The myth of Zionist racism

[shira]

<snip>

The apartheid analogy and the myth of Zionist racism are classic examples of cynical political warfare aimed purely at stigmatizing or delegitimizing Israel out of existence. Such fabrications totally disregard the context and content of South African apartheid, based on an institutionalized discrimination anchored in a formidable array of strictly enforced racial laws.

<snip>

Any person even casually acquainted with Israel’s vibrant democracy knows that there is not even the remotest comparison between its free and open society and the grim reality of South African apartheid. But then ideological delegitimization and slanderous misuse of the apartheid analogy is not about the “criticism” of Israel, let alone “learning the lessons of history” or achieving freedom for the Palestinians. The objective is not to help solve an intractable national conflict (made even more difficult by the rise of Islamic fundamentalism) but to demonize Israel as the embodiment of ultimate “racist evil” – an accusation designed to remove any moral grounds for its existence.

Those engaged in de-legitimization initiatives – whether Iran, the Palestinians, Arab states, left-wing militants or members of Western academic elites – are engaged in propaganda and politicide, not the pursuit of truth.

And while academics, activists and world leaders attempt to combat this evil, tenaciously pursuing the truth and trying to figure out if and how we can win the war against those who delegitimize Israel (as Canadian MP Cotler and his fellow panelists will later this month at the third Israeli President's Conference: Facing Tomorrow 2011 in Jerusalem,) I believe that the current success in defaming Israel is but a Pyrrhic victory. Like the repressive tyrannies and benighted theocracies in the Muslim Middle East, which are slowly crumbling before our eyes, their days are numbered. We will still be here after they are long gone.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4081127,00.html

[LAGC]

1. Still fighting the good fight, I see.

What do you think it will take to reach a peace agreement in our life-times, shira?

No compromise on Israel's part at all?

[shira]

2. Israel offered something credible in 2008 (Olmert offer)

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

It was rejected without a counter-offer.

Truth is, no offer by Israel will ever be enough to make peace with Hamas, Syria, Iran, Hezbollah, S.Arabia, and the militant factions of the PLO/Fatah. We all know damned well they will never accept Israel.

[LAGC]

4. What's so wrong about going back to the 1967 borders?

Don't you think that would take the wind out of Hamas' sails and help allow Fatah to regain control of Gaza?

[King_David]

6. Nothing,if security is guaranteed

And Jerusalem's and the other major settlements such as Maale Adumim and Ariel (theres no other way)

,integrity under Israel's sovereignty .

Nothing .

[aranthus]

7. What's wrong with the 1967 borders is irrelevant

since the problem can't be fixed without Israel holding on to the Jordan Valley, which isn't a viable peace option. The issue is really more about negotiating positions, bargaining chips and leverage.

[Ken Burch]

79. If Israel holds the Jordan Valley, forming a Palestinian state becomes impossible

Period. And it's inherently defeatist for a country to enter into what are meant to be peace talks if said country works under the assumption that peace isn't actually possible in any case(which is the mindset Bibi has to have to insist on having Israeli control of the Jordan Valley.

It's arrogant to assume that the Arab countries would never stop making war against Israel no matter what. To believe that is to believe that Arabs are somehow pathologically incapable of behaving as civilized human beings...which is a weird thing to believe given that Arabs were doing just that back when Europeans were mainly tribes of marauding savages.

[shira]

86. All Palestinians have to do is genuinely renounce/stop terror and recognize a Jewish state...

...and they will have their own state which could flourish alongside Israel economically.

Why won't they do that, Ken?

Also, what makes you think countries like Syria and Saudi Arabia want to make genuine peace with the Jewish state?

[shira]

8. Going back to the '67 lines would strengthen/empower Hamas more...

...just as leaving Gaza strengthened Hamas and leaving S.Lebanon strengthened Hezbollah.

Retreating back to the '67 lines would make each group even more popular. They'd use each retreat to prove how the resistance is working. Any political movement more moderate/peaceful would be considered traitorous to the ongoing (successful) cause to eradicate Zionism in that part of the world forever. They believe ALL Israel is occupied, not just areas beyond the 1949 armistice lines.

[LAGC]

10. Maybe you're right.

But I'm thinking more along the lines of showing the more extreme factions that compromising and working with Israel on a deal is more productive than stubborn resistance if they see it actually produces results, it might weaken their hard-line position.

All I know for certain is that Israel continuing to expand new settlements without giving an inch is only strengthening Hamas' position in power.

[Ken Burch]

80. There is no possibility, no matter what, of any Palestinian leadership

accepting anything short of the 1967 lines. It goes without saying that no such leadership could ever gain any significant level of popularity. Why would you think that any Palestinian leadership could ever exist and could ever have any credibility within Palestine if it accepted a settlement that, in the end, left Israel permanently holding the upper hand over Palestine and left it holding the power to revoke Palestinian independence any time it wished to?

That's as delusional as Begin's notion that, if only the world backed him in his hopeless campaign to "crush the PLO" then a Palestinian leadership would emerge that would settle for Begin's proposal of Tibetan-style autonomy. You've got to accept the fact that Palestinians will never accept subservience to the Israeli security apparatus as their natural station in life.

[shira]

84. There is also no possibility that Israelis will leave themselves defenseless and open to attacks

So what security guarantees would you like to see Palestinians offer Israel?

Just in case a peace agreement on paper doesn't result in peace...

[Poll_Blind]

3. Ha!

I can't believe I duped myself into taking the time to read this awful claptrap. In the same way that one would assume that even the cheapest can of stew would contain some meat, I was under the assumption that even a piece like this from the professor would contain some scholarship.

Boy was I wrong.

PB

[La Lioness Priyanka]

5. yeah, i agree

[shira]

9. So in other words, it's bad because you say so but you can't really explain why. Thanks! n/t

[parkia00]

35. The Really Pathetic Part

Is that some people expect you to be daft enough to accept it without question. The "writer" of that piece is fit enough to work for North Korea's propaganda department.

[shira]

11. Israel's delegitimization challenge

http://www.scribd.com/doc/28194208/Israel-s-Delegitimization-Challenge-Reut-Institute

The key to the success of Israel’s delegitimizers is their ability to blur the difference between criticism of Israel and fundamental delegitimization, which allows them to gain sympathy for their cause among the elite and general public.

In most cases, criticism of Israeli policy and actions from a human rights perspective does not amount to fundamental delegitimization or demonization. Criticism of Israeli policy is legitimate, even when it is harsh or unfair, such as in failing to acknowledge Israeli concerns.

However, such criticism may cross the line into delegitimization when it suffers from one or more of the following categories;

Fundamentally challenging Israel’s right to exist as an embodiment of the Jewish people's right to self-determination;
Employing blatant double standards, or exclusively singling out Israel for criticism;
Demonizing the state, often by evoking Nazism and apartheid.



Israel is framed as ill-willed, uninterested in peace, and as trying to perpetuate occupation
– This is a powerful construct that draws primarily upon the settlement enterprise to reframe many Israeli actions. For example, Israel's disengagement from Gaza is reframed as ‘continuing the occupation by new means'; and the Israeli field hospital in Haiti was framed as a deliberate distraction from Israel's actions in the ‘Palestinian territories’;

Israel is branded as the new apartheid South Africa, so it can do no right and its adversaries can do no wrong
– The Delegitimization Network ceaselessly equates Israel with apartheid South Africa as constituting two regimes based on discrimination and repression. Once Israel is successfully branded as violent, aggressive, discriminatory, and occupying, the most outrageous allegations, such as organ harvesting, can stick; aggressive actions against Israel and Israelis are justified and called for; and the entire political and economic model of Israel is framed as immoral;

Therefore, coercion is the only effective means of correcting Israel's ways
– Because Israel intends to perpetuate occupation, soft tools of persuasion and engagement – such as 'condemnation' or 'voicing concerns,' demonstrations, or petitions – are futile. Only concrete painful steps directed at Israel and Israelis will force Israel to change its ways;

Jews control politics, so only civil society can correct Israel's ways –
As Jews 'control' the political and economic centers of power, only civil society can force Israel to correct its ways. This must be done by mobilizing and using all available tools such as boycotts, divestments, and sanctions to force Israel's hand;

Pro-Palestinian activity and criticism of Israel is 'the right thing to do'
– Such activity and criticism is associated with other moral and liberal values such as protection of the environment and is symbolized by the wearing of thekeffiyeh;

Single out Israel for alleged human rights violations; ignore comparative analyses
– The Delegitimization Network exploits criticism of Israel’s alleged human rights violations to brand it as a pariah state. While singling Israel out, delegitimizers ignore comparative analysis of other majority-minority relationships, doctrines of use of force or human rights records, which would compliment Israel, not only in comparison to Arab

A call for applying general principles of international law, only when and where it serves the delegitimizers' cause
– The Delegitimization Network claims to call for application of 'universally accepted principles of international law' such as 'the right of return of refugees.’ However, even when their assertions regarding international law are accurate, they single Israel out. For example, their call for the right or return of Palestinian refugees to Israel based on the so called 'accepted norm of international law' only applies to Palestinian refugees and not to Germans, Bulgarians, Turks, Greeks, or Jews that were displaced in the last century;

Pretend to be about 'correcting Israel's ways,' not about eliminating Israel
– The Delegitimization Network pretends to focus on 'correcting' Israeli policy, hiding the true essence of its struggle that singles out the Jewish people as the only nation that does not deserve a right to self- determination;

Unbundle Israel's elimination
– Delegitimizers make a set of separate demands from Israel, that together, amount to its elimination of Israel or to the rejection of the right of Jews for self-determination. For example, they call for 'the return of individual Palestinian refugees to their homes' or for 'full and equal right of the Arab minority in Israel'.

Focus on the right of the minority, while ignoring the rights of the majority
– Delegitimizers focus exclusively on the rights of the Arab minority in Israel, while ignoring the rights of the collective Jewish identity of Israel's 80 percent majority.;

Criticism of Israelnow without agreement on the ultimate goal
–The Delegitimization Network cooperates with anyone who criticizes Israel, especially if criticism is bold and harsh. Delegitimizers will stand shoulder- to-shoulder even with Israelis who define themselves as Zionist, as long as they are willing to voice criticism of Israel. In this way, a broad diverse coalition is formed, which on the surface criticizes Israel’s policies, but whose strategies serve the agenda of delegitimizing Israel.

[Jefferson23]

14. The Reut Institute:

On February 11, 2010, the Reut Institute reported to the Israeli Cabinet, which it advises, that violence had failed to achieve Israel’s ends and had produced worldwide revulsion. “In last year’s Gaza operation,” said the report, “our superior military power was offset by an offensive on Israel’s legitimacy that led to a significant setback in our international standing and will constrain future Israeli military planning and operations...”. http://reut-institute.org/en/Publication.aspx?PublicationId=3766

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

Israel’s new strategy: "sabotage" and "attack" the global justice movement
A Reut Institute presentation calls on Israel to “attack catalysts” — global peace and justice activists.
An extraordinary series of articles, reports and presentations by Israel’s influential Reut Institute has identified the global movement for justice, equality and peace as an “existential threat” to Israel and called on the Israeli government to direct substantial resources to “attack” and possibly engage in criminal “sabotage” of this movement in what Reut believes are its various international “hubs” in London, Madrid, Toronto, the San Francisco Bay Area and beyond.

The Reut Institute’s analyses hold that Israel’s traditional strategic doctrine — which views threats to the state’s existence in primarily military terms, to be met with a military response — is badly out of date. Rather, what Israel faces today is a combined threat from a “Resistance Network” and a “Delegitimization Network.”

The Resistance Network is comprised of political and armed groups such as Hamas and Hizballah who “rel on military means to sabotage every move directed at affecting separation between Israel and the Palestinians or securing a two-state solution” (“The Delegitimization Challenge: Creating a Political Firewall, Reut Institute, 14 February 2010).

Furthermore, the “Resistance Network” allegedly aims to cause Israel’s political “implosion” — a la South Africa, East Germany or the Soviet Union — rather than bring about military defeat through direct confrontation on the battlefield.

The “Delegitimization Network” — which Reut Institute president and former Israeli government advisor Gidi Grinstein provocatively claims is in an “unholy alliance” with the Resistance Network — is made up of the broad, decentralized and informal movement of peace and justice, human rights, and BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions) activists all over the world. Its manifestations include protests against Israeli officials visiting universities, Israeli Apartheid Week, faith-based and trade union-based activism, and “lawfare” — the use of universal jurisdiction to bring legal accountability for alleged Israeli war criminals. The Reut Institute even cited my speech to the student conference on BDS held at Hampshire College last November as a guide to how the “delegitimization” strategy supposedly works (“Eroding Israel’s Legitimacy in the International Arena,” Reut Institute, 28 January 2010).

The combined “attack” from “resisters” and “delegitimizers,” Reut says, “possesses strategic significance, and may develop into a comprehensive existential threat within a few years.” It further warns that a “harbinger of such a threat would be the collapse of the two-state solution as an agreed framework for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the coalescence behind a ‘one-state solution’ as a new alternative framework.”

in full: http://electronicintifada.net/content/israels-new-strategy-sabotage-and-attack-global-justice-movement/8683



Reut Institute report author lies about Naomi Klein

Posted on March 15 2010 by Cecilie Surasky under NGO Monitor , Reut Institute.

Let’s review shall we?

Reporters questioned the Reut Institute about their use of the terms “sabotage” and “attack” in a set of recommendations for how the Israeli government should respond to human rights group who said things they consider a threat. In response, Reut didn’t say, “We were misunderstood and we reject violence of any kind.” But they did suggest that what they mostly meant was sabotage and digging campaigns against individuals who work for human rights organizations- nasty work pioneered by NGO Monitor. (Which may be why one acquaintance at a human rights group that does work in Palestine said that the director sent an email to staff suggesting they come forward now with any personal information that could be used against them. Sad days indeed.)

Reut Institute’s Eran Shayshon got a chance to explain the report on The Current, Canada’s flagship radio morning program : CBC Listen here.

It’s interesting that out of the 92-page report (download it all here), Naomi Klein isn’t mentioned once. Yet Shayshon confidently says that Klein, and her opposition to “Israel’s right to exist”, is one of the main reasons that Toronto is considered a hub of delegitimacy. Only problem? Klein has never been opposed to Israel’s right to exist.

(Another problem? My guess is that there’s a second report or database somewhere that is full of names of people like Klein and specific organizations conspicuously missing from the published report. They knew issuing a list of enemies of the state would cause more of a firestorm, but it’s the obvious next step when you’re fighting a war. And it works in Israel and Palestine, why not the rest of the world?)

The report also says “there was an attempt to boycott the Toronto Film Festival because it thematically spotlighted Tel Aviv”. That’s a lie too. The Toronto Declaration explicitly did not call for a boycott of the festival. It opposed showing films under a celebratory spotlight on Tel Aviv.

Mondoweiss has Naomi Klein’s response:
What Shayshon says about me is a flat out lie. I have made a personal choice not to advocate any particular political outcome in Israel-Palestine. He can search all my writing and public statements, he won’t find anything. What I do advocate, and what the BDS campaign advocates, is for Israel to abide by all applicable international laws. Any political outcome — whether one state, two state or more — must abide by these universal non-discriminatory principles. Though I do have personal preferences, I have no secret agenda and would support any outcome that conformed to these principles.
Shayshon’s other big lie is his claim that I oppose “Israel’s right to exist”; indeed that I “have stated it out.” Once again, I challenge him to find one single example in anything I have said or written that would in any way support this claim. He won’t find it.
This lie could just be slander, and attempt to inflict more “shame” on BDS advocates, as the leaked internal document explained to all of us recently. But I suspect that if challenged, Shayshon would simply claim that to support BDS is to oppose Israel’s existence, a claim I have heard before. This is interesting. Since the unequivocal goal of BDS is to force Israel to abide by international law, what Shayshon seems to be saying by implication is that Israel cannot exist within the confines of international law. I would never make such an argument but it does explain the recent aggressive “lawfare” campaign taking aim at the very existence of these laws.
One last point: if supporting boycotts against a place means supporting its annihilation (the claim being made here and elsewhere), what precisely are we to make of the Gaza seige, infinitely more brutal than anything BDS advocates? Does that mean Israel is denying the right of Gaza to exist?


http://www.muzzlewatch.com/2010/03/15/reut-institute-report-author-lies-about-naomi-klein/

[shira]

15. Electronic Intifada and Muzzlewatch? LOL! n/t

[Jefferson23]

16. Yes you're damn right, EI and MW, and then you can tell me how Naomi

was smeared, as per instructions of the Reut Institute.

[shira]

17. The BDS campaign calls for the end to Israel as we know it. Here's a video proving it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnpilMYsR0I

Your sources are disgusting.

There's simply no fucking way Naomi Klein doesn't know this about the BDS campaign.

[Jefferson23]

18. So you don't deny the Reut Institutes tactics..good.

I have no concern about your opinion of my listed sources...thanks.

[shira]

19. Reut is right-on about BDS, as the video shows and Naomi Klein is for BDS...

Here's the video again, proving it...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnpilMYsR0I

I'm not surprised you're for BDS and using dishonorable, rightwing sources like EI.

[aranthus]

20. Klein seems to be talking in code to hide her true beliefs.

She talks about supporting international law, but doesn't say what that means. It's code for RoR. Likewise, she knows that BDS demands RoR, so claiming that it wants to enforce international law is just a way to hide their (and her) true position.

[shira]

21. They all do and think they're clever. They're all ashamed to explain their beliefs honestly. n/t

[Jefferson23]

24. You keep trying to tell the forum here what "I'm for", in your usual

childlike terms. Your opinion that Naomi is speaking in code, another subjective
piece of nonsense, as Reut's tactics can't find anything in print, and BDS is not about destroying Israel...but they do
rely on videos like the one you posted as proof.

Why don't you post who put this "proof" together?

[shira]

25. You couldn't be more wrong. Here's Naomi Chazan on BDS...

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2760806.html

Some people, perhaps well-intentioned, propose BDS (Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions) tactics against Israel. But I am increasingly convinced that the global BDS movement obfuscates the objective of achieving a two-state solution. The aim of the BDS is to purportedly bring Israel to end its occupation of the territories conquered in 1967 and bring it to the negotiating table.

I will give you six arguments why it probably does precisely the opposite:

First, it is ineffective. BDS is not affecting the Israeli economy. Israel's economy is burgeoning, and many envy us for how we got through the GFC without experiencing the GFC. If at all, the BDS is adversely affecting working-class people. The last people in Israel who should be victims of BDS – the workers – are the first to be affected.

Second, the global BDS, because it is directed against Israel and all Israelis, indirectly or directly undermines the very existence of the state of Israel. To question the existence of Israel is akin to calling for the elimination of Israel. Sometimes it's a codeword for a one-state solution, which denies the right of Israel and Jews to self-determination. I have no suicidal tendencies whatsoever. I will not be party to my own self-destruction. I have one passport – an Israeli passport – and I intend to keep it and am perfectly happy for our borders to shrink substantially to do so.

Also, it's COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT as you and your ilk would define it WRT innocent Gazan civilians suffering due to Israel's blockade. Now it's innocent Israelis...

[Jefferson23]

26. I asked you who put together the "proof" video you posted twice

in this thread. She has an opinion about BDS, BDS does not question Israel's existence, her reference, "sometimes is code",
this is irresponsible to suggest the movement of having ulterior motives without substantial evidence.

Now if she talked further about BDS concentrating their efforts exclusive to the settlers, that would be fair
imo. If you're looking for unity to have a great deal of impact you generally focus on the main problem, the
settlers. The settlers should be seen as a legitimate focus for a boycott, vs the whole of Israel.

You're typing in red now, is that suppose to mean something?

[shira]

27. What does it matter who put it together? Here's J-Street echoing Naomi Chazan on BDS...

J Street strongly opposes views and positions such as those captured at the Palestinian BDS National Committee’s website, www.bdsmovement.net, because, among other reasons, they fail explicitly to recognize Israel’s right to exist and they ignore or reject Israel’s role as a national home for the Jewish people. In addition, the promotion by some in the BDS Movement of the return to Israel of Palestinian refugees from 1948 and their families indicates support for an outcome incompatible with our vision of Israel and incompatible with a two-state solution to the conflict.

For some, the BDS movement has become a convenient mantle for thinly disguised anti-Semitism. While concern about the present and future of the Palestinian people is both legitimate and warranted, these concerns do not justify for categorically delegitimizing and demonizing another people.

http://jstreet.org/policy/issues/the-boycott-divestment-sanctions-movement/

[shira]

28. You really think J-Street and Naomi Chazan would disagree with that video? Further...

...now that you're a little more aware of what BDS is about - due to the video, J-Street, and Naomi Chazan - what do you now think about BDS and Naomi Klein?

[Jefferson23]

29. Who put together the video is important, you claim it is proof of

your claims of BDS's intentions. One should have knowledge of who constructed this "proof".

To rely on conjecture as J Street does against BDS is not proof. "For some" it's basis is antisemitic, so even they realize
the intention is not antisemitic at the core of the movement itself. As I said, to oppose BDS on the grounds that it is not effective,
an argument can be made against it, as when you lack unity you end up with less support..if the focus was on the settlers
exclusively the Israeli's who have courageously voiced dissent on Israeli policy would likely embrace such a boycott. Unfortunately,
neither Chazan nor J Street speak to this possibility.

You: You really think J-Street and Naomi Chazan would disagree with that video? Further...
...now that you're a little more aware of what BDS is about - due to the video, J-Street, and Naomi Chazan - what do you now think about BDS and Naomi Klein?

I am well aware of the BDS movement prior to your version, thank you. Naomi Klein does not have a reputation for being a liar.

When you get a chance shira, post who constructed your "proof" video.

[shira]

30. It's important b/c you'd rather shoot the messenger rather than deal with the facts.

Same cheap disingenuous diversionary tactics.

The LEADERS of the BDS movement are very clear they're for the destruction of Israel as we know it. Your rejection of fact doesn't change that.

[Jefferson23]

31. It is evidently important to you not to reveal who put the video

together. The leaders of BDS have no intention of destroying Israel and there is no evidence to suggest
that is their quest. Unless you believe a video as proof, a video with no one taking responsibility for it up front.

This is the same as your feeble attempt to suggest the ICRC claimed the use of white phosphorus was legal, you
deliberately do not post the original source and if no one checks what you post, you get away with it and the gall
to claim it's a diversionary tactic on my part to ask who is responsible for the video is telling about you.

In addition, respected human rights organizations have urged Israel to deal with the issue of the right of return,
no different than BDS.

[shira]

32. You're rejecting facts again, just as you did with Finkelstein's pro-terror POV earlier...

No matter what is quoted, no matter how damning, you ignore/deflect and play shoot-the-messenger and pretend what was said was taken out of context (when it wasn't). There is simply no other way to take what the leading BDS advocates said - in the video - as anything other than that their goal is for the end of Israel as we all know it.

It's like talking to a true believing rightwing fundy christian. The obvious shouldn't have to be explained to you.

In fact - tell me - what would it actually take for you to admit what these sources (like the video) are claiming WRT the BDS movement? Is there any amount of evidence that would convince you that you're wrong about the BDS movement?

And to be honest, I have no idea who produced the video. Not that I care b/c the video captures these BDS leaders clearly advocating for the end of Israel. Fact is fact.

Would it make a difference to you if J-Street advocates produced the video vs. Likud supporters? What's the difference, really?

[Jefferson23]

33. You don't know who produced the video, why not save us both time

and admit that several posts ago? Your understanding of verified facts/sources is unique. I believe you understand
the relevance of an unknown source, and I'll leave it at that...but yes, it is important.

I've already explained there is no evidence of substance to support your claim about BDS, you can
go back and read it again..if you like. Just as there was no truth to your false representation
about what ICRC said about white phosphorus.

You imagine bringing up Finkelstein helps you make your point for some reason, you're amusing me again.

Have a good day shira.

[aranthus]

34. Are you claining that the video was doctored, altered, taken out of context?

If not, then why does it matter who produced it? In any event, it's pretty obvious that the founders of BDS meant it to include enforcing RoR which means an end to Israel as a Jewish state. This from Omar Barghouti on Democracy Now. http://www.democracynow.org/2010/3/4/bds

The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, or BDS, campaign is a call by Palestinian civil society. It’s supported by almost the entire Palestinian civil society, political forces, NGOs, women’s organizations, unions, and so on.

It’s calling upon people of conscience around the world to boycott Israel and institutions that are complicit with Israel, including companies and so on, because of its three-tiered system of oppression against the Palestinian people: its occupation, 1967 occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and that includes East Jerusalem; as well as its system of racial discrimination against its non-Jewish citizens, the Palestinian citizens of Israel; and the third and foremost is its denial of the right of return for the refugees, Palestinian refugees, in accordance with UN Resolution 194.

I don't see how any reasonable person could deny that RoR includes as a major plank the enforcement of RoR, or how a reasonable person could say that there is no evidence that BDS is meant to demonize and subvert the Jewish state. There are too many statements by Palestinians about what they want to believe otherwise.

[Jefferson23]

36. If you read the thread I asked who constructed it, she finally said

she did not know nor felt it was relevant to her claim as "proof", her words, to her claim about BDS.

[shira]

38. Jefferson, how is BDS not collective punishment vs. Israelis?

Do you realize BDS would collectively punish Israeli individual non-Jews as well as Jews?

And better, how would RoR not spell the end of Israel as we know it, or not lead to an extremely bloody and violent civil war?

[aranthus]

53. That doesn't answer the question.

What is false in the film? So far it looks as if you are rejecting the facts stated in it without cause. Merely not knowing who created the video isn't cause. That's called denial. There is too much evidence of what BDS is really about (from Omar Barghouti himself) to think that it doesn't include RoR. What more do you need?

[Jefferson23]

54. So what you're saying is unknown, unverified sources are credible

to you? Ok. This good to know how you determine "proof", thanks.

The BDS movement is non-violent, and demands that the right of return be addressed, SO DO MANY RESPECTED
HUMAN RIGHTS GROUPS...NO DIFFERENCE.

Unless you're making the claim these group are also out to destroy, you have no convincing case against them imo,
people can read the evidence for themselves. I'm not going to repeat the flaws I believe exist from J Street and
Chazan on the subject..you can go back and read them again, if you like.

[aranthus]

59. Not at all.

However, the "source" in this case, is the words of the speakers on the video. We know who they are. We know what they say. This isn't a situation where some unamed source is quoting Omar Barghouti. The video contains his own recorded words. Words he's said in plenty of other places. The fact that the video has been made by someone we don't know might be relevant to show that the video was biased, but we can see the bias from the video itself. Bias, however, doesn't establish falsity of what was said. You have to have evidence of that. There isn't any, is there?

The fact that BDS is non-violent is also irrelevant. And no it does not merely seek to have RoR "addressed." It seeks to have it enforced. Enforcing the RoR means the end of Israel as a Jewish state. That's something that is only going to be achieved by victory in war. The fact that so called human rights groups are pushing for RoR is also irrelevant. They are the kind of people Lenin was referring to when he coined the term, "useful idiots." BDS means what the fouders, such as Barghouti say it means. The deluded beliefs of Westerners don't change that.

[Jefferson23]

61. The words extracted, and incomplete in the video. The source named would

be important to list when posted as definitive "proof" as she claims.

The rest of what you refer to as irrelevant is your opinion, which does not reconcile the fact that
Israel does indeed need to address the right of return and that is in part what BDS hopes to accomplish.

People reading your opinion, her video of "proof" vs what BDS states re: right of return, coupled
with the same urging from respected human rights groups can draw their own conclusions. I believe asking
for the author of her video is a valid request.

[aranthus]

67. Let's be clear.

Israel has addressed RoR. The only answer which a sane country can give to the demand is, "no." RoR as demanded by the Palestinians means the end of Israel as a Jewish state. No sane country can agree to write itself out of existence. What other way would you propose that Israel "address" the issue?

[Jefferson23]

71. No is the answer Israel gives, that does not mean they are

correct to even suggest there is no room for compromise, or to compensation for land. Israel's position is one that
you accept, most of the world does not see it that way and for good reason. Right of return does
not mean the destruction of Israel; it does mean compromise. Netanyahu will not even consider a divided
Jerusalem never mind discussing right of return. He keeps adding conditions frequently to prevent any
peace talks. He fears the Palestinians will receive state recognition through the UN, which is ironic, since this move is also non-violent. As if that wasn't enough, now he says, the conflict is not solvable..nope, no peace for anyone.

It is a falsehood to accuse BDS of such a quest. As I have said earlier, one could argue against a boycott
of the country as a whole, and consider it possibly more effective to concentrate on the settler's. The focus should
be on the problem, and they are the problem..one that Netanyahu refused to adhere to Obama's request.

[aranthus]

73. You either are in denial about BDS and RoR or you don't care.

Did you read Omar Barghouti's statement on Democracy Now that I posted where one of the founders of BDS says that it is foremost about RoR? Don't you think that means that BDS is about RoR? As for RoR, how can it be about compromise? What is the compromise? If Israel agrees to RoR, then all Palestinians have the right to return, and Israel has no right to keep them out. Anything less makes a mockery of the Palestinians and their rights. And the issue is not the destruction of Israel. The issue is the destruction of the Jewish state. Agreeing to RoR means that Israel agrees that the Palestinians have the right to return and turn Israel into an Arab majority state. What else could it mean? What possible compromise is there?

[Jefferson23]

81. I haven't ignored the right of return.

I do care to see the occupation end with two states, each viable.

It is disingenuous of Israel to fear UN 194, as if they are beholding to accepting it as is or not, they know
damn well there are numbers to compromise with, and you ignore the compensation for land and displacement which
is another level Israel has at her disposal.

BDS, as Barghouti speaks about it in the interview, he's demanding this issue must be addressed, and how much power this movement
has brought to that end is imo, not significant. I find Israel's tactic's against BDS so over blown, so melodramatic, they should
be embarrassed.

Now, the interview between the very good Rabbi Waskow and Barghouti is interesting. One side note, unfortunately, just as
the conversation gets going, Democracy Now runs out of time, but at least we can be grateful for Amy to present these two
people..you will not see this on MSM TV land.

Taking the position of Waskow, I agree with him 100% here:

"that the major change that needs to happen is a profound change in the actions of the United States government, and that there were hints of that, more than hints, in the rhetoric of President Obama, but a total failure to carry through in policy on the rhetoric of the Cairo speech and some work since then.

The real question is, can the United States—will the United States—it can, for sure—will the United States use its enormous influence and power to end the occupation, to end the state of war between Israel and the entire Arab world except for Egypt and Jordan? Can the United States bring about a full-fledged peace treaty between a new state of Palestine, the state of Israel, and the Arab states. The Arab states have, in fact, proposed this. The Israeli government and the last US government, the Bush administration, totally ignored the proposal. There are hints that that’s what the Obama administration wants to bring about.

But it won’t happen unless there is a public movement in American society to demand that. It won’t happen otherwise. And when I ask the question, so what’s the most effective way of bringing that about, it seems to me an alliance of the three groups of people in America who care passionately about the peoples of the Middle East—Muslims, serious Christians and serious Jews—an alliance of those in those three camps who are committed to peace is now possible. In the Jewish community, there are now organizations and commitments and human beings ready to act on this, even though the classic, formal, institutional structure of the established Jewish institutional system doesn’t. But the Jews do, and among Muslims and among most Protestant and Catholic Christians—not some of the right-wing fundamentalist Christians, but the rest of the Christian community. But they have not come together in any way to make this happen. And that’s what needs to happen."


It is unlikely, ever, for any U.S. President to do as Waskow explains. He/she would need to use up a tremendous
amount of political capital. All one needs to do is look at the way the Congress votes, they won't and have not supported
Obama. I agree with Waskow that BDS has been ineffective but I do not agree with him the movement is unethical. It is the very reasons
that he explains what the US could do but they are not doing which gives credence to BDS, giving Palestinians a non violent tool toward
peace.

The movement Waskow wishes to form in American society I also completely support and one reason this is difficult to gather steam is the
lack of coverage of the conflict within our MSM..content has a very narrow scope.

Again I agree with Waskow here: "It’s the United States that has the actual power to make a difference. And BDS is not going to engage enough of the American population to matter. What is going to matter is the structure of American military aid and the structure of American diplomacy toward Israel, toward Egypt, toward the Arab world. That’s what matters. And BDS in Western Europe is not going to matter. So it’s not a matter of what gets worse; it’s a matter of how to end the worse."

I sit here in the luxury of my home in front of my computer and I would need a great deal of arrogance to tell the Palestinians
they should not employ BDS. I may not agree with how it is structured nor agree it will have the impact to bring about peace, but
no one is helping them, not really. What may be their best hope rests with Egypt, until then, to falsely refer to BDS as the desire
to end the Jewish state is not true. If Israel continues the occupation, more settlements, a viable state for the Palestinians will
be close to impossible. Now that is a call for outrage, not BDS.

You might want to think about why Rabbi Waskow is not losing his mind when Barghouti speaks of UN 194...not even a whimper.

[shira]

37. He has zero proof anything in that video was altered, doctored, or decontextualized.

Further, he'll never admit RoR means the end of Israel as we all know it.

[Exilednight]

43. And you have no proof that it wasn't. n/t

[aranthus]

60. Except he's not required to prove the negative.

If you or anyone else has evidence that the video was falsified, please post it. Barghouti's words in the video are consistent with what he ahs said elsewhere, including on Democracy Now. Do you think they've lied about what he's said?

[shira]

40. About the ICRC claim...

You'll note that Peter Herby never denied what was said, only that it was never said publically as an official statement by ICRC.

So he said it privately or off-the-record.

No point pretending the quote was fabricated or distorted.

[Jefferson23]

42. He said it privately, according to you. You have done nothing

to clarify, as you intentionally did not post what he said...no links, only manipulation of content by you.


snip* Does the ICRC consider white phosphorous weapons as they have been used in Gaza to be legal under international humanitarian law?

If ICRC delegates in the field gather credible and precise evidence of violations, or if ICRC medical personnel corroborate reports by others, the ICRC would begin by discussing this with the party concerned – rather than speaking publicly – in keeping with our standard practices. We have not commented publicly on the legality of the current use of phosphorous weapons by Israel, contrary to what has been attributed to us in recent media reports.


Does the use of weapons containing white phosphorous, in particular incendiary weapons, in a populated area give rise to any specific humanitarian concerns?

Yes. White phosphorous weapons spread burning phosphorous, which burns at over 800 degrees centi grade (about 1,500 degrees fahrenheit), over a wide area, up to several hundred square metres. The burning will continue until the phosphorous has been completely depleted or until it no longer is exposed to oxygen. The weapon has a potential to cause particularly horrific and painful injuries or slow painful death. Medical personnel must be specially trained to treat such injuries and may themselves be exposed to phosphorous burns. If used against military targets in or near populated areas, weapons containing this substance must be used with extreme caution to prevent civilian casualties.

http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/interview/weapons-interview-170109.htm

Also on January 13, an Associated Press report quoted Peter Herby, head of the Arms Unit at the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), as saying that white phosphorus use to create a smokescreen or illuminate a target is not prohibited under international law, and that the ICRC had "no evidence to suggest it's being used in any other way."<71> Two days later, on January 15, following news reports that the IDF had hit the UNRWA compound in Gaza City with white phosphorus shells, Israeli government spokesperson Mark Regev used the ICRC's statement to justify the IDF's attack. "I would point you to the statement yesterday of the International Committee of the Red Cross," he told CNN. "After looking into the issue , they found absolutely no wrongdoing on Israel's part."<72>
On January 17, however, the ICRC publicly disputed this interpretation of its position. "We have not commented publicly on the legality of the current use of phosphorus weapons by Israel, contrary to what has been attributed to us in recent media reports," Herby said in an official statement.<73> Nevertheless, the Israeli government continued to misstate the ICRC's position to justify its use of white phosphorus.<74>

http://www.hrw.org/en/node/81726/section/6


Middle East

Red Cross: Gaza blockade illegal

"Collective punishment" of Gazans by Israel termed violation of Geneva Conventions
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/06/201061452646659588.html

[shira]

46. The Associated Press quoting Peter Herby of ICRC on Israel's use of WP...

"In some of the strikes in Gaza it's pretty clear that phosphorus was used," Herby told The Associated Press. "But it's not very unusual to use phosphorus to create smoke or illuminate a target. We have no evidence to suggest it's being used in any other way."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/13/israels-use-of-white-phos_n_157648.html

And now the followup...

"We have not commented publicly on the legality of the current use of phosphorus weapons by Israel, contrary to what has been attributed to us in recent media reports," Herby said in an official statement.

So he didn't comment publicly on it - so what? He doesn't deny what the AP quoted. Additionally, his reply came in an official statement as opposed to unofficial. Do you know the difference between the two?

[Jefferson23]

49. So what??? That is one of your problems, credibility, and you

continue to manipulate the information to suit you. People can decide for themselves.

[shira]

58. You believe HRW, AI, etc.. are still credible after the Goldstone retraction...

...and Hamas admitting the ratio of civilians to combatants killed during OCL was about 1:1? HRW and AI are still saying they have no evidence Hamas deliberately hid behind civilians during OCL.

You still believe all that?

Jimmy Carter made claims that Gazans were starving. Was he wrong about that? Is he still credible despite that?

How about these bozos STILL claiming there's a humanitarian crisis...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x355477#355789

They're all credible sources to you?

Then again, I don't know why I ask. You don't respond to simple questions. Here's where you either disappear, divert, ignore, evade, shoot the messenger...., etc. Anything to avoid answering. Did I leave a tactic out?

[Jefferson23]

64. See post # 62, there is ample respected sources for people to decide

for themselves shira..you're wasting your time with me.

I will add that you do not seem to realize how many sources do not accept your version of the conditions
of the occupation. You do not seem to realize nor appreciate that Israel is continuing to place itself
in isolation from much of the world. Their best friend, the United States, may be clouding that for you to
see.

Good luck.

[shira]

65. There will never be genuine peace based on lies...

It appears you prefer false narratives and irrational conspiracy theories endorsed by Israel's most intransigent enemies over facts and reason based on honesty and accuracy.

What's your goal?

[shira]

47. Also, there's no evidence of WP burns on OCL victims...

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?176487-No-evidence-for-white-phosphorus-found-in-Cast-Lead-burn-victims

Here's the original study...
http://www.irct.org/Files/Filer/TortureJournal/20_01_2010/Detecting%20phosphorus.pdf

Lastly, you keep accusing Israel of collective punishment but never answer whether BDS - which you support - also constitutes collective punishment.

Why?

[Jefferson23]

51. Oh please do carry on, this display of facts is quite telling about you.

You could avoid blunders like this if you actually read your own links but whatever.


The use of white phosphorus was decided upon by Israel instead of smoke shells, they decided
to target the U.N.’s Beit Lahiya school despite the fact that “the U.N. had provided the IDF with the GPS coordinates of the school prior to military operations."

Anyone interested can read your sources vs scores of other reports from respected human rights groups
and decide for themselves.

I told you already, my responses to BDS, you can go back and read them again, your choice.



Rain of Fire
Israel’s Unlawful Use of White Phosphorus in Gaza
March 25, 2009

http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2009/03/25/rain-fire

[shira]

57. So you don't believe the results of that study WRT no burns resulting from WP during OCL?

Or do you actually believe the study found evidence of WP burns on OCL Gaza victims?

[Jefferson23]

62. It would be helpful for you to read your own sources, considering

they often do not serve your claims.

Again, anyone interested can read what you post vs the links and suggested reading I offered
and decide for themselves.

[shira]

63. What do you believe that link is saying? Please do tell. n/t

[azurnoir]

66. here is more from your links and exactly what is said and people should read them

from the first link in an article linked to there

IDF officers disciplined for Gaza 'white phosphorus'

An IDF spokesman denied that the men had been disciplined for firing white phosphorus shells and said it had been a discplinary because of artillary fire in a built up area. White phosphorus is not mentioned in the official reprimands.

But in an Israeli government report given to the UN last week, the senior officers are referred to as being disciplined because they approved the firing of phosphorus shells at Tel al-Hawa "exceeding their authority in a manner that jeopardized the lives of others".

Many human rights organisations and the UN Goldstone Report into Operation Cast Lead said that the white phosphorus had been illegally used by the IDF.

http://www.thejc.com/news/israel-news/26676/idf-officers-disciplined-gaza-white-phosphorus

and from your IRCT PDF

Conclusion
We believe that the inconclusive results
of Raman Spectroscopy in the detection
of phosphorus were due to the processing
and subsequent staining and mounting of
the tissue, which might interfere with the
measurement. The birefringent material is
likely to be a phosphorus compound, supported
by the clinical observation of very
deep and very slowly healing burn wounds.
White phosphorus may be used in war as a
smoke screen. Its use against individuals is
prohibited.

[shira]

68. In other words, it was never Israeli policy to use WP against civilians...

...and the study couldn't prove WP burns on OCL victims.

[azurnoir]

69. The study could not prove WP burns because the tissue was mishandled

as to IDF or Israeli policy well I'm sure nothing is on paper

[shira]

70. So you have no evidence or proof of either claim....

If it were policy, why would Israel prosecute officers for making a poor decision WRT the use of WP?

And you'd think after all this time there would be some damning evidence somewhere showing WP burns on Gaza OCL victims...

Instead, nothing.

You guys are spreading lies, half-truths, and innuendo as if you were being paid to do so.

Why?

What's the point?

[Jefferson23]

87. Israel/Gaza Operation 'Cast Lead': 22 Days of Death and Destruction

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE15/015/2009/en/8f299083-9a74-4853-860f-0563725e633a/mde150152009en.pdf

on edit: If the direct pdf link is not functioning properly, the link below will take you to the file as well:



Israel/Gaza: Operation "Cast Lead": 22 days of death and destruction
Download: PDFIndex Number: MDE 15/015/2009
Date Published: 2 July 2009
Categories: Israel and Occupied Palestinian Territories


On 27 December 2008, without warning, Israeli forces began a devastating bombing campaign on the Gaza Strip codenamed Operation “Cast Lead”. Its stated aim was to end rocket attacks into Israel by armed groups affiliated with Hamas and other Palestinian factions. By 18 January 2009 some 1,400 Palestinians had been killed and large areas of Gaza had been razed to the ground. Amnesty International believes that the deaths of so many unarmed civilians and the manner in which they came under attack demand a thorough, independent and impartial investigation into the conduct of all parties in the conflict.


http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/MDE15/015/2009/en

[shira]

88. That doesn't prove ill intent either. In fact, the beginning of the report is obnoxious...

"On 27 December 2008, without warning, Israeli forces began a devastating bombing campaign on the Gaza Strip codenamed Operation “Cast Lead”. Its stated aim was to end rocket attacks into Israel by armed groups affiliated with Hamas and other Palestinian factions. "

========

That's complete horseshit as Israel warned in the days preceding that they would react harshly if Hamas didn't stop a war they initiated (Operation Oil Stain).

So from the outset, this is a malicious distortion. It's like claiming America started a war with Japan - without mentioning Pearl Harbor.

Of course, Amnesty also claimed, among other lies, there was no evidence of Hamas human shielding...

:eyes:

[Jefferson23]

89. Your "facts" and no posted sources for people to consider.

Carry on shira.

[shira]

91. Okay, here's Maan with Hamas' declaration of war against Israel...

http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=207221&MARK=oil%20stain

How is it possible that this didn't make into the reports of AI, HRW, Goldstone, etc..?

[Jefferson23]

92. At least you posted something, people will decide for themselves shira.

The Facts about Israel’s War on Gaza

12.31.2008 | LATEST UPDATED Formatted Original (.doc)
By Adam Sheets

It is crucial that one has her/his facts straight about Israel’s war on Gaza. What events brought about this dreadful situation? What needs to be done to make it stop? These questions will be answered in the content of this article, using concrete facts from a variety of news sources.

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/the-truth-about-gaza/

[azurnoir]

93. "You guys are spreading lies, half-truths, and innuendo as if you were being paid to do so."

what lies what half truths? Israel used WP in a densely populated area and did so knowingly that fact is undeniable

that you seem to think that tissue samples being mishandled exonerates Israel is beyond ridiculous as to this use being Israeli policy we'll list IDF policy under the same category as Israel's constitution

[shira]

95. You're insinuating that Israeli policy was to use WP as a weapon...

And you have zero proof of that.

Was Israel as careful as they could be using WP? It's pretty clear from the percentage of civilian casualties (vs. combatants) and all other measures taken (like telephone warnings, leaflets, etc.) that Israel was EXTREMELY careful to protect civilians.

So yeah, it's a lie to pretend otherwise.

[Jefferson23]

97. Again, no linked documentation to refute human rights groups, just yea,

you're telling lies.

As if Israel was under some obligation to use white phosphorus at all.

[shira]

98. The numbers don't lie. Israel couldn't possibly maintain a 1:1 civilian/combatant ratio unless they

....were extremely careful.

There is no other military (even western militaries) as careful. Imagine what NATO countries like the US and UK would do if their mainland was under attack - based on their record in combat the past 2 decades.

It's not even close.

[Jefferson23]

99. No documentation to support any of your claims, not one.

If you change something on edit, it is a courtesy to state the change.

[shira]

100. Numbers for Lebanon 2006 and OCL 2008-09

Out of about 1200 killed in Lebanon...

The Kuwait Times reported that Hezbollah has buried over 700 fighters with more to follow, August 30.<13>

The Australian reports that Israel has the names of over 430 Hezbollah fighters it killed and estimates total Hezbollah dead at over 800, August 29.(Abraham Rabinovich recently reported in the

Washington Times on Sept. 27 that Israel now had 532 names.) <52>

A report<53> on August 4, documenting Iran's financial help to the families of Hezbollah fighters, claimed Hezbollah has already lost 500 men, plus 1500 wounded. The report said, that the wounded are being treated in Syria to make the wounded harder to count.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_2006_Lebanon_War

Out of 1400 killed during OCL...

The IDF tallied 709 Hamas and affiliated militant deaths, which is supported by statements from Hamas Interior Minister Fathi Hamad.<54><55> In addition, 450–720 (or 740—PMoH<325>) civilians were killed in the conflict. Ten Israeli soldiers were killed, along with three civilians.<326>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_War#Casualties

And here's Richard Kemp...

Colonel Richard Kemp, former Commander of British Forces in Afghanistan, spoke in 2011 about Israeli operations in the Gaza War. He said that a study published by the United Nations showed "that the ratio of civilian to combatant deaths in Gaza was by far the lowest in any asymmetric conflict in the history of warfare." He stated that this ratio was less than 1:1, and compared it favorably to the estimated ratios in NATO operations in Afghanistan (3:1), western campaigns in Iraq and Kosovo (believed to be 4:1), and the conflicts in Chechnya and Serbia (much higher than 4:1, according to anecdotal evidence). Kemp argued that the low ratio was achieved through unprecedented measures by the IDF to minimize civilian casualties, which included providing warnings to the population via telephone calls, radio broadcasts and leaflets, as well as granting pilots the discretion to abort a strike if they perceived too great a risk of civilian casualties. He also stated that the civilian casualties that did occur could be seen in light of Hamas' tactical use of Gazan civilians "as human shields, to hide behind, to stand between Israeli forces and their own fighters" and strategic use of them for exploitation of their deaths in the media.<4>

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

[Jefferson23]

102. See that wasn't difficult, now that you posted something, people

have an opportunity, if interested, to read and decide if your sources are credible.

[Jefferson23]

106. How often do you read the links you post ? Is there a measure of say, one out of ten posts, or some

such magical number?

I'll get to the other two later, but for now, your first one re: Lebanon casualties.

There have been many casualties in the 2006 Lebanon War, leading to condemnation of both sides, however the exact distribution of casualties has been disputed. The Lebanese Higher Relief Council (HRC),<1> UNICEF,<1> and various press agencies and news organizations have stated that most of those killed were Lebanese civilians,<2><3><4><5><6>.

You hail this for your claim about the IDF and civilian casualties as a positive??

snip* HRW said that "in its conduct of hostilities, the IDF repeatedly violated the laws of war by failing to distinguish between combatants and civilians."

snip* Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in a statement from Rome that he was " ... shocked and deeply distressed by the apparently deliberate targeting by Israeli Defence Forces."<64> On 26 July 2006, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert phoned Kofi Annan and expressed his deep regret over the death of the four UN observers. He promised that Israel would thoroughly investigate the incident and would share the findings with Annan, but says he was taken aback by secretary general’s statement saying that the Israeli attack on the UN post was "apparently deliberate".<65> After the attack, Dan Gillerman, Israel's UN representative, said Israel would not allow the UN itself to participate in an investigation of the airstrike that killed the four UN observers.<66>


snip* Just before the end of bombing, on 14 August, the IDF targeted what it said was a Palestinian faction in the Ein el-Hilweh refugee camp in Saida. Two missiles were fired into a civilian residential area and killed UNRWA/UN staff member Abdel Saghir<3>. Few days before two civilians were killed.



snip* Just before the end of bombing, on 14 August, the IDF targeted what it said was a Palestinian faction in the Ein el-Hilweh refugee camp in Saida. Two missiles were fired into a civilian residential area and killed UNRWA/UN staff member Abdel Saghir<3>. Few days before two civilians were killed.

on edit to add the last entry.

[shira]

107. The Kuwaiti and Iranian figures confirm the IDF's higher combatant count. That's pretty strong.

Meanwhile, the figures you're touting are closer to what Hezbollah and other discredited sources have claimed.

[Jefferson23]

108. Huh?

You might want to read your own sources again..UNICEF has it out for the IDF too?

[shira]

109. Go back to my post (and Wiki) and look at the Kuwaiti and Iranian numbers...

...as they confirm the IDF's higher Hezbollah body count.

Many organizations, including UNICEF, bought into the Lebanese government's claims, as well as Hezbollah's. As to the Lebanese government and from the same wiki link: "The Lebanese Higher Relief Council (HRC),<1> UNICEF,<1> and various press agencies and news organizations have stated that most of those killed were Lebanese civilians,<2><3><4><5><6> however the Lebanese government does not differentiate between civilians and combatants in death toll figures.

[Jefferson23]

110. Oh Iran confirms it now, ok.

Stupid UNICEF, those bunch of discredited jerks.

[shira]

111. Iran and Kuwait have no reason to make up higher Hezbollah casualties...

I'm surprised that has to be spelled out for you. Same as Hamas later confirming the IDF numbers.

And furthermore, why rely on the Lebanese government (when they do not distinguish b/w civilians and combatants) or Hezbollah for reliable information?

[Jefferson23]

114. There is no reliance on the Lebanese government, again. n/t

[Jefferson23]

112. You added more on your edit, and you think that clears up what

UNICEF and HRW concluded, you'd be hard pressed to prove. The Lebanese government is not UNICEF, nor HRW, their reports
are independent.

[shira]

113. Where did UNICEF get its casualty figures, if not from the Lebanese gov't or Hezbollah itself? n/t

[shira]

115. You still believe HRW has credibility when they still claim there's no evidence of Hezbollah...

...hiding behind human shields.

There's plenty of evidence but I'm pretty sure you're not interested b/c you'd like to keep pretending HRW (as well as the UN) are credible WRT Israel.

[Jefferson23]

117. I know you don't shira, but I do think it is important to link information

that convinces you. The rest is up to the reader to decide.

When you discredit as many groups as you do, and or cherry pick their findings, well..I don't think
I need to finish this sentence.

You make strong statements to protect Israel, and you seem to not realize that even within
your own country, the United States has exhibited deplorable behavior at times which I highly doubt you'd
defend, never mind exerting so much effort discrediting well respected human rights groups.

[shira]

118. About discrediting sources, tell me please...

...whether you think it's fair to condemn the UNHRC for having Saudi Arabia, Libya, and Syria making rulings there?

Also, do you think it really makes sense that organizations fighting for UNIVERSAL human rights, like Amnesty and HRW, to focus about 10 to 20x more energy on Israel than on Libya or Syria? Is Israel really 10 to 20x worse than either Syria or Libya, or even Saudi Arabia?

[Jefferson23]

119. There is nothing else I can add here shira, you have yourself

convinced that the entire world is out to get Israel...that is my opinion from what I read of your posts.

[shira]

120. You're seriously incapable of condemning the UNHRC with Libya, Syria, & S.Arabia judging others?

I mean come on!

Really?

[azurnoir]

103. I posted 2 quotes from your links that show what you claim they 'prove' was

was misleading to be very polite, you then skip on to "do you approve of BDS" in a lame attempt to justify Israel's unconscionable actions towards the people of Gaza or at least 'prove' some sort of 'prejudice' towards Israel or 'double standard' all around an obvious fail, albeit your comments do appear to point to another 'double standard' of sorts

now as this has devolved into your making comments for no other apparent purpose than to keep your own thread kicked as my point was made long ago I am done here but I'm sure you'll issue some challamge or 'wry' comment as to how they cannot back up their claims keep in mind I claimed nothing I merely showed the failings of your own claims

[shira]

105. There was nothing misleading about what I posted & cited. You're grasping for straws. n/t

[shira]

75. Azurnoir, do you support BDS vs. Israel? n/t

[tootrueleft]

76. Jesus fucking christ, using a liberal board to excuse the use of WP in populated areas.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jefferson23]

121. The fact is they decided to use it instead of something else..intent

issue solved.

You keep bringing up the shoes issue, are you saying they were always allowed in?

[shira]

122. The question is whether Israel intended to use WP as a weapon...

....and obviously they did not.

The false claim was that children's shoes were banned from Gaza for 2-3 years.

I don't see the point of continuing this inherently dishonest discussion about human rights when you and your friends here are unwilling to condemn the UNHRC for having Libya, Saudi Arabia, and Syria making rulings against liberal democracies. It's like having a human rights discussion with someone who takes David Duke's criticism of Israel seriously.

[Jefferson23]

123. Why don't you explain why they decided to use it when they could have

used something else.

Are you calling me a bigot? You: "It's like having a human rights discussion with someone who takes David Duke's criticism of Israel seriously."

Shoes were banned from entering Gaza, you are arguing about how long as opposed to why they hell would Israel do such a thing in the
first place?

On edit to add the list:

*The UN relief agency for Palestinian refugees Unrwa's list of household items that have been refused entry at various times includes light bulbs, candles, matches, books, musical instruments, crayons, clothing, shoes, mattresses, sheets, blankets, pasta, tea, coffee, chocolate, nuts, shampoo and conditioner.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7545636.stm

[azurnoir]

94. as a means of non violent resistance? it is preferable to violent resistance at IMO

do you prefer violence? but let's be honest here your looking to justify Israel's collective punishment of Palestinians aren't you?

[shira]

96. So that's a yes? If so, isn't BDS collective punishment?

And no, Israel is not collectively punishing Palestinians.

I would think you'd prefer the blockade to another OCL, right?

[azurnoir]

101. Thanks for proving my point, your looking to excuse Israel nothing more n/t

[shira]

104. You're condemning Israel 4 collective punishment but you're for BDS collective punishment.

How can you be for collective punishment in one case but against it in another?

[parkia00]

39. Since You Asked...

(1) "The key to the success of Israel’s delegitimizers is their ability to blur the difference between criticism of Israel and fundamental delegitimization, which allows them to gain sympathy for their cause among the elite and general public."
This is widely done by both sides. A bit hypocritical for article writer since I'm sure he knows it.

(2) "Israel is framed as ill-willed, uninterested in peace, and as trying to perpetuate occupation."
Again widely done by both sides.

(3) "Israel is branded as the new apartheid South Africa, so it can do no right and its adversaries can do no wrong ."
What is happening now is beyond apartheid but not yet genocide. Right now it's more like a stalemate with both sides dug in; waiting and prodding each other with little escalations and skirmishes. For those accusing Israel of genocide is a bit ludicrous. If Israel wanted a final solution to the Palestinian problem they are well capable of carrying it out with their overwhelming military but would then have to face the responsibility for their actions to the world. But you have to be an utter blind moron to actually believe that "discrimination and repression" by state policies do not happen in Israel.

(4)"Therefore, coercion is the only effective means of correcting Israel's ways."
This I actually agree with. Protests, boycotts, petitions or bringing to light incidents that give the target a negative image is a very efficient way of getting your message across to someone that you do not approve of their actions. Lighting a fire under their seat and watch them squirm or shining a spotlight on their actions.

(5) "Jews control politics, so only civil society can correct Israel's ways."
Unfortunately nuts are always to be found. These extreme minded people actually do a disservice to the side they are on by giving an atmosphere of radical over the edge actions.

(6) "Pro-Palestinian activity and criticism of Israel is 'the right thing to do."
Closely related to (4). What is interesting and revealing are the additional information written by the writer. "associated with other moral and liberal values such as protection of the environment and is symbolized by the wearing of the keffiyeh" Maybe the writer does not think too highly of liberals or the environment? As for the keffiyeh remark, it's a bit silly. It's a headdress, nothing more. Wearing it does not mean you are pro Palestinian as much as wearing a skullcap makes you a right-wing settler.

(7) "Single out Israel for alleged human rights violations; ignore comparative analysis."
Like it has been said many times before; pointing out the wrong doings of others as a cover to justify the wrong doings of your side is self defeating in the long run. It just makes you look like an idiot.

(8) "A call for applying general principles of international law, only when and where it serves the delegitimizers' cause.
I think the writer just admitted that Israel does indeed violate international law? "However, even when their assertions regarding international law are accurate, they single Israel out." Up to you to decide. Maybe the right of return of the Palestinians are more on people's minds because this conflict is always on the news and happened rather recently compared to the other instances referenced by the author? Again, pointing out the wrong doings of others as a cover to justify the wrong doings of your side is self defeating in the long run.

(9) "Pretend to be about 'correcting Israel's ways,' not about eliminating Israel."
This is a very annoying argument, debate, discussion ending tool often used by rabid supporters of whatever the rabid supporters are rabidly supporting. In the case of rabid Israel supporters, the words or phrases such as antisemitic, nazi, "wish Jews dead" or "you just want to see Israel destroyed" are thrown into any avid discussion where the rabid supporter finds themselves on the receiving ends of comments by others. This behavior is also ultimately self defeating as it gives you a reputation for saying silly things. Kind of like Ann Coulter. Also makes you look like an idiot.

(10) "Unbundle Israel's elimination."
Same thing as (9) with and added spicy twist. Maybe I read it wrong. I dunno. "Delegitimizers ... (demand) full and equal right of the Arab minority in Israel". Is this author against equal rights for Arabs in Israel? Is he supporting separate "rights" for people based on their ethnic background? Which brings us back to (3). Is the author supporting a creation of an apartheid state?

(11) "Focus on the right of the minority, while ignoring the rights of the majority."
This is where the author really flies into the twilight zone and shows what stuff he is made from. The rights of the majority does not give you the green light to trample on the rights of the minority. Plain and simple. In any country, all it's citizens should have equal right IRREGARDLESS of they belong to the majority group or a minority group.

(12) "Criticism of Israel now without agreement on the ultimate goal.
This is perfectly normal behavior. Any group that seeks the same path as another group will benefit from working together as a combined voice. This is widely used by supporters of Israels as well, yet it seems that if the authors opponents do it he finds it totally unacceptable and must be condemned.


Taking into account all that the author has written, I'm afraid to say his article is rubbish. It is written to appeal to one narrow segment of people who believe that they are being prosecuted by the planets inhabitants. They would gobble it all up and spread the word by parroting what was said. The article is an insult to people's intelligence.

[Exilednight]

44. Excellent analysis. n/t

[shira]

45. Are you for BDS? If so, what do you think about this video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnpilMYsR0I

Do you find anything at all problematic with BDS?

[parkia00]

50. I find it well done actually.

Clear and precise. Do I support BDS? The Israeli persimmons I have in my fridge say I do not. Why? Because it builds additional barriers between the two groups and there's too much of that already. The best hope for peace is with the next generation. The youth today. Getting them to interact with each other trough educational, arts, sports and business programs either through universities, government sponsored or even private programs is the best way to inject interaction between them and instilling a sense of familiarity between the two groups. It is far easier to breed the hatred of another group if you know less about them. I'm sure you agree that such programs between Jews and Palestinians are beneficial in the long run to both sides.

[shira]

56. Do you believe the BDS'ers are a good example of the delegitimization campaign and why/why not? n/t

[parkia00]

82. They are not a good example.

I know what you are getting at. De-legitimization equates to wanting to destroy Israel. So no. I do not believe this is the road that the BDS's are trying to go down. They are however trying to make things difficult for Israel by raising a stink anywhere they can. And quite successful at it. Since we are prodding questions here, let me prod you. In your earlier post where you quoted the author of the article which I said was rubbish, he seemed to question the wisdom of having equal rights for Arabs and Jews by scoffing at such notions as being indicative of the liberals. What is your stand on this?

[shira]

83. Well what would be a good example?

1. When people claim Israel is a nazi, apartheid racist state, and that starving Gazans continue to suffer from an ongoing humanitarian crisis today......is that delegitimization to you? Is such defamation not intended to delegitimize Israel?

2. Where do you think the leaders of BDS stand on RoR? What precisely do you think "fair" and "just" means to them regarding RoR? If they mean well, they should be crystal clear about their goals.

3. I don't have any problem at all with Arabs and Jews having equal rights, so long as it's within the 2 state framework. I don't believe Jews and Arabs would have equal rights in a one state situation, as one state would be beyond chaotic.

[parkia00]

90. Example of what?

Example of a group trying to delegitimize and shine the spotlight on Israeli policies? You already know the answer to that. Or are you talking about groups that seek to eliminate the Jewish state? You also know the answer to that as well.

As for the leaders of BDS's stance of ROR, obviously you also know the answer to that. What I think of a fair and just regarding ROR? Above all I have to take into account of reality. Full ROR is impossible. No use trying to focus and gain the impossible while loosing sight of the bigger picture. A partial ROR is favored where areas or villages once occupied by Palestinians in areas not yet buildup by established settlements can be returned. This will not be popular but to have a viable chance at permanent peace, both sides must play give and take. Not one side take all and give the other scraps. If Israel wants certain parts of the West Bank with built up settlements, then fine. The Palestinians should give it to them since the area has basically been part of greater Israel already for so many decades. In return for this, Israel must give up some other area to the Palestinians in return. Proper viable areas. Not some rock outcropping and tell them to take it or leave it. As for Jerusalem, it should belong neither to Israel or the Palestinians. Both sides already have an established capital. Since both sides seem not willing to share, neither of them should have it. It should become a city state. Those that presently live there should become it's citizens and strict control on "immigration" into the city sponsored by both side to bump up their population. But I am also a realist and have to admit that will not happen. Both sides are just too focus on having the whole cake.

I too think a one state solution will be a disaster. If two neighbors are constantly at each others throats, putiing them in the same house will not make things better.

If a two state solution was implemented, It is very unlikely that Israel will have no Arabs citizens unless they are forcibly removed. Which would create a stink on a whole new level. So should the Arabs or even Christians residing in Israel under a two state solution have equal rights?

[shira]

116. I want you to name these gropus and organizations that you feel delegitimize Israel

And I want to know what YOU think the BDS leaders stand is regarding RoR.

And of course non-Jews within Israel under a 2 state solution should have equal rights. But the thing is they ALREADY do. Discrimination exists in Israel like in any other liberal democracy vs. minorities. Your question is as silly as asking whether blacks and hispanics should have equal rights in America.

[parkia00]

125. What the Hell For?

You want me to do this and that? Answer this and that for your pleasure. Who do you think you are? My grade school teacher? Again you are asking questions you already know the answer to again and again. And even if I posted the names of said organizations like you want, it still will not change your output; which is pretty much set in stone. Maybe you like riding merry go rounds. I for one think they are a waste of time. So if you would excuse me, I would rather not play your Narcissistic games. You posted an article from an author which I believe is nothing more then rubbish. That opinion still has not changed. I posted clear responses as to why I felt it was rubbish before I somehow got on board the merry go round. But now I'm getting off. You are however welcomed to ride it for as long as you find it pleasurable.

As for my silly question about equal rights for Arabs, Bedouins and Jews in Israel, sure there are equal rights; on paper. Does that translate to equal rights on the ground? Education? Housing? Permits for this or that. You know, everyday stuff.

[zacherystaylor]

12. Palestinians were in the way just like Jews 2,000 years ago

The Jews were run out for the most part by the Romans not the Palestinians or the Lebanese.

The Palestinians and the Lebanese weren't responsible for the Holocaust was another legitimate complaint of course; however they were in the way. The Jews had a saying for a long time, "next year in Jerusalem." this didn't take into account that the control of Jerusalem changed hands or that they would have to move the poor people without political power out of the way by force.

What happens if the Palestinians start a new or old saying of their own, "next year in Jerusalem."

The Israeli Lobby makes many good points without calling for the elimination of Israel; at least one of the authors is Jewish. It would be better than eternal war or what apartheid, which is close if not exactly what they're doing now.

[sabbat hunter]

13. Jerusalem was never

a major city for Palestinians until Israel came along. Yes it the old city contains a holy site (behind mecca and medina in Islam). But a major civil center/capital it wasn't. That being said, I think that Israel should allow Palestine to control eastern sections of Jerusalem outside of the old city to be their capital.

Palestine does not have a stronger claim over Jerusalem (and the old city) than does Israel. Jerusalem was supposed to be an international city under UN control. But the UN abrogated that duty long ago when it did not use force to defend it against Jordan, nor force Jordan out after the war for independence.

Under Israeli political control, with the holy sites under control of the various religions. Israel for the most part has allowed free access for everyone to the holy sites. Why should this change?

[zacherystaylor]

22. My point wasn't that the other extreme was good

I was trying to advocate for a fair compromise. the majority of the force hasn't been used against Jordan it has been used against the Palestinians and those with much less political power. Your argument is a bit of a bait and switch; Jordon is a powerful country, although not nearly as powerful as Israel, therefore they should use force against the poor in the West Bank.

Israel shouldn't have the right to force people out of their homes anymore than the Nazis and Romans had the right to force Jews out of their homes. A more moderate compromise is in order.

[sabbat hunter]

23. Which is why I support

Israel withdrawing from most of the west bank (with some land swaps, but make sure it is a contiguous state in the west bank) and leaving the old city of jerusalem under Israeli control

[wellst0nev0ter]

41. "Israel for the most part has allowed free access"

I loled at this part. Typical self-serving propagandizing.

[shira]

48. Hey there, I'm curious - was Senator Wellstone way too pro-Israel for your tastes?

Was he liberal on everything, in your opinion, except for Israel?

[wellst0nev0ter]

52. Sorry, Unlike You I'm Not A Raving Absolutist

Yes, he was very hawkish on Israel, and I am free to disagree very greatly on that issue, but unlike some Israeli hawks I know, I don't expect him to use Bush's Iraq war to justify the occupation of the Palestinians.

[shira]

55. Thanks - and which Israeli hawks use the Iraq war to justify the occupation? n/t

[wellst0nev0ter]

72. If The U.S. Is Occupying More A-rabs Than Israel

Then what Israel is doing is A-OK, remember?

[shira]

74. That's an argument WRT double standards, not an excuse to keep the occupation going.

Just curious - do you support BDS vs. Israel?

[wellst0nev0ter]

78. So We Shouldn't Criticize Israeli Occupation Of Palestinians

Because Bush put us in Eye-Rack?

Sounds a lot like someone's hiding behind Bush's war to me.

And to answer your question behind your question no I don't actually mind the one-state solution. In fact the racially alarmist tinge behind the opposition to the one state solution disturbs me more than the the prospect that Israel might lose its "Jewish character." And no, I don't really care if prominent Democrats and liberals like Obama, with whom apparently I'm supposed to be in lockstep agreement, are opposed to the one-state solution.

However, let it be known that if we can do a two-state solution, that's perfectly fine with me too. But keep expanding those settlements and you all will end up with the one-state solution anyways.

[shira]

85. Criticize it all you wish - that's legitimate

...but don't pretend all would be well if Israel just pulled out. Things got worse after the Lebanon 2000 pullout and the Gaza 2005 withdrawal. I suspect you wouldn't mind if a big time war resulted from yet another Israeli withdrawal, so long as the occupation ends you're okay with the chaos that would follow.

There's no possibility of one state due to settlements as Israel will never annext the West Bank.

Additionally, one state could never work. For example, who would run Mossad, Shabak, the military, etc.? Palestinians will be expected to fight against fellow Arabs in future battles? How could anyone expect Fatah and Hamas to rule in a liberal, secular manner when their politics are the complete antithesis of that? Who will ensure that in a one state scenario that liberal secularism would prevail?

[wellst0nev0ter]

124. Mmm, Yeah...

I suspect you wouldn't mind if a big time war resulted from yet another Israeli withdrawal, so long as the occupation ends you're okay with the chaos that would follow.

It was partly because the Israelis messed up the Gaza withdrawal by being so unilateral and doing it only on their terms that Hamas got elected in the first place. It just showed what a non-entity Fatah was and paved the way for its replacement.

So Israel will never annex the West Bank, but it can't pull out either. I really need to ask you, are you okay with the status quo?

So Arabs cannot fight against "fellow Arabs" huh? Guess that's why there are no Arab country that maintains their own armies, or if they do it's to protect themselves from being occupied from westerners, right?

And no, I don't really expect Hamas to run a liberal secular government. I have a little more hope for Fatah, but not that much. But what I'm hearing you say is that you're afraid the Palestinians might do to the Jews what the Jews are doing to the Palestinians.

[oberliner]

126. What "the Jews" are doing to the Palestinians?

It almost seems like you are conflating the government of Israel with "the Jews" in that remark.

[wellst0nev0ter]

127. Okay, You're Right

Israel is NOT a Jewish state. My bad.

[oberliner]

128. Do not use the term "Jew" to mean "Israeli"

That's all I am suggesting.

[wellst0nev0ter]

129. Yeah, Really Doubt That It's The Non-Jewish Israelis

who are continuing the occupation.

[pelsar]

130. israel didnt say "pretty please"...so the fatah and hamas just had to attack

It was partly because the Israelis messed up the Gaza withdrawal by being so unilateral and doing it only on their terms that Hamas got elected in the first place. It just showed what a non-entity Fatah was and paved the way for its replacement.

i've heard this excuse, and when i ask for what exactly did israel do, that caused fata/hamas to launch missiles almost daily and nightly on israeli cities and farms...the answers are a big vague.

true, there was no flag lowering and bugles playing...there was negotiation as evident of how the withdrawal was carried out and how the PA/hamas kept their side quiet despite the "target rich" environments of thousands of israelis being put in hundreds of buses.

so whats left?......i'll explain whats left, even though it hard to accept, the PA with its corruptness never could govern without an israeli enemy, Hamas simply waited for that illusion of democracy called elections without education to give them the edge and "excuse" to take over.

the lesson is not that israel "messed up" by leaving, the lesson is that governing is not simply and requires a strong infrastructure and education for the transformation to a democracy, none of which has anything to do with israel and everything to do with the PA/Hamas/UN and their supporters.