Bibi has turned me into an 'anti-Semite'

[Israeli]

Now that Israel's prime minister has defined boycott supporters as 'classical anti-Semites in modern garb,' I'm trying to get used to my new identity.

By Roy Isacowitz | Feb. 19, 2014

I’ve spent the last couple of days battling to come to terms with the fact that I’m an anti-Semite.
It’s not an easy thing to accept for someone who has been Jewish since birth, has lived in Israel for over 40 years and who likes to believe that he doesn’t have a racist bone in his body. In fact, it’s a real blow.
But it must be true because Prime Minister Netanyahu said it was – and we all know that Bibi would never play fast and loose with the truth on matters as sacred as anti-Semitism and the Holocaust.

To be specific, Netanyahu described supporters of a boycott against Israel, of which I am one, as “classical anti-Semites in modern garb.” In the past, the prime minister said earlier this week, “anti-Semites boycotted Jewish businesses - and today they call for the boycott of the Jewish state.”
Case closed. Everyone who supports a boycott against Israel as a means of pressuring it to drop its insane and suicidal dominion over the Palestinian people is a classical anti-Semite. Not an ordinary, run-of-the-mill kind of anti-Semite, note, but a classical one – the type who flips through the Protocols of Zion before turning out the light at night and believes that Jews use Christian blood in baking their matzot.
It’s also worth noting that the government’s boycott law specifically includes any “area under Israel’s control,” which means that even refraining from drinking Golan wine is a sure sign of anti-Semitism. So, the next time you want to check the place of origin of a packet of parsley in the supermarket, think again. Next thing you know, you’ll be spray-painting swastikas on walls.

It’s like drugs, this anti-Semitism stuff. You start with something small, like avoiding herbs from Gush Etzion, and before you know it you’re foaming at the mouth and mainlining Mein Kampf. Or arguing that disinvestment might prompt Israeli businessmen to pay a little more attention to what’s going on in their back yard.
Same thing, really; anti-Semitism is anti-Semitism. Only a proto-anti-Semite would look for nuances in the filth and the muck. Luckily, we have our sharp and unerring prime minister to fend off the danger and keep us on the straight and narrow. Only he knows how fiendishly devious the anti-Semites really are.

..............

[Israeli]

1. more ......

.......

It’s going to take me time to get used to being a classical anti-Semite. It’s like discovering in my sixties that my biological father was actually Himmler or that I was mistakenly swapped with another baby at birth. (I wonder if he also turned out to be an anti-Semite.) An entire lifetime of self-discovery needs to be scrapped and the process begun again from scratch.

Not that it was entirely unexpected, to be honest. I understood relatively early on that the progressive, non-racial Judaism I imbibed with my mother’s milk (what was in that damn milk, for Christ sake?) was very far from the Judaism that drives Israel. So, pretty much from the start, I’ve been a bit of a Jewish sore thumb in Israel; an anachronism among my exclusivist and revanchist fellow Jews.

But I never thought of myself as an anti-Semite. A non-mainstream Israeli, certainly; a non-Zionist, probably – even, perhaps, a quasi-self-hating Jew. But never an anti-Semite.
Now, thanks to the prime minister, I have seen the light. I’m too old and too set in my ways to change my politics, so I’m just going to have to get used to being an anti-Semite and make the best of it. Learn to love my anti-Semitic self, as contemporary pop-psychology would have it.

And I’m pleased to say that there do seem to be some glimmers of illumination, if not exactly hope. For one thing, we anti-Semitic boycotters seem to be souring the mood of the prime minister and his cohorts. There’s no doubt that they’re concerned by all this boycott stuff - very concerned, even - and concerned Jews should make an anti-Semite happy, I guess. I’m still a novice anti-Semite, so I don’t really know. But the signs are good.

Then there’s the odd, niggling doubt I’ve had on occasion about my political positions – like on Iran, for example. To me, Netanyahu has always seemed to have a Strangelovian obsession with nuking Iran, but I’ll admit to moments during which I’ve questioned whether perhaps he knows more about what’s going on than I do; he is the prime minister, after all.

Now, I no longer have to worry. As an anti-Semite, I can trash the Jewish prime minister without qualm or conscience. After all, if being pro-Israel means being as intellectually dishonest as the prime minister is, then being an anti-Semite is probably a step up.

Source:
http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.575170

[shira]

2. He called the BDS movement antisemitic, and BDS is not....

...specifically for ending the occupation/settlements as much as it's against the very existence of Israel.

This article is disingenuous.

[Israeli]

3. Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) and the American Jewish Community

http://muzzlewatch.com/2014/03/13/boycott-divestment-and-sanctions-bds-and-the-american-jewish-community/

Alongside BDS’s increasing strength have come increasingly virulent attacks on, and campaigns against it. These attacks tend to employ similar language and tactics – as if the groups are all cribbing from the same talking points – including tarring BDS supporters as “anti-Semitic” and “delegitimizers.”

These attacks simply don’t address or grapple with the core aspirations or realities of BDS. As described by Hanan Ashrawi, executive committee member of the PLO, in a recent letter in the New York Times, BDS “does not target Jews, individually or collectively, and rejects all forms of bigotry and discrimination, including anti-Semitism.” She goes on to explain that “B.D.S. is, in fact, a legal, moral and inclusive movement struggling against the discriminatory policies of a country that defines itself in religiously exclusive terms, and that seeks to deny Palestinians the most basic rights simply because we are not Jewish.”

The use of name-calling like “anti-Semites” and “delegtimizers” is problematic for a number of reasons, not only because its claims are untrue, but also because it takes the focus off the real issue at hand – whether and how Israel is, in fact, violating international law and basic human rights principles – and, instead, recklessly impugns the characters of those advocating for Israel to be held accountable.

These attacks against BDS appear to be an almost desperate reaction to the increasing successes of BDS, not only in the world at large, but also within the broader Jewish community itself. Respected members of the liberal Jewish community as well as a few liberal Zionist groups that were vehemently anti-BDS are now calling for boycotts against products made in the settlements and are engaging with the issue publicly. Further, the mission and vision of groups like Jews Say No and Jewish Voice for Peace – “a diverse and democratic community of activists inspired by Jewish tradition to work together for peace, social justice, and human rights” – are resonating with increasing numbers of Jews who support BDS as a natural outgrowth of their commitments. And that movement is growing in partnership with the broader Palestinian-led movement for justice.

How should the rest of the Jewish community respond? Ad hominem attacks on BDS just will not do. It is time for BDS opponents to take a deep breath. Consider this: BDS is a principled response to Israel’s actions and behavior as an occupier. It is a profound call by Palestinians – and supporters world-wide–for justice. It is not BDS that should be opposed, but, rather, the very policies and practices that have made BDS necessary.

[shira]

4. Omar Barghouti of BDS was quoted being in favor of Israel's Euthanasia.

He has been quoted many times in favor of a state where Jews are the minority population.

Of course he rambles about "equal rights" for everyone but have you ever seen Barghouti or BDS advocates ever speak out for women's rights, gays, christians, Jews....under Hamas or Fatah administration? No? I didn't think so. What he advocates is another Jordan or Syria or Egypt or Lebanon.

And Jews should just accept such a situation.

Be real.

[Israeli]

5. Its not about your religion shira ....

....its about justice and equal rights for citizens of my country not yours.

"Would justice and equal rights for all really destroy Israel? Did equality destroy the American South? Or South Africa? Certainly, it destroyed the discriminatory racial order that had prevailed in both places, but it did not destroy the people or the country."
~ Omar Barghouti

"The answer is clear. On the very day that nonviolence becomes Palestine’s official policy, Israel’s violent occupation policy is over. The current hysteria over boycotts and sanctions testifies to this."
~ Avraham Burg

Why Israel Fears the Boycott
by Omar Barghouti
@ http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/01/opinion/sunday/why-the-boycott-movement-scares-israel.html?hpw&rref=opinion&_r=1

What’s wrong with BDS, after all?
by Avraham Burg former speaker of the Knesset.
@ http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.572079

[shira]

6. What makes you think there will be equal rights for all if Jews in Israel....

...become a minority like they were througout the mideast prior to 1948?

There weren't equal rights for all women, gays, christians, blacks, and jews prior to 1948 throughout the mideast, nor afterwards. Are you taking some leap of religious faith hoping that Fatah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad will "see the light" and will immediately work to guarantee genuine equal rights for all once they come into power over a Jewish minority?

Are you anxious to live under sharia rule?

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

I don't think Yitzak Rabin would approve of your support for 1-state with a Jewish minority. He's probably rolling in his grave knowing he has "supporters" like yourself.

[Israeli]

7. there is not equal rights ...

for women, gays, christians, blacks, and non jews today shira ....never mind prior to 1948.
you Americans are way ahead of us ...are you denying us the right to be more like you ?

" Are you anxious to live under sharia rule? "....

about as anxious as I am to live under halachic ones :
ref : http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3816755,00.html

only one seems to be way in control over my day to day life than the other ...
guess which one ?

[shira]

10. You think Rabin would approve of yr rightward shift to 1-state, jewish minority....

...under sharia law?

Seriously - what makes you think that with Hamas, Fatah, Islamic Jihad and the PFLP in charge (and with a Jewish minority) the new Palestine would have equal rights like America? Believing that nonsense makes ultra-orthodox fundies appear quite rational in comparison.

[Israeli]

16. I'm Gush Shalom shira ....

still hanging on to this :

http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/about/aims/

by our finger nails .

Do you think Rabin would approve of todays Gov ...of Naftali Bennett and Moshe Feiglin ...and Bibi of the balcony ?
Sure shira ... to quote yourself ..." He's probably rolling in his grave knowing " ...that those that were behind the incitement that led to his assassination are now in power and doing everything they can to destroy the Oslo Accords and any chance of Peace .

[shira]

18. If you're for 2 states, then stop contradicting yrself w/ support of 1-state. n/t

[Israeli]

20. 'How great it is to be right-wing!'

[shira]

21. Here at DU/IP your BDS friends believe Shlomo ben Ami is rightwing

http://www.democraticunderground.com/113459115

He's a liberal Zionist, at least as much or more than Rabin, yet he's seen as the enemy.

So sure, your best "friends" here get a kick out of bashing Israel's Rightwing, but don't fool yourself into thinking they feel PeaceNow are their allies in Israel. They're not. They just believe PeaceNow is rightwing and Israel's settlers are super Rightwing.



Even Gush Shalom's platform is unjust and racist to them.

But don't believe me, just ask them yourself. After all, what are u afraid of?

[RedRoses323]

11. ....

[MNBrewer]

15. Ugh. Religion DOES poison everything.

[shira]

19. You want Israel to be like America? There are plenty in the USA who complain....

...that women and minorities of all stripes are not equal. You're at DU, so it wouldn't be terribly difficult to find MANY here who'd laugh at your notion of equality here in America.

There isn't one nation in the world where discrimination is absent.

[King_David]

24. Americans are way ahead of Israel in Gay rights?

Please don't insult us .

[aranthus]

25. Does Israel allow same sex marriage?

I'm not bagging on Israel's gay rights record, nor am I defending what goes on in some states in the US (see Arizona). But I don't think it's as simple as one country being way ahead of the other or equal. They are different. Hello, they are different countries, which is what makes the world interesting.

[King_David]

29. Yes in the same way as most USA states do

Gay marriage is recognized if it took place elsewhere.

Disgraceful in both jurisdictions.

[aranthus]

22. You're talking to someone who doesn't care.

Someone who claims to be Israeli, but who also claims that this isn't about "your religion". Not "our religion." Not "Jews." Maybe Israeli is actually Israeli, maybe he/she is even Jewish, but so far to the Left that it doesn't matter. All he/she can do is support the original disingenuous article with more deception. The fundamental goal of BDS is to make Israel an Arab majority state, and the BDS crowd know it. That's why they work so hard to cover it up.

[King_David]

23. Maybe she is Israeli

but changes constantly from extreme left wing ideology to extreme anti immigrant ideology in different days.

Zionist to AntiZionist and to what's called post Zionist and sometimes cookie-monster Zionist depending on the weather.

[aranthus]

26. I'm more concerned with what Israeli writes than in what Israeli claims to be.

And you have described it neatly.

[Israeli]

39. Oh I am King_David.....

I dont consider myself to be extreme anything but if you want to be the judge be my guest .
BTW I'm a post zionist , period .

[shira]

32. This is all propaganda and deception to them. A game....

Hide their true views as much as possible while remaining on the attack...

[aranthus]

70. What else have they got? n/t

[Israeli]

38. On the contrary aranthus....

I care very much .
Its my country after all .

I'm an Israeli atheist .

How well do you know us ?

lets lighten things up a bit .....do you enjoy satire ?

from one of my favorite TV shows , just for you :

[aranthus]

69. Let's be clear.

In post #4 Shira argues that Omar Barghouti wants BDS because he wants to change Israel from a Jewish majority state to an Arab majority state. Your response was that it wasn't about shira's "religion" as if shira was making a religious based argument. Now I'm not a very religious Jew, but even I know that the Jews are a peoplehood as well as a religion, and that that shira was making an argument about the rights of the Jewish people in Israel. Now non-Jews tend to not get that, which is why I suggested that you might not be Jewish. That isn't much relevant unless you start claiming to be part of the Israeli mainstream, which you clearly aren't. In any event, my point was that you don't care if Israel becomes an Arab people majority state instead of a Jewish people majority state. That much is clear from what you write, the posts you choose to ignore, and your defense of BDS. But the Jews of Israel have a right to that state.

[Israeli]

72. well if it wasnt a religious based argument ....

what was it then ?
a nationalistic based argument ?
but but shira is American .

I dont believe in the myth of a Jewish people aranthus......sorry .
I'm a post zionist ....I suggest you do some studying into what we believe .

Here read this for starters :
http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1282429124/

In his article, Avineri argued passionately that Israel is a Jewish state “as Poland is a Polish state and Greece is a Greek state”. He was responding to a Palestinian citizen of Israel, Salman Masalha, who had asserted that there cannot be a “Jewish state”, much as - he says - there cannot be a “Muslim state” or a “Catholic state”.

How can one compare, Avineri cried out. After all, the Jews are a people! Israel belongs to the Jewish people, whose religion is Judaism.

Logical, isn’t it?

BY NO means. The analogy does not fit.

If Poland belongs to the Poles and Greece to the Greeks, Israel belongs to the Israelis. But the Israeli government does not recognize the existence of an Israeli nation. (The courts have not yet decided upon the petition by some of us to be recognized as belonging to the Israeli nation.)

If Avineri had demanded the recognition that Israel belongs to the Israelis as Poland belongs to the Poles, I would have applauded. But he argues that Israel belongs to the Jews. This immediately raises some basic questions.

For example: Which Jews? Those who are Israeli citizens? Clearly, this is not what he means. He means the “Jewish people” dispersed all over the world, a people whose members belong to the American, French, Argentine nations – and, yes, also to the Polish and Greek nations.

How does a person become an American? By acquiring American citizenship. How does a person become French? By becoming a citizen of the French republic. How does a person become a Jew?

Ah, there’s the rub. According to the law of the State of Israel, a Jew is somebody whose mother is Jewish, or who has converted to the Jewish religion and not adopted any other religion. Ergo: the definition is purely religious, like that of a Muslim or a Catholic. Not at all like that of a Pole or a Greek. (In Jewish religion, it’s only the mother, not the father, who counts in this respect. Perhaps because one cannot be quite sure who the father is.)

There are in Israel hundreds of thousands of people who have immigrated from the former Soviet Union with their Jewish relatives, but are not Jewish according to the religious definition. They consider themselves Israelis in every respect, speak Hebrew, pay taxes, serve in the army. But they are not recognized as belonging to the Jewish people, to which, according to Avineri, the state belongs. Like the million and a half Israeli citizens who are Palestinian Arabs. The state does not belong to them, even though they enjoy – at least formally – full civil rights.

Simply put: the state belongs, according to Avineri, to millions of people who do not live here and who belong to other nations, but does not belong to millions of people who live here and vote for the Knesset.

[aranthus]

75. At least this is honest.

[font color=blue]I dont believe in the myth of a Jewish people aranthus[/font]

That is as clear an antisemitic statement as I have read on this board in a long time. I'm more than ever convinced that Avineri was right in arguing that "post-Zionism" is no more than a cover for restating classical antisemitic anti-Zionism. http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/post-zionism-doesn-t-exist-1.224973

[Israeli]

77. Not just Bibi that has turned me into an antisemitic...

...now is it ?

Sorry ... but ... post zionism does exist .

Difference between you and me aranthus.....I was born here , I live here , I pay my taxes , I and my kids have served our country .... and we get to vote in our elections .

You be a good Jew .... and I'll be a good Israeli .
You reject my ideology ...not a problem ....I rejected yours long ago .
I dont want to belong to a people that includes Yigal Amir , Baruch Goldstein and Jonathan Jay Pollard .

[shira]

79. This denial of a Jewish people/nation is pure antisemitism...

The Jewish people are not only bound by religion, but also by common history, culture, tradition, folklore, language, blood quantum, and a continuity with the land that goes back 3000 years pre- Roman and Arab invasion / colonialism.

What's funny is that when other people deny Palestinian nationhood, they consider that racist.

They don't see it the other way.

They can't.

[aranthus]

80. Proof that "post-zionsim"

is just the latest in the disreputable disgusting ideology that was first called Jew hatred, then antisemitism, then anti-Zionism. As Tolkien put it about a different evil, "The shadow changes shape and grows anew."

[Israeli]

81. I seriously sugest that you and shira ...

...get your tachets over here then ... you want to defend your believes ...and vote against us ?
There is a price to pay for having the right to vote in our elections aranthus ...sitting safe and secure in America and lecturing us on Zionism and antisemitism is pure hypocracy .
Put your ass where your mouth is ....until both of you do ...your nothing but paka paka .

[aranthus]

84. No one has the right to spew antisemitism without challenge.

Where you live is irrelevant.

[Jefferson23]

82. Your post is way out of line. n/t

**Criticism

Post-Zionism has been criticized by Shlomo Avineri as a polite recasting of anti-Zionism, and therefore a deceptive term.[1] Some right-wing Israelis have accused Jewish post-Zionists of being self-hating Jews.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-Zionism

[aranthus]

83. How?

Your cite to Wikipedia makes my point. Avineri, no right winger, claims that post-Zionism is really just a nice way of saying anti-Zionist. I completely agree. But political anti-Zionism is per se antisemitic. Israeli's discussion of "the myth" of the Jewish people clearly establishes the antisemitism at the root of post-Zionism. So just as the term antisemitism was invented to put an intellectual face on Jew hatred; just as "anti-Zionist" has been used as a cover for antisemitism; post-Zionist has become the term du jour for the same set of ideas. Seriously, where is the flaw in the logic?

[Jefferson23]

85. His opinion rings true to you, really? We are talking about a poster here who speaks candidly

about her position and her desire for her country to seek peace. I fail to see for one, that conflating anti semitism with post -Zionism
is anything but political ammunition..complete rubbish. I believe that it was Abba Ebban, a long ago Israeli diplomat
who pushed that idea, the quote was cited by Chomsky on the subject: "one of the chief tasks of any dialogue with the Gentile world is to prove that the distinction between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism is not a distinction at all."
(Eban, Congress Bi-Weekly, March 30, 1973

What surprises me is that you would accuse her of such an outrageous claim.

[shira]

86. Denying that the Jews are a people/nation is straight-up antisemitism. n/t

[Jefferson23]

87. Hi facebook fan. n/t

[shira]

88. If it's not antisemitism, then denying there's a Palestinian "people" is fair game. n/t

[Jefferson23]

89. Elder of Zion blog and facebook is fair game for you..no surprises from you. n/t

[shira]

90. The topic is denial of Jewish peoplehood. Keep up. n/t

[Jefferson23]

91. My conversation you waltzed into was with another poster, not you. Keeping up is

hard for you.

[aranthus]

92. Absolutely.

So what if Israeli is sincere about wanting peace? Everyone wants peace. What is important is what they want more than they want peace. From Israeli's post 72 [font color=blue]I dont believe in the myth of a Jewish people aranthus[/font]

That is per se antisemitism. If I were to dare suggest that the Palestinian people were a myth I'd be called all kinds of a racist by almost everyone on this board, and I'm pretty sure that would include you. Do I believe Avineri and Eban over the likes of Chomsky? Hell yes. By the way, the quote of Eban only proves that he thought it was necessary. It doesn't prove that he thought it wasn't true. In fact, it's because it's true that it is necessary.

[Jefferson23]

93. I could not disagree more...she can speak for herself and your assumptions are based on a

political campaign to justify an occupation as far as conflating the two..anti-semitism and post Zionism.

Literally speaking is how you interpreted her meaning..ok. I did not understand it that way at all.

*I dont believe in the myth of a Jewish people aranthus

[aranthus]

94. Substitute "Palestinian" for Jewish and you'd be calling me a racist. n/t

[Jefferson23]

95. How much more clear could I have been when I stated, literally is how you interpreted her

meaning..and she can speak for herself.

I also said, I did not take her meaning as you did...literally.

[aranthus]

96. For that argument to hold

there would have to be some reasonable alternative meaning to the words, and that meaning would have to be innocuous. I honestly don't see one. What is the figurative meaning that you see?

[Jefferson23]

97. In the context of her many conversations here, aranthus..that is primarily why I found your

post to her out of line.

Look, if you believe she is speaking literally, then have at it..she has been here for awhile..nothing
she has advocated for Israel constitutes anti-semitism, imo.

Clearly, from your last post where you state you accept that post-Zionism is anti-semitic, what would
it matter if she said that or not? You already have determined she is guilty without the statement.

on edit for clarity.

[WhiteTara]

53. THis is the important take away from the article

IMHO
The use of name-calling like “anti-Semites” and “delegtimizers” is problematic for a number of reasons, not only because its claims are untrue, but also because it takes the focus off the real issue at hand – whether and how Israel is, in fact, violating international law and basic human rights principles – and, instead, recklessly impugns the characters of those advocating for Israel to be held accountable.

[aranthus]

71. That's the important take away?

Not that they were dishonest about what Netanyahu was talking about? Cause it seems to me that the most important thing to take away from this article is the continued dishonesty of Israel's critics.

[MNBrewer]

13. Can you cite an explicit statement by BDS stating that it against the very existence of Israel?

Not by members as individuals, but by the organization as policy statement...

[shira]

14. It's call for full right-of-return in its platform would nullify Israel's sovereignty.

That cannot happen w/o Israel's consent. No nation would tolerate any such thing w/o going to war. Thus, BDS is calling for war. How many thousands or millions will need to die to forcefully implement full right-of-return?

[Scootaloo]

28. They say ignorance is bliss, but judging from your posts, I think it must hurt a lot

It's call for full right-of-return in its platform would nullify Israel's sovereignty.

False. Upon admission to return these people would become Israelis. There would be no question of Israel's sovereignty.

The problem you have is that you are confusing Jewish racial supremacism with "sovereignty." And perhaps that ethnocratic dominance would be challenged, bu probably not. Why's that?

Because even though UNWRA's services and portfolio covers five million people as refugees, only a relatively small number of them are solidly included under the Right of return - those people who fled or were expelled during the course of wars or purges. Descendants actually are not covered - though they can be at the option of the nation in question (it would be hard to imagine letting in an 88 year old granny, but not the granddaughter who takes care of her, for example.)

Reparations and inheritance are a sticky issue there, of course, but are covered elsewhere and aren't tied to the Right of Return.

Further, the nation that refugees are returning to is entitled to screen these people - individually mind you, not as a group. If an individual is judged to be a threat to the nation, the nation does not have to admit them. This also means that the refugees need accurate and verifiable documentation of their presence in the state. A key to a door that no longer exists wouldn't count, but an Ottoman or British-era deed would.

Next, any refugee who has accepted nationality with another state is no longer a refugee. Again this is on an individual basis - Jordan's en masse embrace of Palestinians as Jordanians doesn't actually change their refugee status unless a given individual has signed all the paperwork needed to become a full-fledged citizen.) And a lot of refugees have done that, particularly those who fled to Europe and the US. They are not eligible for return. Dual nationality or immigration is a possibility, but that is of course up to the nation in question as it would be with anyone else, and there is no obligation.

Finally, Right of Return is itself an individual right. It cannot be given up or traded away except by the individual (i.e., Abbas can't actually sell the right of refugees off.) That means it is the option of the individual refugee to exercise or not. and just as a large number of Jewish refugees didn't seem to keen on exercising their right to return to states that had tried to obliterate them, I rather wonder if a great number of Palestinian refugees actually want to go back to a state that is still purging Arabs.

That cannot happen w/o Israel's consent.

As stated, Israel gets to screen individuals applying for return. Think of it as immigration with a level of obligation - Israel purged these people, it has an obligation to consider their return.

No nation would tolerate any such thing w/o going to war. Thus, BDS is calling for war.

War against who, Shira? Unarmed refugees whose average age is 71?

How many thousands or millions will need to die to forcefully implement full right-of-return?

Force isn't really a question. It's a right of these individuals that Israel is obligated - as the nation from which they are refugees - to consider. "Force" is not involved in this picture, except in your Hebrew version of The Turner Diaries that you seem to be reciting from.

Go to the doctor. Get your blood pressure checked.

[shira]

30. Looks like we agree on some things. Let's see now...

We agree that only the original 1948 refugees merit RoR. I've repeated here many times I have no problem with that. And of course they'd be screened and perhaps many wouldn't choose to move to Israel.

There are some problems, however.

It appears we agree that RoR for millions of Palestinians is a myth. The problem is that most Palestinians do NOT see it that way. Mahmoud Abbas certainly doesn't, as he made clear last year when he said it's better that Syrian Palestinian refugees die than sign off on their RoR. And let's face it, if RoR was an individual choice then Abbas blew it right then and there. He's still blowing it as he still refuses to allow individual Palestinians (the vast majority are not original refugees) in Syria the right to choose for themselves.

As for the original refugees, they should be given the choice now whether to return or not. If they choose no RoR, they could get on with their lives. We both know damned well that won't happen due to their being used as political pawns, both they and their descendants. This is where I have a problem with BDS and folks like yourself. You all seem more than willing for the last 6 decades to play along with extreme Palestinians, including Arafat and now Abbas (even now on Syria) wrt all refugees everywhere who are being used and abused to this day, for no reason. They're living miserable lives for a lie. You all have some nerve to accuse Zionists of.....ANYTHING.

ps
To explain why RoR means death to Israel one needs only to realize how the vast majority of Palestinians do not believe in liberal western democracy. About 90% prefer authoritarian societies based on sharia law. BDS believes in mythical full RoR, meaning an influx of 5-7 million Palestinians. We both know damned well what that means and it isn't about racist fears of losing ethnic superiority. Before 1948 when the 2 populations were still together, they weren't getting along all that well. Things haven't changed for the better. War would be imminent.

[Scootaloo]

33. Well, no...

We agree that only the original 1948 refugees merit RoR. I've repeated here many times I have no problem with that.

First off, it's Right of Return. I know, "It burnses us, precious, gollum!" but c'mon.

Second, there are more refugees than just those created in 47 and 48; there were Gazan refugees from '56, for example. There were more refugees driven forth from Gaza and the west bank in 67 as well. There's also bound to be odds and endsof refugees created over the course of the occupation of the territories since '67. Like I said, it's an individual thing.

It's not really a matter of your opinion. This is how it works, regardless of what you think or not.

And of course they'd be screened and perhaps many wouldn't choose to move to Israel.

From whence your fundie christian apocalypse for Israel fantasies, then, Shira?

Mahmoud Abbas certainly doesn't, as he made clear last year when he said it's better that Syrian Palestinian refugees die than sign off on their RoR. And let's face it, if RoR was an individual choice then Abbas blew it right then and there. He's still blowing it as he still refuses to allow individual Palestinians (the vast majority are not original refugees) in Syria the right to choose for themselves.

Oh, I remember that.

You're talking about where Israel would only allow Syrian refugees into the West Bank, if they were Palestinians, and only on the condition that they be coerced by the PA to give up any claim to Right of Return.

You really have no fucking comprehension of how low and vile such a demand was, do you, Shira? To demand that refugees, with guns at their back, and guns in front of them, to sign away their rights as a condition to not being murdered? Why not demand some gold fillings and some women for the soldiers to have fun with, while we're at it? It was that grotesque.

As for the original refugees, they should be given the choice now whether to return or not. (...) We both know damned well that won't happen due to their being used as political pawns, both they and their descendants.

What blathering nonsense. This is almost as stupid as your constant predictions of Israel being "destroyed" by everything from the Ethiopian Jewish birthrate to people not buying sodastream.

Yes, they SHOULD be given the choice. And the only entity on earth that can give them that choice, is Israel. Israel has, since 1949, utterly refused to do so. The door is closed. Every time someone mentions opening it, Israel responds with that stupid hairbrained bullshit you were going on about two posts ago, "AH MAH GAHD ISRAEL WILL BE DESTROYED ARGH NO Y U SO ANTISEMITE?!?!?!?!?!" which is fucking hilarious since obviously Israel, with its army of lawyers, damn well knows that's not the case at all, but it sure does work to get people who know less to shut the fuck up, which is the point.

Lebanon has no say in if Israel opens that door or not. Syria has no say. Greece has no say, Argentina has no say, Egypt has no say. Only Israel. And so long as Israel chooses to keep the door shut, the refugees are barred from making the choice at all to try to walk through them.

The only way you can claim that some host nation is barring them from doing so, Shira, is if Israel were granting Right of Return and those host nations were trying to prevent it. Since Israel is very pointedly not living up to its obligations on these peoples' right, you cannot coherently claim some other nation is trying to prevent it.

[shira]

36. Save the sanctimony. You're fooling no one....

Second, there are more refugees than just those created in 47 and 48; there were Gazan refugees from '56, for example. There were more refugees driven forth from Gaza and the west bank in 67 as well. There's also bound to be odds and endsof refugees created over the course of the occupation of the territories since '67. Like I said, it's an individual thing.

Refugees beyond '48 (those from Gaza and the W.Bank) have a right to return to Gaza and the W.Bank. Why return to Israel unless they were original refugees from '48?

From whence your fundie christian apocalypse for Israel fantasies, then, Shira?

Because they have no choice. Abbas and his buddies around the neighborhood in Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, etc.. aren't about to let them choose for themselves. Their destiny, for all of them, is to flood Israel. Millions of them. You think after 6 decades, they really have an individual choice? They're where they are for a reason.

Arab leadership has been clear about this from the start. Refugees are to be used as political pawns, as a demographic bomb to destroy Israel. Arab leaders from the neighborhood (including Arafat and Abbas) have made this clear, oh.........around a billion times. How do you not know this? How is that possible?

You really have no fucking comprehension of how low and vile such a demand was, do you, Shira? To demand that refugees, with guns at their back, and guns in front of them, to sign away their rights as a condition to not being murdered? Why not demand some gold fillings and some women for the soldiers to have fun with, while we're at it? It was that grotesque.

This would go for any refugee, not just from Syria but from everywhere else as well - like Lebanon, Egypt, etc. This doesn't really even pertain to the original refugees b/c the vast majority are their kids, grandkids, etc. Meaning they have no right to return like the original refugees. So they're signing off on their mythical right of return, as they should. Why die for a lie?

You act with so much sanctimonious indignation but as I see it, you totally support refugee misery from the last 6 decades. Your fellow anti-Israel advocates certainly do, without question. You all support the ongoing misery of the millions of descendants who you acknowledge don't have refugee rights like the original ones. They're wasting away for no reason.

What blathering nonsense. This is almost as stupid as your constant predictions of Israel being "destroyed" by everything from the Ethiopian Jewish birthrate to people not buying sodastream.

Israel has, since 1949, utterly refused to do so. The door is closed.

Let's try to remember exactly WHY the refugee problem persists. There are literally hundreds of quotes from Arab leaders after 1948 stating exactly WHY the refugees weren't integrated into their societies. From nearly day one the plan was to use these refugees as a demographic time bomb to destroy Israel. Everyone knows this. It's not a secret. Let's be realistic here.

Nothing has changed since regarding refugees. It's why the problem persists. Every other group of refugees from the 1940's decade has been integrated into their societies, along with their children and grandchildren. Except in this case, and it's not because of anything evil that Israel did.

That you gloss over, deny, or minimize this while bashing Israel or Zionists doesn't speak too well about yourself.

[Scootaloo]

40. I would worry if I were trying to fool people

Major difference between you and i; "fooling people" is not on my agenda.

Refugees beyond '48 (those from Gaza and the W.Bank) have a right to return to Gaza and the W.Bank. Why return to Israel unless they were original refugees from '48?

Fair enough point. I was speaking of refugees overall having the Right of Return. Note that those driven forth from Palestinian territory are still barred from returning, because israel refuses to admit them - as Israel controls the borders.

Because they have no choice. Abbas and his buddies around the neighborhood in Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, etc.. aren't about to let them choose for themselves. Their destiny, for all of them, is to flood Israel. Millions of them. You think after 6 decades, they really have an individual choice? They're where they are for a reason.

Well yes, I do, Shira. Unlike you my worldview does not require me to see an entire ethnic group as a singleminded faceless horde under control of puppetmasters out to destroy another, superior race. As I told you, reality is not well-represented by The Turner Diaries.

Arab leadership has been clear about this from the start. Refugees are to be used as political pawns, as a demographic bomb to destroy Israel. Arab leaders from the neighborhood (including Arafat and Abbas) have made this clear, oh.........around a billion times. How do you not know this? How is that possible?

Oh, I've heard your claims about it, oh.........around a billion times. I think I've explained more reality to you about that many times as well. But you've been on a well-earned vacation, so maybe you need a refresher.

Let's take the assumption that your claim is accurate. All these guys are rattling their sabers and going "rarr, argh, we will flood you with arabs, muhuhahaha" or whatever the fuck it is. Alright.

So. If they had any ability at all to achieve this goal, certainly it would have already been achieved. We would be seeing it actually unfold in whatever form it would take.

That's very obviously not happening. We can conclude that they lack any such ability, then. Which reduces their "threats" to the level of a slurring drunk threatening to kick your ass even though he can't keep his own feet under him. Who cares?

Further as there is no ability whatsoever to force five million people into Israel, there is no reason for Israel or its supports - such as yourself - to try to use such a piss-poor argument to defend Israel's refusal of their own legal obligations towards the rights of refugees to return.

This would go for any refugee, not just from Syria but from everywhere else as well - like Lebanon, Egypt, etc. This doesn't really even pertain to the original refugees b/c the vast majority are their kids, grandkids, etc. Meaning they have no right to return like the original refugees. So they're signing off on their mythical right of return, as they should. Why die for a lie?

So, really, you honestly have no concept of why giving a shakedown to people who are fleeing for their lives is grotesque? It doesn't make even a dim light go off in your head?

I honestly find that staggering.

You act with so much sanctimonious indignation but as I see it, you totally support refugee misery from the last 6 decades. Your fellow anti-Israel advocates certainly do, without question. You all support the ongoing misery of the millions of descendants who you acknowledge don't have refugee rights like the original ones. They're wasting away for no reason.

Well, we've already learned that the way you perceive the world is fundamentally and possibly irreparably flawed. So the conclusions you reach from "how you see it," while no doubt very vivid and interesting, are about as real as the shit I've seen after taking peyote.

Except it's really hard to hate people when you're dancing with Coyote on the Center Mountain.

Let's try to remember exactly WHY the refugee problem persists. There are literally hundreds of quotes from Arab leaders after 1948 stating exactly WHY the refugees weren't integrated into their societies. From nearly day one the plan was to use these refugees as a demographic time bomb to destroy Israel. Everyone knows this. It's not a secret. Let's be realistic here.

Okay.

Tomorrow, Israel's leadership does a 180 turn. The Netanyahu government goes out on a big limb, and lunges for the center and left instead of the creepy theocrats it's been hanging out with the last few years. Netanyahu says something to the effect of this - forgive me, I'm not a speechwriter:

"The problem of the Palestinian refugees has persisted for too long, and is ac ause of great sorrow to both the Palestinians, and the People of Israel. Recognizing our obligations, the State of Israel will, on June 1st, 2014, begin receiving applications for those persons who wish to return to Israel, or the territories of the West bank and Gaza Strip. Only those persons who can prove prior residency within what is today the state of Israel, or territories occupied by Israel prior to 1967, will be eligible for return to the state of Israel itself. We encourage Mahmoud Abbas and the other leaders of the Palestinian Authority to do all they can to accommodate as many of the remainder of these persons as able within those territories."

If it's all the evil nasty Arabs "keeping" the refugees, I'm sure nothing at all will come of this, right? Netanyahu will look like a good guy (for a change) Israel will honor its treaty obligations, and it's the head honchos all around the region who are left with rotten egg all over hteir faces. No problem, it's win-win for Israel.

If the nasty brutish Arab leaders of the region aren't actually holding these refugees hostage though, what happens is that those who are eligible and desiring return. Some number of the "extra" refugees enter the West Bank ('cause really, nobody will want to go to Gaza, I'm sure.) The remainder - those who opt out or are ineligible for either option due to security risks or whatever... well, they'll have to figure it out, I suppose, nothing's perfect. The majority of the refugee problem is solved, a stumbling block towards peace is cleared away, and - again - Netanyahu looks like a good guy and israel can say it's honored its treaty obligations.

So why hasn't this speech - or a better-written version of the ideas, at least - been given?

As I'm telling you Shira, it's really disingenuous to blame the Arab nations for a problem that is Israel's to resolve, especially if Israel has made absolutely no attempt to resolve it.

[shira]

41. They really don't have a choice...

1. They haven't been given one for the past 6 decades, so what makes you think they're going to be given a choice now? The nations that have hosted these refugees have had over 6 decades to merely ask whether individual refugees would like to be citizens in their lands. If said refugees desire it, then they're granted such citizenship. If not, they remain refugees. Why is this the ONLY refugee situation in which this hasn't happened yet? Why are the children and grandchildren of refugees held hostage to this day by those nations if their hopes of return are nothing but a myth, a lie? How is sustaining this lie (and you agree they have no right-of-return) Israel's fault?

2. I'd have no problem with Netanyahu doing that. I think the major issue would be that such an offer legally gives Israel sole responsibility for the refugee situation, opens them up to future lawsuits, etc....as if Israel just decided one day like neighboring Arab nations did to its 800,000 Jews to rid itself of undesirables out of sheer malice. It was a war the Arabs started, not Israel.

3.As to Syrian refugees writing off on their right to return, once again - the vast majority have no right to begin with as they are not the original refugees. Out of 100's of thousands, it's probably not more than 10-20%. What are they really signing off on? A myth? A lie? I would expect Israel to offer this to any refugee, whether in Syria or Lebanon. Syria is a more serious situation than Lebanon but let's face it, Lebanon is apartheid to Palestinians. They've got it pretty bad too. In Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan the situations aren't much better. I suspect that if Abbas went to Israel to ask whether it was okay to bring all those other refugees into the WB, they'd get the same form and have to sign off. That's an individual choice. Abbas has no right to interfere and yet you seemingly have no problem with Abbas doing so.

[Scootaloo]

44. Well, we'll never know unless Israel offers them the chance to exercise choice

Which is my whole dam point here Shira. Remember, the door is closed, and all that? Are you telling me that israel is just waiting for Syria to give israel clearance to open right of return to Israel? That just doesn't make any sense at all.

2) Refugees from Israel's claimed and occupied territories are, indeed, Israel's sole responsibility. I realize that "responsibility" is a tough concept for Israel or its fanboys like yourself to stomach. It's new and frightening. But, that's part of being an actual state. if Israel can't figure out how to handle lawsuits, well, I dunno what to say.

3) 20% of 100,000 is twenty thousand. So tell me why is it cool to shake down twenty thousand people of their rights, under threat of death? It's okay because the other eighty thousand wouldn't be losing anything?

if the logic is that "well, it's not real anyway," then why make the demand? Far from making it less grotesque, it actually amplifies the perversity! I mean as disgusting as the notion of extorting rights away from someone in a desperate situation is, it could be understood as an attempt to gain a political advantage. But to do it for no reason at all? That's just straight-up sadism. You turned a mugging into a gunpoint demand for a song and dance routine.

[shira]

47. Can't let you wiggle out of the tough questions. Try again. I'll wait. n/t

[Scootaloo]

50. They weren't tough. I answered them.

What part aren't you satisfied with? And I hope you don't mind waiting, it's 4:00 AM here.

[shira]

55. I guess we're talking past each other. I'll try again...

Try these questions... the ones with the (?) at the end of the sentence.

Which is my whole dam point here Shira. Remember, the door is closed, and all that? Are you telling me that israel is just waiting for Syria to give israel clearance to open right of return to Israel? That just doesn't make any sense at all.

No.

Syria should've made citizens out of refugee children, at the very least. They did not. These children and grandchildren have no right-of-return under Int'l Law. Why do u think Syria (and other Arab nations) refused to grant citizenship to the children and grandchildren of refugees?

All other refugee populations from the decade of the 1940's were eventually absorbed into their host nations. Israel took in all its refugees (both Palestinians and Jews). Why didn't Syria or any other Arab nation?

2) Refugees from Israel's claimed and occupied territories are, indeed, Israel's sole responsibility. I realize that "responsibility" is a tough concept for Israel or its fanboys like yourself to stomach. It's new and frightening. But, that's part of being an actual state.

In the 1940's there were 10's of millions of refugees, mass population exchanges, etc. Those refugees were not the sole responsibility of the nations they came from. Their host nations took them in. 10's of millions of them. Except for Palestinian refugees. Why?

3) 20% of 100,000 is twenty thousand. So tell me why is it cool to shake down twenty thousand people of their rights, under threat of death? It's okay because the other eighty thousand wouldn't be losing anything?

It's not okay to shake people down under threat of death. I imagine this 'waiver' is what Israel would require from any refugee - whether from Syria or anywhere else in the mideast wanting to get into the W.Bank.

if the logic is that "well, it's not real anyway," then why make the demand? Far from making it less grotesque, it actually amplifies the perversity! I mean as disgusting as the notion of extorting rights away from someone in a desperate situation is, it could be understood as an attempt to gain a political advantage. But to do it for no reason at all? That's just straight-up sadism. You turned a mugging into a gunpoint demand for a song and dance routine.

No, it's a reality check. These kids and grandkids bought into the myth that they actually have a right-of-return. Leading them to believe this lie and left to languish in apartheid conditions (Lebanon) or killing fields (Syria) is perverse and disgusting. Why live in hellish conditions or die, for a lie? Is this not perverse and disgusting?

[shira]

65. One little fact to add to the conversation when you return to this...

There are only 30,000 original Palestinian refugees (worldwide) who are still alive.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/us-senate-dramatically-redefines-definition-of-palestinian-refugees/

[Israeli]

49. " Okay....Tomorrow, Israel's leadership does a 180 turn."......

then lets think practical thoughts ....

http://zochrot.org/en/top/%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%91%D7%AA-%D7%A4%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%98%D7%99%D7%9D

Zochrot supports the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their country. Return is fundamental to resolving the conflict and implementation of return need not cause injustice to Jewish people who live in Israel. Return does not mean expelling Jews from their homes, but the very opposite: The mutual existence of Palestinians and Jews in the country.

Until today, most discussions on the return of Palestinian refugees have centered on the right of return as a legal principle. Zochrot seeks to advance this discussion from principle to practice. What might return actually look like on the ground? What needs will have to be met for the refugees to be reabsorbed? How would major social institutions be reorganized to prepare for return?

Planning return requires appreciating the diverse questions that might come up in different parts of the country. For example, return to a Palestinian village that is today the site of an Israeli city will be different from return to a Palestinian village whose lands are used for grazing cattle or public recreation. Return to a village that was afforested will present different challenges than return to a village whose buildings now house Jewish residents.

Thinking practically about these questions can help free Israeli society from the intense fear posed by the idea of return, and can foster true civic relations between Jews and Palestinians. For Palestinians, planning return can bring closer the actualization of their rights in their country. Return can release the two societies from the relationship of occupier-occupied, expeller-expelled.

[Scootaloo]

51. Any organization Im Tirtzu loathes is one I can tenatively get behind n/t

[Israeli]

52. " tenatively " !!!!

http://coteret.com/2010/02/01/breaking-hagee-and-cufi-fund-anti-nif-campaign-organizer/#more-1265

there is no " tenatively " when it comes to fighting facism Scootaloo.

[shira]

56. So be clear, Israeli. The states you support are Palestine 1 and Palestine 2...

...after full right of return. What other way is there to understand your POV?

For example, Omar Barghouti of BDS described this "2" state solution:

“As Omar Barghouti, a leader of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel, put it recently to Yale students: ‘If the refugees were to return, you would not have a two-state solution, you’d have a Palestine next to a Palestine’.” http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/01/opinion/global/zero-dark-zero.html?_r=0

Please be clear about this "2" state solution after full right-of-return that you endorse if you do not support the BDS solution.

Here's more Omar Barghouti of BDS:

“..you cannot reconcile the right of return for refugees with a two state solution. That is the big white elephant in the room and people are ignoring it — A RETURN FOR REFUGEES WOULD END ISRAEL’S EXISTENCE AS A JEWISH STATE. The right of return is a basic right that cannot be given away; it’s inalienable”.
http://electronicintifada.net/content/boycotts-work-interview-omar-barghouti/8263

[Israeli]

57. Calm down shira ...

..... it was a what if moment .

So we are not allowed to have practical thoughts ?

What if shira ?

Zochrot opens it up to discussion ....and for anyone willing to understand the Nakba from an Israeli perspective and the conditions for the Return of Palestinian Refugees and a shared life in this country in my opinion its a great place to start .

So have a read shira :

http://zochrot.org/en

you never know ....you might just learn something .

[azurnoir]

58. wow there's enough picked cherries in your quote from AI for a couple of pies

here's the complete quote, in context-I notice that most the quotes used here to demonize Palestinians are sound bytes removed from context they were made in one must wonder exactly why that is, why something more complete is not used

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 … Full equality under the law with the inclusion of the refugees — this must be based on the right of return for Palestinian refugees. In other words, a secular, democratic state that accommodates our inalienable rights as Palestinians with the acquired rights of Israeli Jews as settlers. Why do I see this as the main solution? Morally, it’s obviously the most moral solution because it treats people as equals, the two-state solution is not only impossible now — Israel has made it an absolute pipe dream that cannot happen — it is an immoral solution. At best, it would address some of the rights of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Gaza, while ignoring the majority of Palestinians — those in exile, the refugees, as well as the Palestinian citizens of Israel. There are three segments of the Palestinian people — unless you address the basic requirements of justice for all three segments than we will not have exercised our right to self-determination. The only way that we can exercise our right to self-determination, without imposing unnecessary injustice on our oppressors, is to have a secular, democratic state where nobody is thrown into the sea, nobody is sent back to Poland, and nobody is left in refugee camps. We can coexist ethically with our rights given back to us.

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

[shira]

59. Palestinians aren't being demonized. BDS is being exposed for what it is. Keep up! n/t

[azurnoir]

60. sure how awful to promote a single secular democratic state

he was explaining why with RoR for Palestinians a single state would be preferable

I take it your against a secular state where Israel is concerned

[shira]

61. It is awful when ~90% of Palestinians want an authoritarian sharia style state....

Who are you to tell them they should adopt western, liberal, progressive views?

[azurnoir]

62. 90% of Palestinian wish to live under Sharia law? really ?

okay I'll play let's see your proof-let's see which Rightwinger you post this time

[shira]

63. We've been over this before & you know it. Not playing anymore. n/t

[azurnoir]

64. ah I see you can't well that's okay

I think you need a

[aranthus]

66. It's awful if they don't.

A Jewish state is a uniquely valuable thing in the world, just as are a French state, an Iranian state, and every other state that protects and promotes a unique national culture. Plus, the Jews of Israel have a right to their Jewish majority state. That's why it wouldn't matter if the Palestinians were all liberal democrats. RoR and the end of the Jewish state are inherently bad things that decent people should not support. I think it says everything a person needs to know about the BDS crowd and their supporters that they speak incessantly about Palestinian rights and completely disregard any rights that the Jews have.

[aranthus]

67. Again, let's be clear. Israeli doesn't care if this happens.

We both know it. Why Israeli won't admit it seems pretty clear too.

[shira]

68. Rabin lover, right? If 1 state happens, so be it. Ooooookay. n/t

[Israeli]

73. If " 1 state happens " shira ....

You can thank this Gov .....because that is where they are taking us .

BTW .... I will be out marching for Peace this month ....where will you be ?

ref : http://www.kibush.co.il/show_file.asp?num=63721

" The `Leading the Leaders to Peace` group will hold an ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN WALK FOR PEACE

on Friday March 28, starting at 11:00 am from the Tel-Aviv Harbor (Reading parking lot), wearing white shirts

https://www.facebook.com/LeadingLeadersForPeace "

[Israeli]

74. " Rabin lover, right? "

No shira .... Rabin lover , Left .

http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/archive/1382094685

[shira]

76. Not buying what you're selling.

There is no commonality b/w Rabin and the racist BDS movement.

[Israeli]

78. Not buying what you are selling either shira ...n/t.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

8. I will just say that I have never had the slightest difficulty in distinguishing

Between the Jewish people and the policies of the government of the State of Israel. (I should mention that my mother is a Jew.)

[africanadian]

9. And that is key!

Netanyahu's is a thug regime. That doesn't mean all Jews are thugs.

[RedRoses323]

12. Agreed

[MisterP]

31. nor do the people of Israel: this is entirely for foreign consumption

Begin had to call martial law and Bibi got "reelected" with 24% of the vote--basically the same outcome you'd get if you randomized the ballots...

[Jefferson23]

17. Well done. thank you for posting, Israeli.

K&R

[PumpkinAle]

27. Cry wolf enough Bibi

and soon you will turn everyone away.

Bibi and his cronies are thugs and do a great dis-service to Israel.

It is Netanyahu who is turning people into "anti-smites" with his narrow-minded hate of all that he, himself, does not personally believe. He is a despot and it is sad for Israel that he is in power.

[WatermelonRat]

35. Google "Obama turned me into a racist!" for why I dislike this form of argument.

Yes, there are people who frivolously use terms for bigots, but this isn't exactly an effective method of countering it. It just comes off as the classic "Oh, you know how minorities are always playing the race card. Let them call me a racist, I don't care!"

[shira]

37. Good point. It's exactly the same bigoted crap. n/t

[Scootaloo]

42. Out of curiosity, I googled exactly that

And I have to say I'm not sure where you find the comparison.

The article in the OP is from an Israeli Jew, writing about the prime Minister of Israel's fascination with asserting that pretty much everything is "antisemitism." In this particular case, boycotting Israeli products in protest of Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory is what he is calling "antisemitic."

Most of what comes up in goggle is from schizoid nutcases pretending to be persecuted by obama's blackness. One amusing entry comes from the ever-charming forum, godlikeproductions where a poster "always loved and prayed for black people" but ever since Obama won, is "seeing more and more blackness on TV and in the news" and she i feeling "overwhelmed by black crap."

Maybe if Obama actually wrere stomping around going "this is racist, that is racist, you're a racist, he's a racist, everything's fucking racist"? But... he's rather obviously not.

Bibi insists protest of his nation's foreign policy means you hate Jews. Point-blank, that's his claim.

Does Obama say that if you protest American foreign policy, you hate blacks? or even that you hate Americans? if he has, I'm very certain I missed it, and would love to be enlightened - I have a million facepalm images begging to be used.

[shira]

43. Get the argument right. It's not boycotting hummus that's antisemitic. It's BDS....

BDS is antisemitic, not necessarily boycotting a few products.

[Scootaloo]

45. Except for Bibi's argument that it's antisemitic becuase it's boycotting things.

[shira]

46. Umm....what? No clue what you're arguing. n/t

[Scootaloo]

48. Read the article I linked. it quotes Bibi.

"I think the most eerie thing, the most disgraceful thing is to have people on the soil of Europe talking about the boycott of Jews," Netanyahu said. "In the past, antisemites boycotted Jewish businesses and today they call for the boycott of the Jewish state. And by the way, only the Jewish state."

The reason they are "antisemites" is because they are boycotting, according to mr. Bibbles.

[shira]

54. He's referring specifically to BDS, which calls for a boycott of way more than...

...than just settlement products.

Why is this so difficult?