 posts)
96. So u want me to post b/c u don't believe the PLO rants about destroying Israel....
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 05:42 PM
Apr 2013

....and blowing up Jews? You think that's a BS claim?

pelsar

(12,283 posts)
50. really?
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 01:42 AM
Apr 2013
if one wants to see how Israel treats those it deems unwelcome one only need review Israel's recent history with African refugees

your 100% sure about this?...
_____

viable Palestinian state that is where most Palestinians will go
really? so you know of no history where people went to "not so nice areas" to create a society of their own liking?...where they're motivation and idealism was beyond mere creature comforts?

pelsar

(12,283 posts)
54. why
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 02:03 AM
Apr 2013

i'm just questioning your blanket statement of factual information. if you admit that your not sure, than that is all i'm interested in.

as you like to write, as per your own admission:


I'm no longer sure

azurnoir

(45,850 posts)
56. ah so you were playing games? well here's a few facts for you
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 02:43 AM
Apr 2013

I am becoming more sure all the time Israel treats unwelcome refugees quite badly now if they are Jewish refugees they get6 better treatment but seeing as how this started out about Palestinian refugees who are for the very most part nonJewish

but thanks for giving the opportunity to post these

African refugees in Israel get a cold shoulder and worse

The influx of migrants has triggered a sometimes violent backlash in the country. Prime Minister Netanyahu says their presence 'threatens Israel's social fabric.'

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/27/world/la-fg-israel-africa-refugees-20120527

Seeking asylum in Israel: Deportation without due process

Instead of giving asylum seekers the benefit of the doubt, as international law prescribes, in Israel, the district courts find doubts, the Supreme Court approves their decisions, and persecuted peoples are deported before the merits of their cases can be examined. Everyone can sleep soundly.

Israel’s asylum system is designed to allow everyone, aside from asylum seekers, to sleep soundly. The chairman of the Advisory Committee on Refugees said in an interview last year that he sleeps soundly when he rejects asylum requests, because he knows that if he has erred, the court will rectify the mistake. District court judges who reject petitions filed by individuals who were not recognized as refugees sleep soundly because they mistakenly think that the asylum system is comprised of professionals with expertise, and because they likely think that the Supreme Court will rectify mistakes that they make. And Supreme Court justices sleep soundly because they too are convinced that professionals manage the asylum system, and that district court judges have thoroughly reviewed whether an appellant faces any danger. And since no one feels responsible for the fate of an asylum seeker if a mistake is made, everyone can sleep soundly, dreaming of an Israel free of foreigners.

http://972mag.com/seeking-asylum-in-israel-deportation-without-due-process/67334/

Israel Deports Refugees to Sudan Despite Threat to Their Lives

Haaretz reported on Tuesday that Israel deported at least 1,000 Sudanese refugees to North Sudan via a third county, without informing the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and despite the fact that “[Sudan] has vowed to punish any of its citizens who ever set foot in Israel”:

Though Israel claims the people's return was voluntary, this claim was rejected by UNHCR, which says there is no "free will from inside a prison."

Under a recent amendment to Israel's infiltration law, asylum seekers can be jailed for years without trial. Testimony from within prisons indicates that detainees were also denied access to UNHCR, in violation of the UN convention on the status of refugees, which Israel has signed.

…Michael Bavli, UNHCR's representative in Israel, warned the Population, Immigration and Border Authority that "deporting Sudanese to Sudan would be the gravest violation possible of the convention that Israel has signed - a crime never before committed."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/27/israel-deports-refugees-to-sudan-despite-threat-to-their-lives.html

Israeli minister seeks approval to deport all Sudanese, Eritrean refugees

Israel’s Interior Minister has requested for legal approval to allow authorities to carryout the mass deportation of tens and thousands of Eritrean and Sudanese asylum-seekers and migrants.

According to Israeli news outlets, interior minister, Eli Yishai, has called on the justice and foreign ministries to give him the authority to deport the remaining estimated 50,000 Sudanese and Eritrean refugees.

Yishai made the calls shortly after an Eritrean migrant alleged raped an elderly woman in Tel Aviv on Saturday.

Yishai said the shocking rape against the 83 year old lady demonstrates Israelis’ “lost sense of security” due to the presence of what he referred to as “infiltrators.”

http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article45042

Israel 'secretly deports' 1,000 Sudanese who may face persecution at home

Israel arranged the deportations through a third country, supposedly to prevent the Sudanese from being persecuted upon returning home. Haaretz declined to name the third-party country in its report for security reasons. An official source confirmed to the newspaper that Israel paid for the deportation plane tickets.

The Sudanese are one of the biggest African refugee groups in Israel. They illegally enter the country through Egypt, fleeing poverty, numerous armed conflicts, and governmental persecution over tribal identity or faith. "Deporting Sudanese to Sudan would be the gravest violation possible of the refugee convention that Israel has signed – a crime never before committed," UN representative in Israel Michael Bavli warned the Population, Immigration and Border Authority.

The Israeli government has recently taken a harsher stance against immigrants from Africa. Benjamin Netanyahu dubbed them “infiltrators” and a threat to state security, and encouraged that they be quickly deported to their native countries. Many immigrants face indefinite jail terms if they refuse to voluntarily return to their home countries. The biggest influxes of immigrants in Israel come from the nations of Libya, Sudan, South Sudan, Ethiopia and Eritrea.

http://rt.com/news/Israel-deports-refugees-Sudan-445/


pelsar

(12,283 posts)
126. yep i was just playing with you as per your rules...
Fri Apr 5, 2013, 01:05 AM
Apr 2013

and the posts?. you surly dont need me to post them....just be sure to add that your not really sure that, they tell the whole story as per your own admittance

azurnoir

(45,850 posts)
127. But as per the links I posted I am sure
Fri Apr 5, 2013, 01:07 AM
Apr 2013

Israel has treated nonJewish African refugees quite badly in the recent past

pelsar

(12,283 posts)
128. too late... you already admitted it
Fri Apr 5, 2013, 01:12 AM
Apr 2013

i've interpreted as meaning your no longer sure how israel treats the illegal immigrants.....as per your simple, but very clear statement:

"I'm no longer sure"

azurnoir

(45,850 posts)
129. not really I was hoping you would be able to show us different but apparently not
Fri Apr 5, 2013, 01:17 AM
Apr 2013

now you could show us a beauty queen or the give us the story of the Falasha ect but as I already said this originated with my comment as to how Palestinian refugees would be treated and what does the common African refugee from say Sudan have in common with Palestinians and what differentiates both from the Falasha?

pelsar

(12,283 posts)
130. you have your ideology....
Fri Apr 5, 2013, 01:38 AM
Apr 2013

and i really believe that you believe that the refugees and illegal immigrants are treated like "dirt" by the israeli govt, the local govts as well as the general population of israel, chased by the police at every turn, hide whenever they can etc...

that being so i have little to add...if you were actually interested in knowing more, you would do your own research and discover something else, clearly your not interested for your own reasons......

as far as how the Palestenians would be treated upon any return?...probably like shit, by all, jewish, druze, muslim and christians....but that wouldn't stop their return since as history has shown, people will move to unpleasant and hostile environments when there is an ideology......and after sitting in refugee camps for generations they will have an ideology to "take back israel and besides the worse of a democracy beats a dictatorship everytime.....

hence as far as i can see, based on history, your belief that only a few would want to actually live in a israel, is based on your need to believe it, more than anything else.

azurnoir

(45,850 posts)
133. Ideology interesting I never really thought of it like that
Fri Apr 5, 2013, 03:38 AM
Apr 2013

but yes ideally the Palestinians would receive full RoR , well ideally .......

however realistically that's not going to happen, at least no time soon or distant that I can see so what now?

pelsar

(12,283 posts)
134. what now?...nothing, at least as far as i can see...
Fri Apr 5, 2013, 05:35 AM
Apr 2013

i think most of the real options and possibillites were attempted and failed for various reasons..sometimes israel, sometimes the PA. The only times the stars were "lined up" was when carter, rabin and sadat came together after 73. After that history, fate, agendas which i believe is the norm returned to normal ....

real dramatic change only comes during dramatic moments, i dont see any in the future coming and given that israel is the stronger of the two, the Palestinians will continue to get screwed by us as well as their friends.....

i dont see a good near future for their hopes and aspirations....and that is not a good thing

pelsar

(12,283 posts)
136. if the occupation lasts...
Fri Apr 5, 2013, 05:47 AM
Apr 2013

then israel is screwed....it wil destroy israel as a democracy and as far as I'm concerned it will no longer have a right to exist.

so what happens?....my best guess (hope) is that it will a "saturation point" where israel decides on the borders based on population concerns, Palestenains over "there" israelis" over here. Everybody, as in jerusalem, gets citizenship, everybody outside doesn't.

those defacto borders will no doubt be under dispute for the next 1,000 years, but israel will require them to preserve its democracy and keep the country together.

anyway thats my best guess, that will wont take too much political will power, because as in gaza, the settler political power does have its limits.

azurnoir

(45,850 posts)
137. thank you and I agree with most of what you said
Fri Apr 5, 2013, 05:56 AM
Apr 2013

but not as sure about what will happen as Bibi and the current government seem bent on status quo

pelsar

(12,283 posts)
138. bibi is temporary....
Fri Apr 5, 2013, 06:04 AM
Apr 2013

besides it was sharon that got us out of gaza, begin and the sinai..

its only the israeli right govts that can do the israeli withdrawal,....hence it, its may sound a bit weird but israeli right wing govts are really the only ones that can accomplish it.

its the israeli left that goes to war

azurnoir

(45,850 posts)
139. well Bibi is the least of it right now
Fri Apr 5, 2013, 06:12 AM
Apr 2013

there's Naftali Bennett and Moshe Ya'alon, and the possibility of the return of Avigdor too, to me those things don't bode well

pelsar

(12,283 posts)
140. ....look at it from this point of view
Fri Apr 5, 2013, 03:00 PM
Apr 2013

Avigdor: is all for separation of "church and state" That would put him in the american left
Bennet is for freeing up the haridi and arab communities to enter the work force...thats a liberal position
Ya'alon i havent paid attention to.

none of them want to get rid of social/economic safety net that includes universal health care.

what does that leave you with? a right wing vision of the security issues and the west bank, yet as history has shown in israel, only they can make the borders and tell the settlers (like sharon did) that they have no choice.

all three know the limitations of military power

so, they may not be so bad...
you have to leave your american political straight jacket of simplistic identity politics, if your want to get a realistic view of the israeli politics and possible options.
------------------------
i had a few discussions with meretz/labor voters on the two choices: bennet or meretz: from a simplistic/identity point of view, its seems absurd...from a liberal point of view, it doesnt given their positions

 

shira

(30,109 posts)
11. Bullshit. What Israel does isn't racist/apartheid like SA....
Wed Apr 3, 2013, 03:15 PM
Apr 2013

So it's that lie that makes BDS nasty.

azurnoir

(45,850 posts)
15. Israel maintains 2 different standards of legality in it's occupied territories
Wed Apr 3, 2013, 04:34 PM
Apr 2013

by which people are judged based on what religious/ethnic group they belong to, how is that not apartheid?

 

shira

(30,109 posts)
16. BDS lies about Israel, saying apartheid is practiced within Israel...
Wed Apr 3, 2013, 04:53 PM
Apr 2013

You cannot defend that lie, can you?

So why not hold BDS accountable for lying?

azurnoir

(45,850 posts)
17. Because discrimination does exist within Israel like the Nakba law
Wed Apr 3, 2013, 05:07 PM
Apr 2013

and that too could be defined as apartheid eta the laws in the US that prevent Gay couples from marrying also could be called appartheid

aranthus

(3,385 posts)
20. I see the problem.
Wed Apr 3, 2013, 05:28 PM
Apr 2013

You have a nutball definition of apartheid. Denying marriage licenses to same sex couples may be wrong, but it is not apartheid. Gays are not a race. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/apartheid?s=t See the link for several definitions of apartheid, all based on race. Israel is not an aprqatheid state. It does not deny people civil rights based on race.

azurnoir

(45,850 posts)
21. Nope here from your own link
Wed Apr 3, 2013, 05:33 PM
Apr 2013
apartheid
?
a·part·heid

a·part·heid
[uh-pahrt-heyt, -hahyt] Show IPA
noun
1.
(in the Republic of South Africa) a rigid policy of segregation of the nonwhite population.
2.
any system or practice that separates people according to race, caste, etc.
Origin:
1945–50; < Afrikaans, equivalent to apart apart + -heid -hood


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/apartheid?s=t

aranthus

(3,385 posts)
23. So are gays a race or a caste?
Wed Apr 3, 2013, 05:37 PM
Apr 2013

And f you are correct, then virtually every state, if not every one of them, is "apartheid." In which case, the word is synonymous with nationhood, and therefore meaningless as a moral statement.

azurnoir

(45,850 posts)
24. No it says race caste ect Gays are a discriminated against group
Wed Apr 3, 2013, 05:38 PM
Apr 2013

and that discrimination in the US can be called apartheid

azurnoir

(45,850 posts)
27. only when certain groups are singled out by law
Wed Apr 3, 2013, 05:50 PM
Apr 2013

where 2 sets of standards are being enforced

eta it is not my definition it's the one you supplied us

aranthus

(3,385 posts)
30. That's everywhere.
Wed Apr 3, 2013, 06:11 PM
Apr 2013

And the definition of apartheid is based on race. You can't expand an "etc." to every form of discrimination. It makes the word morally meaningless.

azurnoir

(45,850 posts)
31. you can expand when the discrimination is codified in law
Wed Apr 3, 2013, 06:15 PM
Apr 2013

that does not make it "morally meaningless" at all

azurnoir

(45,850 posts)
147. are US states that have laws against Gay Marriage committing apartheid? yes or no?
Sun Apr 7, 2013, 05:15 PM
Apr 2013

or is it mere discrimination in your mind?

aranthus

(3,385 posts)
177. That doesn't clear things up, but I will try to.
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 05:40 PM
Apr 2013

Discrimination, in its most general sense, means making a distinction. A discriminating wine drinker is a person who is choosy about what wine they drink. In the political context it means disparate treatment, either for or against a person, based on their group identity rather than individual merit. Some discrimination is entirely legitimate. for example, in the US, as in most countries, we discriminate against non-citizens in certain ways. They can't vote. They can't hold public office. The same is true for age distinctions. People under the age of 18 can't vote, and those under 15 can't drive. Those are all reasonable discriminations.

Apartheid is a very narrow and heinous type of discrimination. It means denying participation in the state to citizens based on their race. Blacks in South Africa couldn't vote, and couldn't hold public office. Apartheid is about racism.

Gays are not a race. Nor are gays with American citizenship of voting age denied the right to vote. If they are of the right age, they can serve in Congress, or run for President. Denying them marriage licenses is not apartheid, and it is insulting to the real victims of apartheid to claim that it is.

The same holds true for Israel. To the extent that there is discrimination against Israeli Arabs, it isn't apartheid. Israeli Arabs have voting rights, and can and do serve in government. Additionally, Arabs aren't a race. Saying that Israel is apartheid is to say that it is excludes Arabs from participation in government because of their race. It is a lie twice over. Not only does the claim unfairly smear Israel, but it downgrades the meaning of apartheid. South African Blacks didn't suffer because the South African government gave preference to whites in buying houses. They suffered because they were not allowed to participate in their own government because of their race.

azurnoir

(45,850 posts)
178. and IMO this is insulting to the LGBT population of the US
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 05:48 PM
Apr 2013
Gays are not a race. Nor are gays with American citizenship of voting age denied the right to vote. If they are of the right age, they can serve in Congress, or run for President. Denying them marriage licenses is not apartheid, and it is insulting to the real victims of apartheid to claim that it is.


It is IMO apartheid and to claim this or that isn't really because ____ is not a race anyway is also IMO insulting in a few different ways

aranthus

(3,385 posts)
179. You are entitled to your opinion, of course.
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 06:16 PM
Apr 2013

It just isn't logical, well thought out, or based on reality. I have no idea how it could be insulting to gays to say that they aren't a race, anymore than it would be insulting to women to say the same thing. You seem to think that if we don't call something by the worst name we can think of that we don't think it is bad. That's nonsense. Discrimination against gays is bad. It just isn't racism. It isn't denying them participation in their country's government. It isn't apartheid.

azurnoir

(45,850 posts)
180. what is illogical about it?
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 06:19 PM
Apr 2013

if you wish to down grade the US government apartheid type laws that target the LGBT community that is your option, myself I call 'em like I see 'em

azurnoir

(45,850 posts)
160. so no not in your opinion thank you
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 02:24 AM
Apr 2013

laws in the US that do not allow Gays to marry are not form of apartheid

IMO they constitute classic apartheid

Shaktimaan

(5,397 posts)
161. So then
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 02:40 AM
Apr 2013

Since most places are apartheid who cares?

Incidentally, how does the marriage law keep gay people apart from straights?

azurnoir

(45,850 posts)
163. how does the marriage law keep gay people apart from straights?
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 02:43 AM
Apr 2013

it sets the LGBT community apart disallowing 2 consenting adults from marrying under the same circumstances Straights would be allowed to

Shaktimaan

(5,397 posts)
165. How is that apart?
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 02:57 AM
Apr 2013

They are already set apart by virtue of their sexuality or anything else that uses the term so metaphorically. Is being gay apartheid?

Shaktimaan

(5,397 posts)
162. What about affirmative action?
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 02:42 AM
Apr 2013

A kind of 'reverse apartheid?'

As its definitely discrimination mandated by law.

Shaktimaan

(5,397 posts)
166. Well
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 02:58 AM
Apr 2013

Does it grant benefits to certain races but excludes others? And is required by law right?

How is it not discriminatory?

azurnoir

(45,850 posts)
167. if it does so it's as compensation for past and present discrimination(s)
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 03:00 AM
Apr 2013

especially economic ones that lead to schools in minority area's being less advantaged that those in more affluent areas

Shaktimaan

(5,397 posts)
169. I know what it's for.
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 04:30 AM
Apr 2013

That doesn't mean it isn't discriminatory though. All you are saying is that in this case discrimination that favors the chronically disenfranchised is a necessary evil to achieve a greater good.

But don't EVER pretend that it's anything other than it is. The same rules apply to everyone. It doesn't just cease to be racism because its something you support. Ethnic engineering, skin color based favoritism. It appears you support them under the right circumstances.

It's ok. So do I. I support aff act.

But there's always a price to pay for ethnic discrimination. One of ours is that this system mostly works to aid wealthy minorities. It primarily hurts the white poor.

If we were smarter we'd make aff act about wealth disparity now. Before was different. It was right how it was. But now it needs to evolve IMO.

Just remember. You can use discrimination for good. But you're still discriminating.

azurnoir

(45,850 posts)
170. " this system mostly works to aid wealthy minorities. It primarily hurts the white poor."
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 04:37 AM
Apr 2013

fascinating indeed, an other unusual opinion on a progressive website

Shaktimaan

(5,397 posts)
181. That sounds sort of like an accusation.
Tue Apr 16, 2013, 04:30 AM
Apr 2013

It was not a value judgement. I think that the point of AA was never about compensation for all of the less wealthy. It was about compensating according to race.

I do think that the system could be better served at this point by altering its parameters in order to not so heavily favor the children of people of color who are already wealthy. Obviously there will always remain significant opportunities for the driven among this population of students.

 

Challenger1

(14 posts)
4. An "old tactic" that seems to work in the long run.
Wed Apr 3, 2013, 10:46 AM
Apr 2013

BDS seemed to work against apartheid South Africa, if nothing else it helped bring the regime to the negotiating table and publicised the often cruel and brutal persecution of a native people by a colonialist minority. If BDS is so ineffective, why is the Israeli regime so afraid of it?

aranthus

(3,385 posts)
5. It's wrong, not necessarily ineffective.
Wed Apr 3, 2013, 02:38 PM
Apr 2013

The author of the piece never writes that it's ineffective. The argument is that BDS in this case is fraudulent and wrong. If you want to hurt the Jewish state, BDS may be for you. If you want real peace and real justice, then you should look elsewhere.

 

Challenger1

(14 posts)
14. Look elsewhere?
Wed Apr 3, 2013, 04:28 PM
Apr 2013

How is BDS fraudulent (the wrong-ness is relative )? The situation is unlikely to be resolved militarily, diplomacy hasn't worked up until now, where would you suggest I look to find real peace and justice?

aranthus

(3,385 posts)
22. BDS is fraudulent because
Wed Apr 3, 2013, 05:34 PM
Apr 2013

it pretends to to be a non-violent justice movement, when its real goal is the destruction of the Jewish state. It's most important core demand, according to its founder, Omar Bargjhouti, is the enforcement of the Palestinian demand for Right of Return, which means the end of Israel as a Jewish state. Ending Israel as a Jewish state, or wanting to, is wrong because the Jews have a right to their own national existence, and because it is a demand that can not be achieved without violence. If you want real peace and justice you first need to learn what they are, and whether the competing claims of Palestinians and Israelis are compatible with either. BDS isn't.

shaayecanaan

(6,068 posts)
42. The establishment of Israel could not be achieved without violence...
Wed Apr 3, 2013, 07:43 PM
Apr 2013

in the same way that Jewish Israelis refuse to be replaced with Palestinian refugees, the Palestinians did not want to be replaced with Jewish refugees or with Israel in the first place. If you contend that mass-migration of Palestinians to Israel would inevitably entail a violent Jewish response, then you must accept that mass-migration of Jews to Palestine was sure to result in the same response from Arabs.

Equally, if you want to contend that BDS is fraudulent, because the return of the Palestinian refugees necessarily entails violence, then you have to accept that Zionism is equally fraudulent, to the extent it pretended to be a peaceful movement or that it did not seek to harm the interest of Arabs.

If BDS or the right of return is anti-semitic, then equally, Zionism is racism.

aranthus

(3,385 posts)
44. That isn't true.
Wed Apr 3, 2013, 08:38 PM
Apr 2013

First because there wasn't an all or nothing situation in Palestine in 1947, except that the Arabs made one. They weren't going to be replaced, in the sense that they were going to be denied any country at all. Second, Palestine wasn't a country. The huge difference is that the Jews would have accepted a portion of the land for their state, and the Arabs would rather not have had a state at all as long as the Jews didn't get one. Just as the Palestinians today could have a state without violence (in fact, it's the violence that currently prevents them from having one), Israel could have come into existence without violence.

shaayecanaan

(6,068 posts)
46. Its perfectly true...
Wed Apr 3, 2013, 10:25 PM
Apr 2013

Whether Palestine was a country, a colony, a territory or a mandate made not a whit of difference to the Arabs, in the same way that the native Americans and Australian Aborigines did not care whether they were a state or not. They only cared that their land was being stolen.

The Palestinians lived there and they did not want mass-migration of Jews, in the same way that Jews now do not want mass-migration of Arabs.

First because there wasn't an all or nothing situation in Palestine in 1947, except that the Arabs made one.


For the Arabs who lived in the area designated for Israel, it was. Their choices were either to accept Jewish supremacy in their own land, resist, or leave.

No people or nation has ever accepted or will ever accept the loss of half of their homeland willingly, and it is nonsense to insist that the Palestinians should or could ever have done so.

Israel could have come into existence without violence.


What mind numbing bullshit. At least the honest Zionists (such as Ben-Gurion) had the good taste to realise the obvious:-

Why should the Arabs make peace? If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it's true, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been antisemitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that?




aranthus

(3,385 posts)
48. NO, there is a huge difference between wanting some and wanting it all.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 12:01 AM
Apr 2013

It's the Palestinian damnd for everything that caused the war and continues to prevent peace. The Jewish demand for a part of their ancient homeland back doesn't deny Palestinian nationhood, and absolutely isn't racist.

shaayecanaan

(6,068 posts)
57. Give me half of your house then...
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 04:22 AM
Apr 2013

because I don't have a house of my own. I think that this is quite a reasonable demand, after all, I am still letting you keep half. Plus I think my great-great-great grand daddy might have stayed in that house once, so I have a connection to it.

Really, I only want half of your house and you want the whole thing, so who is being unreasonable here? In the spirit of goodwill, I am voluntarily forsaking my opportunity to take your entire house - surely you would be a fool to knock back such a generous offer.

You know, if you keep refusing my good graces, then I can only assume that it is impossible to agree with you and in such case I think I am more entitled to take the whole thing.





 

shira

(30,109 posts)
61. Going back to the 1920's, when Jordan was created....
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 05:43 AM
Apr 2013

...and considering what the Jews were willing to accept in 1948, the Palestinians would have gotten near 90% of the land.

Not half.

And no one would've been tossed from his own personal property (except Jews living outside the UN Partition lines).

shaayecanaan

(6,068 posts)
62. But of course, comrade...
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 06:33 AM
Apr 2013

Jews would never have tossed an Arab from his personal property if they could avoid it. Certainly not like the Arabs would undoubtedly do if they ever had the chance. Jews are a good and kindly people and the Arabs would have been far better off submitting to their tender mercies.

"We must expel Arabs and take their places."
-- David Ben Gurion, 1937


I am sorry comrade, wherever did that come from? That damn memory hole must be playing up again. Please indulge me.

"It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism, colonialization, or Jewish State without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands."
--Ariel Sharon


Oh dear, it is happening again. I must try harder with my re-education. Perhaps you have a glass of kool aid that you could spare?
 

shira

(30,109 posts)
64. No false quotes, please. Ben Gurion's letter in 1937 stated the following:
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 06:55 AM
Apr 2013
"We do not wish, we do not need to expel the Arabs and take their
place. All our aspirations are built upon the assumption--proven
throughout all our activity in the Land--that there is enough room in
the country for ourselves and the Arabs."


Pretty much all your advocacy WRT this conflict is based around lies, fabrications, exaggerations, and slander.

And the point still stands. If the Palestinians accepted partition in 1947, they'd have ended up with over 90% of historic Palestine (including Jordan).

Enough of the lies.

shaayecanaan

(6,068 posts)
68. The quote is perfectly authentic
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 09:14 AM
Apr 2013

The original letter is here:-

http://www.palestine-studies.org/files/hebrelett.pdf

The relevant quote appears on the third page, 2nd paragraph, fifth line from the bottom:-

ערבים לברש צרכים ולקהת מקומם

 

shira

(30,109 posts)
69. No, it's not. It's a lie. A fabrication you completely accept....
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 09:38 AM
Apr 2013
We do not wish, we do not need to expel the Arabs and take their place. All our aspirations are built upon the assumption — proven throughout all our activity in the Land — that there is enough room in the country for ourselves and the Arabs.

Letter to his son Amos (5 October 1937), as quoted in Teveth, Shabtai, Ben Gurion: The Burning Ground; and Karsh, Efraim (2000),

Fabricating Israeli History: The 'New Historians'; this has been extensively misquoted as (We) must expel Arabs and take their places" after appearing in this form in Morris, Benny (1987), The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947–1949, Cambridge University Press, p. 25.


http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/David_Ben-Gurion#Quotes

Benny Morris also said it was bullcrap:

After the column was published by the Independent, Benny Morris, one of the "new historians," who Hari relies upon, wrote to the newspaper denying that Ben-Gurion ever said that. Morris wrote:

Hari quotes David Ben-Gurion as saying in 1937: "I support compulsory transfer ... The Arabs will have to go, but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as a war." The first part of the quote ("I support compulsory transfer&quot is genuine; the rest ( ‘"The Arabs will have to go ... such as a war’&quot is an invention, pure and simple, either by Hari or by whomever he is quoting (perhaps Ilan Pappe)...

Neither Ben-Gurion nor the Zionist movement "planned" the displacement of the 700,000-odd Arabs who moved or were removed from their homes in 1948. There was no such plan or blanket policy. Transfer was never adopted by the Zionist movement as part of its platform; on the contrary, the movement always accepted that the Jewish state that arose would contain a sizeable Arab minority.


http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_print=1&x_context=6&x_article=1521

shaayecanaan

(6,068 posts)
73. Yes it fucking is. I've linked to the original document...
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 10:36 AM
Apr 2013

which the Journal of Palestine Studies obtained from the Ben-Gurion Archives online.

There is also a full English translation of the letter, in which the quote duly appears:-

http://www.palestine-studies.org/files/B-G%20Letter%20translation.pdf

Jesus fucking Christ. Are you seriously contending that a blog post from CAMERA carries more weight than the original document from Ben-Gurion himself?

 

shira

(30,109 posts)
94. JPS admitted to CAMERA they erred....
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 05:36 PM
Apr 2013
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=2219

Read the whole thing and you'll find a comparison b/w JPS's typed letter in hebrew vs. the original handwritten version. It shows Ben Gurion wrote the opposite of what you're claiming.

Not only that, the context immediately after is the following:

All of our ambitions are built on the assumption that has proven true throughout all of our activities in the land (of Israel) — that there is enough room for us and for the Arabs in the land [of Israel]. And if we will have to use force, not for the sake of evicting the Arabs of the Negev or Transjordan, but rather in order to secure the right that belongs to us to settle there, force will be available to us.


Now ask yourself why Ben Gurion would call for expulsion and then immediately after say there's plenty of room for both Jews and Arabs? The context before the quote also shows how Ben Gurion talks about cooperation with the Arabs.

JPS and IPS are full of shit.

shaayecanaan

(6,068 posts)
111. JPS didn't type the letter
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 08:15 PM
Apr 2013

Last edited Thu Apr 4, 2013, 09:01 PM - Edit history (1)

as you can see, it is rendered in quite an old typeface.

The typewritten letter was produced by Ben-Gurion for a published version of his letters.

http://www.baumanrarebooks.com/rare-books/ben-gurion-david/letters-to-paula/56682.aspx

There is no evidence that the redactions in the letter were made by anyone else other than Ben-Gurion himself. I will admit that they are an important aspect of the letter. If anything they keenly show how Ben-Gurion vacillated between being an idealist and a realist.

But the fact that Ben-Gurion published the letter himself in the same terms as JPS has translated it means that the redactions are his and he intended the letter to be read as it is ultimately written.

Edit to add: an interesting discussion of the letter here (after para 25):-

http://bcrfj.revues.org/3552?&id=3552

 

shira

(30,109 posts)
113. Oh, Ben Gurion vascillated b/w peace/cooperation w/ Arabs...
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 09:01 PM
Apr 2013

...and tossing them out, all within a few lines of each other?

Do you seriously believe the shit you write?

shaayecanaan

(6,068 posts)
114. the correct spelling is "vacillated"
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 09:14 PM
Apr 2013

and the correct grammar is "the shit *that* you write"

and yes, he did.

Consider this for instance:-

"By ignoring the most important elements of the Labor resolution, Morris withholds the real gist of Ben-Gurion's reasoning. In contrast to Morris's claim, far from relishing the introduction of transfer into Labor's platform, Ben-Gurion viewed it as an unwarranted impediment that might complicate an otherwise historic platform. Had transfer been proposed on its own, Ben-Gurion would have dismissed it out of hand:

Were they to ask (me): "What should be our (i.e. the British Labor's) program?" I would find it inconceivable to tell them transfer. Were they to ask me whether to introduce this (transfer) as well (in addition to the proposal on a Jewish state), I would not have advised them to do so, because talk on the subject might cause harm … But now we are confronted with a fait accompli. It is not the Jews who made or publicized this (proposal) but rather gentiles. Englishmen made this proposal and advertised it.


http://www.meforum.org/711/benny-morriss-reign-of-error-revisited

But Karsh draws a fairly sketchy conclusion from that quote. Ben-Gurion isn't saying that transfer would be an "unwarranted impediment". What Ben-Gurion is saying that he would not like to be the one to bring up the issue of transfer, but given that it was in fact the English who brought it up, well, that is all well and good(or a "fait accompli&quot .



 

shira

(30,109 posts)
118. The JPS translation of that typed letter contains fabrications....
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 09:47 PM
Apr 2013

Here's how the hebrew in the typed manuscript reads (ask Pelsar):

We must expel Arabs and take their place. All of our ambitions are built on the assumption that has proven true throughout all of our activities in the land — that there is enough room for us and for the Arabs in the land [of Israel]. And if we will have to use force, not for the sake of evicting the Arabs of the Negev or Transjordan, but rather in order to secure the right that belongs to us to settle there, force will be available to us.


JPS added a few words that change the passage for the worse...

We must expel Arabs and take their place. Up to now all of our ambitions are built on the assumption that has proven true throughout all of our activities in the land — that there is enough room for us and for the Arabs in the land [of Israel]. But if we will have to use force, not for the sake of evicting the Arabs of the Negev or Transjordan, but rather in order to secure the right that belongs to us to settle there, force will be available to us.


And yet, you still believe JPS.

But that's not all. Here's the context before the sentence in question (from CAMERA):



• "The greater the Jewish strength in the country, the more the Arabs will realize that it is neither beneficial nor possible for them to withstand us. On the contrary, it will be possible for the Arabs to benefit enormously from the Jews, not only materially but politically as well."

• "... the Arabs will realize that it is better for them to become our allies ..."

• "They will derive benefits from our assistance if they, of their own free will, give us the opportunity to settle in all parts of the country."

• "... the Jews could be equal allies, real friends, not occupiers or tyrants over them."

• "It is very probable that they will agree that we undertake the development of the Negev and make it prosper in return for our financial, military, organizational, and scientific assistance."


So the alleged expulsion line doesn't fit.

Also, the hand-written hebrew doesn't show Ben Gurion calling for expulsion.

Response to shira (Reply #69)

aranthus

(3,385 posts)
82. Really poor analogy.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 03:50 PM
Apr 2013

First, the Jewish claim to the Holy Land is a lot stronger than just, "I think my great-great-great grand daddy might have stayed in that house once," though your false effort to diminish that claim is noted. Second, a house isn't a country. It isn't territory that can be easily divided. Third, the Arabs weren't the only people living in the Holy Land. Fourth, we aren't talking about ownership of the land, which the Palestinians didn't have much of in any case. The issue is sovereignty. Who has a right to have a country there. All I have to defend is the idea that the Jews, who previously had a country in the region, and who continued to live in it, had the right to some of it to recreate their country. You, on the other hand, are stuck with trying to defend the claim that the Palestinians, who never had a country in the region, now somehow have the exclusive right to all of it. The Jewish claim to some of the land does not deny Arab identity, and is in no way racist. The Arab position, based on the denial of Jewish nationhood, is per se antisemitic.

shaayecanaan

(6,068 posts)
102. Take a number and get in line...
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 06:21 PM
Apr 2013

All I have to defend is the idea that the Jews, who previously had a country in the region, and who continued to live in it, had the right to some of it to recreate their country.


Is that the standard? Excellent. I am a Maronite, descended from the Phoenecians (who were called Canaanites in the Bible, FYI). My presence in the land goes back further than 3500 BC, far older than the Jews. And we have been in the area since. How much of Palestine should I get?

What about the Assyrians? There are Assyrians in Israel even today. Their presence in the area goes back to Sargon the Great, the first emperor known to history, in around 2000 BC. How much should they get?
 

shira

(30,109 posts)
110. Somewhat off-topic b/c it's based on your religion....
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 07:00 PM
Apr 2013

...but what does the Maronite Church teach about the re-birth of Israel?

I'm curious. I have no idea.

shaayecanaan

(6,068 posts)
112. Nothing
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 08:39 PM
Apr 2013

The Maronite Church is in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. In most doctrinal matters there is very little daylight between the two.

Incidentally, the two main Maronite communities in present-day Israel were expelled from their villages and have not been permitted to return:-

Kafr Bir'im was captured by the Haganah on October 31, 1948 during Operation Hiram. In November 1948 most of the inhabitants were expelled until the military operation was complete, and none were subsequently permitted to return. Today the villagers and their descendants number about 2,000 people in Israel. In addition, there are villagers and descendants in Lebanon and in western countries.

In 1949, with cross-border infiltration a frequent occurrence, Israel did not allow the villagers to return to Bir'im on the grounds that Jewish settlement at the place would deter infiltration. Kibbutz Bar'am was established by demobilized soldiers on the lands of the village.

In 1953, the residents of former Kafr Bir'im appealed to the Supreme Court of Israel to return to their village. The court ruled that the authorities must answer to why they were not allowed to return. On September 16, 1953 the village was razed and 1,170 hectares of land were expropriated by the state.

The leader of Melkite Greek Catholics in Israel, Archbishop Georgios Hakim, alerted the Vatican and other church authorities, and the Israeli government offered the villagers compensation. Archbishop Hakim accepted compensation for the land belonging to the village church.

In the summer of 1972, the villagers of Kafr Bir'im and Iqrit went back to repair their churches and refused to leave. Their action was supported by archbishop Hakim's successor, Archbishop Joseph Raya. The police removed them by force. The government barred the return of the villagers so as not to create a precedent. In August 1972, a large group of Israeli Jews went to Kafr Bir'im and Iqrit to show solidarity with the villagers. Several thousand turned out for a demonstration in Jerusalem.The Israeli authorities said most of the inhabitants of the village had received compensation for their losses, but the villagers claimed they had only been compensated for small portions of their holdings. In 1972, the government rescinded all "closed regions" laws in the country, but then reinstated these laws for the two villages Kafr Bir'im and Iqrit.

This was met with criticism by the opposition parties. In the 1977 election campaign Menachem Begin, then leader of the right-wing Likud party, promised the villagers that they could return home if he was elected. This promise became a great embarrassment to him after he had won, and a decision on the issue was postponed as long as possible. It was left to his agriculture minister to reveal to the public that a special cabinet committee had decided that the villagers of Kafr Bir'im and Iqrit would not be allowed to return.

On March 24, 2000, Pope John Paul II appealed to Prime Minister of Israel Ehud Barak to do justice for the uprooted of Kafr Bir'im.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kafr_Bir%27im
 

shira

(30,109 posts)
115. Oh, I didn't know that (Roman Catholic Church). Jewish leaders praised....
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 09:15 PM
Apr 2013

...Pope Benedict for his relations with Jews and Israel. The new Pope Francis is seen as someone who is likely to be even more friendly with Jews and Israel.

Are you aware of this...

'Israel, Vatican near historic relationship upgrade'
http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Israel-Vatican-near-historic-relationship-upgrade

aranthus

(3,385 posts)
120. As far as I know
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 10:01 PM
Apr 2013

the homeland of the Phoenicians (to the extent that there are any left), was in what is now Lebanon. That of the Assyrians was in Tigris river valley in what is now Iraq. You are welcome to them. The bottom line is that you don't seem to accept the right of the Jews of Israel to a country of their own. Enjoy the war.

shaayecanaan

(6,068 posts)
125. The homeland of the Phoenecians
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 11:56 PM
Apr 2013

was originally in Canaan, which comprised most of the Levant, including modern day Israel and Palestine. They were forced to move their base to Tyre and Sidon, and eventually to Carthage, where they were eventually crushed by the Romans during the Punic Wars and scattered. A small remnant survived in Ibixa for a time.

The construction of the so-called "Second Temple" was actually sub-contracted out to the Phoenicians, as they were considered the most accomplished artisans of their time.

As for "any being left", I would say that my claim to being the literal descendent of the ancient Canaanites is no more or no less footsure than your claim to be descended from the ancient Hebrews.

If anything, my claim is perhaps more likely, as at least my ancestors have remained in the area over the ensuing few millenia.

Shaktimaan

(5,397 posts)
153. Poor analogy
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 08:30 PM
Apr 2013

It was never the Palestinians house to start. And the immigrants legally moved to land they bought. If I'm renting said house for a long time do I get to kill any new tenants for stealing 'my' house?

shaayecanaan

(6,068 posts)
154. "It was never the Palestinians house to start."
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 08:34 PM
Apr 2013

Damn right. Your God gave it to you. They should be thankful that you give them a gutter to lie in.

 

Challenger1

(14 posts)
67. BDS is fraudulent because...really?
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 08:27 AM
Apr 2013

So is avoiding goods marked "made in Israel" a violent act? This is taken from their website,

"...For decades, Israel has denied Palestinians their fundamental rights of freedom, equality, and self-determination through ethnic cleansing, colonization, racial discrimination, and military occupation. Despite abundant condemnation of Israeli policies by the UN, other international bodies, and preeminent human rights organisations, the world community has failed to hold Israel accountable and enforce compliance with basic principles of law. Israel’s crimes have continued with impunity.

In view of this continued failure, Palestinian civil society called for a global citizens’ response. On July 9 2005, a year after the International Court of Justice’s historic advisory opinion on the illegality of Israel’s Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT), a clear majority of Palestinian civil society called upon their counterparts and people of conscience all over the world to launch broad boycotts, implement divestment initiatives, and to demand sanctions against Israel, until Palestinian rights are recognised in full compliance with international law.

The campaign for boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS) is shaped by a rights-based approach and highlights the three broad sections of the Palestinian people: the refugees, those under military occupation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and Palestinians in Israel. The call urges various forms of boycott against Israel until it meets its obligations under international law by:

1.Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands occupied in June 1967 and dismantling the Wall;
2.Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and
3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194."

No demand for the destruction of Israel as far as I can see; whites have equal rights alongside blacks in post-Apartheid South Africa don't they? Theres no-one stopping whites from following their religion or cultural activities.

Just curious, how and why does a religious group suddenly acquire a "right" to a "national existence"? If they really wanted a national space/homeland/state so much, what prevented them going to Palestine between the 7th century CE and the 20th century CE? There were no laws during the Caliphate, Seljuk or Ottoman Empires to prevent anyone of any religion settling in the area that is now modern Israel?

 

shira

(30,109 posts)
70. It's not about rights when that 1-state would be a totalitarian, theocratic Islamist nation....
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 09:40 AM
Apr 2013

....based on sharia law.

That is the 1-state solution the Palestinians are for, not a secular democracy (which maybe 10-15% at most support).

 

Challenger1

(14 posts)
75. As opposed to....
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 01:20 PM
Apr 2013

..the current situation where you have a "Herrenvolk" state that oppresses it's minorities and which is based on the Halakha.

The Palestinians originally wanted a unitary secular state where everyone had equal rights, whereas the Zionists wanted an exclusively "Palestinian free" Jews only, state. Sadly since the Israelis have systematically assassinated or imprisoned the more moderate Palestinian leadership over the last six decades,all you have left are the fanatics. As ye sow, so shall ye reap.

 

shira

(30,109 posts)
87. As opposed to 2 states, which the Palestinians have rejected since 1937.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 05:11 PM
Apr 2013

Last edited Tue Apr 16, 2013, 07:07 AM - Edit history (1)

The Palestinians originally wanted a unitary secular state where everyone had equal rights, whereas the Zionists wanted an exclusively "Palestinian free" Jews only, state.


You're joking right? Please tell me you're joking...

[div]Sadly since the Israelis have systematically assassinated or imprisoned the more moderate Palestinian leadership over the last six decades,all you have left are the fanatics. As ye sow, so shall ye reap.


Where do you learn all this shit?

Shaktimaan

(5,397 posts)
157. Tell it!
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 02:18 AM
Apr 2013
The Palestinians originally wanted a unitary secular state where everyone had equal rights, whereas the Zionists wanted an exclusively "Palestinian free" Jews only, state.


So like, which Palestinian leader (or whoever), was espousing this idea?

And what Zionists wanted an Arab free state?

And why did all these leaders that I know about all famously say the opposite while none say your things?

delrem

(9,688 posts)
49. Hitler! Nazis! Holocaust! ???? BDS isn't that.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 12:37 AM
Apr 2013

This is 2013 and BDS is meant to force Israel to recognize the equal human rights of the indiginous Palestinian people, which Israel has for decades now kept under siege and occupation. BDS has nothing whatever to do with Nazi Germany of 60+ years ago, it is 100% concerned with the situation in I/P in 2013.

 

shira

(30,109 posts)
65. BWAHAHAHA!
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 06:58 AM
Apr 2013

The only reason the Palestinians and their fans haven't accepted the 2 state paradigm in 1937, 1947, 1967, 2000, and 2008 is because they're against Israel's existence. That's why BDS insists on RoR, which everyone knows means the end of Israel.

Jews have equal human rights to their historic and cultural homeland too.

delrem

(9,688 posts)
83. HITLER! NAZIS!! THE HOLOCAUST!!! AAAUUUUGGHHHH!
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 04:49 PM
Apr 2013

"BDS insists on RoR, which everyone knows means the end of Israel.
Jews have equal human rights to their historic and cultural homeland too."

So Jews have an equal right to be denied RoR? So kewl !

 

shira

(30,109 posts)
88. There were no refugees or calls for RoR prior to 1937 or 1947....
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 05:13 PM
Apr 2013

The Palestinians rejected 2 states both times.

Tell me why.

I'll wait....

 

shira

(30,109 posts)
98. You didn't answer b/c u know you're full of shit.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 05:44 PM
Apr 2013

Occupation, settlements and refugees weren't issues in 1937 and 1947, but you persist in the lie that it's all Israel's fault. As if history started in 1948 or 1967 and not before.

What other lies do you want to throw at us today?

 

shira

(30,109 posts)
108. Well then, stop BS'ing that it's all about occupation, settlements, refugees....
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 06:33 PM
Apr 2013

...when none of that had anything to do with Palestinian rejection of 2 states in 1937 and 1947.

If you think your cause is moral, ethical, legal, etc... then you shouldn't have to bullshit or lie, right?

delrem

(9,688 posts)
109. Hitler and the Nazis, singing "I've got a lovely bunch of coconuts"
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 06:40 PM
Apr 2013

down at the english fair
one evening i was there
when i heard a showman shouting underneath the flair
*chorus*
i've got a lovely bunch of coconuts
there they are standing in a row
big ones small ones some as big as your head
give 'em a twist
a flick of the wrist
that's wut the show man said
now that i've got a lovely bunch of coconuts
everybody knows they'll make me rich
there stands me wife
the idle of me life
singing a rolly bowly ball a penny a pitch
singing a rolly bowly ball a penny a pitch
rolly bowly ball
a rolly bowly ball
singing rolly bowly ball a penny a pinch

i've got a lovely bunch of coconuts
*how lovely*
there they are standing in a row
*1-2-3-4*
big ones small ones some as big as your head
*and bigger*
give 'em a twist
a flick of the wrist
that's wut the show man said
now that i've got a lovely bunch of coconuts
everybody knows they'll make me rich
*Have a banana*
there stands me wife
the idle of me life
singing a rolly bowly ball a penny a pitch
singing a rolly bowly ball a penny a pitch
rolly bowly ball
a rolly bowly ball
singing rolly bowly ball penny a pinch

Response to shira (Reply #65)

 

shira

(30,109 posts)
89. Being a Jew is an ethnic group. Consider atheist Jews.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 05:15 PM
Apr 2013

In no way can they be considered religious Jews.

They could've used an Israel (Jewish homeland) prior to WWII, don't you think?

Response to shira (Reply #89)

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
66. Wow. How loathsome.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 07:05 AM
Apr 2013

The article plays the Nazi card in as disgusting a way as I've seen. Putrid to compare boycotting Israeli products with the Nazi Regime.

Sick shit.

 

shira

(30,109 posts)
72. BDS is for the destruction of Israel & denial of the Jewish right to self-determination
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 09:45 AM
Apr 2013

The only way BDS goals can be achieved is through warfare and mass murder.

Call it what you wish, but it's Jew hate nonetheless.

 

R. Daneel Olivaw

(12,606 posts)
77. "Jewish right to self-determination"
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 02:22 PM
Apr 2013

I guess "Jewish right to self-determination" is code for illegal colonization of the West Bank and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.

 

shira

(30,109 posts)
90. Ask yourself why the Palestinians rejected 2 states in 1937 & 1947....
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 05:16 PM
Apr 2013

There was no "illegal colonization" or "ethnic cleansing" or "refugees" back then.

Give it your best shot.

I'll wait...

delrem

(9,688 posts)
141. trollonut?
Fri Apr 5, 2013, 11:04 PM
Apr 2013

Notice how threads and sub-threads get hijacked by phony "questions", in this case "why the Palestinians rejected... back in...", the so-called "questions" being subjects that've been done to death in the last 6 months alone, to say nothing of the last 6 or 10 years. I'm just a recent contributor but even at that I can confidently say that *every* regular contributor to I/P has weighed in on that subject multiple times - ad nauseum.

Which explains why I put the term 'question' in quotation marks. When a question is honest, answers are read, they are thought through to some minimal degree at least and to some degree acknowledged. But so often that it's almost as a rule, "questions" are asked and answers are demanded from a tag-team that changes hands mid-stream, never acknowledging anything said by those of whom answers are demanded from. I know this because I've written farking paragraphs and paragraphs, in response to that kind of faux "questioning", only to be ignored completely and told that I "lack courage to respond", this charge usually coming from some tag-team partner of the original coconut.

This is why I threw my hands up and went ridiculous with a "I've got a lovely bunch of coconuts" response to that tactic being used yet again, after it's been used by the same tag-team in multiple threads just in the last few days.

 

shira

(30,109 posts)
142. Either you don't get it or you don't want to get it....
Sat Apr 6, 2013, 07:48 AM
Apr 2013

BDS is the same bullshit against Jewish self-determination that existed prior to 1947 and also 1937. That's why I brought that up. The same forces against Israel today aren't much different than those which existed in '37 and '47.

I'm certain you know that, but for reasons unexplained you're afraid to really discuss it.

 

R. Daneel Olivaw

(12,606 posts)
116. Better yet. How about this?
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 09:30 PM
Apr 2013

What gives Israel the right to theft what is not theirs, what the international community states is not theirs?

 

shira

(30,109 posts)
119. You're veering off course on another rabbit trail. I'm not playing along...
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 09:51 PM
Apr 2013

BDS is against Jewish self-determination altogether. Even the 1937 and 1947 brand.

I thought you were for 2 states, not one like BDS.

So why defend their crap?

 

R. Daneel Olivaw

(12,606 posts)
121. It's not a rabbit trail, Shira. It's just that you are a poltroon when it comes to the simple truth.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 10:21 PM
Apr 2013

This week you are screaming about BDS again + 1937 and 1947, but you never fail to ignore that Israelis *stole Palestinian land after the Nakba: not because they were entitled to it but just because they could get away with it. Cowards steal other peoples land when they are not there to defend its loss.

*And let's face it, Shira. Israel is still stealing Palestinian lands today while cowards with IDF-issued weapons cheer it on.
Every nation, at some point or another in its history, faces a challenge of what kind of society it will be: for all of it's people and all those people that it touches. Some nations show benevolence and courage to do the right thing while others dress up in uniform, chant catchy phrases, and wrap themselves in the flag: as they march through history and over the people that they conquer.
 

shira

(30,109 posts)
122. Do you think Israel has any claim to the Western Wall or the Jewish Quarter....
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 10:25 PM
Apr 2013

...in Jerusalem? Is that "stolen" property from the Palestinians?

And you're still deflecting from 1937 and 1947. Why?

It's a rabbit trail b/c the OP is about BDS, not "stolen lands". I'm sticking to the topic. You're not...

 

R. Daneel Olivaw

(12,606 posts)
123. I really don't give a hot bunies crap if it bothers you, Shira.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 10:32 PM
Apr 2013

Cowards steal other peoples land when they know the owner is out.

Shaktimaan

(5,397 posts)
145. Simple truths are for simple minds.
Sun Apr 7, 2013, 06:48 AM
Apr 2013
But you never fail to ignore that Israelis *stole Palestinian land after the Nakba: not because they were entitled to it but just because they could get away with it
.

Israel took Arab land after fighting a war where their existence was threatened. There already existed many arab states. There was a population exchange. Israel took Arab land. Arabs took Jewish land. Securing that land sans Arab inhabitants became a necessity once that population definitively attacked the Jewish population.

Cowards steal other peoples land when they are not there to defend its loss.


You describe every state in existence.

Every nation, at some point or another in its history, faces a challenge of what kind of society it will be: for all of it's people and all those people that it touches. Some nations show benevolence and courage to do the right thing while others dress up in uniform, chant catchy phrases, and wrap themselves in the flag: as they march through history and over the people that they conquer.


Bullshit. There's no single definitive moment. States like organisms evolve and change over time. Besides, comparatively Israel has a far more ethical creation than most states. No question.

Response to shira (Reply #72)

 

shira

(30,109 posts)
91. S.African blacks didn't make threats to annhilate the whites....
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 05:17 PM
Apr 2013

That's been happening vs. the Jews since well before 1948.

Try again.

Response to shira (Reply #91)

azurnoir

(45,850 posts)
174. so are you saying that South African Blacks were totally non-violent
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 05:56 PM
Apr 2013

in their struggle against apartheid?

azurnoir

(45,850 posts)
176. I did that's why I asked and oh BTW when it comes to annilhilating Whites in South Africa
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 06:12 PM
Apr 2013

South African Whites claimed that is what South African Blacks were saying and would do if Apartheid were to end

all sounds somehow so familiar

 

bravenak

(34,648 posts)
171. Bds is for the best.
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 04:38 PM
Apr 2013

The best thing that can happen to Israel is for BDS to be effective. I despise racism and that is what this being used to combat it. I'm 32, and I don't understand how an occupation can go on for so long. I think about the people my age who through no fault of their own were born into a situation where they are denied the right to self governance, and self determination. And it makes me ill. I see people talking about the 1940's, and the 1960s like, oh well they should have taken a deal.
No. Israel is in a position of power, and being powerful means you take responsibility for your actions. Or the world will begin to boycott you. You don't like it? Change your policies! Maybe BDS will help them change their policies. No one has to buy your goods.
I recently refused to make a purchase of sea salt scrubs that were made in Palestine but labeled made in Israel. I would have bought them if they were labeled correctly. 200 dollars for another vendor.

 

bravenak

(34,648 posts)
173. No.
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 04:51 PM
Apr 2013

An Israeli businesswoman mislabeled her products, I asked where they were made. She said Israel.
I said " where at" . She said, "well not really Israel but Palestine, it's the same thing."
I said " no it's not." Then I proceeded to go to another vendor, who wasn't a liar.
I hate liars. If she would have labeled them properly, and not lied, I would have bought them from her.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Israel/Palestine»Opinion: BDS — a new name...