How To Beat Back Israel Divestment Bill: Get Organized

[oberliner]

When a bill calling for divestment from some companies doing business with Israel surfaced at a mid-March student government committee hearing at the University of California, Berkeley, local Jewish communal watchdogs were taken by surprise. When the divestment measure was overwhelmingly approved at a student senate debate days later, some students affiliated with Hillel left the meeting in tears.

Even when the student senate president vetoed the measure, those against divestment hardly saw it as a victory; they knew that the veto could be easily undone, since the bill was passed with more votes than would be needed to overturn the veto.

And so a campaign was launched. The debate on the veto was scheduled for the night of April 14. In the two weeks prior, Berkeley Hillel coordinated a comprehensive national lobbying campaign consisting of a teach-in, face-to-face meetings with student senators and an intervention by a Nobel laureate, all aimed at robbing the divestment supporters of three senate votes.

Adam Naftalin-Kelman, the Hillel’s newly installed executive director, said that the strategy for countering divestment efforts was devised at a roundtable meeting convened by Hillel and attended by representatives of local branches of the Anti-Defamation League, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the Jewish Community Relations Council, J Street, Israel’s consul general in San Francisco and local rabbis.

Outmaneuvering the pro-divestment supporters, this organizing coup appears to have worked: After a marathon debate that lasted well into the next morning, two senators changed their minds and one abstained, and the veto was upheld.

http://forward.com/articles/127439/

[ProgressiveMuslim]

1. Wow. 'SUPPORT APARTHEID!" How shameful. How sad.

[oberliner]

2. You equate opposition to this bill with supporting apartheid?

Do you really mean that?

[Vinnie From Indy]

3. He's not the only one that feels that way

"If I were to change the names, a description of what is happening in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank could describe events in South Africa." -- Archbishop Desmond Tutu, December, 1989.

Here is the Wiki page on the divestment campaigns:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinvestment_from_Israel

It is a good place to start to read opinions in support and against the movement.

[oberliner]

4. Wikipedia is never really a good place to start to read opinions about anything

Have you actually read the proposed bill itself?

I don't know if it is available on Wikipedia, so you might need to do a little extra leg work to track it down.

[Vinnie From Indy]

8. I disagree

While Wiki is not anywhere close to being perfect, it often times does have numerous links to web sites that are a bit more substantial and fact based. In addition, Wiki does sometimes offer directions to BOTH sides of an issue.

No, I have not read the bill at UC Berkely. I have read a bit about the divestment efforts against Caterpillar and some about the divestment campaign at Harvard.

I will offer that it would be hard to apply the same pressure to the Palestinians to honestly work for peace as Israel routinely prevents any industries from sprouting in the occupied territories and those that are established are promptly destroyed by Israel's armed forces in acts of collective punishment.

[oberliner]

9. Fair enough

Personally, I think that Wikipedia leaves a lot to be desired. Many of their articles are poorly sourced and contain factual errors. Often deliberately inserted "vandalism" remains for extended periods of time. Also, some agenda-driven editors have a tendency to maintain certain articles on certain topics in a way that is biased. The I/P debate in particular appears to fall victim to some of these issues.

I'd encourage you the read the bill. I think that many folks who support peace in the region such as Americans for Peace Now and J Street have expressed valid reasons for opposing a bill such as this one that do not have anything to do with standing for apartheid.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

12. To quote the infamous Mr. Big "Absa-fucking-lutely."

To oppose nonviolent change is to absolutely support the status quo of apartheid and unconscionable siege.

[oberliner]

20. Who the heck is Mr. Big?

That's the second reference today that has left me feeling clueless.

And, on a serious note, this bill does not really propose any kind of non-violent change. Have you read it?

[aranthus]

22. Carrie's boyfriend from Sex and the City. n/t

[ProgressiveMuslim]

26. Obie must not get out much ;)

[aranthus]

28. If you think about it, maybe Obie doesn't stay in much.

Not everyone is a fan.

[oberliner]

34. Just don't watch a lot of television

I've heard of that show - but never seen it.

[proteus_lives]

43. Or watch shitty tv shows.

[oberliner]

33. Thanks fot the info - never seen that program

[Dick Dastardly]

30. That may be true in Fantasia but not in the real world.

The constant rattling off of non sequitors and other fallacious arguments in place of supporting a position with fact and real arguments, exposes the hollowness of the position. Such tactics fool no one.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

17. Its not apartheid, but then again, you already know that

[cali]

36. OK. It's not apatheid, but it is an oppressive and illegal occupation.

Is that really any better?

[oberliner]

37. What do you think of this divestment bill and of BDS in general?

Do you have any particular thoughts on that topic?

[cali]

38. I don't support academic boycotts or cultural ones

I do support targeted divestment and boycotting.

[oberliner]

39. Do you think this particular bill is a good one? nt

[T Wolf]

5. The Israel lobby can bring forces to fight any progress in the ME just like the pukes can

rally their teabaggers.

It is much easier to resist something than to move forward and deal with a problem in a constructive manner.

At times, it is so embarrassing to be Jewish.

[oberliner]

6. How would the passage of this bill in the UCB student senate have led to progress in the ME?

What changes would have occurred had the bill passed?

[T Wolf]

7. Too many pro-Israel, anti-Arab types fight any criticism of Israel. This specific action

would have had minimal impact on the Israelis, but their defenders re afraid that it could spread. If enough blood-money was withheld from that country, they might be forced to join the civilized world. Without pressure, they are free to continue their reich-like policies. Worse, support from the US enables them to use most of their own money to persecute non-Jews living in the occupied territories, and elsewhere.

Cut off Israel and make it survive on its own and they might change their ways.

[oberliner]

10. Ok

I would note, though, that this bill does not actually withhold any money from Israel.

I also don't think the phrase "reich-like policies" is particularly helpful.

[Jefferson23]

11. What a shame, I wonder if those who fought against this realize that

they've accomplished increasing more American contempt for Israel.

[oberliner]

13. How have they increased more American contempt for Israel?

Can you elaborate?

[Jefferson23]

14. There has been no significant movement within the United States government

to influence Israel to end the occupation. Efforts to negate nonviolent resistance will be seen as enablers for Israel imo. As these groups
are not hardliners such as AIPAC, they are not, evidently, willing to exert pressure on Israel. After they witnessed OCL last year, and seeing
for themselves the push back Bibi is giving Obama, one can conclude, they are as a group, a soft voice for peace. And I don't find their actions
lending them a great deal of credibility as a result.

Of course, this is their prerogative, but an unfortunate one.

[oberliner]

15. You think passing this bill would have what effect exactly?

I would argue that the effect of this college senate bill passing or not passing is nil (either way).

[Jefferson23]

16. We won't know that now, will we? They decided they were

not willing to step on Israel's toes too much, and that's a shame. Non-violent resistance through BDS at the very
least would garner media attention within the United States, and that alone would make their votes for it worthwhile. More universities
would possibly take on the initiative too, at least I hope they are not discouraged to give up now.

This is a matter of political will on the part of the United States, the more attention brought to the issue the more likely
the public will support Obama pushing for meaningful actions on Israel's government.

To take the view that the impact of the college senate bill passing or not, will accomplish nothing, is cynical in nature imo.

[oberliner]

19. Probably more attention was brought to the issue by the bill being vetoed than had it passed

In fact, the proponents of the bill can continue to keep attention focused on the issue by crafting another version of it and attempting to get a vote on that one.

[Jefferson23]

23. Uh probably not, as I said earlier, we may never know, thanks to the veto.

[oberliner]

35. Well I guess we can both only speculate

I did hear that other colleges and universities may try to take up similar resolutions, so I guess we will have to see what happens there as well.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

18. Violence? not allowed. BDS? not allowed. Protesting at the wall? not allowed.

Notice a pattern here?

Grow some balls and come out and say it: for most Zionists there NO ACCEPTABLE WAY TO RESIST ISRAEL'S ONGOING BRUTAL OCCUPATION AND SIEGE!

[oberliner]

21. Berkeley students are under Israel's ongoing brutal occupation and siege?

I really do not see how passing this bill in the student senate is in any way equivalent to resisting Israel's ongoing brutal occupation and siege.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

25. Wow. I wasn't 't under apartheid either, Oberliner. Didn't stop me from supporting

divestment in the 80s!

Thank God for people of good conscience around the world who fight for justice.

And then there are those who chant: "STATUS QUO RULES! APARTHEID ROCKS! GAZA SIEGE FOREVER!"

Which side are you on?

[oberliner]

32. Your post suggested otherwise

There are many issues around the world that a person living in the US can take a stand against. That does not mean, however, that they themselves are "resisting" as they are not personally living under those conditions. One can be in solidarity with those who are resisting, but as a college student living in the US, it's hard to make the case that it is resistance.

[aranthus]

24. Who here says protests aren't allowed?

If you want to complain about the Zionist position, at least attribute to us accurately. You want to resist occupation? Make peace. Real peace, not some sham peace that's merely war goals in disguise. Stop the incitement. Stop demanding things that no sane country could agree to. Then if the Israelis fail to meaningfully come to the table you'll build some support for a real movement to pressure them to make peace as well.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

27. BDS is the way to real peace. Only by applying meaningful force will Israelis -- individuals,

businessnes, government -- be persuaded that the status quo is not in their interest and too painful to continue.

Berkeley's little bill is just the beginning.

[aranthus]

29. Without meaningful change on the Palestinian side

BDS is just another front in the war, rather than the way to peace.

[shira]

31. Truth to power.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

40. Absolutely untrue - the Palestinians are more or less where they need to be.

If Israel were to make a serious offer, including the division of Jerusalem and withdrawal from all or nearly all of the West Bank, enough of the Palestinians would accept it to make it stick.

The Israeli government is an obstacle to peace; the PA is not. What is needed to advance is massive international pressure on Israel, and support for the PA.

[aranthus]

41. So you think that the Palestinian demand for RoR is where they need to be?

Do you think that their denial of any responsibility for the conflict is where they need to be?

I happen to agree with you that Israel needs to be pressured to withdraw from the West Bank, but not because it will bring peace (though it might). It will, however, absolutely produce clarity. There will either be peace or one very meaningful war.

[shira]

42. come on, this is ridiculous

Olmert's proposal in 2008 was serious (including the proposed racist/apartheid/anti-human rights) division of Jerusalem and withdrawal from around 93% of the W.Bank. Abbas claimed gaps were too wide.

What on earth makes you believe the PLO/Hamas will drop RoR as a demand even if Israel pulled out completely to 1948 borders? Is that some article of faith in the True Believers' guide to I/P? As if the 1948 war meant nothing and all that really has to be addressed is Arab land lost in 1967? Are you serious?

[proteus_lives]

44. "including the division of Jerusalem"

It's never going to happen. It the PA is serious about peace then they need to let that and ROR go.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

45. Sadly, I think you're probably half right.

I think it likely that Israel's occupation of East Jerusalem will be permanent. However, that Israel intends to continue the occupation is evidence that Israel is not serious about peace, and that the Palestinians continue to oppose it is not evidence that they are not.

[proteus_lives]

46. Israel needs to do several things.

Take the settlers out of the WB, offer economic assistance in lieu of ROR, lift the blockade of Gaza.

PA/Hamas need to drop their claims on Jerusalem, control the militants, drop ROR.

The only other option for Jerusalem is for it to be a UN-controlled international city.

The issue of the Golan Heights needs to be separated from the Palestinian peace process.

It's not going to be pre-67 borders but it can be fair for both sides. The Israelis need security and the Palestinians need a connected, viable nation. This can happen if both sides are willing to walk away from the table without everything they want.

[shira]

47. So you're for dividing the city?

About 3/4 of E. Jerusalem's Arabs are against living under Palestinian rule. Tough shit to them, right? Screw their human/civil rights and basic freedoms b/c nationalism trumps all? Dividing the city according to ethnicity (essentially apartheid) is the right move? It's understandable why the PLO/Hamas think this is a good idea, but why would any self-respecting leftist or liberal agree to it?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

48. I'm for dividing sovereignty over the city.

What's your source for claiming that 3/4 of Jerusalem's Arabs are against ending the occupation?

I'm not suggesting dividing the city according to ethnicity; I'm suggesting allowing Israel to keep the parts that are inside its borders but not the most of the parts it's illegally occupying.

[shira]

49. Then you're for robbing E. Jerusalem Arabs of their basic rights as soon as the PA takes over

Read from around post #107 to 116 including Pelsar's post #110....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x255450#256492

If you need actual links, I'll look into that but would it really make a difference?

ETA, links...
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:JL8Ej_jEfpoJ:www.jpdme.org/swfs/territoryexchange1-r.pdf+um+al+fahm+90+percent+palestine+authority&hl=en&gl=us&sig=AHIEtbTy76xWF76-zBIR9mcG0uxePtNXMQ

http://news.zionism-israel.com/2008/01/israeli-and-palestinian-arabs-prefer.html

[Violet_Crumble]

50. Daniel Pipes is yr source for claiming 3/4 Jerusalem Arabs don't want occupation to end??

You do realise that apart from being an outright anti-Arab bigot, Mr Pipes is in no way any sort of credible source when it comes to the I/P conflict.

[shira]

51. There's a poll showing greater than 90% of Umm El Fahm's Arabs saying the same thing

It's the other link besides progressivezionism written by Kedar.

[Violet_Crumble]

52. Then supply a link to the poll itself with the exact wording of the question

[shira]

53. Here's a link but it says only 83% oppose

http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/358.htm

Notice the source is Haaretz from August 1, 2000.

[Violet_Crumble]

54. MEMRI carried out the poll? Do you have the link to the poll itself or not?

Y'know, a link to the poll complete with the exact questions and the methodology used for the poll?

[shira]

55. You have to actually read the MEMRI article to find it's a poll referred to by Haaretz

[Violet_Crumble]

56. Where's the link to the poll itself with the poll questions and the methodology?

I don't want to know who referred to the poll. I'd like to see a link to the poll itself with the exact questions...

[shira]

57. It's originally in Arabic and referred to mainly in the hebrew press. I'm surprised you don't know

...much about Umm Al-Fahm's citizens and their staunch opposition to the Israeli far rightists who wish to see the land occupied by 200,000 Arab Israelis transferred to PA control in a future land swap.

You should do some research. The poll is from Kul Al-Arab (Israel), summer of 2000.

You may rightly think the far rightists of Israel - especially Lieberman - are disgusting with their motives to cede authority to Umm Al-Fahm to the PA based on bigoted motives, but the irony is that you're in agreement with them and in opposition to the majority will of the Israeli Palestinians (at least 83%) who want Umm Al Fahm to remain a part of Israel.

[Violet_Crumble]

58. So you haven't read the poll itself or have the actual wording? Oh-kay...

I think we can safely toss those claims of yrs on the bullshit pile with all the rest. It's yet another case of you making a claim and when asked to support it, you change what it is yr claiming.

btw, you don't know what I am or aren't in agreement with. I'm here to pick you up on a false claim you made, not to express agreement or disagreement with anything else...

[shira]

59. I trust the Haaretz article and have no reason to doubt it since there REALLY is staunch opposition

...by the citizens of Umm Al-Fahm against far rightists like Lieberman who want their town transferred over to the PA. You should really do some research on the subject to see that the Arabs of Umm Al-Fahm are against Israeli disengagement from their town.

You just have a hard time accepting that Israeli Arabs prefer the Israeli govt. over the PA.

[Violet_Crumble]

60. Well, if you trust something, who am I to ask for a link to the actual poll?

You really have a hard time comprehending the whole concept that you need to supply evidence of what you originally claimed*, not what you changed it to later (even though you didn't bother supplying any link to a poll for that changed claim either)...


* Just to refresh yr memory, here's what you originally claimed: 'About 3/4 of E. Jerusalem's Arabs are against living under Palestinian rule.'

[shira]

61. It's odd that you require 100% verification for this but you have a much lower standard for anything

...that supports the narrative you believe in.

[Violet_Crumble]

62. It's not unreasonable to expect a link to a poll. It happens a fair bit in this forum...

That initial claim you made was very suspicious looking, and the way you changed what you were claiming after that just makes it all the more suspicious...

And stop making up complete rubbish about me. As usual yr totally incorrect...

[shira]

63. The poll is from a source written in Arabic. Do you know how to use google to find it? I don't.

Here's something in english about Umm Al-Fahm's opposition to Lieberman's plans...

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=17108

[Violet_Crumble]

64. Then just be honest and admit you haven't got a link to it...

Though there wouldn't be any poll that backs up yr original claim at all. Did you think people were too stupid to notice that you changed the goal-posts?

btw, I've stopped clicking on anything you link to, mainly because I'm worried I might get an eyeful of yet another article from an extremist RW bigot like Pipes, and also because I don't know what gave you the idea I'm interested in being dragged into yr unending tangents that have nothing to do with what I was talking about...

[shira]

65. Links to Haaretz showing support for my claim are usually enough around these parts

In post #49, I linked to this article...

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:JL8Ej_jEfpoJ:www.jpdme.org/swfs/territoryexchange1-r.pdf+um+al+fahm+90+percent+palestine+authority&hl=en&gl=us&sig=AHIEtbTy76xWF76-zBIR9mcG0uxePtNXMQ

...and Dan Pipes had nothing to do with it.

It's not my fault you don't wish to believe anything within it - and you give no reason for not trusting the source.

[Violet_Crumble]

66. Enough for who? You?

That's lovely and all that you believe every word ever printed in Ha'aretz, but there's no link to the poll itself been provided at all so people can check for themselves and apart from that you made a claim initially that no poll supports and now appear to be ignoring that you did it.

So, to recap. There is nothing at all to back up yr dodgy claim that East Jerusalem Arabs want to become part of Israel, apart from you having claimed it was so. And anyone who used a bit of logic and common-sense would realise why that couldn't be the case, anyway, or are you claiming that all those East Jerusalem Arabs who want to be Israeli have all applied for Israeli citizenship which of course has been approved coz the Israeli govt wants nothing more than all those Arabs to become Israeli?

[shira]

67. Yeah, it's like no such poll ever existed in the first place.

The issue b/w Lieberman and the Arabs of Umm Al-Fahm? What issue?

And all those quotes in the articles cited (not just Pipes' article) are bogus and made up.

Nothing to see here.

:eyes:

[Violet_Crumble]

68. You appear to be having great difficulty grasping the obvious fact yr claim was incorrect...

You initially claimed that 3/4 of East Jerusalem Arabs wanted to be part of Israel, a claim that you haven't supported with any evidence at all. Instead you changed what you'd claimed, then made a reference to some poll you've never read and can't supply a link to, and now are carrying on because apparently me and everyone else is just supposed to believe any old crap you come out with...

Apparently there is something to see here - you making yet another claim or accusation that's totally false...

[shira]

69. Poll of Arabs in Israel: 78%:18% Oppose transfer of Triangle to PA

Telephone poll of a sample of 450 adult Arabs residing in the Galilee,
Triangle and Negev (all in Israel) carried out for and published by the
Al-Sennara newspaper (details per press release in Hebrew):

Do you support transferring the Triangle to the Palestinian Authority?
Favor 18% Oppose 78%

http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=37389

[Violet_Crumble]

70. Whatever that stuff was, it didn't support the claim you'd made...

Which was that 3/4 of Arabs in East Jerusalem want to be part of Israel. If yr going to insist on posting away at me, at least try to stay focused and remember what you've claimed from one post to the next...

[shira]

72. "In East Jerusalem, residents say they would fight a handover to Abbas regime"

"But the mayor of Ras Hamis, a Palestinian neighbourhood on the eastern fringe of this divided city, says that he can't think of a worse fate for him and his constituents than being handed over to the weak and ineffective Palestinian Authority right now.

"If there was a referendum here, no one would vote to join the Palestinian Authority," Mr. Gheit said, smoking a water pipe as he whiled away the afternoon watching Lebanese music videos. "We will not accept it. There would be another intifada to defend ourselves from the PA."

http://spme.net/cgi-bin/articles.cgi?ID=3044

And there's this...

62% of Israeli Arabs would choose to remain Israeli citizens rather than join a future Palestinian State. Only 14% of the respondents would choose to join a future Palestinian State and 24% did not express an opinion or refused to answer.

http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs021/1101712342378/archive/1101922202301.html

Only 14% of all Israeli Arabs would choose to join a future Palestinian state, meaning upwards of 85% would rather not. No surprise because of this...

Yet since 1996, Dr. Shikaki has been polling Palestinians about what governments they admire, and every year Israel has been the top performer, at times receiving more than 80 percent approval. The American system has been the next best, followed by the French and then, distantly trailing, the Jordanian and Egyptian.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/02/international/middleeast/02LETT.html?pagewanted=1

All these reports cited are consistent.

Believe it or not.

[Violet_Crumble]

74. You made a claim further up the thread which you can't support with any evidence...

And that claim was that 3/4 of Arabs in East Jerusalem want to become part of Israel. Trying to fly off on new tangents and ignore it being pointed out to you that you made a false claim just makes you look more dishonest than yr already appearing to be...

[shira]

76. I wrote in #47 "about 3/4 of E. Jerusalem's Arabs are against living under Palestinian rule"

According to the polls cited, that seems to be an extremely accurate statement.

When only 14% of Israel's Arabs prefer to join a future Palestine rather than stay under Israeli rule, that shows there's extremely good evidence for the 3/4 claim.

[Violet_Crumble]

78. And that's the claim nothing you posted afterwards supported...

Try to keep up...

[Violet_Crumble]

71. Those students who left in tears need to get a life...

Can you imagine the sort of people who would have been in tears back with South Africa was quite rightly targetted with boycotts and divestments? I've got the world's smallest violin out for those nasty idiots...

[shira]

73. If Israel were really like S. Africa, then those polls in posts #69 and #72 make zero sense

Especially the last one cited in post #72 showing Arab Israelis prefer the Israeli government over every other on the planet.

[Violet_Crumble]

75. It is very similar to South Africa, so go choke on yr 'polls' or whatever yr babbling about now n/t

[shira]

77. If Israel were similar to S.Africa, then 80% of Israeli Arabs wouldn't prefer Israeli govt

...over any other on the planet.

Here it is again...

Yet since 1996, Dr. Shikaki has been polling Palestinians about what governments they admire, and every year Israel has been the top performer, at times receiving more than 80 percent approval. The American system has been the next best, followed by the French and then, distantly trailing, the Jordanian and Egyptian.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/02/international/middleeast/02LETT.html?pagewanted=1

4/5 of all Arab Israelis certainly wouldn't prefer Israeli govt over any other on the planet if it were truly racist and apartheid-like.

[azurnoir]

79. let's take a look at the paragraph directly prior to the one

you persist in posting as a stand alone

Palestinians also worked in Israel and watched Israeli television. They saw that, for its own citizens, the Israeli system had distinct virtues. This is not easy for even ardent Palestinian democrats to acknowledge.

one can not also help but notice that you constantly switch between Israeli Arabs and Palestinian even calling Israeli Arabs, Arabs Israeli's and Israeli Palestinians in the same post are you confused or is that you wish to create confusion let's be clear Israeli Arabs are citizens of Israel and Palestinians are not, this may well be the reason for the results in your much touted polls you see Israeli Arabs are loyal to the country of their birth, the one which they are citizens of and despite the very common prejudice against them in that country, a recently posted poll from 2007 showed almost half 47% of Israeli Jews want Israeli Arabs "encouraged" to leave the country, they much like American Blacks who during the Jim Crow years remained loyal to the US, remain loyal citizens of Israel
In short you are speaking of two distinctly separate groups and it seems attempting to conflate them in order to prove some point

[Violet_Crumble]

81. Heh, you noticed the same thing I did...

I was wondering why she suddenly started going on about Israeli-Arabs instead of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories, as the reason I find the situation between Israel and South Africa so similar when it comes to boycotting is solely because of Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and has nothing at all to do with Israeli-Arabs...

[shira]

82. This is very simple - do E. Jerusalem Arabs count as Palestinians in your view?

[azurnoir]

85. How simplistic and you should know that

some East Jerusalem Arabs are Israeli citizens and some are not however they have Israel ID cards that allow them residence in the city, it is not however the same as citizenship

[Violet_Crumble]

80. It is similar to South Africa, and it's the Occupied Territories, not Israel...

Seeing as how whatever it is you think yr going on about now has nothing to do with the treatment of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories by Israel, I thought I'd just check and see if you need help staying on track and focused?

[shira]

83. Arabs in E.Jerusalem since 1967 don't count as Palestinians in the Occupied Territories?

[Violet_Crumble]

84. But you were talking about Israeli Arabs, not Palestinians in the Occupied Territories n/t

[Ken Burch]

86. The only honorable way to beat back divestment is to call for the end

to ALL collective punishment and all restrictions aimed at Palestinians. If you aren't doing that, then in fighting divestment you're fighting for the status quo.