Boycott, from within and without

Middle East
on 104 Comments

In this writing, I want to portray the psychological aspects and perceptions relating to the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement concerning Israel. I will not always refer to BDS as a singular movement, but also to the general idea of “boycott”.

The idea of boycott in itself, may first seem as relating to “pressure from without”. But in fact, there have been considerable attempts from Israelis to boycott the illegal settlements on occupied territories in the past decade, like the one of 2010, when some 60 leading Israeli actors and playwrights signed a letter stating they would refuse to play in the new theatre in Ariel, one of Israel’s largest settlements. After attacks from PM Netanyahu and other government ministers, over 150 leading Israeli academics and writers- including Amos Oz and David Grossman- came to their defense.   

The idea informing such an act can still be well within a Liberal-Zionist perception of “two states for two nations”. Around that time, many Israelis were also proud and boasting about what boycott can do – even when it relates to petty products such as chocolate pudding and cottage cheese. Many outside Israel may not have heard of these protests, which were even regarded in Israel as “the Milky revolution” (“Milky” is a particular brand of chocolate pudding with whipped cream on top) and the “cottage revolution”, but these consumer boycotts, as meaningless as they really were, inspired many Israelis. What may have been more noticed internationally in those years was probably the huge public protests in the summer of 2011, where mostly young, middle-class Israelis took to the streets to protest the high cost of living. Whilst the main slogan of the protest was “the nation wants social justice”, the sense of “social justice” did not extend far beyond the rather bourgeois concerns of Jewish Israelis – and did really include Palestinians in its sense of “justice” – Palestinians whose concerns may come down to simply not having their houses bombed, or demolished.

But to return to the boycott of settlements. Measures were undertaken by the government to deter Israelis (as well as foreigners) from resorting to such acts. In 2011 Israel passed the “boycott law”, which, through indirect corporate pressure, meant that a person or an organization calling for the boycott of Israel, including the settlements, could be sued by the boycott’s targets. At first the law stipulated that the boycott targets would not have to prove that they sustained damage in order to sue, but in 2014 the Supreme Court, whilst upholding the law, ruled that the burden of proof should be upon the targets themselves. In addition, recent legal measures (this year) headed by Culture Minister Miri Regev include the proposed “loyalty in culture” bill which means retroactive state budget reduction for “actions against the principles of the state”, which entails actions such as “denying the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish and Democratic state” as well as “marking Independence Day as a day of mourning” (it happens to also be the Nakba Day).  Regev has also sent out a questionnaire to theatres and other performance companies, asking whether they had performed in the West Bank (obviously meant as settlements) in the recent year – warning that a negative answer will mean a reduction in budget. 

So far, we are speaking mostly about the paradigm of boycott by Israelis, targeting the illegal settlements and the occupation. As mentioned, this is within a certain consensus of Liberal Zionism.

But when we regard the BDS campaign, its outlook goes further. This is not a movement initiated “within” Israeli society. The BDS movement was launched in 2005 by 170 Palestinian unions, political parties, refugee networks, women’s organisations, professional associations, popular resistance committees and other Palestinian civil society bodies. It goes further than mere “opposition to the occupation”, in that it not only calls for a complete dismantling of the occupation and its wall, but also equal rights to Palestinians within Israel (who are discriminated against by multiple laws), as well as a return of the Palestinian refugees. These three demands fall well within international law and democratic principles, but are regarded by the wide spectrum of Israeli Jewish society, and certainly by the government, as a somewhat malicious attempt to undermine the State of Israel. Israel’s top diplomat, Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotoveli calls it “diplomatic terrorism.” Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked calls it “the new anti-Semitism.” Public Security and Strategic Affairs Minister Gilad Erdan says BDS activists should “pay a price” and has recently called on Israelis to cooperate with the state in ridding the country of foreigners who support a boycott of Israel:  “If you have information about someone who is pretending to be a tourist but is in fact a boycott activist visiting Israel, let us know and we’ll act to have him expelled from Israel,” Erdan wrote on Facebook last week.

Interestingly, Stav Shaffir, a Laborite who entered the Knesset on the ticket of her leadership after the 2011 public protests concerning living costs, chides the government not for fighting BDS – but rather for not having been diligent enough much earlier in the fight against it. “If you had to be accountable long ago, we wouldn’t get to a point where in 2016, over a decade after the boycott movement started gathering momentum, there’s still no organized strategy to fight for public opinion around the world,” Shaffir said in her admonishment of the government 

That pretty much shows us that any Israeli activist supporting BDS as a democratic means of pressuring Israel to comply with international law and democratic principles is acting well outside of the consensus. Yet such a movement, of “boycott from within”, does exist. As Israeli historian Ilan Pappe noted in 2012, “supporting BDS remains a drastic act for an Israeli peace activist. It excludes one immediately from the consensus and from the accepted discourse in Israel. Palestinians pay a higher price for the struggle, and those of us who choose this path should not expect to be rewarded or even praised. But it does involve putting yourself in direct confrontation with the state, your own society, and quite often friends and family. For all intents and purposes, this is to cross the final red line—to say farewell to the tribe.”

Pappe added that “the responsibility of Israeli Jews is far greater than that of anyone else involved in advancing peace in Israel and Palestine. Israeli Jews are coming to realize this fact, and this is why the number who support pressuring Israel from the outside is growing by the day. It is still a very small group, but it does form the nucleus of the future Israeli peace camp”.

Whilst the Israeli media seems to begin to notice these few Israeli activists, the activist should not expect much airtime, and should expect to be interrupted many times by indignant interviewers, as in this recent interview of BDS activist Ronnie Barkan by Yaron London.

This “BDS from within” is problematic for the Israeli-Zionist psyche, because it disrupts the comfortable discourse that labels BDS as “anti-Semitic”, “questioning our right to exist”, “delegitimizing us” or “undermining our very existence”. If these are people “from within”, and if the accusations hold, then the obvious logical consequence must be that these people are “self-haters” or “traitors”. This is why Pappe regards such an act as “saying farewell to the tribe”. He knows this perhaps best, as a professor then at the University of Haifa who, due to his support for the Palestinian cause, around the time of his treating the Palestinian Nakba as “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine” (his 2006 book), was condemned in the Knesset; the minister of education publicly called for him to be sacked; and his pictures appeared in the country’s biggest-selling newspaper at the centre of a target. Next to it, a popular columnist addressed his readers thus: “I’m not telling you to kill this person, but I shouldn’t be surprised if someone did.”  

But there is more to ”BDS from within”, if one also regards Jews abroad as a part of the ”Jewish State”. And Israel does regard all Jews, worldwide, as its potential automatic citizens. This is why the support for BDS from many Jews and Jewish organizations, particularly in USA, and particularly from the young generation, has come to disturb the conservative Jewish constituency. The growing support for BDS on American campuses, also by many Jewish students, is what led the American billionaires Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban to establish an anti-BDS campaign on campuses. The venture was called Campus Maccabim and was started up with a $50 million fund last year. Saban, who is one of Hillary Clinton’s leading supporters, has meanwhile left the venture, but we should not be in doubt that fighting BDS is a main cause for him: “I know you agree that we need to make countering BDS a priority”, Clinton wrote to Saban last year, a stance she reaffirmed in an article, saying:

“I also will combat growing efforts to isolate Israel internationally and to undermine its future as a Jewish state, including the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. I’ve spoken out against BDS in the United States and at the U.N., and will continue to do so.”  

Whether the BDS is “from without” or “from within”, it is obvious that it is, in its ideological essence, about pressuring Israel from without. It is interesting to note Clinton’s sentence from the last quoted Forward article: “And while no solution can be imposed from outside, I believe the United States has a responsibility to help bring Israelis and Palestinians to the table and to encourage the difficult but necessary decisions that will lead to peace….”

“No solution can be imposed from outside.” One may wonder whether this is some kind of sacred principle that informs the American outlook regarding the whole world? American interventionism hardly suggests such principles. Clinton herself has been a supporter of such interventions, even when they were blatantly illegal and based upon false evidence – like the Iraq war. Recently she even said that “What certainly influenced” her to support the Iraq war was Bush’s billions of aid to NYC. When it comes to countries and leaders who seem to oppose “American interests”, American leaders in general do not shy away from sanctions, even crippling sanctions. In 1996, Madeleine Albright, who was Ambassador to UN at the point (and became Secretary of State under Bill Clinton in 1997), was asked on CBS’s 60 Minutes about the sanctions against Iraq in the wake of Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990. A U.N. report found that, from 1991 until late 1995, as many as 576,000 Iraqi children died because of the harsh economic sanctions, of which Albright was a staunch supporter. Albright was asked whether the deaths of half a million Iraqi children were worth it.

“The price is worth it,” she replied

When it comes to more recent interventions, pertaining to the region of Israel-Palestine, the USA has not been shy to provoke what David Rose, in an exhaustive article in Vanity Fair, has called “a Palestinian civil war” in Gaza. In the immediate aftermath of the 2006 elections, which Jimmy Carter called “fair and square”, and which Hamas won, the US did want the “democracy” of the elections – but it wouldn’t accept the results. “Vanity Fair has obtained confidential documents, since corroborated by sources in the U.S. and Palestine, which lay bare a covert initiative, approved by Bush and implemented by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams, to provoke a Palestinian civil war. The plan was for forces led by [Mohammed] Dahlan [Fatah strongman], and armed with new weapons supplied at America’s behest, to give Fatah the muscle it needed to remove the democratically elected Hamas-led government from power”. David Wurmser, a neoconservative within the Bush administration (who resigned as Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief Middle East adviser in July 2007, a month after the Gaza coup) said that USA was “engaging in a dirty war in an effort to provide a corrupt dictatorship [led by Abbas] with victory.” He said he believes that Hamas had no intention of taking Gaza until Fatah forced its hand. “It looks to me that what happened wasn’t so much a coup by Hamas but an attempted coup by Fatah that was pre-empted before it could happen”, Wurmser said. 

The whole decade-long Gaza siege by Israel is in itself a boycott. As Israeli journalist Gideon Levy noted, Israel is “boycotting not just Hamas, but the rest of the Gaza Strip along with it”. 

Beyond Hillary Clinton’s staunch support for the Iraq war, she had more recently promoted the invasion of Libya, turning it from “a stable, developed nation into an ISIS safe haven using tactics that would have made even William Randolph Hearst a bit queasy”, as Riley Waggaman put it. Clinton has expressed no regrets in this respect, and she even has the capacity for a bellicose joke about Ghaddafi: “We came, we saw, he died”, she quipped.

Finally, USA’s current killer-drone warfare in countries far away, is perhaps the most extreme form of violent intervention, which Noam Chomsky describes as “target[ing] people suspected of perhaps intending to harm us some day, and any unfortunates who happen to be nearby”, and noting it as “the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times”. 

It is thus very hard to see, why “no solution can be imposed from outside”, when it regards Israel, Palestine and the “peace process”. What Hillary Clinton is really saying is, that the US can intervene, whilst others shouldn’t. Not the UN, and not the BDS campaign. Clinton is essentially suggesting that BDS is “imposing from outside”, whilst the classical USA “honest broker” role in the famous “peace process” is “helping”, yet not “imposing”.

But many have become disillusioned not only with Israel’s will to achieve peace (whilst constantly expanding its settlements), but also with the United States’s will or ability to achieve it. Whilst the US merely calls the settlements “an obstacle to peace”, it systematically shields Israel from UN resolutions, and continues to provide (and increase) the billions in military aid, as Israel plunges into ever growing massacres in Gaza and increased destructions and displacements in the West Bank.

It is no wonder that many people around the world perceive this protectionism of Israel by the United States as a double standard. When the Palestinians seek to make steps which Israel and the US do not approve of, they can be sanctioned by both Israel and the US. In the wake of last year’s accession of Palestine into the ICC, Alexandra Whitney noted that

“It is no secret that the U.S. has a record of double standards when it comes to its policies toward Palestine compared to how it protects Israel at all expense. A current example would be the soft touch applied toward Israel for freezing Palestinian tax funds, a violation of Israel’s responsibilities according to the Paris Protocol. The European Union [foreign affairs chief], Federica Mogherini, issued a statement holding Israel accountable for this violation. The U.S. followed with a statement opposing actions that would raise tensions. While the State Dept. spokesperson, Jen Psaki, was condemning the tax freeze on Monday, U.S. legislators were filing documents to cut funding to Palestine”. 

When it comes to boycotting or sanctioning Palestine, even for diplomatic non-violent acts, Israel and USA have no moral scruples. But when it comes to Israel, this popular grassroots movement called BDS, is “diplomatic terrorism”, and must be countered. The legal acts to counter it in USA are of course infringing, even if indirectly so, upon rights which stand at the very core of the American constitution, its first Amendment of 1791, which “guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely”. Boycotts have been recognized in the US as a protected form of free speech. But we are basically being told that Israel should be an exception.

Israel does not want to stop “intervention from outside” when it is “positive” intervention – when it is about financial military aid from a foreign country. But when it’s intervention that challenges and demands compliance with international law, it becomes a “strategic threat”, as Israel’s president Reuven Rivlin said.

Neither the United States nor Israel can pretend to have moral authority to decry pressure from outside, boycotts in general, or BDS in particular. They may not like what the boycotts call for, but they simply do not have the moral authority to condemn it.

About Jonathan Ofir

Israeli musician, conductor and blogger / writer based in Denmark.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

104 Responses

  1. mcohen.
    August 15, 2016, 3:37 pm

    the only answer to bds is to expand israeli influence in the west bank.provide better services.new roads.more jobs.clean water.annexe the west bank and take responsibility.
    global warming is pushing up temperatures making parts of the middle east unlivable.that will only get worse.
    time for israeli leadership to realize that one hand washes the other

    • Boo
      August 16, 2016, 1:43 pm

      Oh, but my friend, haven’t you noticed? The Israeli government is already doing all those things — been doing them since 1967.

      The only issue is, they’re doing them only for the illegal squatters, not for the indigenous people. For the latter, they’re demolishing what little infrastructure they have; uprooting their centuries-old olive groves; stealing their water; etc, etc.

      One hand washes itself — to hell with the other.

      • Mooser
        August 16, 2016, 3:58 pm

        “One hand washes itself — to hell with the other.”

        Yes, Grasshopper, he has achieved Zionism’s Nirvana.

        It is very plain that “mcohen” hears the sound of one hand thwacking.

  2. benedict
    August 15, 2016, 4:44 pm

    Hi Ofir-
    The issue is not whether to boycott or not but what are the goals of the boycott. In the case of BDS the ultimate goal is to destroy the Jewish state. Most Israelis regard this goal as deeply offensive and dangerous hence the attitude to those who support it. Assuming the goals of BDS will ever materialize it will risk the lives of countless Israeli jews and dash the hope for jewish independence. Why should any sane Israeli support such goals?

    • Annie Robbins
      August 15, 2016, 4:58 pm

      benedict, Assuming the goals of BDS will ever materialize it will risk the lives of countless Israeli jews

      not necessarily.

      Most Israelis regard this goal as deeply offensive and dangerous hence the attitude to those who support it.

      Most Palestinians regard this goal of a zionist state as deeply offensive and dangerous hence the attitude to those who support it.

      • Steve Grover
        August 16, 2016, 11:56 am

        Tough shit, maybe they should start convincing Joe Six Pack Israeli that they won’t regret a deal for the rest of their lives. Otherwise tough shit.

      • (((James North)))
        August 16, 2016, 2:02 pm

        Mooser: Where have you been?

      • Mooser
        August 16, 2016, 3:46 pm

        “Mooser: Where have you been?”

        Me? I was involved in an eminently successful plan to increase the Jewish birth-rate and populations, but then I realized the “0” I’ve been adding is an Arabic number.

        I may have to go back to the drawing-room.

      • Annie Robbins
        August 17, 2016, 5:10 am

        Tough shit…Otherwise tough shit.

        how helpful steve, why didn’t i think of that?

    • amigo
      August 15, 2016, 5:11 pm

      “Assuming the goals of BDS will ever materialize it will risk the lives of countless Israeli jews and dash the hope for jewish independence “benedict.

      Why do you equate Jews with Israel.

      “Why should any sane Israeli support such goals?” benedict.

      That,s a stretch –sane Israeli.

      Btw, can you provide the borders of this sane Israel you are referring to. I cannot seem to find a legitimate map of such –anywhere.Do help.

    • Kay24
      August 15, 2016, 5:36 pm

      Is that your feeble excuse why the occupation must go on? The Palestinians are not asking for anything unreasonable, all they want is the end of the occupation and the building of illegal settlements to cease. Why are the Israelis so afraid of giving them their freedom? Are they afraid that everything they have stolen must be given back? Boycotting South Africa did NOT destroy the nation, it only gave those indigenous people their country back, the freedom to be equal, and the end of apartheid policies. If Israel is stupid enough to keep this occupation going, it is only a matter of time before the pendulum swings back and the world will treat it like other pariah, apartheid nations. Israel deserves to be sanctioned and boycotted – Israels endless crimes against the Palestinians, begs for it.

    • Mr.T
      August 15, 2016, 5:40 pm

      “In the case of BDS the ultimate goal is to destroy the Jewish state.”

      No, it’s not. The goal is to end the oppression of JSIL that it inflicts on the Palestinians. There is nothing but the evil of the Israeli electorate which precludes the Apartheid state from reforming itself.

      “it will risk the lives of countless Israeli jews and dash the hope for jewish independence.”

      Not at all. It is a blood libel against the Palestinians, worse than perhaps any in history, to suggest that the oppression of the Palestinians and their destruction by the Israelis, is necessary to preserve Jewish lives and Jewish independence.

      • MHughes976
        August 16, 2016, 12:33 pm

        I accept that the Palestinian problem cannot be solved without some risks – there are risks for us in the West too. Israel has caused a great deal of angry resentment, so is surely ‘holding a wolf by the ears’ as I think someone said of Anerican slavery. Wolves are respected creatures but they do get angry in certain circumstances. If you are in this kind of situation the temptation is to hang on but the logic is that you must end it. Israeli governments pretend to be working on a 2ss but take care that no offer should ever be on the table and are, I am sure, really working on a plan to move the great mass of Palestinians out, which even amid the splendid opportunity of a Clinton/Trump presidency will not work and will of course be deeply immoral. I would call on all logical Israelis to seek a solution that will work quite urgently.

      • Mr.T
        August 29, 2016, 1:43 pm

        “I accept that the Palestinian problem cannot be solved without some risks – there are risks for us in the West too. Israel has caused a great deal of angry resentment, so is surely ‘holding a wolf by the ears’ as I think someone said of Anerican slavery.”

        I reject this view. We know what can be done. We saw it in Northern Ireland, we saw it in South Africa, we saw it somewhat in the USA. We need a reconciliation process and justice. The JSIL and it’s goons propose none of that.

        The joke that is the two-state final solution is merely switching one kind of oppression for another.

    • Mooser
      August 15, 2016, 5:46 pm

      “Assuming the goals of BDS will ever materialize it will risk the lives of countless Israeli jews”

      Ummm, “benedict” we do live in 2016, you know, a very modern up-to-date age, the newest we have. And with today’s techniques, there is no need to call the Jews in Israel “uncountable millions”. Their numbers are well known. There are about 200 million Jews in the world, and about 80 million live in Israel.

      That is a lot, but not an “uncountable” number. Just unaccountable, but there’s just too many of us for that.

      • Mooser
        August 15, 2016, 7:36 pm

        “There are about 200 million Jews in the world, and about 80 million live in Israel.”

        Of course, only about 30 million of the latter are settlers. But that’s still a lot.

      • Boomer
        August 16, 2016, 8:33 am

        Mooser, you remind me of the old, old question, “can 80 million Israelis be wrong?”

      • Mooser
        August 16, 2016, 1:53 pm

        “you remind me of the old, old question, “can 80 million Israelis be wrong?”

        Hell, no! 80 million Israelis don’t need to worry about what anybody else thinks.

    • talknic
      August 15, 2016, 9:22 pm

      @ benedict August 15, 2016, 4:44 pm

      “In the case of BDS the ultimate goal is to destroy the Jewish state.”

      Quote please … thx … I’ll wait!

      “Assuming the goals of BDS will ever materialize … “

      Speculation based on unsupported assumptions are such fun

      ” … it will risk the lives of countless Israeli jews and dash the hope for jewish independence. Why should any sane Israeli support such goals?”

      Indeed. Why would anyone support these alleged, unsubstantiated, goals. Furthermore, why would any sane person make unsubstantiated accusations

      Ziopoopers are well known here for inventing crappolla then speculating and asking questions based on their stupid fantasies

      As for risking the lives of Israeli Jews, best they get out of all non-Israeli territories they occupy. What kind of sick state for 68 years encourages its civilians to put themselves and their children in harms way in territories “outside the State of Israel” … “in Palestine”

      • Mooser
        August 18, 2016, 6:49 pm

        “How about Israel creatively for once F*CK OFF (ooops caps again) from all non-Israeli territories”

        Okay that would be great, but hows about this :Israel leaves, dismantles some settlements, just to show they are capable of doing it.

    • echinococcus
      August 15, 2016, 10:41 pm

      In the case of BDS the ultimate goal is to destroy the Jewish state

      Of course. You’re damn tootin’. A split second of logic is enough to recognize that a “Jewish” state, whatever this is, must necessarily give legal preference to people it defines “Jewish” (who happen to be overwhelmingly illegal imports.)
      Ergo, there is no way of giving equal rights to all on the territory (even including the illegal imports who have no such right as yet) without destroying and burying the “Jewish state”.

      Most Israelis regard this goal as deeply offensive and dangerous hence the attitude to those who support it.

      To them, sure. It will lighten the heart of many, many more millions across the world, though.

      Assuming the goals of BDS will ever materialize it will risk the lives of countless Israeli jews

      How so? What horrible calumny! Whoever doesn’t like justice only has to move (no obstacles to that) and whoever likes it will probably be allowed to stay. What’s this crazy talk of “countless lives”, is somebody going crazy here? The only ones who risk anything physically are the straitjacket-crazies who oppose justice.

      and dash the hope for jewish independence

      .
      Jewish independence? Most of the Jews’ own countries are independent. Except, perhaps, Birobidjan, but I was told there are almost no Jews living there. And Kurdistan. Jewish Kurds can fight for Kurdish independence if they are so inclined, where is the problem?

      Why should any sane Israeli support such goals?

      Because it is the only honorable thing to do.

      • MHughes976
        August 16, 2016, 3:30 am

        The word ‘destroy’ suggests that there may be nothing at all or nothing but dust, ashes and wreckage where the destroyed thing was – as with destroyed buildings, destroyed papers etc.. There is no call here for wastelands or anarchies or deaths but for renewal of Palestine as a place where no normal residents are subject to a sovereign power that disfranchises them, where there are equal rights and duties regardless of race or religion and where the regime has not survived by mass exclusion of former inhabitants. That’s not destruction, it’s creation.

      • echinococcus
        August 17, 2016, 1:59 am

        Hughes,

        I understand what you re saying –that there is a connotation for some people of a physical object being destroyed. Those would be the people who confuse a state structure with people or physical objects. Mainly, though, the objection is coming from propaganda criminals who simply pretend to ignore the fact that a state structure is not an object.
        “Renewal” is totally wrong, anyway.

    • RoHa
      August 15, 2016, 11:30 pm

      “jewish independence”

      What does that mean? Independence from what?

      “sane Israeli”

      [Chuckle]

      Well, supposing such creatures exist, I would hope that sanity brought about morality, and so they would realize the immorality of Israel as it is currently constituted.

    • Marnie
      August 16, 2016, 1:27 am

      A sane israeli would support the end of apartheid and occupation, the end of zionism and Jewish hegemony and equal status for all. What is so horrible about the end of something that has been and continues to be life-threatening to non-Jews? Stick with the facts. How can you continue to support a system that has destroyed the lives of millions of Palestinians? It’s not been helpful to Jews worldwide BTW or anyone else for that matter except that priviledged group of welfare queens known as the settlers. How can you continue to support that? I’m tired of the conversation so one-sided. How can you possibly, sanely, continue to support this colonialist enterprise benedict?

    • eljay
      August 16, 2016, 7:08 am

      || benedict: … In the case of BDS the ultimate goal is to destroy the Jewish state. … ||

      Colonialist and religion-supremacist “Jewish State” has no right to exist. Israel, on the other hand (and IMO), exists and should continue to exist within its / Partition borders as the secular and democratic Israeli state of and for all of its Israeli citizens, immigrants, expats and refugees, equally.

      || … Most Israelis regard this goal as deeply offensive … ||

      Colonialism and religion-based supremacism are deeply offensive.

      || … Why should any sane Israeli support such goals? ||

      Why should any sane Jewish person support a Zio-supremacist project that undermines international laws and human rights and the protections they afford to all people?

      Sane Israelis should support a secular and democratic Israel and the universal and consistent application of justice, accountability and equality.

      To support Jewish supremacism in/and a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” in as much as possible of Palestine may not be insane, but it is most definitely unjust and immoral.

      • echinococcus
        August 17, 2016, 2:07 am

        Eljay,

        Just a quick note to your “Israel, on the other hand (and IMO), exists and should continue to exist within its / Partition borders as the secular and democratic Israeli state of and for all of its Israeli citizens, immigrants, expats and refugees, equally”

        Partition borders are illegitimate, illegal and a major crime; in the absence of a general plebiscite of all Palestinians (excluding the illegitimate immigration of hostile Zionists forced by the Ottomans and the British) any of your proposals may be morally admirable but they are nonsense in the absence of general Palestinian plebiscite.

        Also, calling it “Israel” is incredibly offensive.

      • eljay
        August 17, 2016, 2:44 pm

        || echinococcus: Eljay, Just a quick note to your “Israel, on the other hand (and IMO), exists and should continue to exist within its / Partition borders as the secular and democratic Israeli state of and for all of its Israeli citizens, immigrants, expats and refugees, equally”

        Partition borders are illegitimate, illegal and a major crime … ||

        And yet Israel has been existing as a recognized state within* them for almost 70 years.

        (*It has also been existing outside of them for almost 70 years, but that’s a separate point.)

        || … in the absence of a general plebiscite of all Palestinians (excluding the illegitimate immigration of hostile Zionists forced by the Ottomans and the British) any of your proposals may be morally admirable but they are nonsense in the absence of general Palestinian plebiscite. … ||

        If you say so.

        || … Also, calling it “Israel” is incredibly offensive. ||

        Israel is the name of the state of Israel. It’s the least-offensive name I can think to call Israel.

      • echinococcus
        August 17, 2016, 5:54 pm

        Eljay,

        And yet Israel has been existing as a recognized state within* them for almost 70 years.

        Of course it has, duh, as the cancer that is eating away my aunt also exists.
        The fact that the Zionist entity exists and managed to be recognized in total illegality is precisely the problem with it.

        It bears repeating, every time, that the “recognition”, by all clients of the colonial powers, of the partition proposal and of an invader state by sole right of conquest, after violating even that criminal partition proposal, was in flagrant violation of the UN Charter before the ink was dry.

        Mentioning that there was a partition in the absence of a plebiscite and by dint of war of aggression should IMO be counted as propaganda. Mentioning the recognition of the new state without underlining that this recognition was a reward for war of aggression, massacres and mass expulsion in violation of the GA partition proposal is in my mind equivalent to propaganda.

      • eljay
        August 17, 2016, 8:59 pm

        || echinococcus: Eljay,

        And yet Israel has been existing as a recognized state within* them for almost 70 years.

        Of course it has, duh, as the cancer that is eating away my aunt also exists. … ||

        My sympathies to your aunt.

        || … The fact that the Zionist entity exists and managed to be recognized in total illegality is precisely the problem with it. … ||

        The Zionist entity – “Jewish State” – must go. Secular and democratic Israel must be made to respect its Partition borders and to honour its obligations under international law.

        || … It bears repeating, every time, that the “recognition”, by all clients of the colonial powers, of the partition proposal and of an invader state by sole right of conquest, after violating even that criminal partition proposal, was in flagrant violation of the UN Charter before the ink was dry. … ||

        Repetition noted.

        || … Mentioning that there was a partition in the absence of a plebiscite and by dint of war of aggression should IMO be counted as propaganda. Mentioning the recognition of the new state without underlining that this recognition was a reward for war of aggression, massacres and mass expulsion in violation of the GA partition proposal is in my mind equivalent to propaganda. ||

        Okay.

    • Amy1
      August 17, 2016, 1:54 pm

      Unfortunately oppressors anywhere don’t get to decide the fate of other people based on their sensibilities. Do you think Palestinians don’t find it offensive that Israeli soldiers desecrate one of the holiest places in their faith routinely? Do you think Palestinian Christians don’t find it offensive when their churches get vandalized and the walls spray painted? What is Jewish Nationalism and how are the lives of Israelis being risked by eroding the apartheid system in Israel? The only thing Israel fears legitimately is that it would have to grant equal rights to the Palestinians if the pressure builds against Israel forcing it into political isolation. That’s what Israel refers to as delegitimization. These aren’t the indigenous Jewish population of Palestine who might desire Jewish independence these are foreign exports to a land led by Zionists that literally forced people out of their countries through terrorism as well to shove them in the holy land to create a Jewish majority.

    • Jonathan Ofir
      August 17, 2016, 2:26 pm

      An extensive response to Benedict:

      “Hi Ofir- The issue is not whether to boycott or not but what are the goals of the boycott. In the case of BDS the ultimate goal is to destroy the Jewish state. Most Israelis regard this goal as deeply offensive and dangerous hence the attitude to those who support it. Assuming the goals of BDS will ever materialize it will risk the lives of countless Israeli jews and dash the hope for jewish independence. Why should any sane Israeli support such goals?”.

      I thought that this one deserves a comprehensive answer, mostly because it is a predominant view not only amongst the wide political spectrum in Israel, but also amongst some liberal intellectuals worldwide.

      To address the last sentence first: “Why would any sane Israeli support such goals?” – this suggests that Israeli BDS supporters are insane. Let us then examine, what these goals are, according to the responder:

      “The destruction of the Jewish State” – this is a claim that seems to encapsulate the essential goal (no other goals are specified).
      Let us test this assumption against the three BDS demands:

      1) Cease of the occupation and dismantling of the wall. This does not mean destruction of the Jewish State. In fact, ending the 1967 occupation is something that many liberal-Zionists want and have been fighting for – as I have noted in my article. Whilst one could be arguing that dismantling the wall could endanger Israelis, the fact is, that this wall is illegal not because it exists – but because 85% of its existing and planned route are on occupied territory. This is, ostensibly, in order to protect settlements – but the settlements are illegal. The International Court of Justice ruled in 2004 that Israel had a right to build a wall – but it should be on Israel’s side. A withdrawal from 1967 occupied territories will also mean that the wall could be dismantled – or built if necessary on Israel’s territory, without endangering any settlers – because they simply wouldn’t be there.

      2) Equal rights to Palestinians who are citizens of Israel. Why would this destroy the Jewish State? After all, Israel declared from the start, in its Declaration of Independence, that “it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex”. Why should this even be an issue, if that was the stated intention?

      3) Return of Palestinian refugees. Ah, this must be the difficult one. The argument here is, that potential return of about 7 million refugees http://mondoweiss.net/2016/06/palestinian-territories-increased/ would mean that Israel will not be able to ensure its Jewish majority and political sovereignty as Jewish State. But when we look at South Africa during Apartheid, the whites were a small minority, in 1960 about 20%. There was nothing preventing the Apartheid state from exerting Apartheid and exclusivism upon the non-white population. One could then say, that an altered demography, wherein Jews are a minority, will not necessarily mean destruction of the Jewish State. It may make it more obvious that the Jewish State depends upon such anti-democratic exclusivism, but that exclusivism will not start there – it already exists. In fact, this is the argument of liberal-Zionists in regards to “stopping the occupation”, that Israel is governing a territory which contains about as many non-Jews as Jews, and that it will “soon” mean Apartheid. But it already does, since the start. When we say “Apartheid” today, this is most essentially a qualitative term – not necessarily a quantitative one. It doesn’t start when the rulers are a minority. The crime of Apartheid is defined by the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court as acts “committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.” In fact, the 1967 occupation meant Israel taking under its control a large Palestinian population (where many were 1948 refugees). This was not an ‘accidental’ result of the 1967 war. As Moshe Dayan stated in 1973: “Among ourselves [the Zionists] there can be no debate about the integrity of the land of Israel [ie, Palestine], and about our ties and right to the whole of the land …When a Zionist speaks about the integrity of the land, this can only mean colonisation [hityashvut] by the Jews of the land in its entirety. That is to say, from the viewpoint of Zionism the real touchstone is not confined to [the question as to] whom this or that segment of the land belongs to politically, nor even to the abstract belief in the integrity of the land. Rather, the aim and touchstone of Zionism is the actual implementation of colonisation by the Jews of all areas of the land of Israel”. (Ha’aretz, February 18 1973, in Moshé Machover http://www.israeli-occupation.org/2016-08-16/moshe-machover-the-decolonisation-of-palestine/ ). Israel thus conquered the territories out of the clear wish to hold onto them – but also with the clear wish to avoid having to take into its own constituency “too many Arabs”. In other words – Israel wanted the land, but not the people. This is the paradigm that describes not only the 1967 (and onwards) paradigm – but also the 1948 (and on) paradigm. This is a description of the very essence of Zionism, as it materialized for all practical purposes, in the Jewish State. If preservation of “Jewish State” means Apartheid, ethnic cleansing and other crimes against humanity, per definition, why would it be so terrible to dismantle it? It doesn’t mean “destruction” as in annihilation of its Jewish constituency – it just means a democratic state.

      In fact, the whole terminology is misleading. States are not people – they are governing constructs. Not only should we separate the people from the state, we should separate religion from the state. What is described here as “destruction of the Jewish State” is merely a separation of religion and state, a separation of the Jewish from the State.

      If anyone thought that the construct of “Jewish State” would succeed in both preserving Jewish exclusivity whilst nonetheless “ensuring complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex”, I believe history has proven them wrong, from day 1. Two first decades of mass ethnic cleansing and military rule of the Palestinian Israelis, followed by 5 decades of military occupation of surrounding territories are more than enough to indicate what many sceptics were worried about at the outset – that this would be an oppressive construct.

      The fact that BDS does not even have to relate to the question of Jewish State as such, and that mere applications of standard international law in themselves constitute an “offensive” and “dangerous” challenge to the Jewish State construct, is in itself telling. It tells, that the Jewish State DEPENDS upon violation of international law in order to exist.

      I would conclude this with a mentioning of the thread response to the aforementioned comment, provided by Mondoweiss Editor at Large Annie Robbins: ““Most Israelis regard this goal as deeply offensive and dangerous hence the attitude to those who support it”. Most Palestinians regard this goal of a Zionist state as deeply offensive and dangerous hence the attitude to those who support it”.

      It is certainly not insane to challenge the Jewish State.

      • benedict
        August 17, 2016, 6:23 pm

        Hi ofir-

        Thank you for your detailed and lengthy response.

        I see that you agree with me that the ultimate result of BDS will be the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state. No wonder most Israeli Jews support measures that will hinder BDS and ensure its failure, inshalla. Many Palestinians object to the judaization of Jerusalem. It is only natural that many Jews will object the arabization of Israel.

        As for the seven million refugees, they won’t be “returning” to Israel since, except for some elderly Palestinians, very few of them ever lived in Israel/Palestine to begin with. Instead of relocating them to Israel and causing enormous social turmoil (very probably turning Israel into a failed state similar to Lebanon, Syria and Iraq), A far more reasonable and moral plan will have them remain where they are (what’s the problem in living in the east or west bank?) or help them move to other parts of the world just as millions of Africans and middle easterns are doing now days.

        Perhaps you and annie are right that “Most Palestinians regard the goal of a Zionist state as deeply offensive”. But I am not a Palestinian. I am an Israeli.

        Nevertheless I believe that Israelis and Palestinians can reach a pragmatic solution based on realistic expectations. Unfortunately the BDS movement is not headed in that direction.

      • MHughes976
        August 17, 2016, 6:32 pm

        I appreciate your extensive reply, Jonathan, but what in the end is the answer to slogan-like questions in the style ‘You lot want to destroy the Jewish State, don’t you?’. If we can’t reply crisply ‘Of course’ or ‘Of course not’ and if we need hundreds of words in reply to about ten then we lose the argument as far as public opinion is concerned, I think. I try to reply ‘We don’t want destruction, we want a new creation’ but I’m certainly not confident that those words are an effective response.

      • Raphael
        August 17, 2016, 8:07 pm

        I’m confused. As I recently made Aliyah to Israel… before I moved back to the US. I was required to find a apartment to live in in Israel, as part of the process. The first apartment I found was in Judea and Samaria. I spoke to American Jews that are my friends, and Israelis about this, and none seem to object, as calling them illegal settlers under international law. The only ones that had strong objections, with that legalese wording were the goy side of my family members.

        I did not move into that apartment for safety reasons; I was not looking forward, to after landing, getting into a taxi and going too Judea and Samaria.

        I’m confused about how liberal Zionist are defined as such in Israel. In the US they would simply be called a don’t rock the boat Jew; by any ultra liberal group or individual regardless of religion.

        How can they claim to be for “peace” if they (liberal Zionists) are not pacifists? Or even picked up a book and read about US pacifism?

      • eljay
        August 19, 2016, 11:03 am

        || benedict: … I see that you agree with me that the ultimate result of BDS will be the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state. … ||

        Israel has never had a right to exist as a religion-supremacist “Jewish State”. It is unjust and immoral to maintain it as a religion-supremacist “Jewish State”. It is just and moral to transform it into a secular and democratic Israeli state of and for all of its Israeli citizens, immigrants, expats (including people up to n generations removed from it) and refugees, equally.

        || … As for the seven million refugees, they won’t be “returning” to Israel since … ||

        …Zio-supremacists like you wish to deny them their right.

        || … I am an Israeli. … ||

        You are a Zio-supremacist.

        || … Nevertheless I believe that Israelis and Palestinians can reach a pragmatic solution based on realistic expectations. … ||

        A Zio-supremacist “pragmatic solution” which, like jon s’ Zio-supremacist “peace”:
        – allows Israel to keep as much as possible of what it has stolen; and
        – absolves Israel of as much as possible of its obligations under international law and responsibility and accountability for its past and on-going (war) crimes.

      • talknic
        August 27, 2016, 2:28 am

        “3) Return of Palestinian refugees. Ah, this must be the difficult one. The argument here is, that potential return of about 7 million refugees>”

        The figure has nothing to do with RoR claimed by the Palestinians under UNGA res 194 written in 1948!

        UNRWA (1949) didn’t exist in 1948. The UNRWA definition (1949) cannot possibly apply to UNGA 194 (1948) and;
        the UNRWA definition and Ziospouted figure is only to ascertain who qualifies for assistance while they’re refugees, UNRWA doesn’t have any say in final status http://www.unrwa.org/who-we-are/frequently-asked-questions#final_status

        Dispossessed non-Jewish Israeli citizens and their lineal descendants have Right of Return only to the Israeli territories they left.

        “.. Refugees from Israel- controlled territory amount to approximately 711,000” … Israeli controlled areas, including territories the Israeli Government itself claimed on May 22nd 1948 were “outside the State of Israel” … “in Palestine”.

        By 1950 Israel’s Jewish population was boosted by some 500,000 Arab Jews from the Arab States … there has been a continual influx of Jews into Israel since 1948. There has NOT been any significant influx of non-Jewish Arabs into actual Israeli territories.

        Simple maths tell us Israel’s Jewish population long ago exceeded the non-Jewish population even if those dispossessed non-Jewish Israeli citizens and their lineal descendants were allowed to return.

  3. ritzl
    August 15, 2016, 6:24 pm

    Pappe added that “the responsibility of Israeli Jews is far greater than that of anyone else involved in advancing peace in Israel and Palestine. Israeli Jews are coming to realize this fact, and this is why the number who support pressuring Israel from the outside is growing by the day. It is still a very small group, but it does form the nucleus of the future Israeli peace camp”. – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2016/08/boycott-within-without/#sthash.SYnkXif2.dpuf

    With respect, the nucleus of the Israeli peace camp is the Joint List. It exists, is active, inclusive, and not small (third largest Israeli political bloc).

    The BIG question is whether many/any Jewish-Israelis will join and/or support that movement to achieve the desired result ( i.e. the result they SAY they desire). So far, not so much.

    I don’t get the sense that 99.999% of Jewish-Israelis are all that serious about changing anything. Seems more like a lot of whining about how bad GoI policies make them look in/among “polite” company coupled with an overt acquiescence to “acceptable” intra-Jewish discourse (I.e. if Jewish-Israelis aren’t doing/leading it it’s not real and/or a resounding NIH disposition).

    Was there a mention of the Joint List in this article? If so I apologize for missing it.

    • ritzl
      August 15, 2016, 6:28 pm

      BTW, “with respect” was deeply and sincerely meant.

    • Jonathan Ofir
      August 19, 2016, 10:00 am

      Benedict, you keep speaking of “destruction”, but I’m talking about transformation. Destruction of Jewish State is already being practiced by Israel.

      • MHughes976
        August 19, 2016, 10:28 am

        But would not the transformation that we seek produce something which,,even if Jewish people played a big and honoured part in it, could no longer reasonably be called ‘the Jewish State’? The State that could be so described would no longer exist.

  4. Boomer
    August 15, 2016, 7:32 pm

    Ms. Shafir looks pleased with herself.

    • Marnie
      August 16, 2016, 1:29 am

      As only a racist ideologue can.

    • Kay24
      August 16, 2016, 6:58 am

      It’s that zio smirk, like the cat that ate the canary. I have seen it many times before.

  5. Marnie
    August 16, 2016, 1:18 am

    Coming to a supermarket near you, zionist cheese to go with it’s continual whine –

    “Tnuva, Israel’s biggest food maker, is giving its iconic cottage cheese an American spin and putting it on U.S. supermarket shelves starting this week.

    Sold under the Muuna brand and manufactured in Minneapolis, Tnuva’s best-selling cottage cheese received a year-and-a-half makeover to conform to the American palate. That means, among other things, cottage cheese mixed with strawberry, pineapple, mango and other fruits, as well as a 50-day shelf life.

    “One of the growth engines for Tnuva over the coming years is developing operations overseas side by side with Israel,” CEO Eyal Malis said. “The Muuna brand in the United States, which is based on Tnuva’s strong assets and unique knowledge in making cottage cheese, marks a major milestone in taking the company into new international markets.”

    This kind of stood out for me “That means, among other things, cottage cheese mixed with strawberry, pineapple, mango and other fruits, as well as a 50-day shelf life. ”

    What ‘among other things’ besides trying to make zionist palatable, sweet and creamy with a long shelf life. I have warned my family, they’ll not be buying this either.

    In fact, Tnuva, which was bought by the Chinese company Bright Food last year, has been struggling with sales of its cottage cheese and other dairy products at home. Sales fell 5.4% in the first half of the year – though cottage cheese sales are little changed – and the company has been slashing prices 40% and 50% to entice shoppers.

    Tnuva’s status as the No. 1 cottage cheese in a country where it’s consumed in vast quantities is both an asset and a burden. When the company raised the price of its cottage cheese in the spring of 2011, it set off a Facebook protest that morphed into a summer of giant rallies and tent cities protesting the high cost of living, forcing the government to appoint a reform commission.

    In America, cottage cheese doesn’t have the same status. Sales of the category run about $1.2 billion annually – the market is split equally between national, local and private label brands – with Kraft as the market leader. Only about half of U.S. households regularly buy cottage cheese at all.” Full article at :
    Israel’s Tnuva Takes Its Cottage Cheese to the U.S. – Business – Haaretz
    http://www.haaretz.com › Israel News › Business

    “Only about half of u.s. households regularly buy cottage cheese at all.” Good. Have warned my relatives in the u.s. about this brand which, among other products, they won’t purchase these either.

    • John O
      August 16, 2016, 8:57 am

      Wot! No cherry tomatoes?

    • oldgeezer
      August 16, 2016, 6:53 pm

      Owned by a chinese company and product made in the US. Not sure it’s Israeli at all.

      I won’t boycott but only because i never buy cottage cheese.

      • Marnie
        August 17, 2016, 6:21 am

        @old geezer

        ‘Owned by a chinese company and product made in the US. Not sure it’s israeli at all’. How come. They took, per their FAQ, a couple years to get it just right (meaning to confuse the source?). Anyway, g of protein is great, the 11 g of sugar ain’t and all the creamy richness of the cheese doesn’t change the fact it was cut by a zionist supremacist colonialist borderless ‘state’.

  6. nada
    August 16, 2016, 9:50 am

    Thank you, Jonathan.

    The population of Israel is just over eight million, not 80 million, of whom 20% are not Jewish.

    As to “destroying Israel,” let me repost this:

    http://mondoweiss.net/2016/04/the-end-of-apartheid-in-israel-will-not-destroy-the-county-it-can-only-improve-it/

    • Mooser
      August 16, 2016, 1:36 pm

      “The population of Israel is just over eight million, not 80 million, of whom 20% are not Jewish.”

      SAY WHAT? There only about 6 million Jews in Israel??? “nada” are you kidding me, or just trying to keep Israel vast population resources under wraps? Oh, but they are all fighting age males in superb training, so that’s no problem.
      Right?

      But wait a minute, if there aren’t 30 million Jewish settlers how many are there in land outside the lines? Please don’t try to tell me it’s only a couple hundred thousand people, that’s BS. Doesn’t make any sense at all.

      • Raphael
        August 16, 2016, 7:12 pm

        Did you include the gray area of Jews in that statistic; the “other” non-Jewish Jews, as the Israelis call them?

        I’m assuming the American Jews don’t even include them in a statistic, to not offend almighty nation of Israel, and the American Jewish communities idol mediator (secular god) of Israel, AIPAC.

    • Jonathan Ofir
      August 19, 2016, 9:56 am

      Very good article Nada

  7. Raphael
    August 16, 2016, 10:59 am

    It seems to me that the Boycott movement does not have much chance of success with the of the majority of the Jewish community.

    I’m opposed to the Boycott movement; because I’m a Israeli American. I say this as a half Jew; with no dog in the fight. As, being part Jewish, German, Irish and possibly French; though mostly Jewish. After long consideration of both sides of the conflict, I have concluded that the Israelis are generally right, and the Arabs have no reason to even debate the issue.

    Perhaps, if they did not even debate the issue; the Israelite community would de less defensive, and more open to peace talks, with a genuine long lasting end to the conflict.

    I moved from Israel; because I was a Christian Jew; so I basically had no civil rights, because I’m in that category of “other”, and having a non Jewish mother was another reason I had no civil rights; with regard to the who is a Jew debates.

    But, I have even less rights with the Arabs or Muslims whom consider me a 100% Jew and a Zionist. I’m a Zionist but for completely different reasons then most Jews, Israelis or Arabs have ever considered; and, because of this, my form of Zionism is in the minority.

    I interviewed Arabs, Muslims, Jews, Israeli Jews, Israeli Arabs. And it seems to me that Israelis should, also have Judea and Samaria, as a part of their country.

    And, then allow the vast worldwide people that are Zionists or “others” in the gray zone of Jewish(Jewish but not Jewish) in the who is a Jew question, to live in Judea an d Samaria as Israelis. And, because they are not in the category of the Israeli firsters, or the socialist, or atheistic eugenic Jewish race firsters;they should have full rights to live in Judea, and Samaria.

    The Arabs have no rights being there historically. I as a citizen of Israel have more rights then they do; and, because the Arabs are in a state of war with Israeli Americans like me; they should be given limited rights to a nation within a nation (Israel)..they would have full sovereignty, in the land that is leased to them in Judea and Samaria by Israel; but they could only vote for leaders in their own local community, or nation within a nation, but would have no voting rights in Israeli elections.

    The Israelis and generally most Israeli Americans have to say Ein Breira (There is no alternative)…but American Jews have a alternative; they can argue for a two state solution.amd rights for Arabs regarding the settlements; but most Israelis including myself; know that it a political formula domed to fail.

    • eljay
      August 16, 2016, 11:12 am

      || Raphael: It seems to me that the Boycott movement does not have much chance of success with the of the majority of the Jewish community. … ||

      No surprise there seeing as how – according to Zio-supremacists, anyway – the majority of Jews support Jewish supremacism in/and a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” in as much as possible of Palestine.

      || … I’m a Zionist but for completely different reasons … it seems to me that Israelis should, also have Judea and Samaria, as a part of their country. And, then allow the vast worldwide people that are Zionists or “others” in the gray zone of Jewish(Jewish but not Jewish) in the who is a Jew question, to live in Judea an d Samaria as Israelis. … The Arabs have no rights being there historically. … ||

      You seem to be a Zio-supremacist for the same hateful and immoral reasons every other Zio-supremacist is a Zio-supremacist.

    • Mr.T
      August 16, 2016, 11:43 am

      That’s some evil, twisted, backwards nonsense you’ve spouted. It’s shameful that you’re permitted to claim to be an American.

    • oldgeezer
      August 16, 2016, 11:46 am

      @raphael

      An Israeli thinks Israelis are right and that Arabs have no claim but suggests he has no dog in the fight.

      As an Israeli you clearly do have a stake. Why the pretense of objectivity as the false claim clearly destroys any validity of the rest of your verbal dung heap?

    • Annie Robbins
      August 16, 2016, 1:20 pm

      I moved from Israel; because I was a Christian Jew; so I basically had no civil rights

      why do you keep repeating yourself, you’ve told us this before numerous times? do you really think anyone here is that interested in your personal story over and over again. all your posts seem autobiographical. and where do you come up w/this absurd use of the semicolon? google it and learn how to use it once and for all.

      • eljay
        August 16, 2016, 1:44 pm

        || Annie Robbins: … and where do you come up w/this absurd use of the semicolon? google it and learn how to use it once and for all. ||

        Maybe he’s hoping to make RoHa’s head explode… ;-)

      • DaBakr
        August 18, 2016, 11:37 am

        @a
        Proper use of the semicolon. Punctuation 101. This is one of the reasons I enjoy posting here. Insistence on proper grammar usage from a mod is a sign of diligence and self respect. Tnx

    • Mooser
      August 16, 2016, 1:48 pm

      “The Arabs have no rights being there historically. I as a citizen of Israel have more rights then they do “

      Yes, “Raphael” we know you feel that way. Please remember us when they make you the new King David.

      So basically, you are an American with a dual passport, (not to mention your several personalities) ready to push Israel over the edge for your own amusement, and then split.

    • Mooser
      August 16, 2016, 1:56 pm

      “It seems to me that the Boycott movement does not have much chance of success with the of the majority of the Jewish community. “

      Okay, so that’s about 200 million people against it.
      What about the rest of the world?

      • Raphael
        August 16, 2016, 8:07 pm

        What about the rest of the world?

        I think most of the world could care less. The rest of the people that are employed by the media, and all of the media industry world cares.. and the people that watch it (the TV) then get into scapegoat mechanism mode, until they run out of enemies in their dull lives; then they turn on the TV again to find another enemy.

        In other words, If there was no such technology as a TV, etc., the world would not care; they would not see violence to rally around.

    • RoHa
      August 16, 2016, 11:56 pm

      Yep. You’re a loony.

      “The Arabs have no rights being there historically.”

      So being born there, of ancestors who were born there for many generations, gives no rights?

      How then, do Jews have any rights there? They base their claim on ancestry.

    • Citizen
      August 17, 2016, 6:23 am

      @ Raphael

      Your tossing of brand names around reminds me of a NASCAR driver in full sport attire.
      Israeli American
      Half Jew
      Christian Jew
      (Non-Jewish Mother)
      Zionist
      Jewish But Not Jewish
      Israeli
      Israeli American

      Creed, what creed? The creed is in the deed. You voted with your feet, you raced out of Israeli-controlled land to live in the USA. From this vantage point you have “concluded that the Israelis are generally right, and the Arabs have no reason to even debate the issue.”

      Crystal clear logic, all of that. Utterly convincing. So my question is only a minor one, one barely eligible to mention, accept on an arguably practical midget matter: What should all Palestinians do with all those antique keys to their front doors? Pile them in a heap, melt them down like you did all the Arabs into one heap, or sell them to a scrap dealer to be crushed together? Put them in a storage cabinet somewhere, like you did your mother’s side of your family?

      Tell us. Thanks.

      • Mooser
        August 17, 2016, 11:53 am

        “Your tossing of brand names around reminds me of a NASCAR driver in full sport attire.”

        And he didn’t miss a trick! My favorite is “Raphael’s” reference to his mother as My mother, the ideal shikse goy…

        And yes, well over 10% of his comments refer to his “non-Jewish mother”. He seems to think having a non-Jewish mother and an American passport makes him one of the oppressed in Israel, and able to speak for Palest… I mean “Arabs”! Sure, I buy that!

        And he needs a good, long, semi-colonoscopy.

        He’s using punctuation to create pilpul.

        “and having a non Jewish mother was another reason I had no civil rights ; with regard to the who is a Jew debates. “

        Perhaps the semi-colon functions as the sphincter in that sentence?

      • MHughes976
        August 18, 2016, 10:35 am

        The Palestinians, who had been promised – hypocritically promised, but promised – their full rights under the dynasty of documents descended from Balfour, considered that they should not be forced, any more than any population should or normally is, to accept the immigration of people born elsewhere and not speaking their language in a way completely uncontrolled by them. They had in this respect a normal morality. There was nothing particularly warlike about them: they were not used to war or trained for it.
        What we have here is further Nakba justification in unbalanced style. Where are our rules?

    • Amy1
      August 17, 2016, 2:13 pm

      you have come to the conclusion that Israelis are generally right? you’re saying that being an Israeli yourself which makes it less credible yet how have you reached this conclusion might I ask? Arabs have no reason to even debate the issue? Why because they are not Jewish? You’re basically saying that Israeli supremacy is legitimate primarily based on their ethnic make up but Arabs have no claim to any piece of Palestine even though they have lived there for hundreds or even thousands of years. If that’s the premise on which you approach this issue then there is no way your impartial. The Arabs have been in a perpetual state of war against Israeli Americans like you? It’s not perpetual it started when their land was occupied illegally and please don’t expect Palestinians or any victim of genocide to admire you after you whitewash their entire history and legitimize their murders by claiming they are somehow programmed to be anti Israel and poor Israel is helpless enough to incinerate kids even though it breaks the heart of every Israeli. Your defending Israel’s treatment of Palestinians as third class and advocating how their rights should be limited to those enjoyed by Israelis simply because your bigoted enough to believe they don’t deserve the same rights as Israelis do. That particular mindset is to be blamed.

      • Raphael
        August 17, 2016, 7:06 pm

        how have you reached this conclusion might I ask?

        The Arabs were living in Judea and Samaria when the Israelites starting moving back mostly after the second war, granted, But, The Arabs were and are a warlike tribe; that would not even consider a debate with the Israelites in the past and even in the present in a democratic humane manner; and they were and are not friendly neighbors; they are warlike and brutal, and, did not, and do not seek to live with their neighbors in peace; so the Israelis were and are justified in the self defense of their land.

        The Arabs even until this present day refuse to even acknowledge that Israel exists, because, the Arabs are at war with them.

        I’m not even a Jew, I’m a non Jewish Jew; that became a Israeli, so I’m a second class citizen of the Middle East… one class above a Arab that is third class citizen, or resident.

        I say it in all sincerity; that if the Arabs want a genuine peace; they should begin by stopping to use insane tactics, magical attempts to subvert language, debates, in pseudo debates or pseudo negotiations by using the media (war propaganda) to attempt to influence world opinion.

        After all is said… it is not the UN, or the US, or the Arab States, or American Jews that the Arabs in Judea and Samaria will have to negotiate a deal with… it is with Israel.

        The country of Israel, and the Arabs of Judea and Samara could live in peace with one another; but why not simply live in peace with one another, by having a nation within a nation,the nation of Israel first?

        Then look at creative ways rather then destructive ways to communicate with each other day to day.

      • talknic
        August 18, 2016, 4:44 am

        @ Raphael August 17, 2016, 7:06 pm

        “… The Arabs were and are a warlike tribe…”

        So were the French when their country was invaded. Can you name anyone who wasn’t warlike when invaded?

        “they are warlike and brutal, and, did not, and do not seek to live with their neighbors in peace”

        Strange, when Israel withdrew from Egyptian territories as required under UNSC res 242, peaceful relations were assumed. Ditto Jordan. While Israel occupies other folks territories, it is at war.

        “so the Israelis were and are justified in the self defense of their land”

        Israelis are entitled to Israeli territory and defense of that territory as it was proclaimed and recognized by the majority of the International comity of Nations and International Law & conventions per the UN. http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf

        Israelis, be they Jewish or non-Jewish, are NOT entitled to settle in non Israeli territories held under military occupation and thus far, Israel has not legally annexed ANY of the territories it has acquired by war since proclaiming its borders effective at 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) http://wp.me/pDB7k-Xk

        “The Arabs even until this present day refuse to even acknowledge that Israel exists … “

        So what? Recognition of statehood is not mandatory. ” ..in the view of the United States, International Law does not require a state to recognize another state; it is a matter for the judgment of each state whether an entity merits recognition as a state. In reaching this judgment, the United States has traditionally looked for the establishment of certain facts. The United States has also taken into account whether the entity in question has attracted the recognition of the International community of states.”. There are UN Member states who do not recognize each other, yet the UN has accepted them as members.

        States are all required however to have respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force” something Israel has failed to do, having attacked all its neighbours’ territories and started every one of its wars including 1966 -67 . http://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/UNISPAL.NSF/0/AF3BF4FC576922B60525672E0050BEA5

        NO ONE HAS EVER INVADED ANY ISRAELI TERRITORY (ooops my caps were on … oh well too late now, may as well bold as well) ALL OF ISRAEL’S WARS HAVE BEEN FOUGHT IN NON-ISRAELI TERRITORIES, I.E., IN TERRITORIES THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT ACKNOWLEDGED ON MAY 22ND 1948 AS BEING “outside the State of Israel” … “in Palestine”

        “… because, the Arabs are at war with them …”

        You have conveniently omitted because Israel occupies non-Israeli territories and has done so for over 68 years http://wp.me/pDB7k-Xk

        “I’m not even a Jew, I’m a non Jewish Jew; that became a Israeli, so I’m a second class citizen of the Middle East… one class above a Arab that is third class citizen, or resident”

        Irrelevant. BTW if you’re not Jewish by birth or religion or conversion, you’re not even a non-Jewish Jew

        “I say it in all sincerity … … blah blah “

        LOL Your wading around in Ziopoop is hilarious stuff

        “After all is said… it is not the UN, or the US, or the Arab States, or American Jews that the Arabs in Judea and Samaria will have to negotiate a deal with… it is with Israel.”

        There’s no legal requirement what so ever to negotiate with an Occupying Power except on how and when the Occupying Power will withdraw. See the Egypt/Israel Peace Treaty, which is based on UNSC res 242 which doesn’t even contain the word ‘negotiate’!

        “why not simply live in peace with one another, by having a nation within a nation”

        There was. Palestine, a Nation State under the LoN Mandate for Palestine Article 7

        “the nation of Israel first?”

        Why? Palestine was there for the major part of 2,000 years from at least the Roman era , far far longer than any Jewish state existed. http://wp.me/pDB7k-GO In fact, Jewish history in the region has been for the major part, as Palestinian Jews

        “Then look at creative ways rather then destructive ways to communicate with each other day to day.”

        How about Israel creatively for once F*CK OFF (ooops caps again) from all non-Israeli territories it covets and has illegally acquired by war over the past 68 years

        There is not a single argument you can put forward that will ever justify Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians

      • Kay24
        August 18, 2016, 7:31 am

        “The Arabs even until this present day refuse to even acknowledge that Israel exists, because, the Arabs are at war with them”

        Is it that hard to fathom out that occupied people, whose lands are being stolen on a daily basis, will find it hard to “acknowledge” that their occupier exists? Who the heck in their right mind will want to acknowledge and pay honor to those who are constantly mowing the lawn and killing entire families? Get real.

      • straightline
        August 18, 2016, 8:11 am

        The entire comment of Raphael is based on misconceptions. People of Palestine would not, unlike Zionists, have regarded themselves as belonging to a tribe. Palestine was a multicultural but cohesive society arising from its rich history, and including not only Muslims, but Jews, Druze, Christians. and other groups. Here is a quote from Middle East Reality Check (MERC) today that paints a very different view than Raphael’s of pre-Zionist Palestine and the threat the Palestinians saw from the Zionists. They were not wrong to be afraid.

        http://middleeastrealitycheck.blogspot.com.au/

        “The Zionist objectives, both immediate and distant, were… well-known to the Arabs in Palestine and the neighbouring countries. In the spring of 1914 a Russian member of the Zionist Executive, Nahum Sokolow, complained in an interview with the Palestine correspondent of the Cairo newspaper al-Muqattam that the Palestinian and Syrian Arab hostility to Zionism was unjustified. The Arabs and the Jews were two branches of the Semitic tree; they co-operated in the fields of science and learning especially in Spain and contributed together to the European renaissance; the Jews were returning to their ancient homeland from which they were expelled by the Romans and the Crusaders; they bring with them the means of developing the country; they wish to come close to Arab civilisation and cooperate with the Arabs for the creation of a new Palestinian civilisation; they wish to revive their Hebrew language and establish their own schools in which the Arabic language and history would be taught.

        “Sokolow was tackled by Rafiq al-Azm, the well-known Syrian historical writer and member of the Decentralisation Party. He agreed that as two Semitic cousins the Arabs and Jews ought to cooperate in reviving the glory of the Semitic civilisation, that Palestine with the rest of Syria required development, and that Jewish immigrants, coming from a more civilised environment, possessed skills that could be employed for the benefit of the country. But he regretted to see no evidence in Palestine that Jewish immigrants wished to unite with the Arabs in an effort to raise the standards of all its inhabitants, or that they wished to come close to the Arabs in any way. In fact they lived in complete isolation: they speak only their own languages; their children attend only their own schools; all their business is with Jewish firms; they organise a separate economy and they ignore local government and its laws; and above all they stubbornly refuse to abandon their foreign nationality and adopt the Ottoman.

        “They must not be surprised if for these reasons the Arabs regard them as an alien people, and a foreign element interjected into their society. And this is the root cause of Arab apprehension regarding their economic and political future. For the present they feared and suffered from the competition of immigrants coming from more civilised environments. For the future they saw the political implications and feared for the eventual loss of their homeland.

        “Sokolow’s words were belied by these facts. If the Jews continued to lead a separate life in Palestine and to labour only for their own benefit, they must expect Arab hostility. ‘To-day’, the writer warns, ‘the Syrian public opinion is unanimous in opposing Zionism.’ The opposition in Palestine itself was led by young and educated men. News had just been received in Cairo that they sent telegrams of protest to Constantinople pointing out the dangers of Zionism and criticising the conduct of the Zionists in Palestine.

        “It is clear that the writer had contact with unnamed Zionist leaders. ‘We advised them’, he writes, ‘to cooperate with the Arabs for the benefit of a common homeland as native Syrians, not as foreigners waiting for an opportunity to take it for themselves…’ He states that among the measures he recommended was not only the teaching of Arabic in Jewish schools but their opening to Arab children so that Arab and Jew could learn to live together. He also recommended that the Jews should share with the Arabs their business and mix with them socially. They should help the less experienced Arabs to learn modern methods. Above all he recommended the adoption of Ottoman nationality. But, he concludes, all that advice fell on deaf ears.” (A.L. Tibawi: Anglo-Arab Relations & the Question of Palestine 1914-1921, 1978, pp 21-22)

      • eljay
        August 18, 2016, 8:13 am

        || Raphael: … The Arabs were and are a warlike tribe … ||

        The same could be said about the “Jewish tribe”, which…
        – in the distant past committed numerous (countless?) acts of mass murder and genocide;
        – in the more recent past committed numerous (war) crimes including terrorism, ethnic cleansing, torture and murder; and
        – to this day continues belligerently and with impunity to commit (war) crimes.

        || … why not simply live in peace with one another, by having a nation within a nation,the nation of Israel first? ||

        Why not simply live in peace with one another in geographic Palestine by having a nation within a nation – the nation of Palestine first?

      • Jon66
        August 18, 2016, 9:10 am

        Talk if,
        “Strange, when Israel withdrew from Egyptian territories as required under UNSC res 242, peaceful relations were assumed. Ditto Jordan. While Israel occupies other folks territories, it is at war. – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/recent-comments/#sthash.Ziz4PBOF.dpuf

        You are reversing the order of events. Israel and Egypt first negotiated the terms of withdrawal and peace, e.g.,Egyptian military forces in the Sinai, and then came Israeli withdrawal. Unilateral Israeli withdrawal did not occur.

        Similarly with Jordan, “The Jordan-Israel Peace Treaty was signed on October 26, 1994, at the southern border crossing of Wadi ‘Araba. The treaty guaranteed Jordan the restoration of its occupied land (approximately 380 square kilometers), as well as an equitable share of water from the Yarmouk and Jordan rivers. Moreover, the treaty defined Jordan’s western borders clearly and conclusively for the first time, putting an end to the dangerous and false Zionist claim that “Jordan is Palestine.” AFTER the treaty was signed Israel withdrew.

      • Raphael
        August 18, 2016, 9:37 am

        states are all required however to have “respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force”

        That is what I meant; they do not even respect basic sovereign rights of individual Israelis; or rights as a nation state, home for the Jewish people. They close off of all discussion for peace, because they are at war.

      • eljay
        August 18, 2016, 10:12 am

        || Raphael: … That is what I meant; they do not even respect basic sovereign rights of individual Israelis; or rights as a nation state, home for the Jewish people. They close off of all discussion for peace, because they are at war. ||

        Yup, the victims in the rapist’s basement do not respect the basic sovereign right of the rapist to exist as a rapist, to kidnap women, to chain them in his basement and to self-determine himself in them. They close off all discussion for peace, because they are at war.

      • echinococcus
        August 18, 2016, 2:25 pm

        “Raphael”(?)

        The Arabs even until this present day refuse to even acknowledge that Israel exists

        I can understand that Weiss keeps this pack of ankle-biting, yapping doggies for a reason (even though –or perhaps because– their diversion make interesting discussions very hard.) But here we are reaching a new height of dishonest propaganda.

        Not recognizing is not, as your propaganda says, refusing to acknowledge existence, dummy. It means that state is considered illegitimate. Which it is, many times over.

      • talknic
        August 18, 2016, 9:48 pm

        @ Jon66 August 18, 2016, 9:10 am

        “You are reversing the order of events”

        Very funny.

        ” Israel and Egypt first negotiated the terms of withdrawal and peace”

        Precisely, between Egypt and Israel. The peace treaty was not between Israel and Palestine. There was no negotiation over their respective borders because Egypt’s borders were defined long long before Israel proclaimed its own

        “Unilateral Israeli withdrawal did not occur.”

        Only one state held territory of the other A) No Israeli territory was held by Egypt. B) Read the actual Peace Treaty

        Article I

        1. The state of war between the Parties will be terminated and peace will be established between them upon the exchange of instruments of ratification of this Treaty.

        2. Israel will withdraw all its armed forces and civilians from the Sinai behind the international boundary between Egypt and mandated Palestine, as provided in the annexed protocol (Annex I), and Egypt will resume the exercise of its full sovereignty over the Sinai.

        3. Upon completion of the interim withdrawal provided for in Annex I, the parties will establish normal and friendly relations, in accordance with Article III (3).

        Article II

        The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel in the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II, without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip … http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/peace/guide/pages/israel-egypt%20peace%20treaty.aspx

        “Similarly with Jordan … Moreover, the treaty defined Jordan’s western borders clearly and conclusively for the first time”

        More bullsh&t! Jordanian borders were defined by 1946, before Israel proclaimed its borders May 15th 1948 in its plea for recognition

        “AFTER the treaty was signed Israel withdrew”

        WOW!! Ya don’t say! That’s amazing!

      • talknic
        August 18, 2016, 10:07 pm

        @ Raphael August 18, 2016, 9:37 am

        states are all required however to have “respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force”

        “That is what I meant”

        You’re babbling!

        ” … they do not even respect basic sovereign rights of individual Israelis; or rights as a nation state, home for the Jewish people.”

        Strange. Israel started ALL its wars which have ALL been fought in and over non-Israeli territories.

        Jewish forces under Plan Dalet were already in non-Israeli territories the day Israel’s borders were proclaimed. No Israeli territories were invaded nor have any Israeli territories been occupied. http://wp.me/pDB7k-Xk

        Where Israel has withdrawn from non-Israeli territories there are Peace Treaties. Egypt and Jordan.

        “They close off of all discussion for peace, because they are at war”

        The Occupying Power is first required to agree to and then withdraw.

      • Jon66
        August 18, 2016, 10:51 pm

        Talknic,
        “Moreover, the treaty defined Jordan’s western borders clearly and conclusively for the first time, putting an end to the dangerous and false Zionist claim that “Jordan is Palestine.”

        I forgot. The source for this BS as you call it is the Jordanian govt.
        http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/peacetreaty.html

        “Strange, when Israel withdrew from Egyptian territories as required under UNSC res 242, peaceful relations were assumed. – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2016/08/boycott-within-without/#comment-171347
        No. Relations were resumed upon completion of the interim, that is partial, withdrawal. Complete withdrawal of Israeli forces was not required to begin normal and friendly relations.

        Israel and Palestine should begin talks and after agreeing upon peace terms, including any territorial withdrawal, peace should be established as it was with both Egypt and Jordan.

      • talknic
        August 19, 2016, 1:53 pm

        @ Jon66 August 18, 2016, 10:51 pm

        “I forgot. The source for this BS as you call it is the Jordanian govt.
        link to kinghussein.gov.jo “

        Interesting, however it’s only the opinion of an un-named author. Only the Peace Treaty text is the peace treaty. What was said before and or after is not the peace treaty and doesn’t change the text of the Peace Treaty.

        Read the relative annex referencing the borders on http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/peacetreaty.html [ http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/peacetreaty.html ]

        “Strange, when Israel withdrew from Egyptian territories as required under UNSC res 242, peaceful relations were assumed”

        ”No. Relations were resumed upon completion of the interim, that is partial, withdrawal”

        Indeed. Interim was part of Israel withdrawing from Egyptian territories per UNSC res 242, as mentioned in the Peace Treaty. If Israel did not execute and complete the interim withdrawal … go figure

        “Complete withdrawal of Israeli forces was not required to begin normal and friendly relations”

        Correct. I didn’t say complete or all

        “Israel and Palestine should begin talks and after agreeing upon peace terms, including any territorial withdrawal, peace should be established as it was with both Egypt and Jordan”

        Catch up pal. They did that at Oslo. Israel continued the occupation, continued lusting after non-Israeli territories, continued assisting Israeli Jewish civilians to illegally settle in harms way in Occupied Territories

        Empty your mind of Ziopuke, then read the Egypt/Israeli Peace Treaty … carefully

        Article 3 – International Boundary
        1. The international boundary between Jordan and Israel is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I (a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and coordinates specified therein.
        2. The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognized international boundary between Jordan and Israel, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967

      • Jon66
        August 19, 2016, 8:50 pm

        Talknic,

        “Where Israel has withdrawn from non-Israeli territories there are Peace Treaties. Egypt and Jordan.

        – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2016/08/boycott-within-without/#comment-171347

        I think it should be, Where there are peace treaties, Israel has withdrawn. Once again it is the peace treaties that come first. I’m not sure that we disagree on this.

      • talknic
        August 20, 2016, 6:39 am

        @ Jon66

        “I think it should be, Where there are peace treaties, Israel has withdrawn”

        No interim withdrawal, no peace.

        The treaty demands action without which the words are ineffective

  8. Raphael
    August 16, 2016, 1:29 pm

    Clinton herself has been a supporter of such interventions,

    Politicians lie.

    A majority of US citizens have no concern for Middle East politics. It has been ingrained in the American psyche, that America is the light on top of the hill; and that the world revolves around them.

    They then watch the news; and repeat whatever slogan is seen on the news. It is a age of the destruction of language in which no “reflection” is done by individuals.

    It is not even professional news reporting… it is of a tabloid quality. The media, and politicians like the conflict of the Middle East and all conflicts, because the more violence there is in the world… the more viewers the media has, and the more the stock goes up. Man and mankind has become a thing, a cog in the machine.

    • Annie Robbins
      August 16, 2016, 6:25 pm

      no source at all, what’s up w/that mcohen. and why do you think they skipped the source, not even mentioning an anonymous source? and if it was true why don’t you think the information was revealed in the US since it is allegedly happening on US campuses. i wouldn’t concern myself with such a flimsy “report”.

    • oldgeezer
      August 16, 2016, 6:48 pm

      @mcohen

      If true it is a concern. It likely isn’t true however and it’s more projection from racist zionists who operate (support or don’t object to) the canary mission

      Zionism a blight. If there is a sleazy tactic in use you van be sure they pioneered it.

    • RoHa
      August 17, 2016, 2:28 am

      From the TOI article: “She also said it had become almost impossible for speakers like herself to address students on campus in the United States without enduring protests and worse. ”

      Does she expect to address a campus audience on a controversial topic without protests? Protests are (or should be) par for the course. If there are no protests, it means that she is a total nobody, and saying nothing worthy of attention. In that case, she might just as well be a university lecturer.

      And worse? If you are not prepared to take a few old tomatoes, you shouldn’t be in the public speaking racket.

  9. mcohen.
    August 16, 2016, 8:54 pm

    old geezer

    what comment what list.who is canary in the coal mine.

    where is annie robbins when you need her…..
    clarification is needed

    is it comet or comment

    by jove

    • Citizen
      August 17, 2016, 6:58 am

      Anti-BDS Canary Mission Blacklist Website Seeks To Ruin Careers, Reputations Of Those Who Support Palestine – http://www.mintpressnews.com/anti-bds-website-seeks-to-ruin-careers-reputations-of-those-who-support-palestine/209741/

      • mcohen.
        August 20, 2016, 5:41 pm

        canary what …thought you were losing your feathers

        by jove

        .all those photo,s of students accused of harassing jews on campus.most have arab sounding names.is this a deliberate attempt to drive jewish students away from universities.is this what mondoweiss supports

        mondoweiss is listed.does that mean that this site is anti semitic or anti zionist or both.

      • Mooser
        August 20, 2016, 6:04 pm

        “mcohen” when you drop all the tumescent ellipses and the maudlin mysticism and try to write a coherent sentence or two the result is very sad,

      • oldgeezer
        August 20, 2016, 7:28 pm

        @mcohen

        Change the topic why don’t you.

        Why is it of concern when jvp is accused of listing students yet all of a sudden not a concern when zionists do it? Not only not a concern but you need a new topic!

        Have the lazlst reply…. if you really must know canary is just another zionist scum propaganda outfit.

  10. JLewisDickerson
    August 16, 2016, 11:23 pm

    RE: Saban, who is one of Hillary Clinton’s leading supporters, has me anwhile left the venture, but we should not be in doubt that fighting BDS is a main cause for him: “I know you agree that we need to make countering BDS a priority”, Clinton wrote to Saban last year, a stance she reaffirmed in an article, saying: “I also will combat growing efforts to isolate Israel internationally and to undermine its future as a Jewish state, including the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. I’ve spoken out against BDS in the United States and at the U.N., and will continue to do so.” ~ Jonathan Ofir

    MY SNARKCASM: Hillary Clinton is fightin’ fer us little people, y’all. She’s fight’n fer you and me!
    Fightin’ fer us!
    Fightin’ fer us!
    Fightin’ fer us!
    Really. I’m serious y’all. You can take that to the bank. Or stuff it in your mattress.
    Oops, I shouldn’t’ve said that. Now I’ll have to find a new hiding place.

    • JLewisDickerson
      August 16, 2016, 11:47 pm

      P.S.
      ■ Hillary “Annie Oakley” Clinton, Queen of the Wild Frontier!
      She’s a good old gal.
      She don’t ride side-saddle, y’all.
      “She’s Fightin’ Fer Us!”
      Take her word for it.

      • inbound39
        August 17, 2016, 8:12 am

        Love it! Love it! Love it Mr JLewisDickerson..y’all come back an’ see us now ! y’hear!

  11. mcohen.
    August 20, 2016, 11:20 pm

    mooser says ……..sad

    no mooser you should never take yourself too seriously.
    especially if you are not in the game.just a sideliner.
    what is sad though is you seem to have run out of jokes.

    tell us a joke.cmon.say something funny about all those bad israelites;and no yiddishjust plain english

    mooser.can i offer you a farmer’s prophecy.

  12. mcohen.
    August 21, 2016, 12:07 am

    seriously mooser

    what are your expectations.that israeli,s give it all back.that judaism repudiates the concept of a holy land.do we wipe away the history.the sacrifices that jews have made.
    in this day and age do we dare to call it all bogus.not only judaism but then christianity and islam too.
    israel came about because people believed…..not only jews but christians as well.does the loss of faith in western society spell the end of the biblical belief in the rebirth of israel.
    what is the point of belonging to the jewish relegion without israel.

    • echinococcus
      August 21, 2016, 11:47 am

      McCohen,

      Truly incorrigible: do you really have to insist in clamoring to the four winds that of all superstitions, you believe that Judaism requires legions and re-legions? It’s not entirely correct, by the way: didn’t you ever hear about the Church Militant or the Sword of Islam?

      • mcohen.
        August 22, 2016, 1:05 am

        absolutely

Leave a Reply