Why a Cultural Boycott of Israel Is Necessary

[madeline_con]

Why a Cultural Boycott of Israel Is Necessary

Remi Kanazi
June 4, 2008

A cultural boycott does not hinder the prospects for peace; rather, it serves to empower conscientious Israelis and Palestinians, and it provides the international community with a viable nonviolent solution to the current impasse.

At what point does rhetoric stop and effective action begin? For Palestinians, decades of dialogue and supposed peace overtures have proved fruitless, only serving to protect the status quo: 60 years of continual dispossession, 40 years of occupation, and a systematic repudiation of international and humanitarian law. The situation for Palestinians will not improve without constructive movement forward—which rejects collusion with the Israeli government by exercising boycott, divestment, and sanctions (known as B.D.S.).

During the 1980's, B.D.S. of South Africa included a cultural boycott whereby musicians and artists from around the world were prohibited from performing in the apartheid state.

In addition to internationally supporting the subjugated Black population, this policy was instituted to express that no real dialogue—economic, academic, or cultural—could take place in concert with the atrocities of apartheid. With regard to Israel, the implementation of international B.D.S. is but one necessary measure to shift the balance away from the oppressor and help place it in the hands of the oppressed.

http://www.worldpress.org/Mideast/3165.cfm

[LeftishBrit]

1. Why just Israel?

Why not a cultural boycott of the USA and the UK over the Iraq war, or China over its authoritarian government and the occupation of Tibet, or Saudi Arabia over its treatment of women and involvement in international corruption, or - well, you get the idea.

And no, I am NOT saying Israel has the right to do anything it wants because others are doing it too. That's not the point. The point is: selective punishment of one individual (person or country), while others get away with the same things, is both unjust and likely to backfire.

The other point is: what is a boycott likely to achieve, or intended to achieve? Many pro-boycotters don't seem to have a specific goal/ demand in mind: "we will boycott you until you stop constructing new settlements" or "until you end the Occupation". They simply give the impression that Israel is a Bad Place, and should be Ostracized. Any punishment or sanction - on a person or country - should come with very specific demands.

If the pro-boycotters gave as much attention to promoting Palestinian education and culture, as to cutting links with Israel, they might do a lot more good. When the mathematician Mumford gave the money from his Wolff Prize to Bir Zeit University and Gisha, he was doing something much more constructive than a boycott.

The following organization gives an interesting perspective:

http://www.links-not-boycott.org.uk

[Violet_Crumble]

3. Why just South Africa?

I'm sure the same type of argument against boycotts was used back during the days of Apartheid...

I've seen some very cohesive arguments as to why there should be a boycott of Israel, though to have a chance of being effective I think it needs to be done at the international level in the form of sanctions and has to be specific in its goals...

I'm not knowledgable enough about those who are promoting the idea of boycotts to know whether or not they do give attention to promoting Palestinian culture. If they don't, they should, but I don't think the promotion of those two things must be mutually exclusive...

[LeftishBrit]

4. One difference...

when we were boycotting South Africa, we were not ourselves taking part in an illegal and immoral war and occupation. (I believe that most of this took place after the Vietnam war; and in any case the UK was never directly involved in that war.)

I agree that any sanctions on any place need to be specific in their goals. I tend to be much readier to support specific sanctions, in support of specific goals (with regard to any country), than cultural boycotts without such goals. Of course, Israel is always implicitly subject to the threat of certaom sanctions, in terms of America cutting its aid if they don't tow the line. It's just that it tends to take a form of "Aid is conditional on your favouring us when buying weapons, etc, and not opposing our foreign policy goals" rather than e.g. "Aid is conditional on your not building any more settlements".

'I'm not knowledgable enough about those who are promoting the idea of boycotts to know whether or not they do give attention to promoting Palestinian culture. If they don't, they should, but I don't think the promotion of those two things must be mutually exclusive...'

As a member of UCU, I'm fairly familiar with those on the academic side; and while the two need not be mutually exclusive, on the whole the pro-boycotters do rather little of (e.g.) campaigning for funds for Palestinian educational causes. I've seen more of the latter from left-wingers *opposed* to a boycott.

[Violet_Crumble]

8. There's no difference...

Yr argument included What About The Chinese Occupation Of Tibet? That occupation was happening during the days of international sanctions against South Africa. Also, while yr country may still be involved in Iraq, many more countries like mine aren't. The bottom line is that I don't think using an argument that it's not fair to boycott a country unless others are boycotted is an effective argument...

For the record I'm opposed to academic boycotts...

[LeftishBrit]

18. OK -let's leave out China for the moment (unless it actually joins the boycott)....

My main argument here is that it's not fair to boycott a country when *the countries, who are doing the boycotting, are doing something similar or worse than the country being boycotted*. The USA and UK certainly are.

I'm not totally up on what Australia is doing since Rudd defeated Howard (hooray!). Certainly in the past, its treatment of its own native peoples would have made it seem a bit hypocritical for Australia to boycott Israel over its treatment of the Palestinians. Is this aspect changing with the new government?

[Violet_Crumble]

45. We boycotted South Africa...

Back in 1971 the Australian Cricket Board cancelled a tour of South Africa. Only a few years before that Aboriginals were finally given the right to vote in federal elections and to be included in the national census. Changes to the Migration Act that finally removed the requirement for Aboriginals to obtain special permits to get passports and travel were only removed in the mid 1970's, and indigenous children were still taken from their mothers into the 1970's. Knowing that and more, do I think Australia shouldn't have participated in an international boycott of South Africa? Of course I don't. Do I think Australia deserved international sanctions and cultural boycotts if it hadn't pulled up its socks when it came to racism? Definately. It was a mixture of the growing international pressure on South Africa as well as some level of international attention turning on Australia's treatment of its indigenous people which set us on the path to becoming the multicultural nation we are now....

Things are definately changing with the new govt. Kevin Rudd officially apologised to indigenous Australians for the Stolen Generation and mistreatment of the past. That acknowledgement was a very powerful thing and acknowledgements of past wrongdoing need to be part of any peaceful resolution of the I/P conflict. They might be dismissed by some who they're not aimed at as just words, but it's their power to help heal the people who've mistreated in the past that really matters...

[oberliner]

7. Israel is not South Africa

South Africa was unique in a way that Israel is not.

The US and the UK are engaging in an occupation of a foreign country that has led to the death of more civilians than have died since the West Bank and Gaza were occupied.

[Violet_Crumble]

9. So a country has to be unique in order to have sanctions imposed?

South Africa wasn't as unique as you think. While no situation, whether it's racism or occupation, is the same, there are common things about all of them. In the case of South Africa, the growing international opposition to Apartheid leading up to the sanctions and South Africa's status as a pariah state put pressure on countries like my own to clean up their acts out of fear that the same could happen to them. Putting pressure on a country that's doing the wrong thing can result in other countries in similar situations changing their ways and that alone makes the spectre of international sanctions a worthwhile thing...

[oberliner]

11. Cultural boycotts

I don't think that cultural boycotts are a good idea, however, if I had to choose countries whose government policies could conceivably warrant such an action, Israel would not top the list.

[Shaktimaan]

12. It has to be unique in that it

fits the criteria for a boycott to be effective and beneficial.

Israel is unique in that they face a genuine threat from Palestinian terrorism and the leading terrorist group, Hamas, who has directly opposed and stymied past Israeli peace efforts, is now their elected leadership. It would be unreasonable to make demands, like leaving the west bank in its entirety, if the effects would leave Israel exposed to attack with no real means of defense. It also is debatable as to whether such an act would even benefit West Bank Palestinians... look at the quality of life in Gaza since Israel has left.

Additionally, this conflict is far more complex than the problems faced by South Africa. Achieving any true measure of justice in this conflict is not possible; both sides have obvious rights which are in conflict with each other. Does it make sense for outside forces, (such as boycott leaders) to determine fragile negotiations over who should have sovereignty over areas like Al Aqsa/The Temple Mount? In cases like that we are not dealing with a straightforward issue like abolishing Apartheid but the details of disputed land and borders, which outside forces who have no stake in the outcome seldom determine unilaterally.

The fact is that peace in the mid east, unlike Apartheid in South Africa, requires the full commitment and cooperation of both sides. It is not something that is within Israel's power to unilaterally declare. You can issue a boycott against Israel for singular, simple tasks that the world finds universally repugnant and that they themselves no longer abide by. But if you ask them to do something that puts them at unnecessary risk or is outside of their power to enact on their own, then they will not only refuse to do it, but the boycott will have far fewer participants. Remember Israelis have faced near-universal boycotts before and are capable of weathering such a storm again. Especially if they feel that they have no real choice in the matter.

Lastly there is a question of fairness. Israel is perhaps the most liberal and free state in the entire middle east, populated by a people who have by all measure, faced more than their fair share of bigotry. Is it the right thing to do, singling Israel out before any of her far more oppressive and bloodthirsty neighbors for punishment? And how would such a move be interpreted within Israel? Would it be seen as supportive of the large Israeli peace movement, like PeaceNow? Or would it galvanize almost all Israelis against what they would likely see as an anti-semitic witch hunt... similar to their treatment by the UNHRC?

If you do support a boycott of Israel, what would the terms be? What would you ask of Israel before allowing them to rejoin the world at large? And would you make any demands from the Palestinians as well?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

23. The rationale and terms are made clear by PACBI:

In light of Israel's persistent violations of international law, and Given that, since 1948, hundreds of UN resolutions have condemned Israel's colonial and discriminatory policies as illegal and called for immediate, adequate and effective remedies, and Given that all forms of international intervention and peace-making have until now failed to convince or force Israel to comply with humanitarian law, to respect fundamental human rights and to end its occupation and oppression of the people of Palestine, and In view of the fact that people of conscience in the international community have historically shouldered the moral responsibility to fight injustice, as exemplified in the struggle to abolish apartheid in South Africa through diverse forms of boycott, divestment and sanctions;

Inspired by the struggle of South Africans against apartheid and in the spirit of international solidarity, moral consistency and resistance to injustice and oppression,

We, representatives of Palestinian civil society, call upon international civil society organizations and people of conscience all over the world to impose broad boycotts and implement divestment initiatives against Israel similar to those applied to South Africa in the apartheid era. We appeal to you to pressure your respective states to impose embargoes and sanctions against Israel. We also invite conscientious Israelis to support this Call, for the sake of justice and genuine peace.

These non-violent punitive measures should be maintained until Israel meets its obligation to recognize the Palestinian people's inalienable right to self-determination and fully complies with the precepts of international law by:

1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall;

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

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


http://www.pacbi.org/boycott_news_more.php?id=66_0_1_10_M11

[aranthus]

32. Let's be honest about what this means.

Just consider item 3 for a minute. The organizers want the boycott to continue until Israel respects, protects and promotes the rights of refugees to return to Israel. We all know what the Right of Return means. It means the end of Israel. So what the organizers are really asking is that people boycott Israel until it is destroyed. But that won't happen without a major war and the slaughter of most of Israel's Jewish citizens. Translation: the boycott is just another front in a genocidal war.

[Vegasaurus]

38. Genocidal war is right

Right of return is a nonstarter for the Israelis and is the Palestinians main sticking point.

Israelis are not suicidal, and so there will be no right of return of four and a half million Arabs.

Not now, not ever.

Anyone who believes this boycott effort will make that happen is delusional.

[Violet_Crumble]

48. Try learning what genocide is before abusing the term...

That's every bit as wrong as when people accuse Israel of committing genocide, something which I remember you complaining about. I take it now that yr opposition to the term being used wasn't the same as my opposition to a term which has a very clear legal definition being used to describe something that doesn't fall into that definition, but was a kneejerk opposition to it being used for clumsy rhetorical purposes against Israel but not against any other country or people. It's totally hypocritical to complain about the term being misused only when it's aimed at one side. The legal definition of genocide has been posted here many times. Is it too much to hope you might have actually read and digested it?

[aranthus]

61. This is a call to genocide

“This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.”

— Azzam Pasha, Secretary-General of the Arab League,
May 15, 1948

So is this:

“Our forces are now entirely ready not only to repulse the aggression, but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united....I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation.”

— Syrian Defense Minister Hafez Assad,
May 20, 1967

This at least implies it:

“If they all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide.”

— Hizballah leader Sheikh Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah
Lebanon Daily Star, October 23, 2002

And this:

“The Prophet said: the Jews will hide behind the rock and tree, and the rock and tree will say: oh servant of Allah, oh Muslim this is a Jew behind me, come and kill him! Why is there this malice? Because there are none who love the Jews on the face of the earth: not man, not rock, and not tree; everything hates them. They destroy everything, they destroy the trees and destroy the houses. Everything wants vengeance on the Jews, on these pigs on the face of the earth, and the day of our victory, Allah willing, will come.”

— Shaykh Ibrahim Mudayris
Palestine Authority TV
September 10, 2004

There is nothing like this on the Israeli side. There is nothing comparable to the Palestinians starting the war against Israel to destroy it; a goal that requires slaughtering most or all of Israel's Jews. Your attempt to draw a false compaison between the lie that Israel is engaged in genocide and the observation that the Arab desire to destroy Israel demands it, is totally specious.

[Violet_Crumble]

133. No, it's not...you really need to study up on what genocide is...

See, it'd be real easy to delve back in history, drag up some really nasty quotes from extremist 'supporters' of Israel (as with yr 'examples' they don't need to be from the Israeli govt), and label them a call to genocide. What is 'call to genocide' anyway? If yr thinking of demonisation, which is one of the early stages of a genocide, then you should be aware that demonisation is carried out by a central authority like a government, and it's of a systematic nature. Yr 'call to genocide' applies every bit as much to what has been said by religious whackjobs in Israel about Arabs and Muslims, and it'd apply just as much to the religious whackjobs in the US who also put out extreme statements...

Oh, I just read the bottom of yr post and see that you've put yr foot in yr mouth by claiming there's nothing like this one the Israeli side. Just a few examples are extremists in the Israeli govt, one of which compared Arabs to lice and said they had to be taken care of the same way lice would be taken care of. Or Effie Etaim who said he wants to drive Arabs out of Israel. There's nutjob rabbis who do call for the killing of Palestinian civilians. Are you absolutely sure you want to stick to the claim that there's nothing like that on the Israeli side?

[aranthus]

148. Nonsense.

Genocide is the deliberate extermination of a national, racial, ethnic or cultural group. Jews certainly qualify as a national, ethnic and/or cultural group. That being said:

1. The Arabs, particularly the Arabs of Palestine, started a war against the Jews of Palestine, in which the neighboring states joined. War, being a military operation by organized forces under command acting according to a plan, qualifies as systematic.

2. The purpose of the war was to prevent the Jews from having a state in any part of Palestine.

3. That could only be accomplished by killing most or all of the Jews of Palestine, and later of Israel.

4. The Arabs knew that.

5. Major Arab leaders stated that was the intent.

6. Had the Arabs won the first war, they would likely have killed every Jew remaining in Palestine.

Now, obviously, the Arabs did not actually commit genocide, since Israel and its Jews defended themselves, and they are still there. I never claimed that the Arabs actually murdered every Jew in Palestine, but that was their obvious intent. They started a war that was genocidal in intent, and that is the meaning of a genocidal war in this case.

As to your ludicrous comparison of the quotes I posted with those of Effie Eitam or some Israeli ministers. First, do you really think that any of them are comparable in stature, authority or acceptance to Azzam Pasha, Hafez Assad, or the leaders of Hezbollah or Hamas? They aren't comparable. None of them are considered "nut jobs," in the Arab world. Second, the statements of Pasha and Assad were descriptive of the war that the Arabs actually started. Of course, there's nothing comparable on the Israeli side. The Israelis never started a war to destroy the Arabs.

[Name removed]

150. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

174. Does anyone else think those comments are bigoted negative generalisations?

I'm curious to know. Also, if someone were to post the same thing but reverse the references to Jews and Arabs, would you think that was a bigoted negative generalisation?

[Violet_Crumble]

158. That's one way of self-describing yr post :)

I'm not quite sure why yr trying to tell me what the definition of genocide is. Do you think that maybe after doing Genocide Studies I don't actually know the definition? I think just maybe you might be wrong if yr thinking that...

Before I address yr post I'm going to assume that you do have an interest in reading about genocide and recommend two books to you. The first is 'With Intent To Destroy' by Colin Tatz, and A Problem From Hell: American and the age of genocide' by Samantha Power. If you do read both those books, you'll hopefully start to understand why it's a total abuse of the memory of those who have died in genocides to incorrectly use the term as a weapon to score stupid points when it comes to either Israel or the Palestinians...

Who are 'the Arabs'? Am I correct to assume from yr post that yr referring not to leaderships or extremists, but entire populations in the Middle East? And no offense, but yr interpretation of the war in 1948 is incredibly simplistic....

You claim a comparison of like vs like is ludicrous? Why? Some of them were Cabinet Ministers in the Israeli govt. So clearly you hold 'the Arabs' to a different level than Israel when it comes to 'stature, authority or acceptance'. What's the reason for that? Is it because one lot is 'the Arabs' and the others are Israelis?

btw, you do realise 'the Arabs' have peace treaties with Israel (Jordan and Egypt), and have put forward peace plans to solve the conflict?

Also, I'm going to post an article from Seth Freedman which discusses the knee-jerk 'they all want to kill Jews' reaction that I see coming from mostly hawkish Americans. I think you should read through it...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/22/israelandthepalestinians.fear

[Name removed]

165. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

171. No I wasn't. I didn't realise recommending books was an offensive thing...

I've recommended Samantha Power's book more than a few times in this forum, and this is the first time I've had such a strong negative reaction to merely recommending two really good books. Fine, you aren't interested in the subject of genocide. I get that now. But if you were to read those books you'd understand why it's so irksome to see people on both sides of the I/P conflict throwing round the word genocide as though it gives their arguments some moral high-ground...

You didn't answer my question. When you were talking about 'the Arabs' who were you referring to? The populations of Arab states or the leadership? Once you answer that question and depending on what the answer is, we can move forward with this discussion...

Sorry, but yr interpretation of events is incredibly simplistic and all boils down to nothing more than 'evil Arabs vs innocent Zionists'. It's no good trying to evade that by accusing me of being 'anti-Israel', which I'm not...

Again, there is no difference between what you insist is a 'call to genocide' from some Arabs and similar statements from Israelis. Some of those *ahem* 'calls to genocide' you quoted were from people who weren't even Cabinet Ministers in a govt, so why change the goalposts as soon as yr corrected on yr false claim that Israelis have never said similar things, even though high-level members of Israeli govts have done so? Also, I chose to ignore yr ridiculous claim that these so-called 'calls to genocide' aren't seen as extremist in the 'Arab world'. How do you know what Arab populations think? Have you talked to any Arabs from the Middle East or ever been there? There's a nasty habit in some segments of American society to portray the 'Arab world' as a seething single-minded mass of genocidal monsters, but that's so not true....

Huh? Where did I accuse you of racism. I didn't, so please stop it with that nonsense.

When it comes to peace treaties and agreements, were you aware that Jordan and the Zionist leadership had a quiet agreement back before the war of 1948 (and fyi there's nothing incorrect about saying the war of 1948, because that's when it became a war and states fought states) where Jordan was to annexe the West Bank in return for not attacking the territory that was to become Israel. I'm finding it very difficult to see that as the move of a bunch of wanna-be genocidal types. When it comes to war aims, what I've read makes much more sense than the knee-jerking 'everyone wants to destroy Israel and kill Jews blah blah blah' stuff. There was a mixture of lack of interest and reluctance on the part of some of the states to get involved and public outrage at what had already become expulsion and flight of Palestinians spurred them into varying levels of action. One of the other main reasons for their involvement was to ensure that the Arab state didn't come into being and to grab what bits of the territory they could. There was also an opposition to the creation of Israel, and undoing that by force was in there when it came to aims, but plans to commit genocide on Jews in what became Israel? That's the sort of bullshit that appears in hawkish anti-Arab 'sources' on the web, but people who look at the conflict objectively know it's simple-minded nonsense...

[ProgressiveMuslim]

43. This means Israel's ongoing perpetration of evil against the people of Palestine must CEASE.

That's what this means.

This means that when even people like Condi Rice are honest enough to say:

Rice: Israeli settlement building hurting talks
Palestinian statehood deal will require more efforts, she says

RAMALLAH, West Bank - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice criticized Israeli settlement activity in exceptionally harsh language on Sunday, saying new construction projects on disputed land has a "negative effect" on Mideast peace talks.

Rice made the comments during her latest attempt to prod Israelis and Palestinians toward a final peace deal by the end of the year, a goal she said is ambitious but still within reach.... (msnbc.com)

We must be honest enough to recognize that the powers that be in Israel are either unwilling or unable to turn the tide. This means that people of good conscience around the world must stand up and say NEVER AGAIN -- this madness must end.

That's what this honestly means.

[aranthus]

62. You are denying the import of the very goals you support.

That is either delusional or dishonest. The group you cited states that its goals include the Right of Return. You posted it. The Right of Return means the end of Israel. That is not a peace demand; it's a war goal.

Let the Palestinians renounce the Right of Return, renounce violence as a means of destroying Israel, and recognize the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state, and then they would have grounds to talk about a boycott. Of course, then they wouldn't need one to compel the Israelis to make peace.

[Shaktimaan]

36. Well, they are certainly clear about their terms.

And they sure aren't willing to compromise on their beliefs, that's for sure. I can respect that. But while I was perusing the attached list of groups who support this boycott I had a thought. If you feel that there's enough groups signed on at this point to force Israel to comply, then you're in top shape. But in the event that you want to get some non-Arab/Muslim groups represented, like maybe some European or North American states for instance, then these demands might have to be altered somewhat.

If they really want to try getting some western states on board these guys really have their work cut out for them. A good place to start might be to really learn the actual history that's relevant to this conflict. And not that pro-Arab, revisionist but totally untrue pablum that they feed folks living under Muslim dictatorships either. (Or whatever these guys learned.) You know, the real stuff. Factually accurate and all that. They definitely need to do that BEFORE drawing up the demands next time, because honestly, America and Europe are never going to take this thing seriously if these people can't even get the basic plot down pat first.

For instance, demand three asks for a Palestinian right of return as stipulated in UN resolution 194. But resolution 194 doesn't even mention the Palestinians, much less mandate their return to Israel. Something that 194 does mandate however, is that all of Jerusalem fall under UN sovereignty as an international city and honestly, I'm not too sure if many Palestinians would want that to happen. Didn't they want that city for their capital?

I know that these guys have an agenda and they're not going to want to bend on any of their ideas, that much is clear. But after reading this I have to wonder whether their goal is really to instigate a global boycott or if it might actually be something more modest. Like having their particular agenda broadcast and discussed across the globe. You know, to just raise some awareness out there. Because if they really are aiming for organizing a successful boycott and this document is an honest attempt, then they've probably done more to reassure Israelis, (and perhaps amuse them), than they have to intimidate them.

[Violet_Crumble]

55. So which refugees do you think Resolution 194 is referring to?

But resolution 194 doesn't even mention the Palestinians, much less mandate their return to Israel.

Here's the text of the Resolution...

The General Assembly,

Having considered further the situation in Palestine,

<snip>

11. Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;

http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/eed216406b50bf6485256ce10072f637/c758572b78d1cd0085256bcf0077e51a!OpenDocument

[Shaktimaan]

68. Oh, it refers to the Palestinians alright.

My point is that it doesn't in any way afford them "rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties". It does not stipulate any "right of return" for Palestinians. Had it done so then the text would have probably made a point of mentioning it, or at least named the Palestinians specifically. A right is inalienable. This text lists specific conditions and an indeterminate time period. It does not even apply to all of the refugees, but only to those "wishing to... live at peace with their neighbors". Remember, the Palestinians rejected this resolution and the Arab League states refused to sign it specifically because it did not contain a right of return for Palestinian refugees.

Moreover, it does not place the responsibility for any of this solely on the shoulders of Israel. Very few of the articles in this resolution have been enacted, and it is unreasonable to expect Israel to fulfill one of them unilaterally. None of these articles is given independent weight over others, each article depends on a commitment between all of the states involved towards accomplishing the lot of them. For instance, can Israel fulfill Article 11 without the resolution of Article 6? If the Palestinians themselves are not working towards fulfilling Article 6 then are they even fulfilling their responsibilities towards Article 11?

The idea of punishing Israel unless it complies with this interpretation of Res 194 is ludicrous. Not just because it is dishonest or truncated but because responsibility for fulfilling 194 was never directed at Israel alone. Just as the Palestinians were never specifically named, neither was Israel, probably because unilateral fulfillment of 194 by Israel is not possible.

[Violet_Crumble]

134. It definately refers to the Palestinians...

As for yr point, it doesn't make any sense. I posted the applicable part of the Resolution for you and it definately does give the Palestinian refugees the right of return...

[Shaktimaan]

194. If this Resolution does give the Palestinian refugees the right of return...

then why did the Arab League states all reject it on the specific grounds that it did NOT include a right of return for the Palestinian refugees?

By the way, since the Palestinian refugees were not actually named the Resolution must be interpreted to refer to ALL refugees, Jewish ones included. (Or would you disagree?) Bearing that in mind, wouldn't your interpretation serve to guarantee the rights of any Jewish refugees from Palestine to settle areas like East Jerusalem and Hebron?

[Violet_Crumble]

47. So why is it acceptable to single out Gaza for boycotting and sanctions?

Is it the right thing to do, singling Israel out before any of her far more oppressive and bloodthirsty neighbors for punishment? And how would such a move be interpreted within Israel?

After all, the international community has been boycotting Hamas and I never hear a word of protest about it from those who are so appalled at the mere thought of international sanctions against Israel...

[LeftishBrit]

49. IIMO, that isn't acceptable and isn't working.

The international sanctions on Gaza seem to have just caused it to harden its stance and probably increased Hamas' popularity. (The issue of whether Hamas should be included in negotiations is a separate issue. My own view is that anyone *who wants to participate in peace negotiations* should be able to do so; and after that, it's up to Hamas whether they do or not.)

And boycotting Israel would also cause a hardening of attitude. Israeli hawks tend already to feel that they've got to go to any lengths necessary to protect 'our tiny country' against 'a hostile world'. Demonstrating to them that the world is indeed hostile will only increase this attitude.

Cultural boycotts may possibly work with a country that sets a lot of store on being part of the international community, and has previously been treated with a lot of international respect. With a country that already feels that 'the world is our enemy', such boycotts are likely to be counterproductive. This could apply here to both sides!

[Violet_Crumble]

50. I'm pretty sure Shakti isn't opposed to the sanctions imposed on Gaza...

And from what he said in his post he didn't seem aware that those sanctions exist...

When it comes to hardening of attitudes amongst those who hold paranoid fears that the whole world hates them any time Israel cops the slightest bit of criticism, The Couldn't Give A Shit part of me thinks let's give them something to whine about...

On the whole when it comes to cultural and sporting events, Israel does appear to set a lot of store in participating as part of the international community and generally does get treated with the same respect as other countries (of course there's some notable exceptions but that attitude seems to be mainly confined to the Middle East). I think cultural boycotts from other parts of the world would hurt on a whole national pride level, but of course the obvious way to effect change in attitudes and actions in the Israeli govt isn't sanctions or boycotts but the US govt simply putting its foot down and waving the dangling carrot of withdrawing military aid...

[LeftishBrit]

59. 'The attitude seems to be mainly confined to the Middle East...'

And considering that the Middle East is where Israel is, the attitude of the Middle East is rather important! If extremely hostile attitudes to Britain were 'mainly confined to Europe', or extremely hostile attitudes to the USA were 'mainly confined to Canada and Mexico', then they would still be important.

Let's not forget that something like half the Israeli Jews are refugees or descendants of refugees *from Middle Eastern countries*.

And Europaean Jews still have terrifying memories of generations of pogroms and antisemitism culminating in the Holocaust.

This does NOT justify Israeli RW actions; but it explains some of the mindset. They do have 'something to whine about'.


'the obvious way to effect change in attitudes and actions in the Israeli govt isn't sanctions or boycotts but the US govt simply putting its foot down and waving the dangling carrot of withdrawing military aid...
'

I do agree with that - and it happens all the time; just mostly not in the direction that a peacenik like me would prefer! Actually, Condi Rice finally does seem to be exerting pressures in a direction that I support; wonders will never cease.

[Vegasaurus]

54. Israel has not made annihilation of another country its national goal

Hamas is a bunch of terrorists who kill anyone who doesn't believe in their way of thinking, represses or honor kills women, and puts killing Israelis over the good of their own citizens.

They have made the lives of their people infinitely more miserable.

There would be no sanctions if they actually could humanely rule their people and not just try to kill others.

[Violet_Crumble]

56. Neither have the Palestinians...

..yet you incessantly claim in this forum that the Palestinians have that as a national goal.

So you support sanctions against democratically elected governments in order to overthrow them. Put yr money where yr mouth is and start calling for sanctions on the US, coz the US hasn't talked about annihilation, but actually gone a fair way to succeeding in a few countries...

[Vegasaurus]

57. The government of the Palestinians, in Gaza, absolutely has

and, according to polls, they are well supported.

Being democratically elected doesn't mean a damn thing if a government rules with an iron fist once elected.

That's not democracy; it's autocracy with a good deal of theocracy thrown in.

Hamas democratic?

That's funny.

[Violet_Crumble]

58. So when will you be demanding sanctions against the US?

Never is my guess because I've noticed in post after post that you apply completely different standards to the Palestinians than you do to any other people...

You might like to study up on democracy btw. There's absolutely no disputing that Hamas were elected in a democratic election. If you have evidence of vote tampering or the election being rigged, feel free to supply it. A party you detest being elected does not mean that the elections weren't held democratically...

[Vegasaurus]

60. You have a reading comprehension problem

I SAID they were democratically elected, but that they don't have a clue how to RULE democratically.

Big deal that they were voted for.

Now they rule with a military boot of autocratic theocracy.

Sucks for the people.

[Violet_Crumble]

135. And you have a lack of intelligence problem...

It's not up to someone like you to decide what is and isn't democratic. Especially when you come out with a line about the winner of a democratic election like: 'big deal that they were voted for'. What might be really hard for you to grasp is that like yr govt, you don't get to run around punishing people living in other countries for who they voted for just because you don't like the result...

[Dick Dastardly]

140. Not true, there is nothing that says a country must accept an election

in another country that they dont like and deal with them consequence free.

[Violet_Crumble]

141. So you support the US govt and its regular attempts at regime change round the world?

Why? I don't understand why anyone who's left-wing would think that what the US does around the world is okay. What it is is a powerful country trying to impose its will on other countries with no regard as to what the populations of those countries want or their best interests....

[Dick Dastardly]

142. So do you just make things up and put words in peoples mouths

Refusing to deal with someone is not regime change. Countries are under no obligation to deal with someone they dont want to.

[Violet_Crumble]

143. No, the US has stated that it wants regime change...

There's no making anything up in that.

Countries are under no obligation to deal with someone they dont want to.

Is that so? It looks like many people don't feel that way when it comes to a scenario where countries might choose not to deal with Israel...

[Dick Dastardly]

145. No stating a want and actually invading for regime change are 2 different things

Anyway do you have evidence of your claim


Yes it is so, no one has to deal with someone they dont want to

[Violet_Crumble]

146. You think it's not regime change if there's no invasion involved?

That's incorrect. While it's the most obvious form of regime change, there's also lower-key things like behind the scenes interference to try to cause instability, arming the opposition to the govt with weapons in order to get a civil war going, etc. The US has been involved in all of those things in other countries for many decades in their attempts to overthrow govts that they deem to be hostile to them...

I can track down an article for you I posted here a while back which explains the motivation behind the US (and Israeli) led blockade on Gaza was to encourage Palestinians in Gaza to turn on Hamas and see a new government installed. I'll dig it up for you during the week...

[Dick Dastardly]

154. Using your right to not deal with someone you dont like and or dont approve of

is not regime change like invasion is. A country has a right to decide if it wants to deal with someone or not, trade with someone or not and express its disapproval. A country has a right to use any legal means at its disposal to express its dislike of a government and or its policy/actions. I guess we should not impose sanctions or conditions on N Korea with your logic.


In any case you just moved the goal posts because Hamas siezed control of Gaza, they were not elected and not legitimate once they did that.

Gaza is not under a blockade, Israel closed its borders but does not control the Egypt border. Israel closed its borders due to the rocket attacks and has every right to do so. It is not required to sell or supply oil, electricity, goods or anything else to Gaza. Israel is required to allow certain humanitarian aid(not sell or supply it) through its crossings if it does not pose a security risk or help the combatants, and it does let this aid through. It still even provides a minimum of electricity even though it does not have to.

[Violet_Crumble]

159. No, it's not merely a matter of not wanting to deal with a govt...

The pressure put on other countries to participate in the blockade and the the stated goal of the blockade, which was to bring down the govt is a very different thing than not wanting to deal with a country in protest at policies...

Sorry, but Hamas were democratically elected.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/26/AR2006012600372.html

And of course there was a blockade of Gaza. Israel and the US put pressure on the international community to participate in the blockade...

[Dick Dastardly]

168. Again you move the goal posts and ignore what is said.

I am Going to post the whole sub thread with our back and forth showing the shifting goal posts and tangents.
We initially started off with the jan 06 election in which Hamas was elected but you keep shifting the goal post to after Hamas seized Gaza(june 07) and then back prior to the seizure depending on the comment. Hamas was elected in Jan 2006 to parliament but Fatah and Abbas still held the Presidency, in June 15 2007 Hamas seized Gaza, the Gaza closure was Jan 17 2008

As I said countries have a right to not like and not deal with someone. They are not required to give aid, trade with or assist someone they don't like.

First off, there was no blockade, it was a Israel closing its borders and Israel didn't close its borders with Gaza until months after the Hamas Gaza coup. Hamas was no longer legitimately elected when it launched its coup. The borders(Israels) were closed due to the incessant rocket fire. Gaza is not under a blockade, Israel closed its borders but does not control the Egypt border. Israel closed its borders due to the rocket attacks and has every right to do so. It is not required to sell or supply oil, electricity, goods or anything else to Gaza. Israel is required to allow certain humanitarian aid(not sell or supply it) through its crossings if it does not pose a security risk or help the combatants, and it does let this aid through. It still even provides a minimum of electricity even though it does not have to. Israel closed its border and it had nothing to do with the US or Europe and any pressure on or from them. Israel was quite capable to close their borders themselves. I just find it mind bogglingly asinine that anyone would think that a country has an obligation to assist an enemy dedicated to its destruction and actively attacking.







NOW LETS GO OVER THE BACK AND FORTH WHERE ITS CACOPHONY OF SHIFTING GOAL POSTS, CIRCULAR LOGIC, TANGENTS, TALKING POINTS AND VAGUE BASELESS CLAIMS WITH NO EVIDENCE PROVIDED






In 135 you said

It's not up to someone like you to decide what is and isn't democratic. Especially when you come out with a line about the winner of a democratic election like: 'big deal that they were voted for'. What might be really hard for you to grasp is that like yr govt, you don't get to run around punishing people living in other countries for who they voted for just because you don't like the result...

So we see you are talking about the Elections time period of jan 06 not the post coup june 07

I said in 140
Not true, there is nothing that says a country must accept an election ....in another country that they don't like and deal with them consequence free.


I constantly see the comment about we, Israel and others have no right to not deal with someone who wins an election we don't like, and we must unconditionally give aid, assist, trade with and give full recognition to. I keep hearing its wrong but no one gives any real reason.


you said in 141

So you support the US govt and its regular attempts at regime change round the world?.....Why? I don't understand why anyone who's left-wing would think that what the US does around the world is okay. What it is is a powerful country trying to impose its will on other countries with no regard as to what the populations of those countries want or their best interests....

You immediately go into an ad-hom on me, put words in my mouth that I did not say and try to shift the topic to US regime change rather than give any reason Israel or anyone is obligated to accept and deal with someone they don't like




I said in 142
So do you just make things up and put words in peoples mouths....Refusing to deal with someone is not regime change. Countries are under no obligation to deal with someone they don't want to.


I defend myself from your ad-hom and I try to get back to a countries right to deal with who it wants to and the fact its not regime change



your post 143

No, the US has stated that it wants regime change...There's no making anything up in that.

...you quoting me .....Countries are under no obligation to deal with someone they don't want to.


Is that so? It looks like many people don't feel that way when it comes to a scenario where countries might choose not to deal with Israel...

Another tangent from you as a deflection from my comment on your ad-hom rather than deal with the issue


my comment 145
No stating a want and actually invading for regime change are 2 different things....Anyway do you have evidence of your claim

Yes it is so, no one has to deal with someone they don't want to


I get diverted by your US regime change tangent but pull back to topic



In post 146 you said

You think it's not regime change if there's no invasion involved?.....

That's incorrect. While it's the most obvious form of regime change, there's also lower-key things like behind the scenes interference to try to cause instability, arming the opposition to the govt with weapons in order to get a civil war going, etc. The US has been involved in all of those things in other countries for many decades in their attempts to overthrow govts that they deem to be hostile to them...

I can track down an article for you I posted here a while back which explains the motivation behind the US (and Israeli) led blockade on Gaza was to encourage Palestinians in Gaza to turn on Hamas and see a new government installed. I'll dig it up for you during the week...

You still refuse to explain why there is an obligation to deal with someone you don't like with going on a rant about US regime change. You also change goal posts from the elected Hamas jan 06 to the one after the coup june 07


my post 154
Using your right to not deal with someone you don't like and or don't approve of is not regime change like invasion is. A country has a right to decide if it wants to deal with someone or not, trade with someone or not and express its disapproval. A country has a right to use any legal means at its disposal to express its dislike of a government and or its policy/actions. I guess we should not impose sanctions or conditions on N Korea with your logic.


In any case you just moved the goal posts because Hamas seized control of Gaza, they were not elected and not legitimate once they did that.

Gaza is not under a blockade, Israel closed its borders but does not control the Egypt border. Israel closed its borders due to the rocket attacks and has every right to do so. It is not required to sell or supply oil, electricity, goods or anything else to Gaza. Israel is required to allow certain humanitarian aid(not sell or supply it) through its crossings if it does not pose a security risk or help the combatants, and it does let this aid through. It still even provides a minimum of electricity even though it does not have to.





Your post 159

No, it's not merely a matter of not wanting to deal with a govt...The pressure put on other countries to participate in the blockade and the the stated goal of the blockade, which was to bring down the govt is a very different thing than not wanting to deal with a country in protest at policies...

Sorry, but Hamas were democratically elected.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

And of course there was a blockade of Gaza. Israel and the US put pressure on the international community to participate in the blockade...

More shifting goal posts back to the election period in jan 2006 from post Hamas coup period of june 07. Unless you are saying the Hamas coup was a legit election?


What blockade are you talking about?
Hamas was elected in Jan 2006 to parliament but Fatah and Abbas still held the Presidency, in June 15 2007 Hamas seized Gaza, the Gaza closure by Israel was Jan 17 2008. When was this so called blockade?

Israel didn't need to pressure anyone to close its own borders in Jan 2008 because of the rocket attacks. Do you have anything to show that Israel needed to put pressure on anyone to close its own borders in jan 2008.




Its plain to see you keep shifting from pre to post coup time periods to obfuscate. You also keep claiming a blockade without giving any time period. You don't give evidence of your claim of pressure to help internationally with the blockade. Nor do you cite any reason why a country is obligated to deal and assist someone they don't like unconditionally, nor as to why they cant ask for help from their friends to assist in such.

[Violet_Crumble]

172. Maybe you should quit it with the ad-homs and try and stay on-topic?

I haven't shifted goal-posts nor done any of the other myriad of things yr falsely accusing me of...

You claimed Hamas weren't democratically elected. Of course they were, so why bother disputing it? Same goes for yr claims that there isn't a blockade of Gaza. If you want to believe so, go for it, but when the international community, including world leaders and human rights organisations label it as what it is, then no offense but i'm going to run with what they say rather than what you say...

You want 'evidence' that there's been pressure put on other countries to participate in teh blockade? It was all over the media and anyone with an interest in teh conflict read about it. In fact, if you need 'evidence' why don't you use the search function here and go back through this forum coz there's been articles posted here. I told you in an earlier post I'd try and find something for you later this week, but given yr hostile attitude, you can go search for stuff yrself...

[Dick Dastardly]

179. More of the same I have come to expect.

Why can't you honestly give a back and forth and address points in an accepted manner instead of ignoring them or using the tactics you do. I continually address your points but you refuse to do the same and just give selected talking points. I believe in honest debate, apparently you dont.

I haven't shifted goal-posts nor done any of the other myriad of things yr falsely accusing me of...

Yes you have as I showed in my last post. Your time periods shifting as needed was one of the most apparent of them.

Maybe you should quit it with the ad-homs and try and stay on-topic?

You complaining of Ad-Homs is rich, especially considering your post 135 and 141. Pointing out debate tactics is not ad hom like questioning the inteligence of someone as you did.

You claimed Hamas weren't democratically elected. Of course they were, so why bother disputing it?

Please show me where I said Hamas was not democratically elected in their elections of Jan 06?

Same goes for yr claims that there isn't a blockade of Gaza. If you want to believe so, go for it, but when the international community, including world leaders and human rights organisations label it as what it is, then no offense but i'm going to run with what they say rather than what you say...

You made the affirmative claim, the burden of proof is on you. You provided no proof of your claim just generalizations of people/groups claiming such, do all say this?, if they dont all say it then who is to be believed?. This is why we have international law and not just pick and choose which group that you agree with is right . The bottom line is under International law it is not a blockade and there has been no claim of such by the relevent bodies. I will go with international law rather than your opininion.

Even if I accept that it is a blockade, there is nothing wrong as it is a legitimate tactic in a war, they are being attacked with mortors, rockets and more by the powers that are in control which you claim are legitimate even though they launched a coup. In this case its even moreso ok because all they are doing is closing their borders and refusing to trade or supply them which is their right to do. They are not controlling Egyptian-Gaza borders just theirs. They have minimum responsibilities which they are in compliance with.


Here is a bit of info



Is Israel Bound by International Law to Supply Utilities, Goods, and Services to Gaza?
24/03/2008 02:00:00
Dr. Abraham Bell | International Law


What Does Article 23 of the Fourth Geneva Convention Say?

Article 23 of the Fourth Geneva Convention requires parties to certain conflicts to permit transit to enemy civilian populations of a limited number of items under a limited set of conditions. However, the fighting in and around the Gaza Strip is not a conflict covered by the Fourth Geneva Convention: the conflict is not one between state parties to the Convention, and Gaza is not occupied territory. Therefore, Israel is free to ignore the injunctions of Article 23.

Even if it were bound by the Fourth Geneva Convention, Israel would be acting in full compliance with international law. Article 23 of the Fourth Geneva Convention permits states like Israel to cut off fuel supplies and electricity to territories like Gaza. Article 23 only requires a party to permit passage of food, clothing, and medicines intended for children under fifteen, expectant mothers, and maternity cases. Were Article 23 to apply, Israel would still be under no obligation to permit passage of electricity or fuel or any items other than food, clothing or medicine.

Moreover, under Article 23, Israel would be under no obligation to provide anything itself; Israel would only be required not to interfere with consignments of food, etc. sent by others. Article 23 does not require unfettered passage of food, clothing, and medicine to the entire civilian population of enemy territory; if the article applied, Israel would be required only to permit passage for the benefit of Palestinian children, mothers of newborns, and pregnant women.

Finally, under Article 23, a party can block passage even of food, clothing, and medicine for children and mothers if it has serious grounds for worrying that the items will be intercepted before reaching their destination or that the items may benefit the enemy's economy by substitution. Israel has excellent grounds for fearing both of these results, especially after Hamas seized fourteen Red Crescent trucks with humanitarian aid on Feb. 7, 2008, on the pretext that only Hamas may decide how to distribute aid in Gaza. Thus, Article 23 would permit Israel to block shipments even of food, clothing, and medicine intended for children, pregnant women, and mothers of newborns.
http://www.mesi.org.uk/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=110

You want 'evidence' that there's been pressure put on other countries to participate in teh blockade? It was all over the media and anyone with an interest in teh conflict read about it. In fact, if you need 'evidence' why don't you use the search function here and go back through this forum coz there's been articles posted here. I told you in an earlier post I'd try and find something for you later this week, but given yr hostile attitude, you can go search for stuff yrself...

Again you made the affirmative claim, the burden of proof is on you. You provided no proof of your claim.

Israel closed its borders in Jan 08, why would they need to pressure anyone to close their own borders?


btw

It is standard procedure for any debate

The burden of proof is a concept employed in debating, where the standard principle is that the side that "takes the affirmative" must shoulder the burden of proof. In other words, the side in a formal debate that argues that you should believe or do something must produce reasons why.




If a person is unwilling or unable to prove the statement s/he's making is true as you did, then there is no obligation to accept it is true, and can therefore reject it as unproven, & therefore untrue.

If you still don't believe me, just try to prove you don't suck.

(When you can't, it won't mean you do suck. or that you don't suck. or anything else, at all. And that is the point.)


Bottom line: If you want to prove something, it’s up to you to prove it.





Propaganda Techniques: Shift the Burden of Proof
I've been covering some of the common techniques of debate and propaganda. You can see the complete list at .

The technique of shifting the burden of proof onto your opponent is often encountered when we deal with religious leaders who are responding to criticisms of the common arguments for the existence of God. Here's the description of this tactic


Shift the Burden of Proof Onto Your Opponent

Make all kinds of unsubstantiated statements and claims, and when your opponent objects and challenges those statements, say, "Do some research on the subject and you will see that what I am saying is true."

It is the job of the person who is making the statements and claims to do the research and supply the evidence to support his assertions.



Full info
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2007/08/propaganda-techniq...

[Violet_Crumble]

183. Let me get this straight., You accusing me of not wanting honest debate is yr idea of honest debate?

Let me give you a tip about how to have a discussion with someone at DU. I've put up with yr accusations of dishonesty etc for several posts now, and you've even pointed to a response of mine to an abusive and insulting post from another poster elsewhere in the thread. Strange how you didn't notice that post, eh? If you want to have a civil and constructive discussion with anyone, knock off the insults and the hostility. Read through a post before you hit 'post message' and check to see how much of it contains opinionated stuff about another poster or their style of posting, and if it's there, backspace over it and stick to the issue that's being discussed....

If you want to start again without the hostile and insulting stuff, I'm quite willing to, but not if yr going to continue in the same manner you have been. It's up to you....

[eyl]

157. Back in 2000

when Jorg Heider's Freedom Party created a coalition and became part of the Austrian government, various European nations enacted diplomatic sanctions against Austria. Do you think the European countries involved were behaving in an anti-democratic fashion?

I don't dispute that the Palestinians have a right to elect whomsoever they wish. But having done so, if they elect to government an organization at war with Israel, they areno immune to the consequences of that choice, and Israel is not obliged to ignore Hamas' actions just because they were elected.

[Vegasaurus]

149. Cease with the ad hominems

they make you look ridiculous and don't advance your argument.

If you don't know the basic tenets of democracy, why are you posting on this forum?

An election is one small element of democracy.

But a government that is elected, and then basically oppresses the people, closes them off from anything but government media, puts in place strict laws against women, kills people who disagree with their point of view (including murdering the opposition and throwing them from buildings), that is not democracy but autocracy, or authoritarian theocracy.

The needs of the people have never once been considered, as they have suffered endlessly under Hamas's rule.

It isn't my decision about democracy, but the universal view:

Main Entry:
de·moc·ra·cy
Pronunciation:
\di-ˈmä-krə-sē\

1 a: government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

[azurnoir]

151. So you are claiming that from at least 2004 to today

America has been ruled by the majority? Public approval polls would beg to differ. Bush was elected, the people suffer from "buyers remorse".

[Vegasaurus]

152. Are you seriously equating

the democracy of America to the government of Gaza?

No matter what people think about Bush or government in America, it is a democracy, not a autocracy, and not a theocracy. All people are free to say what they think without fear of being imprisoned, can worship freely, have rights under the law.

That is not true in Gaza, and you know it.

Democracy my eye.

[azurnoir]

153. Different circumstances create

different conditions, do you honestly think if another terror attack were to happen in the US, we would not be under marshal law? Not to mention what has gone in Iowa recently and before that NOLA, where BlackWater was there a couple of days before the National guard was any where to be seen?

If we had been blockaded and had "incursions" by another country for any reason, we could be facing the same circumstances.

[Violet_Crumble]

163. Strictly speaking the US isn't a democracy...

It's a republic. For anyone else who's actually interested in this stuff, here's some info about it...

http://www.thisnation.com/question/011.html

Here's what I think about the current US govt. Their warmongering and killing of civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq puts anything Hamas has done in kindergarden league. Not only that, but they have tried to erode the rights and freedom of speech of Americans with the Patriot Act. Seriously, there's nothing to brag about when it comes to the current US government...

[Violet_Crumble]

162. That's rich coming from someone who told me to get a life...

If you don't know the basic tenets of democracy, why are you posting on this forum?

Ah, that inability to comprehend what other people say in this forum is rearing its head again. Two things. I understand the basic tenets of democracy, which probably I can put down to majoring in Political Science, and secondly, I post here because I'm a left-winger who believes in the same human rights for all people regardless of what their race, religion or ethnicity is. That's more than I can say for one or two folk posting here, who by their posts make it clear that human rights are something that only applies to Westerners...

You posted a definition of democracy that applies to the Palestinian people electing Hamas. It was their will and the power was vested in the people. Now if you have some evidence that there won't be any more free elections for the Palestinians, you can show some evidence of that (not yr opinion or that of extremist pro-Israel sites like ZOA). I personally detest Hamas and what they stand for but yr simplistic and overhysterical stuff leads me to believe that even if Hamas turned atheist and became the ultimate in pacifist tree-huggers you'd still be yelling and screaming about them...

[Name removed]

164. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

6. Why NOT Israel?

Seriously, LB... why not use this nonviolent means of persuasion to move the intransigent Israeli gov't?

[Shaktimaan]

13. Well, considering that Hamas is at least as intransigent

as the Israeli government, would you also support an identical boycott against the Palestinians?

Considering that such a boycott is really just a specific form of universally applied sanctions, why don't you consider it to be collective punishment against all Israelis, who would suffer unfairly, merely because of the actions of their government? You know, like your stance on Israel's sanctions on Gaza.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

14. Hamas is as intransigent? RU kidding? nt

[Shaktimaan]

16. No. Not kidding.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it Hamas that has repeatedly stated a refusal to accept any sort of permanent peace treaty with Israel, insisting that they will never accept less than all of Palestine "from the river to the sea" for the Palestinian state, that all of the land is theirs and Israel has no right to exist?

And was it not Hamas that began bombing buses within 24 hours of Oslo's ratification by both sides in a direct attempt to scuttle the peace efforts, (by their own admission?) And in the beginning months of Oslo, did they not do all of this despite a total freeze on any settlement building by Israel?

Can you find me a single instance of a Hamas leader describing terms for a possible permanent peace with the Israeli state? (NOT a ten year max hudna but an actual peace treaty.)

[ProgressiveMuslim]

22. Let's turn the tables...can you point to an example when an Israeli has done something besides TALK

about permanent peace?

This has been 15 years of talk, talk, talk on the Israeli side and at the end of it, there is nothing to show for it except exponential West Bank settlement.

I find your line of argument disengenuous beyond discussion.

[Sezu]

24. They have withdrawn from gaza, dismantled settlements,

resisted so far a major military incursion into gaza despite daily barrages; the list is endless as is your disengenuousness, it appears.

[oberliner]

25. Palestinian officials: Israel offers new West Bank proposal

JERUSALEM---- Israel has offered to give up more of the West Bank than it had in a previous proposal but still not enough to meet Palestinian demands, Palestinian officials close to peace talks said Sunday.

Also Sunday, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas was quoted as telling backers that the negotiations have achieved no progress since they were restarted last November with a pledge to President Bush to try for a full peace treaty by the end of the year.

The Palestinian officials said Israel presented its new proposed West Bank map three days earlier in a negotiating session. The proposal would leave about 8.5 percent of the territory in Israeli hands. The last map Israel offered had 12 percent of the West Bank remaining in Israel.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/world/970122,westbank052508.article

[ProgressiveMuslim]

44. I'd love to see the map!

Do you honestly believe this would ever take place?

[Violet_Crumble]

51. So would I...

I haven't been able to track one down...

'One of the Palestinian officials said the 8.5% figure of West Bank land Israel would retain with its new map does not include east Jerusalem, where Israel has built a string of Jewish neighborhoods it intends to keep. Israel wants to put off dealing with Jerusalem until the end of the process.'

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1211434103091

[oberliner]

63. I believe that it can happen

Whether it will happen is another story.

I think the main sticking point will be Jerusalem.

[pelsar]

69. thats just talk....

blah blah....new plan, new study....new way to keep the diplomats busy.......

[pelsar]

34. you really have to ignore history for that post .....

can you point to an example when an Israeli has done something besides TALK

gaza-facts are facts (probably the most significant event in the Palestinian calendar of "self-rule")


and you just made this up...
exponential West Bank settlement.....you know it may feel good to make up stuff and exagerate how bad israel is, and it may work with those who dont know anything or who like the idea of rooting for the "victim"...but some of us actually have an idea of whats going on and can spot the made up "stories".....


at least explain why you feel its "ok" to ignore such obvious facts for those who do know history:

[grassfed]

28. Slaves in Alabama were intransigent too.

[Vegasaurus]

30. Slaves in Alabama

were not living on the global dole, with the entire world hoping and waiting for them to take the initiative that everyone has provided, and live in freedom.

The Palestininas have that option.

The slaves did not.

No comparison.

[Violet_Crumble]

136. What the hell is 'global dole'??

If I wanted to read this conservative crap over and over again I could just pop over to FR. You clearly have absolutely no understanding about overseas aid, what it is and how it's used, and I find yr obsessive attitude about overseas aid only when it comes to the Palestinians to be coming across as pretty bigoted sounding...

[Shaktimaan]

39. Wait... what?

How exactly?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

42. Occupation is an a priori evil instituion, as was slavery.

The behavior of the victims does not mitigate the ongoing crime.

[number6]

37. I 'd support a boycott of Hamas

what do they make ?

I 'd support a boycott of China and Israel too ...

[aranthus]

33. Well for starters

1. Because the Palestinians have been more intransigent than Israel.

2. Because the Palestinians are the ones primarily at fault for the problem in the first place.

3. Because the organizers of the boycott want to force Israel to do what no sane government anywhere would do.

4. Because the organizer's demands are tantamount to a declaration of war to the death against Israel. They appear to want full impletation of the Right of Return, and that's been and always will be a non-starter for any peace agreement. It's not a peace demand; it's a war goal.

[grassfed]

27. defend the indefensible if you like.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=215334&mesg_id=215337

This will never be forgotten:

IDF commander: We fired more than a million cluster bombs in Lebanon

"What we did was insane and monstrous, we covered entire towns in cluster bombs," the head of an IDF rocket unit in Lebanon said regarding the use of cluster bombs and phosphorous shells during the war.

Quoting his battalion commander, the rocket unit head stated that the IDF fired around 1,800 cluster bombs, containing over 1.2 million cluster bomblets.

In addition, soldiers in IDF artillery units testified that the army used phosphorous shells during the war, widely forbidden by international law. According to their claims, the vast majority of said explosive ordinance was fired in the final 10 days of the war.

The rocket unit commander stated that Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) platforms were heavily used in spite of the fact that they were known to be highly inaccurate.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/761781.html

[LeftishBrit]

29. Just for the record...

I strongly opposed and oppose what I consider to be Israel's over-reaction in Lebanon, and ESPECIALLY their use of cluster bombs.

I think that the sale and use of cluster bombs and landmines should be banned and that there should be international sanctions for their use.

www.clusterbombs.org.uk

BUT let's note that the UK and USA used them in Iraq in 2003. And that the USA won't agree to a ban on them, and the UK only VERY recently changed its mind on the issue.

[Vegasaurus]

2. It won't happen

The world depends on cell phones and computer technology, and other advancements from Israel.

This is just rubbish talk.

[Violet_Crumble]

10. Nokia's an Israeli company?

Wow. The Finnish economy is really going to be bummed when they find that out! ;)

[ProgressiveMuslim]

15. Interesting list of settlement-made products that Gush Shalom suggests boycotting:

Short list of most common factories in the occupied territories



Abadi "Mizrahiot"
salted bagel cookies
Atarot I.Z.

Achva
Halva, candy & tahini
Barkan I.Z.

"Ahava" Dead Sea health products
cosmetics
Mitzpe Shalem

Amgazit
gas equipment
Gush Etzion

Barkan Cellars
wine makers
Barkan I.Z.

Beigel & Beigel
pretzel bakery
Barkan I.Z.

Beitili
frniture & carpets
Barkan I.Z

Eden Springs Ltd.
mineral water
Katzrin I.Z.

Kalil
aluminium
Barkan I.Z.

Keter Plastics
plastic furniture
Barkan I.Z.

Kraviz
stationery
Nily

Mei Zurim
water purification
Gush Etzion

Modan
satchels, handbags
Shaked

Ramat Hagolan Cellars
wine makers
Katzrin I.Z.

Ramat Hagolan Dairy
dairy products
Katzrin I.Z.

Rav Bariach
locksmiths and security doors
Barkan I.Z.

Remet Trom
aluminum products
Edomim I.Z.

Shamir Salads
ready made salads
Barkan I.Z.

Sharp Delicatessens
sausages
Elon Moreh I.Z.

Soda Club
home soda water devices
Edomim I.Z.

Yardeni
locksmiths
Barkan I.Z.


http://gush-shalom.org.toibillboard.info/boycott_eng.htm

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

I am approached by Ahava salesmen every time I set foot in the mall. I always inform them that I'd never knowingly purchase something made in Israel. They looked shocked when I say that!

[Vegasaurus]

17. Guess you don't knowingly use your cell phone or computer, with its Pentium processor

The cell phone was developed in Israel by Israelis working in the Israeli branch of Motorola, which has its largest development center in Israel.

Most of the Windows NT and XP operating systems were developed by Microsoft-Israel.

The Pentium MMX Chip technology was designed in Israel at Intel.

Both the Pentium-4 microprocessor and the Centrino processor were entirely designed, developed and produced in Israel.

The Pentium microprocessor in your computer was most likely made in Israel.

Voice mail technology was developed in Israel.

Both Microsoft and Cisco built their only R&D facilities outside the US in Israel.

The technology for the AOL Instant Messenger ICQ was developed in 1996 by four young Israelis.

This is why it is silly for people to claim they are "boycotting" Israel's products.

Go ahead, but most of the technology you use was developed there, and it would be interesting to see most of the Israel haters give it up.

[pelsar]

35. google ....

has opened up a research center in Haifa Israel.....

[azurnoir]

40. So what you are saying is that

anyone who has to use any of these technologies is forced to support Israel whether or not they want to.

Interesting concept there.

[Vegasaurus]

52. You can use them or not

just don't pretend you are "boycotting" Israel if you like the conveniences that Israeli technology has offered you.

[Violet_Crumble]

138. Hey, I've got a question!

Like, if I've decided I'm not going to buy any products produced by Israeli companies in the West Bank, should I throw my laptop and my desktop PC's out? I'm still not sure why you think people need to do this, so could you explain why you think a boycott of Israel results in the whole world coming to a grinding halt?

[shaayecanaan]

144. You're an amateur...

The Pentium microprocessor in your computer was most likely made in Israel.

The microprocessor in my computer is AMD, not Intel, but Im pretty sure the last Intel processor I used was pressed in Singapore. Im also pretty sure the first generation of mobile phones were made in Japan, and that the first mobile phones to use in-built digital switches were made by Nokia (which used pre-existing military technology that the Finns had been providing to the Russians).

The technology for the AOL Instant Messenger ICQ was developed in 1996 by four young Israelis.

The technology for Internet relay chat (the forerunner of all IP-based realtime chat) was developed by a Palestinian. Does that mean a boycott of Palestinian products would need to encompass all realtime chat programs?

Plus, I have to say, if I was trying to crow about technological achievements I would strive to avoid mention of "AOL" as much as possible.

The first artificial heart was developed by an Iranian scientist. Iran pioneered the use of glycated haemoglobin to detect and diagnose adult-onset diabetes and to monitor sugar levels in affected people. Are you sure you still want a boycott of Iran?

[Violet_Crumble]

161. Does this mean I can start using my computer and eating hummus and pomegranites again?

And there I was believing all that stuff Vegasaurus was saying! ;)

After reading this thread, I'm wondering why some Americans don't seem to understand what boycotts are and what's involved in them. Is it coz boycotting isn't done much in the US? It's just that boycotts aren't uncommon over here, especially amongst the trade unions. A few years ago ground crews at the international airports threatened a boycott which would have involved refusing to unload or fuel any planes coming from or going to Indonesia. From some of the posts in this thread, I get the feeling that if the posters had been there they would have been yelling at the ground crews: 'Those tacky souvenirs you got on yr last holiday to Bali? You can think yr doing a boycott but if you've got them or you eat Nasi Goreng then yr not, you hypocritical bastards!!!!!!!!'

[shaayecanaan]

169. Correction

IRC wasnt developed by a Palestinian - it was developed by a Finn - but the most popular IRC client (mIRC) was developed by Khaled Mardam-Bey.

Boycotts can be primary (against goods and services from a particular country) or secondary (against companies that trade with that particular country).

The Arab league boycott of Israel was initially a secondary boycott - companies such as Coca Cola and McDonalds didnt do business with Israel for quite some time - but gradually devolved into a primary boycott. The consequence is that a lot of Arab-Israeli trade goes indirectly through Cyprus.

Im dubious of the impact of boycotts, myself. On the other hand, when you're scratching for options somewhere between moral platitudes and war, sanctions and boycotts are really the only choice.

[Violet_Crumble]

53. I'd refuse to buy anything from companies based in the West Bank...

I don't recongise any of those products so I suspect little if anything from Israeli companies who have factories in the West Bank find their way to this part of the world....

[Vegasaurus]

19. Cell phone technology

was developed in Israel.

Nokia just tagged along.

[Violet_Crumble]

46. Mobile phone networks and technology were developed in Europe...

And it doesn't matter where a technology was developed, btw. When it comes to international sanctions and boycotts it's against companies from the country the sanctions are against. Surely yr not trying to suggest that everyone who opposes Israel's policies in the Occupied Territories should ditch their mobile phones? That'd be a really stupid 'argument'. I've worked in a govt procurement area back when there were international sanctions on Serbia, and the things that were asked in the tender documents were was there any goods or services being provided to the tenderer by companies in the country that had sanctions against it. They weren't asked 'Do you eat goulash?' because that dish was developed in that region....

[Shaktimaan]

64. Goulash? OK, you're not understanding this.

Do you have any idea of how much technology comes from Israel? In 2007, American companies invested 6 billion dollars in Israel. Intel's Israeli branch not only produces most of Intel's chips, they DEVELOPED Intel's new line of processors, the one wall street referred to as having "saved Intel." It is third only to America and Canada in the number of companies listed on the Nasdaq, and more Israeli patents are registered in the United States than from Russia, India and China combined, despite the huge population disadvantage. We are not talking about goulash here.

Things have changed Violet, we are dealing with a global economy now. Do you realize what breaking off investment in Israeli start-ups and tech manufacturing firms would mean? Intel alone has invested over a billion dollars in Israel's manufacturing plant. Israel exports something like three million dollars a day in Intel chips.

And it DOES matter where a technology was developed if a country's main export is technology itself. Do you think the Israeli companies that developed ICQ, voicemail and Instant Messaging just gave that technology away for free? Like a goulash recipe?

Motorola, IBM, Microsoft, Cisco, they all have research centers in Israel employing thousands of people. Who cares if you refuse to purchase wine or pomegranates from Israel when you're still willing to buy a computer whose components and inherent technology are all Israeli exports? Go on, buy your pretzels from somewhere else. But I'd like to see you explain to a cancer patient why he can't have access to advanced chemotherapy or newly developed treatment options. Explain to him the importance in canceling all avenues of research that we're currently developing in conjunction with Israel or are directly funding there. And if you had a choice, would you want to buy your generic prescription drugs from China or Pakistan instead of Israel?

You have no idea what the implications of cutting all economic ties to Israel represent. You really think it is like a goulash recipe, don't you?

Well, Violet, when you come up with a goulash recipe that pays residuals worth millions of dollars, then I'll consider agreeing with you.

[Vegasaurus]

65. Thank you, Shatki

I don't think people are really understanding this "boycott" issue.

Violet can boycott products manufactured in the west bank, but this isn't about wine or pretzels, but lifesaving medical treatment methods and technology that everyone uses.

The boycotters can pretend that they will not purchase Israeli products, but there isn't a poster here who is able, or they would have to give up their computer, cell phone and potential life saving medical techniques, and I doubt anyone is willing to do that.

This is why this effort to try to boycott Israeli products will never work. We aren't talking goulash and hummus.

[Shaktimaan]

66. Too true.

[Violet_Crumble]

137. You and Vegas are the ones who don't understand...

In Vegas' case I'd say it's an inability to understand a concept that's obviously a bit above the simplistic level she deals in, but I'm surprised that yr down at the same level...

So let me get this straight. You have a problem with people saying they'd refuse to buy goods produced by Israeli companies in the West Bank because according to you it'll lead to some poor cancer sufferer dying. What a load of nonsensical bullshit, Shakti. There is no way on earth I'd lower myself to buy anything from an Israeli company in the West Bank and if you have a problem with that, tough shit to you. Why should I knowingly buy a product like that? More importantly, why here on what's supposed to be a left-wing board are people like you and Vegas taking offense that I don't want to buy a product made by a company of the occupying power?

Another thing you don't seem to be understanding is that when it comes to international sanctions (I hope you know they're on a whole different level than boycotts), the sanctions are imposed in three ways: diplomatic, trade, and military. In the case of trade sanctions, they're exactly as I described in my post. A technology or invention that was created in a country is not included unless the only place that produces that technology or invention is the one being sanctioned. There's no intellectual property when it comes to those things. No-one in their right mind would try suggesting that someone who were to boycott US products would have to stop driving or flying, seeing as how cars and planes were American inventions.

It's not real hard to understand. Trade sanctions would involve sanctions on companies registered in Israel and goods being exported from Israel. Maybe you could knock off the fear-mongering and explain to me why anyone with a medical condition would suffer in any way, because there's been plenty of trade sanctions happen in the past against countries and while I'm sure those countries supporters of their policies all used the same fear-mongering, I don't recall one single person dying of a medical condition due to medical care being withheld from them...

[Vegasaurus]

147. I could care less what you do, Violet

boycott all the hummus and pomegranates and pretzels you want.

Won't make a damn bit of difference to Israel but if it makes you feel powerful, go for it.

[Violet_Crumble]

160. Then why are you so fascinated by me and pomegranites?

Oh, just thought I'd let you know I asked for extra hummus on my kebab at lunchtime. This may come as a massive shock to you, but hummus and pomegranites and pretzels are produced elsewhere in the world. Maybe you could explain to me why you think I shouldn't eat locally produced stuff, which most of it is here? That's why I think you have no clue about boycotts and what they involve. In this case, it's very simple. I took a look through the list of Israeli companies operating out of the West Bank that PM posted and I'll refuse to buy anything from them if I ever come across their products. It's got nothing to do with making me feel powerful. It's got everything to do with me doing what I believe is right for myself, and I really couldn't give a shit if it upsets supporters of the occupation...

[azurnoir]

71. And thank you for making my point again

even thoug you tried to deny

People are forced to support the Israeli economy and pay millions in residuals to Israel as Shakti pointed out and you just agreed with whether or not they wish to even if it just as simple as using voicemail at work.

"The boycotters can pretend that they will not purchase Israeli products, but there isn't a poster here who is able, or they would have to give up their computer, cell phone and potential life saving medical techniques, and I doubt anyone is willing to do that".

It is not a matter of wishing to either

That is an interesting concept

[Vegasaurus]

72. What is your point?

That you can't ignore or boycott Israeli products and technology?

That's MY point.

The boycott is ridiculous.

The world is dependent upon Israeli technology and know-how.

[azurnoir]

73. Actually you can ignore them

But there is a part that should not be ignored. You see the companies that Israel is designing or developing these technologies for are not Israeli owned for the most part, there for the "millions in residuals" are not going to Israel they are going to what ever country the company in question is based out of, mostly the US.
The reality here is that Israel is simply another place US or companies from based in other counties out source jobs to, why because they can pay workers less in wages and benefits, sort of like a miniature of India or China.
Sure it helps the Israeli economy somewhat however it potentially hurts the American when an American company is involved, equally.
I did not know that Democrats supported and actually boasted the loss the of American jobs to any foreign country however I guess Israel may be the exception.

[Vegasaurus]

74. Incorrect

My point was that this technology was DEVELOPED and perfected in Israel.

It was not developed in the United States, but in Israel.

That includes computer and cell phone technology, so I don't even know why you are bringing the US into this right now.

My point was that the development of these technologies is pure Israeli. Boycotting Israeli products is boycotting technology that you use every single day of your life.

This has nothing whatsoever with "hurting America" or helping the Israeli economy or whatever nonsense you are spouting in the second part of that post.

[azurnoir]

76. Spouting nonsense?

Right, the products may well have been developed in Israel, however if they were developed for Microsoft, Intel, or any other company that is not Israeli owned the copyrights belong to the company that contracted for them, unless you are now claiming that these companies cut their Israel subsidiaries a better deal then their American ones, something else to looked at.

[Shaktimaan]

79. Israeli firms developed a lot of the technology we're discussing.

Stuff like ICQ and voicemail were invented by Israeli startups who were then either purchased or who sold/licensed the tech to large corporations. They're no different than the thousands of American start-ups that do the same thing... they have an idea for something new/different/innovative/cool/whatever, attract VC investors, start a small company and so forth.

Israel's tech sector isn't a company store, wholly owned and operated by large corporations with outposts there. It's a fully developed industry with a diverse spectrum of opportunities, just like you would expect it to. (Just like we have here in America.) Did you read my earlier post?

Israel is third only to America and Canada in the number of companies listed on the Nasdaq, and more Israeli patents are registered in the United States than from Russia, India and China combined, despite the huge population disadvantage.

I don't think you realize how meaningful those numbers are or to what extent Israel's economy is intertwined with our own. It's the same thing as if America decided to boycott Chinese goods. The two economies are reliant upon each other; there's no way for the US to boycott China without also destroying its own economy. America's economy is not as dependent on Israel's fiscal health as it is with China's, but they are a far cry from being independent of each other.

The basic point we're making is that boycotting Israel would have noticeable impact on America's economy and would negatively affect a noticeable number of industries here. Forget about the ethical arguments either way... it would be bad for business.

[Shaktimaan]

75. If those companies don't matter,

then why are the organizations pushing for divestment zeroing in on them to try and get them to divest? I mean, that's what divestment is, right? Who cares if people stop buying their pomegranates from Israel if American firms are still engaging with them?

As far as your assertion that companies like Intel and Microsoft are not having a large financial impact on Israel, you couldn't be more wrong. They are driving the economy there, their effect is huge. If those tech companies don't support divestment than the boycott is DOA, no question about it.

And they are not there because they can pay workers less in wages and benefits. Israel is not China. And Intel did not build an automobile factory there. They are there because Israel's greatest natural resource is its unrivaled density of highly educated, innovative minds. Remember, Intel did not just build a chip factory there, Intel went to Israel to have their new chip DEVELOPED. That's what all of the tech firms are doing there, R&D, not just manufacturing. I read a wall street quote saying that Israel saved Intel. And Intel has dumped billions, (literally) into infrastructure for their Israel branch. How easy do you think it will be to get them to break their contracts, abandon their factories, and divest? (Hint: You'd essentially be asking them to destroy the company.)

As far as the whole "losing American jobs" kind of populism you seem to be supporting, that's exactly the kind of emotion-based reasoning that has given the Democrats such a poor image regarding business and economics. These companies are not primarily "American" firms, dedicated to a single nation. They are international, the age of communication has flattened out access to both employees and employers, it is now a global economy and job market. This means that Americans have to compete for work based on their abilities as geography is no longer a defining issue for many fields. But in the end, basically all economists agree that a system like this helps us a hundred times more than it hurts individual job-seekers who may struggle with the new system. Protectionism is a failed strategy at any rate, there's a universal consensus on that point.

[azurnoir]

77. So it would seem that your point here is

that America is incapable of developing advanced technology, so it must be outsourced to Israel?
An American company would be willing to pay workers in Israel more then those in the US?
Or could it be in no small part things like Israel requires no company paid benefits such as health insurance?

and your statement

"But in the end, basically all economists agree that a system like this helps us a hundred times more than it hurts individual job-seekers who may struggle with the new system. Protectionism is a failed strategy at any rate, there's a universal consensus on that point."

That is a very sweeping statement care to prove it?
Your answer to that is predictable you will challenge me to "disprove" it, however sir you claim that every economist" agrees with the global economy being for the good of all.
And oh yeah I would love to hear the opinion(s) of the hundreds of thousands displaced American workers seeking jobs as to how great the global economy is, or Walmart and McDonalds are hiring.

[Vegasaurus]

78. No, you are missing the point again

and I don't think you are trying to be deliberately obtuse.

The fact is that Israelis have been able to produce and develop more and better technologies than practically any other country in the world.

You can infer from that whatever you want. It's just a fact, that irritates the anti-zionists.

But Israelis developed these technologies first, without support from US companies.

The support or outsourcing came, AFTER the technologies were developed (i.e. the Pentium, voicemail, cellphone technology, etc).

This is why there will be no boycotting of these Israeli companies; because they supply the lifeblood for the global technological economy, outside of Israel and worldwide.

[azurnoir]

84. So we are back to

you can not boycott Israel even if you want to.

[Vegasaurus]

87. I am not BACK to that point

It was my point all along, which is why the whole boycott movement is stupid.

Go ahead and boycott pomegranates and hummus, but that isn't going to impact the Israeli economy one bit.

You can't boycott Israeli products because they are too enmeshed in global economy and life.

[azurnoir]

155. No but whether you realize it or not

you are playing directly to the "Jews control this or that" mindset, which was my point all along.

[Vegasaurus]

156. What the hell are you talking about?

ISRAELIS have created some of the most important technological advances used today.

BOYCOTTING Israel does not change that fact.

That is some kind of stretch to go from my point to JEWS CONTROL this or that.

Israeli know-how has created many extremely important advancements, used globally.

That is not your Protocols bullshit of JEWS controlling the banking, media, etc.

Give it a rest.

[pelsar]

80. so one of those questions again...based on ignorance or spite?

Or could it be in no small part things like Israel requires no company paid benefits such as health insurance?

are you just asking out of ignorance?....or are you inferring something that your just guessing at? or that you believe to be true?..or that you want it to be true so that you can make your point?......

an interesting system you've developed...you infer something totally wrong about israel...but you dont make the statement, you ask about it within your statement, so if anybody is reading it quickly they assume your stating a fact as opposed to something you just made up out of thin air.....

(i really should start that list...i cant believe just how many times you do this....when you make up stuff and put a question at the end do you do it because you believe it)

[Shaktimaan]

81. Hey pelsar,

is it common for companies in Israel to lease cars for their white collar employees?

I know a few people in Israel who have company cars as part of their benefits packages but I have no idea if it is a fairly rare perk reserved for upper-level management like here in the states or if it is a fairly common benefit companies give to many of their white collar employees.

[pelsar]

82. very common...

for management, middle managers, engineers etc ...except that part of the rental comes out of the salary, so its not a "pure perk." (company pays for the gas)

[azurnoir]

85. Pretty much the same as the US for managment

however I was talking about more common expenses, the first being health insurance. However quite typically you picked the fact that I said no benefits conveniently ignored health insurance and I suspect will answer my question with yet more accusations then went for the more far flung so technically you are right companies in Israel do pay some benefits, however health insurance is one of the greatest expenses for companies in the US these days.

[pelsar]

95. technically i'm right...that means...

you were wrong... technically and non technically....how about next time, dont be wrong technically?

and what are these other common expenses that israeli companies dont pay for that americans do?...do you have something specific or is this some general accusation that has nothing behind it? technically and non technically.

here I'll help:

1)
2)
3)


and by the way did you figure in the cost of reserve service?...when the key engineers and or managers leave for 15-30 days?

[azurnoir]

83. Israel does not have socialized or state paid health care?

similar to Canada, the UK, or France? Oh yeah be sure to start that list LOL

[Shaktimaan]

91. I think he meant that

companies did not choose Israel because of socialized medicine. Which makes sense if you think about it.

Look at the countries you listed. France, the UK, etc. These countries have notoriously unfriendly business environments compared with the United States. The very same welfare state ideology that subsidizes health care places restrictions on businesses' abilities to set hours, fire or lay off workers and a ton of other stuff.

In France for example, employees are not allowed to work for more than 35 hours a week and receive a mandatory minimum of something like 6 weeks of vacation. The taxes imposed on businesses are extraordinary compared with the US, operating a company there tends to be far more expensive than here.

And you have less flexibility as an employer. Should you screw up and hire a lazy employee you have very limited latitude when it comes to firing them. All of these laws originally intended to protect people's jobs have had the perverse effect of driving away employers and making the ones who are there reluctant to hire unless they absolutely have to.

I'm sure that Israel doesn't have anywhere near the business-unfriendly environment that France does, for instance I know that the government pitched in to pay for Intel's new chip factory and I'd imagine they provide other kinds of subsidies, tax breaks and the like. But all of that is stuff that America also does.

Maybe it is cheaper for Intel to operate in Israel. I'm sure it is much cheaper than silicon valley while still getting access to silicon valley-level employees. There are obviously reasons that Israel looks so attractive to so many tech firms. I can only go by what I read in places like the economist.

And the economist sure isn't suggesting that the main reason is socialized medicine! Seriously dude, you could not have posted an explanation that was any more pulled-out-of your-ass than that one, it was a 100% guess. Which is OK I guess but to then try and defend an explanation that you pulled out of thin air like that? Why? I mean, it's obvious that you didn't read about this somewhere. Why wouldn't you just assume that pelsar knows what he's talking about?

[azurnoir]

94. The health insurance point was my original post Ma'm

however it was not a guess really, I work with an Israeli MD, and your point about "friendly enviroment" equate to tax breaks? However the for a "booming" economy the number of Israeli's living below the poverty line is quite high 21.6% as is the number employed in the "service" sector 50%


$25,800 (2007 est.)
GDP - composition by sector:

agriculture: 2.7%
industry: 30.2%
services: 67.1% (2007 est.)
Labor force:

2.894 million (2007 est.)
Labor force - by occupation:

agriculture 18.5%, industry 23.7%, services 50%, other 7.8% (2002)
Unemployment rate:

7.3% (2007 est.)
Population below poverty line:

21.6%

note: Israel's poverty line is $7.30 per person per day (2005)
Household income or consumption by percentage share:

lowest 10%: 2.4%
highest 10%: 28.3% (2005)

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/is.html#Econ

[pelsar]

96. the state health service comes out of the paycheck...

which is taken into consideration when saleries are discussed......plus people have to add to "out of their own pocket" to complete it (some employers pay or add this as well)....and the state chips in as well

try again.......(i think that means your technically wrong again.....)

[azurnoir]

98. Comes out of paycheck?

you mean taxes, well gee duh. No it does not mean I am technically wrong no matter how you parse it.

[pelsar]

101. its their "tax" that i pay...

as an employer my potential employees ask what their "net" pay will be......also how much will i contribute for their additional expenses and additions to the national insurance....i can say nothing or i can contribute....i.e. pay their taxes which includes benefits, ...and it comes out of my pocket, the employer


the absurd comment was:
Israel requires no company paid benefits such as health insurance? . My accountant would be surprised to discover that....

[azurnoir]

106. Gee so that is the standard method

in Israel too? Whoda' thunk it:sarcasm:

Thanks for being predictable though.

[pelsar]

108. your right it is standard...

that the employer pays several types of benefits to the employe....as in the states and elsewhere.....like israel

i believe you accusation was:

I was talking about more common expenses,
Or could it be in no small part things like Israel requires no company paid benefits such as health insurance?

like what common expenses?

car? gas? lunch? dinner? holidays? dental?....i have an idea, you can list what exactly those common expenses that israeli employers dont pay, according to you, and i'll do some rather simple checking and find out if we do.

and then we can decide if you accusation is correct or not....(or is this an accusation that "holds no water")
___

when you write that i am being predictable, i'm assuming that when i ask from more specifics, that is what your referring to.....

[azurnoir]

110. See #85

I said you would hang on one line I wrote, which you did

"Or could it be in no small part things like Israel requires no company paid benefits such as health insurance"?

You also ignore that I said "could be" not definitely is. However as Shakti I think, pointed out that there is a more "favorable" business atmosphere in Israel than in the Silicon Valley or by extension the US, more favorable usually translates to greater profits which usually means lower operating costs. It means large foreign companies could be getting tax breaks from the Israeli government for bringing jobs to Israel, it could be facility expenses are lower, it could be wages are lower, and yup it could be that health insurance costs are lower too, or it could a combination of all of the above and things I have not thought of yet. However it would be unusual for a company to move or build a facility somewhere that it cost more to operate in.

[pelsar]

115. It is cheaper in israel..

intel etc get more "brain power per buck" than they do in the US for a variety of reasons..such as what you listed, tax breaks, lower city taxes on the buildings, lower wages...at the sametime its hardly "india", where israeli companies outsource their programming to.

what you just wrote is far more accurate picture of why israel is outsourced to, as opposed to your "one line" which very clearly indicates or hints at that israeli companies are 3rd world type companies that pay no benefits to its employees.

"israel requires no company paid benefits....."

seriously...whats wrong with being accurate as much as possible in all of your writings....or when your mistakes are pointed out, simply correct them as in the above?

[azurnoir]

116. Sir I corrected it yesterday that would be Tuesday

here. The reasons that India is outsourced to are much the same as Israel, it just that Israel gets mostly higher tech stuff while India and China mostly get manufacturing, at least from the US.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

5. Add academic to that... as Palestinian students and scholars are imprisoned

and unable to travel for education or professional development...

[pelsar]

20. and at least support a boycott of hamas?

at least in principle......it one is for a boycott of israel i would think the very same principle would apply to hamas as well....shouldnt it?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

21. Why? Hamas is calling for ceasefire and change of status quo. nt

[pelsar]

26. hamas:

illegal occupation of gaza (they violently overthrew the recognized govt of the PA)...gender apartheid, daily attempts at murdering civilians, signs of "genocide" against the christian minority, theorcractic rule (by definition a biased and non just system for those who dont believe....

their calls for a "cease fire" at best are rather humorous...if they were really interested in a cease fire...they might try not shooting those pesky little rockets.....and of course attacking the food and fuel deliveries.

____

for those calling for a boycott of israel for its immoral policies, i would think calling for additional boycotts against other govts would also be acceptable

[ProgressiveMuslim]

41. Bullshit.

The only illegal thing that went on in Gaza was the coup fomented by Israel and the USA.

And there is not gender apartheid. That's bullshit Pelsar.

[pelsar]

70. if i recall it was called a...

Pre emptied coup by hamas....gotta love the play on words.....armed take over (lots of revenge and just cruel killings....). It was a well executed plan by hamas..an illegal para military organization that now runs gaza....and has their own foreign and domestic policies....that makes them an occupying force, by definition.

If one accepts the principle that one set of values is to be applied to all, then there is no doubt that gaza is being occupied by a non democratic force employing religious law upon the population.

its true they now have traffic laws and car registrations....slowly we see the initiation of shari law (by definition: gender apartheid if we are to look at saudi arabia, Iran and the Taliban for examples). At this point its not fully employed within the laws of gaza but its becoming de facto out of fear (or so i understand from what i've been reading and hearing).

perhaps you can claim they prevented a coup..but one has to ignore the facts to pretend gaza is governed by anything that even resembles democracy....(so they prevented a coup to install a dictatorship with theocratic leanings, that attacks they're neighbors cities daily...)

[ProgressiveMuslim]

86. Dude. Get a hold of yourself. Would you like me to search the posts that finally CONFIRMED

what actually went down?

C'mon now... did you forget that the tired rhetoric had been laid to rest once and for all?

Are you resurrecting it hoping newbies don't read Vanity Fair?

[azurnoir]

88. Who do you think this crowd posts for?

ever noticed how pleasant they are to newbies who are "undecided" and then when and if the decision of the newbie is not "proIsrael" the wild accusations and group attacks start?

The reason is to make posting here so stressful that the person "gives up" however anyone who lurks here for any amount of time recognizes the tactic for what it is.

Also the end result is to make even more people "antiIsrael" I have seen that stated here more than once, but one does have remember these are only a very few and they do not represent all of Israel or all Israelis

[Vegasaurus]

90. Untrue

Most of the time is spent debunking lies and untruths.

If people can't back up their nonsense, against facts and truth, well, that's their problem, isn't it?

Well reasoned debaters should be able to use facts, not just rhetoric, when making a point.

[azurnoir]

93. Pot meet kettle n/t

[pelsar]

99. psst...

try not making up stuff....you'll find the discussions are far more reasonable....

[azurnoir]

100. But I do not "make stuff up"

that has been your claim for about 2 years now.

[pelsar]

103. you insinuate things that are not true....

and are factually wrong many times: (I believe you like to use the word "technically wrong"..what ever that means in "newspeak"

i can recall from memory the more absurd ones if you would like.......

[Shaktimaan]

102. Wow. Um... you've got something there on your shoulder, friend.

This seems like a pretty specific set of accusations that you're attributing to everyone who disagrees with you, isn't it? That they all share a common, subversive agenda, designed to eliminate dissenting opinions.

But if someone just quietly lurks, and thus avoids the systematic attacks and smears that they level against any who question the Zionist line, then one's eyes will eventually be opened to the truth, and you'll see them for what they truly are... Wow! You've put together a pretty complete little conspiracy theory here, haven't you? You only forgot to mention how any criticism of Israel at all will immediately get one labeled an anti-semite. Or is that included under "wild accusations."

By far though, this is my favorite part...

but one does have remember these are only a very few and they do not represent all of Israel or all Israelis

Bravo! That is really just nothing short of awesome. It makes you sound so rational and progressive.

So, I almost hate to do this because your theory here is so completely thought out, but I have to ask: How do you know all of this? I mean, you're making what many folks might describe as some pretty "wild accusations" yourself here, charging people of harboring ulterior motives and stuff. Aside from the implication that you can see this for what it really is (awesome!) can you better support any of these spurious-sounding allegations?

Because all of this certainly sounds very exciting so far. I want to hear more about it.

[pelsar]

104. we've been discovered......

so if i understand correctly anybody who defends and or believes in the basic israeli policy of defense (and doesnt agree with the usual accusations about the evil, journalistic, child targeting, water stealing, air poisoning, concentration camp maker, genocide polices of the israeli govt) are actually people with a subversive agenda...is that sub part of the zionist "take over the world" club? (starting with the US).

well at least we sure did clear the air on that one....

[Violet_Crumble]

173. Um, shakti was the one who talked about a subversive agenda, not az....

...and I don't get the whole zionist taking over the world thing and how things got so badly changed from what az actually said...

btw, I get the shits at anyone who portrays the other side to be evil genocidal etc types, but it doesn't just get aimed at Israel. It gets aimed at the Palestinians as well...

[pelsar]

107. quite interesting isnt it....

after all this time....and we're considered subversives....our POV is not considered something to respect or a difference of opinion.....but we're "disqualified" as "leftests or "progressives" or liberals by being branded "subversives".

i combine this accusation with all of the other wild accusations about israel....that remain no more than accusations since when it comes down to looking at the stats or the physical proof in the field, or definitions via the dictionary, they never seem to pan out. I think thats the problem.

We've been accused as i understand of no more than challenging accusations that are based on emotions and not facts.....no more sinister that taking some genocide accusation, or concentration camp or even the "racists israeli society" and asking the accuser to put up the facts, its irritating because the facts dont bare out the accusation and ruin the narration.

we're subversives because were challenging baseless accusations......and that we believe that the Palestinians have more than their share of responsibility for the status quo (blaming the "victim" or the one on the losing side i guess is the "holy grail" of the progressive site only a subversive would do such a thing).

[Vegasaurus]

109. All the more reason for some of us to continue to post

if for no reason than to challenge those who think nothing of accusing Israel of "apartheid" or "genocide" or being Nazis, or turning Gaza into a concentration camp, or any of the other absolutely ridiculous hyperbolic untruths spouted on this forum.

We need to have a balance for those untruths, because otherwise people might just believe them.

[LeftishBrit]

111. Whom do *you* think it posts for?

I don't understand your post (and I'm not being snarky; I really don't). Are you saying that all or most posters here are strongly pro-Israel, and seek to deter anti-Israel people from posting? That is not my impression. Some pro-Israel people probably feel that *they're* deterred by the other side from posting - but the truth is, anyone can post if they want to and are prepared for some people disagreeing with them. Many on both sides do post in the face of some strong disagreement.

I do get the impression that most people on this forum are strongly attached to one side or the other, and near-neutral people, or those conflicted between the two sides, or those who are more interested in the mechanisms for achieving peace than establishing who is right, are much less common. But I don't think it's because such people are deterred from posting - I think it's just the nature of a forum of this nature.

[azurnoir]

112. You do not understand?

You seem to have that problem a bit with what you choose to call antiIsrael people, a name and problem that another poster here seemed to have also.
However my point was this it is difficult to keep up with 3 or 4 posters that will continuously attack sometimes making some pretty wild claims, this tactic makes it stressful to say the least for anyone who is ProPalestinian which I guess is by designation antiIsraeli to post here, not to mention at least one of the very best if not the best from the Palestinian side has decided not to post here in part because of this tiresome tactic.
You do not see 3 or 4 ProPalestinian grouping up repeatedly, or even pursueing from thread to thread on 1 poster anywhere near as often.

[LeftishBrit]

113. Who has decided not to post here? (If you're allowed to say.)

I don't know about this at all. And I think everyone should feel free to post.

And I used the term 'anti-Israel' because it was in *your* post. Normally, in fact, I use the term 'pro-Palestinian' unless I'm referring to those who oppose Israel on isolationist grounds, rather than particularly pro-Palestinian ones.

I don't generally have a problem in understanding the viewpoints of any side, whether I agree with them or not. But your previous post was pretty cryptic!

[azurnoir]

114. To be honest I do not know

and I hope the person changes their mind in the future.

[pelsar]

117. a very serious suggestion.....

pehaps when you write, you put a little more effort in to being accurate?...and if you dont know, and instead of making an assumption, try asking?

two examples come to mind:
your accusation/hint (or however your wrote it), that if there were sabra veterans in the radius of kassams the israeli govt "might" react differently
your accusation if sharons family was in kassam radius, the govt might react differently.

both were wrong, all are easily checked out, and both accuse the israeli govt of racism.....
___

had you checked distances first and discovered that kibbutz yad mordechi (one example) and sharons farm are both within kassam striking distance you wouldnt even have posted, or you might have commented how the israeli govt is dealing with a difficult problem that affects all israelis be they sabras, sephardi, bedouin, etc

[azurnoir]

118. A very serious answer

your 2 examples one is quite inaccurate I never mentioned Sabra veterans, I believe it was "old family Sabras" and you your self have said that immigrants get sent to less desirable area's.

Oh and Sharons son I conceded that point at the time.

[pelsar]

126. you insinuate constantly

that israel is a racist country, that seems to be the core of your posts....

the govt not caring about the kassams because they are "not of old family sabras"..never mind that the defense minister and prime minister homes were in range.......

"old family sabras" helped established those "ashkenazi kibbutzim"/moshavim in kassam range (yes they're are "askenazi, bedouin and sephardi israelis within range..even philipinos, volunteers, and workers from thailand....)

[azurnoir]

130. Does "racist" even apply?

I have asked that before too.

On Sderot, there are a number of people there who feel that the government is/was ignoring them and allowing them to suffer, also it is difficult to get exact demographics of Sderot in regards to ethnic origins but I have gotten the impression that there are a large number of recent immigrants living there.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jan/18/sderotbeseigedandabandoned

http://www.jewishagency.org/JewishAgency/English/Home/About/Press+Room/Jewish+Agency+In+The+News/2007/2/may18meo.htm

http://lifeintheholyland.blogspot.com/2008/02/abandoned-residents-of-sderot.html

I did not invent this in a vacuum.

The most possibly leading question I have asked was about language and Israeli Arabs do they speak primarily Arabic or Hebrew? Are they commonly bi-lingual?
It really translates into how separate are Israeli Arabs from Israeli Jews?

And finally Ashkenazim vs Sephardim, the first time I heard those terms was in grade school from a friend who is Sephardim and it put to me as Ashkenzim or "light Jews" thinking they were better then Sephardic or "dark Jews" so that idea is nothing new to me either and hardly indicative to Israel.

[pelsar]

131. infering racism....

if you dont infer racism with your questions, then whey even wonder if the "old family Sabras" were living in the radius of the katushas? (if not some kind of racism what else could such a question infer?)

wasnt it you who "wondered" if there would be more israeli civilian attacks on arabs kids (like in the mall last month) if netanyaho got elected?...again somehow inferring that there is racism "ready to come out" in the israeli society, all it needs is a trigger.

a fun fact:
katushas on israels nothern border (cities, moshavim, kibbutzim) were a fact of life, for years previous to 1982......and the govt "didnt care" then either.


and when you inquired about the languages israeli arabs spoke, i considered that a very reasonable question that had no inherent racism in it whatsoever, just asking for information.

[azurnoir]

132. Sir your statements are incorreect

if you dont infer racism with your questions, then whey even wonder if the "old family Sabras" were living in the radius of the katushas? (if not some kind of racism what else could such a question infer?)

not a complete statement and odd how kassams become katysha's, but if it works for you.....

wasnt it you who "wondered" if there would be more israeli civilian attacks on arabs kids (like in the mall last month) if netanyaho got elected?...again somehow inferring that there is racism "ready to come out" in the israeli society, all it needs is a trigger.

No that was not me, there was a statement by an Arab cab driver that the beating caught on tape was not an isolated incident.
My statement about Netanyahu concerned a poll in which 50% of Israeli Jews felt that the government should "help" Israeli Arabs leave the country

Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982 because????

[pelsar]

139. israel invaded in 82 because of the katuahas...

and learned a lesson....hence the hesitation to repeat the scenario with gaza......sounds reasonable to me.....not to mention that the invasion kicked out the PLO and gave rise to the Hamas and its missiles.

so i guess one could try to claim that israel is racist since it invaded Lebanon for its northern citizens and refuses to invade gaza for its southern citizens..and im sure some would buy it.

(i may have wrote katushas but i meant kassams...but that doesnt explain why you were inquiring if there were "old family sabras within the radius of the kassams...perhaps you would like to explain?)

and the polls about Palestinians and israeli arabs vary....very dependant upon who is asked and when-you'll find similar fluctuations within the Palestinian society's polls.

[Vegasaurus]

89. Vanity Fair, eh?

That bastion of intellect?

Not exactly a source I would trot out as the be all and end all for truth in reporting, especially CONFIRMATION of the coup in Gaza!

[azurnoir]

92. Heres one

The June escalation was triggered by Hamas’s conviction that the PA’s Presidential Guard, which US Security Coordinator Lieutenant General Keith Dayton had helped build up to 3,500 men since August 2006, was being positioned to take control of Gaza. The timing was significant. Abbas, Haniyeh and Hamas Politburo chief Khaled Meshaal, normally based in Damascus, had signed a Saudi-brokered power-sharing deal on 9 February 2007, and formed a national unity government in mid-March. In response, the build-up of the Presidential Guard was accelerated. The US had arranged the transfer of 2,000 rifles and ammunition from Egypt in late December 2006, and in late April the Israeli government transferred another 375; the US committed $59 million for training and non-lethal equipment, and covertly persuaded Arab allies to fund the purchase of further weapons. Jordan and Egypt hosted at least two battalions for training, one of which was deployed into Gaza as clashes resumed in mid-May. With half its parliamentary bloc and its cabinet ministers in the West Bank in Israeli custody since the abduction of Israeli Corporal Gilad Shalit by Palestinian militants on 28 June 2006, Hamas concluded that its remaining government base in Gaza was in danger and launched what in effect was a pre-emptive coup.

http://www.iiss.org/publications/strategic-comments/past-issues/volume-13---2007/volume-13--issue-5--june-2007/hamas-coup-in-gaza

[pelsar]

97. your hamas coup to prevent the

israeli american coup as far as i read and understood was nothing more than your imagination.......Abbas as pm had the law behind him to restore order in gaza....it doesnt matter where he got the guns from (and where did hamas get theirs?....and why is it relevant?)


the forces as far as i understood was fatah, jordan, egypt, israel and the US against Hamas, iran, hizballa, syria, saudi arabia.....

hamas had the better trained and motivated forces and won gaza in an illegal coup that took the power away from abbas (are you going to deny that as well?)

[oberliner]

105. Vanity Fair article doesn't exactly say what you are suggesting

The plans described in the article were American ones. The article says that Israel was not particularly keen on the US working with Dahlan.

From the article:

Avi Dichter, Israel’s internal-security minister and the former head of its Shin Bet security service, was taken aback when he heard senior American officials refer to Dahlan as “our guy.” “I thought to myself, The president of the United States is making a strange judgment here,” says Dichter.

<EOE>

In any case, the coup was started by Hamas. There is no arguing with that fact.

Certainly one could claim, as suggested by the Vanity Fair article, that Hamas felt that they had been provoked into launching their coup.

Of course, the entire thing could have been avoided if Hamas just recognized Israel.

A simple statement of recognition similar to the one made by Arafat in 1993 could have prevented all that violence and bloodshed.

I still do not understand why they won't do that. And why they continued launching these Qassams at Israeli civilians. And why they still embrace the idea of suicide bombings of innocent people.

If Hamas wants to transform itself from a terrorist organization into a legitimate political party (as Fatah did) then they need to take steps towards rejecting terrorism.

Fatah certainly has a ways to go in eliminating the terrorist elements from within their ranks as well, but Hamas still brags openly about their attempts and successes in killing innocent Israelis.

[delad]

119. Why Hamas won't recognise Israel

"I still do not understand why they (Hamas) won't do that (recognise Israel)."

Allow me to offer some reasons why.

1) Israel has no recognised boundaries, ie it extends its bureaucracy into the west bank to cover the settlements, will they be co-opted into the new state? How many? All? what about adjoining lands?

2) Once boundaries are set, must Hamas recognise Israel or must the duly elected government recognise Israel? It is states that 'recognise' one another, not militia groups that recognise states and certainly not in the manner that is being demanded by Israel.

3) You say 'recognise Israel' but the actual call is for Hamas to 'recognise Israel's right to exist' and again the response is, why should it? Israel has never recognised Palestine's right to exist (it doesn't), or to recognise a future Palestine's right to exist despite occupying the future state's territory and 'creating facts on the ground' (ie creating new settlements and a land theft wall).

Which brings us back to 1); if Hamas promises to 'recognise' Israel's right to exist, what is there to stop Israel from creating more 'facts on the ground' and then claim that, due to a promise made to 'recognise' Israel, they have the right to claim what is theirs? And please don't say that a future Palestine can accept a promise that they won't.

That's what negotiations are all about, conflict resoution. Why demand something unreasonable before agreeing to discuss 'important' issues?

PS "In any case, the coup was started by Hamas. There is no arguing with that fact." Just like Israel started the '67 war? And the US started its war against Iraq?

[Vegasaurus]

120. Except Israel didn't start the '67 war

and the terrorism against Israelis has nothing to do with occupation.

Israel has acted in good faith, given up territory, signed peace agreements.

Hamas wants all of Israel, not its own state. Unless it is its own state without any Jews.

Therein lies the problem.

Time for them to change their charter, if they ever want to have a state.

Personally, I think israel should just disengage 100%, and let the Palestinians deal with their own problems.

[oberliner]

121. Israel is a country that actually does exist

Arafat produced a letter on behalf of the PLO that included the following:

"The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security."

Clearly it is possible to recognize the right of Israel to exist in peace and security without discussing boundaries or adjoining lands.

Clearly it is not only states that are capable of making such statements, as the PLO is not a state.

[azurnoir]

122. Sort of true but

while Arafat did produce a letter a decade and a half ago did it ever go any further then that? No, it did not. Arafat is dead and gone the PA has not to this day ever officially recognized Israel and their charter on their website remains unchanged

The Charter

http://www.iris.org.il/plochart.htm

Now there was a Wiki article on this also in which the US state department claimed differently which now has a citation that at first glance appears to be an official Israeli statement but upon close inspection turns out to be the US state department again

As of yesterday Hamas and Israel entered a fragile ceasefire, if that works it will lead to a reunification of the Palestinians and then I believe recognition will happen.

So in short you have never seemed to be a nay sayer to peace, so keep your fingers crossed or if your religious at all say prayer, this cease fire is the best thing both sides have going right now.

[oberliner]

123. Abbas has repeatedly reaffirmed the recognition of Israel as stated in Arafat's letter

Here is one example from the Washington Post:

"I would like to reaffirm that any future Palestinian government will commit to all the agreements that the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian National Authority have committed to," he said.

These include the letters of mutual recognition exchanged on Sept. 9, 1993, by the late Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and PLO chairman Yasser Arafat, whom Abbas called "the two great late leaders."

"These letters contain mutual recognition between Israel and the PLO, renunciation of violence, and commitment to negotiations as the path toward reaching a permanent solution that will lead to the establishment of the independent state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel," Abbas said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/21/AR2006092101635.html

[azurnoir]

124. Has the charter been changed yet?

As of right now there is no unity government, however what I said in my post was that if in the future there is one, hopefully then recognition will most likely come.

[oberliner]

125. The charter was amended in 1996

THE AMENDMENT OF THE PALESTINIAN COVENANT

LETTER FROM PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY PRESIDENT YASSER ARAFAT TO PRIME MINISTER SHIMON PERES

May 4, 1996

Mr. Shimon Peres
Prime Minister of Israel

Dear Mr. Peres,

I convey my best wishes to your excellency, and I would like to convey to you the recent historic resolution adopted by the Palestinian National Council at its 21st session held in Gaza city.

As part of our commitment to the peace process, and in adhering to the mutual recognition between the Palestinian Liberation Organization and the Government of Israel, the P.N.C. was held in Gaza city between 22-25 of April 1996, and in an extraordinary session decided that the Palestine National Charter is hereby amended by cancelling the provisions that are contrary to the letters exchanged between the P.L.O. and the government of Israel on 9/10 Sept. 1993.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Archive/Peace+Process/1996/THE+AMENDMENT+OF+THE+PALESTINIAN+COVENANT-+ARAFAT.htm

[delad]

127. recognition

And precisely where has this recognition gotten them? A seat at an imaginary peace table.
I sincerely hope this ceasefire is a step that takes the Israelis and Palastinians towards a lasting peace.

[azurnoir]

129. Then why is not changed on their website?

Yasser Arafat signed the Declaration of Principles with Israel in 1993 and exchanged mutual renunciations of terrorism with Israel and a mutual recognition between the PLO and Israel, and was allowed to return to the Palestinian territories from exile in Tunisia. The PNC met in a special session on 26 April 1996 to consider the issue of amending the Charter and assigned its legal committee the task of redrafting the Palestinian National Charter consistent with the Arafat letters in order to present it for approval.<15> A redrafted charter that does not call for the destruction of Israel has yet to be presented or approved and the official PNA website displays the original, unamended text of the PNC Charter. According to the US Department of State, "The Palestinian National Charter... amended by canceling the articles that are contrary to the letters exchanged between the P.L.O. and the Government of Israel 9–10 September 1993."<16>

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

Why years later was Abbas still speaking in terms of we will rather than we have?

They may have done the work but for what ever reason it never "took" so to speak.

[Shaktimaan]

128. Why Hamas won't just recognize Israel.

Were you being facetious in asking that or is there really some aspect of their actions that eludes you?

I'm not asking to be obnoxious, it just seems odd to me that you don't have an opinion regarding this.

Personally, I feel that Hamas has been pretty forthright about their motivations for making choices like this. It all comes down to self-interest, y'know? If Hamas has a different goal than Israel (and the majority of Earth) as to how they'd like to see this conflict resolved then its decisions are going to seem baffling to the rest of us. They've always been pretty forthright about their goals though, so at least as I see it their actions appear to be consistent with their ambitions.

[Vegasaurus]

31. Change in status quo?

They still want to annihilate Israel and take back all the land.

Some kind of peace partners.

[pegleg]

67. It all boils down to rockets and suicide bombings. Those stop and

the Palestinians will have a nation and not until.

[Tarc]

166. Simplistic and naive

As Palestinians have been forced to live in terrible occupation conditions for 60+ years now, it is rather understandable why they resort to violence as there's really nothing left for them to do.

[Name removed]

167. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

175. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Vegasaurus]

177. Your rude and unpleasant style aside

Be critical of Israel all you want.

But Israel has not been "occupying" for 60 years.

Factually and morally wrong.

And if you believe Israel has been occupying for 60 years, you are no more a partner for peace than Hamas.

[Tarc]

181. truth hurts, eh?

Israel has occupied territory is has no right to.

[Name removed]

187. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Shaktimaan]

191. The truth hurts?

The truth being that Israel has occupied territory that it has no right to for 60 years?

Since you specified 60 years, you clearly aren't just talking about the occupied Palestinian territories but about Israel in general. So are you claiming that all of Israel proper is "occupied territory" or merely certain parts of it? Or did I misunderstand your statement somehow?

[LeftishBrit]

178. Of course it isn't.

But to oppose the very existence of a country is a bit more than 'criticizing' it.

As far as I'm concerned, the issue is not so much whether opposition to Israel's existence is antisemitic (though often it is), but whether it is likely to lead to war or peace. It's clear that opposing the existence (as opposed to the policies) of any country is likely to lead to war. And lots of deaths - in this case, of Jews *and* Arabs.

I am against the actual Occupation, the one that has existed for 40 not 60 years, but not the existence of Israel - which cannot in any case be reversed without war. And none of us here want war, I hope.

[pelsar]

176. nothing let for them to do?

strange post.....so according to you violence is the only way (i think hamas,al aska brigades agree with you)....

[Tarc]

180. pretty much, yep

Israel itself was founded by those who committed acts of terrorism and assassinations (Irgun, Lehi), some of whose members went on to rule the country. Worked out pretty good for them, eh?

[pelsar]

182. actually is was the hagana

that played the far greater role...but i understand that if you actually read the history, know the players etc and end up admitting that, then the whole ideal of terrorism is acceptable (what choice do they have?) kind of goes down the drain......and then some can no longer excuse the various Palestinian jihad groups for targeting jewish children....

[Tarc]

184. /yawn

One group established itself via terrorism, then condemns the next for doing the same. I have come to expect little else from Zionist apologetics like you.

[pelsar]

185. no apology for zionist motivations.....

nor for most of their actions......i too have come to expect little from those who know little of the history of the region and prefer to pick and choose select events and then attempt to make some kind of moral equivalence between one group that has been trying to kill civilians, be it bashing the heads in of little kids, machine gunning children in school, shooting people while they are tied to their seats, at point blank range, etc for over 60 years and those that attempt to minimize the results of using lethal violence.

true the only way to do that is to be very selective about the events and ignore most of the history...but many are good at that .


Im sure you have a good reason for those missiles landing in sederot almost daily now for the last two years-what else are they to do but try to kill people? .

[Shaktimaan]

192. Two comments...

Firstly, your post makes it seem as though the Palestinians have only recently "resorted" to violence, as though they had exhausted all other options and only now is there "really nothing left for them to do." In truth, violence was the Palestinians' first choice out of many other options, and has been their primary and preferred tactic during those 60 years you mentioned... and the 30 years before that. Even now the Palestinians have alternatives to violence available to them, nearly all of them being BETTER alternatives anyway, assuming Palestinian goals include peace, prosperity and self-determination.

Secondly, while conditions in Palestinian refugee camps are admittedly awful, once Israel gained control of them it attempted to improve them, such as building more permanent brick buildings with plumbing and moving residents into them. It was the Arab League and the UNRWA who argued against Israel's actions at the UN, under the premise that by providing a more permanent solution to the Palestinian refugee crisis Israel was attempting to dodge responsibility for the Palestinian's right of return. They did not want solutions to Palestinian suffering unless they included full right of return as anything else that alleviated their plight would blunt the RoR movement's effectiveness.

[pelsar]

170. boycott of israeli arabs

that would also no doubt include israeli arabs wouldnt it?...or is it just a boycott of jewish things?

[HamdenRice]

186. No one has the right to impose a cultural boycott

from outside a country. It is amusing to see this debate played out and the comparisons to South Africa, in the context of some amnesia about how the particular sanctions imposed on South Africa, including the cultural boycott, came about.

The parties that have the right to impose a cultural boycott are the oppressed of the target country. The West, other African countries, the Third World in general, did not impose a cultural boycott on South Africa because there was something about apartheid uniquely deserving of a cultural boycott; the outside world imposed a cultural boycott because the people of South Africa asked the world to do so. Back then within activist, philanthropic and even establishment political circles here in the U.S., it was a matter of principle that the specific actions we would take from outside South Africa would be largely determined by what the people of South Africa and their legitimate representatives in exile directed.

So, if the oppressed of Israel/Palestine are calling for a cultural boycott, if we are in solidarity with them, that is the remedy we should adopt.

I haven't heard of any major Chinese human rights groups or dissident groups demanding a cultural boycott against China. Even the Dalai Lama has refused to call for a cultural boycott against China. Therefore there is no basis for imposing a cultural boycott on China, or using it as an example of another "bad" regime.

[Zionismisnotracism]

188. If we are going to boycott a culture based

on bad behavior, the Arab/Muslim world would be finding themselves very isolated.

[HamdenRice]

189. Did you read the post? It's not based on bad behavior

It's based on what the oppressed ask us on the outside to do. No one in the Arab world, even those who feel oppressed by their governments, is asking us to enforce a cultural boycott against the Arab governments.

[Phx_Dem]

190. What good would come from a boycott?

I don't see how the Palestinians would benefit, a boycott might make some people feel better but what does it do to help move the two sides towards a permanent settlement?

[Shaktimaan]

193. I just re-read the whole article,

and noticed something seemingly said to justify the impact that sanctions would have on Israel's arts and educational communities, despite their lack of any obvious connection to Israeli policy decisions.

It is clear that even cultural dialogue with the Israeli establishment has only proven to normalize the occupation. Tutu once declared, "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor." Now is not the time to be neutral, nor the time to be reticent; it is the time to act.

So then, if you are not with us then you are against us? Sounds familiar.

I always found it interesting how the rhetoric and tactics of the far right and the far left increasingly resemble each other the further along one travels in either direction, eventually becoming almost totally indistinguishable from one another. For instance, the biggest difference between Stalin and Hitler was probably their mustache style.