Prominent Australians fight anti-Semitism with hot chocolate

[shira]

Labor MP Michael Danby, Australian Workers Union secretary Paul Howes, former Labor Party president Warren Mundine, comedian Sandy Gutman, aka Austen Tayshus, and journalist Jana Wendt were among those who spoke out against a violent protest on July 1 outside the Max Brenner chocolate shop in Melbourne in which three police officers were hurt and 19 protesters arrested.

Mr Danby, who organised last night's meeting and is one of three Jewish federal MPs, said the violent protest had been a reminder to him of the need for vigilance against anti-Semitism, and it was worrying that Greens senator Lee Rhiannon was a vocal supporter of the boycott.

"The impetus was an ugly, violent demonstration in Melbourne and Senator Rhiannon's determination to take this boycott further," he said. "She would like to see it introduced into the Senate and into politics. "We remember the precedence of the 1930s; my father came from Germany, and (at) any sign of this kind of behaviour we have to draw a line in the sand."

<snip>

Mr Howes said the far-left protesters were "mimicking the behaviour of the Nazi thugs" and it was necessary to "nip this in the bud". "I would say the bulk of the people who are voting Greens have no understanding of the xenophobic, extremist and abhorrent policies they are voting for," he said.

more...
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/prominent-australians-fight-anti-semitism-with-hot-chocolate/story-fn59niix-1226103033643

Video of boycotters from July 29, 2011:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8e4XEO2iC9E&feature=player_embedded#at=232

from June 2011:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLVE9Vu1w1k&feature=player_embedded

[shira]

1. Jews know acceptance still has its exceptions

<snip>

Then there are the historical parallels. In the mid-1930s, Sir Oswald Mosley's British Union of Fascists used to go on rampages outside Jewish-owned shops in London's East End - some were boycotted, others smashed up. The British government responded by implementing the Public Order Act. Mosley targeted Jewish traders because they were Jews. The BDS protesters targeted the Max Brenner chocolate shop because its parent company does business in the Jewish state of Israel.

The demonstration in Melbourne (there was also one in Sydney in June) has attracted little attention, apart from coverage by Andrew Bolt and reports in the Australian Jewish News. This suggests society has become complacent when the target of a protest is Jewish.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/jews-know-acceptance-still-has-its-exceptions-20110711-1haka.html#ixzz1Tgurcana

[Ken Burch]

192. You know perfectly well that the BDS people have nothing in common with Mosley

Mosley hated Jews. The BDS people don't. They just hate what's been done to Palestinians. And, once more, it's demagogic to equate "Jews" with "Israel". the two concepts are NOT synonymous.

[shira]

194. See post #184 by Omar Barghouti w/ the lies and dehumanization. That's hatred, Ken. n/t

[Ken Burch]

197. Barghouti isn't the voice of BDS.

And it's not hatred of Jews simply to express anger about what the Israeli government has done to Palestinians.

If you want Palestinians to accept a two-state solution you have to call for an immediate letup on the treatment Israel has inflicted on the people of the West Bank. You can't expect them to accept the idea that Israelis are the real victims in this when they are having to live under the perpetual repression of the Occupation.

Could you at least admit that Palestinians have the right to regard the Occupation as an injustice? That they have legitimate grievances about what the IDF has done to them? Why is that something you can never acknowledge?

[shira]

199. He's the co-founder of BDS and its main spokesperson. Try again. n/t

[shaayecanaan]

2. Do you agree with his comparison of the protestors and the Australian Greens to the Nazis? nt

[King_David]

3. I would say their behavior is pretty disgusting in of itself.

It does not need be Nazi to be totally bigoted and disgraceful.

[shira]

9. Agreed, but those using Nazi terminology vs. Jews don't have a right to be offended when they...

...are then compared to Nazis themselves.

[Violet_Crumble]

16. But the OP lied. Max Brenner isn't being boycotted coz it's a Jewish company...

Are you incapable of distinguishing between Israel and its actions and Jews?

[shira]

22. Global BDS singles out only Jews associated w/Israel as uniquely evil and employs bigoted tropes...

...while its goal is to end Jewish self-determination in Israel.

It's antisemitic at its core and is like singling out Palestinians using the most racist, bigoted language and saying they (especially refugees) don't deserve their own state either.

You think it's coincidence that every target of BDS just happens to be Jewish? I want to know of ONE target of BDS that is not Jewish given that Israel is 20% non-Jewish...

[Violet_Crumble]

23. That is a complete fabrication.

I've posted in this thread and quite a few others information on what the global BDS movement is about. It does NOT call for boycotts of Jewish companies. I can post the information about what the movement is about if you need to read it again.

I'm absolutely convinced that yr incapable or unwilling to distinguish between Israel and its actions, and Jews...

[shira]

28. What's on the global BDS website is only part of the story....

You need to read what Omar Barghouti and his minions are advocating elsewhere without dismissing it all as bullshit that contradicts the vague, disingenuous statement about BDS at their website.

[Violet_Crumble]

30. No, that very clearly states what the goals of the BDS movement are...

On the other hand, I do dismiss all of yr 'arguments' about BDS as being bullshit. I've seen some very compelling arguments from very intelligent people who care deeply about the plight of the Palestinians as to why boycotting isn't the way to go, but you have yet to come anywhere close to using any of those arguments...

[shira]

35. BDS (as Barghouti says) is against Jewish self-determination (one state). Right? n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

37. I posted what the global BDS movement was about. Any reason you can't read it for yrself?

Here it is again

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.

Boycotts target products and companies (Israeli and international) that profit from the violation of Palestinian rights, as well as Israeli sporting, cultural and academic institutions. Anyone can boycott Israeli goods, simply by making sure that they don’t buy produce made in Israel or by Israeli companies. Campaigners and groups call on consumers not to buy Israeli goods and on businesses not to buy or sell them.

Israeli cultural and academic institutions directly contribute to maintaining, defending or whitewashing the oppression of Palestinians, as Israel deliberately tries to boost its image internationally through academic and cultural collaborations. As part of the boycott, academics, artists and consumers are campaigning against such collaboration and ‘rebranding’. A growing number of artists have refused to exhibit or play in Israel.

http://www.bdsmovement.net/bdsintro

[oberliner]

46. Actually you posted what they say about themselves on their website

This is not always a completely accurate representation of who they are.

Pajamas Media, for example, claims on its website to have a line-up of influencial bloggers who are widely respected for their punditry.

The reality of what they are is far from that.

Often times, websites and global organizations are not always exactly what they purport to be on their home pages.

[Violet_Crumble]

49. Yes, because that's what BDS is about n/t

[azurnoir]

53. So you believe that PajamasMedia, is a more reliable source for information

on the BDS movement is it that because it is unbiased or more honest in your opinion?

[Violet_Crumble]

54. No, I think he may have been hinting that because RWers lie about themselves...

...then it puts into question how any other group identifies themselves. RWers are prone to lying and distortion, but that does not mean that everyone else should be tarred with the same brush as some bunch of lunatics on the internet like Pajamas Media...

[oberliner]

62. Only RWers do that?

Folks on the left don't do that sort of thing at all?

Wasn't Tom MacMaster a LWer?

Incidentally, who wrote that piece on the BDS website that you've reprinted in this thread? It is unattributed.

It seems hard to come across any actual names of people on this website. Do you know who is behind it?

[Violet_Crumble]

65. You tell me

I've got no idea what point you were trying to make if it wasn't what I thought. If you have some evidence that the global BDS movement aren't honest in what they say about themselves, then I'd expect you'd explain what it was.

[oberliner]

67. OK

My point is that the "About us" on the BDS website is not necessarily the be all end all of who they are and what they stand for.

It's not so much that "the global BDS movement" isn't "honest in what they say about themselves" but rather that there is more to the movement than what is written on that website.

I dare say that there are very likely many BDS'ers who agree with what was posted there and others who do not.

I do not think that the information presented on the website that you've reprinted necessarily proves anything about the movement other than what the owners of that particular website (who appear to be anonymous) have decide to present as their version of what the movement is.

Omar Barghouti, for instance, is presented as a leader of the BDS movement, so I would think that any remarks that he made would be equally illustrative of the movement than what was posted on that website.

[Ken Burch]

187. You can't claim to be for a two-state solution

UNLESS you accept that Palestinians have the right to the entirety of the West Bank. And unless you reject Bibi's hate-based demand that IDF troops be kept in the Jordan River Valley(when it would be enough to have them on the Green Line) in perpetuity.

[shira]

189. You're against any land swaps? n/t

[Ken Burch]

191. It's hard to feel secure in Bibi's intentions on those swaps..

Given that he's a guy whose spent his entire career working against a Palestinian state. I feel that there's an inherent insult being inflicted on the Palestinians in this in that the idea of swaps is based on getting them to accept the notion that they(the Palestinians)can never be trusted, under ANY circumstances, to not try to attack Israel. Why SHOULD Palestinians of any stripe agree to anything predicated on that assumption? A peace agreement can only be based on the acceptance of the idea that both sides agreeing to it are equally trustworthy. Without that, such an agreement is, essentially, a demand that the side that is treated as less trustworthy must accept, at some level, the notion of peace-as-surrender.

A peace agreement must be based on the idea that such an agreement could actually MEAN that the war would end. The "swaps" idea is based on the idea that that's impossible. If you really assume that Palestinians could never, under any circumstances, be trusted, you should just admit that you don't actually support the idea of peace-because a "peace" proposal that's based on letting the Israeli government perpetually claim to be the "morally superior" side simply can't work.

Also, I'm suspicious of the "swaps" idea because it puts any Palestinian leadership that accepts it in the position of having, to some degree, to humiliate itself, which is dangerous because it puts that leadership at risk of being overthrown by more extreme forces, an event that would bring peace to an end and restore the pre-peace status quo. Even YOU, I hope would agree that little is to be gained by even risking that outcome.

If the Palestinian side felt that they weren't debilitating and weren't designed to make sure the state wasn't contiguous, than I'd trust them. So far, they don't feel that way. Even Fatah doesn't feel that way.

[shira]

207. So yes, you're against any land swaps. How pragmatic. n/t

[Ken Burch]

209. Why are land swaps so bloody crucial?

It ought to be enough simply to get the Palestinians to accept Israel's existence within the 1967 lines, in exchange for peace. The Israeli side has no right to ask any more than that. And nothing more than that could be sustainable anyway.

And there's no possible way that getting the "land swaps" could be worth keeping the hostilities going.

My reply was thoughtful and your dismissiveness of it was not called for.

[shaayecanaan]

68. Caterpillar is a Canadian company

it is being targeted by the BDS movement because it supplies bulldozers to the Israeli military.

As far as I know, Caterpillar does not have any particular association with Judaism.

[Dick Dastardly]

154. Caterpillar is a US Company that was started in California and is based out of Peoria Illinois.

BTW my CAT stock has done pretty well.

[shaayecanaan]

158. Yes, I was thinking of Bombardier...

in any event, I think the point was that Caterpillar is not a particularly "Jewish" company.

[shira]

159. Yes, but doing business with the Jewish nation. BDS is rotten to the core....

It's as disgusting as a BDS campaign headed by bigoted leaders that would single out only Islamic nations.

[Ken Burch]

213. The issue has never been that Israel claims to be "Jewish"

The issue was the treatment of Palestinians. Why do you still refuse to accept that it's not reasonable to expect the world to support the Occupation?

[Ken Burch]

186. Actually, they target any company that does business with Israel

They have never exempted gentiles from the boycott.

[Violet_Crumble]

5. I'd be interested to know whether Shira agrees with the Nazi comparisons as well n/t

[shira]

6. When Jews or Israel are singled out & demonized as uniquely evil based on the flimsiest of claims...

....and when the goal of BDS is to eliminate Jewish self-determination (not anyone else's) then that is antisemitic without question. Let's remember that BDS does not just target the settlements or occupation, but also Israeli academics, cultural activities, and any companies doing business with Israel.

The Nazis made up excuses to boycott Jews too.

And due to these twits (including BDS leaders like Omar Barghouti) having no problem routinely comparing Israelis to Nazis (ie, Palestinians living in concentration camps, genocide, etc.) and using just about every other antisemitic trope in the book, I really don't have a problem with the Nazi comparison.

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

Do you have a problem with their Nazi comparisons?

[shaayecanaan]

8. when other ethnicities are singled out or demonised based on the flimsiest of claims...

then that would also warrant comparison to the nazis as well, would it not?

to answer your question: i have a problem with most broad-brush comparisons that are made vis-a-vis the nazis, for several reasons but largely because it is such a tired and well-worn rhetorical ploy that its use almost automatically makes me doubt the intellect of the speaker as well as their argument.

when it comes to mr paul howes of course, doubt is unnecessary. i have heard him speak in public. the man is an unmitigated idiot.

[shira]

10. Could you provide an example of another ethnicity singled out as uniquely evil?

I've never seen you criticize anyone (like these BDS people) for making Israeli-Nazi comparisons or using age old antisemitic tropes in their criticism.

Let me know what you think of Uri Avnery's article cited below...

[shaayecanaan]

12. youre avoiding answering a very simple question

and i did answer yours.

if singling out or demonising jews is reminiscent of nazism, then surely this should hold true whenever any ethnicity is so treated, yes?

[shira]

13. If singling out is based on flimsy bogus evidence & involves bigoted tropes, YES! Examples?

What other ethnicity meets that requirement AND is also being targeted to end its self-determination in their own country?

Also let me know what you think of Uri Avnery's article too...

[shaayecanaan]

39. You're desperately trying to shore up your argument after the fact...

"What other ethnicity meets that requirement AND is also being targeted to end its self-determination in their own country?"

I suppose the Nazis did threaten the self-determination of the Poles and Czechs in their own country, I'm not sure they could be accused of doing the same to the Jews, given that there was no Jewish state in existence at the time. I presume it is the Nazis' conduct towards the Jews that you are referring to, and not their actions in Sudentenland?

Go on, have another go. I'm sure you'll end up with a semi-coherent argument eventually.

[shira]

41. The parallel is with Nazis singling out Jews for boycotts. n/t

[shaayecanaan]

55. Alright, well here's another Nazi comparison for you...

In 1941 in Jedwabne, German-occupied Poland, 340 Polish Jews were massacred by Polish citizens. The officers of the Nazi regime for the most part stood by idly. Some may have participated or given active support to the participants in the pogrom.

In 1982 in Israel-occupied Lebanon, 2000 Palestinians in a refugee camp were massacred by Israel-allied and trained Christian militiamen, who were personally escorted into the camp by Ariel Sharon. Israeli forces stood by idly during the conduct of the massacre.

What is ridiculous is that even making such a comparison is considered anti-semitic by hasbaradoes, who on the other hand feel free to compare the Nazis to just about everybody they dislike.

[shira]

59. Weak comparison - happened at Srebrenica too.

The fact is BDS only singles out Jews (not Arabs associated with Israel). It employs antisemitic tropes. Its goal is to end Jewish self-determination and destroy Israel.

Almost all Jews (some 99% at least) oppose this double standard, meaning it's antisemitic. Just like if 99% of all women or 99% of all blacks, Arabs, or gays opposed some policy - that policy would have to be anti-women, anti-Arab, etc.

There is no other ethnic group singled out in this manner anymore. This is old school from 70 years ago...

[shaayecanaan]

61. You don't think that the Srebenica massacre resembled Nazism...

more than a bunch of protestors gathered around a coffee shop? Honestly? And you don't think that the Bosnian Muslims who died on that day were being singled out for their ethnicity?

"There is no other ethnic group singled out in this manner anymore..."

Oh, you poor thing. Truly, it must be such an insurmountable burden. That Sudanese kid on the news lying in the dirt after having his legs hacked off with a machete has nothing on you. Nothing can come close to the pristine nature of your suffering. How you must wish that the whole world wasn't conspiring against you.

[shira]

69. Don't be silly. Now look at #63 & tell me, do Leftists routinely bash other ethnic...

...groups with impunity, like they do the Jews?

No?

Were you aware of that situation with Parker before today? Where are other "anti-racist" Greens speaking out against that?

Or is that not really antisemitic either?

[shaayecanaan]

72. Youre avoiding the question again...

what is more reminiscent of Nazism, a protest or thousands of people being butchered in the space of an afternoon?

[shira]

86. You're moving the goalposts and godwinizing now. The OP is about nazi style boycotting.

Do you really wish to argue that any attempted massacre is Nazi like?

[Violet_Crumble]

88. No, yr avoiding the question you got asked....

And why are you still repeating the same bullshit as you were before you were corrected about the boycott of Max Brenner? It's being boycotted because it's an Israeli company, not because it's a Jewish company...

[shira]

93. Okay then, every attempted massacre in all of history as well as every terror attack is Nazi-like.

Does that sound stupid enough for you?

[Violet_Crumble]

97. You still didn't answer the question you were asked...

It was: 'what is more reminiscent of Nazism, a protest or thousands of people being butchered in the space of an afternoon?'

[shira]

108. The latter. Happy now? I answered the stupid question. Your turn... n/t

[Ken Burch]

214. Why was it a stupid question?

It went without saying that those protesters had nothing in common with Naziism. You always knew they were anti-fascist and pro-equal rights for all.

[Violet_Crumble]

15. She did say she's got no problems with Nazi comparisons being made against pro-Palestinians...

The answer comes as no shock at all. If it had been a different answer, I would have been shocked at the appearance of logic :)

[shira]

18. Those accusing Jews of being Nazis have no right to protest when they are themselves called Nazis.NT

[Violet_Crumble]

19. No-ones calling Jews Nazis, so I'm not sure what yr going on about n/t

[shira]

24. European Collusion in Israel's Slow Genocide - by Omar Barghouti

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19121.htm

[shira]

25. The Pianist of Palestine - by Omar Barghouti

http://www.countercurrents.org/pa-barghouti301104.htm

[Violet_Crumble]

27. I'm pretty sure he wasn't at the protest in Melbourne, and he's not a Victorian Green...

Also, he didn't call Jews Nazis.

[shira]

29. Do you have a problem with Barghouti equating Israel's actions to Nazi Germany? n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

31. Of course I do, but he wasn't at the protest, nor is he a Victorian Green...

And you stated you have no problems with them being compared to Nazis...

[shira]

33. He's the leader and co-founder of global BDS, which they are advocating for. n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

34. And I support the global BDS movement. So fucking what? n/t

[shira]

38. So you support a movement that is for things you're against?

For example, are you for a cultural and academic boycott of Israel like he is?

[Violet_Crumble]

40. I tend to support lots of things where I don't see eye to eye on everything...

No, I don't support academic or cultural boycotts, though I do support a boycott of any academics from that university campus in Ariel.

I vote ALP in the lower house, despite being disgusted with some of their policies, especially when it comes to refugees. I'm a member of a pretty large union which negotiates with my employer on behalf of us employees, and with the upcoming new pay offer, if it's not keeping up with CPI and the union recommends we vote Yes, I'll go against the grain and vote No. The list could go on and on and on.

[shira]

42. Let's say the occupation ends. Will you still support global BDS? n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

44. If the occupation ends, there'd be no reason for me to boycott Israel n/t

[shira]

48. Would you oppose the global BDS movement at that point? They say they won't stop there.

Global BDS wants more than just an end to the 44 year occupation, like full RoR and one state.

Would you oppose them if the movement continued beyond an end to occupation?

[Violet_Crumble]

50. Are you incapable of reading what I say?

I said if the occupation ends, I'd have no reason to continue to boycott Israel.

[shira]

56. I realize you said you'd stop supporting BDS, but would you oppose it after occupation ends? n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

60. What part of what I said isn't sinking in? N/t

[shira]

70. You still haven't answered the question.

I understand you won't support it after the occupation ends.

But I can only assume you will not oppose it once it continues after the occupation.

[Violet_Crumble]

74. I've answered it twice now.

If yr looking for something else from me I can't help you

[shira]

80. You said you wouldn't support BDS. You never said you would oppose it after occupation ends. n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

82. I'm not sure what you think not supporting something means...

If you can't work it out, then that's yr fucking problem...

[shira]

94. It means you should oppose stinky political movements, not merely say you don't support it. n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

96. I can support or oppose what I like...

I can also choose to not be interested enough to either support or oppose something. And if you say something's stinky, that's a good enough endorsement of it not being stinky, imo

[shira]

100. Would you support or oppose a BDS movement singling out Muslim states, headed by Dan Pipes, etc..?

After all, opposing human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Libya is a noble and humanitarian cause - right?

Nothing stinky about singling out those nations and using a little Islamophobic rhetoric in the process?

[Violet_Crumble]

104. I'm sure you wouldn't have a problem with it...

Me, I'm sick of yr fantasy 'questions', especially given that you don't bother answering questions you get asked...

[shira]

109. You avoided the question again. Can I assume you'd oppose it?

You wouldn't merely say you would "not support it"?

[Violet_Crumble]

111. You could assume very correctly that I think it's a stupid 'question'

Nothing else.

[shira]

114. You still haven't answered what was asked of you. n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

117. Maybe I haven't been clear enough. I won't be answering yr stupid 'questions'

Learn to cope...

[shira]

119. But you expect others to always answer your silly questions? n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

121. I don't ask silly questions. No-one's forcing you to answer them, btw...

I generally avoid asking you much at all, as I tend to save the real questions for people who I've found common ground with and who's views don't repulse me...

[shira]

123. Well, at least you realize now how stinky BDS vs. Israel is and how Fatah's "secular democracy"....

...is complete bullshit.

But go on, keep supporting it strongly!

[Violet_Crumble]

125. No, I don't realise anything of the sort.

And, yes, I will continue to support the global BDS movement and will continue to boycott Israeli companies. I didn't need yr blessing to do that...

[shira]

128. Then you should support a "humanitarian" BDS campaign singling out only Muslim states...

...employing Islamophobic rhetoric.

You should be a very strong supporter of that!

Have a great day.

[Violet_Crumble]

130. Don't tell me what I should or shouldn't support...

I'll support what I choose to and it's none of yr fucking business...

btw, on the subject of boycotts, I do it on an individual level and don't need any organisation to exist for me to do so. Right now if there were Syrian businesses operating here which supported the Syrian government, I'd boycott it, just the same as I'll continue to boycott Israeli businesses like Max Brenner. No amount of haranguing or idiotic accusations of bigotry will sway my decision...

[shira]

131. Your view WRT the BDS movement vs. Israel & a BDS movement vs. Islamist nations is contradictory...

The one vs. Islamist nations is - and I agree - bigoted and illegitimate, but it's just as bigoted and illegitimate as BDS vs. Israel.

Both single out nations.

Both employ bigoted, demonizing rhetoric.

Yet you support one and oppose the other.

[Violet_Crumble]

134. Why are you still pretending I answered the ridiculous 'question'? I didn't...

Don't tell me what you think I do or don't support or oppose. Instead of inventing what you wish for other posters to have said, how about you put some effort into reading what I actually said. If after that you feel like talking about what I actually said, be my guest. But stop pretending I've said things I haven't.

'btw, on the subject of boycotts, I do it on an individual level and don't need any organisation to exist for me to do so. Right now if there were Syrian businesses operating here which supported the Syrian government, I'd boycott it, just the same as I'll continue to boycott Israeli businesses like Max Brenner. No amount of haranguing or idiotic accusations of bigotry will sway my decision...'

[shira]

136. You pretty much gave your answer to this "ridiculous question" back in #104 here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x359499#359782

When you said I'd probably have no problem with a bigoted BDS campaign singling out only Islamist mideast nations, that implied you would have big issues with such a movement.

Your views are wildly inconsistent.

Why?

[Violet_Crumble]

139. I did NOT answer it. I told you I was sick of yr stupid fantasy 'questions'

'I'm sure you wouldn't have a problem with it...

Me, I'm sick of yr fantasy 'questions', especially given that you don't bother answering questions you get asked...'

That's what my post said, so please stop inventing things or trying to 'read' between the lines.

You seem to have a single-minded focus on totally ignoring what gets said in the posts yr actually replying to right now. If you think that's some smart debate tactic, it's not...

[shira]

144. I answer your questions. Ask me one now and I'll answer, but I expect you to answer me too. n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

147. You can answer what you like. But I don't answer stupid 'questions'

They're the type that lack logic and contain assumptions the person being 'asked' has to agree with. In this case you ignore everything I've said in this thread and inyr 'question' demand that I accept the global BDS movement and Mr Barghouti are antisemitic when Ive already said many times that they're not. To top that off, you then pretend that I did answer the 'question', a tactic I find to be a bit on tje dishonest side. Not really sure where you think this is going, but while you continue to misrepresent my views or pretend I'm entertaining 'questions' that I've specifically said I won't waste my time on I'll be here to correct you on it

[Violet_Crumble]

17. Howes is a hypocritical idiot...

I've never heard him speak, and I'm so glad I'm not a member of that union. I'd probably quit in disgust because what he is isn't what the union movement should be. I remember that when I first heard of his opposition to boycotting Israel, I went and looked into it, and the AWU has a long history of boycotting, so clearly he holds Israel to a different standard than others...

[Violet_Crumble]

4. There's a fair bit of bullshit in that article...

1. None of those listed are prominent Australians.

2. Max Brenner is not being boycotted because it's a Jewish business. It's being boycotted because it's an Israeli owned company owned by the Strauss Group that supports the occupation. Only those who see any criticism or protest towards Israel as anti-semitism would try to claim that the boycott is targetting a Jewish business.

There's a Max Brenner store here in Canberra. I won't step foot in it until the occupation ends. If some moron wants to claim that's antisemitic, screw them...

[shira]

11. It's not antisemitic to target business related directly to the settlements...

But it's extremely difficult to target Israeli businesses related to the occupation, as just about any Israeli business, University, or cultural event could be connected in some silly way to the occupation.

Here's part of the article below by Uri Avnery:

That does not apply to every kind of boycott. Some 11 years ago, the Gush Shalom movement, in which I am active, called for a boycott of products from the settlements. Its intention was to separate the settlers from the Israeli public, and to show that there are two kinds of Israelis. The boycott was designed to strengthen those Israelis who oppose the occupation, without becoming anti-Israeli or anti-Semitic. Since then, the European Union has been working hard to close the gates of the EU to the products of the settlers, and almost nobody has accused it of anti-Semitism.

Also, you say you only oppose the occupation, but BDS goes much farther than that and you support it....

That's like being against Saddam Hussein's rule and saying you therefore must be for the war against Iraq. Like using a machine gun to solve a minor problem. Those opposed to Saddam Hussein didn''t have to necessarily agree with the war on Iraq. So too, you could oppose the settlements/occupation without supporting an antisemitic movement like BDS.

[Violet_Crumble]

14. It's not antisemitic to boycott Israeli companies to protest the occupation...

The OP was full of shit when they claimed Max Brenner is being boycotted because it's a Jewish company. That false claim is so demonstrably false that only complete morons would fall for it...

Yes, I do support BDS, because it's not an antisemitic movement. If an intelligent person came along and gave me intelligent and factual evidence to the contrary, then I'd reconsider my support, but flinging round ridiculous analogies about the invasion of Iraq is really quite pathetic...

Max Brenner won't be getting my business :)

[shira]

20. You're for "soft" BDS but also don't mind supporting the disgusting global BDS movement...

...that calls for an end to Jewish self-determination and routinely employs antisemitic (nazi comparison) tropes in its campaign of singling out Israel as a unique evil.

Uri Avnery admits 99.9% of Israeli Jews (and pretty close to that in the US) oppose BDS, so you support that which almost every Jew worldwide opposes.

[Violet_Crumble]

21. That's because the BDS movement isn't disgusting...

Why do you keep on repeating the same bullshit even after you've been corrected on it more than several times?

For those reading, here's what the BDS movement is about. Those Nazi comparisons must be in invisible ink, I guess :)

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.

Boycotts target products and companies (Israeli and international) that profit from the violation of Palestinian rights, as well as Israeli sporting, cultural and academic institutions. Anyone can boycott Israeli goods, simply by making sure that they don’t buy produce made in Israel or by Israeli companies. Campaigners and groups call on consumers not to buy Israeli goods and on businesses not to buy or sell them.

Israeli cultural and academic institutions directly contribute to maintaining, defending or whitewashing the oppression of Palestinians, as Israel deliberately tries to boost its image internationally through academic and cultural collaborations. As part of the boycott, academics, artists and consumers are campaigning against such collaboration and ‘rebranding’. A growing number of artists have refused to exhibit or play in Israel.

http://www.bdsmovement.net/bdsintro

[shira]

32. Yeah, it's not disgusting. Uri Avnery says only 99.9% of Israeli Jews oppose BDS.

And do you not think global BDS is for a one state solution?

[Violet_Crumble]

36. I don't give a shit whether 10 or 100% of them oppose it...

The boycott of Max Brenner is because it's an Israeli company, not as the OP dishonestly claimed, a boycott of a business because it's Jewish...

I don't really care if the movement supports one binational state or two states, as long as they're democratic states with equality and human rights for all within their borders...

[shira]

43. Why do you think 99% of all Jews oppose global BDS?

"I don't really care if the movement supports one binational state or two states,..."

There's no "if".

They support 1 state.

Now how would this 1 secular democratic state be forced onto both populations which oppose that?

See, the bullshit - and we all know it - is that a Palestinian dominated state would in no way be committed to secular, democratic values - meaning it would become just like other countries in the neighborhood - another fascist tyranny.

[Violet_Crumble]

45. I don't really give a shit why...

I thought you may have been able to work out that from my previous post.


See, the bullshit - and we all know it - is that a Palestinian dominated state would in no way be committed to secular, democratic values

Don't you fucking dare to tell me what 'we' all know, especially when it's accompanied by a statement where you express the view that Palestinians aren't capable of being secular or democratic. 'We' all don't know anything of the sort...

on edit: Out of interest, can you point me to where you got that claim that 99.9% of ALL Jews oppose BDS?

[shira]

47. Would you give a shit why 99.9% of Blacks, Arabs, or Gays oppose some policy?

As to Palestinians governing one state, the problem is that most Palestinians polled say they're against a secular democracy.

Hamas and Fatah are without any question against it.

But you don't give a shit about what most Palestinians want?

========

As to 99.9% of all Jews, see Uri Avnery's article below and remember that in the US where most other Jews live besides Israel, the most Leftwing pro-Israel group "J Street" opposes BDS. If it's not 99.9% of all Jews worldwide, it's pretty damned close - which makes BDS in the eyes of Jews worldwide antisemitic.

Consider 99% of all Palestinians opposing some policy. One could then conclude such a policy is anti-Palestinian, right?

[Violet_Crumble]

51. It would depend what the policy was..

And Uri Avnery's article said nothing of the sort.

'In Israel, the situation is the very opposite. The Jews amount to more than 80 percent of Israel's citizens, and constitute a majority of some 60 percent throughout the country between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. 99.9 percent of the Jews oppose a boycott on Israel.'

Anyone who claims that Palestinians aren't capable of being secular or democratic is engaging in a bit of anti-Palestinian sentiment and broadbrushing them, imo, and totally opposed to a peaceful resolution to the conflict where Palestinians and Israelis live in peaceful co-existence.

And again you've said something about Fatah (only recently you insisted they were fascists) that's completely untrue. Fatah are a secular organisation...

Shira, I support BDS. Anyone who labels me a Nazi or an antisemite because of it is a fucking moron. As is anyone who thinks it's acceptable to label the Greens as Nazis...

[shira]

57. I can't imagine any other policy you'd be for if 99.9% of any other ethnic group were against it.

1. Why not just ask other Jews here on the board how many other Jews they know of who support BDS? Personally, I know of no one.

2. I can't imagine you'd be for a policy that 99.9% of all Palestinians were against. Am I right?

3. If Fatah is capable of running a genuinely liberal, secular democracy then what are they waiting for in the W.Bank and why aren't folks like yourself helping to create that democracy? Why hasn't Fatah claimed they want a secular democracy with equal rights for women, gays, minorities, free speech, separation of powers, etc.?

[Violet_Crumble]

64. What a load of crap

Also yr pulling that 99.99 of all Jews thing out of thin air. Uri Avneryand ince didn't say that at all and I consider it dishonest to continue to make that particular false claim. You also seem to be incapable of grasping the obvious fact that someone opposing BDS does not make it antisemitic. Finally, as with much else you attempt to talk about you have no clue as to what secularism is. Add that to the inability to differentiate between the actions of Israel, and Jews, there appears to be a lot that you get very confused about.

[shira]

71. You don't believe Uri Avnery's claim about 99.9% of all Israeli Jews against BDS?

Also, if Fatah is for a secular democracy then what are they waiting for?

Global BDS rhetoric by Omar Barghouti is really no different than the UN's odious vote from 1975 that Zionism is racism. Barghouti and his drooling minions say the same thing when they try to delegitimize Israel, calling it an apartheid nazi state that has no right to exist. THAT, as well as all the antisemitic tropes employed by the BDS movement is classic antisemitism as defined by the EU's working definition. Funny how the bigots don't buy into the EU working definition, isn't it?

[Violet_Crumble]

73. You falsely claimed he said 99% of ALL Jews

He didn't. When it comes to Israelis, I would expect a large number would be opposed to boycotts of Israel, just like I would have issues if Australia were to be boycotted. As I've pointed out more than once, just because someone opposes a boycott of Israel doesn't mean they think boycotting israel is anitsemitic. Anyone who thinks that's a fuckimg idiot IMO.

You clearly have no understanding of what secularism is. Fatah is a secular organization. And only bigots who oppose a peaceful and fair resolution to the conflict try to peddle ugly broadbrush fantasies of the Palestinian people not being capable of having a secular state.

[shira]

79. What if it really is 99% of all Jews? Would that mean anything to you?

Because I can't imagine you supporting any policy where 99% of any ethnicity were against it.

Like I wrote previously, I know of no Jews who support BDS outside of the few I see on blogs. It would be interesting to ask other Jews in the US or UK here on I/P how many Jews they personally know who support BDS, wouldn't it? Out of the hundreds or thousands of Jews we know, I doubt it would be more than a handful - which makes 99% appear quite reasonable.

You think Fatah is running a secular democracy now? They're secular and they had democratic elections several times now, right? So the W.Bank now is your idea of a secular democracy that you're in favor of? With equal rights for all? How's that working out in the W.Bank so far under Fatah rule?

[Violet_Crumble]

85. It's not, even though you made a false claim that it was...

I don't give a shit if it were 10% or 100% because the boycott is aimed at the Israeli government, not Jews as you've falsely claimed in this thread....

I know Fatah is a secular organisation. I know that doesn't gel with yr fantasy of Palestinians being rabid antisemites who aren't capable of living in a secular democracy without destroying it, but it's reality, and I'm not really sure how you come up with such crap. Secularism was the driving force in Palestinian nationalism until Hamas appeared with their religious driven ideology. Groups like Fatah and the PFLP are definately secular in nature...

[shira]

90. How do you know it's not? I doubt all the Jews here in I/P combined know of many Jews for it.

Here's a recent poll:
http://www.camera.org/images_user/pdf/luntz.camera%20poll.results.final.pdf

Questions 29 and 30 deal with boycotting, but not about BDS involving Israeli products, culture, and academics. When J-Street and Noam Chomsky oppose BDS, it's easy to see how close to 99% of American Jews would also be against it.

======

Question: Is Fatah running a secular democracy NOW in the W.Bank that you would consider the model for a future 1-state after full RoR? After all, Fatah is secular and they've had democratic elections, so.....? Yes or No?

[Violet_Crumble]

95. I don't. Neither do you. And again you've ignored me saying I don't give a shit...

I dunno. I thought I'd been crystal clear. What bit of what I said multiple times now aren't you grasping? I can type even slower if it'll help you get it...

Answer: Huh? That makes absolutely no sense...

[shira]

101. What other political movement would you support against the wishes of 99% of another ethnic group?

Can you think of any?

As to Fatah's secularism, they are running a secular democracy now - correct? THAT is what you and the BDS people are looking forward to in your imposed 1-state solution after full RoR. Correct?

[Violet_Crumble]

105. Huh? What's with the avalanche of stupid 'questions'?

Are they randomly auto-generated things?

[shira]

107. More avoidance and deflection. It's funny you expect others to answer you when you try your best...

...to avoid and deflect questions asked of you.

[Violet_Crumble]

113. No, it's just that the 'questions' you ask are incredibly ridiculous...

The question Shaay asked you wasn't. Apart from one other poster in this forum, no-one else fires off a barrage of silly 'questions', and most are genuinelly interested in having a discussion rather than haranguing people, so I treat them with respect and do answer their questions.

[Shaktimaan]

166. Holy shit.

You really don't see how this movement's demands are at all anti-semitic?

[shira]

173. Shakti, why would you say the BDS movement's demands are antisemitic?

Obviously, my arguments as to why it's antisemitic aren't convincing enough.

[Violet_Crumble]

175. That's because yr 'arguments' are nothing but illogical and silly smears...

You want everyone to believe that daring to boycott Israeli companies is actually boycotting Jews akin to the Nazis. It's the actions of the Israeli government that's being protested, not because people are Jewish. You've been told this quite a few times now, but still choose to ignore it...

[shira]

176. Any BDS movement that singles out one nation, denies self-determination to the majority ethnicity...

...and only that ethnicity, while employing bigoted rhetoric vs. that ethnicity is by definition bigoted. Whether the nation being singled out is Jewish, Muslim, or Black.

[Violet_Crumble]

177. Yep, that's pretty much the same nonsense this thread has been peppered with...

I'm in a chatty mood today to distract myself from doing some RL stuff I like to avoid, so I'll address each of yr points one by one...

'Singling' out one state isn't bigoted at all. The whole idea of boycotts is to focus attention and express opposition to what a company or state is doing. Back when South Africa was boycotted, I doubt there were demands that anyone boycotting it also boycott other countries, lest they be labelled bigots. Boycotting Israel as a way of opposing the occupation is a boycott based on political ideology. If it was based on ethnicity, I'd be well and truly distancing myself, but it's not. Also, the global BDS movement was founded by Palestinians. Why do you think they'd single out Israel? Could it possibly have something to do with the way Israel has treated the Palestinians?

I'm not sure how any movement can have such power that it denies self-determination to any ethnicity. It's governments that have the power to do such things, not grassroots movements. And I'm absolutely sure that opposing the occupation isn't denying self-determination to any group, and any group that views its own self-determination at being at the expense of denying self-determination to another group has my contempt.

You keep on claiming that a movement that I'm a small part of keeps on employing bigoted rhetoric about Jews, yet you don't supply any examples that back up that claim.

[shira]

178. Finally, a substantive discussion. I'm all in...

1. A global BDS movement that only focuses on one country can hardly be considered a movement committed to universal human rights. Maybe they should call themselves the Palestinian BDS movement. It's like a human rights organization claiming to be for universal human rights focusing only on one nation. Any global or universal movement that singles out one nation is applying a double standard. Better that a global BDS movement for universal human rights focus attention elsewhere as well, especially against nations with FAR worse human rights records than Israel (and that's most nations). BDS vs. one nation is big time "look over there" type whataboutery that deflects criticism from every other nation...

2. The BDS movement is committed to denying self-determination to Jews when it calls for one state. They are not only against the 44 year old occupation but against the 63 year occupation, the very existence of the Jewish state. Being against self-determination for Jews is like being against equal rights, especially since BDS is not against self-determination against any other ethnic group on the planet. Also, you wrongly claimed Israel's self-determination is at the expense of another group's self-determination and that is false. Israel has offered many times to recognize a sovereign Palestinian state, even before the 1947 partition plan.

3. As to BDS bigoted rhetoric, let's see what your thoughts are on this example:

The chief spokesperson in the trade union movement for “BDS” in South Africa, Bongani Masuku, has been found guilty of antisemitic hate speech by the South African human Rights commission, a body set up by the South African state to fight racism.
http://engageonline.wordpress.com/2009/12/04/hate-speech-ruling-against-bongani-masuku/

Also, posts #24 and #25 show where Omar Barghouti, the co-founder and main spokesperson for BDS, refers to Israeli "Nazi" policy, which is ridiculously antisemitic. Or am I wrong?

[Violet_Crumble]

179. I'm not holding out any great hope this will go anywhere...

I kind of expect that it will disintegrate into a bout of 'you believe (insert something here I don't believe) within a few posts. In order not to have it go that way, let's agree to reread what we both say before we post and not direct anything at each other that's about you or me, but continue to focus on the topic of BDS. I doubt anyone but you and I are reading this exchange anyway. Sound good?

1. There's been quite a few boycotts of countries over the years, especially if sanctions (the official, high level stuff that governments do) are included. They all tend to focus on one country, and like the global BDS movement, for specific political and humanitarian reasons. Examples are the global boycott of South Africa, a boycott by the American colonists back in the 18th century aimed at Britain, boycotts in Australia of Indonesia to protest Shapelle Corby's sentence for drug smuggling, divestment from Iran, sanctions aimed at (this is a list of a few countries Australia has imposed sanctions on) Zimbabwe, Libya, Syria, Fiji, Myammar, North Korea, and the Balkans. Back when I worked opening tenders for the government, the sanctions against the Balkans were in place, and the tender documents included information about the sanctions and then asked if any materials or services would be coming from there. If the answer was yes, they were automatically excluded from the tender process. I didn't sit there muttering under my breath that Australia was singling out the Balkans, etc. As for the name of the BDS movement we're discussing, I wouldn't care if it were called the Palestinian BDS movement, as I'd still be boycotting Israel regardless of what it was called or if it didn't even exist...

2. No, I don't think wanting one binational state that's committed to treating all citizens as equal regardless of religion, ethnicity etc is denying self-determination to anyone. I see a lot of problems with the belief that to have Jewish self-determination, Israel must have a large majority of Jewish citizens. At some point in the future (absent something massive like the Nakba happening) natural population growth in Israel will tip the scales and there may not be a Jewish majority. While I waver between support for a two-state solution (that's the pragmatist in me), and one binational state (the idealist), I do believe that Israel viewing itself as a Jewish state, and being a state where Jewish culture and holidays are done the same way as Christian holidays and shit are done here for example, then there is Jewish self-determination. Why I want the two-state solution to happen, despite the best attempts of successive Israeli governments to put a spanner in the works, is because having read a fair bit about Theodor Herzl and his rationale for a homeland for the Jewish people, being something that they wouldn't just be fleeing persecution to more persecution elsewhere, and that as a collective nation gathered together they'd be able to protect themselves. I'd prefer to see Israel be a state within its current borders, and what is now the Green Line become an official border, living alongside an equally independent Palestinian state, especially as that seems to be what the majority of Israelis and Palestinians want...

3. Well, that South African guy sounds like a bit of a wanker, imo. I assume Mr. Masuku would have lived under apartheid in South Africa, and it's always disturbing to me when someone who's suffered bigotry then turns around at aims it at another group...

I don't agree at all that making comparisons of Gaza to the Warsaw Ghetto is automatically antisemitic. I think it's hyperbolic and incorrect, as are the claims that Israel is committing genocide, but while I've seen antisemites use the comparisons (you can usually spot them coz they'll accompany it with things like Jews controlling the US government), well-meaning people also do it out of things like not being aware of how bad the Warsaw Ghetto was, and it's some knee-jerk thing that comes out of their anger at the situation in Palestine. I'd say Mr. Barghouti, being Palestinian, may be more frustrated and angry than most, and he has good reason to be. My issue with the comparisons is that there's no need to resort to hyperbole when the reality is ugly enough standing on its own...

[shira]

180. Arguing against Jewish self-determination and claiming it's not racist...

...is like arguing against equal rights and saying that's not racist either. Zionism is equal rights for Jews as a nation and the global BDS people won't stop until they've ended equal rights for Jews. David Hirsh put it well here:

When you educate people to boycott only Israel, when you tell them that all Israelis are responsible for human-rights abuses, when you mobilise a global campaign to say that Israel is uniquely racist, and when this campaign becomes central to progressive politics globally, you are, whether you know it or not, incubating anti-Semitic ways of thinking. When ears are closed to concern about anti-Semitism on the basis that such concern is a marker of secret support for Israeli human rights abuses, then you know there is a problem.

Another problem with Bongani Masuku is that he's still very active in the BDS movement. He still works closely and travels with Omar Barghouti. To wit, neither Barghouti or anyone else in BDS has condemned or criticized Masuku.

Equating Jews with Nazis is straight out racism and incitement as Nazis are evil and the goal is to make it as though Jews are evil. These same people (like Barghouti) who equate Jews with Nazis argue Jews misuse the holocaust in some perverse way to justify what they do to Palestinians. It's very ugly bigotry.

=====

Putting it altogether, when BDS singles out Israel, resorts to lying and slandering Jews, aims to reverse equal rights (only vs. Jews) and employs other antisemitic rhetoric as well (according to the EUMC working definition as well as every organization committed to fighting antisemitism) then it's hard to argue BDS isn't antisemitic.

If the same were aimed only at Islamic nations, it would be just as bigoted.

[Violet_Crumble]

181. No-one's arguing against Jewish self-determination...

And I've got no idea who that David Hirsh is, but what he's written is mindless crap. I mean, who's this *you* he's accusing of all those things? The BDS movement? If so, he's a complete liar, as the BDS movement does NOT do say those things...

So what if Mr Masuku is still active in the BDS movement? Has he repeated his ugly performance again? If it was something that had happened more than once, I think everyone should be distancing themselves from him, but if it was a one-off, and especially if he apologised for what he said, I'm not seeing that it's a big deal..

No, as I said in my previous post: 'I don't agree at all that making comparisons of Gaza to the Warsaw Ghetto is automatically antisemitic. I think it's hyperbolic and incorrect, as are the claims that Israel is committing genocide, but while I've seen antisemites use the comparisons (you can usually spot them coz they'll accompany it with things like Jews controlling the US government), well-meaning people also do it out of things like not being aware of how bad the Warsaw Ghetto was, and it's some knee-jerk thing that comes out of their anger at the situation in Palestine. I'd say Mr. Barghouti, being Palestinian, may be more frustrated and angry than most, and he has good reason to be. My issue with the comparisons is that there's no need to resort to hyperbole when the reality is ugly enough standing on its own...'

I've already explained in my previous post that singling out one country is what most boycotts and sanctions do, so Israel isn't alone in being singled out. I haven't seen anything coming from them lying and slandering Jews. I've seen plenty of criticism of Israel, though. Also, they do not work to reverse equal rights for Jews at all. Their focus is on the state of Israel, not Jews. And they most definately do NOT employ antisemitic rhetoric...

[shira]

182. When the Jewish state is branded apartheid/nazi, that's arguing against Jewish self determination

Such an evil, disgusting state has no right to exist, and indeed BDS is against any 2 state solution keeping Israel intact as a Jewish state. What's difficult about this?

"So what" if Masuku is still active and works closely with Barghouti in BDS? It's "no big deal" he's still active as a leader? How disgusting! His apology was mandated within a 15 day period lest he suffer more consequences! It damned sure wasn't sincere!

Making Israel (the Jewish State) out to be an apartheid, nazi state is lying and slandering Jews in order to delegitimize the Jewish state of Israel and make its dissolution a moral imperative. Same lying and slander associated recently with the Goldstone Report and the Marmara incident (both incidents proven to be lying against Jews). Years ago it was the Muhammad al-Dura hoax and Jenin "massacre". All lies and slander vs. Jews that is every bit as disgusting as making outrageous, villifying, hyperbolic and lying claims when inciting against Arab nations. That you refuse to see this is astonishing! Holocaust inversion (making Jews and their grandchildren out to be Nazis) is pure filth - especially when the Nazi comparison is entirely used to portray Israel - and only the Jewish state of Israel - in such an evil manner. That's the BDS movement you refuse to see.

What's difficult about all this?

:shrug:

This conversation reminds me about our talk WRT the US boat to Gaza (where they hosted Gilad Atzmon to fundraise) and the rest of the flotilla which was backed and coordinated by Hamas operatives and their disgusting jew-hating allies (like the ones singing death to Jews on last year's flotilla). The activists are eager each year to get it on and party with Hamas as they did when they were awarded with medals of honor in 2008 for their efforts.

But you didn't seem to have any particular problem with that either.

====

Do you see all this criticism of hatred within the pro-Palestinian movement as some dishonest and disgusting show of bad faith to silence legitimate criticism of Israel?

What would you say if I denied every bit of anti-Muslim or anti-Arab bigotry by Rubin, for example?

Lastly, global BDS targets every aspect of Israel and is without question collective punishment. How can you not speak out against that?

[Violet_Crumble]

183. I was right not to hold out any hope of this going anywhere...

Only three posts ago I made the following suggestion: 'I kind of expect that it will disintegrate into a bout of 'you believe (insert something here I don't believe) within a few posts. In order not to have it go that way, let's agree to reread what we both say before we post and not direct anything at each other that's about you or me, but continue to focus on the topic of BDS. I doubt anyone but you and I are reading this exchange anyway. Sound good?'

Clearly it didn't sound good, as I spotted a 'But you didn't seem to have any particular problem with that either.' amidst a flurry of things like 'what would you say' 'how can you not'. You should have just said you weren't interested in any attempt at substantive discussion of the topic, and I would have given yr invitation to have a substantive discussion a miss and focused on the threads happening now where there's some actual civil and substantive discussion happening...

I will address two areas of yr post, though, and that's the continuing conflation of Israel with Jews, and also the sheer hypocrisy of condemning anyone who meets with Hamas, while admitting in this forum not too long ago that they don't care that someone they admire and refer to regularly participated in the making of an anti-Muslim film and associates with Pamela Geller.

The global BDS movement hasn't branded Israel an 'apartheid/Nazi' state, nor do they argue against self-determination for Jews. That's all a figment of yr imagination created with the burning need to label just about anything and anyone who criticises Israel as being antisemites. Supporting one binational state with equal rights for all is clearly not arguing against equal rights for anyone. I'm positive you don't understand that when people talk about equal rights (which you did a post or so back), they're not talking about equal rights for all members of one group only, they're talking about equal rights for everyone, regardless of what ethnicity, race, religion they are. I think it's absolutely ridiculous to be trying to paint someone like Martin Buber as an antisemite who was opposed to Jewish self-determination because of his support for one binational state...

You've been told this before, but it bears repeating when you come out with an entire paragraph deliberately conflating Israel and Jews. Opposition to Israel (or as you said repeatedly 'the Jewish state) is NOT opposition to Jews. I don't know what sort of warped logic can come up with something that claims that calling the destruction and death in Jenin a massacre is showing hatred against Jews. Same goes for the rest of the 'examples' you gave, where it appears that the avalanche of words 'lie' and 'slander' must be scoring the user some sort of frequent flier points somewhere. What yr doing is applying a different standard to Israel than you do to any other state with yr insistence that when Israel is criticised, it's actually Jews being criticised, because in doing that yr trying to make it so people will be reluctant to criticise Israel's actions lest they be labelled antisemitic for doing so. And if we turn it round and apply the same sensitivity you have to criticism of Israel to the Palestinians, anyone who criticises the Palestinians (eg references to 'Pallywood', calling the killing of a young Palestinian boy a hoax, etc) would be someone who is expressing bigotry towards Arabs and Palestinians...

On hypocrisy, it is outright and blatant hypocrisy to say that it doesn't matter who someone you admire hangs out with or that he's participated in the making of a bigoted anti-Muslim film, then turn around and harshly judge people who meet Hamas and try to label anyone at all associated with the BDS movement as being admirers of Hamas. I dunno, maybe if the guys who met Hamas ever make a film with David Duke about how much they hate Jews, then you can get back to me. Until then, it's all just too hypocritical for words...

[shira]

184. Omar Barghouti says BDS is against Jewish self-determination / calling Israel an apartheid state...

Jewish self-determination is to be replaced by Palestinian self-determination...

This paper argues for a secular, democratic state in historic Palestine as the most morally coherent solution to the century‐old colonial conflict because it offers the best hope for reconciling the inalienable right of the indigenous Palestinians to self-determination and the acquired rights of the colonial settlers to live in peace and security, individually and collectively. Accepting colonists as equal citizens and full partners in building and developing a new shared society is the most magnanimous offer any oppressed indigenous population can present to its oppressors, but for such to be attained, settlers must shed colonial privileges and character, accept justice, unmitigated equality, and conscious integration into the region. Building a just and lasting peace anchored in international law and universal human rights, conducive to ethical coexistence requires the ethical decolonization, or de‐Zionization of historic Palestine. Such a process is premised on a revitalized, democratized Palestinian civil resistance movement with a clear vision for a shared, just society and effective worldwide support for reaffirming Palestinian rights and ending Israel's violations of international law and universal rights. By emphasizing the equality of humanity as its most fundamental principle, this paper shows that the proposed secular democratic state promises to transcend national and ethnic dichotomies that now make it nearly impossible to envision reaching any just solution to the most intricate questions.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17550910903237145

The paragraph above is filled with malicious lies and distortions, dehumanization and demonization.

Barghouti calls Israel an apartheid state

Barghouti has consistently spoken of Israel as an apartheid state, stating: "From now on, it will be acceptable to compare Israel's apartheid system to its South African predecessor. As a consequence, proposing practical measures to punish Israeli institutions for their role in the racist and colonial policies of their state will no longer be considered beyond the pale." Also: "Characterising Israel's legalised system of discrimination as apartheid – as was done by Tutu, Jimmy Carter and even a former Israeli attorney general – does not equate Israel with South Africa. No two oppressive regimes are identical. Rather, it asserts that Israel's bestowal of rights and privileges according to ethnic and religious criteria fits the UN-adopted definition of apartheid."<4> Barghouti advocates what he holds to be an ethical vision for a unitary, secular democratic state in present-day Gaza, Israel, and the West Bank.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Barghouti#Career

So BDS is in favor of Palestinian self-determination, though not by 2 states, but rather by denying Jews self-determination.

The apartheid label is all part of a vicious demonization and delegitimization campaign making it a moral imperative to destroy the evil, colonialist, racist, settler apartheid state with nazi policies.

Nasty shit.

[Violet_Crumble]

218. He doesn't say that at all. And it's not antisemitic to compare Israel to South Africa...

Nowhere does he say that BDS is against Jewish self-determination. Yr just making shit up in the hope it sticks. Clearly if one binational state with equal rights for all can be seen as fulfilling Palestinian self-determination, the same applies to Jewish self-determination. Unless yr going to try to argue that Jewish self-determination is somehow different than self-determination for anyone else?

It's definately not antisemitic to compare Israel's policies towards the Palestinians in the West Bank to apartheid in South Africa. No more than it's anti-Arab to compare the treatment of Palestinian refugees in Arab countries to apartheid. And you've done the latter comparison many times in this forum...

[shira]

223. He doesn't call for a binational state. The oppressor, colonist, settler Jews don't deserve that...

AM: Finally, you have argued numerous times in your published works that ultimately you would like to see in historic Palestine a binational, secular, democratic state.

OB: Not a binational state — I am completely against binationalism. A secular, democratic state, yes, but not binational. There is a big difference.

AM: What exactly is the sentiment on the ground in Palestine on this question?

OB: I must clarify that the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement takes no position on the shape of the political solution. It adopts a rights-based, not solutions-based, approach. I am completely and categorically against binationalism because it assumes that there are two nations with equal moral claims to the land and therefore, we have to accommodate both national rights. I am completely opposed to that, but it would take me too long to explain why, so I will stick to the model I support, which is a secular, democratic state: one person, one vote — regardless of ethnicity, religion, nationality, gender, and so on and so forth …

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

It's all about Palestinian self-determination, not Jewish self-determination.

Also, he's saying ISRAEL is an apartheid state for policies WITHIN Israel, not just the W.Bank. You REALLY need to read more about a BDS movement you so strongly support and not impose YOUR own views onto it.

From the same link:

Omar Barghouti: We don’t have to prove that Israel is identical to apartheid South Africa in order to justify the label “apartheid.” Apartheid is a generalized crime according to United Nations conventions and there are certain criteria that may or may not apply to any specific situation — so we judge a situation on its own merits and whether or not it fulfills those conditions of being called an apartheid state. According to the basic conventions of the UN defining the crime of apartheid, Israel satisfies almost all the conditions to be granted the label of apartheid. Other than the clear racial separation in the occupied West Bank between Jews and non-Jews (indigenous Palestinians) — separate roads, separate housing, separate everything — apartheid is also alive and well inside Israel despite appearances . Unlike South Africa, Israel is more sophisticated; it’s an evolved form of apartheid. South African apartheid was rudimentary, primitive, so to speak — black, white, clear separation, no rights … The Palestinian citizens of Israel (the indigenous population) have the right to vote, which is a huge difference from South Africa. However, in every other vital domain, they are discriminated against by law, not only by policy. Therefore, it is legalized and institutionalized racism and that’s what makes it apartheid — there is racism in Canada and other western democracies as well, but the difference is that it’s not legalized and institutionalized, at least not any longer …

It's an obscenely antisemitic movement.

Not only does Barghouti dehumanize all Israeli Jews, he resorts to lies and slander in order to rile up incitement against a state so evil and racist in his eyes that it has no right to exist.

[Violet_Crumble]

224. He's definately calling for a secular, democratic state with equal rights for all....

By it's very nature, it'd be binational, whether he wants to call it that or not. As for the rest of the post title, that's you putting words in someone else's mouth yet again....

Anyway, why would someone like you, to who it's all about Jewish self-determination 24/7, complain if anyone focused on Palestinian self-determination?

I don't give a fuck whether he also thinks apartheid style policies are happening inside Israel itself. I might disagree, but it's not antisemitic to believe it. I certainly wouldn't stop supporting the BDS movement because of it. I'm not sure why anyone would think I'd need to...

'Obscenely antisemitic', 'dehumanise all Israeli Jews', 'lies and slander'. Repeating that same old bullshit over and over again doesn't hide the fact that you haven't provided a shred of evidence that would persuade any reasonable person that the movement I support or Mr Barghouti are any of those things. This is just like the other thread where you claimed Ray Hanania has written antisemitic things and when asked to show some examples, you didn't come up with anything at all...

[shira]

225. So that paragraph where he refers to all Israeli Jews as colonists, settlers, oppressors....

...is not a crude generalization and is in no way bigoted or dehumanizing?

Barghouti clearly stated he's against binationalism, as Jews don't deserve self-determination like Palestinians do. You have no problem with him saying that?

I'm all for Palestinian self-determination in their own state alongside the Jewish one. Both peoples would have SD.

You don't give a fuck that he lies and slanders Israel routinely in his writings and speeches? Why would such a peaceful person do such a thing, Violet?

[Violet_Crumble]

227. No more than when indigenous Australians call white Australians the same...

And in both cases, no it's not a crude generalisation coming from an oppressed people...

I've already discussed Barghouti's views on binationalism and a secular democratic state with equal rights for all. I suggest you actually go and read it.


No, I'd give a bit of a fuck if he did lie, but he doesn't. And my response would be that I wouldn't bother reading what he wrote, but seeing I don't really read what he writes now, there wouldn't be much change. Which would be different from yr reaction to the Islamophobic writing of Rubin where you still admire him and post links to his articles in this forum...

[shira]

230. It's hate speech whether it comes from oppressed people or not, there's no excuse

Here it is from the EUMC working def'n:

Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

Your logic is such that one could argue Israelis are oppressed victims of terror and can say whatever they like about all Palestinians collectively. Not even the kindest victims from Sderot should get away with that.

----------

Again, Omar Barghouti stated very clearly that only Palestinians merit SD. Barghouti is very much AGAINST a binational state as he made clear that Jews aren't on equal footing with the indigenous Palestinians. Meaning, Jews don't rate for SD. The Palestinians would host them and treat them fairly and equally, that's all. Nothing about Jewish SD.

OB: I must clarify that the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement takes no position on the shape of the political solution. It adopts a rights-based, not solutions-based, approach. I am completely and categorically against binationalism because it assumes that there are two nations with equal moral claims to the land and therefore, we have to accommodate both national rights. I am completely opposed to that, but it would take me too long to explain why, so I will stick to the model I support, which is a secular, democratic state: one person, one vote — regardless of ethnicity, religion, nationality, gender, and so on and so forth …

This paper argues for a secular, democratic state in historic Palestine as the most morally coherent solution to the century‐old colonial conflict because it offers the best hope for reconciling the inalienable right of the indigenous Palestinians to self-determination and the acquired rights of the colonial settlers to live in peace and security, individually and collectively. Accepting colonists as equal citizens and full partners in building and developing a new shared society is the most magnanimous offer any oppressed indigenous population can present to its oppressors, but for such to be attained, settlers must shed colonial privileges and character, accept justice, unmitigated equality, and conscious integration into the region.

That, in addition to calling Israel racist, is yet another violation of the EUMC working def'n:

Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

So the co-founder of BDS and main spokesperson for the movement is spewing antisemitic rhetoric.

[Violet_Crumble]

250. Let me get this straight. It's not hate speech when aimed at Australians, only Israelis?

More of that holding Israel to a different standard than other countries, I see....

I'm not sure how a Palestinian referring to Israelis as oppressors and colonisers is holding Jews collectively responsible for the actions of the state of Israel. I'm guessing it's coming from yr constant equating of Israeli with Jew. What that working definition (and you should take note that it has no legal standing and aren't rules) means is that someone who blames Jews, no matter where they are in the world, for the actions of Israel. He's not doing that, or even referring to Jews. In fact, I just went back and checked and noticed that 'the acquired rights of the colonial settlers' could merely be referring to the settlers, or if he's talking the same way some indigenous activists here do, referring to all of the population that's descendants of colonial settlers. Any way you want to look at it, trying to twist it into him calling all Jews around the world 'colonial settlers' doesn't work...

Uh, I think there's a fair bit of racism at play in Israel. Is saying that antisemitic (I'll give you some time to refer to yr vast library of definitions and flowcharts before you respond).

Yr opinion isn't fact, something that you appear to have all sorts of trouble accepting. If he spewed antisemitic rhetoric, I wouldn't have a bar of him, just like I wouldn't have a bar of someone who spews Islamophobic rhetoric like Barry Rubin, who you labelled as a 'good guy'...

[shira]

251. Why do you keep excusing blatant antisemitism from the global BDS movement?

"Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor."

That's the global BDS movement in a nutshell, as Omar Barghouti has made clear many times over.

It's a movement whose leaders routinely spew antisemitic rhetoric.

[Violet_Crumble]

252. I don't excuse anything, as yr creative interpretations aren't facts...

As I pointed out in the post you replied to, you do have a habit of throwing false accusations around and then calling them *facts*. In the case of the previous post, you made an accusation that just wasn't true, and also showed that you hold Israel to a different standard than you do Australia.*

You really have to try to understand that how you interpret something is not how everyone else must interpret it.

Again, on yr repeated accusation that he spews antisemitic rhetoric. I'm wondering to myself why someone spewing anti-Muslim bigotry doesn't stop you admiring them.

* I wouldn't mind seeing some sort of explanation of why it's hate when the same thing is said about Israel but not hate when it's said about Australia...

[shira]

253. Your deflections don't take away from the fact that you are excusing and admiring those spewing...

...antisemitic rhetoric.

There's nothing creative about my "interpretations" either. When your sources routinely violate at least 4-5 different examples in the EUMC working definition, the problem isn't me - it's the sources you admire.

And I'm not playing your game WRT whether hating Australians = hating Jews or whether I admire those who spew anti-Muslim bigotry. That has nothing to do with the clear examples of antisemitic rhetoric and hate speech that you're excusing. I can't imagine you have ANY issue at all with what other major institutions define as racism or xenophobia. Only antisemitism. Something is VERY wrong here, Violet. When those criticizing Israel cannot refrain from making the most outrageous, irrational, and inciteful rhetoric that DOES cause harm to Jews, it's fairly obvious that spewers of such rhetoric don't give a shit how their words cause harm to Jews. That makes them antisemites.

At the very least we should agree hate rhetoric should be condemned. Whether those spewing it are bigots or well meaning folk who really don't know better is another issue, but treating them all the same isn't right. Agreed?

[Shaktimaan]

255. Well,

is he for the equal boycotting of all Palestinian goods until his demands are met as well? Or just specifically Israeli/Jewish goods?

[Shaktimaan]

254. Except he's actively calling...

for the de-Zionization of Palestine. Zionism is THE movement of Jewish self-determination. And a bi-national state clearly violates the tenets of Palestinian self-determination as well.

[Violet_Crumble]

174. No, I don't and that's because they're not...

I've posted the Introducing the BDS movement page quite a few times now. I'll do it again, so feel free to explain what you think is antisemitic about it and why I should agree with you about 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, and is coordinated by the Palestinian BDS National Committee (BNC), established in 2007. 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.

Boycotts target products and companies (Israeli and international) that profit from the violation of Palestinian rights, as well as Israeli sporting, cultural and academic institutions. Anyone can boycott Israeli goods, simply by making sure that they don’t buy produce made in Israel or by Israeli companies. Campaigners and groups call on consumers not to buy Israeli goods and on businesses not to buy or sell them.

Israeli cultural and academic institutions directly contribute to maintaining, defending or whitewashing the oppression of Palestinians, as Israel deliberately tries to boost its image internationally through academic and cultural collaborations. As part of the boycott, academics, artists and consumers are campaigning against such collaboration and ‘rebranding’. A growing number of artists have refused to exhibit or play in Israel.

Divestment means targeting corporations complicit in the violation of Palestinian rights and ensuring that the likes of university investment portfolios and pension funds are not used to finance such companies. These efforts raise awareness about the reality of Israel’s policies and encourage companies to use their economic influence to pressure Israel to end its systematic denial of Palestinian rights.

Sanctions are an essential part of demonstrating disapproval for a country’s actions. Israel’s membership of various diplomatic and economic forums provides both an unmerited veneer of respectability and material support for its crimes. By calling for sanctions against Israel, campaigners educate society about violations of international law and seek to end the complicity of other nations in these violations.

The BDS National Committee

The efforts to coordinate the BDS campaign, that began to grow rapidly as soon as/once the 2005 Call was made public, culminated in the first Palestinian BDS Conference held in Ramallah in November 2007. Out of this conference emerged the BDS National Committee (BNC) as the Palestinian coordinating body for the BDS campaign worldwide. See the BNC page for more details.

http://www.bdsmovement.net/bdsintro

[shira]

7. Uri Avnery opposes BDS and one state in article: Tutu's prayer

One of the profound differences between the two conflicts concerns the Holocaust.

Centuries of pogroms have imprinted on the consciousness of the Jews the conviction that the whole world is out to get them. This belief was reinforced a hundredfold by the Holocaust. Every Jewish Israeli child learns in school that "the entire world was silent" when the six million were murdered. This belief is anchored in the deepest recesses of the Jewish soul. Even when it is dormant, it is easy to arouse it.

(That is the conviction which made it possible for Avigdor Lieberman, last week, to accuse the entire Swedish nation of cooperating with the Nazis, because of one idiotic article in a Swedish tabloid.)

It may well be that the Jewish conviction that "the whole world is against us" is irrational. But in the life of nations, as indeed in the life of individuals, it is irrational to ignore the irrational.

The Holocaust will have a decisive impact on any call for a boycott of Israel. The leaders of the racist regime in South Africa openly sympathized with the Nazis and were even interned for this in World War II. Apartheid was based on the same racist theories as inspired Adolf Hitler. It was easy to get the civilized world to boycott such a disgusting regime. The Israelis, on the other hand, are seen as the victims of Nazism. The call for a boycott will remind many people around the world of the Nazi slogan "Kauft nicht bei Juden!" - don't buy from Jews.

When the archbishop asked what we, the Israeli peace activists, are hoping for, I told him: We hope for Barack Obama to publish a comprehensive and detailed peace plan and to use the full persuasive power of the United States to convince the parties to accept it. We hope that the entire world will rally behind this endeavor. And we hope that this will help to set the Israeli peace movement back on its feet and convince our public that it is both possible and worthwhile to follow the path of peace with Palestine.

No one who entertains this hope can support the call for boycotting Israel.

I am afraid that this is an example of a faulty diagnosis leading to faulty treatment. To be precise: the mistaken assumption that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict resembles the South African experience leads to a mistaken choice of strategy.

True, the Israeli occupation and the South African apartheid system have certain similar characteristics. In the West Bank, there are roads "for Israelis only." But the Israeli policy is not based on race theories, but on a national conflict. A small but significant example: in South Africa, a white man and a black woman (or the other way round) could not marry, and sexual relations between them were a crime. In Israel there is no such prohibition. On the other hand, an Arab Israeli citizen who marries an Arab woman from the occupied territories (or the other way round) cannot bring his or her spouse to Israel. The reason: safeguarding the Jewish majority in Israel. Both cases are reprehensible, but basically different.

In South Africa there was total agreement between the two sides about the unity of the country. The struggle was about the regime. Both Whites and Blacks considered themselves South Africans and were determined to keep the country intact. The Whites did not want partition, and indeed could not want it, because their economy was based on the labor of the Blacks.

In this country, Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs have nothing in common – not a common national feeling, not a common religion, not a common culture and not a common language. The vast majority of the Israelis want a Jewish (or Hebrew) state. The vast majority of the Palestinians want a Palestinian (or Islamic) state. Israel is not dependent on Palestinian workers – on the contrary, it drives the Palestinians out of the working place. Because of this, there is now a world-wide consensus that the solution lies in the creation of the Palestinian state next to Israel.

http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=222257

[azurnoir]

52. That article is 2 years old written at a time when many of us still had hope things change

Obama's actions at the UNSC on 2/17/2011 which amounted IMO to talking out of both sides of his mouth simultaneously, along with Netanyahu's refusal to cooperate in halting settlement construction and what IMO was his my way or the highway stance on what he laughably refers to as negotiations (he dictated his terms in front of Congress), have dashed most hopes for those that actually wanted an end to the occupation, rather than what we have now

That being said it would appear that BDS is gaining momentum and is apparently having some effect around the time that article was written there was much ass-shaking about how BDS can't affect Israel haha ect, thanks for confirming that for us

[shira]

58. So what? Most Palestinians and Jews are against one secular democracy. Think that's important?

You're the colonialist imposing your view, something most of them oppose - as if you know better than them.

Lastly, BDS isn't shit and never will be. Jews will never yield to its demands no matter how strong the movement gets. Anyone for it, knowing full well what it's all about, is a fucking disgrace...

[Violet_Crumble]

75. Yet again you conflate Israelis and Jews.

BDS is aimed at the state of Israel, not at Jews. Yr continual conflating of Israelis with Jews is quite telling and a tactic popular with antisemites.

[shira]

83. Oh? Is that why old antisemitic tropes are routinely employed in the BDS campaign? n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

87. I'm telling you that yr employing the tactic of antisemites in conflating Israelis and Jews...

Try reading and responding to what actually gets said to you instead of ignoring it and doing bot-like 'but what about them!!!!' You appear to not care about or understand the ugliness of conflating Israelis and Jews. Will you be needing me to explain it to you?

[shira]

91. So why does the leadership of BDS employ old antisemitic tropes if it's about Israel, not Jews? n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

99. Stop trying to change the subject away from you conflating Jews and Israelis...

It's not going to work.

Here's why yr habit of conflating Jews with Israelis is so ugly and dangerous. It's a tactic also used by antisemites to make Jews and Israel indistinguishable so they can blame Jews for the actions of the Israeli government. You use it to try to stifle criticism of Israel by trying to portray criticism and protest against Israel for its actions against the Palestinians as being antisemitic. Regardless of what the goals of the conflater are, they're doing something that's very ugly and should be condemned by all....

[shira]

102. So singling out S.Arabia, Libya, Egypt, etc. for BDS and employing Islamophobic rhetoric...

...is not conflating anything. Nor is it stinky.

It's legit politics vs. nation states and not bigotry vs. any ethnic group.

Just BDS vs. the middle east countries excluding Israel. And no BDS vs. China or N.Korea.....

No conflating, right?

[Violet_Crumble]

106. You conflate Jews and Israel constantly. Stop ignoring what gets said to you about it...

I explained what was so ugly and dangerous about the tendency you have to conflate them, yet you totally ignore it. What are you having trouble grasping about something that should be obvious even to you?

[shira]

116. What's odd is that you cannot see the parallel b/w BDS vs. Israel and some nasty BDS movement...

...that only singles out Islamist nations.

I'm pretty sure you'd have no problem conflating S.Arabia with Muslims or conflating Libya with Muslims.

[Violet_Crumble]

120. What's predictable is you trying to deflect away from conflating Jews with Israelis

I'd like to hope that even a bit of what I said seeped in and you do understand how ugly and dangerous it is to conflate Jews with Israelis. But that would be overly optimistic given the way yr intent on trying to divert attention away from it...

[shira]

122. I'm astonished to see you'd have no problem w/BDS singling out only Muslim nations....

...and headed by Islamophobes. After all, there's NO conflation and nothing stinky going on there...

Well, I believe you now realize how stinky the BDS movement vs. Israel is.

Keep supporting it strongly!

[Violet_Crumble]

127. Huh? How did you manage to conjure that out of what I said??

Here's what I said:

'What's predictable is you trying to deflect away from conflating Jews with Israelis

I'd like to hope that even a bit of what I said seeped in and you do understand how ugly and dangerous it is to conflate Jews with Israelis. But that would be overly optimistic given the way yr intent on trying to divert attention away from it...'

Twisting that into something completely different takes a hell of squirming and inability to comprehend what is said...

[shira]

137. So you would have a problem with a bigoted BDS campaign singling out Muslim nations, right? n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

148. Refer to my comments on not answering that stupid 'question'

I dislike being harangued and I'm not sure what part of me telling you I'm not playing yr stupid game isn't sinking in

[azurnoir]

78. say what? quote from your post "You're the colonialist imposing your view"

I point out that 2 years ago when Avnery wrote the article there was more hope for the I/P situation and that makes me a colonist, okay then if you say so

[shira]

84. You're for imposing 1 secular democracy that the vast majority of Israelis & Palestinians oppose.

What else do you call that other than a colonialist viewpoint?

You know better what's good for the region than the people over there...

[azurnoir]

145. That's IMO kind of off the 'deep end' however what your accusations do indicate

is a very real fear of BDS a movement that may well pickup a good deal of steam after the UN vote on creating 2 states one for Israeli's and one for Palestinians
that being said once Palestinians do have a viable state the BDS will lose momentum even if as you claim the leaders wish to continue it for other reasons

[Violet_Crumble]

26. 500 protesters join boycott demo at Max Brenner store in Australia

Hundreds of BDS demonstrators gathered again yesterday at Melbourne's Central Business District to protest against the attack and arrest of 19 nonviolent BDS supporters on July 1st as reported here by Kim Bullimore. Victorian Police had previously arrested demonstrators at the Max Brenner cafe, owned by the Israeli Strauss Group, which directly funds two IDF brigades, the Golani and Givati brigades.

The 19 protestors now face exorbitant fines of up to $30,000. According to organizers CAIA (Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid), yesterday's demonstration expanded to approximately 500 people, 4 times as many as the rally 30 days ago. Starting at the Victorian State Library demonstrators marched through the city streets first to the Max Brenner in Melbourne Central, and then onto Max Brenner in the QV courtyard to show support for those arrested and assert their legal right to continue protesting against those who support and fund Israeli apartheid.



There were no arrests this time although police were in attendance including 8 mounted officers.

Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd, visited Max Brenner in mid-July for a photo media opportunity misrepresenting the intentions of BDS in the Australian press as a boycott of "Jewish businesses".

"As an individual citizen - that is me, K. Rudd - I am here because I object to the boycotting of Jewish businesses," he said. Mr Rudd - meeting with Melbourne Ports MP Michael Danby - said anyone with historical memory should deplore boycotts of Jewish businesses. Samah Sabawi from Australians for Palestine said Max Brenner was a legitimate target for the boycott, even though her organisation did not take part in protests. "I think Kevin Rudd has not given Palestinian civil society a good hearing," Ms Sabawi said.

http://mondoweiss.net/2011/07/500-protesters-join-boycott-demo-at-max-brenner-store-in-australia.html

[King_David]

63. 'These JEWS'

“these Jews provide cover for extreme actions if they occur. If there’s a sniff of you being critical of Israel, such Jews will attack you and cut you loose.''


http://www.jewishnews.net.au/parker-wins-balmain-but-not-support-of-the-bds/20136



FUCK YOU AND YOUR JEW HATRED ,MISTER !

[shira]

66. Why not say it when they know they can get away with it?

I suspect there are no "anti-racist" Greens in the movement calling for this piece of shit to step down.

Disgraceful.

Here's Antony Loewenstein defending the bigot, and note how Loewenstein claims Parker had no issue publicizing that hate screed...
http://newmatilda.com/2011/04/04/loewenstein-responds-news-ltd

The moronic comments from Loewenstein's idiot fan club are a hoot too.

[King_David]

76. His explanation is despicable

You can not explain away antisemitism, my friend !

[azurnoir]

77. Intersting you capitalize "These Jews" in your title line the person speaking is Lee Parker

while in the link which you it would appear cut and pasted the quote from in the body of your post it is not capitalized in fact it appears your quote starts with something taken from the middle of a more complete sentence

let's look at the complete statement from Lee Parker shall we?

The new Greens MP told Sky News on Monday he stood by the NSW Greens policy of supporting the BDS campaign. He also refuted claims of anti-Semitism arising from the New Matilda interview, where he was quoted as saying in response to extreme actions against The Greens, “these Jews provide cover for extreme actions if they occur. If there’s a sniff of you being critical of Israel, such Jews will attack you and cut you loose.

“I have a fantastic working relationship with the local Chavurah in my community,” he said. “I’ve worked with the Jewish Board of Deputies on a range of issues.”

Parker has been involved in a joint peace-building project with both Jews and Palestinians in the Leichhardt Council, where he served as mayor for more than two years.

Meanwhile, the Greens leader distanced himself from comments by Greens senator-elect Lee Rhiannon that the party should have campaigned more strongly for an Israel boycott.

[shira]

81. What Parker said is okay, right? n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

89. What did you find wrong with it?

Especially given yr tendency to conflate Israelis and Jews the way you do. Seeing you posted the link to Mr Lowestein's article about the quote, if you'd read it, you'd see what context it was in, so I'd like you to explain what the problem is you have with it and hopefully do it in a coherent way...

[shira]

92. You don't have a problem with it either? Replace Jews with Muslims and try that on for size. n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

98. But that can be done with so much of what you say...

When you go on about Jews when yr conflating Israelis and Jews, I do sit there and replace Jews with Muslims. But you don't have a problem with it when you do it, so why do you have a problem when someone else does it?

on edit: You clearly didn't read the article you posted a link to. Mr Lowenstein was the person who was interviewing Mr Parker. He took notes and pointed out that News Limited (that's a Murdoch company, though I'm sure as with everything else RW, you don't care about Murdoch's politics) had taken what was said out of its context. Given the way the OP (the News Limited flagship) lied about the boycott of Max Brenner, I have no faith in the honesty or credibility of stuff coming from News Limited when it comes to Israel.

[shira]

103. Again, you don't have a problem with what Parker said - right? Please answer that. n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

110. You clearly don't read responses before you hit reply. You also didn't answer the question I asked..

So here it is again. Try and concentrate this time.

'When you go on about Jews when yr conflating Israelis and Jews, I do sit there and replace Jews with Muslims. But you don't have a problem with it when you do it, so why do you have a problem when someone else does it?

You clearly didn't read the article you posted a link to. Mr Lowenstein was the person who was interviewing Mr Parker. He took notes and pointed out that News Limited (that's a Murdoch company, though I'm sure as with everything else RW, you don't care about Murdoch's politics) had taken what was said out of its context. Given the way the OP (the News Limited flagship) lied about the boycott of Max Brenner, I have no faith in the honesty or credibility of stuff coming from News Limited when it comes to Israel.'

[shira]

112. To answer you, I don't do what you're accusing me of doing. You're deflecting again.

I'd have a VERY big problem with some Islamophobic BDS movement singling out only Muslim mideast nations.

Very stinky.

[Violet_Crumble]

115. I'll add 'deflect' to the long list of words you don't know the meaning of...

And you sure as hell DO conflate Jews and Israelis and have done it more than a few times in this thread.

[shira]

118. So you wouldn't conflate Muslims w/ S.Arabia, Libya, Egypt, etc...

...if some nasty BDS campaign singling out only mideast Muslim majority populations were headed by someone like Daniel Pipes?

[Violet_Crumble]

124. Here's the same response I gave you when you asked the same bizarre 'question' before...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=359499&mesg_id=359782

Here's a big tip for you. When you get told by someone that they're not interested in playing some game where stupid fantasy 'what if???' 'questions' get fired at them, don't just go somewhere else in the thread and ask the same thing again. It's not a good look...

[shira]

126. And as I said, it's easy to see that you now realize how stinky BDS vs. Israel is....

It's as stinky as BDS singling out only majority Muslim mideast nations and headed by Islamophobes.

I know you realize that, Violet.

Have a peachy day!

[Violet_Crumble]

129. Yeah, me pointing out I support BDS is a dead giveaway!!

Yr so intent on painting boycotting Israel as being antisemitic that yr not even bothering to read anything you reply to. And it's delusional to claim you know what people think when you so clearly get it so abysmally wrong all the time. If I point out that I'm sick of the stupid 'questions' based on fantasy and won't be answering them, that doesn't give you free reign to invent what you wish I had answered with...

[King_David]

133. This is not about what Shira says.

It is about a vile antisemitic statement that is now being 'spun' to be A-OK.

[Violet_Crumble]

135. I asked Shira to explain what her problem was with what was said...

Seeing as how she conflates Jews and Israelis, I was interested to see what she would come up with. She came back with some vague reply telling me to replace Jew with Muslim, and I told her the same can be done to her many posts where she says Jews instead of Israelis.

You haven't noticed that she posted a link to an article where the person who'd carried out the interview pointed out that the quote was taken out of context. Also, I'm not sure how even if it was antisemitic you'd have a problem with anyone spinning it to be okay, given that yr reaction to someone saying 'I hate Muslims' was 'Not Islamaphobe. Just anti-Homophobe.'

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x358701#358855

That's definately something that is spinning a vile disgusting anti-Muslim comment to be A-OK...

[shira]

138. You're just playing games and when caught contradicting yourself, you resort to flaming & insults.NT

[azurnoir]

141. you mean like accusing people of being for one state or colonialists for instance ? n/t

[shira]

142. Isn't that basically the definition of a colonialist or neo-colonialist mindset?

To impose your solution on the "natives" even if the vast majority of them are against it?

I'm sorry I said it in an accusatory, insulting manner.

[azurnoir]

146. but once again you make baseless accusations see comment #141 n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

149. She also thinks it's fine to call me a Nazi

That was further unthread where she said she had no problems with the Greens and supporters of the boycott being called Nazis.

[Violet_Crumble]

143. Yr the one doing the flaming and insults as well as misrepresenting my views...

Not that I'm sure what that post of yrs had to do with my reply to 'King_David'. Would you like to try addressing what yr replying to?

[King_David]

151. Sorry you keep losing me every time you ruminate on some anti homophobic

post I made in the past.



(I am proud to be anti-homophobic btw ,as every progressive should be,and we should withold support from any regime or group that is homophobic,unequivically)

[Violet_Crumble]

152. Saying 'I hate muslims' is islamophobic

Trying to claim such hatred is 'antihomophobic' is just as revolting as someone claiming saying 'I hate Jews' is anti occupation. Surely you must be able to see that saying they hate Muslims is bigoted?

[King_David]

153. I have no clue whatsover what you said in this post,

or what you were trying to say.

Lost me completely.

Whenever you talk to me you keep on about this homosexual,homophobic,homo chatter ,that I have no idea what your on about.

Which is a good thing,I guess, because it sounded like crap.

[Violet_Crumble]

155. What are you having trouble understanding?

Have you tried reading it out loud? That helps some people when it comes to comprehension. Or if English is your second language and yr struggling to understand, using Google to translate it can be very helpful. It should show you that the words 'I hate Muslims' and 'Islamophobia' aren't 'homosexual'.

Let me give you another example of why someone who says 'I hate Muslims' is an Islamophobe. Using the logic you used to claim the person who said 'I hate Muslims' isn't Islamophobic, feminists could use the mistreatment of women at the hands of Haredi to say 'I hate Jews'. If you turned around and said that was antisemitic, they could correct you and say: 'Not antisemitic. Anti-misogyny'. And if you objected, that would be a hypocritical objection, as you yrself said that saying 'I hate Muslims' isn't Islamophobic, it's 'anti-homophobic'.

I hope that helps you understand more clearly :)

[King_David]

156. Sorry I can't even treat these posts seriously

They reads to me as " blah bla homosexual blah blah blah '
Enough already !

[Violet_Crumble]

157. Then you aren't reading what's posted...

Not sure how anyone gets 'blah bla homosexual blah blah blah ' out of me pointing out that someone saying they hate Muslims is Islamophia. Maybe you should take those tips I gave you to help you comprehend what yr reading. Or get someone else to read the posts out loud to you :)

[King_David]

160. I am ending this exchange now

Because I am not even finding it vaguely amusing.

[Violet_Crumble]

161. There's nothing amusing about vile Islamophobic comments being spun to be A-OK

And trying to justify someone saying they hate Muslims by flaunt it's not Islamophobic to do so is spinning bigotry as being A-OK

[King_David]

162. And this exchange has nothing to do with any of that ,

If anyone at all understands any of these posts " shrugs"

Ta Ta.

[Violet_Crumble]

163. It has a lot to do with it

See, how it has to do with his exchange is that I replied to yr post where you spoke of what you claimed was a vile antisemitic statement being spun to be A-OK. I've pointed out the inconsistency of yr statement by remindinf you that someone saying they hate Muslims is a vile anti-Muslim comment which was being spun to be okay

[King_David]

164. Sigh

Yet you go on, give it up already.It is tedius ,when I do not understand what your getting at and I bet no one else does either.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kn481KcjvMo

[Violet_Crumble]

165. No-one's forcing you to reply. You can opt out whenever you wish...

Having been here a long time, I'm sure that most DUers are quite capable of understanding what I've been saying, as I've been saying it very clearly.

Just in case anyone's not following, here's the link to what I'm talking about again

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x358701#358855

Someone who hates Muslims is an Islamophobe. If the person who hates Muslims is a feminist, they're not anti-misogyny, they're an Islamophobe. Likewise if the person who hates Muslims is gay, they're not as you claimed, anti-homophobe, they're an Islamophobe. I consider such attempts to say hating Muslims isn't Islamophobic to be spinning bigotry to be A-OK...

[King_David]

167. Again with the Homosexual, antihomophobic, homo,blah blah blah blah

bla blah bla blah bla




I am not sure why though ?


Enough already ! It will soon become an issue.

[Violet_Crumble]

168. I'm not sure how you manage to read 'islamophobia' as 'homosexual'

Well, apart from that you say you don't understand what yr reading. If you actually are having a problem comprehending what's posted and you feel the need to continue replying, it would be more constructive to explain what part of what I said you don't understand and then I can word it more simply and help you understand it. it would certainly look better than telling me not to respond to yr posts.

I'm also not Sure what you think will soon be an issue. Is it that I could be facing an army of people who confuse the words islamophobia and homophobia? Or that I might get in some sort of trouble for daring to reply to yr posts?

[King_David]

169. ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kn481KcjvMo

[Violet_Crumble]

170. I'm not the most perceptive person in the world but

I get the feeling that for some reason you need to get the last word in by posting a link to a crap song that is your way of telling me to go away. It reminds me of a time on another forum where someone went to another part of the forum and posted a link to an exchange he was having with another poster, bragging about how he was kicking their arse. Having drawn everyone's attention to the exchange he was determined to get the last word in so he could look lIke a 'winner' and told the other poster to give up and go away. Of course the other poster made a point of not going away and eventually a few others joined in and started talking about stuff like what they'd done at the weekend. and still determined to win at all costs , the first poster stayed there yelling at them all to give up and go away. If he'd had Kenny Rogers at hand I'm sure he would have utilized him!


Without you telling me what it is that you don't understand, it's hard to do much else but patiently explain that bigotry doesn't turn into something noble if the person doing it is part of a group that suffers bigotry themselves. Now hot me with some more crap music stat!

[King_David]

171. Nope thats not it , I am not that up on the internet inter and intra-forum warfare

Nope thats not it , I am not that up on the internet's inter and intra-forum warfare,

like you obviously are.

The song may be crap but it had a message for you.

I know that Australia is one of the worst,if not THE worst of the Western countries when it comes to Gay rights , but I was hoping for more on a progressive website.

No biggie to me,cos you got the last word .

This was mine on this poor-form exchange.

[Violet_Crumble]

172. I see yr still pretending the discussion isn't about hatred of muslims

It's really quite strange that you see what I've pointed out about islamophobia as somehow being an attack on gay rights. I'd ask you to explain how you define islamophobia and why you think someone who hates Muslims isnt an islamophobe, but you haven't been interested in explaining anything regarding that in this thread.

Yep the Kenny Rogers message is loud and clear.
1. He sang some really crap songs.
2. You would like me to give up and go away

Nope can't say I'm up on intraboard warfare. It was just a cute story from another board I used to post on where the poster was as intent as you on telling others to give-up and go away.

Why do you keep bringing up australia?

[Ken Burch]

210. The Occupation is not imposed on Palestinians out of sympathy for gays

There's no progressive justification whatsoever for having IDF troops in the West Bank. They simply have no right to be there.

[King_David]

231. And so?

Strawman ,Red Herring etc etc

Try the Topic

[Ken Burch]

233. Not a strawman...a direct response to your rhetoric about fighting homophobia

Those that support the creation of a Palestinian state comprising all of the West Bank and Gaza are just as committed to fighting for LGBT rights as you are. And YOU don't speak for all gay people, or even all gay pro-Israeli people---does the name Ezra Nawi mean anything to you?

[oberliner]

234. Those that support the creation of a Palestinian state are committed to fighting for LGBT rights?

You seriously believe this?

[Ken Burch]

236. At least those in the West

And there are plenty of Israelis who oppose the creation of a Palestinian state AND oppose LGBT rights with the same passion. You can't assume that ALL Israelis are more enlightened than Palestinians are-and the constant "we're better than them" refrain is tiresome and completely counter-productive.

Internal liberalism on a handful of issues within one country doesn't entitle that country to keep another country under military occupation.

[King_David]

235. What Rubbish

Homosexuality in of itself is illegal in the territories,if you don`t get hanged you go to jail.

[Ken Burch]

237. That fact also discredits the argument that Israel's position on gays justifies the Occupation

The Occupation has had no positive effects for Palestinian gays if same-sex relationships are still illegal there-and never can help Palestinian gays.

Social acceptance can't be imposed by force.

I oppose the current treatment of LGBT people by Palestinian society...but keeping IDF troops in the West Bank has nothing to do with that.

And constantly bragging about how wonderful Israel supposedly is on LGBT issues is the worst possible thing you could for Palestinian LGBT people-assuming you actually give a damn about them.

[King_David]

238. Strawman Red Herring

'That fact also discredits the argument that Israel's position on gays justifies the Occupation'

You invent this argument? Made it up?
Out of thin air?
You always make up something then argue against yourself?


:eyes:

[King_David]

239. 'Social acceptance can't be imposed by force.'

Oh yes it MUST !!!!

Who says?

There should be ZERO tolerance for Discrimination of GAYS.

NOT ONE PENNY to any such state that does not include Gay rights.

Why should the tax money of the Gays go toward those who want to kill us ?

[Ken Burch]

241. By force of arms, I meant.

fine, a boycott of places that persecute LGBT people would be in order.

[King_David]

240. 'And YOU don't speak for all gay people'

Your assuming my orientation?

[Ken Burch]

242. you've made a point of referencing LGBT issues more than any other.

I'm not really sure I should apologize if I did, in fact, get it wrong, since believing a person to be LGBT isn't actually an insult. If you're not, why do you emphasize LGBT issues in relation to the I/P situation? Israel only passed gay-friendly laws in the last twenty years or so, if it was that long ago, so the bragging rights there don't really run THAT deep.

The Occupation isn't about LGBT issues, or about Israel supposedly being more socially liberal than Palestine(btw, there are a large group of religious types in Israel who want nothing more than to revoke all LGBT-friendly legislation there and may manage to do so if the parties they support are needed to form a coalition government at some point) and doesn't help LGBT people, either in Israel OR Palestine. This is one reason a lot of LGBT people oppose the Occupation and bitterly resent having their cause used in propaganda on this dispute.

The IDF is in the West Bank because the Israeli government still hasn't given up on the discredited idea that the West Bank should be part of Israel. The Occupation would still be in force even if Israel treated gays exactly as Palestine does.

[King_David]

243. You sure about that ? or You make that up?

You see how big the Gay Jewish contingent agains QuAIA is?

Especially at the Toronto pride?

The best selling T-Shirt in Israeli Tel Aviv Pride is one of a Pro Zionist Rainbow flag with a pic of Herzel.

[Ken Burch]

246. QuAIA is for a single-state solution

You can't assume that everyone who opposes them, or even the majority of those who support them, within the Jewish LGBT community are defenders of the Occupation or the settlements.

And I'm fairly sure that advances for LGBT people in Israel only occurred under more dovish governments. It goes without saying that Shamir, Sharon and Bibi would never allow any progressive legislation on anything to get through.

[King_David]

248. Strawman

Again

[King_David]

244. LOL

''Israel only passed gay-friendly laws in the last twenty years or so, if it was that long ago, so the bragging rights there don't really run THAT deep.''


Which countries can brag more than Israel?


Try name one anywhere( Maybe Canada) , nevermind anywhere remotely near Israel.







This paragraph of yours is just complete RUBBISH :

'The Occupation isn't about LGBT issues, or about Israel supposedly being more socially liberal than Palestine(btw, there are a large group of religious types in Israel who want nothing more than to revoke all LGBT-friendly legislation there and may manage to do so if the parties they support are needed to form a coalition government at some point) and doesn't help LGBT people, either in Israel OR Palestine. This is one reason a lot of LGBT people oppose the Occupation and bitterly resent having their cause used in propaganda on this dispute.'

[Ken Burch]

245. No it isn't rubbish at all.

The Occupation is about one nation holding another nation down. It has nothing to do with the liberalism of any other nation. And Israel's policies on gays have nothing to do with the Occupation being in place. If Palestine was just as gay-friendly as Israel(and I do wish it was)the Occupation would STILL be in place. And you know it.

The West Bank settlers are not fighters for human liberation. Most of them are sharply to the right of voters in Israel proper on any issue you could think of-based on polling results taken of their views.

[King_David]

249. Another reply that has nothing to do with anything LOL nt

[azurnoir]

140. we never see the complete statement in question, do we now?

what we see starts from the middle of a sentence, when statements are edited in such a manner it IMO immediately calls in to question the veracity of the point that is attempting to be made

[King_David]

132. Using capital letters is sometimes viewed as shouting.

Some people will not eat Matza unless it is Pesach,but I like to eat it as a snack sometimes even in October.

[azurnoir]

150. using all caps is viewed as shouting not using caps as the first letter of a word

as to your Matza comment ya I do too less salt and more spreading area than crackers good with hummas and tomatoes

[Ken Burch]

185. Boycotting Israeli goods has nothing whatsoever in common with what Hitler did

Hitler was trying to wipe Jews off the face of the earth.

Those who support the Palestinian cause(at least if we're talking about boycott supporters, who are NOT morally equivalent to the worst of Hamas) now would have been fighting against Hitler and his intentions to wipe out Jews had they been alive in the Thirties. Meanwhile, a lot of today's "pro-Israel" types would have been hailing Hitler as "a bulwark against Communism"(a phrase Hitler himself coined, btw-in reference to himself!).

The BDS people simply want to end injustice against Palestinians-they are not antisemites and they do not wish harm to anyone. It's not as if the only way to protect the world's Jewish communities is to leave the Israeli government immune to any international pressure to change its failed and unconscionable Occupation of the West Bank or its continued expansion of settlements. It's not as if Israel has to maintain the Occupation OR continue to expand settlements just to survive.

I favor a two-state solution, but that is only valid if it's a solution without poison pills(such as any attempt to force Palestinians to accept the West Bank settlements of perpetual IDF garrisons in the Jordan River Valley). While I'm not a member of BDS, were they not there, the Israeli hardliners would just keep ignoring the world and keep making things worse forever.

[shira]

188. So you don't have a problem with collective punishment vs. all of Israel's citizens?

You have no problem with an academic and cultural boycott vs. all Israel?

[Ken Burch]

195. A boycott isn't collective punishment

It's effect on Israelis is trivial compared to what is done to Palestinians under the Occupation, or the vile "we're putting them on a diet" policy the IDF imposed on Gaza.

[shira]

198. No distinction b/w "good" and "bad" Israelis being punished for their gov't policies.

It also won't stop until there's one state with an Arab majority and Palestinian self-determination.

Meaning the end of Israel.

But you support it.

[Ken Burch]

201. It probably would stop if a REAL two-state solution were offered

One that the Israeli side would agree would mean NO IDF troops in the Jordan River Valley, and one that would mean the removal of the settlements, and an ABSOLUTE guarantee that Palestinian sovereignty would never be infringed on. You would agree, I hope, that those are reasonable things for them to expect, right?

And it's time for you to admit, at long last, that Palestinians have suffered far more than Israelis in the post-1967 status quo.

BTW: If you favor, as you claim to, a "two-state solution", then wouldn't you have to admit that past Israeli governments, of whatever party, were ALWAYS wrong to oppose a two-state solution in the past and were always wrong to anathemize those who favored it BEFORE 1994(given that it was always clear that Israel had no right to expect peace without accept a Palestinian state)?

[shira]

204. Barghouti repeatedly says BDS won't stop until there's full RoR and 1 state.

You're just making shit up.

And you have no problem with BDS despite claiming you're for 2 states.

FFS, Ken - even the PA is against BDS because it would harm Palestinians as well as Israelis. If you don't give a shit about Israelis being collectively punished, then how's about giving a crap for Palestinians you claim to support?

Palestinian minister: Boycott only against settlement products
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3901780,00.html

[Ken Burch]

203. Even if it meant the "end of Israel" (and I'm not sure it would)

You can't assume that such an idea(and no, I don't favor it now because people aren't ready for it)would have to be a nightmare for Jewish Israelis. It's even possible to create a unitary state as a Belgian-style federation, in which both nations would have equality and both peoples would have an equal say. Such a state would be far more secure for Israelis than the current situation, in which the actions of the IDF troops in the West Bank seem deliberately designed to make Palestinians hate and fear Israelis.

It's demagogic to assume that Palestinian Arabs would be inherently incapable of living in peace and full equality with those who now identify as Israelis-OR that Palestinian Arabs would never, under any circumstances, be capable of sustaining a secular democracy.

You wouldn't even be able to make a two-state solution work if you assumed those things, because an actually workable two-state solution would have to be predicated on the idea that BOTH sides are capable of being civilized human beings.

If you don't want a one-state solution, shira, you have an OBLIGATION, NOW, to be pushing people like Bibi And Tzipi to end the Occupation of the West Bank AND to acknowledge that most of the Palestinian resistance is based on legitimate grievances about the Occupation and the settlements, not on "hatred of Jews". And you would be working to defend Palestinians from injustice and to improve the status of Israeli Arabs as well.

But I strongly suspect you won't, shira, because you don't really back a two-state solution at all. If you did, you would find it impossible to defend the status quo OR to demonize those whose only crime is to end the injustices involved in the present situation.
You tipped your hand when you started that disgusting thread in which you daydreamed about deporting all the Arabs in the West Bank to Jordan. The feelings you attribute to Palestinians about Jews are the feelings YOU YOURSELF hold about Palestinians. You are as much a bigot as anyone in Hamas. If you weren't, you couldn't defend the status quo at all.

The state of Israel exists. The fight over that is over. Now the work of justice and peace has to begin.

[shira]

205. You're contradicting yourself, Ken, when you say the people aren't ready for 1 state...

....and then say we shouldn't assume it would be a nightmare.

Which is it? Are they ready yet or will it be a nightmare?

As to the Jordanian option, the point is THAT is the only workable 1 state scenario that has a chance of succeeding (without a civil war bloodbath within the '49 armistice lines). Palestinians would have all Gaza, all the WB (with swaps) and all Jordan, as they would be the majority and should have self-determination in lands FAR greater in size than Israel. RoR wouldn't even be an issue with that much land. There's nothing racist about it.

[Ken Burch]

208. I meant NEITHER side is ready...I wasn't specifically saying that only the Palestinians weren't

Before a 1 state solution-and even as an immediate part of a 2-state solution-there would need to be a major reconciliation process-a process that would acknowledge and heal the wounds on both sides.

I would never have said that the Israelis could handle a single state but the Palestinians couldn't-and, again, you can't do a peace process based on the assumption that one side could be trusted but NOT the other.

[pelsar]

211. so your back...same mantra....same inability....

oh ken.....
having a belief is fine...the christians have it, the muslims, do the liberals do, the progressives do. The difference between the religious christians and progressives iike yourself is that when there is a contradiction in the belief and history and reality, the christians can always point upward to god and say "he works in mysterious ways"..or something like that. They can believe if we do the "proper" thing it will work because god says so.

Now the progressives don't have that luxury so your stuck with logic and history and human politics.......which is where you get stuck every time. See, humans who don't believe in the higher power of god to straighten out the human mess, require several options in their plans, mainly because whatever your plan is, there will be other humans that have very different plans and will do what they can to screw yours. To not believe that is to acknowledge that either you are fanatically intolerant and bigoted (a distinct possibility given your previous posts) or more likely religious

If you believe that you are neither, then i would suggest you actually acknowledge that whatever plan you have, will infact have its detractors and like the secular liberals in egypt, may actually lose to the religious and militants (they've been pushed out of the square, taken over by the army and the muslim brotherhood), no matter what israel does or doesnt do.

or course it could be that you can't......which i understand as religious fanatisim is pretty widespread these days.

[Ken Burch]

212. I know that people can screw your plans

So do the Palestinians.

Nothing I've said was unrealistic. What's unrealistic is expecting the Palestinians to accept IDF troops in the Jordan Valley EVEN AFTER THEY GET A PALESTINIAN STATE. Or expecting them to accept the land swaps that are designed to make their state unsustainable.

Logic doesn't support preserving the status quo at all. Nor does it support insisting that a future Palestinian state be in a subordinate and only semi-sovereign position compared to Israel. Why is it so hard to understand that any Palestinian leader who accepts a peace proposal must be able to say "we didn't lose and they don't have power OVER us"?

Nothing I said in the post you responded to was deserving of the contempt you're spewing in this response.

Also, why are you bringing up Egypt? We weren't even talking about that here. You know Mubarak couldn't have been kept in power by any means at all and you know that keeping him there wouldn't have Israel in any better situation. Mubarak's era was over. You can't preserve a discredited dictatorship in that kind of situation.

[pelsar]

215. so whats your plan B

i mentioned egypt as an example of simplest plans of democracy budding, being destroyed very quickly by those who are against it...egyptian army and mulsim brotherhood. Hamas taking over gaza is another example of those who believe that democracy is built on elections and that nothing can go wrong.....(got more if you like of the failed utopias based on the simplest and naive views)

so whats yours if your wonderful ideas are hijacked by hamas, islamic jihad, fatah, etc?

i have a general contempt for religious views that have an inability for admitting that their plans may not work and refuse to come up with a plan b or c or d or e.....or for a refusal to look at the local events (history and culture) and use that as a basis for their plans or at least contemplate the idea, the concept that one single idea may in fact not work.

[Ken Burch]

216. You have no reason to assume that I think my plan(or at least my proposals)

are incapable of failure. Of course they could, fail. Anything COULD fail. But what you're not getting is that, if the objective of the Israeli status quo is to stop "terrorism" and get Palestinians to accept Israel, that plan has already failed.

I'm for trying other things if what I said didn't work. For the record, however, nothing I've suggested has ever really been tried in the I/P situation(no, Oslo wasn't really it either, because even Rabin, the "dove", refused to utter the words "Palestinian state" and had to be forced to shake hands with Arafat-as if any good would have come of his refusing to do so).

Returning to what was done between 2000 and present in the West Bank isn't one of those things, because the existing approach has nothing to show for its existence. It hasn't truly made Israelis more secure, and it hasn't stopped extremists within Palestine. Nor can it.

But what you're forgetting is, what's being done now isn't working and can't be sustained. You can't just keep the Occupation going indefinitely...and we can already assume that no Palestinian leadership that could ever emerge would accept IDF troops staying forever in the Jordan Valley.

Also, if you don't build democracy on elections, what, in your view, DO you build it on? You can't democratize a people by keeping them under military occupation. It wasn't the postwar military occupation that re-democratized Germany-in that case, it was the German people themselves making the choice to reject what didn't work. They would have been just as democratic after World War II if the Allies had pulled out their troops right after VE Day. The only real consequence of the military occupation there was to sideline the Social Democratic Party(SPD), the only truly anti-Nazi party of prewar Germany, and to privelege the so-called "Christian Democratic Union"(a party which, unlike the SPD, contained large numbers of former Nazis among its cohort).

And, since the Palestinians, unlike the Germans, were never Nazis, there's even less reason to think preserving the Occupation could change them in positive ways.

You like to think of yourself as the voice of hard-eyed realism, but you're far more of a "religious" zealot than I-because you still hold on, without question, to a belief in an ultra-rigid, punishment-based approach to dealing with Palestinians that has had no positive results at all.

Finally, as to Egypt, yes, the situation there is complicated. But what alternative was there to letting Mubarak fall? You know perfectly well that he couldn't have been kept in power by any means at that point anyway. Why act as if that should still even be debated? Mubarak couldn't have been saved...nor could the Shah in 1979...nor could Chiang Kai-Shek in 1949, and nor could the Tsar in February, 1917. When the people are rising, you simply CAN'T stop them. Nor should a decent person try.

[pelsar]

217. sorry ken...history simply does not support your views

Now a history lesson...this will be a test for you, if you can digest and learn what you don't seem to know;

"unconditional surrender" those were the words used by the allies at the start of WWII in reference to germany. Why? because after WWI, there was no unconditional surrender german kept their militant culture, and hitler was able to manipulate the weak german democracy in to a dictatorship. That lesson was well learned.

That was also why there was an occupation of japan. It required a very brutal occupation/military dictatorship to revamp both of their cultures, there in fact was little resistance manly because both countries were devastated, wiped out they had no support from any where in the world to do anything but capitulate. You have a strange fantasy life to assume that the germans (and japanese) would have welcomed a complete revision of their education/political system and culture.....that simply doesnt happen without brutal force..and that is exactly what was used.

end of history lesson.
__________________

next egypt: The situation is not complicated: there was a general uprising by the secular joined in by the others, with both the army and muslim brotherhood waiting to choose sides. With Mubarak gone, the army took over with the Muslim Brotherhood making their move next. Nothing that wasn't obvious. It doesnt make a difference what the options were or were not, the outcome was rather obvious to many of us...

but i'm glad you wrote this, because it definitely clears the air:

When the people are rising, you simply CAN'T stop them. Nor should a decent person try.

and here i differ with you. decent people do not support and if they have any influence, attempt to prevent fanatic dictatorships, theocratic govts from taking over a society. It doesn't make a difference how many people are in the street clamoring for a religious dictatorship, decent westerns, who have liberal values do not and never will support anti civil rights, anti people govts.

decent people understand that mobs are not always right, no matter how loud they scream, decent people are wise enough to understand that any govt must preserve the right for a peaceful change to a different govt, and that religious, dictatorships do not allow for that.

decent people understand those things and do not support fanatics or dictatorships.

obviously you are willing to.....

oh yes and they can be stopped...iran being one example and syria and Libya being two more

two additional points: i 'm far more flexible than you in my views, which i base on actions and not politican words (which are always manipulated to mean anything you want) and furthermore and this is just reality, israel is in fact far more secure now than it was in the past, especially since pre 67. Now I realize if you accept that, that really messses up your whole theory, so i guess your going to pretend that i didn't write it and/or thats it not true.

[Ken Burch]

219. Why would you think I'd pretend you didn't write your own post?

Whatever I've said in response to you, I've never said anything remotely like that.

Also, your analysis of post-World War One Germany is way off the mark. The problem there wasn't that the Germans weren't made to unconditionally surrender(such a surrender couldn't have been achieved at that point any way, since the Allies and the Entente were at a hopeless stalemate). Post World War One Germany failed to sustain democracy due to the massive economic downturn caused, in significant measure(though not wholly)by the reparations Germany was obligated to pay and thanks to the arrogant insistence of Britain and France that Germany accept language in the Treaty of Versailles that forced that nation to take sole responsibility for the onset of the war(in truth, all the imperial powers of Europe bore equal responsibility). Hitler took advantage of the sense of humiliation that the treaty spread and the sense of desperation caused by the economic crisis to seize power. If Germany had been treated with magnanimity after 1919(and it should have been, especially since the war ended in at least some degree due to the fact that the German people overthrew the Kaiser and his pro-military political claque)Hitler would never have had the opportunity to gain any political strength at all.

As to Egypt, the situation is still in flux. And it's a lie to assert that the Muslim Brotherhood have seized power. The overthrow of Mubarak, if anything, has probably decreased their chances of coming to power, since they will not be able to replicate the Iranian situation(in which people were driven to the conclusion that supporting the hardest-line opposition party was the only way to overthrow the tyrant).
What do you think the world should have done? It couldn't have been a good idea for the U.S. and Israel to militarily intervene on Mubarak's behalf. You would concede, I hope, that there's no possible way that the Shah could have been kept in power and no good that would have come to the world of keeping him in power against the clear and overwhelming wishes of his own people.

Also, unlike you, I don't start from the assumption that ordinary people(or "the mass" as you disdainfully call them)are inherently untrustworthy and should be stopped from time to time by the intervention of an elite(you apparently think I'm part of an elite, and that's just silly. I'm an ordinary person who lives an ordinary life). What happened in Germany in 1933 couldn't have been prevented by an elite intervention...especially since, in that country, the elite were all backing the guy. The only thing that could have stopped him would have been if Weimar Germany had been given a chance to grow democracy from below. Historically, "elite" interventions against the popular will have had almost exclusively reactionary outcomes-as in the cases where the "elite" of my country overthrew elected governments in Latin America and Africa.

And I am flexible in my views. I just reject the rigidity of your government's approach. That doesn't make me a zealot. It makes me open-minded. I'd be inflexible if I defended the "security" status quo there. Doing so would make it impossible for me to advocate peace at all.

[pelsar]

220. you have to read slower....your assume way too much

the muslim brotherhood has not seized power, what they have done with the army is kicked out the seculars from the egytian main square....just a first step, nothing more. hence i did not write that they seized power.

and if you were flexible in your views, you would be able to come up with a plan b if your plan a failed.....you don't seem to be able to do that.

nothing you wrote about in terms of germany negates the fact that the allies had a brutal military dictatorship that revamped their entire education and culture and stayed until it was established...something that took several generations....same with japan.

your whole theory is based on what ifs, maybes, political theories. etc...nothing absolutely nothing that can be proven either way. All we do now is that left on their own germany started WWI and WWII. I understand you believe your theories, but its nothing more than dreaming

-----------------------

you would concede, I hope, that there's no possible way that the Shah could have been kept in power and no good that would have come to the world of keeping him in power against the clear and overwhelming wishes of his own people.

so just out of curiosity..those wishes of his own people today (i'm not talking about the thousands that khommeni shot and hung after he had power)....do they count for anything in your 'wishes of the people"...or should they be ignored, unlike the wishes of the people in 79.

how do you choose when to ignore the wishes and when not to?
how about the syrian people....the Libyans.....doesn't look like they are going to succeed, is that good or bad? as we ignore one and bomb the others country......how about zimbabwa, now theres a dictator you can get behind, after a revolution and everything right?...except that he managed to destroy zimbabwa....though he did have the will of the people.

[Ken Burch]

221. Yes, their wishes do count.

Most want democracy, as most wanted it in 1979. It's just that they don't want the Pahlevis back. It's not as if the only options for Iran are the mullahs or a new Shah.

And the postwar military occupation in Germany was far milder than that instituted on Palestinians today. Most Germans weren't forced to perpetually go through checkpoints(sometimes losing jobs because they weren't able to get to their workplaces)and settlers weren't sent in to seize German land(for the record, I'd have been just fine with West Bank-type settlements in the Rhine Valley, because, unlike Palestinians, Germans would actually have deserved to lose their land). Unlike in the West Bank, Germans after 1945 were pretty much allowed to go through their daily lives without continual harassment(even though, with their far greater culpability, they WOULD have deserved it).

I'm not so sure why you're fixated with having me announce a Plan B for the West Bank. If I were to implement one, I'd probably go with international peacekeepers(not U.N. peacekeepers, because they usually aren't allowed to do much of anything in the places where they're sent)to the West Bank because there would need to be a group keeping order that was neutral between Israelis and Palestinians. I'd also call for international funding, if there wasn't RoR, for at least the resettlement of Palestinian exiles from the camps into the West Bank and Gaza-it could only help if those people were allowed to at least get close to their homes-it can't help to force them to move to some place like Morocco or Iraq where they could never be at home and never fit in-especially since most of those people, having lived for decades in the camps, haven't actually harmed either Israelis or anyone else.

I'd set up a real Truth and Reconciliation commission-one that both Palestinians AND Israelis could testify in and seek compensation from.

That's at least a partial proposal.

It's not utopian to admit that Palestinian anger is derived from real grievances. What's utopian(and delusional)is to pretend that the conditions they've lived under and the treatment they've received has nothing to do with their actions.

[pelsar]

222. not so fast.....

which peoples wishes "count" in iran of 79

the seculars and liberals or those of the revolutionary guards?.....are they not both "the people"?

didnt you say decent people would not go against the peoples wishes?

how about the muslim brotherhood of egypt, are they not "the people"

how about in Lybia today, which people are the ones your with, the ones backing kaddafi (he had a very good health care system in place) vs those people that dont like him....

which people?
-----

And the postwar military occupation in Germany was far milder than that instituted on Palestinians today
actually the Palestinians have their own local government, the germans did not, the Palestinians have their own foreign policy the germans did not, the Palestinians can open and close factories all without israeli permission, the germans could not The germans had no courts other than the occupying military courts, the Palestinians have their own judicial system...the difference was that only when the new education and judicial systems begin to take hold, and democracy began to take hold did the occupation let up.....thats what you should be thinking about.

otherwise the only thing your plan will bring is for is a repeat of Zimbabwe, iran, gaza, syrian, Lybia, Egypt etc

[Ken Burch]

228. obviously, the people who want democracy in Iran.

Which is what you meant.

And your "preserve the status quo at all costs" plan can't ever remake Palestine to Israeli specifications. If if could have, we'd have seen some sign of it by now-it's also unfair to use postwar Germany as a template for that, since Palestinians were never the moral equivalents of the Nazis. They never wanted a Judenrein planet.

[pelsar]

229. your very confusing....

perhaps its because you dont like thinking things through all the way, with the repucussions or you prefer not to.. (my guess)

More so and in my eyes even worse you seem to believe that land ownership (nationalism) is far more important the civil rights and democracy.

as you wrote:

When the people are rising, you simply CAN'T stop them. Nor should a decent person try.

basically what this means, is that you basically back irans khomeni revolution, you agree to hamas taking over gaza, you have no problem with the muslim brotherhood influencing the egyptian rebellion....(i.e. taking it over)

as you wrote, no decent person would want to interfer.

did i get that right?

oh btw, yes a people rising up can be stopped, iran just did that recently (I noticed that you really dont like history when its clear and you can't redefine it to fit your ideology).

[Ken Burch]

232. Not at all what I was saying.

I don't have to have backed Khomeini to recognize that the Shah(as even you would have to admit)couldn't possibly have been saved.

At the time, I'd have preferred Shapour Baktiar to lead the necessary transition in Iran, had he not morally disqualified himself from staying in power in Iran refusing to disband SAVAK(the secret police)and refusing to promise that the Shah would never return to power. Once Baktiar did that, he made it impossible for himself to hold office(as Kerensky did after the February Revolution when he made the insane decision to keep Russia in World War One, a decision the Russian people could never have been persuaded to accept, given that the war had done and could do Russia no good whatsoever), and no amount of external intervention or firepower could have secured his hold on power.

And there's no amount of IDF force that could ever have stopped Hamas from taking over Gaza. Nothing could have prevented that short of dropping an atomic bomb on Gaza City. It would be meaningless to stop Hamas from taking over Gaza if you had to kill everyone in Gaza to do it, as the option I laid out in the previous sentence would have meant. The only thing that ever could have prevented the emergence of Hamas at all would have been for the Israeli government, the moment Oslo was agreed to, to commit to NEVER expanding any more of the settlements and to stopping all petty harassment of ordinary Palestinians. Had this been done at that point(and this was years before suicide bombings were happening)and had their not been the disgusting spectacle of the Israeli government insisting on deliberately humiliating Arafat by keeping him under personal siege of Ramallah(which is something that's never supposed to be done to one side in a time of "peace negotiations" by the other side)Hamas would have had little to work with.

Of course it's necessary to speak out against any turn to dictatorial methods anywhere-I'd never say that shouldn't be done. What is unrealistic, though, is to actually have an intervention from above to try to bring history to a dead stop. You can no more stop a mass uprising like that of Iran than you can order people not to breathe-When a mass uprising like those is taking place(especially like that of Iran, where the Shah retained NO support whatsoever)it is impossible to put the metaphorical genie back in the bottle. You can't make a world-historical moment(for good or bad)stop. Having the U.S. use brute force to keep Pahlevi on the Peacock throne would simply have enraged the Iranian people further-and how would THAT have helped anything? No one had the power, in that situation, to make those people accept the preservation of an unjust status quo through the use of external force. That didn't even work in Eastern Europe-it's now clear, for example, that the insane decision of Leonid Brezhnev to send the Warsaw Pact forces(including, in the ultimate historical insult, the East German army)into Prague in 1968 was the nail in the coffin. It led to that whole power structure collapsing through the will of the people, as expressed from below.

The problem in the scenarios we've been discussing here happened far earlier than the crisis moments. The chances of preventing upheaval in all those situations were lost years before the uprisings in each place(the Gaza takeover was somewhat different, and can't really be compared to the Iranian Revolution or the 1917 situation in Russia).

The only way to have stopped the mullahs from taking over in Iran would have been for the U.S. never to have overthrown Mossadegh in the first place(as the way to have prevented the Cuban Revolution from following the path it took would have been for my country to have refrained from overthrowing democratic reformist governments such as that of Guatemala under Arbenz). And the only way to have prevented the Bolsheviks(and ultimately Stalin)from taking power in Russia would have been for the rulers of that country and their allies in Imperial Europe to stop doing all they could to prevent social reform of any sort at all from occurring. In each of those cases, the horrible result that did occur happened NOT because the world's elitists didn't do enough to save tyrants facing popular attack-the result occurred precisely BECAUSE those elites either didn't notice that said tyrants were digging their own historical or even literal graves through their arrogance, corruption and misrule, or simply didn't believe that it was actually possible that the people those tyrants oppressed would ever actually willingly defy them. This was the same mindset, in the Southern states of the U.S., that led the rulers of those states to refuse to be able to admit, even to themselves, that African American people in those states would ever have decided, of their own volition, to defy or even escape their owners, or ever decide a century later to rise up against Jim Crow-the mindset that held, to the bitter end, that the only reason those things happened was due to the devilish work of "outside agitators".

And the Iranian uprising is only temporarily stopped-at a horrible human cost. I hope you would at least admit that, if the Israeli government used THOSE tactics in Palestine, it would forever make it impossible for Israel to even ask any of the Arab countries to make peace with it.

What is your real objective here? To get the world to accept that the Israeli government is entitled to do the things the most horrible countries in the world have done just to keep the Occupation in place? and that if Israel does do those things no one has the right to criticize them for it? Please tell me that's not what you want. I prefer to think that your personal moral compass hasn't slipped that far off course.

No government anywhere is entitled to use repression just to stay in-it's equally wrong no matter what government uses it. And you can't expect Palestinians to accept that they should have to live under the Occupation until the Israeli political leadership is good and ready to let them be free of it. Palestinians have nothing in common with the Germans who put Hitler in power.

In the end...trying to stop a genuine mass revolt with unanimous support(as was the case in Iran, Russia in 1917, Cuba, and Palestine)is like trying to de-activate a volcano by pouring millions of gallons concrete down its mouth.

The only way to keep people from hating you, the only way to ever have any real chance of peace, now that we live in a world in which World War Two endings are no longer possible and never will be again, whoever you happen to be, is to make sure you are helping people break their chains, rather than putting them in those chains in the first place.

So, I have no clarified what I meant now, and I've shown that I'm not an apologist for the Iranian mullahs, so can we please move on from that phrase you've been obsessing about?

Nothing that I said was comparable to being pro-tyranny. Tyranny can always be resisted from below, and I support all who do so. It's not valid to say that the elites of the planet are more qualified to determine who can hold power without degenerating into tyranny than anyone else is-and the fact that most of the world's elitists, in the 1930's, backed Hitler and dismissed the warnings of the activists on the Left who knew what he'd do, proves my point on this.

People who eat fancy meals at Davos are NOT the defenders of our liberties.

[pelsar]

247. u just make stuff up...its amazing how you do that

im always fascinated how you take complex historical events and decide "if only they did this, then something else would have happened. or "the people" would never had agreed if they did "this".

christ! you takes small parts of history, decide upon a single political change and presto-a completely new scenario that you can describe perfectly of the subsequent events. Got news for you, politics are far more complex than your simplistic single changes that cause specific world wide events. Your "scenarios" are nothing more than bed time stories.

_______________________________

The "elites" have no super powers nor can they see the future and they really can screw up (see obamas libya adventure for the latest). At the same time it is the "elites" the educated that tend to float to the top and massage any and all revolutions, be it russias communism or the the US capitalism and the shades inbetween.

Heres a challenge for you
find me a revolution that does not have the educated/elite at the helm once it gets going (i know, you don't like doing research......). that actually succeeds in creating a working society (not a massive failure like zimbabwa)

and when you can't find one, then what? are you still going to believe what you wrote? or just make up something else?



and one more thing: we not asking

I hope you would at least admit that, if the Israeli government used THOSE tactics in Palestine, it would forever make it impossible for Israel to even ask any of the Arab countries to make peace with it.

we're demanding, its their loss if they don't want to

[shira]

190. Post #184 shows BDS has a lot to do with hatred....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=359499&mesg_id=360336

Lots of lies and incitement there, Ken. You think that's okay? Why all the slander and dehumanization? Hint: All Jews are colonists and settlers who don't deserve self-determination like the indigenous Palestinians....

If you're for 2 states, how can you support the BDS demand for 1 state based on "justice"?

[Ken Burch]

193. Omar Barghouti is not the voice of the BDS campaign.

He has a separate agenda.

And a two-state solution can only work if the Palestinian state isn't forced to accept poison pills, like accepting any significant number of the settlements OR having to accept IDF troops in the Jordan River Valley for all eternity.

[shira]

196. LOL! He's the co-founder of the BDS movement and its main spokesperson. n/t

[Ken Burch]

200. There's nothing in that first paragraph he spoke that is hatred

It's just an accurate description of how Palestinians have been treated under the Occupation. There's no justification at all in maintaining the military status quo in the West Bank. Let the innocent majority of Palestinians start living their lives again and you'd see a huge change in feeling. You can't expect any positive change while the Occupation remains in place.

[shira]

202. He says all Israeli Jews are oppressive colonial settlers. That's not dehumanizing hatred?

You're changing your tune now.

Obviously you thought it was hateful enough at first to claim Barghouti is not the BDS movement.

Why the switch in tactics?

[shira]

206. Palestinian minister: Boycott only against settlement products

Palestinian minister: Boycott only against settlement products
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3901780,00.html

[Violet_Crumble]

226. ACCC probes anti-Israel boycotts

Note: the headline's a bit misleading. The ACCC hasn't agreed to investigate yet

THE Baillieu government's pursuit of protesters who targeted a chocolate shop with alleged links to the Israeli military is unprecedented but could have the desired effect of clamping down on future anti-Israel boycotts, a competition law expert says.

Consumer Affairs Minister Michael O'Brien has written to the head of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, Rod Sims, and asked him to investigate whether a group that protested outside Max Brenner's chocolate shop in QV last month has broken federal law by engaging in secondary boycotts.

''To target businesses because they're owned by Israelis or because they do business with Israel is entirely unacceptable and in our view sets a very, very ugly precedent,'' Mr O'Brien said.

<snip>

Greens MP Greg Barber said that if the investigation results in a prosecution it could have a chilling effect on other consumer boycott campaigns.

''I'm telling people to boycott Reflex Paper because it's made from native forest woodchips, so maybe I'll be next,'' Mr Barber said.

But Mr Barber said he expected the investigation to fall over.

''For that matter a 'Buy Australia' campaign can fall foul of it, so Mr O'Brien might not get the result he's looking for,'' he said.


Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/accc-probes-antiisrael-boycotts-20110808-1ijiy.html#ixzz1UXiYdjPI

[shira]

256. (Video) Australians gather to say no to BDS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yEYTUiY5PI