NY Times, MSNBC Whitewash BDS

[King_David]

BDS opposes a two-state solution, but you wouldn’t know it from the media

By Yair Rosenberg|February 6, 2013 10:15 AM|58comments

As you’ve no doubt heard, a controversial panel about the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS) against Israel is set to take place tomorrow at Brooklyn College. Because the event received the sponsorship of the college’s political science department, it has evoked harsh criticism from prominent Jewish intellectuals and New York City elected officials, some of whom have called for the panel to be cancelled, or for the political science department to withdraw its imprimatur.

This week, both MSNBC’s Up with Chris Hayes and the New York Times editorial board publicly defended the panel’s right to convene and the political science department’s right to sponsor it. I happen to agree with their conclusions, if not necessarily their rationales. But in introducing the BDS movement to their audiences, both of these respected media outlets dramatically misrepresented its stated aims and implicit goals, whitewashing the movement’s radicalism.

Here’s how Hayes opened his segment:


A group of Brooklyn College students organized an event to discuss the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, which is an attempt by activists here and around to world to pressure Israel to end its settlements and occupation through organized boycotts, international sanctions and divestments modeled on those directed at South Africa during apartheid.

Yesterday, the New York Times editorial board offered a similar characterization in defending the panel, claiming it would feature “two speakers who support an international boycott to force Israel to end its occupation of the Palestinian territories.” The only problem here is that this is not, in fact, the entirety of what the BDS movement advocates. Don’t take it from me—just read their website.


http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/123598/ny-times-msnbc-whitewash-bds

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

1. Some must be really really scared that BDS will develop legs.

Keep on posting about it, KingDavid. By all means.

The more attention that is drawn to BDS will make more DUers, as well as others, read up about it.

You know what they say? There's no such thing as bad press.

[shira]

2. I thought you were for peace and 2 states....not for 1-state and more war. n/t

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

4. You see, Shira, it's the message that you should be concerned about and not the messenger.

As long as Israel continues on its aggressive path of colonization, land theft and apartheid, while pretending it doesn't exist, it will cause more people to wake up and stand against such things.

Whether it is the BDS movement, the UN, the international community or just everyday people realizing Israeli bellicosity towards the Palestinians must end, they all share a common purpose/interest in seeing Israel not act like a rouge state.

Those that defend Israel as a "My country right or wrong" nation will sooner or later find out that this stance has left them out in the cold. They can always try to attack and assassinate the character of the individuals who makes these statements, but that will only wake up others to Israeli injustice.

Do one really believe that they can Goldstone the world?

[shira]

12. The message...? What, that BDS haters are gaining traction? And that's a good thing?

Is that as good as the greater Israel folk getting their version of 1-state?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

22. Try rereading what I have written instead of having a meltdown.

[shira]

25. I'm asking your view on BDS and you're deflecting. Is this difficult for you? n/t

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

27. Try rereading what I have written instead not reading it.

Addendum: Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions? If it helps Israel see the light and remove its colonists, troops and security zones from the West Bank while letting the Palestinians have their own state then I am all for it.

I'm not for the dissolution of the state of Israel. I'm also not for the dissolution of the Palestinian people as a price tag for Israeli expansion.

We both know you don't agree with any of that since you and others have stated, are on record as saying, that parts of the West bank belong just as much to the nation of Israel (I strongly disagree) as it does to the Palestinians, and we both know that means colonialism.

I can admit that. Others not so much.

[aranthus]

31. Some thoughts on what you've written.

Daneel>Addendum: Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions? If it helps Israel see the light and remove its colonists, troops and security zones from the West Bank while letting the Palestinians have their own state then I am all for it.

[font color=blue]But isn't that a pretty big if? Consider that most Israelis believe that BDS is simply one more front in the war against the Jewish state. They believe that the primary goal of BDS is to fully enforce RoR (since the founders of the movement say that is what it's about), which would create an Arab majority state. So the Israelis can look forward to BDS continuing even after they withdraw from the West Bank and allow a Palestinian state. So why should they do so in response to BDS? Why would they?[/font]

Daneel>I'm not for the dissolution of the state of Israel.

[font color=blue]That's close to, but not exactly the issue. It isn't a question of dismantling the state apparatus. Does Israel have the right to remain a Jewish state? I believe that it does. BDS founders believe that it doesn't, and are pushing BDS to insure that it doesn't.[/font]

Daneel>I'm also not for the dissolution of the Palestinian people as a price tag for Israeli expansion.

[font color=blue]Ditto. But as Beinart and many others have pointed out, that really isn't the goal of BDS.[/font]

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

32. Reply.

But isn't that a pretty big if?

The UN, Europe and most of the international community has been increasingly tired with Israels attitude towards the Palestinians, their illegal settlements and outward colonization of the West Bank. The Israelis can always ignore movements like BDS, but that doesn't mean that the rest of the world has to, and that is the danger to Israel. What they ignore today might be the thing that shuts them off tomorrow.

I might be in support of BDS as an idea, but not as a means to a 1 state solution. I even mentioned as much to Shira above.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/113431312#post4

You see, Shira, it's the message that you should be concerned about and not the messenger.

As long as Israel continues on its aggressive path of colonization, land theft and apartheid, while pretending it doesn't exist, it will cause more people to wake up and stand against such things.

Does Israel have the right to remain a Jewish state?

Israel is presently 76% Jewish 24% other. What happens if normal birthrates amongst others tip the balance? Deportations?

Ditto. But as Beinart and many others have pointed out, that really isn't the goal of BDS.

What are the goals of illegal Israeli colonialism? That is the real question, and who stands in opposition to that is the answer. Israel can continue to play games and play "land theft is debatable", but sooner or later it will backfire. We are starting to witness it now?

What happens then? Will Israel double down on its hold of the West bank? I hope not. I believe that world patience is running very thin with Israel.

[aranthus]

35. Now I understand.

Daneel>The UN, Europe and most of the international community has been increasingly tired with Israels attitude toward the Palestinians, their illegal settlements and outward colonization of the West Bank. The Israelis can always ignore movements like BDS, but that doesn't mean that the rest of the world has to

[font color=blue]So now your point is that the world will force Israel to comply with the demands of BDS. The question is still why should the Israelis agree to any of that, and now also, why should the world do such a terrible thing? Let's be clear. The purpose, intent, goal of BDS is the enforcement of RoR leading to the replacement of the Jewish state of Israel with an Arab state. Whether it's called Israel doesn't matter. So the question is why should the Israelis comply with demands that are intended to destroy their society? Who among us is that suicidal? If you give them the choice between agreeing to their own destruction or fighting for their survival, won't they fight? Please don't talk to me about withdrawing the Occupation or civil rights for Palestinians. We all want that. BDS tosses that out as the shiny bauble to attract useful fools. The Israelis aren't fooled. I doubt the major players in the world are fooled either. BDS has efficacy only as a prong of the war against the existence of the Jewish state. That may be the way the wind is blowing. It's happened before. The world has made war on the Jews in many places for a long, long time. We're still here.[/font]

Aranthus>Does Israel have the right to remain a Jewish state?

Daneel>Israel is presently 76% Jewish 24% other. What happens if normal birthrates among others tip the balance? Deportations?

[font color=blue]Well that's a question that could be asked of any state, isn't it? What if Hispanic immigration to the US continues unchecked and those people refuse to assimilate? What if Arab immigration continues to Europe and those people don't assimilate? Does any society have the right to itself? I believe that it does. As far as Israel is concerned, the demographic bomb is pretty much a dud. It's an eventuality that is very unlikely to happen if ever. It's also a far cry from what is envisaged by BDS. BDS imagines the immigration of millions of Arabs to Israel all at once. Do those people plan on assimilating? No, the plan is that the Arab majority will take over. In any event, by your non-answer to the question, I can safely assume that your answer is no, Israel doesn't have the right to remain a Jewish state. I presume that you do support the RoR[/font]

Aranthus>But as Beinart and many others have pointed out, that really isn't the goal of BDS.

Daneel>What are the goals of illegal Israeli colonialism? That is the real question, and who stands in opposition to that is the answer.

[font color=blue]Well, no, the question is why should one support BDS? Since I don't believe that Israeli settlements are illegal or colonialist (even though they have to be removed), that reasoning is out. It isn't because it's a practical means of achieving justice since it isn't really about justice and it isn't practical. If you support RoR return I understand your position. I also understand the frustration of those who observe what's happening in Israel/Palestine. Frustration is warranted with both sides. What's questionable is why one would policies that impact only one side of the issue without making demands on the other.[/font]

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

38. No, you don't understand.

So now your point is that the world will force Israel to comply with the demands of BDS.

No, the UN and international community has been pressuring Israel for years through diplomatic means and UN resolutions to stop Isreal's illegal occupation of Palestinian territory. BDS is new to the game, but it is indicative of a growing chorus of groups that have had enough of Israel ignoring international law.

why should the world do such a terrible thing?

The world isn't. Israel is the one doing the terrible thing and it is called occupation/colonization. The international community is acting accordingly. Some call it anti-Semitism or such nonsense.

So the question is why should the Israelis comply with demands that are intended to destroy their society?

I didn't write that I agreed with a 1 state solution. Why you want to omit this...?

I might be in support of BDS as an idea, but not as a means to a 1 state solution. I even mentioned as much to Shira above.

I did write that I agree with the premise of sanctions The answer is sooner or later Israel, by its belligerent attitudes, will force a sea change by turning the international community against it. Whether you like it or not Israel has brought this upon themselves.

What if Hispanic immigration to the US continues unchecked and those people refuse to assimilate? What if Arab immigration continues to Europe and those people don't assimilate?

I'm not sure why you wrote that since what I wrote was pretty clear. This is not about immigration into the state of Israel. My hypothetical in answer to your question was, "What happens if normal birthrates amongst others (see 24% other population of Israel) tip the balance? Deportations?" It may be unlikely, but what would be the outcome?

Immigration is another matter, and to be frank the complexion of America has changed over the years from one of a tight order of White Anglo Saxon Protestants with the influx of Irish, Italians and other European peoples. They have assimilated over time to the benefit of America. So I would welcome more immigrants. But that is not what I was writing about to begin with, and I was clear on that point. Immigration can be controlled by a country, but are internal birthrates to be as well to keep the status quo?

Well, no, the question is why should one support BDS? Since I don't believe that Israeli settlements are illegal or colonialist (even though they have to be removed), that reasoning is out.

Once again:

I might be in support of BDS as an idea, but not as a means to a 1 state solution. I even mentioned as much to Shira above.

Also,regardless of what you believe the UN and international community is at odds with Israel over colonialism and illegal settlements. By the standard of international law they are illegal. Period.

What I wrote was pretty clear before. If Israel continues along this self destructive path then more people will start to take the position of BDS, whether they follow a specific path or pressure group is up to them, and Israel will be left without friends: a tragedy of its own making.

[aranthus]

40. So now I'm confused.

You say that you support BDS as an idea. What does that mean? If you mean that you support peaceful pressure to accomplish goals rather than violence, then I think we are agreed on that. Where I have a problem is with this BDS and the goals of its proponents. Do you support the Right of Return for Palestinian refugees? If not, then I think that you should have a problem with the people behind BDs making that their principle demand. They are really asking the world to support them in achieving a goal that can't be achieved peacefully.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

41. I never wrote that I support "The BDS people." I may have posted one or two articles in I/P

about what was going on with them, but I didn't endorse them specifically.

I see the idea of BDS as a goal of bringing Israel to see the light when it comes to the Palestinian people deserving a state to call their own.

I support the right of return of the Palestinians to either the West Bank or Gaza. I have written that in I/P before as well. I have on occasion asked one poster in general why should Israelis be allowed to colonize the West Bank, citing it as part of Israel thousands of years ago, but Palestinians who were driven out of Israel recently have no recourse to right of return. Something on the order of 500K Palestinians became refugees after 1948.

Now, what I also wrote is that as long as Israel digs in its heels it doesn't do itself any good, and by continuing down the road of history as an occupying power, colonial power, apartheid state they are only going to invite more people to be turned off to them and demand BDS. It doesn't mean that The BDS people will be the movement but the principle of BDS may take off.

To be honest, I don't want to see that happen. Both sides have suffered in this conflict. I would love to see the Palestinians dump Hamas and Abbas and have their own spring. I would also like to see Israel wake up and realize that the future path that they walk is a dangerous one.

I do hope that both sides can find a peaceful solution, but one is not forthcoming if Israel asks the Palestinians to accept a Palestine that has parts of non-contiguous Israeli settlements existing within it as well as large parts of the WB controlled as a security barrier by Israel.

I am a humanist, and I see this conflict should be put to rest. It will take time, and all parties are going to have to accept responsibility for their actions.

The first step in that process will need to either have Israel remove its citizens. These settlements are illegal in nature.

All of the Palestinians will have to disarm, no more rockets, and accept Israel's right to exist.

If Palestine will accept the settlements then their inhabitants live under Palestinian rule. If these inhabitanst don't whish to accept that then they can live within Israel's borders.

[shira]

44. RDO, we're all in favor of what you claim to be an advocate for.....

Last edited Mon Feb 18, 2013, 11:17 AM - Edit history (1)

2 states, RoR into Gaza and the WB, recognition of Israel, Palestinians disarming, people remaining in settlements becoming Palestinian, etc.

You won't find any zionists here disagreeing with you.

I think where we disagree is how/when this happens, so what's your plan?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

46. Israel needs to follow what the UN has laid out with regards to resolutions, shira.

That's a hard pill to swallow for the Israel is never wrong crowd.

[shira]

47. Be specific. What does Israel need to do besides making offers for peace....

....like in 2001 and 2008?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

49. I was specific, Shira.

You know it, and anybody that just read my comment knows it.

Playing ignorant does not suit you when others can see you just want to continue the argument for god knows what.


I've said it before, Shira, and that is Israel can continue with this poor choice of illegal colonization/settlements/apartheid: setting the framework for future sanctions.

Why you want to continue the argument when you must know it will not win me over is beyond me.

[shira]

52. No you weren't. What exactly do you think the UN calls for WRT an end to the conflict? n/t

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

54. Yes, Shira, I was. Israel must comply with UN resolutions

with regard to the Palestinians, the West bank, and frankly any other resolutions pertaining to conflicts in their area they are involved in.

I'm not sure what you are looking for, Shira, but since you are on record of being against the UN and calling them akin to the KKK I know that anything that I provide to you with regard to UN resolutions will just be ignored for another round of your lunacy.

Have a nice day.

[shira]

58. Let's start slow: Should Israel uproot all its settlements according to UN policy?

Oslo states this is a final status issue. Arafat and Abbas are signatories to Oslo, meaning they agreed settlements are a final status issue.

Now in your view, should Israel abandon all settlements before negotiating a final peace agreement?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

63. Fibi Netanyahu.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_I_Accord

In a 2001 video, Netanyahu, reportedly unaware he was being recorded, said: "They asked me before the election if I'd honor [the Oslo accords]... I said I would, but [that] I'm going to interpret the accords in such a way that would allow me to put an end to this galloping forward to the '67 borders. How did we do it? Nobody said what defined military zones were. Defined military zones are security zones; as far as I'm concerned, the entire Jordan Valley is a defined military zone. Go argue."[11][12] Netanyahu then explained how he conditioned his signing of the 1997 Hebron agreement on American consent that there be no withdrawals from "specified military locations", and insisted he be allowed to specify which areas constituted a "military location"—such as the whole of the Jordan Valley. "Why is that important? Because from that moment on I stopped the Oslo Accords", Netanyahu affirmed.[13]

Israel doesn't want peace.

Yes, let's go slow, Shira.

Israel doesn't want peace.

Fibi doesn't want peace.

[shira]

109. If "Fibi" torpedoed Oslo in 1997, how do you explain the Clinton Initiatives of 2001....

....and the Olmert offer in 2008 that was even better?

They went FAR beyond what Oslo had in mind. Those offers for states were WELL beyond what Yitzak Rabin was willing to offer just weeks before his assassination.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

120. It's not if, my deluded friend. It simply is.

This is what Fibi said.

I can understand that this damming admission by Netanyahu must make even the most ardent supporters of apartheid and colonialism red faced with embarrassment, but within that group there are some who will pick themselves up, brush themselves off and collect the next round of IDF talking points; to convince the unsure and passersby that illegal settlements, apartheid and colonialism are just Israeli for we love you.

[shira]

121. Bibi didn't do anything in '97 that affected 2001 and 2008....

....which went FAR beyond what Oslo had in mind for the Palestinians.

That's a fact, BTW.

Nice soundbyte you have there of Bibi, but he'd have shit his pants if Arafat had accepted in 2000-01 a Palestine free of occupation and settlements.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

122. No, that's not a fact,

but this is...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_I_Accord

In a 2001 video, Netanyahu, reportedly unaware he was being recorded, said: "They asked me before the election if I'd honor ... I said I would, but I'm going to interpret the accords in such a way that would allow me to put an end to this galloping forward to the '67 borders. How did we do it? Nobody said what defined military zones were. Defined military zones are security zones; as far as I'm concerned, the entire Jordan Valley is a defined military zone. Go argue." Netanyahu then explained how he conditioned his signing of the 1997 Hebron agreement on American consent that there be no withdrawals from "specified military locations", and insisted he be allowed to specify which areas constituted a "military location"—such as the whole of the Jordan Valley. "Why is that important? Because from that moment on I stopped the Oslo Accords", Netanyahu affirmed.

"Why is that important? Because from that moment on I stopped the Oslo Accords", Netanyahu affirmed.

"Why is that important? Because from that moment on I stopped the Oslo Accords", Netanyahu affirmed.

"Why is that important? Because from that moment on I stopped the Oslo Accords", Netanyahu affirmed.


It's always something with you, isn't it Shira.

You blatantly twist the truth, get caught doing it and then you try to squirm out of it by jumping to another pretzel of an argument.


Have a nice night.

[shira]

124. A fact for you is the Olmert map proposal to Abbas in 2008...

You'll notice the Jordan Valley isn't allotted to Israel as a security zone.

http://www.aljazeera.com/palestinepapers/2011/01/2011122114239940577.html

Guess Olmert didn't get Bibi's memo from 1997.

Try again.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

128. Fibi Nutty is still PM, so I'll repost this showing his non worth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_I_Accord

In a 2001 video, Netanyahu, reportedly unaware he was being recorded, said: "They asked me before the election if I'd honor ... I said I would, but I'm going to interpret the accords in such a way that would allow me to put an end to this galloping forward to the '67 borders. How did we do it? Nobody said what defined military zones were. Defined military zones are security zones; as far as I'm concerned, the entire Jordan Valley is a defined military zone. Go argue." Netanyahu then explained how he conditioned his signing of the 1997 Hebron agreement on American consent that there be no withdrawals from "specified military locations", and insisted he be allowed to specify which areas constituted a "military location"—such as the whole of the Jordan Valley. "Why is that important? Because from that moment on I stopped the Oslo Accords", Netanyahu affirmed.

Keep on spinning, little top. Spin til you drop.

Facts are stubborn things, and they don't go away no matter how loud one screams.

[shira]

130. Looks like you're having a problem with simple logic. If Bibi was so successful in 1997....

...about torpedoing Oslo via retaining the Jordan Valley forever and ever and ever as a military zone, then how is it Olmert offered the Jordan Valley in a deal with the Palestinians?

Did he miss the memo?

Hello?

McFly?

I understand it's difficult letting go of these boogeyman fairy tales about Bibi and evil Israelis. But when a rational person is faced with irrefutable fact and logic, that's like what they do. Liberals kinda like do that. You know? Leave it to the religious and closed-minded to stick to simple, irrational narratives and fairy tales.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

132. Did he miss the memo?

You certainly have.

[shira]

133. Free advice: Don't bring it here if you can't back it / justify it.

Seems you can't back/justify many of your positions on I/P.

Must suck, huh?

All you've got is throwing feces up against the wall, hoping some of it sticks.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

134. I already did.

You? Not so much.

[shira]

136. You did? Where? Be specific. n/t

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

137. .

[shira]

138. Right. No answer from you. Same old. Just feces against the wall. Laugh on! n/t

[aranthus]

60. Why?

Why does any country "need" to follow what the UN has laid out? Why should I base my judgment about what Israel should do on what the UN says? Why do you? Yes, countries should try to do the right thing when they can, but why is somehting the right thing, just because the UN says so? UN resolutions aren't law. For that matter, International law isn't Law. So why?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

64. Why should Iran or North Korea?

I guess your argument applies to them equally.

[aranthus]

68. Why indeed?

As I wrote in the body of my post, why does any country, "need," to do what the UN says? So of course, that applies to Iran, North Korea, Iraq, China, and every other country on the planet. More than that, it applies to every person. Why should anyone bend his or her values to what the UN says? Why do you? Or do you? You have written that you support a Palestinian RoR to the future Palestinian state. However you have also posted that Israel should comply with what the UN has said. Yet, BDS claims that the UN has said that all Palestinian refugees should be allowed to return to their lands in what is now Israel (see UN General Assembly Res. 194). While there may be arguments that the UN didn't actually mean that, there are also plenty of strong arguments that it meant exactly that. So at least in this instance, it appears that you are saying that Israel doesn't have to do what the UN says. I'm not arguing with you. I'm just trying to understand your thinking on this.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

92. Why should anyone bend his or her values to what the UN says?

Israel is a member of the United Nations. If it didn't value what the UN was it wouldn't be a member. Israel recently went before the UN with warnings that Iran was gong to develop nukes soon. Bibi Netanyahu was the presenter of such information.

Israel uses the UN while simultaneously thumbing its nose at it, and that is a strange way to act.

In answer to your " I'm not arguing with you." statement it seems that you are.

I have made my position clear on the idea of BDS, so I'm not sure why you keep bringing them up as if I support the organization.

What I might suggest with regard to Israel/Palestine and ROR has no bearing on what the UN or international community expects. Israel could easily pay reparations while letting refugees settle in Palestine.

I don't live in a fantasy world, like supporters of colonial Israel, where everything is debatable just as long as it gives more time for Israel to steal a little more.

Israel doesn't want peace. If it did it wouldn't be digging in for the long term. They have their own country, but what it seems like is that they want what would be Palestine to be greater Israel.

[aranthus]

96. None of that is a reason.

"Israel is a member of the United Nations. If it didn't value what the UN was it wouldn't be a member."

Well yes, but I'm pretty sure that Israel has a different understanding of what the UN is than you do. They don't think that the UN is a moral place. It seems as if you do.

So now I'm arguing with you. Before I was merely asking why you believed something. Now that you've given me a reason, I'm arguing that the reason is wrong.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

98. "Well yes, but I'm pretty sure that Israel has a different understanding of what the UN is than you.

Yes, something to be exploited at will then ignored when unneeded.

Keep up the good work on those arguments that go nowhere.

Israel, sooner than later, will understand that the world community is losing patience with its abuses.


Good luck to you, though.

On edit: if you are going to argue semantics while others argue about human rights I'm not sure if you are going to be engaged much.

[aranthus]

101. So you don't have an answer.

I have never come across anyone who does. The issue of the UN is much bigger than I/P.

"Yes, something to be exploited at will then ignored when needed."

Isn't that how every government treats the UN? The question is why you believe in something that isn't really there.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

103. Have a nice night.

[shira]

131. They never have an answer. Must suck to never be able to defend one's position....

Especially on a topic they're so passionate about.

Reminds me of debating bible thumpers. They're passionate too. But you ask them some simple questions and they come back with the same shit we see here.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

135. Stop projecting, Shira.

[shira]

139. Like I wrote - you've got nothing. n/t

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

140. Well, you've got a pretty good comedy routine there, Shira.

I guess that's something.


Don't ever stop with that. You keep us all laughing.

[aranthus]

141. It's faith and emotion based thinking.

You can see it in the "discussion" I had with delrem lower down on this thread.

[shira]

142. True. Faith based emotional thinking cannot be reasoned with. n/t

[shira]

3. Not a Mistake, Misunderstanding, or Well-Intended Criticism But a Deliberate Campaign to Bash Israel

The first, most important thing to understand about the Western and especially American debate on Israel is this:

Never before in history has there been such a concerted, systematic, and vicious campaign to discredit and demonize Israel, especially seeking to undermine its support in the Jewish community.

Without comprehending this fact, the massive attacks from academia, mass media, groups, and even in mainstream political and intellectual debate cannot be understood. We aren’t dealing with lots of mistakes but with the mass production of hate speech.

http://rubinreports.blogspot.co.il/2013/02/not-mistake-misunderstanding-or-well.html

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

5. "especially seeking to undermine its support in the Jewish community..."

Oh, come on!

[King_David]

6. She is right nt

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

7. Are you seriously going to tell met that the Jewish community

isn't able to make up their own minds?

If anybody undermines its own support in the Jewish community it is Israel.

[King_David]

8. Think 'The Jewish Community' as a whole would be more likely to agree with you or Shira ? nt

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

9. Shira was the one who posted that opinion piece, yet now

the argument is whether they will believe she or me?

If she believes in what she posts then they are potentially being hoodwinked by evil forces out to discredit Israel.
Does she believe that the 'Jewish Community' isn't able to see the difference between right and wrong? Really?

Does she believe that their judgment is so clouded as to not be able to make a rational decision like anybody else on this planet?

Your reply to me was weak, KingD, really weak.

[shira]

11. There are always some who are fooled, duped....

The point is there's a deliberate hate campaign going on to demonize Israel.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

14. Israel demonizes itself unfortunately,

yet all I hear are crickets, excuses and shrill cries of hate whenever anybody points that out.

Keep on trying to drown out the truth, Shira. Tell me if it works for you someday.


On edit: "There are always some who are fooled, duped...." Your Words.

Are you seriously going to try and sell to I/P that anybody, in the Jewish community or otherwise, that sees Israeli injustice on Palestinians are either fooled or duped?!


You're an amateur.

[shira]

17. No it doesn't. And if you're interested in the truth, you wouldn't have the hardest time....

...answering the simplest questions.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

19. Great! Thank you!

So anybody, in the Jewish community or otherwise, that sees Israeli injustice on Palestinians are not either fooled or duped.

Thanks for the reply.

[shira]

26. You're welcome. For what, I don't know b/c I wasn't answering a question of yours. n/t

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

28. You just answered me and don't know it!?

[King_David]

30. "U R Drunk ,you are an amateur "etc etc

What's it like having such an inflated opinion of ones self ?

When posting on a forum friend and foe get to decide .

But please continue we are all amused by it.

[shira]

10. Are you seriously going to deny there's a deliberate campaign to bash Israel...

...just as the article explains?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

13. You mean the opinion piece you posted?

[shira]

15. Again, you refuse to answer the simplest questions. A good example of this bashing...

...is the textbook study, which you know is crap. I've asked you about that as well, and like we see here, you have no response.

Must suck to never be able to answer the simplest, most upfront questions...

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

16. Again, are you referring to the opinion piece you posted?

Also, you're starting to ramble.

[shira]

18. Still deflecting. And quite poorly. Let me know when you wish to really discuss....

...things, because if you are then we can both go at it, ask each other questions, and expect answers back in return.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

20. You posted to an opinion piece. Was I wrong?

That's a question. Do you want to dance around it or answer it?

[shira]

21. I did do that. And I asked you a question. Why are you deflecting? n/t

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

23. Thank you!

[shira]

24. Are you going to answer my questions? n/t

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

29. I see a lot of straw dogs in that opinion piece.

I also see condemnation of the "intelligentsias’ sharp turn to the left" nonsense, which is just another code word for "the smart ones are asking questions again. How do we assassinate their collective characters?"

Like I said earlier: As long as Israel continues on its aggressive path of colonization, land theft and apartheid, while pretending it doesn't exist, it will cause more people to wake up and stand against such things.

Shira, there will always be crackpots that will revile Israel or the Jews, just as they have the Irish or Gypsies or "insert name here." The problem is that Israel has given enough ammo on the Palestinian issue to last for years, and I would strongly hope that the Israeli leadership wakes up and stops pretending that it can hide behind colonialism and apartheid while attempting to blame the anti-Semite under the bed for a majority of their problems.

BDS wouldn't exist without the Israeli apartheid state. Tell me I'm wrong, or are you going to deflect to another tangent.

[shira]

33. You say you're against apartheid, colonialism of the W.Bank...

Do you think the Palestinians made a mistake by turning down offers for their own state free of occupation, settlements, colonies, and apartheid both in 2001 and 2008?

They not only turned down those offers but did not counter with anything. Those offers included half of Jerusalem, a big compensation package on refugees, up to 100% of land (with swaps).

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

39. We've been over this nonsense with you before.

How old are you? Seriously? Do you believe that we forgot this bankrupt position of yours? There wasn't any deal worth squat. Netanyahu made damn sure that that the Palestinians would get a crap deal.

And if Israel was such a serious nation wanting peace then why take other peoples land?


Thanks to azurnoir for the re-post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/113431312#post37

[shira]

43. You're denying truth, fact, and reality. There were 2 real deals in 2001 and 2008...

I just countered Azurnoir's BS below with debates we had on this very topic in the past.

Again, I ask you the same question...

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

45. Yeah, reposting to your nonsense really is credible.

Just go scream in a corner, Shira, and about how Israel deserves the West bank.

[shira]

48. As you can see, Abbas said Olmert's offer was serious in 2008

The Geneva Initiative people also thought highly of it, and theirs is endorsed by Jimmy Carter and Noam Chomsky among others (like Marwan Barghouti).

For someone who says they're for "truth" and 2 states, you certainly don't act like it.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

50. Strange that you would quote somebody that you revile...

[shira]

53. Not surprising you avoid a simple question, again. Why do you feel the need to conceal....

...and hide your actual views here?

Your opponents here make it a point to be understood and to also understand your views. You, OTOH, hide your beliefs as much as possible. This is like an online game for you (attacking your opponents' POV while hiding yours so that it cannot be criticized).

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

55. "You, OTOH, hide your beliefs as much as possible."

No, I don't, Shira. My views are pretty clear so you should stop lying about my position.

[shira]

56. So answer simple questions and don't run away. Deal? n/t

[delrem]

34. Effective annexation: Israel now stamping passports of West Bank visitors “Judea and Samaria only”

The Electronic Intifada
Effective annexation: Israel now stamping passports of West Bank visitors “Judea and Samaria only”

(quote)
Because the Palestinian Authority has no real control or sovereignty, anyone who wishes to go to the occupied West Bank can only do so with Israeli permission. This includes foreign visitors and thousands of Palestinians with third country passports who live or visit there.

Even though many foreign nationals live and work in the West Bank, there is no such thing as a work permit that allows them to work for Palestinian institutions or companies based in the occupied West Bank, or simply to live there securely.

So such people get Israeli “tourist” visas which they have to constantly renew and which are frequently arbitrarily denied.

Hundreds of Palestine solidarity activists challenging Israel’s iron grip on who can enter and leave the West Bank, have been expelled or denied entry over the past year.

It is not just ordinary people who are denied entry by the occupying regime, but even foreign government officials trying to meet with the Palestinian Authority.

This is an Israeli abuse that has even been documented by US diplomatic missions in the region.

Stamping passports “Judea and Samaria”

In the past, an Israeli visa meant that a foreign visitor or Palestinian with a foreign passport could roam throughout “Israel” and across the West Bank.

But since at least 2009, Israel began stamping passports of visitors to the West Bank with the words “Palestinian Authority only,” meaning that the bearer could only move within the occupied West Bank.

Now in a significant new development, Israel has begun stamping passports with the words “Judea & Samaria only.”
(unquote)

more at
http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/effective-annexation-israel-now-stamping-passports-west-bank-visitors-judea-and

[shira]

36. Same question to you please. See #33. n/t

[azurnoir]

37. still promoting Olmerts grand offer I see

that is so cute how many times has this been discussed but once again for reference

Shaul Arieli of the Council for Peace and Security, which developed a map with a final border as part of the Geneva Initiative, said Israel's capacity to swap territory with a future Palestinian state is more limited than what Olmert reportedly proposed.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/haaretz-exclusive-olmert-s-plan-for-peace-with-the-palestinians-1.1970

Nabil Abu Rdainah, Abbas's spokesman, told the official Palestinian news agency WAFA that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's plan showed a "lack of seriousness."

Under the proposal, Israel would return to the Palestinians 93 percent of the West Bank, plus all of the Gaza Strip, when the Palestinian Authority regains control over the Gaza Strip, which the militant group Hamas seized from forces loyal to Abbas in June 2006.

Olmert presented Abbas with the proposal as part of an agreement in principle on borders, refugees and security arrangements between Israel and a future Palestinian state

http://www.haaretz.com/news/pa-rejects-olmert-s-offer-to-withdraw-from-93-of-west-bank-1.251578

Netanyahu: I won't carry out an Olmert-Abbas peace deal if elected

Opposition leader favored by polls to sweep elections if held today rejects proposal to divide Jerusalem, says would toss out agreement between current PM, Palestinians

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3533242,00.html

Livni tells France's Kouchner: I oppose Olmert's peace plan

Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni told her French counterpart Bernard Kouchner that she opposes the agreement in principle that outgoing prime minister Ehud Olmert has offered Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

"I do not believe in far-reaching proposals and an attempt to expedite matters, especially in light of the political situation," Livni, the prime minister-designate, told Kouchner on Sunday.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/livni-tells-france-s-kouchner-i-oppose-olmert-s-peace-plan-1.285402

[shira]

42. Making up BS propaganda about Olmert's offer again? Why? You've been proven wrong...

...several times on this in the past.

http://metamorphosis.democraticunderground.com/113416858#post4
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=6268
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x335588#335718

Remember now?

[azurnoir]

65. Making up so now both Haaretz and Ynet are lying well okay then if you say so n/t

[shira]

105. Nah, just calling BS on your claim WRT Olmerts' so-called crappy offer. n/t

[azurnoir]

106. They are not claims they are solid news items from Israeli sources

not opinion pieces either but do blather on

[shira]

108. There's nothing in those articles claiming Olmert's offer was crap.

And even if they did say that, Abbas said Olmert was serious, and so did the Geneva Initiative people.

[azurnoir]

111. no just that the rest of the Israeli government and its current PM would not honor Olmerts plan

meaning the plan would not have been actualized and last I looked neither Abbas or the Geneva Initiative people rule Israel

[shira]

112. The point is that Abbas rejected a good deal w/o a counter-offer. Do you really believe....

...it was so bad that it didn't even deserve a counter-offer?

I mean, really?

[azurnoir]

113. Israels go9vernment rejected the offer NOT as Olmert has stated Abbas did not reject his offer

no matter how you wish to parse that

Ehud Olmert, the former prime minister of Israel, says in new memoirs that he and Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, were very close to a peace deal two years ago, but Mr. Abbas’s hesitation, Mr. Olmert’s own legal troubles and the Israeli war in Gaza caused their talks to end. Shortly afterward, a right-wing Israeli government came to power.


Ehud Olmert in 2008. The Israeli war in Gaza that year ended the peace talks, he says.

In excerpts from the memoirs published Thursday in the Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot, and in an interview with The New York Times, Mr. Olmert provides details on negotiations that have been the focus of attention and Arab anger this week because of leaks to Al Jazeera, the television network, of Palestinian documents with minutes from related meetings. The leaks may well make it harder for concessions to be offered in the future.

Mr. Olmert said the two sides had agreed on key principles: the state of Palestine would have no military; an American-led international security force, not Israeli soldiers, would be stationed on its border with Jordan; Jerusalem would be shared, with its holy sites overseen by a multinational committee; and a limited number of Palestinian refugees would be permitted back into what is now Israel, while the rest would be generously compensated.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/28/world/middleeast/28mideast.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[shira]

115. No, Abbas did. And you're making excuses for him...

Abbas also told The Washington Post that former prime minister Ehud Olmert accepted the principle of a "right of return" to Israel for Palestinian refugees and offered to resettle thousands of Palestinians in Israel. And he said Olmert proposed a Palestinian state on 97 percent of the West Bank, and showed him its contours on a map. Abbas said he turned down Olmert's peace offer because "the gaps were too wide."

http://www.jpost.com/LandedPages/PrintArticle.aspx?id=143842

[azurnoir]

116. so Olnert was lying is that what your stating here?

lol you really have to make up your mind because if Olmert was lying then and he was corrupt how do we know his offer was sincere, cause someone you agree with says so?

[shira]

117. Now that you read it from Abbas, do you believe Olmert's offer was so bad that it didn't merit....

...even a counter-offer from Abbas?

[azurnoir]

118. lol nice deflection n/t

[shira]

119. No deflection. Olmert lying, about what? Abbas said it was a serious offer...

In fact, Abbas said Olmert was close to a peace deal....
http://forward.com/articles/164262/abbas-olmert-was-close-to-peace-deal/

He needed 2 more months. Yeah, a couple years weren't enough....

[leveymg]

51. BS - Not all Dems are in favor of Choice, but that doesn't mean the Democratic Party opposes it.

Whoever wrote this blog piece is making a fatuous argument. Most BDS supporters favor a two-state solution. The following point doesn't prove the opposite:

The only problem here is that this is not, in fact, the entirety of what the BDS movement advocates. Don’t take it from me—just read their website

[shira]

57. All significant BDS-hole leaders are clear about 1-state based on full RoR. n/t

[leveymg]

59. Who are these "significant BDS leaders"? I'll give you a list twice as long of 2-staters.

You're not proving a thing other than how casual you guys are in misrepresenting your opponents.

[shira]

61. Omar Barghouti, Ali Abunimah, Mondolice, Ben White, Judith Butler

...Richard Falk, Mustafa Barghouti, Frank Barat, Tony Greenstein, Anthony Loewenstein, Ronnie Kasrils, Mazin Qumsiyeh, Greta Duisenberg, Ken O'Keefe, Jenny Tonge, Lauren Booth, Ghada Karmi, Mary Hughes Thompson, Alison Weir, Gilad Atzmon, Greta Berlin, Paul Larudee, Yvonne Ridley, Joseph Massad, Adam Shapiro, Huwaida Arraf.

Now name some BDS advocates for 2 states. I'll patiently await your post.

[aranthus]

62. The people driving the train.

The Palestinian BDS leadership primarily. They are the ones who created the movement. They are the ones who are guiding it. I'm talking about people like Omar Barghouti and Judith Butler. Had you read the original article, you would have read that the authors don't ask you to rely on their word. They give you the link to the actual original BDS website. Here it is. http://www.bdsmovement.net/
The Palestinian BDS movement is about what the Palestinian BDS movement leadership says its about. Read their website.

[delrem]

66. BDS

From
http://www.bdsmovement.net/

(quote)
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.

The BDS call was endorsed by over 170 Palestinian political parties, organizations, trade unions and movements. The signatories represent the refugees, Palestinians in the OPT, and Palestinian citizens of Israel.
(unquote)

There's nothing there about "one state solution" or "two state solution".
The solution *demanded* is equal rights for all, esp. Palestinians.
If that freaks out the Zionists, that's *their* problem - but hysterical descriptions using words like 'fascist' to describe the above obligations are totally out of order.

IMO any true peace negotiation - a negotiation that isn't a militarily controlled farce - is one that starts from an equal playing field, which means recognizing the full humanity and human rights of people of *all* sides. The Palestinian leadership would be insane to submit to any precondition for talks that would deny, in any way, the basic human rights of the Palestinian people. To do so would be to preemptively submit to eternal human bondage.

[aranthus]

69. Let's be honest, and let's be clear.

BDS is in part about, "Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194."

Omar Barghouti, one of the founders of the BDS movement, has stated that BDS is first and foremost about this issue. It's about enforcing right of return. Now let's consider what 2-state is really about. It's about having a state for the Palestinians and a state for the Jews. If you don't support the ides of two states for the two peoples, then you don't support the two state solution. Enforcing Right of Return would automatically make Israel an Arab state, rather than a Jewish state. That means that RoR is completely inconsistent with a 2-state solution. The leaders of BDS know that. So they don't support a 2-state solution.

[delrem]

76. That's your interpretation, the source of your hysteria. So?

[aranthus]

79. You're in denial.

First, it isn't my interpretation that BDS has as a goal the enforcement of RoR. That's a quote from the BDS website. Second it isn't my interpretation that the BDS leadership thinks that that is the foremost goal of BDS. Omar Barghouti, one of the founders of BDS has said that is what it is about. Should I not take him at his word? So what is my "interpretation?" That RoR leads to the end of the Jewish state? I think that I've sufficiently explained that position that it warrants more than mere dismissal. But your post really does prove my point. You don't have an argument against what I've written so you just dismiss it because it refutes your beliefs.

[delrem]

80. I don't deny anything. Read the bloody post that you responded to! n/t

[aranthus]

82. Do you understand what denial is?

Your post in full was:

"That's your interpretation, the source of your hysteria. So?"

You dismissed my "interpretation" as "hysteria" without any reason. Dismissing an opposing argument without a reason is denial. Again, let's be honest, and let's be clear. You support RoR, don't you?

[delrem]

85. "That's your interpretation, the source of your hysteria. So?" is an affirmation and a question. n/t

[aranthus]

87. Merely saying that it's my interpretation, so? is a denial of the interpretation.

If you don't agree with it, then say so and why. If you agree with it and still support BDS, then say so.

[delrem]

88. You're being idiotic! Of course it's your interpretation! Why would I deny that?

[aranthus]

89. You're being flip. It's a denial of the correctness of the interpretation.

If you have some other interpretation and actual reasons for it, please post it.

[delrem]

91. You want a standing ovation for posting your opinion? OK

feel better now?

[aranthus]

94. I was hoping for a reasoned discussion.

Either you agree with my interpretation or you don't. You seem to either not agree that the opinion is correct or to not care. Which one is it?

[delrem]

99. You don't think that your opinion has been "discussed" enough? n/t

[aranthus]

102. You haven't discussed it at all.

You've deflected, dismissed and ignored it. You asked before "so what?" Well here's the so what. Since you won't refute my opinion, then it is presumed correct. To reiterate. BDS is first and foremost about enforcing RoR, which necessarily means the end of the Jewish state of Israel. Since actively working for the end of the Jewish state is per se antisemitic (unless you are a member of one of the Jewish micro-sects like Neturei Karta), then anyone who knowingly supports BDS is an antisemite, and anyone who supports it without understanding what it really is, is a fool blindly supporting something evil. Take your pick.

[delrem]

107. Are you happy to have voiced your opinion yet again? Here, another ovation for you:

Maybe you and shira can get together and exchange hysterical posts about how upholding the principle of equality of persons before the law is "antisemitic" and "fascist" and "evil" etc. etc. etc. But that's a self-contradictory dead end and I don't find it that amusing to get into the same old same old name calling in an endless loop with people who contradict themselves at every turn.

[aranthus]

110. See, that's denial.

You support BDS, you support RoR, and you don't want to accept the implications of what that means. so you dismiss it without any reason. You're right about one thing. Until you are prepared to engage in reasoned discussion with some intellectual honesty, there isn't anything to talk about. Have a nice day.

[delrem]

114. Glad to leave you satisfied. n/t

[leveymg]

70. While there is no policy, most groups associated with BDS support the 2-state approach

Ali Abunimah, cofounder of the Electronic Intifada, explains that here: http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/why-do-zionists-falsely-claim-bds-movement-opposes-two-state-solution

(A)ny informed person would know that the vast majority of organizations represented on the Palestinian Boycott National Committee (BNC) – the movement’s steering group and collective leadership – explicitly support a two-state solution. You can see a list of organizations that currently make up the BNC.

Omar Barghouti makes this point in his book BDS: The Global Struggle for Palestinian Rights:

While individual BDS activists and advocates may support diverse political solutions, the BDS movement as such does not adopt any specific formula and steers away from the one-state-versus-two-states debate, focusing instead on universal rights and international law, which constitute the solid foundation of the Palestinian consensus around the campaign. Incidentally, most networks, unions, and political parties in the BNC still advocate a two-state solution outside the realm of the BDS movement (pages 51-52)

That's the groups that are headquartered in Palestine. While some Americans and westerners do see the 3 Pillars of the Palestinian-centered BDS as requiring a right of return of the 4 million in diaspora, the actual views of many -- and I would say the majority -- of Americans who loosely embrace or who are at least receptive to some of the BDS program, are nonetheless in favor of a Two-State Solution, and by implication, support Israel's right to exist.

There really is no ONE monolithic BDS, as much as some of its enemies (and some of its self-described leaders) are concerned. I doubt if there is total programmatic agreement on what BDS should mean in practical application, and that is the point of free dialogue on the subject, and why forums such as the Brooklyn event are important.

[aranthus]

78. You can't honestly support RofR and honestly support a two state solution.

They are mutually inconsistent. The two state solution requires two states for two peoples:a Jewish state (Israel) and an Arab state (Palestine). BDS has as it''s first and foremost goal (according to Omar Barghouti) the enforcement of RofR. RofR inevitably means the end of the Jewish state. You can't have both. the only way people can support BDS and claim to support a two state solution is if they ignore what BDS is really about, or else if they are lying.

[leveymg]

127. Nobody has to accept the entire program, so there is no inherent contradiction.

If Omar Barghouti indeed sees RofR as "the first and foremost goal" of BDS, there are many (most Americans with any opinion on the matter, anyway) who disagree. This is not a monolithic movement, as much as its opponents like to pretend that it is.

[azurnoir]

72. lol what is being studiously ignored is that the current occupation

is what powers BDS, if and when that ends BDS will most likely go away too

[aranthus]

75. It depends on who you are talking about.

If you mean those useful fools in the West who support BDS, then you may be correct. If you are talking about the people who created BDS, then you are very much wrong. What you are saying here is similar to the wiswhful thinking that says that if only Israel withdraws the occupation, then there will be peace. Maybe those wishful thinking Westerners who support BDS will back off if Israel does that, but the Palestinians who created the movement won't. What then? Now Israel has given up it's principle bargaining chip to achieve peace, and hasn't gotten peace. I'd have a lot more respect for BDS and the people that support it if they thought things like this through.

[azurnoir]

77. and what else is being oh so studiously ignored is that BDS

like any political movement dies without support, in the case of BDS support will fizzle when the occupation ends

[aranthus]

81. You missed my point.

Suppose BDS works and Israel withdraws the Occupation. Suppose as a best case scenario that the "moderates" behind BDS take over the government. They won't agree to a peace deal until Israel allows RoR. And if Hamas takes over, as is much more likely, they certainly won't stop with their maximalist demands. Why should they? BDS supporters in the West haven't made any demands on them to change their position. They got what they wanted out of the movement. So there's no peace deal. So now what? Maybe the useful fools in the West who supported BDS stop supporting the movement, maybe they don't. Either way, the damage is done. Now what?

[azurnoir]

84. so your saying that BDS will, usurp the Israeli government and its democracy?

because for your 'scenario' to hold any real world meaning that is what would have to happen, unless of course you are conflating "take over" with Israel's government being pressured into ending the occupation, is that your definition of take over? Otherwise it is nonsensical worst case scenario scare tactic fantasy
As it stands the BDS movement and an actual government are worlds apart

[aranthus]

86. And here I thought that I was being clear.

I am suggesting that if BDS is successful, and forces Israel to withdraw the Occupation that as a best case scenario that the moderates take over the government of the new state of Palestine. What is more likely is that Hamas will take over the government of the new state of Palestine. I don't know how you could think that I meant that they would take over the government of Israel, but I hope that clears it up. Either way, Israel now has a new state of Palestine on its border that still won't make peace without Israel's agreement to RoR. And the new government of Palestine doesn't have much incentive to drop that demand. So now what?

[azurnoir]

90. your post was really about Hamas taking over now that you've edited your post to include them :)

the Hamas state on poor Israels border yes indeed that is the favorite refuge for some in these parts, but once again for BDS to have any power it needs international support, support that will take a serious drop once a Palestinian state is established

[aranthus]

93. No, my post was about a Palestinian state that doesn't have to make peace with Israel.

That is the end result if BDS succeeds. If it does, and Israel withdraws the Occupation, then what? So what if BDS goes away. Now there is a Palestinian state on Israel's border that hasngt made peace with Israel, and still demands RoR. It doesn't matter if it's rulled by Hamas or by the moderates who created BDS. They are all demanding RoR. Now what?

[azurnoir]

95. so now you claim a Palestinian state that is at war with Israel will be formed because of BDS?

again that is an imaginary fear inducing (and meant to be) extreme scenario no reality says that will not happen in fact eveything you mention here will be solved before a Palestinian state is formed

[aranthus]

97. No, that is the goal of BDS.

The goal of BDS is to compel Israel to:

1. Withdraw the Occupation
2. Give full equal rights to Israeli Palestinians
3. Comply with RoR

It doesn't say anything about requiring the Palestinians to make peace with Israel. In fact, the demand for RoR is incompatible with such a demand. So if Israel is compelled to withdraw the Occupation there will be a Palestinian state. But BDS won't compel that state to make peace with Israel. So what will? You're dismissing something very real as imaginary, with no reason at all.

[azurnoir]

100. in your scenario BDS would be the sole factor in the establisment of a Palestinian state

when in reality it could or will bve one of a number of factors

In a way your comments remind me of the dismissals of the 2002 Arab Initiative because it called for normalization of relations between Israel and Arab states rather than peace

[aranthus]

104. I'm examining what happens if BDS succeeds.

Obviously, I have to assume that "success" is defined how BDS defines it. And BDS defines success as I have described. The withdrawal of the Occupation with no demands made on the future Palestinian state to make peace with Israel. As I asked in an earlier post, so then why will they? You presume that there are other factors involved, and that may be true, but what are they? And even if they exist, if BDS "succeeds," why will they matter? If the purpose of BDS is contrary to a two state solution, which it clearly is, then how can BDS be part of a solution?

[leveymg]

67. J-Street condemns this attempt to stifle the Brooklyn College BDS event.

No matter what you may think about various parts of the BDS movement -- some support 1-state, others 2-state -- this attempt to paste everyone associated with it as as opposed to Israe's right to existl and the conventional (2-state) solution with Palestine is disingenuous and obnoxious.

J-Street opposes the attempt to Suppress Free Speech and dialogue about BDS.

J Street Students Reject Attempts to Curb Free Speech on Brooklyn Campus

February 6th, 2013

As the National Student Board of J Street U, the student arm of J Street's pro-Israel pro-peace movement, we reject attempts made by some elected officials and communal leaders to intimidate Judith Butler and Omar Bargouthi from speaking on the campus of Brooklyn College.

While we disagree strongly with the aims and tactics of the BDS movement, our commitment to a safe and secure Israel goes hand-in-hand with a commitment to open debate and free discussion on contentious issues. Attempts to stifle free discussion on college campuses does a disservice to us and our peers, who are eager to hear a wide range of perspectives on this conflict. The college campus must continue to be a space for the free exchange of ideas. Our support for Israel never necessitates academic censorship. In fact, it requires the opposite. We call upon our peers on campuses across the country to speak up for their right to hear perspectives on Israel regardless of the presenters' political orientations.

With the election of a new Israeli Knesset, the appointment of John Kerry as Secretary of State, and the announcement of a trip to Israel by President Obama, we are hopeful that strong American leadership can help guide the parties towards a two-state solution. Now, more than ever, our elected officials and communal leaders should prioritize what is most important: achieving a peaceful resolution for the Israelis and Palestinians who continue to suffer from the ongoing conflict.

[aranthus]

71. There are two sets of people supporting BDS.

There are the people who actually formed the movement, and who are committed to the end of the existence of the Jewish state. Then there are the useful fools who pretend that it can be about something else. So, no, we aren't trying to paint everyone associated with the movement as wanting to destroy Israel. We are trying to illuminate the movement in the hope that some of those useful fools will grow up, wake up, and open their eyes.

[leveymg]

74. "Useful fools" - do you realize how much you sound like Joseph McCarthy?

If you want to persuade, that's not the optimum approach. Have enough intelligence to grant that some of those who disagree with you are also intelligent enough to know that EVERY political movement has aspiring maximalist leader-types who seek unthinking followers and true believers. BDS is no different. But, that doesn't mean that they will in the end set or interpret policy. You should be happy that there are skeptics who are becoming interested in BDS - BDS is likely to change the more people come to understand it.

Your concern is noted.

[aranthus]

83. More like Lenin.

He was the person who coined the phrase "useful idiots." I'm just paraphrasing him because most of the people who support these crazy ideas aren't idiots. As for BDS, you are entirely wrong. There are many people in the West who support BDS, but none of them count for creating policy. The people who count are the Palestinians who created the movement in the first place. No matter how many well meaning people in the West become attached to it, the core goals of those people actually driving the train aren't' going to change. What happens after they have gotten what they want, or as much as they can get from the movement, without actually making peace with Israel?

[leveymg]

129. The Palestinians may be driving the train, but it's unlikely that they will be

in charge of piloting the plane that's taking off in the U.S. and Europe in much the same direction. There's no inherent reason to expect the current BDS program and leadership will get on board what's now emerging in the west, even less so that all their ideological baggage is going to make it onto the flight.

Israel isn't going away, and nobody can make it, but it must live peacefully within agreed-upon borders alongside its Palestinian neighbors. Those, on both sides, who can't accept that are headed for some form of expanded sanctions.

[azurnoir]

73. I find the premise of this thread fascinating

because you have repeatedly pointed out that BDS is meaningless or your favorite quote concerning BDS-What BDS hahhaha or some such, but now it seems your worried why is that?

[King_David]

123. QED. Ha ha

Samsung to open startup center in Israel
Global technology giant launches international innovation and strategy center with branch in Ramat Gan, expected to invest millions of dollars in companies and academia


http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4342371,00.html

[azurnoir]

125. well then what is it or just making a point about

certain progressive publications, one which you just proved has little real life meaning thanks again

[King_David]

126. Huh ? nt