BDS or emigration: pick one

Activism
on 70 Comments

Liberal Zionist Aluf Benn laments in Haaretz: “The Boycott of Israel Is No Miracle Drug.”

Aluf Benn realizes that the frustrated liberal Zionist elites in Israel (who had high hopes for the 2015 elections) would like to co-opt the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign (BDS), and ride it to their preferred destination – “saving Israel from itself” (some “two state solution” of the “peace process” type, without addressing all the core apartheid issues).

This co-optation attempt is an indication of a lack of vision and a lack of energy among these elites. Benn is right in feeling troubled about this. He realizes many would rather emigrate than fight. He wants these elites to be more pro-active and try to change Israeli society from within.

He writes that if BDS actually took hold, the elites would leave, as happened in South Africa:

Those with money and a foreign passport looking for freedom would get out, leaving behind a poorer, more right-wing, more religious country.

People who view the boycott as a miracle drug “to save Israel from itself” must ask themselves if they’d want to live in a Masada country in the style of right-winger Bezalel Smotrich or in a state of all of its citizens with a Palestinian prime minister like Hamas’ Khaled Meshal, or perhaps Mohammed Dahlan or Marwan Barghouti. They must ask themselves if for the chance of ending the occupation, they’re willing to sacrifice the prospect of a prosperous, liberal, democratic Israel in recognized borders.

To change the situation, the left has to learn from the right and establish a base of domestic support for its positions. People forgoing the political effort on the reasoning that the public is stupid, racist and spellbound by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are giving up on the country in which they’d wish to live.

However, most Haaretz readers don’t think they can change reality from within. Furthermore, both Benn and those he’s trying to exhort are interested in maintaining the ethnocracy rather than in de-colonizing the land.

If that’s the way things are, it’s better to encourage these Israelis to leave. Privileged ethnocrats who are unwilling to take substantial action to end apartheid are not very useful.

This post first appeared on Neiman’s Facebook page.

About Ofer Neiman

Neiman is an Israeli activist

Other posts by .


Posted In:

70 Responses

  1. ritzl
    April 29, 2016, 11:42 am

    Is “cut and run” the new “shoot and cry?”

    I would encourage them to stay.

    The US has enough problems without having a wave of handout-dependent, liberal “I’m not an Arab lover” racists, used to living in their own violently segregated way, coming from a Constitution-free political culture (ie. the only rule is there are no rules, but that can change later today), crashing over us making things worse.

    They’re not wanted.

    • echinococcus
      April 30, 2016, 9:42 pm

      You and I may not want them, but we are committed. We have been complicit in every single crime of the Zionists and it’s time to pay.
      We can at least afford it better than the Palestinians, who don’t owe anything.
      Besides, it’s not likely that anything, even many Herrenvolk Israelians, could make the US even worse to live in.
      We can always try to find some country unpopular with the Israelians and emigrate there.

  2. eljay
    April 29, 2016, 12:26 pm

    According to Benn, BDS is bad because it will result in a two-state solution comprising a “Masada”-like “Greater” Israel next to a rump Palestinian state.

    And a single-state solution – which in his mind would result in ” … a state of all of its citizens with a Palestinian prime minister … ” – is bad because it would mean “sacrific[ing] a prosperous, liberal, democratic Israel in recognized borders”. (Nice bit of fear-mongering by Benn.)

    So what’s his solution?

    “To change the situation, the left has to learn from the right and establish a base of domestic support for its positions.”

    In other words, “liberal Zionists” need to work harder to transform Israel…
    – from an oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and religion-supremacist “Jewish State”;
    – into a kinder and gentler religion-supremacist “Jewish State”.

    When it comes to I-P, Mr. Benn – like all Zio-supremacists – despises justice, accountability and equality.

  3. pabelmont
    April 29, 2016, 12:27 pm

    “both Benn and those he’s trying to exhort are interested in maintaining the ethnocracy rather than in de-colonizing the land.”

    And, I’d add, rather than in defining the land (that place, you know, with “recognized borders”) and rather than specifying a willingness to live in a land (let’s agree to call it “Israel”) smaller even than pre-1967 Israel (aka “Israel-48”) or at least no larger.

    They want what they took in 1948, and they want what they walled-in from 1967-til-today in West Bank, just as if they took it fair and square (which raises the same question about Israel-48). If anyone, anyone at all, in Jewish Israel wishes BDS were a magic bullet, what magic is it they wish it’d do? Dare they say it out loud? In Israel, in these days?

  4. yonah fredman
    April 29, 2016, 1:38 pm

    There were 2 radical changes that occurred in israel Palestine: 48 and 67. Aluf benn seeks to undo 67. Ofer Neiman seeks to undo 48.

    • Mooser
      April 29, 2016, 5:55 pm

      “Ofer Neiman seeks to undo 48.”

      Well “Yonah” he is an Israeli. He ought to know.
      And I know American Zionists are ready to fight to the very last Israeli.

  5. German Lefty
    April 29, 2016, 4:33 pm

    Changing Israel from within doesn’t work. I think that anti-Zionists – not “liberal” Zionists – should leave Israel and promote BDS in other countries.

    • Citizen
      April 29, 2016, 11:16 pm

      Seems, at this juncture, the best thing to do, German Lefty.

  6. peter hindrup
    April 29, 2016, 9:08 pm

    ‘He writes that if BDS actually took hold, the elites would leave, as happened in South Africa:’

    Has anybody ever doubted that if Israel was ever forced to comply with the original partition agreement — which was unjust — there would be an exodus?

    ‘They must ask themselves if for the chance of ending the occupation, they’re willing to sacrifice the prospect of a prosperous, liberal, democratic Israel in recognized borders.’

    Difficult to know where to start!

    Prosperous? Six million Jews living on stolen land, using the Palestinians as if not slave labour, then certainly indentured labour, compelling the incarcerated Palestinians to buy their food products, flogging off the Palestinians natural resources, a war crime, and receiving a mere 3.3 billion $US a year?

    Is there a ‘nation’ or religious sect anywhere that would not be ‘prosperous’ under such conditions?

    A ‘liberal’ (1. accepting different opinions and ways of behaving and tending to be sympathetic to other people) ‘democratic’ (all citizens must be equal before the law) in recognised boarders. The Palestinians would be overjoyed — back to the 1948 proposal as a beginning for negotiations.

    Past time the myth of this tiny religous group fighting overwhelming odds — it was never true.

    • Marnie
      April 30, 2016, 2:54 am

      “Past time the myth of this tiny religous group fighting overwhelming odds — it was never true.”

      Exactly. This is the same mythology employed by the united states going back to pilgrims and the “hostiles”, “savage wilderness”, etc., that had to be subdued (murdered/reservationized). Of course those good christian people couldn’t actually work the land or anything else it appears, as they were hell bent on being the gentry, so they stole the treasure of the African continent and slave labor built the country. If amerikkka couldn’t become the wealthiest nation on earth with those conditions, they are some incredilby dumb ass folks, right? american exceptionalism is a joke. as is the picture of plucky israelis. Murderous thugs and lazy, whining, entitlement seeking bastards.

  7. Mooser
    April 29, 2016, 11:15 pm

    “Prosperous? Six million Jews living on stolen land, using the Palestinians as if not slave labour, then certainly indentured labour, compelling the incarcerated Palestinians to buy their food products, flogging off the Palestinians natural resources, a war crime, and receiving a mere 3.3 billion $US a year?”

    Stop it! Stop it! You’re making the whole thing sound so, so cheap, so tawdry, so amoral! Like there was no more to it than there appears to be.

  8. amigo
    April 30, 2016, 12:45 pm

    OT.

    It looks as if the German Gov is tiring of Israel,s bs.

    “Merkel: I Understand Why Abbas Turns to UN Security Council

    Der Spiegel article reveals that senior German officials are no longer willing to unconditionally support Israel on every matter, as they were ready to do in the past.
    read more

    The remark is unusual on Merkel’s part, who has in recent years made several public statements that any solution to the conflict must be achieved through direct negotiations between the two sides. However, Germany voted for a draft resolution against the settlements in February 2011 in the UN Security Council. The resolution was not accepted because it was vetoed by the United States. Germany is not currently a member of the Security Council, but is considered Israel’s closest ally in Europe. Merkel’s stance is liable to have influence on other countries on the continent and in the world.
    read more.”

    See more at !.
    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.717069

    No paywall if you use the web cache link ,above.

    A crack , however small, in the heretofore solid friendship between Germany and the rogue state.

  9. James Canning
    April 30, 2016, 1:38 pm

    BDS potentially could induce Israel to end the occupation of the West Bank, which would of course enable Jews to retain control of the state.

    • m1945
      May 1, 2016, 1:09 pm

      The occupation is a matter of life & death for the Israelis. Because Israel pulled out of Gaza, the Palestinians were able to launch thousands of rockets & mortars killing or wounding 2,000 Israelis. If Israel pulls out of the West Bank, thousands of rockets and mortars from the West Bank will kill even more Israelis. So BDS will not induce Israel to end the occupation of the West Bank. It will just cause suffering among innocent Israelis.

      • Annie Robbins
        May 1, 2016, 1:33 pm

        m1945, you made the same comment here [ http://mondoweiss.net/2016/04/the-banality-of-evil-as-captured-in-a-selfie/#comment-837194 ] and you’ve got some responses regarding your allegations.

      • Kay24
        May 1, 2016, 2:06 pm

        Has it occurred to you that an endless brutal occupation, and land grabs can be the cause of those rockets being sent? Either you are in denial or badly misinformed, but those rockets and mortars have killed around 40 Israelis, not the exaggerated number quoted by you.
        http://mondoweiss.net/2014/07/rocket-deaths-israel/

        As usual the discrepancy in the number of casualties from both sides are obvious. During the last massacre in Gaza in 2014 nearly 2500 Palestinians were killed mostly women and children.
        So don’t go around embarrassing yourself by twisting facts and pretending to be the victim.

        The occupation is a matter of death of the Palestinians. End it.

      • rosross
        May 2, 2016, 12:52 am

        Gaza is a concentration camp controlled by the Israeli military. The world’s largest open-air prison as it is called.

        Gaza is a concentration camp in Occupied Palestine. Everything beyond UN mandated borders is Occupied Palestine.

        There is no West Bank – it is all Occupied Palestine where nearly six million Palestinians are held under the most brutal, murderous and venal occupation in the world today.

        BDS will destroy Israel’s economy as it did South Africa’s and there will be no choice but to have one state shared by all equally.

        No-one who supports occupation, colonisation and apartheid is innocent and so most Israelis are not innocent.

  10. yourstruly
    April 30, 2016, 11:14 pm

    Once significant numbers of settlers decide to emigrate, will the outward flow turn into a stampede? That’s what happened 40 years ago in Mozambique, after Africans there won their independence from Portugal, as within 2 years only a few thousand whites remained out of a pre-independence population of 450,000 mostly Portuguese settlers (Wikipedia). To date this hasn’t happened in South Africa, although since 1995 when the African National Congress took power, approximately 800, 000 out of 5,200,000 whites have emigrated. It should be noted that in Mozambique the settlers were more or less kicked out, whereas in South Africa they have been encouraged to stay; suggesting, perhaps, that how fast Jewish settlers take off for other parts may depend upon how welcomed they’ll be in liberated Palestine.

    • Mooser
      May 1, 2016, 11:52 pm

      “depend upon how welcomed they’ll be in liberated Palestine.”

      And whether there will be an unconditional amnesty for all Israelis.

  11. m1945
    May 1, 2016, 2:57 pm

    @Kay24 May 1, 2016, 2:06 pm

    Palestinians were attacking Israelis before settlements & before occupation.

    I said killed or wounded.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel

    Around 400,000 Americans were killed in world war 2.
    Around 7,000,000 Germans were killed in world war 2.
    Do these numbers tell you who was the aggressor?

    Most of those killed in Gaza were male because most of those killed were fighters.

    If the Israelis end the occupation, Palestinians will launch rockets & mortars at them from the West Bank.

    • James North
      May 1, 2016, 3:40 pm

      New hire over at Hasbara Central.

      • MHughes976
        May 1, 2016, 5:50 pm

        Tedious, aren’t they?
        It is true that BDS is not now strong enough to bring the occupation to an end, and in this matter many considerations are in play, of which potential rocket fire is one, though I doubt that it is of major importance. The situation will continue if BDS does not manage to create much more trouble than it now can, if Isrsel does not become confident that it can, either bu itself or in collaboration with the PA, deter further attacks and if no one is willing to attempt to change the situation by means of a general peace agreement. These are of different degrees of probability and desirability but they are relevant for assessing the prediction.

      • amigo
        May 3, 2016, 4:09 pm

        “New hire over at Hasbara Centra” James North.

        Just in ,

        Accounts payable dept at hasbra central goes on strike due to increase in work load.They claim that hasbara policy of paying hasbarrats per post is putting them under a great strain.They cited m1945 as the straw(man) that broke their backs.They suggested that pay be based on quality v quantity but management said they would have to close down the accts payable dept if that policy was implemented.

    • eljay
      May 1, 2016, 3:46 pm

      || m1945: … Palestinians were attacking Israelis before settlements & before occupation. … ||

      Even if you were right, it wouldn’t justify Israel initiating an occupation and colonization of territory outside of its / Partition borders, and it wouldn’t justify Israel maintaining and expanding the occupation and colonization of non-Israeli territory over the course of almost 70 years (and counting).

      || … Around 400,000 Americans were killed in world war 2.
      Around 7,000,000 Germans were killed in world war 2.
      Do these numbers tell you who was the aggressor? … ||

      Around 27,000,000 Soviets were killed during WWII. So, according to your “logic”, the Soviets were the aggressor. Interesting.

      • m1945
        May 2, 2016, 12:00 pm

        The correct answer is “no.”

      • eljay
        May 2, 2016, 1:06 pm

        || m1945: The correct answer is “no.” ||

        Exactly. The Palestinians are not the aggressors.

    • Kay24
      May 1, 2016, 4:37 pm

      You must be the new recruit. Your comment has the usual deflection and twisting of facts.
      We have seen plenty of these inane comments here, and it is becoming very lame.
      We have seen this justification for occupying a people many times, and the rocket and
      mortar excuse is feeble. The rockets will keep coming until the Palestinians are FREE.

      UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon commented Tuesday on the recent wave of violence between Israelis and Palestinians, saying it was part of “human nature” to react to an occupation.
      Addressing the UN Security Council’s periodic Middle East debate, Ban condemned rocket fire from militant groups in Gaza into Israel and called for an end to incitement, but said that “As oppressed peoples have demonstrated throughout the ages, it is human nature to react to occupation.”
      read more: http://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/1.699686

      I prefer to get my information from sources other than ziocrap by paid trolls.

      “In its most recent count, the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs reports that 2,104 Palestinians were killed in Gaza, including 1,462 civilians, among them 495 children and 253 women. Those U.N. numbers would mean that 69 percent of the total killed were civilians.”

      Maybe your propaganda might work somewhere else. I doubt it will be appreciated here.

      • echinococcus
        May 1, 2016, 4:43 pm

        Kay,

        Propaganda even in the rare respectable journalism pieces.

        …2,104 Palestinians were killed in Gaza, including 1,462 civilians, among them 495 children and 253 women. Those U.N. numbers would mean that 69 percent of the total killed were civilians.”

        They are all civilians! There is no functioning sovereign state and the entire population is civilians. If they meant resistants who were armed at the moment they were murdered by illegal occupation forces, they should say so, not subvert a precise term, civilian. And they should bring solid proof in each case.

      • MHughes976
        May 1, 2016, 5:57 pm

        I think this sort of awful stuff comes to close to breaking MW rules, but at least it’s elicited very useful responses from you, Kay, and from yt.

    • talknic
      May 2, 2016, 3:44 am

      @ m1945 Palestinians were attacking Israelis before settlements & before occupation”

      There was no Israel or Israelis when the Zionist Federation began its invasive colonization and settlement program in 1897 http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/8632-jewish-colonial-trust-the-judische-colonialbank

  12. m1945
    May 1, 2016, 5:18 pm

    Did the Nazis have the right to react to occupation after world war 2?
    Would they have been justified in launching rockets & mortars at French civilians?

    • Mooser
      May 1, 2016, 11:16 pm

      “Did the Nazis have the right to react to occupation after world war 2?”

      Whew! It’s lucky they didn’t since the Allies stopped at the borders of Germany, and left the Nazis in power and armed after WW2.
      Why, if they had decided to resist occupation it would have been all over.

    • talknic
      May 2, 2016, 3:37 am

      @ m1945 May 1, 2016, 5:18 pm

      “Did the Nazis have the right to react to occupation after world war 2?”

      If the Occupying Powers illegally claimed Occupied territories for themselves, yes. If citizens of the Occupying Powers were encouraged and assisted by the Occupying Powers to illegally settle in Occupied Territories while maintaining respective citizenship of the Occupying Powers, yes.

      “Would they have been justified in launching rockets & mortars at French civilians?”

      No. However a check of the IDF Memorial site tells us that far more Israeli military have been targeted, injured and killed than have Israeli civilians. The number of Israeli civilians injured and/or killed falls way below par for collateral damage resulting from attacking the IDF

      You’re wading in Ziopoop arguments that don’t pass simplest of tests

      • MHughes976
        May 2, 2016, 6:25 am

        Occupation, I think, is a completely legitimate thing if former hostilities have ceased, if the occupiers make absolutely no claim that the territory is theirs, if there is reasonable provision of the necessities of life and if it is clear that government will soon – soon enough for people to make their plans on that basis – be restored to the former sovereign or to repesentatives of the local population. There can be some ambiguity about whether hostilities have really ceased – In Paris 1940 Petain said they had, de Gaulle said they hadn’t. In Berlin 1945 there was little doubt about this and no right for German civilians to cut the throats of British soldiers. If the British had said that Berlin was a nice place, part of the historic inheritance of Queen Victoria and they’d rather like to keep it things would have been different. Then we’d have moved from Occupation to Conquest.

      • m1945
        May 2, 2016, 11:57 am

        The Allies took 25% of Germany & gave it to Poland.

      • Annie Robbins
        May 2, 2016, 1:01 pm

        The Allies took 25% of Germany & gave it to Poland.

        don’t you mean gave it back to poland? it was only part of germany for a few years:

      • eljay
        May 2, 2016, 1:09 pm

        || m1945: The Allies took 25% of Germany & gave it to Poland. ||

        The U.N. took 50% of Palestine and gave it to Israel.

        And Israel has spent the last ~70 years stealing, occupying and colonizing most of the rest.

      • Mooser
        May 2, 2016, 1:19 pm

        “The Allies took 25% of Germany & gave it to Poland.”

        Thus establishing a dangerous a dangerous precedent in regard to Zionism. If Hitler couldn’t keep Poland, will we be able to keep Jerusalem? We must support Hitler’s right to Poland!

  13. rosross
    May 2, 2016, 12:30 am

    Israel has made two states impossible so that means one democratic state shared by colonised and coloniser alike as happened with South Africa.

    Whatever that State becomes will be the business of those who live there and no doubt the result of nearly a century of terrible abuse and subjugation of the indigenous people.

    Israel has created this situation and cannot complain about the outcome.

    Who knows, the Palestinians have demonstrated enormous tolerance and patience as they have been dispossessed, murdered and abused for decades and the new State, with a Palestinian majority, could not be worse than the horrendous Zionist State of Israel and has every chance of being vastly better.

    • m1945
      May 2, 2016, 3:50 pm

      Why do you claim that two states are impossible?

      • amigo
        May 3, 2016, 4:16 pm

        “Why do you claim that two states are impossible?” m 1945

        Because the torah boundaries declare it so.

  14. xanadou
    May 2, 2016, 12:56 am

    Here’s a few of the reasons why the Germans had no interest in lobbing anything at anyone.

    They were the conquered aggressors who had just lost a war that had savaged France, inter many alia.

    In “occupied” post WW2 partitioned Germany the natives were FREE to:
    – pursue their own spiritual and secular lives,
    – seek an education and employement according to their interests and talents,
    – could live where they wanted to with:
    –no sewers being emptied onto their streets,
    — no capricious cuts in the supply of water, gas and electricity,
    — no “occupational” forces raiding their homes arresting adults and children in the middle of the night,
    — no settlers from aggrieved countries running over or shooting the natives in pursuit of “justice” or vengeance.

    To the contrary. There were generous American stipends, substantial investments in German economy and a legitimate legal system free from pseudo religious impositions.

    • m1945
      May 2, 2016, 3:49 pm

      Germans, Japanese & Palestinians all had the same choice – live in peace or fight.
      Germans & Japanese chose peace even though that meant giving up land & have now had 70 years of peace & prosperity.
      The Palestinians chose war.

      • Mooser
        May 2, 2016, 4:37 pm

        Ger…/…ar.

        Oh yeah, this one’s a real explainer.

        Oh, well, at least he/she doesn’t talk down to us or take a high-handed attitude, or insult our intelligence. That’s very impressive.

      • eljay
        May 2, 2016, 6:18 pm

        || Mooser: … Oh yeah, this one’s a real explainer. … ||

        He’s the “Explainer Guy”! Dubya would be proud. :-)

      • talknic
        May 2, 2016, 9:37 pm

        @ m1945 May 2, 2016, 3:49 pm

        “Germans, Japanese & Palestinians all had the same choice – live in peace or fight.
        Germans & Japanese chose peace even though that meant giving up land & have now had 70 years of peace & prosperity.”

        You’re over your head in Ziosh*te. Neither Germany or Japan ‘chose’ defeat.

        Germany attacked Poland, Poland was given back to Poland, Germany lost no German land to Poland. The Japanese gave up no Japanese land as a result of the war.

        “The Palestinians chose war.”

        Jewish forces were outside the extent of Israel’s borders on the day they were proclaimed as “an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947” … The Regional Arab Powers had a right to attempt to expel non-Palestinian forces from what remained of Palestine after Israel’s borders were proclaimed.

        Israel got peace with Egypt when Israel WITHDREW from all Egyptian territory. Read the Peace Treaty then go vomit your puke somewhere else

  15. m1945
    May 2, 2016, 3:58 pm

    @ eljay May 2, 2016, 1:09 pm

    The U.N. took 50% of Palestine and gave it to Israel.

    The UN did not give 50% of Palestine to Israel. The UN divided Palestine in half. One half was called Israel.

    Just as Virginia was divided & one part was then called West Virginia. We don’t say that part of Virginia was given to West Virginia.

    • eljay
      May 2, 2016, 5:04 pm

      || m1945: @ eljay … The UN did not give 50% of Palestine to Israel. The UN divided Palestine in half. One half was called Israel. … ||

      Have it your way: The U.N. divided Palestine and half. One half was called Israel.

      And Israel has spent the last ~70 years stealing, occupying and colonizing most of the rest of Palestine.

  16. m1945
    May 2, 2016, 4:06 pm

    @MHughes976 May 2, 2016, 6:25 am
    @talknic May 2, 2016, 3:37 am

    There were legal borders between Germany & Poland, Germany & France, etc.
    There was no legal border between Israel & the West Bank so we really can’t say that Israel is claiming someone else’s land. Furthermore, Israel has not annexed even one square inch of the West Bank.

    • eljay
      May 2, 2016, 5:20 pm

      || m1945: There was no legal border between Israel & the West Bank so we really can’t say that Israel is claiming someone else’s land. … ||

      Israel accepted and declared its independence along Partition borders. So we really can say that Israel is claiming someone else’s land.

    • talknic
      May 2, 2016, 9:45 pm

      m1945 May 2, 2016, 4:06 pm

      “There was no legal border between Israel & the West Bank so we really can’t say that Israel is claiming someone else’s land.”

      Bullsh*te must be your forte.

      UNSC Resolution 476 is one of at least EIGHT reminders of UNSC Res 252

      252 (1968) of 21 May 1968, 267 (1969) of 3 July 1969, 271 (1969) of 15 September 1969, 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971, 446 (1979) of 22 March 1979, 452 (1979) 20 July 1979, 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980, 476 June 30 1980 and 478 August 20 1980. None of which have anything to do with race or religion. They’re based on the UN Charter, International Law and the GC’s, all of which Israel obliged itself to uphold. Alas it hasn’t.

      UNSC res 476 tells us you’re full of crap

      1. Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;

      2. Strongly deplores the continued refusal of Israel, the occupying Power, to comply with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly;

      3. Reconfirms that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

      4. Reiterates that all such measures which have altered the geographic, demographic and historical character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem are null and void and must be rescinded in compliance with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council;

      Thanks BTW for affording the opportunity to show genuinely interested people just how empty and stupid your remarks can be, just the type of person the Zionist Colonization of Palestine attracts

  17. m1945
    May 2, 2016, 4:10 pm

    Mooser May 2, 2016, 1:19 pm

    If it’s legitimate to take land from the aggressor, Germans, & give it to Poland, then it’s legitimate to take land from the aggressor, Palestinians, & give it to Israel.

    • Mooser
      May 2, 2016, 4:30 pm

      ” to take land from the aggressor, Palestinians,”

      Please don’t insult my intelligence.

    • eljay
      May 2, 2016, 5:07 pm

      || m1945: If it’s legitimate to take land from the aggressor, Germans, & give it to Poland, then it’s legitimate to take land from the aggressor, Palestinians, & give it to Israel. ||

      You appear to be suffering from early-onset, Ziocaine-induced amnesia: You’ve already forgotten that the Soviets weren’t the aggressors and neither were the Palestinians.

      • Kay24
        May 2, 2016, 5:32 pm

        That is an example of being extremely delusional and embarrassing oneself with wild claims, the result of drinking that koolaid. If this what has ba rats are paying for they must be desperate.
        The standards seem to have dropped and it is the same old drivel.

    • echinococcus
      May 2, 2016, 10:43 pm

      In fact, the Zionist entity being entirely on someone else’s land, it is the aggressor by definition. No matter what people answering to you say, it has not a single square inch of land legally.
      “the UN Charter, International Law and the GC’s” mentioned by Talknic do not justify a single inch of land being in the hands of the Zionist invaders. His lame intervention that helps the wound fester is only based on a blatant violation of the UN Charter by the colonial powers.

      Shoo.

      • m1945
        May 3, 2016, 10:09 am

        Jews have lived there for thousands of years.
        If you dig, you will find ancient Jewish synagogue & ancient Jewish ritual baths.
        The Torah states the names of the owners of the land & the boundaries of the land. In other words, the Torah is the deed to the land.

      • eljay
        May 3, 2016, 11:39 am

        || m1945: Jews have lived there for thousands of years. … ||

        Non-Jews have lived there for thousands of years.

        || … the Torah is the deed to the land. ||

        No it’s not.

      • Mooser
        May 3, 2016, 11:55 am

        ” In other words, the Torah is the deed to the land.”

        Of course! I mean, what good is our religion if it doesn’t give us a land-deed, too?

        (Damn, I’m a lucky fellow! I bet there’s a bunch of you out there who belong to dumb-ass religions which expect you to make some kind of sacrifice, or practice some kind of reflection or self-denial. Or expect a [ROTFL] ‘heavenly reward’ !Jokes on you, suckers! I got a land-deed with mine! Oh, please don’t dislike me for it, it’s just the way God wants things.)

        “If you dig….”

        You’ll find Golden Plates, with new revelations from God? Try upstate NY.

      • Mooser
        May 3, 2016, 12:13 pm

        “The Torah states the names of the owners of the land & the boundaries of the land. In other words, the Torah is the deed to the land.”

        Ooh, think about it! The Old Testament is also considered sacred by Christians , so they have to accept the Torah as a land deed, and defend our claim,or they are denying their own religion!

        I’m telling you ‘m1945″, that “Torah land deed” thing is airtight! Not even “Shmuel” could find a way out of it!

      • talknic
        May 3, 2016, 2:35 pm

        @ m1945 “Jews have lived there for thousands of years”

        More non-Jews have lived there for longer. In fact there’s no evidence that our Jewish fore-bearers were ever a majority in the region.

        “If you dig, you will find ancient Jewish synagogue & ancient Jewish ritual baths”

        So what? It’s entirely irrelevant to the officially proclaimed and Internationally recognized borders of Israel and Israel’s illegal activities in territories the Israeli Government itself claimed on May 22nd 1948 were “outside the State of Israel” … “in Palestine”

        ” the Torah is the deed to the land”

        Not according to the Israeli Government who proclaimed Israel’s borders as being ” within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947″

        You’re bitching at the wrong people. Take it up with the Israeli Government

      • amigo
        May 3, 2016, 3:57 pm

        “The Torah states the names of the owners of the land & the boundaries of the land. In other words, the Torah is the deed to the land. ” m1945.

        Better get in touch with nuttyahoo and co. At the rate they are expanding , they might end up with boundaries outside the Torah maps version..What will you do then when you can no longer claim the torah is the deed.

        Btw , can you tell which page in your torah shows these particular boundaries.The UN might also like to have a gander at them.

  18. m1945
    May 2, 2016, 4:19 pm

    MHughes976 May 1, 2016, 5:50 pm

    No matter how strong BDS is, when Israelis are given a choice between poverty & thousands of rockets launched at them from the West Bank, they will choose poverty.

    • Mooser
      May 2, 2016, 4:32 pm

      , “they will choose poverty.”

      Yes, I’ve heard they are going to hold a huge bonfire of foreign passports and EU and American and other citizenship papers in Tel Aviv next weekend.

    • oldgeezer
      May 2, 2016, 7:36 pm

      @m1945

      Well that’s not an illegal thing to choose. Feel free.

      What is not illegal is the continued theft of land and oppression of millions of human beings.

      Too bad, so sad.

      • oldgeezer
        May 3, 2016, 1:03 pm

        @myself

        errrp

        “What is not illegal ” s/b “What is not legal “.

        Oh and the Torah is a land deed is a side splitter. Yer a riot alice.

  19. Mooser
    May 3, 2016, 1:13 pm

    “Oh and the Torah is a land deed is a side splitter.”

    I wonder if the red, yaller, and white tickets we used to get at Hebrew School for memorizing Torah verses can be used to make house payments? I’ve still got bunches.

  20. m1945
    May 3, 2016, 1:19 pm

    @oldgeezer May 3, 2016, 1:03 pm
    @Mooser May 3, 2016, 11:55 am
    @eljay May 3, 2016, 11:39 am

    The Torah has the legal elements required for a deed:
    the names of the owners & the boundaries of the property.
    The law goes by the oldest document.
    There’s a Torah that’s over a thousand years old.
    There’s no other deed that old.

    What about where it says that God gave the land to the Jews?
    What if you’re an atheist?
    It’s irrelevant. If you write on the deed to your house that God gave you your house, that doesn’t invalidate your deed.

    • eljay
      May 3, 2016, 2:59 pm

      || m1945: … The Torah … ||

      …is a work of mytho-religious “history”. It is not a legal document.

      || … What about where it says that God gave the land to the Jews? … ||

      What about it?

      || … If you write on the deed to your house that God gave you your house, that doesn’t invalidate your deed. ||

      It doesn’t validate it, either.

    • amigo
      May 3, 2016, 3:38 pm

      “If you write on the deed to your house that God gave you your house, that doesn’t invalidate your deed “.m1945.

      If you write that on the deed to someone else,s house , you will probably end up in jail for attempted fraud.

      Some months ago in Ireland a homeowner who was having his house repossessed for failing to keep up his payments told the repo guy that god gave him the house.The repo guy responded with !!.

      God giveth and the bank taketh away.

      I note you are a fan of fiction , eh m1945.

Leave a Reply