Nobel Laureates: ‘We are all peace makers, and we believe that no amount of dialogue without economic pressure can motivate Israel to change’

Support for divestment continues to grow. Here is the latest amazing statement urging the University of California to divest:

To the ASUC Senate,

We the undersigned Nobel Women Peace Laureates support your courage and call on you to reaffirm the ASUC Bill in Support of UC Divestment from War Crimes. We stand united in our belief that divesting from companies that provide significant support for the Israeli military provides moral and strategic stewardship of tuition and taxpayer-funded public education money. We are all peace makers, and we believe that no amount of dialogue without economic pressure can motivate Israel to change its policy of using overwhelming force against Palestinian civilians. Last year’s nearly 400 women and children casualties in Gaza, and thousands more injured and killed, were all victims of a well armed military machine allowed to operate unchecked. A delegation of us went to Gaza and saw firsthand the evidence of wholesale killing and destruction. Our hearts grieve for Gaza and we demand that there be no more Gazas. We urge the UC system to take the lead in this direction as has been its tradition, and commend the students who are working to achieve this goal. We reject the portrayals of this action as anti-Semitic, and maintain that it does not make a choice between Palestinians and Israelis, but between universal freedom and oppression.

Signed,

Shirin Ebadi, Iran, 2003 Nobel Peace Laureate
Mairead Maguire (Corrigan), Ireland, 1976 Nobel Peace Laureate
Rigoberta Menchu Tum, Guatemala, 1992 Nobel Peace Laureate
Jody Williams, USA, 1997 Nobel Peace Laureate

About Adam Horowitz

Adam Horowitz is Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.
Posted in Israel/Palestine

{ 179 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. Shingo says:

    I couldn’t have said it better myself.

    Witty, the world expecrt will however, disagree.

    • Chaos4700 says:

      You’ll have to give Witty some time, here. He’s still crafting his personal attacks on the aforementioned Nobel laureates. Because obviously they are taking a “maximalist,” “fascistic” position and clearly, the Israeli nation with its record of ethnic cleansing, oppression and humiliation on massive scales and often with the best armaments US taxpayer dollars can buy, knows more about peace than someone who’s been recognized by the international community as a peacemaker.

      • eljay says:

        >> someone who’s been recognized by the international community as a peacemaker.

        I don’t know enough about these women to suggest that they don’t merit their honours, but a Nobel Peace Prize does not a peacemaker make. (Obama, anyone?)

      • marc b. says:

        I’m still waiting for Witty’s link to the ‘Palestinian Studies Chair’ at Brandeis.

        You should learn more about Brandeis. They do have a Palestinian studies chair for example. Few colleges do.

        So says Witty, although a current Brandeis professor who posted a comment to this site had never heard of it and couldn’t find such a thing. It may exist, but I’ve seen no evidence of it.

        • Chaos4700 says:

          Witty? Lying?! Gee, how unprecedented.

        • link to brandeis.edu

          This is not a description of “chair”. I’m not going to look further. I was referring to a comment by one of the authors of an original article here.

        • marc b. says:

          RWitty, there are Centers for Isreal Studies and Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies, but no ‘Palestinian Studies Chair’ as you suggested. If you find something, please post. I am a Brandeis grad and would be interested to know.

        • Again,
          I read it in an article here.

          The point was to contest that Brandeis was some demon “Zionist” training camp.

          The presence of an Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies Program conflicts with the prejudice about Brandeis.

        • marc b. says:

          RWitty, you suggested that Brandeis was somehow amongst a select ‘few’ that had a Palestinian Studies chair, and further suggested that that ‘fact’ should temper criticism of Brandeis. Again, I see no evidence that such a ‘chair’ exists. And ‘the presence of an Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies Program’ does not conflict with anything. In fact the existence of the program doesn’t signify anything at all about the relationship of Brandeis and Zionisml. I can’t think of a single US university of any size that doesn’t have a ME studies program. In any event, thank you for trying to locate the information.

        • tree says:

          Maybe the fantasy “Palestinian Studies Chair” at Brandeis was ethnically cleansed, in the interests of Eretz Israel.

        • marc b. says:

          He’s probably rummaging through his kitchen drawers right now. ‘I know that Palestinian Studies chair is in here somewehre.’ Sorry. I am trying to be less sarcastic and cut down on the ‘wanking’. Don’t want to go blind afterall.

        • Citizen says:

          Maybe it’s across Witty’s Mexican-cleaned lawn, over in Vermont?

        • Citizen says:

          Witty throws up plates of zionist spagetti against the wall, hoping something will stick.

        • Shingo says:

          “Again,
          I read it in an article here.”

          The usual Witty comeback when he can’t produce a link. Just like his imaginary return to a ceasefire in December 2008, he read it but the link no longer exists.

        • Avi says:

          It may exist, but I’ve seen no evidence of it.

          Of course it exists. It’s in the cleaning supplies closet where they keep the mops, Windex and bleach. If you look under the sink there, you’ll find the Palestinian studies chair.

        • I think Witty was probably mistaken, though Brandeis is currently home to two of the most prominent Palestinian scholars: Khalil Shikaki and Yazid Sayigh link to brandeis.edu

          Brandeis also has a partnership with Palestinian al-Quds University: link to issuu.com

          As well as having the previously mentioned Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies Program.

          All in all, that still makes it one of the most impressive American universities when it comes to Palestinian studies, even if Witty was perhaps mistaken in regards to a specific “Palestinian studies chair.”

    • the US and Israel seem to “say it better” with respect to Iran. That rhetoric repeats, “Iran must change its behavior; all options are on the table.

      Why are not “all options on the table” regarding intransigent Israel which, unlike Iran, IS systematically violating the human rights of millions of people on its soil, DOES have nuclear weapons, HAS used its nuclear weapons as blackmail, HAS used conventional weapons in internationally sanctioned manner, HAS killed numerous innocent civilians, DOES imprison thousands of persons without due process and in violation of their rights, HAS ignored the duly elected representatives?

      BDS is not enough.
      When it comes to Israel, it should be, All Options are On the Table.

  2. Shmuel says:

    We are all peace makers, and we believe that no amount of dialogue without economic pressure can motivate Israel to change its policy of using overwhelming force against Palestinian civilians …

    We reject the portrayals of this action as anti-Semitic, and maintain that it does not make a choice between Palestinians and Israelis, but between universal freedom and oppression.

    Amazing indeed.

    • It’s encouraging to see Iranian Shirin Ebadi criticize Israel.

      From my perspective, as a non-Iranian, it seems the most obvious thing in the world that Israel is the main proponent for US antagonism toward Iran, even though US antagonism toward Iran is COUNTERPRODUCTIVE to US interests.
      Very many Iranians pull their punches with respect to Israel, and there are still strong ties and recent memory of close relations between Iran and Israel. But it makes it difficult for a non-Iranian to advocate for US-Iran rapprochement when so many Iranian voices blast away at Iran, thereby validating Israeli talking points and strategically weakening any attempt to strengthen positive US-Iran relationship.

    • Citizen says:

      Hey, go ahead, what’s twenty bucks a year from all US taxpayers? Witty, UNIX, yonira, zamaaz et all will gladly pay every Americans’ share on this blog.

  3. Citizen says:

    As Shmuel pointed out, it’s all about whether or not all human beings possess basic human rights. There’s a clear choice when it comes to
    Israel and the US enablement of its policies de facto. Are you with Witty, or Shmuel?

  4. eee says:

    Thank you for the support letter that actually proves that in spite of all the obfuscations the divestment is targeted at Israel and not human rights violations in general.

    Why wasn’t the death of civilians in any other conflict mentioned in the letter of support?

    Yeah, right. This is not singling out Israel.

    • sherbrsi says:

      Yeah, right. This is not singling out Israel.

      Israel singles itself out.

      If you care so much, stop Israel from claiming to be “the only democracy in the Middle East,” the “light unto the nations” or having the “most moral army in the world.”

      Don’t ask to be judged and then complain when you are.

      • eee says:

        The US has killed orders of magnitude more civilians than Israel. Why isn’t the US mentioned in the letter? After all, the US views itself as the world’s leading democracy. No?

        • Chaos4700 says:

          Right, eee, because nobody criticizes the US for its war crimes, huh.

          You’re disgusting. It’s like watching Hitler try to hide behind Stalin.

        • sherbrsi says:

          The US has killed orders of magnitude more civilians than Israel. Why isn’t the US mentioned in the letter?

          The divestment IS against US companies.

          After all, the US views itself as the world’s leading democracy.

          Yes, with the fundamental difference being that the US doesn’t cry foul every time that claim is put to the test.

        • eee says:

          Who is arguing for divestment from the US for its war crimes?
          Who?

        • sherbrsi says:

          Who is arguing for divestment from the US for its war crimes?

          Why do you want divestment from the US and Israel off the hook?

          Seems to me like you have an irrational hate of US.

        • eee says:

          You see, I do not want divestment from the US.

          I want to understand why YOU want only divestment from Israel and not the US. It is you who has the irrational hatred.

        • sherbrsi says:

          I do not want divestment from the US.

          Then why mention that “the US has killed orders of magnitude more civilians than Israel” or that “the US mentioned in the letter?”

          So you don’t actually care about what the US is doing, you are just trying to divert our attention from Israeli crimes.

          You just admitted that you are a phony eee.

        • Shmuel says:

          Divestment from the US.

          LOL.

          Echoes of the Grand Duchy of Fenwick.

        • eee says:

          The phony is you. You are applying different standards to the US relative to Israel.

        • eee says:

          “Divestment from the US.

          LOL.

          Echoes of the Grand Duchy of Fenwick.”

          Nice logic Shmuel. So if Israel makes it very expensive to BDS it then its “human rights violations” will just be ignored, like those of the US and China?

        • Shmuel says:

          2) Can such a boycott make a meaningful contribution toward ending these violations?

        • eee says:

          And who decides if such a boycott will make a “meaningful contribution” toward the ending of violations?

          But you are fooling yourself. The reason you do not support boycott of China is not because you do not think it is meaningful. The Tibetans think that a BDS of China would be very meaningful because it would send a strong message to China. The reason you do not support BDS of China is because you are afraid of retribution. The cost of BDSing them is too high. And that is the lesson you are sending to Israel when you unfairly single us out for BDS.

        • sherbrsi says:

          You are applying different standards to the US relative to Israel.

          We’ve been through this before.

          Israel is applying these standards to itself. In some cases, such as its claim of having the most moral army, it is inviting the harshest criticism of any other state.

          So you tell them to change their standards or suffer the consequences. Otherwise you don’t have any case complaining.

        • Citizen says:

          EEE, the divestment IS against US companies. Many groups argue for divestment against US companies, e.g., Motorola and Caterpiller. The Corrie family pursued Caterpiller to the US Supreme Court, where their claim was effectively nullifed by the legal “political question” doctrine. The slim handle? Caterpiller gets paid for its bulldozers with US tax dollars via the conduit buyer Israel.

      • Shmuel says:

        As Norman Finkelstein wrote, these are the relevant questions:

        1) Do Israeli human rights violations warrant an economic boycott? and 2) Can such a boycott make a meaningful contribution toward ending these violations?

        The rest is smoke and mirrors.

        • eee says:

          Bull.
          The relevant questions are:
          1) Which country’s rights violations warrant an economic boycott?
          Let’s make a list of those countries.
          For each country on the list let’s answer:
          2) Can such a boycott make a meaningful contribution toward ending these violations?

          And then, let’s BDS all the countries that answer these criteria. That is fair.

        • what are the criteria? Let’s go with # innocent civilians killed; where does US rank?

        • Shmuel says:

          Let’s make a list of those countries.

          Smoke and mirrors.

        • eee says:

          Why smoke and mirrors? The new divestment campaign claims to be not directed only at Israel. Why not make a list of all the countries that violate human rights and divest from all of them? Why only from Israel?

        • Shmuel says:

          Does Israel deserve it? Yes. Could it work? Yes.

          Good enough for me.

        • eee says:

          “Does Israel deserve it? Yes. Could it work? Yes.

          Good enough for me.”

          Why do you get to decide if Israel deserves it?
          I think Israel does not deserve it. Do we cancel each other out?

          Could it work? No. It will only make Israelis more right leaning and make the Palestinians more obstinate in their peace talks. Not only that, it will raise significantly the chances of a regional war and will make any such war 10 times more violent than previous ones.

          But at least you admit that the organizers of this SPECIFIC campaign are dishonest.

          You are an Israeli so it makes sense you care about the I/P conflict. But what reason do the Americans and others on this blog have? What is their reason for singling out Israel?

        • Danaa says:

          eee claims that applying BDS to Israel is too selective, as other countries engage in rights violations as well.

          But then, so is applying “crippling” sanctions ONLY to Iran for supposedly pursuing nuclear weapons and not to Israel that already has them . You could say that BDS is merely attempting to restore some planetary symmetry.

          Yes, it is not an exact symmetry, but I have a strange feeling that eee and elk would not like it all if the same kind of “cripling” economic sanctions applied to Israel as Iran is subjected to, for much the same reasons.

          Ergo, it is not asymmetry that bothers eee.

        • Shmuel says:

          3e,

          If it’s all a judgement call (deserve, work) argue that – as opposed to the pitiful excuse that the world is full of criminals, and the even more pitiful excuse that those who support it must have an ulterior motive.

        • sherbrsi says:

          Why do you get to decide if Israel deserves it?

          Israel has already decided by making its tall claims.

          If you don’t want Israel to get criticized then tell it to stop singling itself out.

        • Shmuel says:

          Precisely, Danaa. But if you don’t like 3e’s principles, he has others: a) Israel doesn’t deserve sanctions and b) they won’t work. And if you don’t like those, he has others: a) Israel is not the only country to violate HR and b) you are an anti-Semite. And if you don’t like those … וחוזר חלילה

        • eee says:

          Danna,

          Of course there is symmetry. All countries that violate the NPT should be sanctioned. Israel just had the foresight not to sign.

        • eee says:

          Shmuel,
          If two criminals are living side by side, and the police arrests only one of them, it is reasonable to believe that the police were bribed.

          Why is it a problem to BDS all countries that violate human rights? I am not saying to let human rights violators off the hook. I am saying, just apply BDS fairly. Really, why do the UC divestments focus on Israel only? Where does this special attraction to Israel come from?

        • David Samel says:

          eee, as a criminal defense lawyer, I can assure you that if my client is clearly guilty, I cannot argue that there are other criminals out there who have committed the same or more serious crimes, and that my client should not be prosecuted until those other guys are. I can’t even argue that the police have left other criminals alone because of bribery. Actually, I can argue that – I can argue anything – but I would be laughed out of court.

          You ask where does this special attraction to Israel come from? That seems to suggest anti-Semitism, but whether it does or does not, where does your defense of Israel come from. You’re spending as much time on it as we are, only you are protecting the human rights violator. Why waste your time defending a second-rate human rights violator when you can make better use of it by attacking first-rate violators?

        • eljay says:

          According to eee’s logic, if his good friend were murdered, he would insist that the murderer not be arrested, tried or punished until all other murderers in the world are arrested, tried and ready for punishment. To do focus on his friend’s killer would constitute “special attraction”, an unfair criticism used to bludgeon the perpetrator. What a joke(r).

        • Shmuel says:

          False analogy, 3e. See eg. Divesting from Darfur.

          Your argument that no criminals should be stopped from harming their victims when and where possible, unless all criminals are stopped, is completely untenable.

        • eee says:

          David,

          This has nothing to do with criminal law, and everything to do with International law which is used to unfairly bludgeon Israel. It has become a political tool, and not a tool to bring justice and compromise. If you want me to believe that International law is really “universal” and not a political tool, then I want to see the law applied universally and fairly. Otherwise, all we have is might makes right.

        • eee says:

          Shmuel,

          Don’t put words in my mouth. I never said that:
          “Your argument that no criminals should be stopped from harming their victims when and where possible, unless all criminals are stopped, is completely untenable.”

          I am saying that I do not accept a system of law that is clearly unfair and politicized. You want to prove the system is fair and is worth taking seriously? Give reasons that make sense why Israel is being singled out. Otherwise, you are not supporting a fair system, but a political tool to bludgeon Israel.

        • eljay says:

          >> All countries that violate the NPT should be sanctioned.

          Well, there you have it: All Iran has to do is unilaterally withdraw from the NPT and – voilà! – it will no longer be in violation of it. All issues and concerns regarding Iran’s nuclear program will be resolved in one fell swoop. Israelis will be able to rest easy in the knowledge that an Islamist Holocaust will not be unleashed up them, and the U.S. can avoid invading, occupying and destroying yet another country in which it will have to “stay the course”.

        • eee says:

          Eljay,

          Wrong. The NPT is an agreement that you cannot withdraw from without consequences. It mocks that whole concept of the NPT if you could. Does it make sense to agree not to develop nuclear weapons until you decide you do want to develop them? Of course not. Signing the NPT is a forever commitment and that is why Israel did not sign it.

        • tree says:

          I am saying that I do not accept a system of law that is clearly unfair and politicized.

          … unless, of course, the system of law is Israeli law, within the green line, or in the Occupied Territories, in which case eee is all for clearly unfair and politicized systems that oppress the Palestinians. Eee’s got nothing against hypocrisy, as long as he and his affinity group are the privileged ones.

        • Shmuel says:

          No need to put words in your mouth, 3e. You argue that BDS should not be applied to Israel – even if it deserves it – until all countries committing similar crimes are identified and similar action taken against them (presuming efficacy). That is the same as saying that no criminals should be stopped from harming their victims unless all are. Non-violent BDS stands a chance of stopping serious human rights violations, yet you would stand in its way because it does not address violations elsewhere. As I said, untenable.

        • eee says:

          Shmuel,

          Again you are putting words in my mouth and characterizing my position incorrectly. I know it is easier to argue with a straw man buy you should address the points I do make, not those you think I make.
          My position is the following:
          1) Israel should not be BDSed because it doesn’t deserve to be BDSed and because the BDS will create exactly the opposite effects of what BDS supporters want.
          2) I have no trust whatsoever of international law or the process that determines which countries should be BDSed. I am sure the process is biased and is merely a political tool to bludgeon Israel. My arguments about Israel being singled out, are in support of this.

        • Shmuel says:

          1) Israel should not be BDSed because it doesn’t deserve to be BDSed and because the BDS will create exactly the opposite effects of what BDS supporters want.

          Those who support BDS disagree with you. Israeli HR violations are well-documented and assessments of efficacy are a matter of opinion, although I’m sure the BDS movement thanks you for your advice.

          2) I have no trust whatsoever of international law or the process that determines which countries should be BDSed.

          The UC students who drafted this proposal (and those who drafted the proposals regarding Sudan and SA) obviously hold a different view with regard to their own institutions.

        • David Samel says:

          eee, this has nothing to do with criminal law? I was responding to your comment that “If two criminals are living side by side, and the police arrests only one of them, it is reasonable to believe that the police were bribed.” You brought it up, not me.

          Anyway, the parallels are obvious. Is Israel doing something bad? Does it need to be pressured to reverse its course? You are arguing that even if the answers to those questions are yes, BDS is wrong, because other countries are getting away with worse. The criminal law analogy is apt.

          And kudos for tree in responding to your whopper: “I am saying that I do not accept a system of law that is clearly unfair and politicized.” Wow!

        • Danaa says:

          So, eee, in the pursuit of greater symmetry in the universe, we should apply crippling sanctions on Israel so it DOES sign the NPT and opens its weapons facilities to inspections.

          Or else, Iran could just leave the NPT as Korea has, and presto! it will be just like israel…..

          Rest assured that the the world at large is far more concerned with israel’s arsenal of WMDs than it is with Iran’s or it was with Iraq’s. It’s all about whoever pays the piper sets the rules?

          OTOH, perhaps the problem you have with symmetry is that you are using non-Abelian approach. If that’s the case, I’ll be delighted to instruct you on supersymmetry (though then you’ll no doubt accuse me of “incoherence”, which is fine, because as you no doubt well know, is the principle behind the emergence of our entire physical universe, cf the Big Bang*)

          ______
          * coherent enough for you?

        • eee says:

          David,

          Let me make my example clearer to you. If Israel and Egypt live side by side and the BDS movement and international law crowd target only Israel regarding human rights violations then there is something very fishy about those movements.

          Is Israel doing something bad? That is for Israelis to decide. Israel is a democracy and it is up to its citizens to change it. It is not for you or any non-Israeli to decide. If Israel changes, it will be because of an internal democratic process which BDS will not help in any way.

          You think that Israeli law is unfair and politicized. That is bull. The Israeli law is one of the best in the world.

        • eee says:

          Shmuel,

          I really enjoyed your arrogant response. A bunch of students from California know better than all the Israelis how to solve Israel’s problems. They should focus on some neighboring state, perhaps Arizona?

        • David Samel says:

          It is for Israelis to decide whether they can continue to exercise a military dictatorship over four million people of a different ethnicity who have no political decision-making power? Is it for Israelis to decide if they can starve the 1.5m people of Gaza into malnutrition? Is it for Iran to decide whether to pursue nuclear weapons? That is much more of an internal matter.

          Israeli law may be absolutely wonderful – for Jews. It does not treat Jews and non-Jews alike, especially the ethnically challenged hordes in the territories.

          Frankly, eee, your argument are getting more silly and desperate and less worthy of a response.

        • Shmuel says:

          A bunch of students from California know better than all the Israelis how to solve Israel’s problems.

          In case you missed it, they’re not interested in solving “Israel’s problems”, but in stopping its human rights abuses, as per the
          initiative and request of the victims of those abuses.

          Talk about arrogance.

        • eljay says:

          >> The NPT is an agreement that you cannot withdraw from without consequences. It mocks that whole concept of the NPT …

          What mocks the whole concept of the NPT is countries that HAVE nuclear weapons threatening to destroy a country that DOESN’T have nuclear weapons but which, in accordance with the treaty it has signed, is pursuing a perfectly legitimate civilian nuclear energy programs.

          >> Signing the NPT is a forever commitment and that is why Israel did not sign it.

          Right, why sign a treaty that you might actually have to abide by, eh? Gotta keep those options open, in case you want to carry out assassinations or genocide.

          What a joke(r).

        • eee says:

          In case you missed it, isolating one small part of a very complex problem and claiming it can be solved while disregarding the bigger picture is intellectually dishonest.

        • Danaa says:

          Shmuel,
          But if you don’t like 3e’s principles, he has others: a) Israel doesn’t deserve sanctions and b) they won’t work. And if you don’t like those, he has others: a) Israel is not the only country to violate HR and b) you are an anti-Semite.

          He added another rule, BTW, which is International law sucks and he doesn’t trust it, so bingo, no need to apply it.

          The logic of eee (also known as Fuzzball eee-Logic) is based on the following propositions;

          1. If A (Israel does bad things) is true, B (we should do something about it, eg, BDS) is false
          2. If B is true (BDS), C (BDS won’t work) is also true
          3. Therefore since C (BDS won’t “work”) is true, A (Israel must be doing bad things) must be false.

          There are many interesting corollaries in this new Fuzzball eee- Logic. example:

          1. If A (israel does bad things) is true overlaps (ie, a result of) D (international law)
          2. AND B (BDS) is consistent with D
          3. Then, since B always intersects with C (BDS won’t work), AND B is false because A is true, then clearly, D (international law) must ALSO be FALSE.

          Clearly, this new Fuzzbal eee-Logic enormous repercussions to all walks of life. Just think Criminal Law! or Taxes! or Love and marriage! Given the potential windfall, wonder whether eee would like to take out a patent on it? you know, before it’s too late and someone else gets first refusal rights?

          BTW, eee, you should realize that posting in Mondoweiss constitutes public disclosure. The clock is ticking……

        • Shmuel says:

          3e,

          Save that “it’s all so complicated” argument for someone else. I happen to know a thing or two about those complexities, and addressing Israel’s human rights violations is not a “smal part” but the core issue.

        • eee says:

          David,

          Israel is a democracy. Iran isn’t. And yes, it is for Israelis to decide how to solve the I/P problem. What is silly is your arrogance that you know better than all Israelis combined. That is also a very desperate position.

          You want to influence the situation, come to Israel and convince the other Israelis. Just assuming you know better than all of us is ridiculous. We have skin in the game and will pay the consequences of our wrong choices. We have an open society where we freely debate all issues, and as this blog even admits, we freely debate issues that are not raised in the US. This blog or any blog are not censored in Israel.

          But still you assume you are smarter than 7 million Israelis. Oh well. Right, we are “brain washed” from childhood. Is that going to be your childish response?

        • eee says:

          Danna,

          Your are lying about my logic and trying to put words in my mouth.
          Since you invented it, you should patent it.

        • eee says:

          Shmuel,
          “Save that “it’s all so complicated” argument for someone else. I happen to know a thing or two about those complexities, and addressing Israel’s human rights violations is not a “smal part” but the core issue.”

          Is that the best you can do? For most Israelis, the core problem is security. Have fun ignoring it.

        • Shmuel says:

          For most Israelis, the core problem is security.

          As opposed to most Palestinians? Security for one side is no security at all.

        • eee says:

          Agreed, but that does not make human rights violations a core issue.

        • Shmuel says:

          that does not make human rights violations a core issue.

          Ethnic cleansing, dispossession, denial of basic freedoms, torture, administrative detention, killing and maiming of non-combatants, discrimination on the basis of ethnicity/religion, etc. most certainly are at the very heart of the conflict and its possible resolution. Security is not an exclusively Israeli prerogative, and as long as it is treated as such – violating Palestinian human rights – there will be no solution in I/P.

        • eee says:

          Wrong, all your alleged violations are just by products of the fact that there is an armed struggle between the two peoples and Israel is winning. They are not part of the core issues.

        • Shmuel says:

          The armed struggle is a direct result of the violation of Palestinian human rights from 1948 on, constantly compounded with further violations. Furthermore, Israel’s ongoing violation of Palestinian human rights stems from the very same principle that has perpetuated the conflict – unwillingness to relate to Palestinians as equals with equal rights and equal aspirations. These issues are as core as they come. It may be convenient or comfortable for Israelis to look elsewhere, but that doesn’t make it so. It is in fact the focus on “Israeli security” that treats a narrow issue, isolated from its broader context, as if it were the whole. Part of the problem lies in the militarism that pervades Israeli society, which leads to a very limited conception of “security” and the means required to achieve it.

        • Citizen says:

          Americans cannot morally, ethnically, or financially afford all the aid we give every year to Israel. We have states that are weaker economically than Israel. There is a web site that shows what each US state could do with the money gifted stringless to Israel.

          Only a state can judicially raise the war crimes issue. There is no statute of limitations. Germany and Spain, for example, can arrest foreign state leaders and players for war crimes.

        • eee says:

          The armed struggle is a direct result of the Palestinians refusing the UN partition compromise.

        • Citizen says:

          The reason Israel is singled out is that the US gives more to it than to any other country, or continent–and only Israel gets US tax dollars without strings. Further, Israel constantly tells us it is
          a democracy with values just like the USA, as do US congressmen and the White House. The “special relationship” always touted by Israel, and the US congress and WH–is a sword that is double edged, and a shield that has two solid sides. Eee wants everyone to only look at one side of the sword, one side of the shield. That’s gone on long enough.

        • Citizen says:

          EEE: “Why focus on me, look at what’s going on down the street! I’m a lamb compared to them!”

        • eee says:

          Why shouldn’t the US be singled out, especially by US citizens?
          You state that YOUR Congress is the problem? Why doesn’t the UC system divest from the US? Why don’t you and Chu go on a hunger strike in front of the Congress instead of trying to meddle in Israeli affairs?

        • Citizen says:

          Yeah, those countries that signed the NPT were really suckers. Now there’s a principle to look up to and worship. I’m guessing eee feels the same about world court jurisdiction. The logical deduction is that eee is a spiritual follower of Goering, as he sat smirking in the bench at Nuremberg. Now that’s what I call giving the Shoah dead something inspiring to die for, and their survivor peers’ children, something to guide them all their lives.

        • Citizen says:

          Why eee stands for a regular resurrection of humanity!

        • Citizen says:

          If we were to apply BDS fairly, the US congress would not be trying to curb Iran every way it can, and it would be putting at least as much economic pressure on Israel as it puts on Iran. I am saying, let’s just be fair. Really, why does the US focus on Iran when it doesn’t even have a bomb? Why does it play along with
          Israel’s bomb ambiguity approach when everybody in congress knows JFK was trying to stop Israel’s getting the bomb when he was conviently offed?

        • Citizen says:

          Right, eee, none of us see how the US vetoes every attempt to bring Israel up to par with other more civilized nations, especially western countries.

        • Citizen says:

          Eee, does it make sense to NOT sign the NPT unless such a state avoiding signing is intent on being unaccountable to the rest of the world? Of course not. Not signing is a commitment to remaining
          a rogue state in the eyes of the civilized world.

        • Shmuel says:

          refusing the UN partition compromise.

          A compromise involves two sides arriving at an equitable solution. The UN proposed partition plan was not an equitable solution and was therefore quite reasonably rejected by one of the two sides and the countries representing its interests at the UN. Their protests and counter-proposal were ignored by that august organisation, under pressure from the US and the USSR. The other side decided to go ahead anyway, imposing those parts of the proposal that were to its liking and ignoring the rest, while ethnically cleansing the country and establishing a discriminatory ethno-religious state.

          But enough “dwelling on the past”. I’m sure the conflict could be resolved today by recognising the basic humanity of Palestinians and establishing a one-man-one-vote political system (i.e. ceasing to violate Palestinian human rights). Any way you look at it, human rights are a core issue.

        • Citizen says:

          Well, eee, it makes as much sense as self-declaring a nation in the wake of the UN partition resolution, all the while intent on moving practical borders farther out. And doing so.

        • eee says:

          The internationally sanctioned compromise was the best solution to stop war. But the Arabs chose war and paid the price. If they were really worried about human rights, they would have accepted the partition and worked through non-violent means to improve it. But they were working on the principle that might makes right and they were sure they could threw the Jews into the sea. They made a wrong decision and naturally are paying the price.

        • Shingo says:

          “Of course there is symmetry. All countries that violate the NPT should be sanctioned. Israel just had the foresight not to sign.”

          So if Iran withdrew from the NPT, you would bd happy with them developing nukes right eee?

          Of course, if Israel’s foresight was such a source of pride, then why the need for “ambiguity”? Oh that’s right, being honest about their nukes would mean no massive welfare cheques from their sugar Daddy.

        • Shmuel says:

          The Arabs chose not to accept an imposed solution that was patently unfair. It was that unfair solution that was the cause of war, not the refusal to accept it. The Zionist leadership in Palestine also clearly demonstrated that it was fully prepared to use violence to achieve its goals. The Arabs met violence with violence and lost, by virtue of which – or so the Zionist talking point goes – they forfeited any rights they may have had for ever more. So who’s determining right by might here?

        • Shingo says:

          “The armed struggle is a direct result of the Palestinians refusing the UN partition compromise.”

          But as Ben Gurion told us, even if they had, Israel would have violated it. And the 1967 war, and lady theft has nothing to do with partition.

        • Cliff says:

          You’re full of shit 3e.

          ‘The Arabs’ did not CHOOSE war. There was an ON-GOING Civil War.

          Cite some goddamn sources, you coward. In fact, I’ve already debated you on this. So you conveniently forget to pollute the blog with your propaganda?

          Make a substantiated argument or shut the hell up, freak.

        • Shingo says:

          “Wrong. The NPT is an agreement that you cannot withdraw from without consequences. ”

          False. There are mechanis in place fit withdrawing from the NPT that are legal and include no consequences. The only consequences would be hostile and illegal actions.

        • Shingo says:

          “refusing the UN partition compromise”

          What about Isael refusing to abide by nearly 100 UN Resolutions? Isn ‘t that prrof then that Israel doesn’t want peace?

      • demize says:

        The singularly destestable are often singularly detested.

    • Chaos4700 says:

      So you really demand that a 500-page treatise be drawn up criticizing every human rights violation in human history and condemning them all, whenever somebody wants to address Israel’s crimes?

      I love it how you don’t even deny that your country is violating human rights. You just want to make excuses to allow it to keep happening.

    • David Samel says:

      eee, you seem to be expressing concern for the civilian victims of other conflicts around the globe. But are you really? You spend a lot of time on this website, defending Israel, which is your choice. If you were really upset about other global victims, why don’t you spend more time on those other causes you find more pressing? Perhaps you could begin divestment campaigns against Russia for its suppression of Chechnya, or China for its occupation of Tibet (or your other personal favorites). Instead of doing this work that would potentially help people you consider to be more deserving victims than the Palestinians, you are defending Israel’s human rights violations, with the curious argument that they are not unique.

      I cannot imagine any other conflict in which someone who speaks out in favor of the oppressed is hit with a similar argument. Do those who are engaged in Tibetan rights get criticized for failing to mention Palestinians? The very idea is ridiculous, but no more so than your fake concern for other victims when you are really only siding with your favorite oppressor.

      • eee says:

        David,

        I am merely pointing out that the divestment does target only Israel despite what the people pushing for divestment are saying.

        • Citizen says:

          Right, eee. And Bugolsi only targeted Charlie Manson during a period of years, and that’s because Bugolsi discriminated against poor Charlie when there were many other apparent criminals running around. Not fair! And Bugolsi did this outrageous thing without even
          thinking about the larger issues implicated in poor Charlie’s philosophic arena.

      • Right on the money, DS. I once made a very similar argument here.

        • marc b. says:

          This is unadulterated nonsense of course. There have been divestment campaigns, boycotts, blockades (ring a bell?) of countries for thousands of years, but somehow memory of these campaigns is selectively edited by supporters of the superlative state. The US imposed a wheat embargo against the Soviets and mined Nicaraguan harbors. There are ongoing campaigns to boycott Chinese goods because of its policy towards Tibet and its use of ‘slave’ labor. My Armenian neighbor growing up was very involved in a campaign to boycott Turkish products because of its historical treatment of Armenians and the flourishing opium trade being facilitated through Turkey. In France ther has been a decades-long campaign to boycott American fast food and cultural products such as US TV programs. The pissing on about Israel being singled out is just mindnumblingly dishonest and juvenile. Israeli MKs are proposing boycotts of UK goods. WTF? It is friggin’ delusional.

        • Shmuel says:

          It is friggin’ delusional.

          No. It’s fuckin’ dishonest – a ploy to get people off Israel’s back. Smoke and mirrors.

        • eee says:

          I am talking about the SPECIFIC divestment proposal at hand. If it is as it claims, not directed only at Israel then let’s make a list of the countries it is directed at.

          What is “smoke and mirrors” is the claim by the organizers of this campaign that they are not targeting only Israel.

        • Shmuel says:

          You don’t give a damn about this “SPECIFIC” proposal (just as you don’t give a damn about US human rights violations), because you use the same tired argument about any criticism or action against Israel. As for the above statement, it makes no bones about being directed at Israel, it merely explains that in so doing it is supporting freedom over oppression, and not Palestinians over Israelis.

          You will argue otherwise, as you did with the Goldstone Report, but you will be equally wrong.

        • marc b. says:

          it is dishonest. my father’s business partner of 30plus years was Jewish, and many of his family and friends refused to purchase German goods, up to the day that they died as far as I know, because of the holocaust. not an unreasonable sentiment, of course. but some have to make every relationship, every event, every policy, every opinion of Israel ‘special’, always the ‘most’, the ‘best’, the ‘worst’. The IDF is the ‘most moral army’. Iran is the ‘worst’ threat to the existence of Israel (since what, I don’t know.) It is superlative piled on superlative, until analogies and comparisons are made meaningless, which presumably is the point.

        • eee says:

          Shmuel,

          The people pushing this campaign claimed that they were not singling out Israel. Well they lied, as the letter of support shows.

          I am discussing this SPECIFIC campaign.

          Let me repeat. Criticism of Israel is legitimate. Having the UC system argue for divestment only from Israel is not legitimate. It shows bias.

        • Shmuel says:

          The people pushing this campaign claimed that they were not singling out Israel.

          Source please.

          I am discussing this SPECIFIC campaign.

          Because it is self contradictory, or because it singles out Israel? Actually, you make that pretty clear:

          Having the UC system argue for divestment only from Israel is not legitimate.

          So it’s not about inconsistency now, is it. Or even about this “SPECIFIC” campain. It’s about the legitimacy of arguing divestment only from Israel. Well, you can rest easy and move on to the next thread, because UC has actually argued (and implemented) other divestment campaigns in the past (including from Sudan, see link on Darfur).

        • eee says:

          link to mondoweiss.net

          It clearly says that the resolution was changed not to target only Israel. This is of course just smoke and mirrors as the support letter proves.

          Great! You think that ONE other example is going to convince me that there is no special focus on Israel? Of course there is!

          BDS ALL human rights violators. What is wrong with that?

        • >>Having the UC system argue for divestment only from Israel is not legitimate. It shows bias.

          Yes, it is, and no, it doesn’t. Any person or group can start a campaign to divest from any country. This particular group of activists is calling for a boycott of Israel. Pro-Tibet activists can campaign for a boycott of China if they so wish. And there’s nothing wrong with the UC addressing one issue at a time.

          There would be a bias if the UC refused to deal with other human-rights abuses than those committed by Israel.

        • Shmuel says:

          UC famously divested from SA, divested from Sudan, and I’m sure other proposals for divestment have come up. You’ll just have to change your argument to “it’s unfair to single out South Africa, Sudan, Israel and probably others”: BLUDGEONING South Africa, IRRATIONALLY HATING Sudan, BASHING Israel and probably doing UNSPEAKABLE THINGS to others.

        • eee says:

          Well, if you are sure other divestment ideas have come up, what are they?

          Two examples in 50 years does not prove your point, it proves mine. From what you say, it seems the UC system did not bother to divest from anybody related to the genocide in Rwanda.

        • Shmuel says:

          Only Israel!

          There’s Sudan.

          Only one other example!

          There’s SA.

          <Only two examples!

          We could do this forever, but you are against BDS because you want impunity for Israel. It’s as simple as that. Whatever argument happens to serve that purpose is fine with you. So yes, smoke and mirrors.

        • Donald says:

          The government in Rwanda that committed the genocide in 1994 was overthrown.

          Now in fairness, the one in power now is said by Howard French and others to be guilty of supporting crimes almost as horrific inside the Congo. So I’ll grant that there are other governments in the world worse than Israel. So what? As Shmuel said, you can and should boycott a country if it deserves it and if the boycott has a good chance of working.

          The “singling out Israel” line is basically a surrender. I agree with many or most of your criticisms of the US and probably many of us here have spent much more time criticizing the US and not Israel (though in Israel’s case, given our support, criticizing Israel is criticizing the US).

        • Shmuel says:

          BTW your example of Rwanda is irrelevant, because divestment is about pressuring governments to change policies and actions, not about punishing them – as much as you would like to advance your bashing/hating/bludgeoning theory.

        • tree says:

          And, of course, we all know how heavily invested in Rwanda UC San Diego was—NOT. Divestment, per the very term itself, requires that one is first invested in something, and then terminates that investment.

        • eee says:

          Donald,

          Surrender is accepting the “coincidence” that it is only Israel that is targeted. Maybe it is a “coincidence”. But I believe strongly it isn’t. It is just a clear bias and a political tool to bludgeon Israel.

          Furthermore, I am not advocating surrender or no action. Why can’t the divestment resolution be general about any human rights violating country or the 30 worst human rights violators or something like that?

        • sherbrsi says:

          Why can’t the divestment resolution be general about any human rights violating country or the 30 worst human rights violators or something like that?

          Because for divestment to occur there has to be INVESTMENT.

          And it just so happens that Israel, like others in the past, satisfies both the conditions of being invested in and one of the worst human rights violators in the world.

          You should use common sense sometime eee, or is that a “political tool to bludgeon Israel” as well?

        • eee says:

          You want to argue that the UC system has not invested in for example Russia or China? Or that there are no US companies that sell to these countries or buy from them?

        • demize says:

          I dare say it is maximalist.

        • Citizen says:

          Right, eee, and specific criticism of any criminal is not legitimate unless one also specifically criticizes every criminal in the world.
          Hitler and Goebbels would agree with you. Happy? Not quite? OK, I will throw in Goering–I’m sure he wouldn’t mind. Still not happy?
          I will throw in Joe Stalin. Now?

    • no problem, eee; yea, I’m all for “singling out Israel.” I don’t like the place, don’t like the policies, don’t like the way so many Israelis behave, don’t like that my country enables all that bad behavior.

      so count me firmly among those willing to “single out Israel.”

      • eee says:

        Thanks for your honesty Psycho. I will put you down as one irrational, but honest, Israel hater.

      • marc b. says:

        Oh, Lord. PGod, you have just performed a valuable mental health service. There are some who are just more comfortable with what they perceive as ‘anti-semitism’, as it comforts them, confirming their prejudice that criticism of Israel is just a sublimated urge to murder ‘the Jews’ and destroy Israel, and that they are special, just like mommy told them. Prozac anyone?

        • The Emotional Violence of Jewish Advocacy

          It seems that Americans are kind of in an abusive marriage situation with Israel, where because love and friendship are assumed to be there, the abused partner keeps feeling guilty and acting hyper-responsible, and tries even harder to please the abuser. Many Americans maintain friendships with pro-Israel Jews and simply decide not to discuss politics; however there is an emotional blackmail going on because if you did mention Israel or Jewish-American genocidalism, the relationship would be over.

          A Gentile in America, even a child, is raised to accept a very heavy sense of personal responsibility that far exceeds anyone else’s normal sense of personal responsibility. It creates a neurotic personality who is always feeling guilty and thus is too weak to stand up to Zionist criminal behavior and the comical, obviously non-factual Zionist ideology.

          Jews in America are socially empowered to go way beyond the learned trauma of the Jewish experience that results in typical reactionary behavior. They actually participate in group behavior that is deliberately manipulative and abusive – aimed at punishing activists who stand up for human equality and justice.

          read the rest of Friedemann’s essay, especially the bit about gentiles coming to terms with their “inner Jew.”

    • Citizen says:

      “Yeah, why did and do people still pick oh me? I only followed your children. I tried to protect them from you. Why didn’t you go after
      all the criminals out there? Why pick on me? I’ve been eating out of garbage cans all my life, thanks to you. ”

      –Charles Manson

    • Citizen says:

      Yeah, listen to eee, why’d you all pick on apartheid S Africa? There were and still are a host of countries you could target with BDS. Reverse racism?

  5. potsherd says:

    So clear and obvious – so rarely heard.

  6. Pingback: Tweets that mention Nobel Laureates: ‘We are all peace makers, and we believe that no amount of dialogue without economic pressure can motivate Israel to change’ -- Topsy.com

  7. Mooser says:

    Keep at it, guy and womens! 3e is a tough customer, but if he didn’t want to be convinced of an anti-Zionist position, he wouldn’t be here.
    It’s easy to tell how badly he wants to be convinced, his arguments get worse and worse.
    He came here a, a, well, some kind of Zionist supporter, but he will leave here (when, O Lord, when?) with a much more critical view.
    And of course he’ll leave with a curse and a snarl, instead of thanking us for turning his life around.
    Typical of his ilk.

  8. Walid says:

    I’m here because of people like eee, Rachel & Company. What’s to discuss without them?

    • what’s to discuss — you mean if ee, yonira etc did not deliberately derail the conversation? to discuss is how to get the US and Israel out of the mess both have dug themselves in.

      eee and most zionists may not have followed the trend lines to their obvious conclusion; it seems apparent to me that it is not a pleasant conclusion for Jews in the US (not sure what will happen in Israel). It’s happened before, it will happen again: people who have been abused by zionists will eventually get fed up. Trudi Rubin on C Span a few days ago demonstrated that registering one’s concern in clear and simple terms will not be tolerated, that anyone who doesn’t like Jewish behavior does not have the right to be heard.

      Keep it up. Does Rubin think silencing Americans from criticizing Israel and/or Jewish behavior is going to cause it to dissipate? How’s it worked out in the past?

      Please, some well-meaning person is going to say, “it’s not Jews, it’s zionists…..”
      Explain to me how an enraged mob is going to make that distinction, especially in view of the zionist Israeli practice of equating every Jew in diaspora with Israel/zionism.

      zionists are shooting themselves and all Jews in the foot; they’re mobizing America to pull the trigger.

      the great task for Americans is to try to figure out how to walk the cat back, to react differently this time — react differently to a very similar set of provocations. It’s going to be a real challenge, and Jews as well Americans have their lives and their children’s futures riding on it.

      • eee says:

        Psycho,

        You are the best. Thank you for warning American Jews to change their behavior or suffer pogroms.

        You only keep proving why the Jews need a country and a strong army.

        • I refer you to Isaac Newton: for every action an equal and opposite reaction.

          change the action, you change the reaction.

          ‘course, maybe it’s just a theory.

          regarding that “strong army” thang; how’s it workin’ out for ya? Ever occur to you that it’s cheaper & happier to stop pissing people off if you want to live in peace?

        • btw, tripe ee, thanks for proving my point.
          the one about failing to follow the trends to their logical conclusion.
          in order to take some action
          that might change the trend line
          before it ends up badly
          for Americans
          and for Jews.

        • kapok says:

          The gays are worse off that any jew. Don’t they deserve a state, too.

        • Danaa says:

          PG, one problem with your line of reasoning (and it is reasonable to expect a reaction) is that israel generally welcomes any incidence of anti-semitism. In fact they relish those, playing every little swastika graffiti to the max. Just as eee is doing here – Israel without universal anti-semitism is basically a badly weakened entity and perceive a happy, more or less assimilated diaspora jewish population as an eminent threat.

          Therefore, any baclklash against jews anywhere is celebrated in Israel as a victory. Which to me, proves that far from having the interests of jews in mind, Israel is the one country that does everything it caqn to promote and play up anti-semitism. In fact, I’m surprised the ADL does not call them on it.

          But you can see the problem here…..hopefully the way forward – the ONLY good way forward is to affect change within the jewish population and have it secede from israel as any kind of representative or spiritual center. Israel is none of those things to people who value democracy anywhere, jews included.

          I believe our job (one out of several) here is to deepen and move the Great Jewish Split along positive lines that benefit America, jewish american and, by extension, diaspora jews and their respective countries everywhere. Phil’s blog does invaluable service along these lines as does Richard Silverstein, magnes zionist, and many excellent other sites.

          My biggest worry is time. Will the great Split happen in time to avert disaster? eee is one barometer for this among many others. Who is more like the Dutch kid with his finger in the dam, hoping that reinforcements arrive before it’s too late? the likes of eee (representing Nethaniahu’s israel) or Mondoweiss (representing Jews?)? That I have no answer to.

        • eljay says:

          What most nauseates me about eee’s fixation on anything other than Israel’s crimes is a strong suspicion that, should Israel ever be brutalized by an aggressor nation (something I do not wish for), he will be among the first hypocrites screaming for immediate retribution. All arguments to the effect that the wrongs perpetrated against Native Americans and other peoples be righted before the aggressor nation is brought to justice will be silenced.

          What a joke(r).

        • eee says:

          Israel was brutalized in 1948 by ALL the Arab League which declared war on Israel. Not one country came to Israel’s help. Israelis fought alone.

          In 1967, Nasser close the straits of Tiran. Not one country was willing to be part of an international force to reopen them.

          I expect ZERO help from the international community.

        • Citizen says:

          Not really, eee, Psycho is merely telling us all why the likes of Trudi Rubin on C Span is not in the best interests of the USA, or it’s 1st Amendment, or in the best interests of universal human rights. When even CSPAN’s rep does not follow up on Rubin’s absolute simple dismissal of
          average Americans calling in to the show with questions about US enablement of Israel right or wrong, it’s not a good sign.

        • Citizen says:

          The Palestinian people were brutalized most especially in 1947-48 (and then again especially in the Gaza Turkey Shoot). The ’48 war
          was fought in 99.9 % land not part of the UN partition benefiting Israel. Why would any country come to help Israel grab more land? What Israeli war was ever a really defensive war?

        • I would not harm thee for the world, Danaa.

          I do not with harm to thee or thine.

          I do see patterns, tho.

          Your explanation is reasonable, and troubling.

          to shock someone like eee into some other plane of reality, outside the hasbara shell, is the goal of ‘psycho’ words.
          But you have pointed out, there are unintended consequences.

        • eljay says:

          >> I expect ZERO help from the international community.

          Like I said: If Israel were attacked, you wouldn’t give a flying f*ck anymore about the Native Americans. What a joke(r).

        • Shingo says:

          “Israel was brutalized in 1948 by ALL the Arab League which declared war on Israel. Not one country came to Israel’s help. Israelis fought alone.”

          Rubbish. Israel had ehtnically vleanaed 200 villages before the war even started. And yes, Czecoslovakia sent arms to Israel, so they were helped. Mind you, Israel had been attacking the British and the Palestinisns, so they were hardly endearing the world to their side.

          “In 1967, Nasser close the straits of Tiran. Not one country was willing to be part of an international force to reopen them.”

          False again. According to the main UN observer, the Egyptians atopped imposing the blockade after a week.

          Nasser also proposed that the legality of the blockade becided by the ICJ. Israel rejected the offer. Nasser then said that Israeli ships would be left alone do long as they did’t fly the Israeli flag. Israel again said no.

          Israel had been trying to lure Nasser into war since 1956, and were looking for any excuse yo do so.

          Meanwhile, Israel is imposing an illegal blockade on Gaza and your complaining that the world ask Israel to lift it.

          What a hypocrite!

        • eljay says:

          >> Israel was brutalized in 1948 … Not one country came to Israel’s help.
          >> In 1967, Nasser close the straits of Tiran. Not one country was willing to be part of an international force to reopen them.

          Why should anyone have lifted a finger to help Israel? The U.S. had messed up the Injuns somethin’ fierce a hunnert or two years before, so until something was done about that, why worry about Israel? What’s with all the unfair criticism? Why do you insist on bludgeoning everyone?

          What a joke(r).

        • Sumud says:

          Thanks Shingo, you nailed it.

          eee has obviously imbibed the steaming turd that passes for history in Israel, to be spouting that nonsense.

        • yonira says:

          Also, Dude, injun is not the preferred nomenclature. American-Indian please.

        • Chaos4700 says:

          Oh bullshit, yonira. You’ve pulled every racist Arab/Muslim stereotype there is, and you swear almost as much as someone from New Jersey and then you’re going to act like Mr. Politically Correct? And anyway, it’s already been established that eljay is satirizing eee.

  9. >>BDS ALL human rights violators. What is wrong with that?

    There’s nothing wrong with that, and we’re waiting for your campaign to divest from China or Saudi Arabia. Us, we take care of Israel.

    >>a Nobel Peace Prize does not a peacemaker make. (Obama, anyone?)

    …or Elie Wiesel, for that matter.

  10. Red says:

    What eee and other Zionists like him conveniently choose to ignore is that BDS is a Palestinian led initiative which seeks to fight for self-determination through non-violent direct action and is a campaign which came directly out of the Palestinian people’s experience of Israeli occupation, apartheid and racism.

    It is a not a ‘generic’ campaign for broad human rights started by non-Palestinians (although it does adopt a human rights based approach). Instead it is a specific campaign, developed by Palestinian civil society against THEIR oppressors and occupiers (ie. the Israeli state).

    Given this is the political context of the campaign (ie. that it’s a Palestinian initiated campaign, not a “generic” campaign started by non-Palestinians) why would it target any other country? It would make absolutely no sense at all. Just as Black South Africans called for BDS against their oppressors, so are the Palestinians calling for BDS against their oppressors (ie. Israel). This is why the PALESTINIAN Unified Call for BDS does not call for the targeting of other countries – it is specifically targeted at the nation which is oppressing them (ie. Israel). Really, eee, its not that hard to understand.

    • eljay says:

      >> … it is a specific campaign, developed by Palestinian civil society against THEIR oppressors and occupiers (ie. the Israeli state).

      There you go bludgeoning Israel again. That kind of maximalist “I’m not interested” attitude is going to get you anywhere. Jerusalem forever and ever, the Holocaust, a Jewish “nation” (except for the “traitors”), Palesterrorists, anti-semitism.

      :-)

      • sherbrsi says:

        eljay you forgot

        “Don’t Silence Me!”

        My personal favorite.

      • Red says:

        Why is it “maximalist” to for Palestinians to point out that Israel is the THEIR oppressor and occupier? Are you seriously trying to tell me that Israel is not carrying out an occupation of Palestinian territory and the Palestinian people? Why is it “maximalist” for Palestinians to say they want the occupation to stop and they are going to campaign in a non-violent way, utilising a human rights approach based on international law? Why is it “maximalist” to expect Israel to abide by international law? Are you seriously saying that Israel is ABOVE international law and should not be expected to abide by international law and that it has a RIGHT to carry out human rights abuses? Because this basically what you are saying by claiming that Palestinians pointing out that Israel is an occupier is “bludgeoning Israel”. You are basically saying that Palestinians have no right to point out that Israel is carrying out human rights abuses, is occupying Palestinian territory and people and that they have no right to campaign non-violently to get these abuses and Israel’s occupation to end.

    • eee says:

      Red,

      For Palestinians to target Israel makes every sense in the world. For the UC system to BDS only Israel, makes no sense whatsoever. They are Americans, they should BDS Arizona first.

      • >>For the UC system to BDS only Israel, makes no sense whatsoever.

        Did it make sense for the UC system to boycott South Africa when Mozambique was a far worse human-rights offender?

        • eee says:

          No it didn’t. Which shows that the UC system is biased.

        • Shmuel says:

          HB,

          Obviously, the boycott against SA was little more than white-SA-bashing/bludgeoning, motivated by irrational hatred of SA whites. I can think of no other explanation for their singling out of SA, over matters that were certainly an internal matter, for white SA to figure out for themselves. Ditto for Sudan. Ditto for Israel.

        • Don’t forget that white South Africans performed the first heart transplant, vs. no achievement whatsoever from black South Africans.

          Keep in mind also that while Afrikaners had just one state, the blacks had 34 other countries to choose from.

        • Shmuel says:

          And black South Africans were much better off than blacks in other African countries, and security was a far more important issue for white South Africans than black human rights.

        • eee says:

          So, you are saying that it did make sense to boycott only SA and not Mozambique? Of course not.

        • Shmuel says:

          1) Was it right to boycott apartheid SA?
          2) Was there reason to believe it would be effective?

          End of story, no bashing, bludgeoning or irrational hatred necessary. The presumed absence of a simultaneous campaign to divest from Mozambique (assuming the university had anything invested there) and every other human rights violator on the face of the earth, would not have been a good reason to oppose the boycott against SA or to question its legitimacy. Unless of course one was an apartheid apologist.

      • Citizen says:

        Eee, if Americans should BDS Arizona, shouldn’t they in principle also BDS Israel and US de facto enabling of Israel’s activities? Where are you in the interest of universal human rights? You see no partnership between NAFTA elite spoils profits and the Military-Industrial complex Ike and Marine general Smedley talked about?

      • Chaos4700 says:

        They are Americans, they should BDS Arizona first.

        That’s only freakin’ hilarious because a lot of American communities are boycotting Arizona presently as a result of that idiotic legislation. :)

      • Red says:

        eee, its called “solidarity” with the oppressed. The Palestinian Unfied Call specifically calls for “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”. Most Palestine solidarity activists I know and have worked with in the US (and around the world), are in fact active in other social justice campaigns (and in the US this does, include the campaign against the laws in Arizona) – it is only Zionists who try to make out that they aren’t.

  11. Pingback: Visit Indonesia 2008 (Secrets of Indonesia) | Asia Travel Expert | Indonesia Traveling

  12. Shmuel says:

    Red: Most Palestine solidarity activists I know and have worked with in the US (and around the world), are in fact active in other social justice campaigns

    Shhh. You’re ruining a perfectly good hasbara theory.

  13. Pingback: Sharklee Corporation Explode your Cash Flow and Profits

  14. Pingback: Nobel Laureates: ‘We are all peace makers, and we believe that no amount of dialogue without economic pressure can motivate Israel to change’ | International Solidarity Movement

  15. Pingback: Oscillating Desk Fans - Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2008 – Periodic Table of Videos