Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forumOpinion: 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. Hitlers 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 Israels 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
aranthus
(3,385 posts)First weaken, and then get rid of, the Jewish state.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)was anti-white but the Nazi comparisons do speak volumes here
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)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: Dont 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, Israels 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.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)spoke quite loudly as to the politics of the author
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)bemildred
(90,061 posts)That much seems clear.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)cause I disagree all the time
bemildred
(90,061 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)Regardless of the merits of the issue, their rhetoric is way over the top.
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)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)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)and not much else
aranthus
(3,385 posts)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)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)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)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)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)and you promote a country discriminating by ethnic group? Do you promote the same for the US too?
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)Quite.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)Why on earth would we fear something that is such an abject failure? Laughable.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)"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)....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)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.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)"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)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)those who do want any RoR as far as I can tell
shira
(30,109 posts)...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)if one wants to see how Israel treats those it deems unwelcome one only need review Israel's recent history with African refugees
shira
(30,109 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)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)....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
Those 2 are among the biggest advocates for BDS and very popular within the movement.
A truly odious cause.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)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)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)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)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)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
shira
(30,109 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)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)....and blowing up Jews? You think that's a BS claim?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)that's all and I defined the parameters too
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?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)com'on tell us I'm no longer sure
pelsar
(12,283 posts)and thats enough....to end your "blanket statements of pseudo facts."
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)I'm waiting but please include links
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)or can't you?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)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.
Israels 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
Israels 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)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)Israel has treated nonJewish African refugees quite badly in the recent past
pelsar
(12,283 posts)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)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)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)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)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
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)does the occupation just last forever or what?
pelsar
(12,283 posts)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)but not as sure about what will happen as Bibi and the current government seem bent on status quo
pelsar
(12,283 posts)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)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)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)So it's that lie that makes BDS nasty.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)by which people are judged based on what religious/ethnic group they belong to, how is that not apartheid?
shira
(30,109 posts)You cannot defend that lie, can you?
So why not hold BDS accountable for lying?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)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)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)?
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:
194550; < Afrikaans, equivalent to apart apart + -heid -hood
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/apartheid?s=t
aranthus
(3,385 posts)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)and that discrimination in the US can be called apartheid
aranthus
(3,385 posts)That makes the term morally meaningless.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)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)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)that does not make it "morally meaningless" at all
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)By that definition the terms apartheid and discrimination are basically synonymous?
aranthus
(3,385 posts)It seems to take the special moral teeth out of the word.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)or is it mere discrimination in your mind?
aranthus
(3,385 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)aranthus
(3,385 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)aranthus
(3,385 posts)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)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)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)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
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)No, it obviously doesn't meet the definition of apartheid.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)No
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)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)Since most places are apartheid who cares?
Incidentally, how does the marriage law keep gay people apart from straights?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)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)They are already set apart by virtue of their sexuality or anything else that uses the term so metaphorically. Is being gay apartheid?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)A kind of 'reverse apartheid?'
As its definitely discrimination mandated by law.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)which many right wingers do
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)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)especially economic ones that lead to schools in minority area's being less advantaged that those in more affluent areas
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)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)fascinating indeed, an other unusual opinion on a progressive website
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)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.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)Challenger1
(14 posts)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)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)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)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)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)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)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.
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.
What mind numbing bullshit. At least the honest Zionists (such as Ben-Gurion) had the good taste to realise the obvious:-
aranthus
(3,385 posts)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)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)...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)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.
-- 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.
--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)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)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)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, 19471949, Cambridge University Press, p. 25.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/David_Ben-Gurion#Quotes
Benny Morris also said it was bullcrap:
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" is genuine; the rest ( "The Arabs will have to go ... such as a war" 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)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?
Bodhi BloodWave
(2,346 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)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:
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)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)...and tossing them out, all within a few lines of each other?
Do you seriously believe the shit you write?
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)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:
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" .
shira
(30,109 posts)Here's how the hebrew in the typed manuscript reads (ask Pelsar):
JPS added a few words that change the passage for the worse...
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.
delrem
(9,688 posts)Response to shira (Reply #69)
Name removed Message auto-removed
aranthus
(3,385 posts)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)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)...but what does the Maronite Church teach about the re-birth of Israel?
I'm curious. I have no idea.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)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:-
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)...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)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)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)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)Damn right. Your God gave it to you. They should be thankful that you give them a gutter to lie in.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)If your only argument relies on fabricating false beliefs of mine then you're in trouble.
Challenger1
(14 posts)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. Israels 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 Justices historic advisory opinion on the illegality of Israels 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)....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)..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)Last edited Tue Apr 16, 2013, 07:07 AM - Edit history (1)
You're joking right? Please tell me you're joking...
Where do you learn all this shit?
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)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)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.
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)"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)The Palestinians rejected 2 states both times.
Tell me why.
I'll wait....
delrem
(9,688 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)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?
delrem
(9,688 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)...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)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)
Name removed Message auto-removed
shira
(30,109 posts)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)
Name removed Message auto-removed
cali
(114,904 posts)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)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)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)There was no "illegal colonization" or "ethnic cleansing" or "refugees" back then.
Give it your best shot.
I'll wait...
delrem
(9,688 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)delrem
(9,688 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)delrem
(9,688 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)delrem
(9,688 posts)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)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)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)What gives Israel the right to theft what is not theirs, what the international community states is not theirs?
shira
(30,109 posts)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)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)...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)Cowards steal other peoples land when they know the owner is out.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)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.
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)
Name removed Message auto-removed
shira
(30,109 posts)That's been happening vs. the Jews since well before 1948.
Try again.
Response to shira (Reply #91)
Name removed Message auto-removed
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)in their struggle against apartheid?
shira
(30,109 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)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)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.
King_David
(14,851 posts)Well done.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)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.