Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forumIf You Want Two States, Support BDS
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/10/16/if-you-want-two-states-support-bds.htmlWhile we might not like all those who wield it, BDS has shown itself to be a tool that unsettles indifference. Few things focus the attention of the Israeli government on the issue of occupation like BDS, even the parve BDS of a limited boycott of settlement products (see Peter Beinart's "Zionist BDS" . I don't denigrate this limited boycott. Not buying Soda Stream or Gush Etzion wine is a start.
---
Another and related argument is that BDS hurts Global Israel (Bernard Avishai's phrase for the good guys) and strengthens the Greater Israel yahoos because BDS means to isolate Israel and therefore shrinks its commerce and intellectual intercourse. That is true, but that is precisely what the boycott tool is meant to do: disrupt the status quo until justice is restored.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)She had very recently been arguing against BDS at various discussion panels (as she mentions in this article). Be curious to know what caused her to change her tune. Maybe it was her friendly visit with Hamas?
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Or perhaps it was the realization that Israel cannot be taken seriously as a modern democracy while it acts as an invading and colonizing force against a oppressed and terrorized people.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)J Street reprimanded her publicly for doing so (she was on their board at that time).
I was wondering if maybe that visit (and the ensuing response from J Street and others) might have led to some alienation.
She also does not claim any of the things you wrote. In fact she explicitly says that Israel should be taken seriously as a modern democracy - and that is indeed one of the reasons she now claims to support BDS.
You may believe the things you wrote in that paragraph, but those are not views Kathleen has expressed.
Did you read the entirety of the article you posted? Do you know anything about the author?
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)That is why I wrote:
Seeing how she wrote this...
Since she cited Peter Beinart's article one can take that she endorses it.
In 2010, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel called the settlement of Ariel, which stretches deep into the West Bank, the heart of our country. Through its pro-settler policies, Israel is forging one political entity between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea an entity of dubious democratic legitimacy, given that millions of West Bank Palestinians are barred from citizenship and the right to vote in the state that controls their lives.
Perhaps you didn't read that?
It appears that when she cited Mr. Beinart's article that she endorsed those views.
Please proceed, Ober.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I have not only heard all the arguments against BDS, I have made them. I am one of those really liberal Jews who will appear on panels too treif for most mainstream Jews (because they include anti-Zionists) and argue that the liberal Zionist dream is not dead, that a Jewish and democratic Israel is still possible, that Israel (inside the green line) is a democracy.
Should I bold the whole thing for you?
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)I guess you have been taking cherry picking lessons of late. Good for you.
Now I can ask with certainty "Did you even read it."
Amateur.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)That's a start at least.
Response to oberliner (Reply #7)
delrem This message was self-deleted by its author.
King_David
(14,851 posts)Or anything else "for Jews" is what gets a lot of people "upset".
But the Jewish state has stopped any possibility of pogroms or another Holocaust ever happening again.
Strong Jews and never again .good times.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Never again only applies to some I guess.
Yet it is hypocrisy to chant never again while turning a blind eye to Israeli apartheid.
King_David
(14,851 posts)Applies to us... When it applies to others I read about it when members of those groups highlight it.
How does it apply to you?
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Being a humanist, dave, I concentrate on injustice meted out to groups and individuals.
That's how it applies to me. Jew, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist Sikh etc. doesn't enter into the equation.
King_David
(14,851 posts)'what a bunch of amateurs '
'You're really not that good at this'
'In act you are downright horrible at it. '(sic)
'You really are an amateur.'
'Amateurs, all. '
'You really are horrible at spreading the BS around'
'Just go away and be lame someplace else'
'
Yes real mature
Update:
Amateur.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=49145
Update:
'In addition, when amateurs act like amateurs that's how I call it. '
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=49369
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Last edited Sun Oct 20, 2013, 04:21 PM - Edit history (1)
You asked me, and I told you.
In addition, when amateurs act like amateurs that's how I call it.
Now back to your deflection of the day...
On edit: Perhaps I have it wrong and amateurs are actually professionals at deflection?
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)That's what it really means.
King_David
(14,851 posts)Means?
Sorry no YOU don't .
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)What, you going to leave certain "undesirables" out?
Get it?
That's what Never Again means. No one.
King_David
(14,851 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Fantastic Anarchist understands what the term stands for.
You?
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Do you feel that something similar to the Holocaust is going on right now with respect to the Palestinians?
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)when I clearly spelled out that Israeli apartheid is what is happening. To your distractive point, what I wrote was that "Never again only applies to some I guess" whereas the progeny of "never again" have no problem meeting out abuse after abuse and land grab after land grab; all the while keeping a captive population under their boot heel.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Thanks for clarifying.
King_David
(14,851 posts)Come again?
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)then don't expect anybody to take you seriously.
King_David
(14,851 posts)I have no idea what it means but I appreciate the advice.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)That seems to be an ongoing theme with you.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)Response to Shaktimaan (Reply #19)
delrem This message was self-deleted by its author.
But that basic law, and the ruling, are referencing this basic law.
"7A. A candidates list shall not participate in elections to the Knesset, and a person shall not be a candidate for election to the Knesset, if the goals or actions of the list or the actions of the person, expressly or by implication, include one of the following: (
) (1) negation of the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state; (
)"[2]
Nowhere is there any guarantee of ethnic majority. You're just not allowed to run for congress if you're doing so expressly to undo that majority.
All your statements that x says y always require a convoluted path of several steps... A law, then a ruling from a different but similar sounding law, then an exaggeration.
Aside from being dishonest it implies a lack of faith in your own arguments. There is so much real shit to criticize about Israel it's ridiculous. It's not as bad as what you post about Israel but it has the benefit of being real, while your stuff is imaginary. If your arguments truly have merit then why do they require falsehoods to make?
Response to Shaktimaan (Reply #22)
delrem This message was self-deleted by its author.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)There's simply not a founding law that guarantees a Jewish majority. There's just one that doesn't let people run for office intending to end it.
You can not take a ruling that applies to a specific law and then assume it can be extrapolated to fit a different one. There isn't even a basic law defining israel as the Jewish state. There's just one saying:
1. The purpose of this Basic Law is to protect human dignity and liberty, in order to establish in a Basic Law the values of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.
So it references the values of the Jewish state. But it doesn't state what you need... Something like.
This basic law establishes the state of Israel as a Jewish state and guarantees it stays that way.
Unless you consider Israel's Declaration of Independence founding law, that defines Israel the way you need.
Response to Shaktimaan (Reply #24)
delrem This message was self-deleted by its author.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)But is there even a basic law defining Israel as a Jewish state?
You're saying this is a part of their founding law! Where? What are you even referencing?
Response to Shaktimaan (Reply #27)
delrem This message was self-deleted by its author.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)It's your argument, not mine. That Israel's founding law guarantees Israel remain a Jewish state. Or is a Jewish state or whatever.
I'm asking what founding law you're referencing. You said it not me. I know Israel's a Jewish state regardless. But I'm curious what founding law says it?
Response to Shaktimaan (Reply #29)
delrem This message was self-deleted by its author.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)Ok, so you're taking a judicial statement written in 2002 that references a law about electoral eligibility, passed in 1999 and applying a part of it to a definition that you've heard but isn't part of any actual law at all and concluding that Israel has a founding law (Israel, founded 1948), which guarantees a Jewish ethnic majority.
As a side note, nothing that judge stated in your quote seems to be actually true. Jews aren't guaranteed citizenship, there are official festivals for most religions, and Arabic is also an official language of Israel.
But even if he had been right, it wouldn't make your logic anything less than a work of astounding art.
Response to Shaktimaan (Reply #33)
delrem This message was self-deleted by its author.
King_David
(14,851 posts)You have not demonstrated to Shaktimaan or anyone else reading this what basic law you are referencing .
Now all you have to do is point us all to this law that your going on and in about that doesn't even exist.
You can't just make things up and use that as a foundation for your "argument ".
Response to King_David (Reply #37)
delrem This message was self-deleted by its author.
King_David
(14,851 posts)That ruling has nothing to do with what your arguing about whatsoever buddy,
Perhaps you should re-read the thread again and unjumble your argument ?
Response to King_David (Reply #47)
delrem This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to delrem (Reply #48)
delrem This message was self-deleted by its author.
King_David
(14,851 posts)I know that a lot of people think that 12 Million people don't deserve anything like their own state to protect themselves but that every other nation in the world does, but your "argument" is just not
logical .Offensive yes but nevertheless
non existant.
Response to King_David (Reply #51)
delrem This message was self-deleted by its author.
King_David
(14,851 posts)Your kidding right ?
You really believe that Mr. ?
Ha
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)and try and simplify this for you because you really seem unable to grasp how logic works.
Here's the quote with key bits bolded for you.
Regarding the meaning of the definition of "Jewish and Democratic State" in this section of the law, then President of the Supreme Court of Israel, Aharon Barak, wrote that a narrow interpretation should be given to it, since it limits a basic right, in contrast to the broader interpretation that should be given to laws concerning Human rights.
You see, he specifies that the meaning of the definition AS IT REGARDS THIS ONE SECTION OF THIS SINGLE, INDIVIDUAL LAW, should be viewed narrowly. Then to clarify it further he draws a contrast between THIS interpretation versus the broader one that concern OTHER laws.
In other words, this definition is only applicable as regards THIS law, because the essence of this law is one that restricts basic rights. ie: Who is allowed to run for office.
It is so super, duper crystal clear. Yet you somehow think he said that it means Israel GUARANTEES a Jewish majority. He doesn't use that word at all, he doesn't imply that meaning. But most embarrassing of all, you originally posted that Israel's founding laws guarantee a Jewish majority, making it plain that you don't know the difference between a law itself versus the way a law is interpreted. The crux of your argument is not only false, but also relies on people being unable to distinguish between legislation and court rulings!
Here though... if what you're saying REALLY REALLY is true, then I'm sure you can point out at least a few links that back up your findings.
Like how every Jew on the planet has the right to immigrate to Israel, for instance... no matter what they've done. Even if we're talking about a cannibal who murdered dozens of people and stabbed the immigration officer when he was being interviewed... according to you Israel guarantees him the RIGHT to become an Israeli citizen.
Response to Shaktimaan (Reply #59)
delrem This message was self-deleted by its author.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)Your arguments always remind me of the one that goes like this: In Israel, Arabs are forbidden from buying land.
They never get around to telling to that NO ONE in Israel is allowed to buy land, Jew, Arab or whatever.
Yes, just as Morris said that ethic cleansing was necessary for Israel to become a state. You always leave out the reason... Because the Palestinians began a civil war aimed at destroying the yishuv.
Great trick. We assume Ahmed can't buy land because he's Arab. Just like how there could have been an Israel with no nabka had the Arabs not rejected peace.
Response to Shaktimaan (Reply #62)
delrem This message was self-deleted by its author.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)Israel never managed to define itself legally for 50+ years? When the definition became those 4 or 5 random things being guaranteed or existing or something?
That's how Israel legally defines "Jewish state?"
You're going with that?
Response to Shaktimaan (Reply #39)
delrem This message was self-deleted by its author.
shira
(30,109 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)discussion away from the OP.
The only way they can address the OP is to run from it.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)What is it in particular that you would like to see addressed?
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)If Kathleen Peratis was recently arguing against BDS then perhaps she has seen the writing on the Israeli wall of state...at least enough to change her views on the subject.
She is one person to change her views. BDS is catching on, and others will change theirs when thy wake up to what Israel is doing.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)It does seem to be more mainstream than it used to be.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)I wouldn't think you'd endorse her idea. She places the entirety of the process entirely with Israel. That means a unilaterally imposed peace treaty, not one negotiated by two sides. Pretty much like Gaza.
The issue isn't that everyone hates peace. It's that each side envisions very different terms. If you demand Israel impose peace then you are guaranteed to get their version of it sans negotiations.
shira
(30,109 posts)It's counterproductive but she wants to give it a go regardless? It engenders a siege mentality that will lead to _________? Hmm, let's see...an Israeli initiated solution like pulling out of maybe 60% of the W.Bank, at best. Is that the goal of the BDS'ers? Because that's all they'll get, maximum.
Seems the author doesn't want to march shoulder-to-shoulder with the supporters of BDS who she sees as supporting an antisemitic cause. That doesn't seem to stop the supporters of BDS here, however.
At most, they'll end part of the occupation of the W.Bank, not all. They're not suicidal. They place their lives above the price of cottage cheese. A withdrawal to the '67 lines (forget the settlers for now) leaves the vast majority of Israelis exposed to terror attacks, like fish in a barrel. Think Gaza rockets, but MUCH, MUCH closer to major population centers. Think rockets from Brooklyn falling into Manhattan. Only in Israel's case, Brooklyn would be raining rockets down from a mountain range into downtown Manhattan.
Leaving J-Street for JVP actually makes sense. The former is a pro-Israel organization for 2 states (one Jewish), the latter is for one-state, full RoR. How the author believes someone in JVP can honestly remain a member of J-Street is mind boggling. It would be like Omar Barghouti (leader of Global BDS) joining J-Street Zionists in support of a Jewish Israel. Ridiculous.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)The writer was pretty clear and makes her point clear, shira, whereas you...well...
shira
(30,109 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)You're funny. Not veracious, but funny nonetheless.
shira
(30,109 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Last edited Fri Nov 29, 2013, 10:11 AM - Edit history (1)
find you credible when you use sources that you find dubious and try to use them as fact.