Israel: 'Delegitimization' is just a distraction

[Violet_Crumble]

Israel can't be delegitimized, and no one is trying to do so. But the idea does serve the purpose of diverting attention from the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the blockade of the Gaza Strip.

By M.J. Rosenberg
July 17, 2011

Suddenly, all the major pro-Israel organizations are anguishing about "delegitimization." Those who criticize Israeli policies are accused of trying to delegitimize Israel, which supposedly means denying Israel's right to exist.

The concept of delegitimization has been used as a weapon against Israel's critics at least as far back as 1975, when then-U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Daniel Patrick Moynihan accused the international body of delegitimizing Israel by passing a "Zionism is racism " resolution. That may have been the last time the term was used accurately.

In a May speech, President Obama used it in reference to the Palestinian effort to seek recognition of their national aspirations at the U.N. General Assembly, as Israel successfully did in 1947. He said that "for the Palestinians, efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure." But he failed to explain just how a Palestinian bid for statehood at the United Nations would delegitimize Israel.

<snip>


The whole concept of delegitimization seems archaic. Israel achieved its "legitimacy" when the United Nations recognized it 63 years ago. It has one of the strongest economies in the world. Its military is the most powerful in the region. It has a nuclear arsenal of about 200 bombs, with the ability to launch them from land, sea and air.

In that context, the whole idea of delegitimizing Israel sounds silly. Israel can't be delegitimized.


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-oe-rosenberg-israel-20110717,0,663536.story

[Ruby the Liberal]

1. So, amend the Palestinian Charter to recognize the State of Israel.

No?

Why not?

[Violet_Crumble]

2. The PLO has officially recognised Israel...

That overrides anything else there might be. Do you want a link so you can read the official recognition?

btw, I've noticed that those folk who seem so bothered that the charter hasn't been amended don't seem to be bothered at all that Likud's charter states that it's opposed to any Palestinian state being established in the West Bank and that the border of Israel is the Jordan River. Why is that?

[Ruby the Liberal]

3. Hamas' Charter has not, and they are the elected governing/responsible authority.

PLO is meaningless right now as is Islamic Jihad.

Edit - typo of Hanas vs Hamas

[Violet_Crumble]

4. Hamas aren't the PA...

What their charter says doesn't trump the official recognition of Israel by the PLO, which is a formal document. I notice you ignored what I pointed out about the Likud Platform. Why? Doesn't that bother you?

btw, since when has the PLO been meaningless? While the PA administers the occupied territories, it's the PLO that's the international representative of the Palestinian people...

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

[TomClash]

6. It doesn't matter

If there is someone, somewhere, who fails to recognize Israel the No State!

[aranthus]

8. No, Arafat did, and he's dead.

The PLO charter was never formally amended. I suspect that the Palestinians would claim that no act by Arafat could override the Charter, just as Americans would have to say that no act by a President could override the Constitution.

As to the second point. Yes, it does bother me that Likud still formally opposes a Palestinian state. However, the Likud Charter isn't the Constitution of Israel. Likud is not the "legitimate representative of the Israeli people" The government of Israel is. The PLO is supposed to be the representative of the Palestinians. So that Charter speaks for all of the Palestinians together.

[Violet_Crumble]

13. He made that agreement in his capacity as the chairman of the PLO...

Just like Rabin (another dead guy) recognised the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people in his capacity as the prime minister of Israel. It wasn't some personal agreement between two men which ceased to mean anything once they were both dead, it's a formal document by the leaders of the Palestinians and Israelis....

I'd be thinking that a vote by the PNC in favour of cancelling the specific clauses is a lot more than just an act by Arafat: (scroll down to the bottom of the document to read it)

'The PNC held a special session on April 24, 1996 and listened to the report made by the legal committee, reviewed the current political conditions, which the Palestinian people and the Arab nations encounter, and so the PNC decided: "Depending on the Independence Declaration and the political statement adopted by the PNC in its 19th session in Gaza on Nov. 11, 1988 which stressed resolving conflicts by peaceful means and adopting the principal of two states, the PNC decides to:


First: Amend the articles in the National charter that contradict with the letters exchanged between the PLO and the government of Israel on Sept. 9-10, 1993.

Second: The PNC authorizes the Legal Committee to draft a new charter to be presented at the first meeting to be held by the Central Council.'

http://pac-usa.org/the_palestinian_charter.htm

From what I understand, there hasn't been any additions or deletions from the text of the Charter due in part to a new Palestinian Constitution looming on the horizon. Though I found this where Abbas has given a deadline of September 31 for amendments to be made to the PLO constitution (which I'm guessing is the Charter).

http://www.eurasiareview.com/abbas-moves-on-plo-constitution-amendments-28032011/

I do find it kind of amusing that it was the first govt of Netanyahu, complete with the absolutist vision of Greater Israel in their Platform, who complained the longest and loudest about the PLO Charter...

[Recursion]

16. But you're still stuck with the problem that the PA recognized Israel and got nothing in return

It's going to be very hard to sell that pony twice, so I think Israel needs to look for something besides pre-emptive recognition, since they've made it clear that granting it won't help remotely.

[shira]

19. Get serious please. Abbas' own Fatah movement doesn't recognize Israel...

...so his very own party is opposed to recognition while you're telling us that Abbas' very own PA recognized Israel long ago and still does.

http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=709&fld_id=709&doc_id=457

Only the willfully blind refuse to see the the problem there.

Also, Hamas doesn't and will never recognize Israel (Abbas says they don't have to) and they're now part of the delegation Israel must negotiate with. So what does that tell you? The Oslo '93 recognition now means shit with Hamas as part of the PA.

[Recursion]

20. It tells me Israel missed its chance before the second intifada

They could have had an ethnically Jewish state and threw that chance away, unfortunately. Oddly enough, I'm agreeing with the Israeli Right here that Israel (taken to mean a state with that name with a majority Jewish population) is under an existential threat, but unlike them I don't think there's anything they or anyone else can do to save it at this point.

[shira]

22. They accepted the Clinton Parameters in 2000, Arafat refused.

In fact, Arafat later said he regretted that...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/jun/22/israel

[Recursion]

24. No, they didn't

The settlement expansion continued. I have no idea why the right can't process that simple fact.

[shira]

26. Yes, they did. Arafat didn't sign on with them. Palestine should have started 10 years ago...

If Arafat signed back then, there would no longer be ANY settlement expansion or occupation for the last 10 years.

[Recursion]

28. BWA-HA-HA-HA!

there would no longer be ANY settlement expansion

:rofl:

Thanks, I needed that laugh today. Cheers.

[shira]

30. Great discussing this with you, thanks! n/t

[classysassy]

5. America's citizens

are and will continue to be in Harms way as long as our politicians reject a Palestinian state.

[aranthus]

7. And for long after.

The reason to endorse a Palestinian state is because the Palestinians have a right to one; not to insure the safety of Americans--which it won't do in any case.

[shira]

9. The flotilla and its supporters are proof of the delegitimization campaign. n/t

[Igel]

10. Did Obama actually say that recognition of Palestine = delegitimization?

My understanding was that those are two different, although complementary, goals. One can delegitimize a country without having an adjacent country recognized; one can recognize an adjacent country without delegitimizing another country.

However, I've argued that a delegitimized country and government has no right to self-defense or to not being attacked. Before R2P kicked in with Libya, the would-be attacked essentially derecognized the Libyan government in the person of dear ol' Muammar. Even self-defense from somebody who occupies a territory or office but isn't legitimately in that office is an affront because they prevent legitimate government or office-holder from doing what's right.

Ivory Coast had a similar kind of problem: Internally a court said the president was legitimate. But abroad he was delegitimate. If the guy didn't legitimately occupy the palace (or whatever it was), he not only had no right to be there but those seeking to install the legitimate president had a right--and a responsibility--to make the illegitimate ruler go away.

Meanwhile, the OP confuses various kinds of legitimacy--de jure legitimacy granted by others versus legitimacy conferred by internal processes versus de facto legitimacy. Sloppy. South Africa had de facto legitimacy at the height of apartheid. A military, a government, one of the strongest economies in sub-Saharan Africa. Elections, albeit elections that disenfranchised many of its people. Some governments had trouble recognizing that government as the government of South Africa because they didn't want to describe it as legitimate, esp.; in the Commonwealth (the uppity Afrikaaners). Somalia has a legitimate government with a very small writ--it governs little in the way of the territory or people or economy of Somalia, and has a really crappy military.

But a campaign was waged to delegitimize the SA apartheid government. It was racist, oppressive, and wasn't a "true" represenative government. The campaign led to sanctions and pressure that the SA government caved in to because the delegitimization was working. (Internal factors were probably no less important in the renouncing of apartheid, a change in generations and all that.) But we must posit that this was impossible and therefore didn't happen--the government had widespread legitimacy, so there's no way it could ever lose it. Government, army, economy? Impossible.

Qaddhafi was recognized as the leader for many years. Libya had a reasonable economy for the region; it had a reasonable military. Legitimacy was had, both de jure and de facto. Therefore, it must be reasoned, it's impossible to delegitimize Qaddhafi and the Libyan government he leads. It's silly to think that Qaddhafi, like South Africa before him, could ever be delegitimized.

We must therefore conclude that the SA apartheid government in Johannesberg is alive and well, and that Qaddhafi continues to enjoy the widespread respect at the UN that comes with international legitimacy. Or we have to conclude that the reasoning is specious and the premise that entails such conclusions is in error.

[Ken Burch]

11. "a delegitimized country and government has no right to self-defense or to not being

attacked"?

So, you'd agree than, that the demand that a Palestinian state be completely demilitarized is a demand that that state be pre-emptively delegitimized?

[shira]

12. Rosenberg is an idiot. BDS is pure delegitimization. Here's his side admitting it...

http://palestinefreevoice.blogspot.com/2011/07/encircle-and-delegitimize-zionist-state.html

That's from THIS week!

There are also DU'ers here arguing in another thread right now that zionism is racism (colonialism, naziism, etc..) which Rosenberg admits is a form of delegitimization.

Iran and its friends who insist on no Zionist state or those who argue for full RoR are the very definition of delegitimizers.

Last week's poll from a Palestinian firm showed 2/3 of all Palestinians believe 2 states is just the beginning of establishing one Palestinian state. THAT's delegitimization.

Hilarious.

============

A better argument is that Rosenberg's denial and his silence WRT all this is cover for his actual support of delegitimization...

[Violet_Crumble]

14. Well, thanks for the example of exactly what he was talking about in the OP...

I support the BDS (with a strong emphasis on the 'S') movement and I'm not delegimitising Israel. I'm highly critical of its policies and the occupation...

But I'm glad you brought up that poll, which was commissioned* by a US pro-Israel group called The Israel Project and conducted by Stanley Greenberg in partnership with the PCPO, because seeing yr so interested in it, maybe you can assist me in tracking down the poll questions and how the respondents were selected. I can't find that information on the websites for any of those groups. I figure you must have read the questions and have some knowledge apart from what you read in one article about the poll, right? Because I agree with the point made by another poster in the thread you started about the poll that there's a discrepancy between the results of that poll and a very recent one carried out by the PSR, and I'm curious to know after what they said whether you attempted at all to look into it further and find out why that discrepancy had happened...

[shira]

15. The global BDS movement is against 2 states, for full RoR, and against any Jewish/Arab cooperation..

...until those goals are achieved. Remember these goons shutting down OneVoice concerts? That's the very definition of delegitimization, that Israel has no right to exist.

But you're for it nevertheless.

:eyes:

Here's proof:
ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnpilMYsR0I

I looked on the PCPO website but couldn't find information.
http://www.pcpo.ps/polls.htm

I'll try emailing them and TIP. Maybe you should try the same if you're really interested.

[Violet_Crumble]

17. I think you forgot the bit where they hate all Jews. You gotta keep it exciting!

Too fucking right I support the BDS movement. I support an end to the occupation because continuing it is something that could well end up destroying Israel...

I've already sent off a few emails, but unlike you, I'm waiting till I see what the questions were before racing in to cast judgement on the poll results :)

[shira]

18. Why not just say you support BDS to end the 40 yr occupation, not the global BDS movement...

...which you oppose?

Any problem with that?

[Violet_Crumble]

21. Sorry? Where did I say I oppose the global BDS movement?

Didn't I say in the post you replied to that I support the BDS movement, with a heavy emphasis on the 'S' bit? Yep, just checked and I definately said that: 'Too fucking right I support the BDS movement. I support an end to the occupation because continuing it is something that could well end up destroying Israel...'

btw, I think it could be time for yet another reference to Nazis. How about something along the lines of: 'The global BDS movement is against 2 states, for full RoR, and against any Jewish/Arab cooperation, hate all Jews, AND I heard from a friend who saw someone on Twitter say they spotted the BDS movement dressed in a Nazi uniform when they were boycotting Israel!' ;)

[shira]

23. The global BDS movement is antisemitic, for 1 state, full RoR, etc...

You only say you support BDS to end the 40 year occupation, not the 63 year occupation.

Contradiction, right?

If not, please explain.

[Violet_Crumble]

25. Damn, you missed slipping in a Nazi reference!

My edit came too late. 'btw, I think it could be time for yet another reference to Nazis. How about something along the lines of: 'The global BDS movement is against 2 states, for full RoR, and against any Jewish/Arab cooperation, hate all Jews, AND I heard from a friend who saw someone on Twitter say they spotted the BDS movement dressed in a Nazi uniform when they were boycotting Israel!'

No contradiction at all. I'm not at all sure what I'm supposed to be explaining, but I'm very comfortable in my support of the BDS movement...

on edit: Rather than swallow some of the nonsense I've seen posted here about the BDS movement, I went and took a look at their website where they explain what the BDS movement is about:

The global movement for a campaign of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel until it complies with international law and Palestinian rights was initiated by Palestinian civil society in 2005. BDS is a strategy that allows people of conscience to play an effective role in the Palestinian struggle for justice.

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

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

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

Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands occupied in June 1967 and dismantling the Wall;

Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and

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

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

http://www.bdsmovement.net/bdsintro

Y'know, if the BDS movement was antisemitic, that link would be deleted, and any supporters of BDS would get tombstoned. I don't see that happening...

[shira]

27. Oh, so the global BDS movement really isn't for 1 state, full RoR, etc..?

You believe they're only for ending the 40 year occupation and that's why you support them?

[Violet_Crumble]

29. Here's what the BDS movement is about. Not spotting anything antisemitic in it...

The global movement for a campaign of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel until it complies with international law and Palestinian rights was initiated by Palestinian civil society in 2005. BDS is a strategy that allows people of conscience to play an effective role in the Palestinian struggle for justice.

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

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

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

Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands occupied in June 1967 and dismantling the Wall;

Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and

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

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

http://www.bdsmovement.net/bdsintro

[shira]

31. That's the global BDS movement headed by Omar Barghouti - agreed? n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

32. That's the BDS movement I support. What in the link I posted is antisemitic?

Don't go all shy all of a sudden. I posted what the BDS movement is about, so now I want you to show me what in the information I posted was antisemitic...

[shira]

33. That link contradicts video testimony of BDS leaders like Omar Barghouti...

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

That's a short video and if you pick it up from 1:15 onward you'll see what Barghouti and other BDS leading advocates are really for.

There was a debate b/w Barghouti and Jonathan Freedland about a week ago and the audio is here...
http://soundcloud.com/southbankcentre/why-boycott-culture

Freedland's last comments were:

“Here’s the very last point – tonight has been hugely revealing to me, because I thought my disagreement with the boycott movement was because I want to see the end of occupation, you want to see the end of occupation and it’s an argument about tactics.

“What has come through loud and clear tonight is your motivation – there’s nothing wrong with this but it’s clarifying – is not actually just the end of occupation but it is with Israel itself you have a fundamental problem with, you (shouts of disagreements from the audience) … Omar Barghouti made it clear.”

Freedland very clearly understands the difference b/w what you believe BDS to be and what Barghouti actually says it is (nevermind the misleading bullshit you just cited).

[bemildred]

34. May I assume Mr Freedland lost the debate?

Freedland very clearly understands he has lost the substantive argument, so he chooses to cast aspersions on his opponent's motives instead.

[shira]

35. You should listen to it. Freedland now views the BDS movement more cynically than before. n/t

[bemildred]

36. So he is increasingly cynical? His former gullibility has suffered a steep decline?

His former lack of judgement doesn't seem like much of a recommendation for his views now, eh?

[shira]

37. What's your view on the BDS movement? For/Against? Why/Why not? n/t

[bemildred]

38. I view it as an interesting exercise in political free speech.

Such efforts are historically hit or miss, and in themselves weak, until they attract massive support, which often does not occur, so it will be interesting to see how effective this one proves to be over the long run. I'd really have to see how things pan out over the long run to decide on some simple yes/no vote on it. In the meantime, it seems to be at least a cause of worry to the Israeli government.

[Violet_Crumble]

39. I posted a link to their own information about BDS page.

Not once, but twice. They say there what BDS is. Is there some reason you can't read it or explain what in that information page was antisemitic?

I'm interstate for work right now and can't view videos on this thing, btw

[shira]

40. It's about 6 minutes of video. Let me know what you think once you see it. Check out the debate...

....too if you get the chance to hear Barghouti vs. Freeedland, from last week.

[Violet_Crumble]

41. I'm still waiting for you to explain what the antisemitism is in the info I posted

Y'know, the info from the BDS movement site that explains what BDS is

[shira]

42. Nothing wrong with that info. Care to explain what you see wrong in that video? n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

43. Okay, so the BDS movement isn't antisemitic...

Good to see you read the information on the BDS site about what BDS is, and that it's been cleared up, though it took a hell of a lot of posts to get to that point. To reiterate, I support the BDS movement, and I'll just add that I strongly oppose attempts to ban boycotts etc as attacks on free speech.

btw, why would you ask me to watch a video only a post after I told you I'm not able to watch videos or go to YouTube from the work computer?

[shira]

44. It is, so after you watch the video at home lemme know what you think...

...because in that video the leaders of BDS show clearly they're for 1 state, full RoR, no peaceful cooperation b/w Jews and Arabs.

I'll wait until you see for yourself.

[Violet_Crumble]

45. It isn't. I posted the link to the BDS website. The movement isn't antisemitic

That page details what the BDS movement is about and what it's aims are. I support BDS and if yr accusation were correct, the links I posted to the BDS site would have been deleted and myself and others who support the BDS movement would be tombstoned.

[shira]

46. Here's Barghouti, from the video and a piece he wrote for EI. Let's see if you have a problem now...

Speaking at Carleton University in Ottawa in 2010, while he was a PhD student at Tel Aviv University, Barghouti had this to say in his "personal capacity".

I clearly do not buy into the two-state solution… If the refugees were to return, you would not have a two-state solution. You would have a Palestine next to a Palestine, rather than a Palestine next to Israel.

In another interview, Barghouti stated:

If the occupation ends, would that end our call for BDS? No it wouldn't.

He wrote an even more damning piece in Electronic Intifada on 31 May 2009:

...people fighting for refugee rights like I am, know that you cannot reconcile the right of return for refugees with a two state solution. That is the big white elephant in the room and people are ignoring it a return for refugees would end Israel's existence as a Jewish state.

http://www.foiwa.org.au/node/296

[Violet_Crumble]

47. Not sure why I'm supposedvto have a problem

It's telling that you continually ignore the link I posted to the information about BDS that's on the movements own website. I support the BDS movement asca legitimate and non-violent form of protest against the occupation not sure what yr struggling with about that, nor why you falsely claimed the BDS movement is antisemitic. As I pointed out, if it was, my posts linking to the BDS site would have been deleted and I would have been banned as DU takes a dim view of those who support antisemitic groups.

[shira]

48. You don't believe Omar Barghouti is the face of the global BDS movement?

There's no one else better associated with the movement than him.

He's the co-founder and main spokesperson for the movement so there's no sense pretending he doesn't really speak for the BDS movement....

Praise for Omar Barghouti and Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions:

“No one has done more to build the intellectual, legal and moral case for BDS than Omar Barghouti. The global Palestinian solidarity movement has been transformed and is on the cusp of major new breakthroughs.”
–—Naomi Klein, author of The Shock Doctrine and No Logo

“I have been to Palestine where I’ve witnessed the racially segregated housing and the humiliation of Palestinians at military roadblocks. I can’t help but remember the conditions we experienced in South Africa under apartheid. We could not have achieved our freedom without the help of people around the world using the nonviolent means of boycotts and divestment to compel governments and institutions to withdraw their support for the apartheid regime. Omar Barghouti’s lucid and morally compelling book is perfectly timed to make a major contribution to this urgently needed global campaign for justice, freedom and peace.”
–—Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Nobel Peace Laureate

“Once again Omar Barghouti delivers a conceptually lucid argument for the BDS movement that is difficult to refute. He offers a principled position accompanied by nuanced and thorough analyses, and though one may not agree with all of his claims, one is fully persuaded by the passionate clarity of his appeal. Barghouti reminds us what public responsibility entails, and we are lucky to have his relentless and intelligent analysis and argument. There is no more comprehensive and persuasive case than his for boycott, divestment, and sanctions to end the Israeli occupation and establish the ethical claim of Palestinian rights.”
—–Judith Butler, Co-director of the Program of Critical Theory at the University of California at Berkeley

“The ABC for internationalist support for Palestine is BDS. And the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions campaign against Israeli cruelty and injustice is gaining in significance and scope. Like the anti-apartheid movement against racist South Africa, BDS is helping to make a tremendous difference in what has been a most difficult struggle for human rights and the right of a colonized and dispossessed people to national self-determination. This inspiring book is a weapon in a noble struggle in which all right thinking people can play a part.”
–—Ronne Kasrils, former South African government minister

“This is a book about the political actions necessary to hinder and finally to stop the Israeli state machine which is operating every day to eliminate the Palestinian people.
It is like an engineer’s report, not a sermon. Read it, decide and then act.”
–—John Berger

“Essential reading for all who care about justice and the plight of an oppressed people.”
–—Ken Loach

[Violet_Crumble]

59. I didn't know it had a face. There ya go. Learn something new every day!

Hey, who's the face of the opposition to the separation barrier? And I'd be grateful to know who the face of opposition to the extremist settlers is, if you've got that handy. Dn't tell me it's that Lieberman guy, coz he's a bit of a fascist with some unsavoury attitudes about Arabs, and I figure he's making a total balls-up of being the face of Israel's foreign relations, so he could be moonlighting to see if he can slot himself in somewhere else...

Those reviews for that book are good ones. I think I might go track it down and have a read. Thanks for posting it!

[shira]

60. Do Barghouti's views WRT the BDS movement concern you? n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

61. No more than anyone else's views on a wide array of topics

Am I supposed to be seeing the error of my ways and disavowing myself of any support for the BDS movement? If so, I can save you tens of pointless posts and get that sorted right now...

[shira]

62. So you oppose Barghouti's views but support his BDS movement regardless. Why? n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

63. No. What's with the obsession with this guy? n/t

[shira]

65. I'm sorry, "No" to what? You support Barghouti's views? He's the co-founder of the movement....

....and it's number one representative. This isn't even in question.

To separate Barghouti's views from the BDS movement is like trying to separate Kahane's views from KACH.

[Violet_Crumble]

66. It's an all-encompassing no, signifying that I'm bored...

You haven't answered any of my heartfelt questions, so my interest is starting to wane.

[shira]

68. What haven't I answered? Please be specific. n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

70. Try reading what you've been replying to. It's not a difficult thing to do...

An easy way to spot a question is to look for the question mark (?) at the end of a sentence. Mind you, the ones I've been throwing in have been little more than comedic light relief to try to alleviate the boredom...

[shira]

74. Your questions are deflections in order to avoid answering. Typical. n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

76. Damn. And there I was thinking they were kind of cute...

Clearly they're diversionary tactics devised in order to steer you away from yr very important and earth-shatteringly awesome tangent that if 'answered' will immediately bring peace to the Middle East! Drats! Foiled again!

[shira]

78. For someone with such strong views, you shouldn't have any problem defending them.

I can't understand the mentality behind having such strong views that cannot be rationally defended....

[Violet_Crumble]

80. Oh, I've got no problems defending my views, and very rationally...

I'm just not sure what I'm supposed to be defending, or even why...

[shira]

83. So tell me what you think about Omar Barghouti's views WRT the BDS campaign. n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

84. He supports it. I support it. Many other people support it

Though if i ever find out he runs red lights, bites the heads off puppies and eats their grilled bodies off a skewer, or ever cheated on his tax, then I am totally and utterly disavowing BDS and friending Avigdor Lieberman on Facebook!!

[shira]

86. You support what Barghouti says about RoR and its implications, or think that's irrelevant? n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

88. I don't see whether me agreeing or not has anything to do with my support of the BDS movement...

Though I think I've been pretty much pointing that out for the past dozen or so posts...

[shira]

92. You say you don't support RoR which would destroy Israel...

...but the people behind the BDS movement say that's what they want and won't stop with BDS until that happens. Barghouti says an end to the 1967 occupation won't stop BDS. This won't end the conflict, Violet, but instead prolong it.

You seemingly have no problem with that.

[Violet_Crumble]

93. I never said anything of the sort! I wouldn't say anything so utterly dense...

And I doubt very much that the shadowy and sinister people behind the BDS movement have said they want to destroy Israel. You really need to stop putting yr own words into other people's mouths...

[shira]

95. You support full RoR or limited? The BDS people are for full RoR.

And of course, Barghouti won't say they're for destroying Israel.

They'll say it nicely, as "one person, one vote" via full RoR.

Same thing.

[Violet_Crumble]

98. Why are you asking me when you already told me I supposedly don't support it?

Anyway, my views on the Right of Return have been posted here many times in the past, and I suspect it may be a little too lacking in one-dimensionalism for you...

FFS, the way you carry on, if someone wears a t-shirt saying 'end the occupation' they're trying to destroy Israel. You must think it's one hell of a fragile country!

[shira]

101. Why do you always avoid simple questions and insist on deflecting?

You have very strong views on the subject but are reluctant to answer the most basic questions.

What do you have to hide?

[Violet_Crumble]

102. I'm not avoiding anything. Like I said I've stated my views on Right of Return many times...

Basic and simple is not the way I'd describe that particular issue.

[shira]

105. So why make me look it up when you could answer it now? Are you for limited RoR...

...or full RoR? If it's so easy to look your answer up, then maybe you could direct me to one of your previous answers to this...

Thanks!

[Violet_Crumble]

107. You can go look it up yrself seeing yr so interested, yet never seem to have noticed my posts about

I'm sure as hell not doing yr footwork for you!

[shira]

110. I found a couple threads of yours, proving your view is not the same as the BDS movement's...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x171278#171341
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x170586#170586

In particular, you wrote in the 2nd link:

I think any fair resolution is going to involve acknowledgement by Israel of the right of return, a symbolic physical return of some refugees on humanitarian grounds, and compensation...

The co-founder and main spokesperson for BDS, Omar Barghouti, would be insulted with this solution and would oppose it vehemently.

But you don't have a problem with the way Barghouti and the BDS movement views RoR, do you?

[Violet_Crumble]

112. Great. I knew you could do it!

Considering the way you've told me in this thread that I believe things I don't, I have to take anything you say about what would insult Mr Barhgouti with a massive grain of salt...

And no, I don't have any problem with the stance of the BDS movement when it comes to the Right of Return. I really can't be bothered losing any sleep over whether I see totally eye to eye with anyone else on how it should be implemented.

[shira]

114. I just remembered a post from you explaining why you don't have a problem with Omar Barghouti....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=328071&mesg_id=330072

"...I do support one binational and democratic state with equal rights and protections for all citizens rather than continuing to pretend that two viable and independent states will ever emerge..."

See, at one time you were for very limited and symbolic RoR, but now your views are pretty consistent now with Omar Barghouti's.

Why not just admit that?

[shira]

58. Violet, you don't have a problem with the way Barghouti wants to use BDS for RoR?

This reminds me of our flotilla conversation.

Does it bother you Hamas was funding and coordinating the flotilla?

[azurnoir]

49. your linked article entitled ""BDS" - deceptive, antisemitic and genocidal'

lets take a closer look shall we?

first a you tube vid that you've posted here many times before and I'm sure will many times again that cherry picks statements from speeches, makes claims about documents it gives us a quick glance at and some of the lines are blacked out, why, not to mention starts out with a still of masked (Hamas?) gunmen and the sounds of repeated shots being fired, but most of us have seen it already but I guess a 'classic' never wears out.

the second is an unsubstantiated statement that has no link we'll just take the writers word for it huh?

now the third lets take a closer look at the complete stament that is paraphrased in the article

Now on the ground, back to your question, there is no political party in Palestine now or among Palestinians outside either calling for a secular, democratic one-state solution. Despite this, polls in the West Bank and Gaza have consistently in the last few years shown 25-30 percent support for a secular, democratic state. Two polls in 2007 showed two-thirds majority support for a single state solution in all flavors — some of them think of a purely Palestinian state without Israelis and so on — in exile it’s even much higher because the main issue is that refugees in particular, and people fighting for refugee rights like I am, know that you cannot reconcile the right of return for refugees with a two state solution. That is the big white elephant in the room and people are ignoring it — a return for refugees would end Israel’s existence as a Jewish state. The right of return is a basic right that cannot be given away; it’s inalienable. Â A two-state solution was never moral and it’s no longer working — it’s impossible with all the Israeli settlements and so on. We need to move on to the more moral solution that treats everyone as equal under the law, whether they are Jewish-Israeli or Palestinian.

http://electronicintifada.net/content/boycotts-work-interview-omar-barghouti/8263

hardly genocidal or even antisemitic is it? it is simply an alternate view nothing more nothing less

but now one must ask you claim to against Israel's new anti-boycott law but yet have spent a goodly number of posts demonizing and attempting to delegitimize the BDS movement it self can we come to the conclusion you against the law not in it's spirit and intent but indeed because it 'looks bad'?

and as to the BDS movement itself not so long ago we were quite regularly being told that it would have no effect on Israel what so ever it implied that a boycott was piffle not even worthy of consideration, but now we have Israel instituting a law against boycotts and the demonization of its supporters it seems some effect is being felt or is it something else?

[shira]

50. The first 2 quotes are from that video, the 3rd is from the EI article.

And yes, the 3rd quote from the article he wrote for EI is bad too b/c it's the same crap from the 1950's and 1960's packaged in "progressive" human rights language. Back then, they weren't afraid of saying RoR meant destruction of Israel and Jews could go fuck themselves, but now it's not so PC to say things like that, therefore in order to get some useful idiots on board they use human rights language when they couldn't care less about human rights.

As to the boycott law, I'm for free speech - even Barghouti's. I don't believe he should be shut down, but rather exposed, humiliated and shamed for his sick views.

What's funny is that he isn't the least bit Palestinian but he includes himself as one. He's also a doctoral student at Tel Aviv University when he could go to any University he wants. When asked about the contradiction, he said oppressed people don't have a choice where they go to school. The man's an outright fraud.

[azurnoir]

51. so wanting a secular single state with equal rights for all its citizens is sick in your opinion?

Hmm I remember very clearly such views being called the same and very much the same said about the leaders who espoused such views in the '50's and 60's, seems the FBI has the tapes that expose those leaders if memory serves

[shira]

52. Everybody knows that as nice as that sounds, it's completely unworkable & would result in civil war.

It's a bloodbath waiting to happen so yes it's sick.

Check out the last added edit I just wrote about him being at Tel Aviv as a student and tell me what you think about that...

[bemildred]

53. Everyone does not know that.

"Some people" even think it's the only thing that might be workable, prevent a civil war, and fend off the coming bloodbath.

In the end, neither the Jews nor the Arabs are going to go away, to disappear; and in the end neither will accept anything less than full political and social equality. Until that is true, political violence will continue. Even after it becomes true, political violence will persist for some time, a generation of so. After that, one might even have time to address the real physical problems that we have, like food and water and energy and global warming.

[shira]

54. It's as unworkable as uniting Pakistan and India and expecting good results.

Is there anyone you've ever read who would dare claim Pakistan and India could co-exist peacefully in one secular democratic state?

Of course not, that's pure insanity.

So there's no sense peddling this nonsense about Israel and Palestine uniting, especially given the obscene level of anti-Jewish hatred that exists throughout Palestinian society. It makes much more sense to unite the West Bank with Jordan in a secular democracy than to do it with Jews and Arabs.

[bemildred]

55. I suppose then you consider the present situation in India/Pakistan a "good result"?

What you have there now is what you get when you divide people and set them against each other, and it is all that Israel has to look forward to on its present course. The nukes are just icing on the cake.

Edit: just to be clear, India and Pakistan ought never have been divided, and most certainly not along religious lines, that was just one among many stupid ideas carried out by the British colonialists at the expense of their former subjects on their way out the door.

[shira]

56. Better than the alternative. Palestine was undivided when civil war broke out in 1947...

Imagine what would happen now with Hamas in the mix.

Don't you think a one-state solution with the W.Bank and Gaza joining Jordan in a secular democracy has a BETTER chance of working, minus all the ethnic/religious based animosity and hatred that would come with Omar Barghouti's solution?

Barghouti's solution is no different than the Arab world's great crime in keeping refugees penned up deliberately in camps the past 60 years in order to eventually destroy Israel. Let's not pretend this is about equal rights and anti-apartheid. REAL apartheid exists in Lebanon, for example, where Palestinian rights are trampled over worse than within the W.Bank but Barghouti's movement couldn't care less.

[bemildred]

57. Bullshit will only take you so far.

Nice chatting with you.

[shira]

64. Almost no Palestinians or Israelis support one secular democatic state there, so isn't it hypocrisy

....to claim that Barghouti and BDS are working for the rights of all in that region of the world? He wishes to impose some collective "right" that the vast majority do not want!

And you think forcing a solution noone there wants will be good for everyone?

[Violet_Crumble]

67. But didn't you just say in a recent thread that it's not apartheid if it's not racial?

REAL apartheid exists in Lebanon...

Sorry, I may have missed yr explanation somewhere along the line, but is 'REAL apartheid' different from apartheid and there's no racial aspect if the name of an Arab state and 'REAL apartheid' are used in the same sentence?

[shira]

69. The apartheid claim used vs. Israel is apartheid based on racism and that's bogus.

I didn't claim Lebanon's apartheid is racist, but it's apartheid nonetheless.

Do you actually think there's apartheid in the W.Bank but no apartheid happening in Lebanon?

[Violet_Crumble]

71. Ah, so it's only racial if it's applied to Israel! Everywhere else is different!

Thanks for sorting that one out!


btw, went back even further into the archives and found this gem:

'it ain't apartheid if it ain't based on racism - you lose, sorry!

what happens in the W.Bank is not at all based on race, but competing nationalities.'

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=284199&mesg_id=284395

[shira]

72. Huh? I just wrote apartheid in Lebanon is not racial based.

But that is real apartheid, do you disagree?

[Violet_Crumble]

73. And you said in another thread that if it's not based on race, it's not apartheid...

'it ain't apartheid if it ain't based on racism - you lose, sorry!

what happens in the W.Bank is not at all based on race, but competing nationalities.'

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=284199&mesg_id=284395

So, apartheid is defined by you in a different way when it comes to Israel than to other countries. That's fine and all, but it comes across as very inconsistent...

[shira]

75. Yep, I was wrong back then. I admit it...

Do you believe Lebanon practices apartheid vs. its Palestinians?

Or will you find a way to deflect and avoid this one too?

[Violet_Crumble]

77. But you were just repeating the same thing only recently...

Y'know, most people on deciding they're wrong about something, don't keep on with it...

[shira]

79. See, you did it again and avoided yet another question. Gotta admire consistency!

You're wrong about BDS (and keep repeating it's about something it isn't) but you continue to defend it, why?

[Violet_Crumble]

81. Yeah, I tend to ignore stupid and pointless questions...

Though I'll sometimes field them if they're coming from people who don't make a habit of it...

I'm about to disappear for the night, so let me sum up what you've been told repeatedly about the BDS movement. Despite yr false claim about it being antisemitic, it's not. I posted the information from their website where they introduce the BDS movement, and you even admitted that it wasn't antisemitic. So, here it is again...

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

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

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

Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands occupied in June 1967 and dismantling the Wall;

Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and

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

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

http://www.bdsmovement.net/bdsintro

I hope some of that information sticks :)

[shira]

82. What is stupid and pointless about relating Omar Barghouti's views to the BDS campaign?

At the very least, you could say you don't agree with Barghouti but are for the goals of BDS as stated on their website.

You won't even do that.

Just avoidance and deflection...

[Violet_Crumble]

85. The 'question' was about apartheid.

Though I do find the obsession with barghouti nearly as silly and pointless. Surely you won't be needing to have the folly of firing off a question about apartheid after getting so tied up in knots with mere apartheid as opposed to REAL apartheid.

[shira]

87. Well, do you believe Palestinians in Lebanon suffer under apartheid conditions? n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

89. I've got no idea how you define apartheid...

I mean, the way you define it appears to be that it's not apartheid if Israel does it, but it's apartheid if Arabs do it. There's something really wrong with that...

[shira]

90. I'm just asking whether you think Lebanon practices apartheid vs its Palestinians...

Simple question. Yes or No?

[Violet_Crumble]

91. And I just told you I've got no idea how you define apartheid...

I really can't see the point in yr 'question' given that...

[shira]

94. I think you know very well it's apartheid in Lebanon....

Jimmy Carter said within the green line, Israel is a wonderful democracy but WRT the W.Bank apartheid is a predictor, not a description, of what's going on. What he means is that if Israel annexes the W.Bank in order to control the population as cheap laborers who cannot vote or have other basic rights, then THAT would be apartheid - as it is in Lebanon. But that hasn't happened and it never will.

The only reason Israel is described disingenuously as an apartheid state NOW by the people behind the BDS movement you support is to delegitimize it as a vile and loathesome nation whose destruction would be considered moral. The BDS call for RoR would ensure this "moral and just" call for destruction.

[Violet_Crumble]

96. Well, if yr at the point where yr telling me what I think, is there any reason for me to continue?

I mean, you should be able to get a few dozen more posts in where you ask me a question and you answer it by announcing what you think I know, and there'll be no need for me to post at all.

What aren't you comprehending about what I've told you several times now? I have no idea how you define apartheid, so it's rather stupid to answer any question you fling at me about apartheid. And that garbled thing you just posted seems to confirm that if it's involving Israel, it's not apartheid, coz that's like delegimitisation, but when it comes to those Arab countries, it's REAL apartheid and there's no mention of delegitimisation.

And yr rather bizarre lack of understanding of Right of Return does not mean that the BDS movement agrees with yr interpretation and wants to destroy Israel...

[shira]

97. You should read more carefully. I very clearly explained how to define apartheid...

If Israel were to annex the W.Bank but limit the rights of the people there like Lebanon does, then that would be apartheid. Israel doesn't do that so it's not apartheid.

Lebanon does do that but for some reason you're very reluctant to admit that's apartheid.

Why don't you just say so?

As to RoR, that's a vehicle the nice BDS folks are using to correct "apartheid" once and for all by giving everyone the vote, a nice way to pave the way for Israel's demise.

[Violet_Crumble]

99. No, you didn't. You just made an excuse for Israel that you wouldn't make for other countries...

I mean, c'mon. Trying to pretend that Israel doesn't control the West Bank? Surely you don't think people reading are that stupid, do you?

Yeah, yeah. Everyone's trying to destroy Israel. It must be so difficult to cope with it...

But thanks. Yr posts have just cemented my commitment and support for BDS. A job well done on yr part, Shira!

[shira]

100. Jimmy Carter says the same thing. Is he making an excuse too?

He says apartheid is a predictor, not a description.

Are you ever going to answer whether you believe Lebanon is an apartheid state, or will you continue to avoid/deflect as always?

[Violet_Crumble]

103. He says the same thing as who? Yr not making any sense at all...

Y'know, if you want someone to answer a question, there's several things that could assist in getting an answer. The first is not to inform the person yr asking that you already know what they think. The second is to explain *why* yr asking the question. I have no idea why yr asking me, and would like to know why. I kind of suspect there's another question you should have asked me which would put it into context, which would be do I think Israel is an apartheid state...

[shira]

104. Carter says apartheid is a predictor, not description of Israel now. He is not making excuses...

...for Israel, now is he? You say I'm making excuses for Israel but Carter doesn't believe Israel is an apartheid state either. What's unclear about this?

I want to know whether you believe Lebanon is an apartheid state. I suspect your answer is no for some reason b/c I never see you or anyone else who claims there is apartheid in Israel also claiming there is apartheid in Lebanon. I can't understand the thinking behind that.

Also, since you believe Israel is an apartheid state, I want to know when you believe that began? June 1967 or some later date?

[Violet_Crumble]

106. Again, he says the same thing as who? And I don't believe Israel is an apartheid state...

Could you point me to the post or posts where you think I've said that? I don't believe that, so I certainly wouldn't have said it!

[shira]

108. Same as me WRT whether Israel is an apartheid state or practices apartheid in the W.Bank.

Carter says Israel is not an apartheid state and doesn't practice apartheid - yet.

So is Carter making excuses?

[Violet_Crumble]

109. Nah, I think his view is a lot more sophisticated than what you've expressed...

I mean, you can't even get it straight about whether apartheid is based on racism or not.

btw, I'm waiting for you to provide me with the posts of mine that made you think I believe Israel is an apartheid state. I've never said that, don't believe it, and would like to get that cleared up so you won't make that same mistake again in the future...

[shira]

111. Is Carter making an excuse for saying Israel does not yet practice apartheid?

And again, is Lebanon an apartheid state in your view?

This is where you avoid....

It doesn't matter to me whether you believe Israel is an apartheid state or whether it just practices apartheid. The difference is neglible IMO. I'm more than willing to grant you the benefit of the doubt and will never again say you think Israel is an apartheid state.

[Violet_Crumble]

113. I've got no idea.

It doesn't matter to me whether you believe Israel is an apartheid state or whether it just practices apartheid.

Then it surely doesn't matter to you that because I don't think Israel is an apartheid state that it means I don't believe and have never said that Israel practices apartheid in Israel. What I've said is that in the Occupied Territories there is an apartheid-style system in place where Palestinians and Israeli settlers live under two separate sets of Israeli laws, and where roads linking settlements to each other and Israel segregate Palestinians, who aren't allowed to use them.

Feel free to regale anyone who's bored enough to read this long sub-thread so lacking in substance of what else you think I believe. It doesn't really seem to matter that you consistently get it so wrong...

[shira]

115. How about Lebanon's apartheid? Is it apartheid or not?

Many Israelis who drive on those separate roads consider themselves Palestinians, or what many call Israeli Arabs. There are thousands of Israeli Arabs calling themselves Palestinians living in the settlement areas. For these reasons, apartheid is a lousy descriptor. There are competing nationalities but not apartheid.

[shira]

116. Rise in Antisemitism due to Delegitimization...

<snip>

The Gaza war and the Internet combined into a potent force to de-legitimize Israel in every forum in every way. The delegitimization made it impossible for Israeli spokespeople to express themselves without interruption, caused English courts to issue warrants for the arrest of Israeli politicians and officers involved in the handling of the war, and made it unsafe for Israelis to openly travel in Jordan and Egypt, and even in Europe. The degree of delegitimization became such that in 2010 the United Jewish Federations of America, the overarching body of all U.S. Jewish communities, made fighting Israel’s delegitimization its number one nondomestic cause, though the group had good reason domestically for doing so. The more vitriolic the hatred against Israel, the more vulnerable Jewish communities become abroad. A relative of mine in Melbourne, Australia, wrote me during the Gaza war that “Israel’s actions in Gaza were making it impossible for him to live as a Jew in Melbourne,” something I would have laughed at, had I not been in Australia at the start of the Lebanon war in 2006 and seen the wave of hatred against Jews both in the media and from Australia’s very large Lebanese community.

<snip>

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/09/06/hirsh-goodman-israel-goes-from-underdog-to-pariah/