Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forumBDS is not just anti-Semitic, it is racist
....Anyone who has witnessed BDS in action will be in no doubt that it is anti-Semitic. But there is a case to be made that BDS is not just anti-Semitic, it is racist. Why? Because it singles out a nationality – Israelis – for differential and discriminatory treatment in the international arena. Israelis are expected to conform to an impossibly high moral standard that would endanger their well-being. When Israelis inevitably fall short of these impossible standards, they are accused of indefensible behaviour. In contrast, the Palestinian Arabs are not held up to any standard at all. That too is racist.
No other nation in the world is singled out for criticism the way Israel is. Israel is condemned for human rights abuses even when such allegations are proved to be untrue (e.g. Jenin). It is accused of ethnic cleansing when Jewish neighbourhoods are built in east Jerusalem. It is dubbed an apartheid state even though Israeli Arabs have full voting rights. It is accused of being an occupier even though Jews had lived in Judea and Samaria for hundreds of years before they were evicted by the Jordanians. Israel is accused of doing nothing to promote peace when in actual fact it is the Palestinian Arabs who have turned down the opportunity for statehood on numerous occasions.
At the same time, BDS campaigners treat the Palestinian Arabs like children (the child is the victim par excellence). According to the BDS narrative, the Palestinian Arabs don’t know any better and should not be punished or chastised for their mistakes because nothing is ever their fault. This shades in to a form of racist neo-primitivism, where Arabs are allowed to (literally) get away with murder. BDS campaigners have adopted the racist stance that when the Palestinian Arabs kill each other or kill Jews, it is a legitimate expression of a Third World “will to power” and are therefore absolved of responsibility. When Israelis take military action or assassinate a terrorist leader, it is dubbed fascist or racist.
Indeed, BDS does not view the Palestinian Arab as a full human being, with all the rights and responsibilities this entails, but is regarded as some kind of special case. Despotic and cruel regimes in the Muslim world are of no interest to BDS campaigners, but when it comes to the Palestinian Arabs, BDS activists are hyperactive. Why? Because it fits the racist narrative. If the Palestinian Arabs were being "oppressed" by the Egyptians or Jordanians, you wouldn’t hear a word from the BDS brigade. In fact, when Jordan and Egypt annexed the West Bank and Gaza respectively, nobody talked of “occupation.” That’s because the Jordanians and Egyptians are Arabs, not Jews....
more:
http://www.jpost.com/Blogs/The-View-From-the-UK/BDS-is-not-just-anti-Semitic-it-is-racist-396244
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
shira
(30,109 posts)...As things stand, BDS activists do not expect the Palestinian Arabs to do anything to resolve the crisis. Everything depends on Israel, which means Israel is always to blame. But what more can the Israelis do? The Palestinians have had several chances to build a state on the West Bank and Gaza and on each occasion they either turned it down or just simply walked away. As recently as 2008, Israeli PM Ehud Olmert offered the Palestinian Arabs almost all of Judea and Samaria, and east Jerusalem (in addition to Gaza). Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, received the plans but never got back to Olmert. Yet it is Israel that is being subjected to boycotts and international criticism.
When the Israelis withdrew from Gaza in 2005, did the Palestinian Arabs make an effort to build a state? No, they destroyed the infrastructure left behind by the Israelis. When the Gazans send rockets into southern Israel, do BDS campaigners criticise Hamas? No, they blame Israel for the blockade, which is only in effect because of the rocket attacks. Do they hold the Egyptians accountable for their blockade of Gaza? No, because it doesn't fit the anti-Israel narrative.
So as well as being anti-Semitic, BDS is racist because it expects far too much of Israelis and far too little of Palestinian Arabs. That’s why BDS is racist.
shira
(30,109 posts)....is largely composed of well meaning human rights advocates wanting peace.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)And they are bull.
shira
(30,109 posts)The fact that you have nothing other than sound bytes like "bull" & "skewed" is proof enough.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)All of your posts are like a stew of buzzwords and catch phrases. And condesension and self congratulatory non sense. I try very hard to take you seriously. I sometimes think you are anti Israel and are trying to make them look bad. But you're not. I know that. Makes me feel a bit sad.
shira
(30,109 posts)Jews would be a minority.
I ask you:
How will that result in peace? How do you think Jews would fare in such a state?
Before you answer, take a look around the mideast to see how the Jewish minority has been treated the past 100 years.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I get what this is. Jingoism.
shira
(30,109 posts)This 1-state will be peaceful too.
Is that what you believe?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)If, so, I think that fair treatment needs to come soon so that the fear of retribution will subside. You cannot keep treating peopke like animals because you fear they may want revenge. You have to treat people lik you want to be treated so that you have no reason to fear retribution. That fear comes from the guilt.
shira
(30,109 posts)The Palestinian minority within Israel is guaranteed equal rights in a liberal democracy.
Such an option wouldn't be available to Jews in any majority Arab state in that region.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Would you mind much if they were treated like that? Would you blame them for picking the wrong leaders? Say they deserved it? Call them racist for boycotts? Would you?
shira
(30,109 posts)....numerous times within the past century.
They'd be treated peacefully if that's what the Palestinian leadership wanted. Egypt and Jordan learned to live in peace with Israel. Those treaties have held up. Israel doesn't attack Egypt and Jordan b/c Egypt and Jordan don't attack Israel anymore. Palestinian leaders haven't learned that lesson yet.
I'm curious.
Do you wish Palestinians had accepted just one of Israel's offers for their own state?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)We're here now and the problem won't go away by lamenting the past. Time to get it done and stop putting up imaginary Dragons and Monster in our way. Either there will be a viable Palestinian state sometime in the future, else Israel will suffer increasing popularity as their sources of support in the US dry up, die, or give up on them. BDS will take much longer than if Israel just went ahead and gave back what did not belong to her. Since that won't happen, we do it slow. But the soow way is much more damaging to Israel. I would hope that supporters of Israel can see the writing on the wall and be proactive and lobby Israel to give up the occupation and settlements.
Israel is stuck in the past an thinks the rest of us are too. Sad.
shira
(30,109 posts)....the equivalent of 100% of the territories with land swaps, East Jerusalem, compensation for refugees, limited Right of Return, end of conflict, and peace.
And that's a bad deal?
Seems you prefer the current situation to Palestinians having their own state alongside Israel.
Or am I wrong?
Israel will not just end the occupation without a peace agreement. That's a recipe for continued conflict. Then again, that's what BDS wants.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)Arafat later regretted rejecting the offer from 2000.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/jun/22/israel
2008 was even better. I emailed someone from the Geneva Initiative, which Jimmy Carter and Noam Chomsky support. Abbas supported Geneva as well.
Here is the response...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=339669&mesg_id=340032
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)The Palestinian delegation was told that they had to commit to the plan, sight unseen, right then. Take it or leave it. No maps. no discussion. No negotiations. just Israel saying "we'll tell you what you get after you sign."
Abbas turned it down. You would turn it down, too.
shira
(30,109 posts)They had Olmert as a guest speaker at one of their events to tout Olmert's offer which they themselves say came extremely close to what the Geneva Accords call for.
The same Geneva Accords that Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Noam Chomsky, Amos Oz, Sari Nusseibeh, Meretz, and Americans for Peace Now have endorsed.
Hi Shira,
On September 19th, the Geneva Initiative held a conference entitled "Israel
and the Palestinians - decision time". Former PM Olmert was the key note
speaker. In his address, he presented his peace plan which is very similar
to the Geneva Initiative and includes the following principles:
. "We need to quickly reach a territorial agreement with the
Palestinians based on the 1967 borders"
. "There is no alternative but to adopt the Clinton Parameters
according to which all the Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem will be
under Israeli sovereignty and the non-Jewish neighborhoods under Palestinian
sovereignty. Jerusalem will be divided into two capitals"
. "A special regime in the Holy Basin"
. "The issue if Refugees will be solved in the framework of the Arab
League Initiative. The solution won't be within the borders of Israel. We
will be ready to absorb, within the state of Israel, a certain number of
refugees on an individual basis, whereas most of the refugees will be
absorbed in the Palestinian state or in other countries"
. "We formulated an 'eight-point document' which includes the
necessary elements to ensure Israel's security including a solution to the
border between Jordan and the future Palestinian state".
Best regards
Michal
Michal Radoshitzky
Director of Foreign Relations
Geneva Initiative
Tel: +972-3-693-8781
Fax: +972-3-691-1306
Mobile: +972-508-343-128
www.geneva-accord.org
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x339970
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)"Napkin map" is a colloquial name for a Palestinian sketch made by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas on a napkin, of a map with land swap proposals shown to him by then Prime Minister Ehud Olmert during peace negotiations in mid-2008. According to Al Jazeera, Abbas was not allowed to keep the unofficial map, so he sketched it by hand. During the first of several meetings, the Palestinian Authority proposed a land swap, offering Israel the opportunity to annex all of the Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem in return for land concessions by Israel. Olmert, however, offered no concessions in return but an even more aggressive land swap.[24]
In Prime Minister Olmert's own proposal, Israel would annex more than 10% of the West Bank. The land in Olmert's map included the four settlements of Gush Etzion (with Efrat), Ma'ale Adumim, Giv'at Ze'ev, and Ariel, in addition to all settlements in East Jerusalem (Har Homa). In exchange for those concessions by the Palestinian Authority, Olmert offered 5.5% of Israeli land as part of the swap. The land offered consisted of lightly populated farmland, which would be divided between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. When Mahmoud Abbas asked to keep a copy of the map for further consideration, Ehud Olmert refused to comply. Mahmoud Abbas was forced to sketch Ehud Olmert's map by hand on a napkin to have a copy for further consideration.[25] This map was then later referred to as the Napkin map.[24]
The third and final meeting occurred on September 16, 2008. It was during this time that Ehud Olmert was nearing the end of his political career. At the time, Olmert was under police investigation for alleged corruption that had occurred while he was Mayor of Jerusalem, and as a result of the accusations was not planning on running again. During the final meeting, Mahmoud Abbas was prepared by the Negotiation Support Unit (NSU) to clarify many questions regarding Ehud Olmert's peace plan in which Abbas was quoted as asking questions such as "How do you see it addressing our interests, especially as Ariel, Maale Adumim, Givat Zeev, Har Homa and Efrat clearly prejudice contiguity, water aquifers, and the viability of Palestine?" as well as others about the value of the land that they would receive in such a swap in terms of value and size.[24]
The Negotiation Support Unit (NSU) also insisted that Prime Minister Olmert provide them with a copy of the map, which was again denied. In the end, however, Mahmoud Abbas asked for a few days to consider the offer. A day after this meeting, Olmert resigned and Tzipi Livni stepped in as Acting Prime Minister, with Benjamin Netanyahu being elected shortly afterward. Palestinian negotiators said Abbas had forgotten another appointment and postponed the next meeting. Netanyahu thought Olmert had made too many concessions and refused to continue from where the last round of negotiations had left off, preferring to restart the negotiations from the beginning.[26]
The Palestinians were given an unequal 'Take it or leave it" offer, were not allowed access to the maps, their counter-offers were rebuffed, their questions ignored, and then Olmert resigned and the whole thing was scuttled.
This is the Israeli version of give and take - "you give, or we will take."
shira
(30,109 posts)Here's Saeb Erekat:
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/olmert-offered-to-withdraw-from-93-of-west-bank-1.278588
But what does Erekat know? He was only there. You're basically saying it was an unserious shitty offer. Maybe Erekat should hire you to help him out since he obviously doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Olmert offered a bad exchange. He refused to allow the Palestinian delegations to have copies of the maps. He rejected counter-offers and rebuffed questions. when Abbas said he'd take it into consideration, Olmert resigned and left the government of Israel in the hands of people certainly bound to utterly reject any forward movement of the plan regardless of Abbas' response.
shira
(30,109 posts)Olmert's offer came very close to meeting all the Geneva Initiative requirements.
So is the Geneva Initiative also shit?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)The Geneva Initiative calls for equal land swaps negotiated on and decided between the two parties. Olmert offered 5% (determined by him) in exchange for 10% (also determined by him).
The Geneva Initiative is predicated on equality and negotiation between the two parties. Olmert bulled right past that, and gave unequal demands to the Palestinian delegation. Then to show his commitment to his own offer, he resigned and left the government to Netanyahu.
I don't think the Geneva Initiative is a great concept because it presumes parity in power between Israel and Palestine (which puts Palestine at a disadvantage, as they are the weaker party) and also presumes that Israel's wants trump Palestine's rights (Israel wants to keep Ariel, so that takes precedence over Palestine's right to that land, basically.)
But if you think the Geneva Initiative is such a grand idea, why are you arguing that Abbas should have accepted so much less?
shira
(30,109 posts)You're entertaining at least.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Why negotiate for what you want when you can use a gun to take it, without penalty?
shira
(30,109 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)Is that what you mean?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I'm in the I/P group right now discussing Israel and Palestine. I don't put them in the generic Arab category and blame them for things that go on in Arab nations. You should try it out. You said 'Arab lands' like we are discussing all arabs when we speak of palestinians.
shira
(30,109 posts)...would treat Jews better than how Palestinians live within a liberal democratic Israel?
I'm not sure what your problem is with Arabs. Here's Article 1 from the Palestine National Charter:
Article 1:
Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.
Your issue is with Palestinians, not me. You don't like the way they identify themselves.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Did not Israel declare it's self the "Jewish State"? I have no idea why you have a problem with them saying pretty much what Israel says about itself and Jews about themselves and Arabs who live there or originate from there. It's bizarre that you cannot see that it's exactly the same.
As it was, I was saying how they are currently treated in Palestine compared to how Palestinians are treated in Israel. I see no evidence that this will change, just your guilty fears.
shira
(30,109 posts)....them to Palestinians within Israel?
As for Jewish vs. Arab state, I have no problem with the way either nation wants to define itself. I think we're in agreement there.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I wish Israel would realize that we can see.
shira
(30,109 posts)....would be treated under PLO or Hamas rule? Because that's the real issue with the BDS 1-state solution.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Hmm. Okay. I see you.
shira
(30,109 posts)...Palestinian land. Both people have a claim to it.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)It's so much easier to build up a lie then take what you want.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Five members of a Jewish settler family have been murdered in their home in what police suspect was an operation by Palestinian militants.
The parents and three children, aged 11, three and three months, were attacked with knives in their house in the West Bank settlement of Itamar, near the Palestinian city of Nablus, on Friday. It is believed that two of the dead had their throats cut.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/mar/12/west-bank-jewish-family-killed
Jewish settler stabbed by two Palestinians in East Jerusalem
A resident of the East Jerusalem Jewish neighborhood Ma'aleh Hazeitim was stabbed in his back by two Palestinians in Ras al-Amud. The man was rushed to the Hadassah Medical Center in Jerusalem, where he is being treated.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/jewish-settler-stabbed-by-two-palestinians-in-east-jerusalem.premium-1.474051
bravenak
(34,648 posts)It reminds me of the protesters and others shot in the back by the IDF. And the bombed children on the beach. Sad all the way around. Very sad. And still, even with that, the Palestinians still have it far worse.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I certainly agree with you that the Palestinians in the West Bank deal with much worse treatment than do the Israelis living in settlements. I would argue, however, that this would not be the case if those settlers did not have the protection and security they are currently afforded.
Were the Israelis living in the settlements subject to Palestinian rule in the West Bank and not afforded IDF protection, then I would think we would see a very different situation.
That being said, under the current structure, Israelis living in settlements certainly have it much better than Palestinians living in the West Bank.
Unfortunately, I do not believe there are any Palestinians who are Jewish living either in Gaza or the West Bank under Palestinian jurisdiction, so it is difficult to really make an accurate comparison.
TexasProgresive
(12,160 posts)I have no clue as to how to fix this problem but it is a problem. Israel needs to pull out of the occupied territories including east Jerusalem. It is not a democracy when many are disenfranchised.
shira
(30,109 posts)
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Clearly, they are allowed to vote, and their voting worked. The election of Likude was disappointing to me, but Israel practices Democracy in open elections.
Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza had an election in 2006. They failed to hold an election in 2009 because of conflict between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority. Even though the PLA and Hamas have made peace, they still are refusing to hold an election to give the Palestinians people a chance to vote for a government. That has every appearance of not being a Democracy.
TexasProgresive
(12,160 posts)If not, why not?
sabbat hunter
(6,838 posts)been a part of coalitions, or supported coalitions on numerous occasions. But they usually refuse to join any coalition.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)1) No ruling coalition has extended an invitation to even a single Arab party in Israel's history.
2) No Arab party has refused to join a coalition, because you cannot refuse what has not been offered.
The basis of your bad argument is that the joint List rejected a vote-sharing deal with Meretz in this election. There are several reasons for this, the main reason being that there was no time to actually go over the fine details.
shira
(30,109 posts)Take note in that article of the arrangement back in Rabin's days.
Edit addition:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/israel-election-2015/.premium-1.646995
You're wrong.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)Zionist Union coleader Isaac Leader told The Marker in a recent interview that he would gladly appoint an Arab minister if tasked with forming the government - but that the united Arab list does not want to join a coalition.
"The Arabs are a very important group. I have always believed this, in every task I did I engaged in affirmative action for the Arab community," said Herzog after being asked if he would bring the Joint List into a coalition. "You need a revolutionary program for the next decade for the Arab community. The Arab Joint List is the one which announced that it had no intention of joining any coalition."
He was then asked what he would do if the Arab party would change its mind.
"After what we saw last week, it's hard for me to see it," he said. "Nevertheless, I really would be pleased if I could appoint an Arab minister, at least one in my government."
King_David
(14,851 posts)Excuse me ?
You can't do that Scootaloo because it's fair to say you're not the most knowledgeable poster here on this topic .
Not meant as an insult because I think you very smart on most topics, but I'm sure you will agree that on IP you're clueless....
Right ?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)But then I have a feeling that I've been learning the subject longer than you've been alive. You're like nineteen, right?
King_David
(14,851 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)The newly founded joint Arab list will not be part of the next coalition, regardless of whether it will be formed by incumbent Benjamin Netanyahu or his rivals, Isaac Herzog and Tzipi Livni, the party’s number 2 told The Times of Israel on Sunday.
Masud Ganaim, 49, a member of Israel’s Islamic Movement and currently an MK with the Ra’am-Ta’al party, said the new union of Arab parties would nevertheless consider supporting a coalition favorable to the Arab minority, which comprises 20 percent of Israel’s population.
“We will certainly not be part of the government, no matter how left-wing it is,” Ganaim said in a phone interview. “But supporting a center-left bloc whose basic principles are favorable to Arab citizens in Israel and to the peace process — that makes sense. That we would do.”
http://www.timesofisrael.com/no-matter-how-left-wing-arab-parties-wont-join-coalition/
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)not after what Netanyahu said. But you did not address the fact that they are the third largest faction in Knesset in a historic election. Likud will build a majority, for everyone else it is like being Democrats in the House of Representatives, they can vote on bills but are not part of the majority.
Now, lets check out the Palestinians who are not even being given the chance to vote. What's that all about? They were supposed to hold an election in 2013 and 2014, but they have been delayed, indefinitely.
By the way, in 2007, President Abbas unilaterally changed their government from a two party system to a multi party parliamentary system though he had no authority to make that change. This change was made so that Hamas would have less power. Hamas, was not amused and doesn't recognize it.
Though hey have formed a unity government to facilitate an election, and have been ordered to hold an election by their own courts, but no election has been held yet.
King_David
(14,851 posts)
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)I'm going to read the whole thing. I have no idea why stuff like this gets posted. I mean, posted like it's good, and valuable, you know?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)This shit reminds me of the Right Wind radio circle-jerking "telephone" game, where each radio host picks up where the other left off, with more embellishment and invective. You start with a news report about an assault on an embassy by a gang of terrorists and you end up with "Obama planned to the assassination of three US diplomats! What did they know, what was he covering up?! WE'LL TELL YOU!"
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)While you were away.
So let's break down your nonsense...
BDS does not single out a nationality. It singles out an apartheid state masquerading as a democracy. Yes, I'm talking about Israel. Being expected to not steal your neighbors land is not setting a high moral standard, my confused friend, It's called common sense.Indefensible behavior is illegally colonization of stolen land. A child would understand that...a non-malicious child, mind you.
How many apartheid states, masquerading as democracies, are presently doing what Israel is doing?
Also, the usual "Israeli Arab" bigotry is disdainful. It reminds me of how Southerners belittled African Americans by calling them whatever they wanted to: de legitimizing their very existence.
Not only is that untrue, but apparently the author pulled that out of their backside...possibly in hopes of being able to play the victim; which in and of itself is a disgusting joke.
The Palestinians aren't children, they are however victims of the Israeli apartheid state, but I have already gone over that part. And no, this BDSer does not condone violence when it is committed by the IDF against Palestinians or vice versa.
This is just completely racist, and I feel both embarrassed and disgusted that you would wish to post that.
shira
(30,109 posts)1. No western nations call Israel apartheid.
2. No major Human Rights NGO's like Amnesty or HRW call Israel apartheid.
3. The only nations who do call Israel apartheid are run by Jew hating totalitarian, fascist dictators.
So it isn't Apartheid.
BDS attempts to fool gullible people into believing Israel is Apartheid. And Nazi-like.
It's clear why they do this. Such a state has no right to exist.
The BDS goal is the elimination of Israel, and only Israel, which doesn't bode well for its 6 million Jews.
So of course BDS is racist.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)apartheid is Afrikaans not German and it was coined after WW2
Apartheid (Afrikaans pronunciation: [ɐˈpartɦɛit]; an Afrikaans word meaning "the state of being apart", literally "apart-hood"
was a system of racial segregation in South Africa enforced through legislation by the National Party (NP) governments, the ruling party from 1948 to 1994.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid
shira
(30,109 posts)I'm not sure where you've been if you're unaware of that.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)It should be easy for you to find hundreds and thousands.
Ready? Go.
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)As a German, the palestinian territory under neverending military occupation reminds me how Nazi-Germany forced Jews out of their homes and into ghettos.
The violent attacks by israeli settlers, the destruction of palestinian private property, the bureaucratic obstacles that only Palestinians face... that reminds me of the condoned everyday-discrimination the Jews faced in Nazi-Germany in the 1930s as their rights were taken away bit by bit and their shops and homes were vandalized bit by bit and none of the german authorities protected these german citizens from the criminals.
The recent Gaza-war, were Israel waltzed in and killed 2000 people as a warning, reminds of the Nazis crushing the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising with flamethrowers.
And before anybody tries to pin me down on this: No, I don't think the scales are comparable in terms of deaths. And I don't think that Israel harbors genocidal tendencies towards the Palestinians.
But the similarities, the patterns of sanctioned violence, of neverending military oppression, of dehumanization, are striking.
Israel, founded by victims of racism, has become a racist nation. And I am deeply shocked that Israel, of all nations, shows itself of being unable to recognize racism when it sees it.
How are israeli settlers burning down a palestinian olive grove different from brown-shirts trashing a jewish store?
Smithryee
(157 posts)not Israel, according to the Wiki.
msongs
(67,465 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)If you want to say Jews aren't a race, I agree with you.
It's still racism.
Call it bigotry or outright Jew hatred if that works better for you.
Warpy
(111,397 posts)BDS is against a government, not a worldwide action against people who belong to a single ethnic group.
If it spreads to all Jews all over the world, you might have a point. Right now, you're just blowing a lot of hot air and sniffing for filth where none exists.
Tell Israel's government to dump Bibi and clean up its act, BDS will go away quickly.
Get it?
shira
(30,109 posts)They're against a Zionist/Jewish state altogether.
Are you really unaware of the BDS platform? They're very clear about it.
Warpy
(111,397 posts)Are you unaware that the state is different from an ethnic group?
It's not antisemitic. It's anti Likud, if anything.
shira
(30,109 posts)Proof is the 1999-2000 government which joined Meretz and Labor. The BDS crew doesn't view that government any better than it does Likud right now.
That gov't withdrew Israel from Lebanon and offered Arafat the contents of the Clinton Parameters.
You'll find no major BDS figures speaking sympathetically about that gov't.
Now run along.
shira
(30,109 posts)....who back Israel's most leftwing/liberal Zionist political party, Meretz.
Google BDS & Meretz and find me something that shows general agreement between BDS and Meretz regarding their ideas about Palestinians, peace, and 2 states.
Anything from the past decade.
I'm predicting you find nothing.
By all means, feel free to prove me wrong.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)It's like I wrote before. Nobody believes you. You're not credible.
krishnarama
(30 posts)and because you're just attacking shira, when she has already provided evidence. You have NO counter-evidence or backing of ANYTHING you have said so far.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)I'm really done with wasting much time refuting shira's untruths since she doen't listen, or when she gets cornered doesn't respond. But I'm sure that you are such a quality expert on DU/IP since you have been here so long.
shira
(30,109 posts)Just more personal attacks.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)The original BDS movement was against South Africa. So the 'it's only done to Jewish People' argument falls flat from the start. So does the 'BDS infantilizes Palestinians' argument, unless the author is also claiming the original BDS movement 'infantilized' black South Africans.
The original author needs to learn a tiny bit of history before making his proclamations.
Smithryee
(157 posts)It's not a general word.. and only idiots and bigots uses that word when trying to mesh it with Israel.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)You can't even go one sentence worth of comment before tossing multiple insults? Not worth listening to.
Smithryee
(157 posts)Bye
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)apartheid
[uh-pahrt-hahyt, -heyt, uh-pahr-tahyt, -teyt]
Word Origin
noun
1.
(in the Republic of South Africa) a rigid former policy of segregating and economically and politically oppressing the nonwhite population.
2.
any system or practice that separates people according to color, ethnicity, caste, etc.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/apartheid
apartheid
1
: racial segregation; specifically : a former policy of segregation and political and economic discrimination against non-European groups in the Republic of South Africa
2
: separation, segregation <cultural apartheid> <gender apartheid>
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apartheid
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Only idiots and bigots refuse to understand that the word applies to a system, not a specific event.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)a former social system in South Africa in which black people and people from other racial groups did not have the same political and economic rights as white people and were forced to live separately from white people
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apartheid
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Crazy crackers unlevened with the slightest amount of sense or sensibility.
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)For me, there is no contradiction in this whatsoever, because I boycott apartheid and support democracy.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I'll indulge you though.
If your thesis is a bandwagon fallacy, you're off to a rough start.
Is anti-semitism not racism? All this time I've thought neo-nazi skinheads were racists. I guess I'm wrong?
I wait with breathless anticipation for the big reveal!
I'm glad i'm getting this show for free. i still feel like I should get my money back though. Really? Really blogger? No one else has ever been sanctioned? No other nation has faced boycotts? really? You know there's more than two nations on the planet, right? somewhere between 197 and 223, depending on who's counting.
Israeli well-being is predicated on immoral abuses against Palestinians? Wow. I never knew. Do tell me more of this strange trait of the Israeli people, blogger!
"Stop abusing other people" isn't really an impossible standard. And it is indefensible. So. Unless the blogger wants to write their next piece on the heartache of being an abusive spouse and society not understanding your need to slappabitch, I'm not sure where they think they're going.
End of paragraph one. Blogger is drunk, needs to go home before causing injury to sell or others due to staggering in the dark while stone-cold drop-drown fershnikit.
Well, no other nation is currently occupying Palestine the way Israel is. Thus, no other nation is getting criticized for doing so. it's not complicated.
because plenty of them are true (e.g., every-fucking-thing-besides-jenin)
Well,that's because these are explicitly Jewish neighborhoods, and non-Jews are being evicted so they can be built. Also, it bears mention that Israel has no right whatsoever to build anything in East Jerusalem, as it's occupied territory.
West Jerusalem is too, for the record, but that's a discussion for a more sober blogger. As is the fact that Israel exists as it does today solely because of its perpetration of ethnic cleansing. slightly more complicated than the reality other nations aren't criticized for what Israel does because Israel is doing it.
Blacks had full voting rights prior to 1964 as well. The law said so, so that's how it was.
Also, what about those 3 million Arabs who live under Israeli rule, but are subject to military law, while their jewish "neighbors" are subject to civil law, and have no say in the application of either? Hmmm.
because it is occupying another nation. Two other nations, in fact. Well, two or three, depending on whether shebaa belongs to Lebanon or Syria.
Imagine; conduct an occupation, get accused of occupying.
Well, because Israel does nothing to promote peace. "Offering" Palestinians 30% of their own land, out of the 60% they are asking for in exchange for peace, from the 100% you stole at the point of a bayonet, isn't really "promoting peace."
Paragraph three. Blogger has become so inebriated that they are confusing their own argument with that of their purported opponents, and are yelling at both. Cab company refuses to take fare, says "we've dealt with this asshole before."
Paragraph three, sentence three; blogger has just remembered a word he heard while sexting during a sociology lecture at college. Still doesn't know what the term means.
The things this blogger knows about BDS seems to stop at the acronym. I wonder if the person even knows what the acronym stands for. Given the general double-digit thuggish behavior of this fellow's social club, and his own deep piss-drunkenness, likely thinks it means "Boats, Dinghies, and Ships" and has to do with sending a flotilla to Tibet.
No, it's called murder. Racism and fascism describe the motives, not the actions.
paragraph four. Blogger seems to believe he has reached enlightenment. Nirvana apparently involves projectile vomiting and splashing around on the floor.
Blogger attempts Chewbacca Defense to justify Israeli wrongdoing. it has no effect!
I'm sure we're about to find out.
I wish the blogger would stop getting my hopes up for a big reveal. "They're all raschisht!" gurgles Drunk J-post Blogger. "Y'wannnnaa know WHY? 'Cauzshe they'sh RASSHISTS!"
I would call it a circular argument but i'm pretty sure the blogger can't see well enough to actually make a circle at this point.
And if Peru were occupying Norway, you wouldn't hear a peep from Hillel. What? You wouldn't! i'm sure! This proves something!
Well, for starters, both of those situations ended in 1967. Kind of predates BDS by a little bit. Second, egypt never annexed Gaza. Jordan tried to annex the west bank, but hte move was roundly condemned by the Arab league, which threatened to revoke jordan's membership if it did so. Jordan backed off the plan.
Poor drunken J-post blogger. even if he were sober, he'd probably be too stupid to know this stuff. But if he were a smart person he probably wouldn't be blogging on J-post.
End of paragraph four. Blogger's thesis seems to be that BDS is racist because he needs them to be racist so he can counter-argue that Israeli Jews are the one and only victims, and are always right no matter how much violence they perpetrate against the people they "totally aren't!" occupying, and cannot be held responsible for their actions. being drunker than a pooterskoot, blogger fails to realize that this is the same case he tried to present against BDS.
Addendum: Someone turned blogger over to prevent him from drowning in own vomit. Ruined the betting pool, other bar patrons disappointed.
shira
(30,109 posts)BDS is racist because it calls for an end to the Jewish state. An end to the only place on earth Jews can depend on. The spike in anti-semitic attacks throughout "enlightened" Europe show why the Jewish state is necessary for the survival of the Jewish people. Even in America, all Jewish institutions have to invest a lot on their own security against those who want Jews dead.
BDS wants that safe haven taken away. BDS calls for a situation in which Jews would be at the mercy of a Palestinian leadership that constantly makes its genocidal intentions known towards Jews. A leadership that constantly acts upon that intent to murder Jews.
It's not just that BDS is against a Jewish state. Being against a Jewish state means they're also against the general welfare of all Jews worldwide. Jews in Israel know exactly what would happen if BDS goals were ever implemented and achieved. The result would be horrific death and destruction. All sane and objective people know this. Jews who feel unsafe throughout the rest of the world would have nowhere to go. The 1-state solution BDS seeks would put Jews in a similar situation to that of the Jews pre-1948.
That's why BDS is racist.
To get back to the article, 1-state doesn't even benefit Palestinians. Assuming no Palestinians are harmed in a civil war against Israelis, they'd still live under brutal totalitarian rule that they happen to live under today (under Hamas rule, the PA, within Lebanon, Jordan, etc). BDS does absolutely nothing to help make their notion of a future 1-state Palestine into an enlightened liberal and progressive nation that ensures civil liberties that we in the West are guaranteed by law.
BDS isn't pro-Palestinian at all. It's completely anti-Jewish. Thus, it's racist.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)And you'd tell me that not only am I wrong, but that I hate Jews for suggesting such a thing. It's all you have.
1) No it doesn;t.
2) That's also not the article's premise.
Except all the other places they live.
No, it demonstrates that there are assholes in Europe. it further showcases the fact that Zionists like yourself are more interested in exploiting and promoting antisemitism, than in opposing it.
Is this a real necessity, though? Or is it simply the result of fearmongering from phony philosemites like you who want jews runnign scared to Israel?
Not at all.
No, you're thinking of the situation under which Palestinians currently live.
No, it certainly doesn't.
Which it's not.
Jewish welfare does not depend on the oppression, disenfranchisement, and dissolution of the Palestinain people by Israel.
Economic penalties against israel until it ends its oppression, disenfranchismeent, and dissolution of the Palestinians.
People don't die from having their businesses boycotted.
bandwagon fallacy.
The cure for antisemtiism is opposition to antisemitism.
They'd become violent terrorists massacring villages to ensure their ethnic majority within a terrotry handed to them by a prior illegitimate occupier?
You seem to have a very low opinion of jews.
Then I suggest that you don't know what the word means.
We are well aware of your interest in the welfare of Palestinians, of course.
Well, seeing as you keep using the specter of Jews slaughtering Palestinians to re-assert ethnic majority dominance, I wonder if you actually oppose the notion.
Your argument reminds me of this canard I see sometimes from defenders of anti-black Racism.
"We did them a favor by enslaving htem! Just look at Africa. Americna blacks ought to be grateful for what we give them!"
The assumption that your oppression is justified because you imagine that people would be worse-off without it is nonsense.
That's because BDS is not building a state's government. BDS is trying to end the oppression of the Palestinain people by Israel.
Of course they are, that's the crux of your violent hatred of them.
if they were, you would support them, since antisemitism benefits Zionism.
According to your article, one cannot be racist against Jews. Which I think is incorrect, but you seem to beleive that "nails it."
shira
(30,109 posts)1) No it doesn;t.
Oh, they definitely do via the fantasy of Right of Return that aims to send millions of Palestinians into Israel in order to end the Jewish state. That would absolutely end the Jewish state w/o any question.
There are absolutely no major players within the BDS movement who even support a Jewish state. I challenge you to name one.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Your argument is that not supporting your racism is itself racist. It's a bad argument and you're a bad person for using it.
You can find some links that might answer your question here.
shira
(30,109 posts)In your last post, you responded to my statement that follows in bold:
1) No it doesn;t.
It doesn't? You want an end to what you see as a racist Jewish state. But you don't believe BDS wants that too? Is it because the BDS movement that you support is just as racist as you say I am?
So which is it? BDS either supports a Jewish state or their goal (like yours) is to eliminate such a racist entity. Try again.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)The drunken blogger is using "The Jewish State" as a stand-in for the word "Israel." BDS does not seek an "end to Israel." BDS seeks a change in Israeli policy. The drunken blogger is wrong.
shira
(30,109 posts)...in their historical homeland. The Jews' only guarantee of a safe haven in the world. A place in which Jews wouldn't have to put their lives into anyone else's hands.
Eliminating Israel, which is the Jewish State (enough of the bullshit already) is to basically tell Jews both in Israel and worldwide to ESAD, as they have no right to self determination in their historic homeland, as well as no right to be safe in the one place they can trust to protect them.
An end to the Jewish State (Israel) means Jews worldwide once again become a vulnerable minority everywhere - just as they had been for nearly 2000 years. We all know how that worked out. And sadly enough, the world isn't much better to Jews now than it was just 75 years ago in what has to be considered one of the biggest acts of insanity ever. Jews are once again not feeling safe in parts of Europe. Go figure.
To support an end to the Jewish state is to support what Israel's worst Jew hating enemies want. There's no question that ending the Jewish state (which puts Jews in harm's way once again) is anti-semitic. If not in intent (giving every possible benefit of the doubt) then it certainly is in effect.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Which is simple racism and ethnic chauvinism on your part.
shira
(30,109 posts)....in their historic homeland, which serves its purpose as a safe haven for Jews everywhere while also guaranteeing the same civil liberties to its non-Jewish population as it does with its Jews.
BDS seeks to end that.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)This depends on the presumption that the Arabs already living in Palestine lacked a right to self-determination, or at least, that the Jewish right trumped their right.
Or, in the short version, Jew > Arab.
shira
(30,109 posts)The Arabs already living in Palestine 100 years ago were given the right to self-determination when Jordan was separated from Israel. That's 75% of Palestine right there.
75% Arab Palestine compared to Jews getting the other 25% suggests just the opposite.
In addition, the Jews have offered part of their 25% for a 2nd Arab state within what was Palestine a century ago.
You've got it completely backwards.
In your scenario, Arabs would get 100% of what was Palestine 100 years ago while the Jews get 0% self-determination.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)That's why there ought to be two independent states. The fact of the matter is we should've been celebrating the 60th anniversary of both states at the same time (and we could have been).
Aerows
(39,961 posts)You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Apr 8, 2015, 10:10 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This alert doesn't make sense.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Scootaloo is many things, but an anti-semite she is not.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: over the top
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: it was pretty obvious that the "drunken blogger" was the person in the link, NOT shira.
I was number 4.
aranthus
(3,385 posts)Scootaloo claims that Jewish nationalism is racist. That the idea that Jews have a right to a state in part of Palestine is based on a claim of "Jewish superiorty." How is that not antisemitic per se. Know that virtually all believing Jews hold that it is.
aranthus
(3,385 posts)Jews aren't a race. Neither are Israelis, even if BDS was directed against "Israelis," which it isn't. It's directed at Jewish Israelis. It's important that our side of the debate adhere to standards of intellectual honesty and discussion. Part of that means being precise and accurate with the words we use. It may be tempting to just mush all bigotry under the term "racism" as the Left has done for years, but that's just sloppy and ultimately dishonest. Jews and Palestinians are nations, not races. Israeli is a citizenship, not a race. BDS is bad enough as antisemitism without trying to toss it into the racism pile.
shira
(30,109 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And if you REALLY want to fight the BDS movement, the way to do that is to call, as a Zionist, for the Israeli government to stop oppressing the Palestinian people. Vilifying and demonizing BDS is a waste of time.
shira
(30,109 posts)....they're mostly composed of rightwingers.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I don't recall ever saying they were mostly rightwingers.
Please post a cite for that. It's possible it's something I've forgotten, but I seriously doubt I said that.
Why are you so obsessed with BDS? It's not as though dissent against Israeli government policies would vanish, or even be significantly reduced, if BDS ceased to exist.
And if all Israeli Jews were the same race, how would you explain the bigoted treatment the Ashkenazim(Jews of Eastern European/Russian descent)have traditionally extended to the Sephardim(Southern European descent) and Mizrahim(North African descent)Israeli Jewish communities?
shira
(30,109 posts)I'm against anyone who wishes harm on Jews and that's what BDS is about.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Even so, I don't believe that BDS "wishes harm on Jews".
They are naive and unrealistic in demanding a single state, but they aren't evil.
And again, why spend so much time demonizing them rather than do the most effective thing you could do to neutralize their impact, which would be to join other pro-Israel people in calling for an end to the Occupation(or at least pulling the IDF back to the Green Line)and end to the settlements(which are simply a right-wing ideological want, rather than a security need, and whose existence does nothing but jeopardize the security of those who live in Israel proper) and an end to the practice of punishing and repressing ALL Palestinians for the acts of the violent minority?
Over and over again, at every point, your response to not only BDS but the entire I/P issue has been to do nothing but demonize people who disagree with you and to do your best to silence debate and discussion. Given that no good has ever come to Israel from the silencing and delegitimization of legitimate criticism(or the denial that much of any criticism of Israeli security policy could ever be legitimate and motivated by positive, humanistic intent) why do you stick to that strategy?
It's not as if the whole issue would be finished and done with if only everybody gave the Israeli government unquestioning support on every "security" issue. And it's not as if any good comes of denying that Palestinians have any major legitimate grievances with Israel(yes, the tactics their leaders have used have often been stupid, but that doesn't mean that the entire Palestinian narrative is bogus, and it's never served any good purpose to pretend that Palestinians are motivated by nothing but bigotry-yes, some Palestinians would hate Jews no matter what, but that doesn't mean that Palestinians don't also have valid reasons for their anger at the Israeli state and the way it has treated them, and it doesn't mean that everything that Palestinians say about their situation can be disregarded and ignored. Dismissing the entire Palestinian struggle as bigotry is simply a denial of reality and a roadblock to ever bringing the war to an end, because it's not as though it would be possible to make those Palestinians who are bigots cease to be bigots by continually making the lives of all Palestinians worse. You can't immiserate a people into tolerance.
And it's not as if there isn't plenty of anti-Palestinian and anti-Arab bigotry on the Israeli side, too-look at how effective Netanyahu's "they're bringing in busloads of Arabs" canard on election day was at swinging undecided voters over to his hate party.
The way to end this war is to get both sides to acknowledge the humanity and the pain of the other side-and nothing you have ever said or done here is going to make that happen.
shira
(30,109 posts)...within Israel?
Let's hear it. And please be clear.
I believe you and the BDS movement both know exactly what would happen.
============
You also couldn't be further from the truth about my wanting to silence debate. I'm actually all in favor of it and will answer anything asked of me. Those I disagree the most with are rarely ever straight-forward. And we both know why.
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)First you demand that everybody gets treated equally, while conflating nation with race, and now you demand a special treatment for one race.
If Jews were the majority in a unified Israel, would you also object to a One-State-solution?
shira
(30,109 posts)1. It can be a liberal democracy.
2. Or it can be yet another failed totalitarian dictatorship w/ little to no civil rights for citizens.
With a minority Jewish population in Israel, it wouldn't take long for #1 to start becoming #2.
With Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the PLO assuming major leadership roles (and given they want zero to do with the governance of a liberal democracy) the outlook is bleak, to say the least, for a Jewish minority there under scenario #2. The history of that region just in the past 100 years is proof enough.
Given the way Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the PLO now treat Palestinians under their brutal rule in Gaza and the W.Bank (women, gays, religious minorities) imagine how a minority Jewish population would be treated.
We both know damned well what a nightmare scenario that would be.
===============
I'm for 2 states living in peace side-by-side. I also believe that in order for the peace to hold up, the Palestinians need their state to become more of a liberal western style democracy. Once that happens, then a 1-state solution can be more reasonably debated.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Both peoples have the right to self-determination. One should not negate the national identity of either group.
Nobody is asking for the former Yugoslavia to re-unite into one country.
People seemed quite supportive of the Bosnian, Croatian, and Macedonian people each having their own independent state (as well as the other countries that were part of the former Yugoslavia).
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I'm not part of BDS, and actually I'm not sure everyone IN BDS "knows" what would happen in a single statwe scenario. BTW, it's not as though Palestinians in the West Bank are necessarily treated better than a Jewish minority in a single state would be, or that, in a single state, Palestinians would be universally obsessed with liquidating Israelis. You can't assume all or even most Palestinians are psychopaths. Most of them just don't to live under the perpetually militarized status quo. Can you really blame them for being angry at how the IDF treats them on a daily basis?
If you don't want a single state to be the result, you need to stop defending the totally indefensible settlement project. Israel doesn't need to settle the West Bank to be secure(in fact, it's now obvious that the settlements endanger Israeli security)and they've already nearly taken up enough land to make a two-state solution impossible. And the bulk of the settlers are arrogant ultra-nationalist supremacist whackjobs who act like they have the right to be there and the Palestinians don't.
shira
(30,109 posts)...and they know Palestinians are against a secular democracy (around 90% support for some kind of sharia based government), then what they're REALLY calling for is a totalitarian Palestine, with Hamas/PA rule.
You're assuming they're idiots who don't know that. I'm certain they know it.
I didn't say all Palestinians are psychopaths but their leaders certainly are. Under PA/Hamas rule now in the territories, Palestinians are already treated like shit. Jews would be treated even worse.
I'm for a peaceful 2-state solution. BDS is not. They're racists and warmongers.
FarrenH
(768 posts)
Celerity
(43,632 posts)ago, it is still disgusting.
