What’s wrong with BDS, after all?

[Israeli]

Israel will be helpless when the discourse moves from who’s stronger/tougher/more resilient to a discourse on rights and values.
By Avraham Burg .

Talk of sanctions has been filling the air lately. Israelis, as always, are certain that the whole world is against us (psycho-national nonsense that will be more broadly discussed here in the future), and that all the world’s overt and covert conspiracies are focused solely on us – out of hatred and anti-Semitism, of course.

Few notice the wonderful paradox whereby official Israel, together with mobilized world Jewry, fights the scourge of sanctions by whining and screaming anti-Semitism, Holocaust and Jew-hatred in chorus. Yet in the very same breath these exact same people utilize any possible tool to advance and intensify the sanctions against Iran, as they did against Hamas until recently. And with useful diplomatic hypocrisy they make every effort not to hurt Syria’s Bashar Assad too much, or Egypt, or another few corrupt targets of Israel’s foreign policy.

Meanwhile, the Palestinian boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement is gaining momentum and is approaching the turning point (rather slowly, it must be said) in which the civic action from below will meet the official policies of governments and parliaments from above, and sanctions against Israel will become a fait accompli. Israel’s finance minister is troubled by the economic consequences, while the American secretary of state is trying to protect us from international isolation. Research institutions are already mapping out their boycotts and sanctions while offering avenues for formulating appropriate Israeli policies. The media are also making their serious or frenzied contributions. Among all this talk, what is conspicuously missing is a real discussion of the ethical meaning of sanctions and their alternatives.

Personally I’m a man of dialogue and believe that a boycott – any boycott – is not a legitimate tool. When my prime minister leaves the room as the Iranian president is speaking, I can’t decide whether he’s an idiot or just being childish, but what’s clear is that he doesn’t represent me at all. I believe in peace and I have no doubt that proper (if pointed) dialogue with the Palestinians will in the end bring two achievements: peace, and the end to the boycotts, ostracism and isolation under discussion. It’s the same with the Iranians, and even with Danny Danon.

Continue reading @
http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.572079

[Scootaloo]

1. About this line...

Personally I’m a man of dialogue and believe that a boycott – any boycott – is not a legitimate tool.

That is self-congratulatory nonsense. The fact is, the vast bulk of people participating in a boycott - any boycott - are not in a position to engage in dialogue with the subject of boycott. It's not like John Harrison of Hoboken New Jersey, phone bank operator and father of two can go down to the Nestle headquarters and have a chat with the CEO about the company's use of child labor in Cameroon or what have you.

[bemildred]

3. Nah, that is the obligatory preliminary contradiction of the outrageous thing you are about to say.

Like saying: "I know Obama has been a terrible President, but we've got to raise the debt ceiling" to a Tea Party acolyte.

I boycott whatever I like, and nobody but me has any say at all in it. Generally, nobody even knows.

The "danger" is that the idea will spread, become popular enough to exert political power. And that's why they try to stifle it. But that's a tactic, not a strategy. Israel doesn't seem to have a strategy, sort of like the US. It's all tactics. Another tactic is keeping products unlabelled as to their origin, this is very popular in the USA since we adopted outsourcing as our industrial strategy. And GMOs, of course.

And yeah, it's too late. Nobody is scared any more. "Deterrence" has been lost.

Edit: what would they say if peace-hungry Israelis started boycotting the settlements? That would wake them up. I can hear the yelling and insults now. The threats, there would be threats.

[Israeli]

36. ever heard of the "Boycott Law" bemildred ?

ref : Edit: what would they say if peace-hungry Israelis started boycotting the settlements? That would wake them up. I can hear the yelling and insults now. The threats, there would be threats.

oh yes there were threats ...you have no idea .

when that did not work they brought in the Boycott Law :

see :
http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/press_releases/1354640289/

The Gush Shalom movement made a public call for a boycott of settlement products some ten years ago, and has published a detailed list of settlement products which its activists kept updating. At the time, settler leaders and right-wing Knesset Members made harsh statements against Gush Shalom.

And precisely after the law was passed in the Knesset, other groups made high profile calls for boycott of the settlements, including "Peace Now" which set up a Facebook page entitled "Prosecute me, I boycott settlement products." Also peace activist Naftali Raz, editor of the online news site "On the Left Side" organized a petition signed by hundreds of people, making an explicit call to boycott settlement products. However, so far the settlers and their supporters did not take up the gauntlet.

[bemildred]

38. Yeah, it's so predictable.

But like the NSA with Snowden, much as they would like to punish him, even more they would like to not talk about it, so they will not "take up the gauntlet" unless they can do it without drawing more attention to the boycott.

[azurnoir]

2. More

But everyone else – the political impotents or the merely indifferent – needs a different approach. Put yourselves for a minute in the Palestinians’ place and try to understand what Israel “allows them” and consider what you would do in their position. A violent Palestinian rebellion? No way! Totally out of the question, not least because it will be put down by a much more violent force. (It’s an undeniable fact that more innocent Palestinians have been killed by Israel than innocent Israelis killed by Palestinians). A diplomatic agreement? You’ve made Naftali Bennett’s rear end and Benjamin Netanyahu’s lost senses laugh. So then what? Nothing? Should they just say thank you and shut up? Would we remain silent and capitulate unconditionally if we were in their place?

Suddenly it turns out that the boycott movement is not just an annoying effort to hit Israelis in the pocket, but a bold and innovative attempt to achieve real diplomatic gains. And in the areas in which I firmly believe require dialogue and solutions: an end to the occupation, the destruction of the separation barrier, recognition of the rights and equality of Israel’s Palestinian citizens, and a solution to the refugee problem. It’s a local and international expression of a totally different type of Palestinian struggle, something new and not so familiar to us – nonviolent resistance. Is that also forbidden?

What emerges from all this is that of all the alternatives being suggested – as if anyone is asking us or has to care what we think – boycotts and sanctions are actually the most kosher. Silencing and repression are bad, and violence is worse. Compared to either method, nonviolent resistance and an unarmed popular uprising don’t sound so bad. The truth is that not all of their people are behind this (just like not all of our people support us), but the direction being outlined is clear, convincing and threatening. Deep down I’m convinced that the tough State of Israel has a response to any expression of force it may face. But it will remain helpless when confronted by a civil rebellion that moves the discourse from who’s stronger/tougher/more resilient to a discourse on rights and values. For this we have no answer.

http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.572079#

[King_David]

4. What's wrong with the BDS crowd is that this boycott has nothing to do with the occupation

The call for a boycott of the Jewish state has been around since 1948 and of Jewish Businesses way way way before that.

Even on a micro level here on DU is a thread that illustrates this nicely.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/113456345

[azurnoir]

5. Thank you for reposting that thread it becomes clear that the whole kerfuffle was artificial

there was no boycott or cancellation of UNESCO's show, the show which despite claims to the contrary was sponsored by Israel was rescheduled - nothing more nothing less

[King_David]

8. The posts are illuminating. especially 1 to 3

In our little DU microcosm , imagine in the real world too....

[azurnoir]

9. ya you keep saying that but that the whole thing was madeup is even more 'revealing'

or illuminating

[King_David]

10. The fact that unesco was forced to backtrack is irrelevant

To what occurred when the BDS crowd thought this was a boycott of a Jewish Exhibit and their total support was very revealing indeed .

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

39. And of course you will provide us all

where UNESCO mentioned just that.

[azurnoir]

40. Really provide proof of that claim because JPost says otherwise

UNESCO delays exhibit on Jewish ties to Land of Israel: It could harm peace process

http://www.jpost.com/International/UNESCO-delays-exhibit-on-Jewish-ties-to-Land-of-Israel-338500

[King_David]

41. You know what's even more revealing than that claim

And not even the fact they backtracked ?

Is the response and cheering of the BDS crowd to the cancellation of a Jewish Exhibition .

Read our thread on it here on DU, start with posts 1-3 , and if you can't find it wait a while I'll kick it up for you .

[azurnoir]

42. JPost 1/17/14:UNESCO delays exhibit on Jewish ties to Land of Israel: It could harm peace process

same date as the article that was posted here but with a less misleading headline

[King_David]

43. I'm talking about the response from the BDS crowd

What they were cheering on was what they thought a cancellation of a Jewish exhibition.

Here read some responses on DU -- start with posts 1 to 3.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/113456345

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

46. We're waiting for you to provide proof of your accusation.

I'm sure we won't be disappointed.

[aranthus]

6. Would you live in an Arab majority state?

Last edited Tue Feb 4, 2014, 07:02 PM - Edit history (1)

One that is potentially Islamist? Would you live in Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia? Because the goal of BDS is to convert Israel into an Arab dominated state. That's what's wrong with it.

[azurnoir]

7. NO Israel already controls an Arab majority

but not everyone has is seen as equal under the law according to Israeli politics

[aranthus]

11. Get real.

Instead of trying to divert, why not deal with the issue honestly? Israel does not control an Arab majority. Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank aren't Israeli citizens, and wouldn't be unless Israel annexes those areas or it becomes a single state. What makes for an Arab majority is when anyone who can claim to be a Palestinian refugee has the right to return to Israel proper.

[azurnoir]

12. No diversion simple truth

sorry it doesn't fit the 'popular' narrative

[King_David]

13. Didn't really refute anything in that non substantial

Response of platitudes.

[azurnoir]

14. Because there was nothing to refute and truth isn't a 'platitude'

at present Israel already rules an Arab majority, I did not say they were all citizens did I?

[aranthus]

17. Of course it's a diversion.

The issue was, and still is, whether there shall be a Jewish state or not. I'm simply asking Israeli if he wants to live in one or in an Arab or Islamist state.

[azurnoir]

34. No once again truth is not a diversion

but I find your claim of either /or rather 'interesting'

[Scootaloo]

15. Wow. Really?

While it's great that you've discarded with any pretense of subtlety in your racist shitmongering - out and proud, right? - it might not actually serve you too well to advertise.

[aranthus]

16. No, it has nothing to do with race.

The Jews of Israel have the right to live in Jewish state; one that embodies Jewish cultural values. It has nothing to do with race.

[Scootaloo]

18. Read your post again.

"Would you live in an Arab Majority State?" That coulda come straight from George wallace, chief.

Also, unless "Jewish cultural values" include racism, piracy, and fascist militarism, Israel's doing a fucking shit job of it. And I'm pretty sure that those traits are at the bottom of the list, if they appear at all (which i'm again pretty sure htye don't"

[aranthus]

21. You understand that there is a big difference

Last edited Wed Feb 5, 2014, 07:05 PM - Edit history (1)

between not wanting to live with Arabs (which I never said), and not wanting to live in a state run according to Arab/Islamic culture. For example, I know and like many Koreans, but I would never choose to live in North Korea. The issue has nothing to do with racism.

[Ken Burch]

27. A unitary state wouldn't HAVE to be a stereotypical "Arab dictatorship"

Palestinian Arabs aren't pathologically anti-democratic. Nor are they driven primarily by anti-Semitism(there are Palestinian anti-Semites, but it's at the same level of importance as anti-Arab bigotry among Israelis...a bad thing, but not the primary force in either community) They've had the leadership structure they've had because that's how most countries under occupation tend to run themselves.

And the tactics the IDF has used against Palestinians are clearly just as morally challenged as the tactics Palestinians use against Israelis. It's not as if violence is ok, as long as you're wearing a uniform.

And before anyone brings this up the situation with the Zionists and the British prior to 1948 was different...because the British always PLANNED to leave the Mandate(as opposed to the Israeli government, which is STILL bound and determined never to pull its soldiers and its illegal settlements out of the West Bank) and never tried on any serious level to keep the Zionist community in a position of permanent subjugation, in the way that Netanyahu and his crazier allies are trying to keep Palestinians permanently subjugated. If the Israelis had said, in 1967, "OK, we'll be out of here in five years", its likely that you'd have seen a far different Palestinian leadership emerge. Once the decision was made to stay and build settlements, it became a totally unrealistic expectation that Palestine would develop a political structure on the lines of post-1945 Western European democracies. Nobody can DO that when you've got foreign troops patrolling your streets for decades making it clear that you are living totally at their mercy, punishing the entire population for the crimes of the few.

What right did Israel's leaders ever have to expect liberalism in Palestine under those circumstances? What right did they have to assign themselves the right to morally judge Palestinians for THEIR leaders' choice of tactics? When is it ever acceptable for the oppressor to claim the right to approve or not approve of the decisions made by the oppressed?

[King_David]

29. Hamas gonna relinquish power and unite Gaza with West Bank ? let alone Israel ...according with your

kumbayah post above>

NEVER

1 state is out, 3 states is in.

[Ken Burch]

32. Hamas exists solely because the war goes on.

A genuine reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians would put Hamas out of business.

And I'm not actually a one-state advocate...I'm just against rigid and lazy thinking on the matter.

If you really want peace, work hard to get Netanyahu and his anti-peace government out of power. Netanyahu is just as big an enemy to Israel as Hamas.

[King_David]

33. Well theres no unity among Palestinians,

So I see a 2 State solution for Palestine --Gaza + West Bank or revival of the reabsorption plan maybe.

[Ken Burch]

35. There's no unity among Israelis, either.

And while the 2 state solution is still the most workable, the reabsorbtion option(the discredited "Jordan is Palestine" canard) is both impossible and immoral.

It's immoral because Palestinians are not Jordanians and won't ever WANT to be Jordanians(Arabs aren't generic and Arab countries aren't identical...they're as distinct as any other countries anywhere else)but it would also involve, at some point, a campaign to overthrow the Hashemite monarchy by force. Given that the Hashemite monarchy is the next-strongest U.S. ally in the region after Israel, you could hardly expect the U.S. to accept its overthrow.

It's time to get the "Jordanian option" totally out of Israeli consciousness. It wasn't workable in the Eighties(back when Likud and Labor BOTH supported it)and it isn't workable now.

The only way is to create a REAL Palestinian state, comprised of all the West Bank, and with a guarantee that, once established, Palestinian sovereignty, like Israeli sovereignty, is to be irrevocable. You can't expect ANY Palestinian leadership with any credibility among ordinary Palestinians to accept anything short of that.

[King_David]

44. There's no unity amongst Israelis but democracy will prevail

In Gaza and Hamas? Not so much.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

47. Democracy takes time, King.

Perhaps someday it will even flourish in Israel after they realize that apartheid and Democracy don't mix.

[Ken Burch]

52. This isn't about whether either of us prefers democracy to dictatorship.

I'm as pro-democracy as you are, and as anti-Hamas. But history proved that keeping the IDF in Gaza was never going to bring down Hamas(there were no potential democratic alternatives to Hamas that ever emerged in Gaza while the IDF was still there.)

The way to get rid of groups like Hamas is to change the conditions that spawned them. Hamas didn't exist as a political force in Gaza prior to 1967, prior to the Occupation. Hamas was created by the Occupation(and, in fact, as a number of posters have pointed out, the Israeli government actually encouraged Hamas' growth in the Eighties as an alternative to the PLO...because NOTHING was ever more important than "stopping the PLO"...and look at how wonderfully that strategy worked out). So it's hollow and hypocritical for anybody in the Israeli government to denounce Hamas, because it's that government that gave Hamas its big break in show business. You should be calling out the Likud for that...yet, as far as I know, you never do.

This isn't a fight between democracy and dictatorship...or a fight against Jews(between 1933 and 1945, it was a hell of a lot safer to be Jewish and live in the Arab/Muslim world than it was to live in Warsaw or Berlin, as you should be well aware if you know any history at all). The issue is one nation holding another nation down.

Militarily, this is at permanent stalemate(like the World War was in the fall of 1918). Politically, both sides share blame. Therefore, the only way is some sort of negotiations...negotiations held AFTER the cessation of military hostilities.

[Ken Burch]

20. The West Bank Occupation is a TOTAL BETRAYAL of the values of Judaism and Jewish culture.

Judaism was never a religion of conquest or of the subjugation of others. Jewish cultures were never about holding down peoples of any other cultures.

Zionism is no different than any other nationalist movement...and nationalism, in the end, always becomes reactionary and hate-driven. It ends up destroying the poetry and beauty of any nation that embraces it. Look at Northern Ireland. Look at Serbia. Look at the U.S. in the Old West era and under Nixon, Johnson, Reagan and both Bushes.

The world can only survive if it moves past nationalism and embraces universal humanity.

The worst thing is that Zionism, born legitimately out of the insane European anti-Semitic fervor of the late 19th Century, is now doing nothing but encouraging anti-Semitism. It's only making life worse for Jews, in Israel AND the Diaspora.

And that has become a much more massive problem since the rise of Netanyahu-a man who keeps making life worse for Palestinians because he knows that his party and his form of Zionism depend on Israel always being at war(even if this war causes unjust backlash against both Israeli Jewish people and Diaspora Jews)and on the belief that the world has it in for Israel and Jews...especially since it is perfectly clear that Netanyahu is willing to make Israel a less secure country and Jews a more endangered people globally to secure his own political survival.

The greatest enemy of Israel isn't Iran...or Hamas...or the AL-Aksa Martyrs Brigade...it is the Likud Party and all those to Likud's right.
The only real hope Israel has of a peaceful future is to cast its reactionaries on the political ashheap.

Nothing positive can happen at all as long as Netanyahu, or those worse than him, hold power over the people of Israel.

[aranthus]

23. We've had discussions about these issues before

and I see no further point to them. When you get to Earth maybe we can talk.

[shaayecanaan]

25. What?

http://biblia.com/bible/esv/1%20Samuel%2015.3

[King_David]

30. You and Scootooloo seem to be the only experts on Jews and Jewish Culture in this world,

Experts.

[Ken Burch]

19. You are assuming that EVERY Arab state that ever came into existence for the rest of history

would HAVE to be just like Syria, Jordan, or Saudi Arabia(all of which, actually, are currently in flux and may radically transform in a few years)

and you are assuming that ANY state in which Palestinians and Israelis lived as equals would have to be a state in which the Palestinians would be driven, not by any desire to make a decent life for all, not by any impulse for democracy or civility, not by any core humanity at all, but rather simply by "hatred of Jews&quot which means you also assume that Palestinians never had any valid reasons to revolt against the post-1967 status quo at all, but were nothing more but insanely self-denying bigots).

And you are also assuming that there is no way, in a unified scenario, that any good will, any fellow-feeling, any desire to transcend tribal resentment could ever come to the for.

In short, you are assuming that Arabs are indistinguishable from Germans in 1939. Disturbing and shameful.

You are also assuming that the only possible outcome of a BDS boycott would be the creation of a unitary state. There's no reason to assume that that is the case. The current BDS goals can be modified just as the goals of any other movement can be. You can't simply assume that all supporters of BDS are driven by an obsession with making life miserable for Israeli Jews.

Some are driven by the desire to end the injustice of the current situation. Supporters of Israel could win these people over by, for a change, actually giving ordinary Palestinians some breathing space and offering some reason, some real reason, to believe that a two-state solution could actually lead to a genuinely better life for Palestinians and some reason to think that, if a Palestinian state ever were to be created, Israel would NOT reserve the right to revoke the sovereignty of state and restore the Occupation at a moment notice(dropping the insane and unjustified demand to have IDF troops in the Jordan Valley for the rest of eternity would do a lot to instill confidence on that, and wouldn't harm Israeli security in the slightest).

It's time to admit that Palestinians aren't driven by bigotry...that they HAVE legitimate reasons to want self-determination...and that they are just as capable of displaying common humanity, common decency, and voluntarily rational behavior as any other people. Is it asking too much to expect Israel's leaders to finally do that?

It goes without saying that Palestinians would do EVERYTHING they've done in the conflict with Israel to anybody else who would have treated them this way. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the ethnicities and forms of religion that Israel as a state purports to represent, since none of those cultures and none of those forms or religion were ever based, historically, on the taking of land for the sake of taking land.

[aranthus]

22. All of your assumptions about my assumptions are wrong. n/t

[Ken Burch]

28. Then clarify what you DO assume

And, if you don't want a unitary state, start speaking out, LOUDLY, against Netanyahu and all that his reactionary, anti-peace government are doing.

The Israeli government is harming Israel and Israelis by continuing the Occupation.

It's harming Israel and Israelis by imposing collective punishment and collective hardship on ALL Palestinians because of the actions of a violent minority(knowing full well that no one who isn't in that minority has any ability to stop what the minority does).

It's harming Israel and Israelis by building more settlements(the construction of EVERY new settlement is nothing but a declaration of opposition to peace...there are NO positive or humanist intentions behind the settlements...and really, they aren't even good for the settlers, because all they do is encourage the settlers to act on their worst impulses, to act like conquerors, to act like ethnic-religious supremacists, to treat Palestinians as nothing but a barely-human form of cheap labor.

And it's harming Israel and Israelis by continuing to push, even though Netanyahu knows the idea is insane and unjustified, for a military strike against Iran...an action that can't make anything better, can't possibly make the Iranians take a more-conciliator policy towards Israel, and can only lead to a regional war involving, probably, both the United States and Russia(an conflict that couldn't possibly be good for anyone.

Netanyahu is Israel's greatest enemy. If you oppose BDS and want a two-state solution, you need to put campaigning for the removal of Netanyahu and his pro-death government from power. If you won't do that, you really have no right to criticize those who back BDS at all.

Are you for peace and life, or war and death?

[King_David]

31. BDS are not interested in opposing the occupation,

The only thing they want to boycott are Jewish Businesses or Jewish exhibitions etc

See the UNESCO threads for more illumination.

[aranthus]

50. I've done that before as well, but here goes again.

I believe that the Jews of Israel have a right to a state of their own, and that taking that away from them to create one more Arab state would be a moral wrong.

I believe that the loss of the one Jewish state in the world would be a net loss for the entire human race.

I believe that no state can long survive without a single unifying culture, and in fact, the only reason that states exist is to protect and promote a national culture.

I believe that any state that is democratic will take on the culture of the majority. Again that is the entire point of having a state in the first place.

In most states, that culture will be created by the ethnic majority. Even in those states which we might call "civic states" (thanks to Shaktiman for the term), the civil culture is based on an ethnic culture. For example, the culture of the United States is based on that of the English people. France is based on French culture.

I believe that any single state created out of Israel/Palestine will necessarily have an Arab/Muslim majority, and that it will necessarily have an Arab/Muslim character. Indeed, if it is truly democratic, it must.

You will notice that of all of the above assumptions, none of them is even about Arab/Muslim culture, other than to assume that such a thing exists.

[Ken Burch]

51. I also support Israel's existence(and that what Israel is recognized "as" doesn't matter...

Last edited Thu Feb 6, 2014, 03:56 AM - Edit history (2)

...since recognizing Israel's existence automatically means recognizing it as the state it is.)

I also believe that no state can be allowed to build itself on the basis of the suppression of another national community...that no culture has the right to subordinate another culture...and that people of different cultures can co-exist together on the level of human equality(something I feel just as strongly about regarding my own country and most of the nations of the English-speaking imperial tradition as I do about Israel and any other country of the world).

(As to culture, Israel has SEVERAL cultures among its dominant religious/ethnic bloc...many of which have little use for each other...some of which keep insisting that the others have no right to even BE in Israel. The place seems to roll right along in spite of this. I don't support a unitary state for the whole region, but it's not clear that, if it was practical, it would make anything worse. And if the dominant culture in Israel wants Arabs to feel less hostile to it, it might try being less hostile to its own Arab minority, might consider NOT tearing down the Bedouin villages in the Negev(face it, nobody but the Bedouins WANTS to live in the Negev...you should read up on the totally failed campaigns by Ben-Gurion to get Israeli Jews to live there if you don't believe me)and might at least consider NOT treating Palestinians and other Arabs as if, singularly among the peoples of the Earth, they are somehow frozen in time, incapable of change unless outsiders force it on them through conquest, incapable of honorable behavior unless forced to engage in it by the terms of a surrender treaty). Palestinians and other Arabs are no more monolithic, no more incapable of choosing to improve as human beings, no less loving of life than anybody else. They are just another group of people.)

I believe that, while a unitary state is unworkable at this point, most of those who advocate it are people of sincere goodwill and good intent...people who started as supporters of a two-state solution(a position all Israeli governments and their supporters anathemized as "anti-Israel" prior to 1994, even though they knew there was no workable alternative to it that could possibly lead to peace)but who switched to supporting a single-state position out of anguish and despair, because they came to believe that the Israeli side in this dispute was too intransigent and too ideologically committed to the bigoted and reactionary "Eretz Yisroel" position to ever be open to a true two-state structure. I also think that most of those people, at least in Europe, the UK, and North America turned to support of a single-state option because the Israeli government was creating infrastructure arrangements that would, as they saw it, make it impossible for a Palestinian state on the West Bank and including Gaza to be truly free of Israeli control...that they concluded that all that could be expected for Palestinians was a truncated "statelet-on-sufferance" whose sovereignty and independence could be revoked at a moment's notice through an IDF invasion(all Israeli proposals on a two-state position denied Palestinians any right to self-defense, and asked the Palestinians to accept a security structure that implied that Israel could be trusted to leave Palestine alone but that Palestine could NEVER be trusted to do the same regarding Israel...in other words, "peace" predicated on forcing whatever Palestinian leadership signed on to this concept to accept a standing insult against their nation and its capacity to behave honorably by choice.)

Thus, I think that the single-state supporters are disillusioned progressives whom Israel and its supporters could win back by giving up their insistence on subjugating even an independent Palestinian state in a "peace process", by granting parity-of-esteem between Israelis AND Palestinians, and by ending such practices as collective punishment of ALL Palestinians for the actions of a few(and of collective impoverishment of Palestinians through interference in NGO projects designed to make life better for Palestinians...I assume you would agree, for example, that there was no good reason for the IDF to have destroyed those solar energy systems that the NGO's had decided to stop waiting for Occupation approval for before building, and that the re-routing of water supplies from Palestinian villages to the irrigation systems of the settlements should stop, too).


And I believe that everyone who claims to support Israel's continued existence in its current character has an obligation, a particular obligation, to stand against the forces of reaction, hatred, and ugliness that currently lead the Israeli government...forces that are acting objectively(and probably intentionally as well)to prevent the establishment of the conditions in which peace and reconciliation could occur. I believe those forces(the parties of Revisionist Zionism, represented in more moderate form by Likud and in more extreme form by most of Likud's coalition partners)see peace and reconciliation as being directly opposed to their political survival...and are right to see this, since an Israel in a condition of real peace with Palestine and Palestinians would be a state in which support for Revisionist Zionism would completely vanish.

Finally, while I support the emergence of a democratic leadership on the Palestinian side, it's not realistic to expect this while the Occupation goes on. Contrary to those who cite past occupations in other countries as incubators for democracy, the West Bank Occupation can't have that effect among Palestinians. The Occupations in Germany and Japan were always meant to be temporary. It was always made clear that the occupying troops in those countries would leave, and leave sooner rather than later. Acts of violence resistance during THOSE occupations resulted in punishment of the individuals involved...NOT punishments of and restrictions against everyone in occupied Germany and Japan. The Occupation authorities in those places didn't try to control who would and who would not be the political leaderships of the occupied nations, nor did they threaten to stay on if leaders the didn't approve of came to power.
The occupying powers in those occupations worked constantly to improve the standard of living of ordinary people in those countries...they never used deliberate impoverishment and restriction of food or water supplies to impose their will. And, most important of all, those occupations never led to the creation of American settlements on Japanese and German soil designed to create an American majority in Germany and Japan in preparation for the annexation of Germany and Japan as American states. Thus, past occupations can't be compared to this occupation at all.

This occupation is designed to prevent peace and reconciliation by creating conditions that would make it impossible, no matter what, for the Palestinian people to accept Israel and live with it in a spirit of friendship. It is designed to switch the demographic majority in the West Bank(if you believe it would be wrong to create an Arab majority in Israeli, aren't you equally obligated to believe it would be wrong to artificially create a Jewish majority in the West Bank? Aren't both ideas essentially the same injustice?) and therefore, to make it impossible to create a Palestinian state in the West Bank at all. I believe this would lead to an equally unjust "one-state solution"...Israel, expanded to cover most of the West Bank, with Palestinians reduced to nothing but a few "bantustans" that would be doomed to failure, forcing Palestinians to go back to the intolerable choice Israeli governments were determined to force them into prior to 1994: citizenship, as exiles in a different Arab country(possibly one hundreds of miles away)or statelessness in their homeland. Since no significant group of Palestinians could ever be expected to accept this immoral non-choice, the only possible outcome would be permanent war...and, at a certain point, Israel would pretty much forfeit any right to continue to even ask the U.S. to keep arming it in that war, since there's no way a situation like that would ever sync-up to U.S. foreign policy interests in the Middle East.

If you live in Israel, you should be protesting Netanyahu, his opposition to peace, and his implicit support for the scenario I laid out in that past paragraph, and doing all you can to get his anti-peace, anti-common humanity coalition government out of office. If you live in the U.S. you should be calling out AIPAC and its notion that the way to "support Israel" is to support the Israeli Right(this means you should also be speaking out against Netanyahu's insane calls for a military strike against Iran, a strike that couldn't have ANY positive results and could lead to few possible outcomes other than a shooting war between Israel and Iran that could kill thousands of innocent people on both sides.

The choice is the perpetuation of the status quo, or peace. Clearly it's impossible to have both.

That's what I believe.

And I believe it out of support for Israel's continued existence, support for peace, support for a decent life and a future with some sort of hope for the Palestinians, and opposition to both anti-Semitism and anti-Arabism(both of which are equally wrong).

[Israeli]

56. fantastic post Ken ...

[Ken Burch]

58. Thanks.

Hope things are good for you.

[Israeli]

59. they are ok Ken...

...apart from hoping for any chance of peace from this latest " peace process "

Its become a farce :

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4485311,00.html

[Israeli]

37. our goal ...

at Gush Shalom was to end the occupation aranthus , which is why 11 years ago we called for a boycott of settlement produce .

this was the end result :
http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/campaigns/settlements_products

Now the times they are a changin ....
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/12/israel-international-boycott-occupation-settlements-lobby.html

I cant comment on the international boycott movement as I am not a part of it but I suspect that their goals are not what you suggest they are .

[aranthus]

48. Well that's a cop out.

You can't comment about the International BDS movement because you aren't a part of it? Does that mean that the only people who can comment on Zionism are Zionists? That only Republicans can comment on the Conservative movement? You can't seriously mean that. Nor is it credible that you don't know anything about the movement. Have you never heard of Omar Barghouti?

[Israeli]

55. I'm learning ...

this place has been an eye opener for me .

and yes I have heard of Omar Barghouti .... it would be impossible for me not to have , he belongs to a very prominent Palestinian family .

[Mosby]

45. It's interesting that Israeli won't answer your question directly.

[aranthus]

49. Indeed.

Between his silence and the comments that have been posted, one gets a very clear picture of the anti-Israel crowd.

[Israeli]

54. Its she aranthus...

" anti-Israel " my ass .

I've lived here for 63 years aranthus .....where have you been all that time ?

[aranthus]

57. My apologies on both counts. n/t

[Israeli]

60. Apologies accepted ....

now should I add some snide remark on why you did not answer my question ????

[aranthus]

61. Well first of all, I don't think I made any snide remark about you not answering.

At least it wasn't intended to be snide. It was an observation that you didn't answer and what that might mean. Second, your question appeared to be rhetorical, and I took the point. However, if you truly want an answer, here it is. For some of those 63 years I did not exist as a physical entity, so depending on your philosophical and religious beliefs I could have been nowhere or everywhere. Most of my life has been spent in Southern California, although I have visited other parts of the United States, North and South America and Europe. I have never been to the Middle East, although I have lots of family there, and I have studied the history and politics of the region for many years. Finally, although I readily admit that living there gives a person special insight into Israel/Palestine, I'm less convinced that it defines one's allegiance. I have read many people who live in Israel who would much rather it didn't exist.

[Israeli]

63. It means I did not like your choices aranthus.

...given a choice I prefer " a non-ideological, secular, liberal democratic state, to be officially neither Jewish nor Arab in character. "

I'm a post zionist and an atheist .

" I'm less convinced that it defines one's allegiance. I have read many people who live in Israel who would much rather it didn't exist. "

Dont dare try and question my allegiance ....I was born here and know no other home .
My family have lived here for generations ...I lost a brother and many friends and loved ones during the years of my life here ......my son is currently serving his country as an officer in one of the most elite units we have ... six years of his life already .

You have " read " ..... !!!!!!

I bow down to your superior knowledge ....without giving me examples of who these people may be I cant really comment .

[Israeli]

53. well Mosby...

I kind of did ....
see :
http://www.democraticunderground.com/113457281

[aranthus]

62. Actually, you didn't.

And I suppose in some way it's not an easy question to answer. But let me ask you another question. What does it mean to be Israeli? I recognize that at some level it simply means being a citizen of the state, but that's superficial. I'm interested in the deeper character of the nation. For example, being American means believing certain things. Shaktiman writes about America being a "civic state" because we are country of shared values. If you see Israel that way, what values are they? Where do they come from? How "shared" are they between Israeli Jews and Arabs? Between Israeli Jews and Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza? Or in the Diaspora? If there is gong to be a post-Zionist Israel, then what is the ideological and cultural basis of the state? And who gets to decide that? My supposition is that just as the French have different ideas of what their state should be than the English, that Palestinians have different ideas about what a state should be than Jews. If you disagree, then what are their points of commonality?

[Israeli]

64. What does it mean to be Israeli?

It means that you are a citizen of the State of Israel aranthus.

We have our own culture and history ... I suggest you " read " up on Tom Segev .

What it doesnt mean is that we are part or parcel of the dream of a greater Israel .

[Violet_Crumble]

65. I love Tom Segev. Have you read 'The Seventh Million'?

It's a really good book....

btw, gotta share this kinda off-topic thing with you. I went to the annual Multicultural Festival they have here, and the Israel stall was the only one that gave out bags of goodies. I can forgive them for the tackiness of the bag coz the goodies inside aren't too bad and their marketing crapped all over the other countries that turned up. I've now got a recipe for Shakshukal along with some stinky spice, so I'm attempting to make it tomorrow...

[Israeli]

66. Morning Violet_Crumble....

...yes I have .
Have you read Elvis in Jerusalem ?
If not you should .
ref : http://www.amazon.com/Elvis-Jerusalem-Post-Zionism-Americanization-Israel/dp/B0000T70J0

How did your Shakshuka go ?

Every time I visit my daughter she makes me take her here for breakfast ....



she lives in Florentine which is just a short walk to old Jaffa , if you ever visit you should try
Dr. Shakshuka out ....its a great restaurant ....here I will throw in another recipe for you

http://theshiksa.com/2010/07/28/summer-2010-travel-blog-shakshuka/

Whats the name of the stinky spice ????

[Violet_Crumble]

67. Evening, Israeli...

It's 10:30pm Sunday here...

Thanks for the book tip. I'll grab a copy when I'm financial again...

I didn't try cooking Shakshuka today. It was too hot when I woke up this morning to do anything in the kitchen, so I'm waiting for it to cool down and try it out next weekend. I'm not good on spices, but I think the little baggy of spice I got is cumin. It's red and smells pretty strong.

[Israeli]

68. Its just after 2:15pm here now ....

.....here its sunny but cold ....but not enough rain this winter .

sounds like cumin , has a strong smell .....use it sparingly .

[shaayecanaan]

24. It would have been better if whites had continued to rule...

“It would have been better if whites had continued to rule because the money would have continued to come,” added a neighbor, a 58-year-old farmer named Isaac. “It was better under Rhodesia. Then we could get jobs. Things were cheaper in stores. Now we have no money, no food.”

Over and over, I cringed as I heard Africans wax nostalgic about a nasty, oppressive regime run by a tiny white elite. Black Zimbabweans responded that at least that regime was more competent than today’s nasty, oppressive regime run by the tiny black elite that surrounds Mr. Mugabe.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/08/opinion/08kristof.html?_r=0

[Deep13]

26. I'm sure those invested in the S. African aparteid state felt the same way about boycotts. nt