Here's something important I've missed: a debate of Boycott/Divestment/Sanctions in the July issue of Tikkun magazine, with Jeremy Ben-Ami of J Street and editor Michael Lerner, against, and on the pro side, Maya Wind of the Israeli refusenik group Shministim, Rabbi Lynn Gottlieb and Rebecca Vilkomerson of Jewish Voice for Peace. The debate is not online (but I gather you can find some of it here.)
A few points: Hat's off to Michael Lerner for giving so much space to this important debate. Next time maybe he will have the debate with Palestinians, who also have something to say about this? Omar Barghouti is very articulate, and knows the issues backward and forward.
The piece is notable for the three arguments Jeremy Ben-Ami makes against BDS that I set out in excerpts below: 1, BDS activists must start by acknowledging Israel's right to exist as a Jewish homeland with full equality for citizens, except who gets to "return" there; 2, BDS freaks out Israelis and we have to treat them with kid gloves so they willingly make concessions; 3, BDS activists paint this as a one sided story when Israelis and Palestinians are both victims and oppressors. It's equal.
As for the first argument, Ben-Ami makes it many times, it is a kind of talking point, and sounds a little like Netanyahu demanding that there will be no negotiations until the Palestinians accept the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state. But BDS is a Palestinian-led movement, Palestinians are members of a dispossessed people, and you can't really expect them to begin by declaring their dispossessor's right to be a Jewish homeland, built on their families' lands. To his credit, Ben-Ami does insist on full equality for all Israeli citizens, but in the same breath he says Palestinians must entirely give up the right of return. While, presumably, Jews, including those of us born and bred in New Jersey and New York suburbs, maintain our right to go "home."
It seems obvious that the fear of BDS is really about right of return; i.e., it's not about rights, it's about demographics, which is kinda racist. (When who knows how many Palestinians would choose to return to their homes, or how they might choose to negotiate that basic human right-- which American presidents from Truman to Nixon affirmed.)
As for the freak-out argument, young Maya Wind dispatches that by saying, Obama freaks them out as much as BDS. And as for his argument that only with love will Israelis make concessions, she says it's the opposite of what we've seen. No pressure/discomfort =settlement expansion, more slow ethnic cleansing. You might say that BDS is the grassroots "make me" that Obama called for when he said he knew the right thing to do but he needed the people to "make him" do the right thing. Obama couldn't make a move without a global outcry. As J Street wouldn't exist were it not for the vast and historically deep Jewish and non Jewish grassroots activism that helped create political space for them, and Obama. J Street needs the left, in order to position itself as moderate.
On the third point, it may be that the left does generally paint this struggle as more one-sided than it is. Yes Palestinians have been agents in what has happened in I/P. But in the end, this really is about Israel having power over Palestinians. Demands for full moral equivalence between partners are absurd, and win no converts.
Finally, note that Rebecca Vilkomerson (in #4 below) challenges Ben-Ami for signing a letter along with the ADL and the David Project that condemned University of California/Berkeley's divestment bill-- a student bill that explicitly focused on companies and not the state of Israel. And Ben-Ami says it won't happen again.
Excerpts:
1. Ben-Ami's argument that anyone who supports BDS must first acknowledge Israel's right to exist as a Jewish homeland:
JBA:
[T]he question is, is the BDS critique being framed in a way that allows some to conclude that there is no need for an Israel or that there wouldn't be any great loss if there were just to be one state? That is where our red line is...
The Palestinian people will have to give up the notion that they can return to the homes that they had to flee in 1948 and that their grandparents and parents fled. Israelis are going to have to pull back their cousins and country-mates from settlements on the West Bank; they're going to have to share Jerusalem.
... I hope we all accept Israel's right to exist, I hope we accept its right to self-defense,
I still didn't hear from any of the other three folks an affirmation of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish home, with equal rights for all its citizens and a state of Palestine side by side. I'd like to hear that that is a fundamental tenet of the BDS movement and of those who use the tactics, that Israel has a right to exist, and I haven't heard that.
--------
Vilkomerson: I certainly have no problem affirming the right of Israel to exist. I don't think during the anti-apartheid struggle anyone was saying that because we were against apartheid we were against the right of South Africa to exist. States exist.
Lynn actually did say that there is suffering on both sides, and that is absolutely true. And I—as someone who has an Israeli husband and children, who lived in Israel for three years—I don't think anyone can accuse me personally or anyone from JVP of not having the interests of the people of Israel at heart. And I think Maya is a fantastic example of someone from within Israel who is saying the same thing, that we're all fighting together for a better future for all of the people, both in Israel and in Palestine.
But I think one thing that is very problematic about the accusation that it has something to do with the legitimacy of the state is that it sort of turns the argument on its head. People have been condemning Palestinian violent resistance against civilians, rightfully, for years. Yet here's this nonviolent tactic that's a way for Israelis and Palestinians and people of good faith around the world to make an impact on what these policies are doing to people every day in real time, and yet it's those tactics that are being attacked as delegitimizing the state just as vociferously as, if not more than, the violent tactics were. So then what tactic is left to use? I think it's extremely important as citizens of the world, as Jews, and as Americans—as Jews we're implicated in the Israeli state; as Americans we're implicated because of our tax dollars—that we have a way to express, and express in the political full-citizenship sense, our displeasure with Israel's actions.
Additionally, I don't think it's fair to talk about this as a "conflict." Israel is the occupying power. Israel is the one that is illegally, by international standards, occupying Palestinian land, and Israel is the one that is violating human rights, unfortunately, every single day. So I don't think it's quite fair to say that it always needs to be about two sides, because sometimes one side does need to be called out more than the other. I think Israel, especially because it is considered to be a democracy, it is held to that standard. There are certainly worse human rights abusers in the world. However, Israel as a democratic state, as a Western state, as it declares itself, should be held accountable to international standards. I personally—with my personal attachments to Israel—I hold Israel to that standard, just as I hold the United States to that standard.
Argument 2, BDS freaks people out
JBA: I don't think that attacking Israel by boycotting, divesting, engaging in protests, preventing its ambassador from speaking, preventing academics from going places, and not buying products from Israel is going to encourage Israelis to think that there's an atmosphere in which they can make peace.
I think these behaviors on the part of people opposed to the Occupation only feed into a mentality and an atmosphere in which people circle the wagons and become more defensive. And in fact they argue: "The entire world is against us. How can we make concessions for peace when everybody's against us?"
The types of tactics that are being used only feed into that mentality and make it more plausible to argue that in fact the world is ganging up on Israel. I know that it is counterintuitive, because the tactics are being used because of the very behaviors that Israel's engaging in. But it's all a vicious cycle, and I'm afraid that this set of tactics feeds rather than helps to halt that vicious cycle....
MAYA WIND: As an Israeli activist, I can attest to the fact that Israelis freak out when people talk about BDS, and certainly they do tend to get very defensive. And it kind of plays to the whole narrative that anyway is so strong here, about how "the whole world is against us; we're in an existential threat forever."
I would argue, however, that the alternative that you pose of having Obama or the U.S. administration push Israel along in changing its policies does a similar thing. I mean, if you go around the West Bank, there's countless signs of Obama with a kaffiyeh, "Hussein Obama," "Danger to the Jews," and even just today on the radio, I heard Ehud Barak say very clearly, "Jerusalem, both east and west, is the capital of the Jewish people. We will do with it as we please. The U.S. and Obama can say what they want via recommendations, and we will listen, but it's our country and it's our right." And I think there's a lot of discourse in Israel right now about our autonomy, which of course is a joke, because we get so much in subsidies from the U.S. But still, a lot of Israelis are talking about how it's important to stand strong and be independent and not let the U.S. decide for us, because we're not their fifty-second state or whatever. So I would argue that it also contributes a very negative and defensive response from Israelis, probably no less than BDS.
..........
LYNN GOTTLIEB:
I believe BDS is a sign of hope. It is not taken up out of despair or the feeling that nothing is working. It is one element of ten thousand flowers—let them all bloom—which include pressuring the United States, working in the international community, etc. I believe that BDS is a form of pressure which has a historical track record, which the Jewish community themselves have used on many occasions, including the outbreak of World War II—l'havdil [to separate] of course, not to equate the two—but the Jewish community has used BDS itself. So I would not characterize it as a lack of hope. I would say it is simply the next phase in this struggle. As Jeremy himself said, if we truly are at the end of a process that in two or three years will take us to a very different dimension if it hasn't already, then BDS should be looked at as a positive influence to apply pressure where none has worked up till now..
I also want to talk about the ethical dimension of BDS. I would not describe BDS as making us feel better per se, because we are in a struggle for lives and for the future andthere is an ethical dimension of noncooperation which is part of the refusal movement, in which even from a kosher point of view one is not allowed to profit or benefit from any products that are either created by exploited labor or through the use of violence. So, from an ethical Jewish point of view, I believe we have an obligation to look at noncooperation, the courage to refuse to cooperate with the products and outcomes of occupation. That is a religious obligation for me, which I take very seriously.
No one who engages in nonviolent struggle knows the outcome of the struggle. There is a level at which one does things because we are ethically called to do them.
Argument 3, Argument that all parties are equal:
JBA: And my concern continues to be that the tone of BDS and the tone of some of the remarks even in this conversation do tend to point the finger at only one side, and tend to lay blame exclusively in one place, and are not helpful to creating that atmosphere. And that in fact they do the reverse—they make people dig in and they make it less likely that there is any hope of a nonviolent end to this conflict.
... I hope we understand that the history of this conflict is very complex and it's not just one side doing bad things and one innocent victim. In this conflict everybody is a victim and everybody has done bad things, and we can only focus on going forward and how we are going to be effective.
4, Exchange re the letter at UC Berkeley:
RV:
I want to ask Jeremy Ben-Ami about the recent Berkeley divestment resolution because you talked, Jeremy, about your fears that boycott was being used to attack Israel and to say it didn't have a right to exist. The Berkeley divestment resolution was a very carefully crafted resolution that simply asked the university to divest from two American military companies that are supporting the continuing Occupation, which is a recognized illegal occupation. I know that J Street is against the Occupation and is against the expansion of settlements, and yet J Street took a position against that divestment resolution at Berkeley along with a long list of other organizations, including the David Project and the Anti-Defamation League and Stand With Us, which have been quite extreme in their tactics and rhetoric. What was your reasoning to oppose a resolution like that, that is so targeted and in no way challenges the right of Israel to exist but simply challenges the Occupation?
JBA: Well I think it was a sin of omission rather than commission. I would agree that the bill was drafted in a way to limit it to the two companies. But I wonder whether it wouldn't have been possible to reaffirm somewhere in the "whereas" clauses that Israel has a right to exist, that there is a historic right to a Jewish home. In these kinds of resolutions there should be affirmation of the right of Israel to exist and of a state of Palestine and a Palestinian home, to live side by side in peace and security. That kind of an introductory paragraph would, to my mind, be a very important step in the right direction. I think that it would be helpful for there to be indications that while the Occupation and the treatment of Gazans and settlement expansion are all bad things, a resolution like that should also indicate that the use of terror and the use of rockets and all of the violence that has been used in the past against Israel are bad things too. A resolution like this would have to have more balance and it would have to indicate that there's not just one side to the story. For the record, J Street will not be signing on to letters with organizations like that in group settings again. I won't comment on going backward, but I will just say going forward you won't find us signing on to letters like that.
I agree with Phil. This is important. When a lot of my fellow pro-Palestinian activists were all excited about J Street, I studied most of the information J Street has published. Glaring in absence was any reference to international laws and resolutions/judgments from international organization. Basically, to me, J Street, was to keep everything Israel has stolen so far with a token gesture of good will to appease the Palestinians. It’s too little, too late. Only Zionists (including soft-Zionists) will support them.
Loh,
You should apply a more skeptical approach to the Finkelstein thesis. He asserts, but a large portion of what he asserts is thin.
For example, for a very long time he referred to UN general assembly resolutions as “international law”, or determinations by the ICJ, or opinions by Human Rights Watch or Amnesty. Neither are.
The UN general assembly proposes resolutions to the security council which must ratify them to be “international law”. Similarly, the most that ICJ can do is refer a case to the general assembly. Its recommendation is analagous to a grand jury. A recommendation only.
How the hell are you to tell him how he should greet Finkelstein?
And I must admit, your mind-reading powers are better than mine. I dodn’t see Finkelstein mentioned in his comment. I didn’t see Finkelstein mentioned in the post. But I guess your Zionist mind-meld found him out.
And I also made the mistake of thinking that lohdennis read the material and drew his own conclusions. But that couldn’t have happened, huh? He must have heard it while hanging around the Palestine Lobby.
Ah Witty, I really shouldn’t get “personal” with you, after all, the farce is always with you.
Who is Finkelstein?
Do you work for the Lawfare Project?
Who is Finkelstein?
did you just crawl out from under a rock loh? i’m curious how you are familiar w/the lawfare project but not finklestien. what first informed you about this conflict? have you read any books about it?
never mind loh, sorry. i shouldn’t assume everyone knows norm.
Let’s see, on Palestine/Israel, I’ve read most books on this topic written by:
Noam Chomsky
Edward Said
Rashid Khalidi
John Mearsheimer
Tom Segev
Shlomo Sand
Ben White
Victor Kattan
Amira Hass
Tony Judt
Ilan Pappe
Ali Abuminah
Tariq Ramadan
Robert Fisk
Norman Davies
Juan Cole
Oh, also Norman Finkelstein. I was just responding to Witty’s ad hominem attack.
At least you acknowledged your deception.
No comments on the content of my post, only reaction?
Any room for air in your thinking?
I don’t know about you but Finkelstein is just one of hundreds of books I read and studied. I’ve spent more time with Colin Powell or Edward Said than Finkelstein. Some other authors I mention, I’ve spent probably couple hundred more times. So, it’s all in your mind what proportion of my thinking is Finkelstein or not.Your neurons in your brain don’t appear to be connected properly. You also don’t seem to have any sense of humor. Annie is right–it will be quite unusual for a person to have read everything about the Lawfare Project, Goldstone Report, and sat on boards of human rights organizations and Middle East Study institutions, who has never heard of Finkelstein. I don’t get your “obsession” with Finkelstein. He is currently enjoying the beautiful weather in the Bekaa Valley, in case you really want to know what he is up to.
Don’t waste your energy engaing this cretin lohdennis. He can’t even mention a book that he’s read,becasue he’s lazy and willfully ignorant.
He’s also a pathological liar, a propagandist and a racist supermacist.
Thanks for advice. I can’t tell if Mr. Witty is a cretin or not. That diagnosis requires an assessment of physical appearance. As for whether the neurons in his brains are connected properly or not, that would require either a biopsy or autopsy, neither of which is practical (Mr. Witty, I’m just writing tongue in cheek, lighten up!!!)
By the way, your name “Shingo” sounds like a Japanese word–can mean “traffic lights” or just a male name-meaning “truth”.
“I can’t tell if Mr. Witty is a cretin or not”.
Another intelligent commentator here.
My comment was on the Finkelstein thesis relative to international law.
What do you regard as relevant international and other law in the context? Or, is it just a rhetorical term to you?
“it will be quite unusual for a person to have read everything about the Lawfare Project, Goldstone Report, and sat on boards of human rights organizations and Middle East Study institutions, who has never heard of Finkelstein.”
Sure, Finklestein and his work may be a bit parochial, and not the most pressing thing to read among all those other authors. But someone like you who isn’t a regular and consistent commenter or contributer to Mondoweiss? Especially a guy who is so cogent, so well spoken? That is a problem, one I hope you can solve for us. (well, I haven’t seen you before, and there are no, as far as I know, comments archives) I hope we hear lots more from you.
Most patients with cretinism I have encountered are initially suspected by either the parents or through laboratory tests in developed countries. For examples of what the physical characteristics of cretinism looks like, just go to Google search. There are enough photos to suggest consistent physical features that I was alluding to.
As for international laws, conventions etc., a good place to start would be “The Israel-Arab Reader”–A Documentary History of the Middle East Conflict–edited by Walter Laqueur and Barry Rubin. Another excellent source is Victor Kattan’s recent book called “From Coexistence to Conquest”–International Law and the Origins of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1891-1949. For more recent references, I suggest any of the excellent work by Richard Falk. Other references that are extremely useful in this context are The Goldstone Report, which is meticulously referenced. And finally, not as famous as an author but nonetheless, outstanding reading on International Laws in this context is “Obstacles to Peace” by Jeff Halper. And one more mini-book as far as land policy is concerned, I found Ben White’s “Israeli Apartheid” to be one of the best, yet concise reference .
Read all these books, study them, and if you have specific issues–not the usual propaganda by the Lawfare Project, Wiesenthal Center, or the Reut Institute and the likes, I’d be glad to consider them.
I’m just a friend of Phil and Adam.
i’ll apologize again lohdennis, sorry. i didn’t realize you were snarking @ witty.
“Another intelligent commentator here”
No, as lohdennis points out, he’s just willing to wait for the test results before jumping to conclusions based on your writing.
mooser, I haven’t seen you before, and there are no, as far as I know, comments archives
if you do a regular google search for mondoweiss and any posters name (here’s your’s , ‘About 7,580 results’ you can find out if a poster is new here. of course it will be 7,581 results after this post. lohdennis has been here before, he has also been mentioned in one of phil’s posts.
“What do you regard as relevant international and other law in the context? Or, is it just a rhetorical term to you?”
Why are you talking about international law Witty? We all know that your concept of international law is something that applies to everyone but Israel.
I’ve read other material by Laquer, as well as most of the names on your earlier list.
I’m still curious about your understanding of international law. It is cited “according to international law”, but that is functionally an abstraction.
Until you are specific, there is really not much to talk about.
I regard law as critical, and that includes many components, including multi-lateral international law, UN ratified international law, statutory law, civil law, and covers multiple parties’ rights and responsibilities.
I’ve never heard of the “lawfare project” until you mentioned it. I don’t know if it exists, nor if it is prejudicial or comprehensive.
I did see a web link that condemned it, but I’ve seen hundreds of web pages that condemn this or that, inconclusively.
I don’t think I’ve ever really read any extended material published by the Wiesenthal Center, Reut Institute or Lawfare Project.
My conclusions are my own.
Finkelstein the great.
“What I like about Jews is, Jews Never Forgive, and Jews Never Forget.”
wow.
In the next breath, Finkelstein said, “Israel will attack Lebanon again; they have to; count on it. What are you going to do: be their servant, or die on your feet resisting?”
Hell of a choice, that; curious that Finkelstein never considers that maybe just maybe Israel should start to behave like something less than barbarians.
how does Finkelstein imagine Jews or ANY people on the planet will ever live in peace? Always the other must do the forgiving and the forgetting?
link to youtube.com
“Finkelstein never considers that maybe just maybe Israel should start to behave like something less than barbarians.”
“Should” implies “can”. Maybe F thinks that Israel cannot behave decently.
I hope he is wrong, though my hope is founded on wishful thinking rather than evidence.
Finkelstein said, “Israel will attack Lebanon again; they have to; count on it. What are you going to do: be their servant, or die on your feet resisting?”
i think you are taking this out of context PG. he’s talking about hezbollah who is a resistance organization. norm doesn’t advocate for the lebanese to be israel’s servant. so if you are lebanese and irsrael attacks of course you are going to support resisting. norm has stated his is loath to criticize hamas right to resist. i didn’t listen to this whole thing because it is a memri recording and i do not trust them to not slice and dice. i don’t know why you’re going after norm a man who has worked his entire adult life to get Israel to stop committing war crimes.
>> so if you are lebanese and irsrael attacks of course you are going to support resisting.
I got the impression that he was criticizing the Lebanese for not resisting enough. He points out that less than two years after the attack – which, he points out, Bush did nothing to stop, even though supposedly he could have – the Lebanese welcomed him rather than shunned him as a “persona non grata”. I believe he’s suggesting that the Lebanese must resist more the next time Israel attacks – something which, he states emphatically, will happen.
I admire the man’s bluntness. None of that wishy-washy crap like you get from some pseudo-intellectual baffle-gabbers.
eljay, as i said i didn’t watch the whole video once i saw it was a memri video but i have met norm (traveled w/him actually and engaged in several conversations). lebanese politics is very convoluted and i’m sure you are aware hezbollah is part of the government (tho not the part that met w/bush, obviously). the electoral coalition that included hezbollah actually got more votes than any other faction as i recall but the parliament is set up in such a way as to ensure a more ‘even’ divide between sects. basically hezbollah agreed to give up a degree of representation in parliament to keep their militia which is essentially who protects lebanon, as opposed to the lebanese army. i would have to listen to the whole video (don’t have time now) to comment further but i trust norm. he’s not perfect but he’s pretty close to it in my book. i’m definitely a fan.
>> eljay, as i said i didn’t watch the whole video … but i trust norm. he’s not perfect but he’s pretty close to it in my book. i’m definitely a fan.
FWIW, I was just putting in my 2¢ in light of your and Psychopathic god’s comments. The video is worth watching, even though there are a few abrupt cuts.
No,
Finkelstein was responding to the interviewer. who was telling him (if you’ve read Beware of Small States, eljay, then you’d get this immediately) that, he should not be taking sides with Hezbollah in a post-2000-Israeli-withdrawal-Lebanon, because many in Lebanon blame Hezbollah for Israel wreaking havoc and destruction on their country, of course with the strong influence of outside forces, namely Iran, Syria, the US on Lebanese Politics and the sects within the country such as the Maronite Christians, who have in the past wanted to see this militia go….and attempted to collude with the Zionists..
In short, he was saying that: the Lebanese population should stand behind Hezbollah, not that Hezbollah should be doing more ‘resistance’. The thing is, I see both sides of this conflict. Much lamenting on Lebanon as the past cosmopolitan jewel of the Middle East, now worried about the power that Hezbollah wields, at the same time, worrying about the power that Israel wields in comparison,….it’s a lose-lose situation for the Lebanese in many ways,…
See, it’s so easy to dispel with this problem altogether. Israel makes peace. Palestinians either have a state of their own, or have equal rights with the Jews in a new democratic state+right of return….there would be no reason, no need to fight this any longer.
>> In short, he was saying that: the Lebanese population should stand behind Hezbollah, not that Hezbollah should be doing more ‘resistance’.
I didn’t say he said “Hezbollah should be doing more ‘resistance’”. I said my impression was that he was criticizing the Lebanese for not resisting enough, just as he criticized the French for not having resisted enough during WWII. To rephrase: Lebanese resistance should be greater, but many/most Lebanese (like many/most French people during WWII) simply “want to live” and, therefore, do not resist. He says he understands that, but cannot respect that. And I agree with his statement.
Eljay,
sorry I was replying to RoHa.
My mistake, it’s almost midnight here.
i appreciate the analysis, think i’ll watch the video now even tho it is memri.
ok, now that i have watched the video. the last thing finklestein says is a new leader will come after the conditions are right. he says israel has to suffer a defeat. he is probably right. i don’t think it is a matter of norm not or never considering israel start behaving like something other than who they have shown to be thus far. i think he has considered it plenty and come to the alternate conclusion, that they continue and in fact escalate (he said in the video 10 times worse). and, since israel has already threatened to do just that (and cast lead, arguable the most cowardly war israel has ever waged) was after this interview.
wrt “What I like about Jews is, Jews Never Forgive, and Jews Never Forget.”
personally i prefer quoting people’s words in the context in which they were spoken. he was chastizing lebanon’s policy of greeting rice (he said bush.. don’t recall who it was they lavished w/banquets) w/open arms after that slaughter.
paraphrasing here around 6.30 in the video he said “rolling out the red carpet? in this regard i like the jews much more, i like their attitude, do you know what their attitude is? never forgive never forget, i agree w/that. why roll out the red carpet less than 2 years after they destroyed your country?”
then he said ‘and i don’t see it any other way unless you agree to be their slaves’.
i think he’s right. unless you think israel is going to back down (i don’t) then resistance is the only choice other than loosing your sovereignty or continually kowtowing to their wishes. it is israel that doesn’t respect anything but force. when they taste enough defeat they may get of lebanon’s back. what’s disgusting is after loosing to lebanon last time they targeted gaza. what cowards.
sorry, the’ last thing he says’ according to the chopped and sliced memri. who knows what the real order was. i wish i could watch the entire interview unaltered.
I suggest that Israel-boosters tread very carefully around International law.
The General Assembly of the United Nations does not possess nor has it ever possessed the authority to Partition a country. General Assembly resolutions are recommendations only and the agreement of the parties is required before they can be acted upon.
This is not my claim, it is the opinion of the foremost International Jurist of the day, Hans Kelsen.
link to en.wikipedia.org
See:
The Law of the United Nations: A Critical Analysis of Its Fundamental Problems (Library of World Affairs, No. 11.) by Hans Kelsen
Kelsen, incidentally, was Jewish and his opinion is shared by:
Leland Goodrich, Clyde Eagleton and Edvard Hambro
link to questia.com
Israel boosters should avoid reference to international law. Otherwise they would have to think about this little breach of international law.
link to alethonews.wordpress.com
This is not my claim, it is the opinion of the foremost International Jurist of the day, Hans Kelsen.
that would be a neat trick since he died around forty years ago,
Clyde Eagleton died in 58. is this from his 1954 Annual Review of United Nations Affairs? you really had to go dumpster diving didn’t you brewer.
Israel supporters fail the consistency test. They’re the first to declare that General Assembly resolutions are not binding when the resolution, as so many have, condemns Israeli violations of international law.
In short, hypocrisy.
Annie, you are misinterpreting his comment! I think he is saying that the original Palestine Partition which the ZIonists base all their crimes on is not as valid as they say. Please read him again and see if I’m not right.
i think you are correct mooser. i must have been particularly testy and paranoid yesterday, it clouds my judgment. i probably owe brewer an apology.
sorry brewer
I’m glad you read it again, thanks.
Your thesis so resembled Norman’s, and in such similar language, that I assumed that that was a primary source of your thinking.
Maybe I’m wrong.
“Maybe I’m wrong.”
You’re always wrong.
“Your thesis so resembled Norman’s…”
This from a guy who is convinced that hairstyles (“look for the longhairs when I get into town”) were reliable indicators of political integrity. It’s a wonder you didn’t end up at Spahn’s Movie Ranch with Charlie and Squeaky. and Beausoleil
It turns out that Loh does acknowledge Finkelstein as a primary inflluence.
You guys shoot first consistently. In the name of democracy.
Gee, what a crime, someone is associating with a Jew to which you’ve stapled a yellow Crescent.
Fuck off Witty,
The General assembly is what acve Israel it’s legitimacy. Are you now telling us that Israel is illegitimate you idiot?
Shingo, perhaps you don’t understand the difference between legitimacy and international law.
The General Assembly does not enact international law. It does provide legitimacy in some instances. It granted both Israel and Palestine legitimacy.
The General Assembly cannot give legitimacy to anything beyond its authority. The GA had no authority to divide the country. The Partition Plan was a suggestion, and not more.
How does legitimacy exist without international law? One cannot exist without the other. After all, there’sno such thing as legitimacy for any action that violates international law.
They made a suggestion which could have been legitimated bu legal process, plebiscite or something. But the Zionist took the suggestion for a casus belli. Not to mention that the Zionist exceeded, by a long shot, even the suggestion.
Yes, if memory serves, Witty, the partition was proposed to the security council but the council did not accept it because Truman did not want to
send troops to enforce it; hence, the partition proposal was sitting back in the UN general assembly when the Jews in the Mandate self-declared their own state.
In 1947 the UN General Assembly approved the partition plan. In 1948 Israel declared itself a state. Citizen – it looks like you’ve reversed the order.
No, he hasn’t. He said the Partition Plan was just sitting there, unendorsed by the Security Council, when Israel declared itself.
And that is the case.
the geneva conventions and the Nuremburg principles are international law which is what those are based on are.
JBA is right about one thing. BDS will only put Israelis on the defensive and make them less inclined to concessions. BDS is inadequate as a tactic. The only thing Israelis understand is force, and only force will move Israel to make the necessary concessions for justice.
“The only thing Israelis understand is force, and only force will move Israel…”
Potsherd, you may be right, and there is every reason to believe you are. I tend to think you are. But unless you, yourself, are willing to go and apply that force, ( in which case I suggest you don’t tell the world about it) all you are doing is declaring your political impotence and, plus you are asking others to die for a course you will advise, but not carry out yourself. That is morally, a most invidious position (if “invidious” is the word I want, and spelled correctly)
Also, since many people who are committed to changing Israel are also committed to not using force, you are telling them they can do nothing, unless they are. Why do that?
If you are trying to say how frustrating the situation is, or that Israel will be willing to use force first and always, I can’t disagree. If you are also trying to say that Zionism leaves everyone with no good solutions, I wholeheartedly agree.
But haven’t you seen how fast Zionists crumble when they lose control of the speech about Zionism? It makes me think they will crumble even faster if they lose control of the economy.
Because I don’t believe there is anything in Zionism anyone who is not a sociopath or psychopath or an idiot can believe in strongly enough to maintain it in the face of unprofitability.
My point is that I see no way open to a solution as long as the US/Israeli axis of evil has a near monopoly on force.
The Palestinians spent decades attempting a solution through force, which they had every right to do, but they failed. I don’t advocate more attempts along these lines, as I believe they would have no chance of success.
Until some major power, a power like the US, is willing to make it clear to Israel that they will use overwhelming force if they fail to agree to a just resolution, there will never be one. As long as the Lobby continues to own the US government, this will not happen.
So I can’t share the enthusiasm of so many here for BDS, which will never be effective, or the endless one-state/two-state debate, as if there were a realistic chance of any solution. There isn’t, as long as the world is the way it is.
Then this should be in the back of the mind of the Palestinian Ghandi:
“My point is that I see no way open to a solution as long as the US/Israeli axis of evil has a near monopoly on force”
Oy Vey! Then, given that condition, ways other than force have to be tried, don’t they. Frankly, I think all it will take is “putting them on a diet”.
potsherd – “I can’t share the enthusiasm …for BDS, which will never be effective …as if there were a realistic chance of any solution”
Obviously, only idiots would propose boycotts as the only solution. The fact is, however, that Israeli Zionism depends entirely on three main sponsors: US Gov, diaspora Zionism, and European governments. Boycotts can weaken all three.
The Israelis will have to totally drop the mask very soon and start frank annexation (see the new Likud one-staters) and the wholesale extermination of populations; the Z may well also start a world war, and the boycotts will become a major force. Short of an open military- fascist regime in the US, boycotts are the best way of getting the Z to lose US and European support. Could possibly also kill the the common-folk diaspora Zionism. Their direct effect on Israel is not really part of this equation.
J Street seems to veer from being a strawman at times, to being bipolar on other issues. JB-A is against BDS for intellectually-deficient reasons, yet signs a letter pressuring the IRS to take away tax-exemption for settlement-building agents such as The Hebron Fund. Weitrd.
The posters on Daily Kos who identify themselves as belonging to J Street join in the gangs that harass pro-Palestinian posters.
J Street is a pro Israel lobby. We don’t need another pro Israel lobby. They have corrupted and stolen our US democracy.
Too many people seem to be identifying BDS with the binational state.
BDS is a tactic. It can be used for any purpose. Furthering a binational state is just one purpose it’s being used for. It could equally be used to agitate for a separate Palestinian state.
JBA seems to be opposed primarily to the binational state, so he should say so.
It ‘s not weird at all. There is a spectrum of American Zionists as well as Jewish pro-Palestinian viewpoints. It ranges from one-person/one vote and full right-of -return (end of Jewish Israel) to those who will ONLY be against outright occupation of West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza. Many in the latter group still cling to the idea that somehow the Jewish Israel can sustain itself by giving full citizenship to Israeli Arabs but have the refugees return to “West Bank”. Bottom line is that being against the Occupation is easier to swallow for many liberal Jewish Americans but when it comes to the complete disappearance of the Jewishness of Israel, either they feel uncomfortable (to say it in public) or have really never cogitated on the implication. Almost all non-activists liberal Jews I have talked to, belong in this latter group.
But this “Jewishness in Israel” concern is really an oxymoron for a self-described “Western democracy.” All Western democracies are redefining themselves, however haltingly, in line with their demographics. That’s the admission ticket for a democracy.
What Israel wants is “equality” and “Jewish primacy.” They cannot have former if they have the latter.
Well, argument 2, “BDS freaks out Israelis and we have to treat them with kid gloves so they willingly make concessions,” amounts to saying, you have to recognise that Israelis make the decisions and you have to somehow gull them into not exploiting their selfish opportunities to the hilt. This is not the argument that was made by anti-apartheid activists about africaner boers. Nor is it an effective argument, since it just affirms the Israeli assumption that they do indeed make the decisions and they can do what they like. This is analogous to spoiling a child; naturally, if you try to plead with it not to be so selfish, it becomes more and more selfish. Maya Wind seems to be saying this, but in a more oblique way.
As for Lynn Gottlieb’s argument about jewish ethics, this seems to me, on general psychological grounds, equally futile. She is saying, we have to be so much more ethical and moral than everybody else, or we’re not good jews. This has been said again and again for decades, and the response has always been, if we had been such good jews as you wish us to be, we would be dead by now. It is necessary to demolish the belief that ruthlessness is what is keeping the jews alive against a hostile world, and this belief is itself eminently religious: remember the prayer, “In every generation they rise against us to annihilate us.” (Be-kol dore omedim aleinu le-khaloteinu.)
I always say, the more Palestinian land Israel covets, the more evil the Palestinians become. Zionists truly, madly, deeply believe that they will turn the Palestinians into the Navajo.
No wonder it keeps happening. Is there a prayer that starts “In every generation we decide ruthlessness is what keeps us alive, and then they rise against us…”
I don’t think that Phil did a fair job of presenting the arguments against BDS at all.
He grants much more convincing “devil’s advocate” summaries to those that regard Israel as only parasite.
These are old arguments summarized, the dissenters ignoring the jist of Ben-Ami’s arguments in favor of their spin of just the words, rather than the content and relationships.
1. The significance of opposing Israel’s right to exist is that it is a revolutionary position. It is an effort at mob-originated regime change, and against the consent of the governed. Unless you believe that democracy is a phenomenom of the past (who was resident in 1948 say), then consent of the governed is constructed by the current residents.
If the proponents of BDS are seeking revolution, rather than reform, then the appropriate democratic stance to that is literally opposition.
It is that significant a concern, and is not truthfully hidden from. (Many with political agendas LIE frequently and grossly. I hope that isn’t you Phil.)
2. BDS represents isolation and shunning to Israelis. In spite of their long efforts at economic and social development, real development, BDS proposes to trivially isolate them from all of their natural and developed relationships. It is understood as hypocritical, in light of the need to integrate Palestinians into modern society (meaning not to make them conform, but to enhance their ability to participate as peers in whatever form that is most appealing to them).
“It doesn’t freak them out”. You are talking about something that is not a game. It is insulting for you to use such dismissive language to discuss a real concern.
You spoke in much more demonstrative terms about your individual feeling of being isolated from mass media article fees.
3. I’ve never heard sincere dissenters (J Street) speak of the relationship between Israel and Palestinians as “equal”. I’ve never. They have described reciprocal relations, that in fact give Palestinians POWER that they can use to stifle their progress (terror and rockets), or to enhance their progress (diplomacy and institution-building).
The accusation is more that the arbitrary forms of BDS enhance the negativist approaches of resistance, rather than the positive efforts at reform.
The assertion is that BDS is an ethically careless form of dissent, that it stands the light of day in its current form only because its already been committed to, and there is no turning back without appearing to be doing nothing.
But, that indicates a failure of depth of dissent, that the proponents of BDS do not believe that they can persuade either Israelis or Americans to urge reform in consciousness and resulting policy, that they can only adopt a blunt and insensitive instrument.
“I don’t think anyone can accuse me personally or anyone from JVP of not having the interests of the people of Israel at heart.”
Many can, many will, and many will be accurate in describing “anyone from JVP” as careless in their comments, strategy, discipline, clarity of dissent.
What happened to Finkelstein? He was front and center just a comment ago.
Down the memory hole…..actually still fact checking Joan Peters.
Witty’s and Ben Ami’s arguments are straw men.
1. Did the boycott of South Africa deny South Africa’s right to exist? No.
Is there any international law or treaty granting any country the right to exist? No.
2. Nazi Germany made major long efforts at economic and social development, real development too. Were we wrong to go to war with them?
3. Israel is founded on the fundamental belief that Israelis and Palestinians are not equal.
Witty demonstrates that he’s a pathological liar who is unable to string a coherent sentence together for fear of further revealing as a fascist racist he is.
Yes, the final end of colonialism would be revolutionary and a fitting result of
the Nuremberg Trials.
“I don’t think that Phil did a fair job of presenting the arguments against BDS at all.”
Gosh, I hope Phil’s wife is there with the smelling salts when he reads this, Richard. Maybe we should make sure there’s an ambvulance outside his apartment, in case the shock is too much.
But I guess there’s really no way to avoid it, I mean, if Phil doesn’t push or explain the anti-BDS viewpoint, who will? How will the world ever know about it?
Ben Ami’s objections to BDS are ends and means. The first reason opposes the ends of BDS and the other two reasons oppose the means.
Ben Ami wants a 2SS with a right of return to the new state of Palestine. That is the broad outline of the “Geneva accord”. When anyone says, “we all know what the peace will look like, now we just need the courage to take the step.” That is the broad outline they are referring to. Jimmy Carter and Zbig Brzezhinski among others support the “Geneva Accord”. It is the essence of the J Street position. It is the essence of the J Street purpose to create space for Obama to pressure Israel to agree to the Geneva accord.
Not weird, but the essence of J street.
Well Wondering Jew, nobody wants to end up a (in your own words) a “shit for christ”. Oh sorry, that was yesterday, so I guess you have forgotten. And quoting your own words, from this very site, back at you, is of course, way too personal.
It’s apples and oranges, WJ. BDS focuses on rights, not solutions. At best, it establishes parameters for a solution – essentially human rights and international law.
Solution-based approaches like JBA’s tend to ignore or gloss over human rights and international law, where these conflict with the solution they envision, asserting that “everything will be ok” once a solution is reached, implying that rights (even individual rights) can be waived by political leaders. In this sense, they are all-or-nothing – either a solution is reached and “everything is ok” or absolutely nothing is accomplished. There are no half measures. This may be ok for Israelis, but it is utterly devastating for Palestinians. A rights-based approach, on the other hand, offers interim goals and solutions, even if peace never actually breaks out (as it probably never will).
That is (one of the reasons) why JBA’s insistence that all BDS activities include a caveat regarding support for a 2ss is so off the mark. The number of eventual fantasy states or even Israel’s “existence as a Jewish homeland” are neither the purpose nor the concern of BDS. Accept the principles of human rights and international law, and then we can talk about homelands and self-determination and anything else you like. Jerry Haber (Magnes Zionist) has a few ideas on how the two can be compatible.
There isn’t a “right” for any state to exist. Yugoslavia.
Recognition as a “Jewish homeland” is problematic in elevating one sector of the population & several million foreigners over another sector & several million dispossessed. It would be healthier for the country in the long run NOT to think of Israel as the “only” country of the Jewish people, as a large diaspora is hardly unhealthy for other faiths. The fear of dual, or conflicted loyalty in other countries of dual nationals as well as those who just espouse Zionism as an ideology that has become almost (in many cases is) a tenet of faith is dangerous, but may not be entirely without merit. That fear can be abused and misused.
However, could Israel become a country, similar to the UK, with an “established” religion, with limited representation in government, but with equal rights (not in any way limited) for ALL its citizens? Therefore not a right to discriminate in favour of one over another at all? A degree of religious fealty that holds Israel in high regard, but calls it to account as opposed to the nationalist fervor among the diaspora that has been nurtured and encouraged over the decades. Something more along these lines seems more just and maybe more achievable as long as equality of rights is enshrined in law.
Your suggestion sounds like George Orwell’s Animal Farm:
“All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others”
I think there is zero chance that the Palestinians who already outnumber Jews in the land between Jordan and the Sea would accept anything like you propose. I think at this point in history, anything less than one-person/one vote, complete right of return, and separation of religion and state (for all religions) is acceptable in the long run.
Are britons excluded from any part of political, social or economic life due to race or creed? There’s only one “socio-political” position that seems to require adherence to the Anglican Church – the Sovereign. Can the necessary sea-change in world and Israeli opinion be achieved within a reasonable time-scale to reach a more perfect solution without even greater Palestinian dispossession and exile while virulent Zionism is ascendent?
How about having Islam instead of Judaism for Israel since pretty soon there will be more Muslims? Why Judaism when it’s not the religion of the indigenous people? In the long run, Jewishness as being somehow “special” in the context of Israel/Palestine will have to disappear because too much abuses have been done in the name of Jewishness/Zionism. As a purely religious/cultural notion, I don’t think people care, but as a nationalism concept, it would have to go. There is too much association with war crimes, cruelty to Palestinians that are in the public domain. Just like Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany, Zionist Israel is an anachronism. It’s nineteen century political philosophy, realized in the twentieth century, and dead in the 21st century. Like Colonialism, Nazism, and Totalitarian Communism, its days are numbered as the non-Western world becomes more and more influential.
Go on then, wave your magic wand and change the opinions of the world’s movers & shakers, and it’ll come about exactly as you wish. As long as you say the right magic words. Oh, but please don’t actually respond to the points I raised, will you?
goshes you sound like Mr. Ahmadinejad: “zionism’s days are numberd, like colonialism, nazism, communism…”
The Jewish population of Israel/Palestine is growing faster than the Islamic, and MUCH faster than the Christian.
That is primarily due to the family size and continuity of ultra-orthodox families. They take seriously the commandment to multiply.
The average ultra-orthodox family size is in the range of 9-10 (with many having 13, 14 15 kids).
Democracy would soon give the ultra-orthodox Jewish community control of the state whomever is defined as acceptable definition of “right of return”.
lohdennis–
I disagree with you. I would think it great progress if Israel adopted the UK position on established religion as Bumblebye states. Let Israel have a Jewish King/Queen/Sovereign/President, and let daily political, social, and cultural life proceed with an absolute indifference to the religion of the sovereign, with full rights for everyone. I think the UK has done a good job of threading the needle on that one.
So, we agree to disagree. That is OK with me. I think there is a huge difference between inheriting a constitutional monarchy is quite different from instituting one with one religion as special. Yes, of course, there are many countries that have this model right now. However, given the atrocious history of Israeli abuse towards the indigenous people and the fact that pretty soon, the Muslims will outnumber the Jews, it’s a non-starter. Remember that most, if not all, Zionists are not indigenous people. In the context of 2,000 years of historical span, the concept of indigenous is impossible to define as MASSIVE migrations of people have happened long before the concept of nationalism was even contemplated. My thesis is very concrete: Jewish Israel has absolutely no long-term future, and the transition will be quick and relatively non-violent.
“The Jewish population of Israel/Palestine is growing faster than the Islamic, and MUCH faster than the Christian.”
Based on what evidence? Statistics show that Israel’s population is stagnating, with the intake of immigrants being offset by those leaving the country and the birth rate small.
I also read that the Jewish population of Israel is experiencing a fertility crisis.
link to salem-news.com
How ironic is that? Israel’s obsession with militarism might turn out to be Israel’s greatest existential threat.
“The average ultra-orthodox family size is in the range of 9-10 (with many having 13, 14 15 kids).”
Seeing as the average ultra-orthodox family refuses to work, then how are such families supposed to be supported? pretty soon you will have 1 Israeli tax payer for every 3 or 4 on welfare.
“Democracy would soon give the ultra-orthodox Jewish community control of the state whomever is defined as acceptable definition of “right of return”.”
Then it would undoubtedly cease to be a democracy, if it ever was.
The Jewish population of Israel/Palestine is growing faster than the Islamic, and MUCH faster than the Christian.
I believe that this is inexact. A sub-group of the Jewish population (ultra-orthodox) might experience a higher birth rate than all other sub-groups of the Israeli population but overall the Jewish population is not growing faster than the Palestinian Muslim Israelis or Palestinian Christian Israelis.
Data from the Israel Bureau of Statistics don’t lie. They give a clear picture. I’d like to see the data backing your claim if there are any. You may look at the data I posted further down this thread.
Oh, you’re saying someone should re-anoint a King David. So that Israel can have a “socio-political” position that requires adherence to Judaism. This will fullfill the “Jewish state” requirement.
Wouldn’t that mean dealing with some weirdities, such as the original King David probably wasn’t an adherent to Judaism, and no one can be who his legitimate heir is but it’s much more likely to be Mohammad Daoud, the terrorist anyway.
“They take seriously the commandment to multiply”
Et tu Witty? Why don’t you leave WJ alone? Maybe it’s some kind of embarassing medical condition like mine, the result of a drunken circumcision. But do you have to keep rubbing it in?
Oh crap, sorry, WJ.
Is this “personal”? No, we’ve got several letters from WJ detailing how marriage and children (a basic Jewish obligation, and at this point, a biological imperative!) interferes with his “needs”. He also detailed how Phil’s marriage is a form of genocide against the Jewish people.
Uri Avnery quoted a figure of 5.6 million Jews and 3.9 million Arab (Palestinians). This includes Israel, Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
link to avnery-news.co.il
What are your numbers and where did he go wrong?
WJ, my approximate numbers are 1.5 mil in Gaza, 2.5 in the West Bank, and 1.4 citizens of Israel, for a total of 5.4 million. The WB figure might be a tad high. I don’t know where Avnery gets his figures from. Even if Arens is right, and there are only 1.5 not 2.5 in the WB, that would be close to 4.5 total, definitely more than 3.9. I think Phil did a post on this months ago, but 6, 8, 10 months, not recently, and it was about how the total is now about 50-50, I think 5.3 million apiece? I can’t believe there is such wide disagreement on something so elementary.
What are your numbers and where did he go wrong?
the cia figures for the WB are 2,514,845
(Palestinian Arab and other 83%, Jewish 17%)
it notes note: the population estimates previously published on this site for the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights are under review, please check back in the future for revised estimates. (July 2010 est.) but this is the same figure it’s been for over a year. the first time i checked this cia figure it was 2.5 million just for the palestinians.
i’ve noticed since the time the palestinian population topped that of jews (around a year ago) all the figures started being skewed. either gaza wasn’t included or the palestinians inside of israel weren’t included. the first time i checked all the cia figures and added them up, there were about 100,000 more palestinians than jews.
oh, and we don’t know where he went wrong because he didn’t break it down. but gaza is ’1,604,238 (July 2010 est.)’ per cia . cia figures for israel are “non-Jewish 23.6% (mostly Arab) ” of 7,353,985. that is at least over 1.6 million as of 04.
so this is why they are ‘revisiting’ the WB figures showing not only no growth but declined growth which is impossible. it’s too embarrassing for them to admit the demographics has already tipped the scales.
Annie – Oh! the demographics HAVE already tipped the scales!
The game is fixed and the Zionists know it!
Since we could not accuse the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics of inflating the numbers of Palestinian Israelis, let’s look at what they say:
2010
Jews – 5 619 000 – 74.5%
Arabs – 1 591 000 – 21.1%
Others – 332 000 – 4.4%
In 2025, from the same source, Palestinian Israelis will reach 2 315 000 individuals and represent 25% of the population. What is interesting also is that a disproportionate percentage of the Jewish Israeli population is made up of 65 yrs +. According to the ICBS 94% of all elderly are Jewish and only 6% are Arabs, and the Jewish sub-population with the highest percentage of elderly are FSU Jews.
ICBS Projections of population
As for Palestinians in the OT the best recognized authority is probably Sergio DellaPergola from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Mr. DellaPergola has criticized Palestinians Authority officials many times over their so-called ”inflated” population numbers. So one would think that he is a reliable Israeli source of information. In a paper presented in 2001 titled – Demography in Israel/Palestine:Trends, Prospects, Policy Implications – he makes the following statement :
Looking now at the grand territorial total of Israel plus the Palestinian Territories, in 2000 a scant Jewish majority prevailed of 53% to 55% according to the mere or enlarged definition of the Jewish population. According to the medium projections such majority will already be gone before 2010 or very soon after (according to Jewish population definitions). By 2020 Jews would constitute 44-47% of the total population of Palestine, and by 2050 their share might further diminish to 35-37%.
His numbers for 2010 – page 17 of his paper):
Jews – 5 689 000 – 48.63%
Palestinian Israelis – 1 555 000 – 13.29%
Palestinians WB – 2 518 000 – 21.53%
Palestinians Gaza – 1 645 000 – 14.06%
Others – 291 000 – 2.49%
So, as of now the majority between the river and the sea is non-Jewish (51.37%) and Palestinians are the largest group (48.88%). Palestinians will represent 53.3% in 2020, that’s 10 yrs from now!
Sergio DellaPergola’s paper
No wonder they’re trying to hive off Gaza & find new & more effective ways to expel E Jerusalem & WB Palestinians! They’re scurrying around now trying to invent even more effective ways to dispossess people. Query – because they’ve always treated EJ differently to WB, are EJ residents included in the WB count, or may they have been left off to avoid provoking too much “fear” among the zio-citizenry?
DellaPergola’s analysis of the data indicate that EJ, Golan Heights and Israelis in the WB are included in the Israeli statistics.
What his data don’t mention though are the number of Israelis living abroad (800 000 according to Foreign Affairs), so the Palestinian majority is higher ”on the ground”.
That skews things quite a bit, especially if they or their kids have no intention of returning!
Surcouf mentions a critical number: namely there are 800,000 (as high as a million by some estimates) of Israeli Jews who live abroad. And this number could grow rapidly. Many Israelis of American and European descent have activated their rights to passports from their parent’s and grandparent’s nations. If things go south, these are people who have positioned themselves to flee quickly. That demographic balance is fragile indeed. Even if the Haredi breed like rabbits, it might not be sufficient.
How many might be non-Israeli born who’ve activated their right to citizenship while having no intention to permanently domicile there? There’s nothing like having a passport for one’s favorite holiday destination!
Bumblebye, there is that of course. I understand there are entire neighborhoods in West Jerusalem that are void of people for much of the year. It turns out that the apartments are owned by foreign Jews who use those units a vacation retreats. I have seen the real estate adds in NY papers urging US Jews to invest in those properties. That does not sound like a stable demographic to me.
The great thing about the CIA numbers is that Israel has less than 100% of its population (going by religion):
Religions (Israel):
Jewish 76.4%, Muslim 16%, Arab Christians 1.7%, other Christian 0.4%, Druze 1.6%, unspecified 3.9% (2004)
I think their weasel on the West Bank territory is much better than the standard NY Times “East Jerusalem is occupied territory. Or maybe not:
” note: includes West Bank, Latrun Salient, and the northwest quarter of the Dead Sea, but excludes Mt. Scopus; East Jerusalem and Jerusalem No Man’s Land are also included only as a means of depicting the entire area occupied by Israel in 1967″
The zionist special pleading for special status in their own special status state reminds one of the old segregationist arguments for maintaining institutionalized racism in the usa.
Among the many absurdities regarding Israel, two stand out as relatively unique. First, the concept that the diaspora Jews are eligible to become Israeli citizens in contrast to how it treats people of Palestinian descent everywhere in the world. Second, most Zionists (in America) I know and Jewish Americans I come across are not in any sense fervent believers. It is one of the most striking difference I observe between Muslims and Jews here. It is really a contrast of religious versus secular populations. Yes, of course, there are religious Zionists–most cling to the Land, more than God (much more of kingdom on earth than of heaven, not really powerful as a religious theme).
“(much more of kingdom on earth than of heaven, not really powerful as a religious theme).”
When God has let you down so many times, it takes an almost superhuman patience to wait for things to turn around, and why should we. Heck they’re always making new Gods, but they’re not making any more land.
Except in the Hawaiian Islands.
If the Hawaiian Island was the new Zion, I’d be making Ali-oopa right now. I bet the Zionists would still complain, they always do: “The food here is like poi, son!”
Crap! Too late, I pressed the “submit” button. Hello, my name is Mooser, and I’m a jokie.
Thanks all, for ignoring that one. Say, did you hear about the Wiccan Zionists? They say the potions are too small.
Ben-Ami is being most disingenuous. He insists that the pro-BDS crowd accept Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish State, but then says that even if they do so, he would not join BDS for other reasons. Then how does he make this demand? Who is he to require his opponents to accept his view when he is unwilling to budge toward theirs?
It’s not like acceptance of Israel as a Jewish State is a slam dunk. It is quite problematical, and those who favor a state of all its citizens with equal rights for all necessarily reject the concept of a Jewish State. It is not an unreasonable or racist or anti-Semitic position, yet Ben Ami simply assumes that all people of good will should accept a Jewish State as a basic premise.
Ben-Ami talks about “Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish home, with equal rights for all its citizens.” Care to explain? How do Jewish and non-Jewish citizens have equal rights in a Jewish State? Most people, including Peter Beinart, have arrived at the common sense conclusion that there is an inherent conflict between a Jewish State and full equality. Beinart, at least for now, sides with the Jewish State, but at least he recognizes that the two concepts are irreconcilable. Ben-Ami doesn’t. Lah-dee-dah, no problem with equal rights for non-Jews in a Jewish State. Not only that, Israel’s official, state-sanctioned discrimination against its non-Jewish citizens in all spheres is egregious. Has Ben-Ami and J Street vocally demanded an end (which I think is impossible) or even a minimization of such discrimination? (My apologies if they have, but I haven’t seen any well-publicized campaign; equality gets lip service at best.)
Ben-Ami complains about the one-sided nature of the criticism. What nonsense! Israel presumes to rule over 11 million people, decide on all aspects of their lives and whether they can even travel to escape Israeli rule. The conflict will end only when Israel recognizes that Jews have no more rights in Israel/Palestine than non-Jews. The Israelis hold all the cards, meaning a military and economic advantage that cannot even be described as “overwhelming” because it is too weak a word, and the unlimited support of the world’s only superpower. Hamas rockets and suicide bombers, which I agree are deserving of condemnation, do not prolong this conflict. They may give Israel an excuse to continue the favorable status quo indefinitely, but even in periods of relative “quiet,” Israel never moves toward the reconciliation that is necessary.
Finally, Ben-Ami gives a ludicrous answer to the excellent question regarding the Berkeley divestment campaign, directed only at companies doing business in the occupied territories. Did he and J St ever say they would support this BDS initiative if it were changed to reflect his sensibilities – acknowledging Israel’s right to exist; condemning Hamas rockets, etc. He joined with Stand With Us, the David Project and the ADL against this very mild BDS proposal. He does not leave much doubt that while he opposes the occupation and the blockade of Gaza in theory and wishes oh-so-hard that they would somehow stop, he is unwilling to join a non-violent BDS campaign to actually help make that happen. Then what good is he and J Street?
As we see the Bedouin citizens of Israel with their homes flattened by bulldozers while Jews jeer, the notion of equal rights is shown up as the lie that it always has been in that racist state.
There is tension between a national identity and democracy, as in ANY.
You want to call that a conflict, ok.
Racism, implying illegitimacy, then we’re in another range of description.
I contest that anti-Zionism is more racist than Zionism is, as it seeks to deny self-governance to a people, whereas Zionism can theoretically coexist with a national Palestinian state.
“I contest that anti-Zionism is more racist than Zionism is, as it seeks to deny self-governance to a people, whereas Zionism can theoretically coexist with a national Palestinian state.”
Seeing as Zionism seeks to deny self-governance to a people, and has in practice, never coexisted with a national Palestinian state, it is clear that Zionism is racism and that anti-Zionism cannot therefore me more racist than racism.
“I contest “
No you don’t chump, you “contend”. Even your fingers are trying to set you straight Witty. We “contest” that anti-Zionism is more racist than Zionism.
I bet you think that civil rights are more racist than slavery, too.
You and Jeff Lord are a perfect fit.
>> I contest that anti-Zionism is more racist than Zionism is, as it seeks to deny self-governance to a people …
Anti-Zionism does not seek to deny egalitarian and democratic self-governance to all Israelis of all stripes, while Zionism seeks to maintain and expand a religion-supremacist state. It’s clear that Zionism is the dirty player in this game.
I contest that anti-Zionism is more racist than Zionism is, as it seeks to deny self-governance to a people,
If denial of “self-governance to a people” is criteria for racism, then Zionism is the most racist doctrine on Earth, for it sought to, achieved and in practice stills strives to establish a racially exclusive state on the ruins of another nation. As it still thrives on the basis of rejecting the basic rights, and self-governance, of the people it conquered and imposed itself violently on, it follows that Zionism essentially espouses racism for its central tenet as per your definition of racism.
Originally I was as excited as many by J-Street – now I see it as little more than the spoonful of sugar that makes the Israeli cyanide go down
These guys are poison.
What did Bibi’s papa tell him? – pay 2% now so you don’t have to pay 100%? – that sums up J-Street for me – they are the 2% solution
Nice shot, ginger.
I’m inclined to agree. I originally thought there was a chance. Now, I realize it’s just good cop-bad cop. They’re working the room.
One should figure that any org consisting of zionists is a fraud. The more reasonable they may sound, the less likely they are being honest.
There is no such thing as a reasonable zionist. Assume the worst and treat them accordingly.
“The more reasonable they may sound, the less likely they are being honest.”
With a few notable exceptions, I can;t help but agree. The sad reality is that Zionism is ultimately a racist, ethocentric ideology that declares not all people are created equal.
The more one tries to sugar coat the true ideology of Zionism, the more incoherent and inconsistent they sound. That’s why I always say the difference between a liberal and a right wing Zionist is that that liberal Zionists are more dishonest.
There’s something almost refreshing about hearing someone like Bibbi speakign frankly. When their guard is down, these people sound far more convincing, albeit repugnant.
So, isn’t there anyone around here who can defend J Street’s position cogently? So far, other than ad hominem attacks on me and some Lawfare Project-sounding criticisms of international laws, there hasn’t been much to defend J Street. Seems to me that those advocating Two State solution (Israel, US, EU, Palestinian Authority) are increasingly on the losing side of history. When Edward Said and Ali Abuminah started mentioning the One State solution, I barely heard open discussions in the US. Pretty soon, only Zionists and Zionists-dependent or heavily-influenced governments will support the Two State solution. By the way, anyone really believe that Yahweh spoke personally to Abraham and Moses? Of the billions of stars among billions of galaxies, did a personal and anthropomorphic God paid attention to shepherds and tribal chieftains in the Fertile Crescent? Oh, by the way, it wasn’t even recorded for another 500-1000 years in Babylonian prisons. Somehow, I find it pretty flimsy as basis for Chosen People and Jewish Right of Return.
lohdennis- The one binational state has been the basic Palestinian policy for most of the last ninety years (the sole exception has been during the relatively short period from 1988 until today). The only difference that the recent advocacy of one state has over the old advocacy of one state is that before 1988 the Palestinians spoke of kicking out the non indigenous. Nowadays most advocates of the binational option are not advocating kicking out the Jews.
The Jews had a segment of their population advocate a binational state, but for example, Arthur Ruppin changed his point of view in 1929 in the aftermath of the Hebron pogrom. Since that time the Jewish Zionists have advocated partition, so as to enable the Jews to have a state of their own, a state where they are not the minority and therefore a state where they can rule their own destiny.
The crux of the argument today in favor of a two state solution is that the UN has accepted Israel’s membership in their institution since 1949 on the basis of the General Assembly decision of November 1947. Since 1967 the United Nations has been on record for the recognition of the boundaries of all states in the region (including Israel) and since 1974 the Arab League has recognized the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people speaking on behalf of the territories of Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Thus given the fact that Israel was accepted as a state by the UN in 1949 and in 1967 the UN spoke of recognizing the security of all states in the region, to dissolve Israel as you are suggesting is to go against the flow of those two decisions.
But there remains the issue of the refugees. In fact when Israel was accepted in to the UN, there was a mention of both the General Assembly’s partition vote and also a mention of the General Assembly’s vote regarding the right of return of the refugees. (In 1967′s Security Council Resolution 242 there was a mention of the refugee problem and the need to resolve it, but it did not give the issue the precedence that it gave to the recognition of the states in the region and the withdrawal from territories.) Because the 2ss that J street advocates opposes the right of return, there is a cause to consider their advocacy of resolution 242 to be lacking.
I think your prediction of a quick end to the Zionist movement is wishful thinking on your part. I am not sure how large a percentage of the population in Israel will stubbornly stay put, but given the size of their military, I don’t see them giving up without a fight anytime soon.
My own personal choice of a 2ss is based upon my uncertainty regarding the future. If I could see the future (say 100 years into the future) and see that the transition to a majority Arab country would be nonviolent and that new entity would be democratic, I would reluctantly consent to it. (My consent would be to save lives and my reluctance would be because there seems to be a type of generational obligation to hand over a Jewish state to the next generation that would be abrogated by this consent.) But lacking the ability to see the nonviolence nor the democracy of the intended Arab majority country, I advocate a 2 state solution. The hope would be that if there would be peace between Israel and the nascent Palestine, there could develop cooperation to the extent that would allow eventual open borders as there is currently in Europe and thus there would be nothing stopping Palestinians from living in Israel nor Jews from living in Palestine.
But have you used your voice/pen/keyboard to speak out against the continuous land theft that has quite simply killed a genuine 2ss stone dead? Do you/have you spoken out to those around you in order to persuade them? Zionism could be charged with suicide for its intransigence, because unless it commits the most horrendous atrocity it cannot survive in all the lands it occupies and remain a Jewish majority state. And if it does commit such an atrocity (even expulsion of millions would result in considerable casualties) it will lose US support & funding, may have no military assistance in the event that other nations attempt to defend Palestinians (the “they attacked us for no reason” defense would NOT work in those circumstances). No government anywhere in the world could get away with saying that “this is a good genocide”. Such a huge action couldn’t be buried under Wikileak story like todays (illegal even in Israeli law) ethnic cleansing. Surely you have an ethical responsibility to speak out loud & often to press your notion of the solution on your compatriots, or find a better one!
“The one binational state has been the basic Palestinian policy for most of the last ninety years (the sole exception has been during the relatively short period from 1988 until today).”
Of course it has. It was the sensible and moral policy. I have just had cause to revisit the San Remo agreement, and I noted, again, that the language of that agreement (if not the tacit intent of the participants) is that of a “binational” state. It refers, for example, both to “safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion” (Article 2) and to facilitating “the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.” (Article 7)
Not, you will note, citizenship of the Jewish National Home.
“1929 in the aftermath of the Hebron pogrom. Since that time the Jewish Zionists have advocated partition, so as to enable the Jews to have a state of their own, a state where they are not the minority and therefore a state where they can rule their own destiny.”
Don’t be disingenuous. The basic thrust of Zionism, from its origin, was to take over all Palestine and make it a Jewish State (even though there were some Zionists who would have been content with a “binational” state) . The Hebron riots happened because the Arab population understood this.
The 20th Zionist Congress rejected the 1937 Peel partition plan, so their enthusiasm for partition was, at best, lukewarm.
(I reject the term “binational” since neither the Jews nor the Palestinians are, in any real sense, nations. Also, I date the Palestinian turn to the two-state solution from the 1970s. I made a tiny contribution to that debate in the form of a letter to The Times. The real one, not the NYT.)
“to dissolve Israel as you are suggesting is to go against the flow of those two decisions.”
Accepting and recognising a state does not mean that the state is, thereafter, indissoluable. States come and go. Danzig, Trieste, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia no longer exist.
I don’t know about Danzig and Trieste- but East Germany agreed to become one with W. Germany and Czechoslovakia split apart and Yugoslavia split apart. In the case of Israel, what you are foreseeing is forcing it to become one with the occupied territories.
No one is forcing anything. It’s quite simple. Zionists wants to take it all. There is a thing called Right of Self-Determination. When all the refugees return to Israel proper or even earlier, there will be more Palestinians than Jews. Aside from this silly aliyah business of 2000+ years God-given right of return of Jews which is by very definition, outright racism that has produced the current Jewish population in Israel, indigenous people will simply re-assert their basic rights that is part of the UN Charter.
As for the fate of Jews currently living in the region, I assume that secular ones and non-racist/Zionist ones will probably stay. The militant settlement types of Zionists, after their eventual defeat would have a harder time adjusting to the new truly democratic secular state. They probably don’t belong anywhere in any co-existence modern society like any other extremist/racist groups. Perhaps they might want to migrate to mountainous regions of Idaho where there are lots of white supremacists or somewhere in Siberia which the terrible Stalin once tried. Perhaps in the tundras, their chances of harming the world will be minimized though not eliminated. (before some of you get all upset about calling me an anti-Semite or supporting ethnic cleansing), please contemplate how the Hebron settlers can possibly co-exist in secular Palestine–I don’t think they can nor would they want to. Same goes for Danny Ayalon, Mark Regev, Avigdor Lieberman etc. etc. They will go to Russia, New Zealand, South Africa or somewhere like that.
“But lacking the ability to see the nonviolence nor the democracy of the intended Arab majority country, I advocate a 2 state solution. The hope would be that if there would be peace between Israel and the nascent Palestine, there could develop cooperation to the extent that would allow eventual open borders as there is currently in Europe and thus there would be nothing stopping Palestinians from living in Israel nor Jews from living in Palestine.”
You will be surprised to know that I have considerable sympathy with your position. Nonetheless, I no longer advocate a two-state solution.
This is not simply because Israel has clearly shown that it has no intention of allowing such a thing. (After all, uncharacteristic feelings of humanity just might break out among Israelis. Less likely than non-violence and democracy among Arabs, but still possible.)
Nor is it just because the two societies have become entangled. (Though that is a powerful consideration. I cannot see the disentanglement as being much less painful than complete unification.)
It is that the two-state solution is morally wrong. It legitimises the intial injustice. It legitimises the concept of ethnically based states. It legitimises the Zionist (Jewish?) rejection of humanity.
And that would leave your vision of open borders a pipe-dream for the far future.
“So, isn’t there anyone around here who can defend J Street’s position cogently?”
Good pre-condition, at least it saves us from having to hear from Wondering Jew!
Wait a minute, shouldn’t it “contestly”?
Speaking of racism, our media has forever told us that white Israeli Jews are under attack by non-white Palestinians said to be terrorists though they are currently being occupied and ethnically cleansed by Israel. Since when has such “reporting” not been racist? Why does it continue?
It’s very simple. Take the case of Gilad Shalit. For one poor Israeli soldier, there are at least 7,900 Palestinian political prisoners in Israel. We hear more about Shalit in the US than 7,900 all combined. As Roger Cohen wrote a few days ago in the NYT op-ed recently, victims religion, race, and ethnic origin is what determines how much a human life is worth, at least in the US media. Obama has uttered not a single word about Furkan Dogan, the Turkish-American victim on Mavi Marmara, executed by Israeli military in international waters.
JBA strikes one note over and over. “Recognize us!”. But nobody knows what you are. A “Jewish” State? What the heck is that? And nobody knows where your are, since you are bent on expansion. Israel, you need to get your story straight.
addendum: wasn’t an Israeli chopper just shot down in Romania!? Israel, just what are we recognizing?
oops, crashed, not shot down, but still…
NO country has a “right to exist”. This wording was, I understand, a clever ploy of Henry Kissinger, but it is not relevant, and Israel is not “deligitimised” by any action or criticism.
It’s a permanent Get-out-jail-free card. Sorry I shot your kid, but…Right-to-exist! Right-to-exist!
Does Iran have a right to exist? No problem boycotting that country I see.
I just wrote an email letter through the Friends Committee on National Legislation’s website urging my representative to denounce H. Res. 1553 as a flagrantly irresponsible encouragement of a catastrophic war with Iran. This legislation could launch a war with horrific consequences for the peoples of the Middle East and U.S. interests. I hope you’ll take a look at their action alert and do the same. It’s very easy to do. A small thing you can do considering a war on
Iran is the last thing Americans need.
Take action now – use the Friends Committee on National Legislation’s website.
link to capwiz.com
If your email program does not recognize the URL as a link,
copy the entire URL and paste it into your Web browsern
Good work, Citizen!
Ditto. Good argument about Iran.
BDS ‘is’ about recognizing Israel as a “Jewish” (Ruled) State……amazing how they don’t get that.
But of course, if they couldn’t keep the “Jewish” tag, which means victims and holocaust, on their statehood they probably wouldn’t get immunity from war crimes, etc,etc., would have to give that Palestine land back and all those taxpayer billions from the US would stop flowing. They don’t want to be normal state and give up all those presents and money and special treatment so they keep repeating “Jewish” state , “Jewish” state over and over.
I’ve never met a single Israeli supporter, hawk nor dove, who didn’t want the US to not only keep that money flowing, but increase it.
Seriously, isn’t ios this ever going to end? Here I am 3 years later back at mondo and the Israel ridiculousness is only increasing.
J Street has turned out to be disappointing.
It’s become a hedge on the same bet.
Sequoia
The remarkable Tikkum link provides helpful food-for-thought on a number of matters which, I gather, are far more familiar to participants on this website than they are to this newcomer. As no doubt the following will demonstrate, I’m obviously I a trifle slow
in more ways than one.
Has or hasn’t Israel been in violation of international law, the UN (at some level), and/or conduct expected of respectable 21st C. democracies? Whichever, as I gather is the incredible, invariable response from one camp, so what?
Is Israel’s requiring recognition by the dispossessed of its claim to Israel’s specialness reasonable or is it a means to forever stonewall the path to resolution?
From the present situation but with past events taken into consideration, should justice, or even just a proper solution by any standard, require that Palestinians concede as much as the Israelis.
After seeing the results from US pandering of Israel for so many decades, is the best key for the US to unlock the Israeli door even more of the same? Is this some kind of a joke, that Zionists are demanding even more life support, mercy and pussyfooting?
Is there really any wonder that, in the eyes of those so intent on being realistic in matters in general, an unbigoted person might use the term “Jewish lobby”? [What an obtuse question on one of actually numerous Jewish websites so admirably demonstrating the unfairness of speaking in terms of a monolith!; yet …. .]
Primarily I want to express appreciation to Philip for leading me to the Tikkun discussion which should be required reading for anyone interested in the I/P issue. I personally find it without equal in tone and intelligence on the part of all.
As far as I am concerned, whether more pandering, whether BDS, whether more force, whether the US administration be involved, until this type of material is widely and regularly available in US popular media, it is unlikely that any tactics will sufficiently improve the situation.
What? That can never be expected? Then how about civil but also frank and thorough discussion of why what might be a prerequisite is apparently so unavailable. We might get to the bottom of this thing yet.
Again, personally I can’t say whether or when BDS might accomplish much in terms of needed diplomatic progress. But it’s hard for me to believe one should take seriously any approach (J Street ?) that does not seem to show the slightest commiseration with the disproportionate suffering of the Palestinians.
Finally, there could be the danger of falsely raising hopes, BDS just might shock the Pals with the possibility that somebody somewhere cares and, in addition, is actually trying.
Yeah. I will anticipate the response and perform a U-turn but at least I dared one blog.
“Jewish lobby”
It’s called the “Israel lobby”, just like it was called the “China lobby” and not the “Confucist lobby”. Zionists morphed it into the “Jewish lobby”
It does demand, or even try to encourage anything having to do with Jews, or Jewishness, no one is trying to close Home depot on Saturdays.
“Israel lobby” is the term.
As soon as you call it the “Israel lobby” and stop calling it the “Jewish lobby”, the answers to all the questions fall right into place.
I think it would be more accurate to call it the Zionist Jewish Lobby…if you trying to seperate it from the Jews as a whole and still be correct.
Because most of it’s members and donors are US Jewish Zonist of varying degrees.. not visiting Israelis on visas to AIPAC.
But if they want to call it the Israel Lobby suits me…adds to the pressure to make them register under FARC as Foreign Lobby.
I wonder if being forced to register as Foreign Lobby would have any effect on their membership roles?
Thankfully Norman expresses some balanced considerations periodically.
So how do American and British citizens go about accomplishing that, tactically? What are your views on the BDS movement, for example?
First of all, people are getting a little too cult-like about BDS. You always know a movement is growing insular when it starts using these in-group abbreviations (‘BDS’). In my day it was ‘DOP’ – ‘Dictatorship of the Proletariat’. You have these little abbreviations to show that you’re part of the ‘in-group’ and you’re cool and you know what’s going on. So we should really steer away from that, because this is not about our egos, which are sometimes oversized. It’s about trying to achieve an important, humane goal.
There are now basically three strands, as I see it, of resistance to what Israel is doing. One strand is the legal one: trying to hold Israel accountable according to international law. That took its most salient form in the Goldstone Report, but there have been a lot of initiatives around it, like the use of universal jurisdiction in the UK to threaten lawsuits against Israeli officials and personnel who come to the country. That to me is an extremely valuable tool in trying to organise people in the sense of leaning on the law to say that what we’re demanding is simply what the law is demanding. But in terms of application it’s very elitist, because it’s just a very narrow group of lawyers who can ever really bring to bear the force of law.
Another strand is the nonviolent civil resistance, which includes what goes on in places like Bil’in, the internationalists who go over there, and also things like the flotilla. Those are all part of the nonviolent civil resistance component – I won’t say ‘strategy’ because I don’t think any of these different approaches are in conflict – of opposition to the occupation.
The third component is BDS. This has, I think, two aspects to it: one aspect that targets Israel globally, saying anything and everything that has to do with Israel has to be boycotted, and a second that says we should focus on those aspects of what Israel does that are illegal under international law. So for example, what the Methodist Church in Britain just did: it did not pass a resolution saying we should boycott all Israeli products, even though there were some people pushing for that. It passed a resolution saying we should boycott Israeli goods that come from the settlements, because the settlements are illegal under international law. And then there are the initiatives of, say, Amnesty International that call for a comprehensive arms embargo on Israel because the transfer of weapons to persistent human rights abusers is illegal under international law. Then there’s the targeting of Caterpillar because Caterpillar is involved in demolition of homes, which is illegal under international law, and so on.
So there’s one subset of BDS that focuses not on Israel globally but on aspects of Israeli policy that violate international law. There’s another subset that says everything having to do with Israel should be boycotted – its academic institutions, all of its products, and so on and so forth. Personally, I think that the first subset – namely targeting those aspects of Israeli policy that violate international law – has a much better chance of success because people understand international law. When you start targeting everything having to do with Israel it begins to pose questions of motive – ‘OK, now, what exactly are we opposed to here? Are we opposed to the occupation or are we opposed to Israel completely?’ And the global targeting is, I think, deliberately obfuscatory on that issue.
And how would you respond to the argument that things like cultural boycotts – ‘global’ BDS, in your terminology – do function to make Israelis ‘feel the cost’ of occupation?
That’s true, and I’m not dogmatic: I’m long past the days when I had a party line I had to prove. I think that’s true, and I think those are successes, and I’m glad when people say they’ll boycott. But frankly, I don’t really trust a lot of the people involved. I don’t think they’re honest. They use these very vague formulations, such that you don’t exactly know what they’re against. I like Uri Avnery on some days and dislike him on others, but here I think he’s right: you never get a clear sense with these people about what exactly they’re opposed to.
I guess they’d respond that they’re trying to build as broad a movement as possible, and so as far as they can, they try to avoid specifying their preferences for a final settlement so that people who disagree about that can still unite to achieve more immediate goals.
Yes, but it also turns a lot of people away because they want clear answers before they’re willing to join in. You know, they say they oppose “Zionists” – “Zionism” is the epithet du jour – but what does that mean? You’re against Richard Goldstone? You’re against Noam Chomsky? I don’t know what it means. Richard Goldstone is the enemy? I don’t see that.
“You always know a movement is growing insular when it starts using these in-group abbreviations (‘BDS’)”
You mean like IDF and IAF? What about DOD. POTUS, SOTU, USA? Just when we think you cannot possibly be anymore of a fuckwit, you prove us wrong Witty.
“One strand is the legal one: trying to hold Israel accountable according to international law. That took its most salient form in the Goldstone Report”
Not only have you never read the Goldstone Report, but you rejected it, you assinine hypocrite.
“But frankly, I don’t really trust a lot of the people involved. I don’t think they’re honest. They use these very vague formulations, such that you don’t exactly know what they’re against.”
The feeling is mutual Witty. No one trusts you and your repeated claim of imaginary people who “don’t exactly know what they’re against” wreaks of your usual BS.
“Yes, but it also turns a lot of people away because they want clear answers before they’re willing to join in”
You’re still under the illusion that you speak for the masses and know what the world thinks. Typical signs of your extreme narcissism.
“You’re against Richard Goldstone? You’re against Noam Chomsky? I don’t know what it means. Richard Goldstone is the enemy? I don’t see that.”
What can we say Witty, you’re not only a facist racist, you’re also an idiot.
“But frankly, I don’t really trust a lot of the people involved. I don’t think they’re honest. They use these very vague formulations, such that you don’t exactly know what they’re against.”
Those were Finkelstein’s words, not mine.
“Those were Finkelstein’s words, not mine”
Good for you, you’re coming around.
Yeah, that had me confused too because I initially thought those were your own words. For one thing most of it was clearly written and for another, the person writing it clearly understood that Israel was in violation of international law and had committed war crimes. I was about to say to Shingo that he should lay off, confusing as it was to see you adopting positions that you’d never adopted before, but it turns out it was Finkelstein.
But, you didn’t take in Finkelstein’s distinctions, that BDS as currently posed is vague, subject to opportunism, a moral DANGER.
“For one thing most of it was clearly written”
Geezus, I was about to write that this is the first time EVER I hear Witty making a sound, clear stated, formulated, articulated argument! I was baffled by Witty’s “transformation”, eyes open wide in bewilderment and hands shaking in excitement
I should have guessed they weren’t his words, damn it!
“But, you didn’t take in Finkelstein’s distinctions, that BDS as currently posed is vague, subject to opportunism, a moral DANGER.”
What makes you say that? Oh I know–it’s because I didn’t focus on the point you wanted to make.
I think Norman is making some decent points that deserve further discussion–some aspects of a boycott on Israel are just common sense, but other aspects maybe are questionable. I’m open to hearing both sides on that.
I definitely think that boycotts aimed at specific things like bulldozers or weapons manufactured that are used to kill Palestinians are a no-brainer and easy to defend, but cultural boycotts are trickier.
Norman has credibility talking about this which you don’t have and whether one agrees with him or not, he makes his case in a coherent way and without your apologetics for Israeli brutality. That’s why I was confused when I initially thought these were your words.
Distinctions be damned. What is needed is for all Zionists to feel under their skin that they are rejects of humanity, that nothing short of a just peace, as their victims define it, will save them from being total pariahs. This is what worked with South Africa.
To work, this must be like excommunication by the church in theocratic times: every commercial, human, cultural exchange must be banned. Nothing can be bought or sold, no scientific papers coming from there can be published, no artists can visit, just a total pariah.
The only possible exception are the Master-Race Israelis who officially fight against Zionism and pay a proce for it, like Shahak or the deserters. I say possible, because they are the ones who know what will hurt Israel most.
And the aim is to hurt Israel most, forget the nice words.
“Zionism” is the epithet du jour
Is English your first language Witty? Don’t you mean “epitaph”?
“Zionism” is an epithet? It’s what they call it themselves. So if wee call them by the name they have chosen we are using an “epithet”?
Talk about being desperate to control the narrative!
From reading Witty, I can see that the only just solution to BDS is to make laws requiring people to buy products from Israel, and have concerts in Israel etc.
This is getting hysterical. If people don’t like Israel, and don’t want to buy it’s products, nothing can stop them. And all that the Zionist wailing and gnashing of teeth does is convince of me of BDS’s effectiveness, which makes it twice as gratifying to boycott them. Who knew you could accomplish so much and save money, too?
Well, the Jews and Israel need to look at their situtation this way.
They were 11 million, they got cut back to 6 million, now they are back up to 11 million and should be removed from the endangered species list.
That’s the accepted critera for wildlife preservation and funding of such projects..
Sorry, it’s all so absurd I couldn’t resist.
Reminds me of this interview:
link to youtube.com
Asking that Israel’s “right to exist” be affirmed by the people of the world is pure nonsense. Why do none of the Zionists and neo-cons out on the agenda to impose regime change in Iran ever affirm the right of the Islamic Republic of Iran to exist? Yet, when it comes to Israel, even without it being targeted by any official or concerted sanctions, criticism alone of its atrocities demands not only subscribing to and asserting Zionism as a default position (by adopting its rationale of a “Jewish state”), but also to promote its propaganda (of it being a democratic state).
In other words, first become Israel’s lackey and Zionism’s proponent, then you can criticize all you want.
How amazing that these people invented the word “chutzpah.”
Please stop using that “epithet”, Zionism.
Witty reminds me of the WTC. You don’t need to de-construct him, give him one little push and he’s demolished.
It was funny to see you guys twist to find some demonization of what you thought were my words, when they were a direct quote from Finkelstein alone.
“It was funny to see you guys twist to find some demonization of what you thought were my words, when they were a direct quote from Finkelstein alone.”
One person did that, not “you guys” and if you look at what that one person said, line by line, some of it still holds up because he was contrasting what Finkelstein said (under the impression it was you) with your own past behavior.
Also, we’re not obligated to accept everything Finkelstein says, though certainly he deserves a respectful hearing.
And as I said before, I was thoroughly confused because I thought the words were yours and yet most of it was clearly written, made sense even if one didn’t necessarily agree with all of it, and it acknowledged Israeli crimes in a way that you never have had the decency to do. I wondered if you’d finally changed for the better.
As it turns out, no.
According to Ben Ami’s logic the proper way to help an alcoholic is by treating him very nicely and gently coaxing him to quit drinking. Threatening to separate from the alcoholic if he doesn’t get sober will only cause him to get “more dug in” and “round the wagons”. You must also affirm and reaffirm the alcoholic’s right to exist as an alcoholic before any progress can be made.
Another analogy would be a spoiled child. Just give the child whatever they want and ask them to please do their homework. Instead of giving them any consequences for their bad behavior, Ben Ami would prefer to give the child some chocolate and ask nicely again.
God forbid you upset the spoiled child.