‘Tis the season, to boycott!

Activism
on 249 Comments

One of the accusations most frequently lobbed at BDS activists (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against Israel) is that “boycotts are divisive.” Apparently, they drive a wedge in society, pitting community members against each other.  Our response has consistently been that the division is already there, between those who support justice and equal rights for all, and the Zionists, who advocate ethno-religious supremacy and the disenfranchisement of the Palestinian people.  And since our country, our government, our tax dollars, support Zionism, we are inevitably involved in the oppression.  In other words, there is no “default” position of neutrality, which BDS “threatens.”  The polarity already exists, it is only being brought into prominence by boycotts, which allow people to act upon their conscience.  By default–meaning by not engaging in BDS–we are siding with the oppressor, whereas the targeted boycott of Israeli products, and of companies that benefit from Israel’s violations of the human rights of the Palestinian people, allows us to switch sides, so as to be on the side of justice.

Today, as the US is fast becoming more openly polarized around various political developments not directly related to Palestine justice, we are seeing a number of calls for boycotts and divestment, and a national embrace of boycotts by both conservative and progressive groups.  Again, boycotts are not polarizing the people engaging in them; rather these are groups and individuals with strong opinions about certain issues, who find boycotts to be a useful tool in their rejection of what they consider unethical, unjust, unacceptable.

Thus we see that the “Water Protectors,” the opponents of the North Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) are calling for divestment from banks that fund the DAPL  (a call known on social media as #bankexit) and people around the nation are withdrawing their money from these banks, and placing them in credit unions, or smaller banks, not involved in financing the DAPL.  The divestment itself is not viewed as “divisive.” Rather it is the action of people who understand that their money would otherwise support the side they oppose, on an issue they feel very strongly about.  The struggle between the DAPL and the Standing Rock Sioux Nation would exist anyway, it is not the call for taking out one’s money from certain banks that somehow caused the confrontation.

One  #bankexit national call to action reads:  “Join us for 3 days of divesting on November 30th, December 1st, and December 2nd.  With hundreds of customers closing their accounts in protest of the banks funding DAPL, and public demonstrations of community strength, the message to the banks will be loud and clear:  if you continue to invest in the DAPL project, your customers will choose another bank!”

That call clearly articulates the impetus behind the calls for divestment put out by BDS activists for justice in Palestine:  the community is sending a message to companies that we do not approve of the projects in which they invest our money.

Similarly, many lists have recently started circulating, in the wake of Donald Trump’s election, that call for a boycott of companies that do business with the Trump dynasty—be these Trump’s own capitalist ventures, or his daughter’s fashion line, the latter under the hashtag #grabyourwallet.  The call for boycott is not what divided the nation, rather, it came as a strategy for those who already have strong opinions about the Trump presidency.  Indeed, one boycott call issued as early as June 2016 reads: “If you disagree with Donald Trump and want your voice heard, vote in the presidential election in November and vote with your wallet, every day.”

Progressives are definitely not the only people calling for boycotts.  Various  conservative groups, including the American Family Association (AFA), and the Concerned Women of America, have called for a boycott of Target stores over their LGBTQ-friendly policy, which  “welcome[s] transgender team members and guests to use the restroom or fitting room facility that corresponds with their gender identity.”

The AFA drafted a petition saying, it “means a man can simply ‘say he feels like a woman’ and enter the women’s restroom even if young girls or women are already in there … (this) is exactly how sexual predators get access to their victims.”

Concerned Women of America wrote: “At Concerned Women for America (CWA), we know we can’t just vote with a ballot, we must also vote with our wallets. Our hope is that Target will hear our vote loud and clear this holiday season.”

And, to give just one more recent example, Trump supporters are calling for a boycott of the Broadway show “Hamilton,” after its cast read a statement to Mike Pence, Trump’s elected vice-president, following a performance he attended.

Apparently, ‘tis the season to boycott!

At the same time, there is a flurry of legislation in many US states against boycotts, sponsored by Zionists seeking to delegitimize BDS. The legislation has already been challenged and defeated as anti-constitutional in a few states, notably Maryland and Virginia.  But bills are still being proposed, which will be discussed and voted on when the legislative sessions open again in January.  To challenge such “lawfare,” legal allies such as Palestine Legal, the National Lawyers Guild, and the Center for Constitutional Rights are arguing that boycotts qualify as our First Amendment right to freedom of expression.

A very helpful article in the Harvard Law Review points out that the Supreme Court has long held that boycotts to bring about political, economic, and social change – like boycotts for Palestinian rights – are a form of expression protected by the First Amendment. This was established when the Supreme Court reviewed the case of the NAACP boycott of white-owned businesses to pressure city officials to meet demands for racial equality and integration.  The Court recognized that political boycotts involve a range of expressive activity and rely on the First Amendment freedoms of “speech, assembly, association, and petition.”  Thus when a bill advocates legal repercussions for engaging in boycotts, that bill is infringing on citizens’ First Amendment rights.

Indeed, our rights are coming under attack from various angles.  As Garrett Epps, professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Baltimore, noted on the morning after the 2016 presidential elections: “There is hardly a provision of the Bill of Rights or later amendments [Trump] did not explicitly promise to override, from First Amendment freedom of the press and of religion to Fourth Amendment freedom from ‘unreasonable searches and seizures’ to Sixth Amendment right to counsel to Fourteenth Amendment birthright citizenship and Equal Protection and Fifteenth Amendment voting rights.”

In Washington state, where I live, the Democratic party has issued a strongly-worded statement, expressing extreme concern over the criminalization of public protest and “Washingtonians’ use of the First Amendment.” Of course, it is nothing short of ironic that this is the party of the presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, who repeatedly vowed to fight and delegitimize BDS.

Rather than being divisive, then, will boycotts become the grassroots movements that “unifies” this country, as our constitutional rights come under further attack?  As more people “vote with their wallets,” and grow to better appreciate the accessibility, but also the legality of boycotts, we need to understand that now is the time to deal a blow to challenges against this strategy.

Boycotts are legal, they are protected by our First Amendment right to free speech and freedom of expression, and they can be targeted at department stores with liberal policies, as well as at companies that profit from the violation of human rights and the desecration of indigenous lands, from Standing Rock to Palestine.  We cannot allow Zionists, be they Democrats or Republicans, to abrogate our constitutional rights, so as to further shield Israel from accountability.

About Nada Elia

Nada Elia is a Palestinian scholar-activist, writer, and grassroots organizer, currently completing a book on Palestinian Diaspora activism.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

249 Responses

  1. Talkback
    November 26, 2016, 11:22 am

    Isn’t it called “terrorism”, if a foreign/political entity is deliberately trying to undermine the US constitution, in other words “our freedom”?

  2. Theo
    November 26, 2016, 12:19 pm

    Never judge a person by what he says, but what he does, politicians, oder those who want to be like Trump, say a lot without really considering the consequences! They usually say what the mass of voters want to hear. On the same venue Trump will not do half of what he promised to do.
    Angela Merkel is considered to be the most powerful european politician, a magazin even called her the Empress of Europe. (How painful, it was a US one!)
    During 2003 at the party convention she made a very passionate speech, promising, if she will be elected, to make her party great again. She listed what she will do just to achieve it.
    Consequently she was elected to head her party and during 2005 she was elected to be the kanzlerin, the head of german government.
    Up to now, 11 years later, she did not institute a single change what she promised during 2003, is loved by a majority not only european, but also american politicians, and although she made many mistakes that costed the nation countless billions of euros, it is almost certain that she will be elected again next year, the fourth time!
    What lection can we draw? Simple, democracy is lost on most nations where the majority is ignorant of events and has the herd mentality. It is easier to watch a few brainless TV shows than to dig into important information on how the nation is being managed., who should not be reelected and who should go to jail.

  3. Theo
    November 26, 2016, 12:31 pm

    A word about boykotting or sanctions.
    The US did both to Cuba for 50 years, however never achieved the removal of Castro and his gang, only the people were damned to suffer for a half of century. The same goes for our sanctions against N. Korea, Saddam Hussein, Iran, etc., they just don´t work.
    Castro chased away Batista, also a bloody dictator, and did we at that time acted diplomatically, then Cuba would have never became what it was and still is.
    The same lesson applies to our female citizens, you can catch a lot more flies with honey than with vinegar!

    • nada
      November 26, 2016, 4:05 pm

      Theo, the examples you give, of failed boycotts and sanctions, are examples where the boycotts were applied to people suffering under dictatorships. In such cases, the people are penalized, when they basically have nothing to do with their government’s policies. Boycotts are not a blanket strategy that works everywhere. But they do work when they put pressure on people, to hold them accountable for the political choices they make, such as electing a white supremacist, or a leader who promises apartheid, or genocide (albeit under some other name). And they work when otherwise “powerless” people put pressure on companies or governments whose policies they disapprove of. They are often the agency of the disenfranchised, and history is replete with examples of their power, and their success.

      • Annie Robbins
        November 26, 2016, 4:46 pm

        thanks for the excellent article nada. and the link to harvard law review also.

      • Theo
        November 27, 2016, 1:11 pm

        You may be right, Nada, however you must provide an example of how did sanctions change history, and I do not mean putting pressure on your local drug store not providing your favorit icecream.
        Putin was elected in Russia, also not a dictator, and we decided to sanction that country because of russian policy toward Ukraina, where according to Ms Numan, Ass. Secretary of State, we invested 5 billion dollars to bring them into our camp. In other words we financed the Maidan uprising and those fascist batallions using the swastica as a symbol on their banners. Since the sanctions the popularity of Putin increased to 80%, the nation lines up behind their leader, Russia has new allies with Iran and now Turkey, an old NATO member, and our importance is nosediving in the area. Just another example of sanctions going wrong.
        Just ask, what did Palestine profit from the worldwide BDS movement? De nada, nothing, only a sanction of the US against Israel would change history, because they are 100% dependent on us, however it will never come.
        Do you want changes? Bring a million people demonstrating in Washington for their rights, clog up the city and put pressure on the Congress. Educate the voters, publicise the wrong doings of political parties and their leaders, put your finger into their wounds. It may take time, but it is the only sure way, outside an outright revolution with a lot of blood spilled, what none of us wants.

      • JustJessetr
        November 30, 2016, 5:17 pm

        Theo said: “Just ask, what did Palestine profit from the worldwide BDS movement? De nada, nothing.”

        Funny. No backtalk from Annie and company. But when I say it, oh my God!

      • Annie Robbins
        November 30, 2016, 5:42 pm

        justj, excuse me for missing this comment. first off, it was directed at the author of this article — hence not really my place to respond. but clearly, i think theo is wrong. very wrong. in a few short years bds has completely changed the landscape. look at the awareness, look at the campus activism, look at a global movement that has sprung up, not small or fringe groupings working against all odds. but a movement that has garnered lots of attention. activists from all walks of life are coalescing to pressure israel and demand rights for palestinians. so clearly, i think he is very wrong. and i can’t recall when i last had a conversation with you about it, it’s probably been awhile. but obviously, if bds were not effective you would not have billionaires hosting conferences trying to coordinate how to end it for they could just donate whatever negative financial impact it might be having. and you would not have the israeli government spending a fortune to fight it as well as setting up a ministry to deal with it. it’s very effective. it was less than 3 years ago when the scarlett johansson superbowl affair exploded bds into mainstream. look how far we’ve come.

        of course, what constitutes profit is subjective. but i don’t think palestinians can do this on their own, it will require a global effort and i believe bds has made a big difference. it’s a palestinian movement and not for me to judge how they perceive they are profiting from bds, but surely they think they are or they would call it off.

      • Theo
        December 5, 2016, 12:19 pm

        Annie

        I would like to comment on your comment to Just.
        My question to Nada was what did the palestinian profit from the worldwide BDS. You listed many little things that YOU may consider is benefiting those people, however please ask one of them in the West Bank or in Gaza. I doubt they would agree with you.
        I know you try to justify the work of MW, it is great to be able to discuss the problems in Palestina, however compared to the needed actions we only make waves in a bathtub.

      • Annie Robbins
        December 5, 2016, 12:31 pm

        You listed many little things that YOU may consider is benefiting those people, however please ask one of them in the West Bank or in Gaza. I doubt they would agree with you.

        i don’t have to ask them because they have already spoken.

        https://bdsmovement.net/what-is-bds

        The BDS movement was launched by 170 Palestinian unions, political parties, refugee networks, women’s organisations, professional associations, popular resistance committees and other Palestinian civil society bodies.

        if palestinians in the west bank and gaza didn’t think bds was accomplishing anything, they’d stop. it’s not my position to judge whether this is effective action.

        I know you try to justify the work of MW

        the thought has not crossed my mind. and why would it? we have no need to justify ourselves. we support the Palestinian-led movement for freedom, justice and equality the best we can. why would that be cause for justification? we don’t publish to justify ourselves, we publish to expose israel’s crimes and expedite global consciousness regarding those crimes and a resolution to the present situation.

        evidence suggests that our work in solidarity with activists around the world is effective. the results of the recent brookings poll — something like a 10 pt jump in the last year alone in the US, suggests there’s been a shift in awareness over this issue (and dem voters favor sanctioning israel by 60%, that’s huge). so again, there’s no need to justify anything.

        relatively speaking, we may be the size of a wave in a bathtub, but we’re not alone and we’re not in a bathtub. we’re part of a global movement and cumulatively that wave is strong and powerful.

      • MHughes976
        December 5, 2016, 1:29 pm

        Well, Theo, I think that Mondoweiss has played a leading role in an extraordinary achievement, that of transforming the pro-Palestinian movement in the West from being negligible to being noticeable, as all the countermeasures so elaborately taken are proving. The other side is still overwhelmingly stronger but there’s a hint of unsettlement. I think, if I may say so from the outside, that MW has also succeeded in creating a voice which Is pro-Palestinian but authentically Jewish. There is a longer walk along a darkening road from being noticeable to being normal, or at least one recognisable strand of normal opinion. Because of the intense connection of West and ME our normality in the West, if we can make it that far, would compel some constructive change in the ME itself.

  4. Scott
    November 26, 2016, 7:37 pm

    Nice photo of Ivanka. On twitter, there’s a new right wing account called “Ivanka Defense Force”. I kind of like it despite the obvious acronym evocation. Still have hopes for Trump, though ready for disappointment.

  5. SandraLLAP
    November 26, 2016, 8:56 pm

    The positive side of boycotting is that it is nonviolent, and it can be effective (i.e. it helped to bring down apartheid in South Africa). However the goals of the boycott must also be taken into consideration. The problem I have with the current BDS movement isn’t its tactics, but rather that its goals are unrealistic (i.e., the “right of return” of “diaspora” Palestinians, being one of them). But I would be O.K. with a boycott that had goals which were more reasonable (such as say, halting the expansions of the Jewish settlements in the occupied territories).

    • amigo
      November 28, 2016, 3:23 pm

      “The problem I have with the current BDS movement isn’t its tactics, but rather that its goals are unrealistic (i.e., the “right of return” of “diaspora” Palestinians, being one of them). But I would be O.K. with a boycott that had goals which were more reasonable (such as say, halting the expansions of the Jewish settlements in the occupied territories). “Sandra LLAP

      This all nonsense.The GOI (voted for by an ever increasing majority of repulsive Israeli Jews ) has no intention of giving back one sq inch of the territory it stole so you are going to end up with a 1SS whether you like it or not .Had Israel agreed to the Arab Peace plan , the issue of ROR would have been settled long ago but it appears that achieving the “Greater Israel ” fantasy is what Israel wants so stop claiming BDS wants to destroy Israel.Why would they waste their time when the Zionist GOI is achieving that without help form anyone else.BDS is simply calling for Israel to obey international law.

      Better go complain to the GOI and it,s repulsive supporters .

      BTW , thanks for the refresher course in zionist hasbara .We have not been getting too much of that lately.

      • SandraLLAP
        November 28, 2016, 8:09 pm

        amigo, your doubling-down on the use of “repulsive” is doing nothing to convince me that you’re not more motivated by hatred, than a genuine desire for justice. As I’ve said, plenty of Palestinians have acted rather repulsively as well, and the failure to acknowledge this betrays a lack of impartiality.

      • Mooser
        November 28, 2016, 9:10 pm

        “nothing to convince me that you’re not more motivated by hatred, than a genuine desire for justice.”

        Umm, when did we establish that you get to be moral arbiter on the motivations? You, “Sandra” have done nothing to convince me you aren’t entirely motivated by crass self-interest and bigotry, along with the assumption that Jewish might will always make right

      • Annie Robbins
        November 28, 2016, 9:17 pm

        the ol “motivated by hatred” meme. how common nowadays. phff

      • RoHa
        November 28, 2016, 9:14 pm

        Sandra, what do amigo’s motivations matter? Reply to the substance, not the tone.

      • echinococcus
        November 28, 2016, 9:15 pm

        Sandrallap,

        Invaders cannot be choosers. You (yes, you too) can murder and rob as much as you want but yiu cannot make the invader and the invadee trade places. So “repulsive” applies to the entire invader side and yours has no right to say a single word against the Palestinians.
        No doubt they contain a lot of objectionable characters. Including many Zionist-US puppets and traitors. You invaders, however, have no right to make negative noises about any one of them.

      • amigo
        November 28, 2016, 10:01 pm

        Sandra , you bet I am motivated by hatred—hatred of the oppression of a people who have been the victims of a vile aggressor for over 60 years. What is also repulsive is that this vile oppressor claims to be the victim. What is further repulsive is your apologising for said vile aggressor.

        Have you no shame.

        Go back to your handlers Sandra and tell them that the average MW poster is not some uninformed sponge for zionist hasbara or you can stick around but dont expect any red roses or Belgian chocolate. As you sow , so shall you reap.

      • SandraLLAP
        November 28, 2016, 11:55 pm

        @everyone- no, I’m not going to ignore your hatred. It is significant, because this level of abject hatred is not compatible with peace. I feel that all relevant components should be factored in, including the hatred, and the fact that the Palestinians haven’t exactly acted like perfect angels, either (which the commenters here have consistently chosen to ignore). You are so far removed from objectivity, it’s laughable.

      • talknic
        November 29, 2016, 3:27 am

        @ SandraLLAP November 28, 2016, 8:09 pm

        “amigo, your doubling-down on the use of “repulsive” is doing nothing to convince me that you’re not more motivated by hatred, than a genuine desire for justice.”

        Save your stupid accusations. The continued dispossession by Israel of non-Jews from Israel and of non-Jews from non-Israeli territories is ugly and repulsive and those who support it are ugly and repulsive. You must be so proud to be amongst them

        “As I’ve said, plenty of Palestinians have acted rather repulsively as well, and the failure to acknowledge this betrays a lack of impartiality”

        What’s to be impartial about the Jewish State’s repulsive ILLEGAL policies against non-Jews in non-Israeli territories coveted by repulsive Zionist colonizing scum and their repulsive supporters.

        Purposeful theft and dispossession deserve responses that correspond to those repulsive illegal actions even if the perpetrators are Jewish

      • eljay
        November 29, 2016, 8:34 am

        || SandraLLAP: … You are so far removed from objectivity, it’s laughable. ||

        Says the Zio-supremacist. Yes, that is laughable.

      • Mooser
        November 29, 2016, 12:13 pm

        “@everyone- no, I’m not going to ignore your hatred”

        Gee, excuse me for asking, but what the f–k do you plan to do about “our hatred”?
        Deny us entry into Israel?

      • oldgeezer
        December 4, 2016, 10:10 pm

        @RoHa

        No it isn’t just a hint. It’s the entire thrust. Avoiding the explicit or exact wording doesn’t make it any less so.

        Israel has been offered peace many times. It has not only rejected those offers but shown by it’s actions that it is not interested in peace.

        Who was it in the Israeli cabinet who tweeted to his supporters that the threat of peace is off the table? Je me souviens.

        Out of curiousity could someone show me the last peace agreement Israel formally offered? In writing that is. Not meaningless verbiage in the press.

    • talknic
      November 28, 2016, 10:30 pm

      @ SandraLLAP

      “The problem I have with the current BDS movement isn’t its tactics, but rather that its goals are unrealistic (i.e., the “right of return” of “diaspora” Palestinians, being one of them). But I would be O.K. with a boycott that had goals which were more reasonable (such as say, halting the expansions of the Jewish settlements in the occupied territories).”

      The problem you have is you’re either brain washed or a propagandist for the ongoing illegal Israeli colonization of non-Israeli territories

      Palestinians have RoR to Palestinian territories. Israel refuses, in contravention of International Law, to allow Palestinians return to Palestinian territories held under Israeli Occupation since Israel proclaimed its borders in order to be recognized in 1948 http://wp.me/pDB7k-Xk

      Israel also refuses to allow return to Israel of non-Jewish Israelis dispossessed under Plan Dalet in 1948/50.

      Only a really f*cked up, evil state, run by criminals refuses to allow return of its own citizens and refuses to allow the return of Palestinian refugees to territories held under Israeli occupation for over half a century

      That’s the kind of state you support. You must be so proud.

      Got a complaint? Take it to the Zionist Federation who instigated the colonization of Palestine pyramid scheme and the Israeli Government who perpetuate the dispossession of non-Jews from non-Israeli territory in contravention of International Law, the UN Charter, relative conventions, the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel and the most basic tenets of Judaism

  6. RoHa
    November 27, 2016, 1:59 am

    Why on earth is there a comma in the headline?

    It is particularly bad because Nadia gives the correct version. She writes “Apparently, ‘tis the season to boycott!” Didn’t the headline writer read the story?

    • Sibiriak
      November 27, 2016, 8:40 am

      RoHa: Why on earth is there a comma in the headline?
      ——————

      To indicate a pause, presumably.

      ‘Tis the season [pause] to boycott! is quite different from ‘Tis the season to boycott! .

      Perhaps, though, you would prefer a dash or period instead of the comma?

      • RoHa
        November 28, 2016, 12:14 am

        But a comma does not indicate a pause, dramatic or otherwise, and a person in an editorial position should know that.

        A dash would, indeed, do the job, especially if bolstered by a few italics.

        “Tis the season – to boycott!”

        I would prefer that to a full stop, because it keeps a closer connection between the ideas.

        Some people might want to use an ellipsis, but that would be wrong, and, worse, it would upset Mooser terribly. He has a thing about ellipses.

      • Mooser
        December 4, 2016, 11:52 am

        “RoHa” if you think commas, and dashes, and other punctuation is complicated when writing prose, you should try writing lyrics.

    • Mooser
      November 27, 2016, 1:21 pm

      “Why on earth is there a comma in the headline?”

      Excuse me for bringing this up, but this is the season to be jolly, not the season for “pretentious Anglophile orthography”. Go watch birds on your own time.

      • echinococcus
        November 28, 2016, 8:27 pm

        Mooser,

        How the hell can you be jolly with a totally sacrilegious comma staring at you?

      • Mooser
        November 28, 2016, 8:56 pm

        “How the hell can you be jolly with a totally sacrilegious comma staring at you?”

        Oh, those won’t hurt you. The important thing is to avoid looking at an ellipse with the naked eye. It gives your retina an indecent exposure, or something.

    • YoniFalic
      November 28, 2016, 4:41 pm

      As I understand the English rule, “to boycott” is an adjectival infinitive phrase and is semantically equivalent to the adjectival prepositional phrase “for a boycott”, which could be substituted.

      In either case a comma after “season” is incorrect.

      • Annie Robbins
        November 28, 2016, 5:14 pm

        Go watch birds on your own time.

        important update. i just found out from adam we’re planning a three-part series on the utility of the oxford comma. so stay tuned.

    • Annie Robbins
      November 28, 2016, 5:15 pm

      Go watch birds on your own time.

      important update. i just found out from adam we’re planning a three-part series on the utility of the oxford comma. so stay tuned.

      • Mooser
        November 28, 2016, 5:59 pm

        “series on the utility of the oxford comma”

        The oxford comma, yes, could be described as ‘utilitariian’ but the male shows some surprising flashes of color in season, and his antics (all predicated on attracting a mate) of dashing about, showing his clause, and punctuating his dance with sharp trills (comma-comma-comma-come on, yeah, yeah, yeah) makes him a welcome sight among the aspidistra and trailing arbutus

      • RoHa
        November 28, 2016, 7:29 pm

        And not a moment too soon!

        I’m looking forward to it.

      • MHughes976
        November 30, 2016, 4:18 pm

        I agree with those who think that there is injustice in Israel 48, not just in Israel 67, and with those who think that there are no rights gained by force. The only (possibly) practical aim that I can hope for at the moment is to get Israel to state explicitly what it would see as a fair solution. I think that any such statement would be very clarifying, even if it was horrible, and might, hoping against hope, eventually open the way to some creative new way of things.

      • Maghlawatan
        November 30, 2016, 4:47 pm

        Mhughes I remember being in Beit Jala about 15 years ago looking at the fuckers on Har Homa/Jebel Abu Ghneim and wondering how much injustice there could be and why nobody did anything about it.

        But that was before Brexit.

        Systems fall apart into incoherence.
        Thatcher shafted the miners and now the mining communities have sunk Thatcherism. What goes around comes around.

        Israel will collapse all by its little self.

        And it will be a great day

        Because you cannot build a nation on hatred

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3vvn2qOh58

  7. Stogumber
    November 27, 2016, 5:13 am

    “Rather than being divisive, then, will boycotts become the grassroots movements that “unifies” this country, as our constitutional rights come under further attack? ”

    I would like to see this coming. On the other hand, I think liberal judges are quite able to find a formula under which liberal boycotts are allowed and conservative boycotts are forbidden.

    Remember, the SCOTUS only “held that boycotts to bring about political, economic, and social change … are a form of expression protected by the First Amendment”. This doesn’t expressively include boycotts in order to prevent change – and won’t include them unless Trump indeed becomes president and is really successful in getting a conservative replacement for Scalia.

    • Mooser
      November 27, 2016, 1:35 pm

      “On the other hand, I think liberal judges are quite able to find a formula under which liberal boycotts are allowed and conservative boycotts are forbidden.”

      So that we know what to expect “Stogumber”, could you please tell us if a boycott of Israel is a “conservative boycott” or a “liberal boycott”?

  8. Ossinev
    November 27, 2016, 1:34 pm

    @SandraLAp
    “The problem I have with the current BDS movement isn’t its tactics, but rather that its goals are unrealistic (i.e., the “right of return” of “diaspora” Palestinians, being one of them)”

    This right of return is clearly stipulated in UN Resolution 194 as is made clear in the BDS movement`s stated goals and objectives. To abandon it as being ” unrealistic ” is to admit defeat to those Palestinians and their descendant families who were ethnically cleansed in 1948 and to accept the fundamental racist nature of the Israeli “State” ie Diaspora Jews of whatever nationality have the “right of return” even though they have SFA connection to the Land of Palestine but Palestinians who were born there or their children or grandchildren all of whom have a 100% connection to the land and a 100% right of return (Res 194) do not.

    • SandraLLAP
      November 28, 2016, 3:57 am

      Ossinev, I sincerely do understand and respect your position. It is clear that you seek justice, and in general, this is certainly a good thing. However, sometimes ideal, perfect justice is simply impossible to attain. So yes, you are correct- in rejecting the right of return for Palestinians, this is essentially an admission of defeat with regards to setting things completely right for those Palestinians who were forcibly driven from their homes. But if there is rigid insistence that a particular demand be met, when there is just no feasible way that it can be done, then this is a recipe for having the conflict go on forever, with no resolution (like, what we have now…)

      What convinces me that it is unrealistic to demand that Israel accept all of the diaspora Palestinians, is the current Syrian refugee crisis. Considering the tremendous challenges Europe is currently facing with trying to accommodate the flood of migrants fleeing the war in Syria, how on Earth can tiny Israel be expected to suddenly absorb a comparable number? And the whole, entire situation is actually much more complex… I don’t deny that some Palestinians were forcibly driven away, but not all of them were- and that’s very significant, because it complicates the matter of determining who specifically has a legitimate claim to return to Israel. And also a part of this, are the countless Jewish victims of terrorism, many of them innocent children… what justice can there ever be for them?

      The reason I feel it’s important for both sides to acknowledge their past wrongdoing, is because this could help to lead to the compromise that would bring peace. The stalemate exists at the moment because both sides won’t budge from what they feel would be “fair”, but some budging is necessary, because compromise involves both sides having to give up something. And so the past comes into it, because it can be said that both sides forfeit being able to have everything *exactly* as they would like to have it, because of the wrong they have both done.

      The concession that Israel needs to make, of course, is to entirely turn over control of the Occupied Territories to the Palestinians, which would lead to the formation of a new, independent, sovereign nation of Palestine. I think the magnitude of this concession is often underestimated… The reason Israel has that territory in the first place, is because it was gained from winning an unprovoked war of self-defense. So Israel could claim that they won it fair & square, and thus have the right to do with that land whatever they like. But, back to the same reasoning as before- just as the Palestinians can agree to do without having the right of return, as a gesture of their admission of the unjust harm they have caused in the past and commitment to doing better in the future, the Israelis can choose to give up the Occupied Territories, as a gesture of their admission of the unjust treatment that they have doled out towards the Palestinians.

      You had criticized Israel’s immigration policies as being racist, and I suppose I can see how it may seem that way to some, but I believe that a country has the right to determine whatever immigration policies it chooses to, and so Israel should be able to continue to give preference to Jews, for immigration. But by the same token, a new state of Palestine should also have the right to have whatever immigration policies it wants to, because anything else would be inconsistent. So in this way I suppose there could be a right of return, but it could only to the new Palestine, and not to Israel. However, although Palestine would have the freedom to allow in all of the millions of diaspora Palestinians, it would be a highly impractical move to say the least, for the exact same reason as I gave before, as to why it’s unrealistic for Israel to take in those millions.

      • RoHa
        November 28, 2016, 8:56 am

        I think you are right in saying that perfect justice cannot be attained. I also think you are right in saying that some compromises need to be made. But I find myself in disagreement with much of your screed.

        1. “The reason Israel has that territory in the first place, is because it was gained from winning an unprovoked war of self-defense. ”
        The war was deliberately started by Israel, and was not in self defence.

        2. So Israel could claim that they won it fair & square, and thus have the right to do with that land whatever they like.”

        Gaining territory by conquest gives no rights to the territory. This was accepted into international law long before 1967.

        3 Thus, withdrawing from that territory would not be a concession.

        4. “And also a part of this, are the countless Jewish victims of terrorism, many of them innocent children… what justice can there ever be for them?”

        They are not countless. There are fewer of them than the victims of Jewish terrorism and Israeli aggression. There can be no justice for them either.

        5. That there are Jewish victims of Arab terrorism does not mitigate the injustice meted out to the Palestinians.

        6. Given that the Nakba is a fairly recent event (in my lifetime) I doubt it would be all that difficult to work out which Palestinians have the right of return to the territory that is now Israel.

        7. “I believe that a country has the right to determine whatever immigration policies it chooses to,”

        But the return of refugees is not immigration. The refugee has the moral right to return, and a law which prevents that is an immoral law.

        8. So the only point you make which has any force is the practical one of absorbing and influx of Palestinians. Now the mere number of people cannot be the concern, otherwise Israel would not try to attract as many Jewish immigrants as possible. I think the concern is that the refugees would behave like the worst of the Afghan, Somali, Syrian, “refugees” who currently plague Europe.

        There are three points I want to make about that

        First, it is by no means certain that all, or even most, of the people entitled to return would return. Many might give up the right in return for compensation and assistance to settle elsewhere, rather than having to live with the repulsive Israelis.

        Second, a fifth of the population of Israel is already Palestinian Arab. Many Palestinians entered Israel as day workers. Palestinians already have a good idea of what Israeli life is like, and Palestinians are more sophisticated than the Afghans and Somalis. Nor would it be a sudden, unexpected influx. If the programme is carefully planned, integrating the refugees should not be too difficult.

        Third, the refugees have a right to be there. Israel has a duty to integrate them.

        Of course, all this is in the context of a two-state solution. My own preference is for a single state. That, I think, will be closer to justice.

      • RoHa
        November 28, 2016, 9:07 am

        Edit function failed to work. It should be

        1 “The reason Israel has that territory

        2 “So Israel could claim …

      • eljay
        November 28, 2016, 9:31 am

        || SandraLLAP @ November 28, 2016, 3:57 am ||

        Another Zio-supremacist advocates not for justice, accountability and equality but for a “peace” that:
        – allows Israel to remain a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” – a state primarily of and for Jewish Israelis and non-Israeli Jews – rather than become a secular and democratic state of and for all of its Israeli citizens, immigrants, expats and refugees, equally;
        – allows Israel to keep as much as possible of what it has stolen;
        – absolves Israel of its past and on-going (war) crimes; and
        – absolves Israel of its obligations under international law (incl. RoR of refugees).

      • Mooser
        November 28, 2016, 12:58 pm

        “What convinces me that it is unrealistic to demand that Israel accept”

        Oh, right you are, “Sandra”! There will never, ever come a time when “Israel” will have to “accept” anything it doesn’t want to.
        I can’t think of a thing which will ever change Israel’s ability to decide what it will accept, and what it will not. Can you?

      • SandraLLAP
        November 28, 2016, 1:06 pm

        I’m sorry RoHa, but all your lofty, sanctimonious talk is severely undermined by your statement, “Many might give up the right in return for compensation and assistance to settle elsewhere, rather than having to live with the repulsive Israelis”, as this reveals your underlying hatred and bigotry. SOME Israelis may be repulsive, but so are some Palestinians. And there are plenty of Israelis and Palestinians who aren’t repulsive in the slightest. I feel that the role that sheer intolerance plays in all this should not be downplayed, as this is just as serious an obstacle to peace as anything else. Your “repulsive Israelis” remark serves only to verify the widespread view that the BDS movement is infested with anti-Semites who primarily seek the destruction of Israel (and speaking of which- oh yes, I do most certainly, unabashedly prefer a two state solution, to the “one state” model…)

      • oldgeezer
        November 28, 2016, 1:13 pm

        @SandraLLAP

        Your proposal sounds like that which normally be put forward by a liberal zionist. I don’t know if you would identify as such but that isn’t relevant.

        Israel waged offensive wars. Not defensive wars. Regardless of that international law does not permit the acquisition of territory through war so the fact is Israel, and Israelis, cannot legitimately claim they won it fair and square.

        Your proposal requires huge concessions on the part of Palestinians in forgoing their individual codified right to return to their homes regardless of why they left during the conflict.

        Your proposal asks for not a single concession on tbe part of Israel as the territory is not theirs and, as well, they have no right to deny the self determination of the peoples that legitimately inhabited that territory. Whether they choose independance or to request to join another state already in existance.

        Israel has been in violation of international law and international humanitarian law for a half century.

        It is time for boycotts and preferably sanctions as successive Israeli governments have shown a willful intent to not only maintain current violations but commit further violations. Israel is by pure definition a rogue state.

      • SandraLLAP
        November 28, 2016, 1:40 pm

        @eljay: Yup- I stand by what I said, as to being OK with Israel retaining its current immigration policies that give preference to Jews (however, I will say that I think labeling such policies as “supremacist” is misleading and inaccurate, as “supremacist” implies feeling that one’s group is inherently superior to others, whereas the policy largely serves to provide a safe haven for persecuted Jewry). And as I said, I’m perfectly OK with Palestinians adopting whatever immigration policies they might like- which could even be a “Palestinian-supremacist” one which favors Palestinians (as they say, “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander”).

        But some of what else you ascribe to me, is totally wrong. I.e., “absolves Israel of its past and on-going (war) crimes”- I actually explicitly state otherwise, in my comment (again- “…the Israelis can choose to give up the Occupied Territories, as a gesture of their admission of the unjust treatment that they have doled out towards the Palestinians”). And as to “allows Israel to keep as much as possible of what it has stolen”- that you feel I am in favor of this is purely an assumption on your part, as I have never stated any such thing. I have in fact outlined a peace proposal that specifically does not allow Israel to keep all of the land it has appropriated from the Palestinians- I’d rather not write out my entire proposal here in these comments though because I feel I’ve already taken up a fair bit of space on this page, so I’ll attempt to give a link to it (in a separate comment, because I’m not sure if the moderators allow external links…)

      • SandraLLAP
        November 28, 2016, 1:43 pm

        @eljay- here’s that link, that I referred to in my previous reply: http://sandra-llap.rhcloud.com/peace-sells/states/

      • SandraLLAP
        November 28, 2016, 1:55 pm

        @oldgeezer- the bottom line, regardless of any other considerations, is that the right of return for Palestinians is something which is simply not feasible to grant. And as I had said, if either side insists on a condition which is impossible to meet, then there will never be peace (and lo and behold, that’s exactly what’s happening…)

      • SandraLLAP
        November 28, 2016, 1:56 pm

        @Mooser- I had said in my very first, original comment: “I would be O.K. with a boycott that had goals which were more reasonable (such as say, halting the expansions of the Jewish settlements in the occupied territories).”

      • eljay
        November 28, 2016, 2:33 pm

        || SandraLLAP: I’m sorry RoHa, but all your lofty, sanctimonious talk is severely undermined by your statement, “Many might give up the right in return for compensation and assistance to settle elsewhere, rather than having to live with the repulsive Israelis”, as this reveals your underlying hatred and bigotry. SOME Israelis may be repulsive, but so are some Palestinians. … ||

        You reveal your underlying hatred and bigotry by distorting his statement about “the repulsive Israelis” (which even you agree exist) to mean “all Israelis”.

        || … I feel that the role that sheer intolerance plays in all this should not be downplayed, as this is just as serious an obstacle to peace as anything else. ||

        I agree. You Zio-supremacists should:
        – stop being so sheerly intolerant (and supremacist); and
        – start embracing justice, accountability and equality.

      • echinococcus
        November 28, 2016, 2:45 pm

        Sandrallap,

        Bullsh|t. First off, this here is Palestine, a territory belonging entirely to the Palestinian people –and that does not include the invaders. So compromise is fine, but it has to come from the invaders if it wants to be credible. Not in any case from the wronged side. Second, compromises by the Palestinian people cannot be a definitive abandonment of any of their more comprehensive rights.

        No Zionist is going to ever make any concessions. Over a century is enough to learn that. In an attempt to give a little longer lease on life to he Zionist abomination, “Liberal” Zionists will cry and writhe and write long texts like the proposal above. They have been doing that for some 70 years. But every time the intent has been unmasked as that of talking about talks and projecting about projects, not to mention all the enslaving arrangements with US/Zionist puppets. No Zionist has ever made any concessions worth looking at, even in theory. We’ll see about the Zionist proposal summarized in another article.

        Meanwhile, as we know what Zionist words are worth, it’s not up to the Meistervolk to dictate any terms –they have to start with significant, generous unilateral gestures.

        Any action is unlikely to be believable short of general and equal citizenship, abolition of all Jewish supremacist laws and regulations, dismantling of the Meistervolk internal security apparatus. How is one to see anything less as believable?

        Also, all dispositions remain at the mercy of the next administration if Palestinians are not allowed (and financed) to arm and train themselves to a level equal to that of the Meistervolk population and its state organization. The nukes will have to be destroyed immediately, too. Can you imagine any accord while the threat posed by “Israel” against its neighbors continues?

      • Mooser
        November 28, 2016, 2:49 pm

        “it would be a highly impractical move to say the least, for the exact same reason as I gave before, as to why it’s unrealistic for Israel to take in those millions.”

        Huh? What’s that, “Sandra”? I wasn’t paying close attention.
        You are saying Israel has decided to cut off Jewish immigration, Jewish aliyah? They ran out of room for Jews? I knew that was going to happen.

        But still, it’s good that Israel recognizes the limitations imposed by situation and resources.

      • eljay
        November 28, 2016, 3:07 pm

        || SandraLLAP: @eljay: Yup- I stand by what I said, as to being OK with Israel retaining its current immigration policies that give preference to Jews … ||

        I know you do – you’re a Zio-supremacist.

        || … (however, I will say that I think labeling such policies as “supremacist” is misleading and inaccurate … ||

        Of course you do – you’re a Zio-supremacist. But an Israeli immigration policy which favours non-Israeli Jews over non-Jewish Israelis is a supremacist policy.

        || … But some of what else you ascribe to me, is totally wrong. I.e., “absolves Israel of its past and on-going (war) crimes”- I actually explicitly state otherwise, in my comment (again- “…the Israelis can choose to give up the Occupied Territories, as a gesture of their admission of the unjust treatment that they have doled out towards the Palestinians”). … ||

        Not sure if that’s a Grover-style “zinger”, but the rapist choosing to set his victims free isn’t the same as the rapist being held accountable for his past and on-going crimes.

        || … And as to “allows Israel to keep as much as possible of what it has stolen”- that you feel I am in favor of this is purely an assumption on your part, as I have never stated any such thing. I have in fact outlined a peace proposal that specifically does not allow Israel to keep all of the land it has appropriated from the Palestinians … ||

        But you are in favour of Israel keeping some (“as much as possible”) of the land it has stolen from outside of its / Partition borders.

        || SandraLLAP: @eljay- here’s that link, that I referred to in my previous reply: http://sandra-llap.rhcloud.com/peace-sells/states/ ||

        Thank you for confirming that you’re a Zio-supremacist who believes that Israel should:
        – remain a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” – a state primarily of and for Jewish Israelis and non-Israeli Jews – rather than become a secular and democratic state of and for all of its Israeli citizens, immigrants, expats and refugees, equally;
        – be allowed to keep as much as possible of what it has stolen;
        – be absolved of its past and on-going (war) crimes; and
        – be absolved of its obligations under international law (incl. RoR of refugees).

      • Mooser
        November 28, 2016, 3:47 pm

        “I had said in my very first, original comment: “I would be O.K. with”

        What you “would be OK with” means very little to me. I am not a Zionist.

      • Mooser
        November 28, 2016, 3:57 pm

        “the bottom line, regardless of any other considerations, is that the right of return for Palestinians is something which is simply not feasible to grant”

        And besides, think of the pride and the glory for all the world’s Jews when they can say :”The premier Jewish accomplishment of the 20th Century was chasing the Palestinians out of Palestine! Now, where did you say you were taking me to dinner?”

        Think of it “Sandra”, all those refugee Palestinians, and the destruction of the Palestinian polity, will stand as a living testimony to Jewish accomplishment for a century or more to come.
        Finally, our standing in the world will be based on real Jewish accomplishments, not anti-Semitic stereotypes!
        No, it is certainly unfeasible to grant the right of return to Palestinians. The entire world would be disappointed in us, and exposed again to the danger of a militant aggressive Palestinian nation. With an illegal nuclear arsenal, too!

      • amigo
        November 28, 2016, 4:07 pm

        “Well, I guess this doesn’t make everyone happy… Israelis who had been hoping to move to Palestine wouldn’t be able to, and Palestinians who don’t want any Jews in Palestine wouldn’t be happy with this either.”Sandra.

        “Jews who had been hoping to go to Palestine and Palestinians who dont want them there”.Sandra

        Note the sophistry.No mention of Jews who want to live in a Jewish only apartheid so called democracy.Why would any Palestinian want those supremacist bigots in their midst.Why would you support such a state. What if Palestinians want a secular state where all it,s citizens are treated equally ,but ??.

        Those heretofore illegal squatters who burn olive trees and harass the indigenous natives on a daily basis don,t like your idea of LLAP. Are you willing to don a uniform and remove them and arrange their trip to Israel proper —wherever the F–k that is.

        Sandra , you are not only barking up the wrong tree , you are in the wrong forest. Visit J, Post or TOI and present your version of a peace proposal.Remember to leave yourself room to retreat to safety.

      • Annie Robbins
        November 28, 2016, 4:28 pm

        I believe that a country has the right to determine whatever immigration policies it chooses to, and so Israel should be able to continue to give preference to Jews, for immigration. But by the same token, a new state of Palestine should also have the right to have whatever immigration policies it wants to, because anything else would be inconsistent. So in this way I suppose there could be a right of return, but it could only to the new Palestine, and not to Israel. However, although Palestine would have the freedom to allow in all of the millions of diaspora Palestinians, it would be a highly impractical move to say the least, for the exact same reason as I gave before, as to why it’s unrealistic for Israel to take in those millions.

        i’m not sure i understand your position here sandra. you said a palestinian right of return their original homes would be “no feasible way that it can be done … a recipe for having the conflict go on forever, with no resolution” and yet you support Israel’s policy of allowing immigration for all jews. AND you also think it’s highly impractical for diaspora palestinians to return to palestine .. for the same reason? do you have some data available regarding the size of the palestinian diaspora community vs the population of jews not living in israel?

        why isn’t it “highly impractical” for israel to offer citizenship to all jews? why isn’t it “no feasible way that it can be done … a recipe for having the conflict go on forever, with no resolution”? when open and unlimited jewish immigration seems fine by you but palestinians coming back is a recipe for disaster? hmm.

        and you think there should be some kind of litmus test because, according to you it is “significant” that not all palestinians were forced from their homes yet “countless” jewish victims of terrorism? (there are not, it’s all documented, and a fraction of israel’s terror against palestinians, which you do everything to minimize in your “both sides” drizzle).

        iow, there’s room for unlimited jewish immigration but not for unlimited return of palestinians. one is unfathomable and impractical but the other not. and you probably see yourself as having reasonable non racist logic.

      • SandraLLAP
        November 28, 2016, 4:39 pm

        @Annie- to clarify, I actually do think it would be equally unfeasible for Israel to allow in the entire population of the world’s diaspora Jews. But that’s a hypothetical red herring. The current levels of Jewish immigration into Israel, does not compare the pipedream fantasies that everyone here seems to have for the world’s entire population of Palestinians to relocate to Israel.

      • Annie Robbins
        November 28, 2016, 4:57 pm

        what pipedream fantasy? i’ve never heard anyone posit the world’s entire population of Palestinians would relocate to the region if they could. palestinians are like every other people, some of them would not consider moving from their current homes, some would. is that what you think, that they are like lemmings and would all flood back in mass? not likely. many of them would of course, but not all. it’s likely at least some relatives of most families would move there to reclaim their family’s lost homes and land. there are hundreds of thousands of palestinian americans who would likely rather stay here or wherever it is they are. did you lose your senses. anyway, please link to this so called pipedream. this sounds more like hasbara fear mongering used to brainwash and scare the wits out of little israel children. poor tiny israel. know what i mean?

      • Maghlawatan
        November 28, 2016, 4:42 pm

        Mooser if you are not a Zionist you must hate yourself. How could you turn away from the indoctrinated ladies of the IDF?

        http://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-women-do-gaza-strip-for-idf/

      • MHughes976
        November 28, 2016, 4:51 pm

        I see nothing of sanctimony – pretence to superiority – in the mere act of moral argument including no self-congratulation and no opprobrious terms except ‘repulsive’. Honestly, who would not be repelled (or more) by people who had treated self and family unjustly – the injustice being severe and persistent?
        There is no right to acquire territory by defensive war, a matter well explained by John Locke long ago. If there are human rights, i.e. rights you have by being human, they include the right not (except perhaps by due legal process) to be excluded from one’s home or otherwise deprived of what is yours and not to be disfranchised. These, being rights of humanity in all circumstances, cannot be dependent on the circumstances or outcomes of a war.

      • Mooser
        November 28, 2016, 5:11 pm

        “@Annie- to clarify, I actually do think it would be equally unfeasible for Israel to allow in the entire population of the world’s diaspora Jews.”

        Gee, thanks for the refuge, sister.
        Could you at least tell me the additional qualifications to get in, or should I give up on aliyah and start packing for a long box-car trip, and make sure to remember my Nomex underwear?

        Well, so much for the refuge thing. I shoulda read the fine print on the Blue Box.

      • eljay
        November 28, 2016, 5:24 pm

        || SandraLLAP: … The current levels of Jewish immigration into Israel, does not compare the pipedream fantasies that everyone here seems to have for the world’s entire population of Palestinians to relocate to Israel. ||

        The entire world’s population of Palestinians isn’t entitled to relocate to Israel. Only those who are refugees from Partition borders Israel – and descendants up to the # of generations specified by international law – are entitled to return (or to accept fair compensation in lieu).

        After that, all non-Jewish and Jewish people from or up to n-generations removed from the geographic region comprising Partition borders Israel should be equally entitled to preferential immigration to Israel.

        Equality, not supremacism.

      • talknic
        November 28, 2016, 6:01 pm

        @ SandraLLAP “The reason Israel has that territory in the first place, is because it was gained from winning an unprovoked war of self-defense.”

        ZioPoop

        A) Under Plan Dalet http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Plan_Dalet.html Jewish forces were already outside the borders of Israel on the day they were proclaimed effective by the Israeli Government http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf

        B) Mr. HERZOG (Israel):
        99. The state of the law has been correctly summarized by Elihu Lauterpacht, a distinguished authority on international law, as follows:
        “… territorial change cannot properly take place as a result of the unlawful use of force. But to omit the word `unlawful’ is to change the substantive content of the rule and to turn an important safeguard of legal principle into an aggressor’s charter. For if force can never be used to effect lawful territorial change, then, if territory has once changed hands as a result of the unlawful use of force, the illegitimacy of the position thus established is sterilized by the prohibition upon the use of force to restore the lawful sovereign. This cannot be regarded as reasonable or correct.”
        “restore”.
        It is inadmissible to ‘acquire’ territory by any coercive measure. The inhabitants might not have voted for or even been able to vote for the regime in power at the start of the conflict. The UN Charter stipulates ‘self determination’. Not the determination of a conquering power.
        Israel has never had to ‘restore’ any territory for the simple reason that no Israeli territory has ever been conquered.

      • echinococcus
        November 28, 2016, 6:10 pm

        Eljay an Talknic,

        The inept legalisms at a desk recognizing a legitimate Zionist entity as per colonialist dictate drive you logically to ban Palestinians from access to part of Palestine.

      • xanadou
        November 28, 2016, 6:20 pm

        Sandra,

        The “feasibility” of the right of return for Palestinians is a non-negotiable issue. The UN defined, and the zios had agreed, to the geographical definition of israel which the latter has been violating since before that certain day in May 1948.

        The Palestinians were never consulted; they were presented with a fait accompli offered at the end of the zio terrorists’ gun barrels of Palmach, the Stern Gang, et al., up to and including contemporary israeli military, funded and supplied by the US MIC.

        Palestine, Palestinians and their antecedants have lived and toiled on the land for millennia. Israel as a Jewish state had never existed outside the colourful book of myths known as the Bible or Old Testament, until the 1948 deceptive assault on Palestine by Europe who had hoped, like Balfour before them, that by creating an israel, they would rid themselves of the Jews in their countries.

        Judaism was founded during, and in response to, the endless forays of foreign occupiers traipsing across the land to the lands of their intended conquests. Something that seems to inform present day israel and its appetite for Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and, possibly, Iran. Judaism was founded and centered in Judea, not Israel, and had co-existed with a number of other cults practiced at the same time. Judea was never an independent anything; israel was never more than a land sparsely populated by illiterate goatherders.

        Ergo: the “feasible” solution is very simple and attainable: either the zios withdraw to the land they had agreed to by singing the UN Resolution, or they go back from whence they had come. The only ones with a clear title to settle in “israel” are the Jewish semitic descendants of Antiquities’ Palestinians. But only if they submit the proper papers issued at that time by the proper authorities, to comply with israel’s modern legal demands imposed on the Palestinians with titles issued by the Ottomans. Fair is fair.

        The 1967 war was a war for Palestinian independence fought with the help of allies. Kind of like the Ww2 allies who had fought to rid Germany of the Nazis but, eventually went back to their own countries. During the 1967 war israel was, as it stll is, the aggressor. “To the victor belong the spoils of war”? That is a double-edged sword that could have given the Nazis the freedom to do as they had planned against the Jews and others, had they won. One wonders what the War Tribunal at the Hague would make of such a claim.

        Or should Christians prepare to submit to possible claims by the Vatican to assume exclusive dominion over all lands where Christians reside or bomb the rest of us out of access to water, electricity, our homes, schools, etc. Or should Jewish israelis start packing to make room for Christians with claims to the land where their cult was founded? (rhetorical)

      • RoHa
        November 28, 2016, 7:59 pm

        I see that you have no reply to the substantive points I made, and so, by pouncing on the word “repulsive”, try to deflect the issue to my attitudes. My attitudes do not make any difference to the substance.

        Others have made the same points, and in more detail. Perhaps you should take those into account.

        (I will add, irrelevantly, that your indignation seems selective. You made no objection to the word “plague” .)

      • RoHa
        November 28, 2016, 8:54 pm

        “the indoctrinated ladies of the IDF?”

        Stripping is OK, as long as they don’t sing.

      • eljay
        November 28, 2016, 9:02 pm

        || echinococcus: Eljay an Talknic,

        The inept legalisms at a desk recognizing a legitimate Zionist entity as per colonialist dictate drive you logically to ban Palestinians from access to part of Palestine. ||

        My inept legalisms suggest that (non-Jewish and Jewish) Israelis should not have illegal access to not-Israel, and (non-Jewish and Jewish) not-Israelis should not have illegal access to Israel.

        If (when?) at some point in the future the eligible voters of secular and democratic Israel and not-Israel vote to unite their two countries into one, my inept legalismic suggestion will be moot.

      • echinococcus
        November 28, 2016, 11:25 pm

        Eljay,

        You are confirming now that you are defending the totally illegal Zionist invasion as legitimate, against Palestinians, and you are also using the maneuver of the Weitz quotas against the Palestinians, trying to forbid them access to parts of Palestine:

        My inept legalisms suggest that (non-Jewish and Jewish) Israelis should not have illegal access to not-Israel, and (non-Jewish and Jewish) not-Israelis should not have illegal access to Israel.

        Not only that, but you are also presenting the invader and the invadee as equal in rights.

        You even have the nerve to include the invaders within the populations with a right to determine the future of Palestine:

        If (when?) at some point in the future the eligible voters of secular and democratic Israel and not-Israel vote to unite their two countries into one, my inept legalismic suggestion will be moot.

        and you seem not to realize that there are not two states in Palestine but a single one with absolute power over all Palestinians. Your fictions are non existent and irrelevant.

        In summary, your inept legalisms detached from any respect of the Palestinian right to self-determination, in deference to old-fashioned colonialism, contribute to legitimate the idea of a Zionist bridgehead state in Palestine, continue to dangle the illusion of a never-to-be-agreed Palestinian Bantu state as a pacifier, and bar parts of Palestine to diverse artificially created fractions of Palestinians.

        If I were Palestinian, I would prefer frank enemies to friends like this.

      • SandraLLAP
        November 29, 2016, 12:03 am

        @RoHa, regarding your substantive points that you feel I haven’t addressed: at this point all I’m really interested in is- what is your vision of peace?

      • Annie Robbins
        November 29, 2016, 3:34 pm

        o sandra, speaking of points not addressed, regarding your so called “vision for peace” with a completely biased policy of unlimited jewish immigration while severely limiting palestinian return due to pipedream fantasies that everyone here seems to have for the world’s entire population of Palestinians to relocate to Israel. where’s your source for that? there’s no evidence more palestinians would return than jews who have and will immigrate to israel. none. that’s what i call a “substantive point”, and you ignored it completely.

      • eljay
        November 29, 2016, 8:44 am

        || echinococcus: Eljay, You are confirming now that you are defending the totally illegal Zionist invasion as legitimate … ||

        I am confirming that Israel exists and that IMO it should continue to exist…
        – as a secular and democratic state of and for all of its citizens, immigrants, expats and refugees, equally; and
        – not as a colonialist, (war) criminal and religion-supremacist “Jewish State” primarily of and for Jewish Israelis and non-Israeli Jews.

        || … and you are also using the maneuver of the Weitz quotas … ||

        If you say so. I have no idea what “Weitz quotas” are.

        || … Not only that, but you are also presenting the invader and the invadee as equal in rights. ||

        I’m presenting the idea of two secular and democratic states with equal rights for all and the democratic option of reunification.

        || … You even have the nerve to include the invaders within the populations with a right to determine the future of Palestine … ||

        Yeah, shame on me for having the nerve to believe that the right to determine the future of two secular and democratic states in geographic Palestine belongs to the citizens of, immigrants to and expats and refugees from those two states.

        || … and you seem not to realize that there are not two states in Palestine … ||

        I realize that there are not, but I advocate that there should be.

        || … Your fictions are non existent and irrelevant. … ||

        And yet they appear to be existent and relevant to you. Huh.

        || … If I were Palestinian, I would prefer frank enemies to friends like this. ||

        Since you’re no more Palestinian than I am, your opinions are just as worthless as mine. Welcome to the club. :-)

      • echinococcus
        November 29, 2016, 12:27 pm

        Eljay,

        Since you’re no more Palestinian than I am, your opinions are just as worthless as mine

        Certainly. Except all I am doing is challenging you and Talknic to bring a Palestine plebiscite approval in due form to your inane, colonial legalisms.

      • echinococcus
        November 29, 2016, 12:50 pm

        Eljay,

        Note: the Weitz quota, named after Joseph Weitz, then head of the Jewish Agency who wrote the project, is a maximum of 15% of the population allowed to be Palestinian (in Zionistese, “Arab”) with second-class “Israel” citizenship under the racial laws, who under colonial fake-legality would also lose all significant contact with the remainder of Palestinians, the latter to be deported either to neighboring countries or to heaven.
        Your interpretation of the armistice line, or of the “two-state” diversion may be aligning with that.

      • eljay
        November 29, 2016, 1:39 pm

        || echinococcus: Certainly. Except all I am doing is challenging you and Talknic to bring a Palestine plebiscite approval in due form to your inane, colonial legalisms. ||

        OK, well, knock yourself out.

        || … the Weitz quota, named after Joseph Weitz, then head of the Jewish Agency who wrote the project,legality would also lose all significant contact with the remainder of Palestinians, the latter to be deported either to neighboring countries or to heaven. … || is a maximum of 15% of the population allowed to be Palestinian (in Zionistese, “Arab”) with second-class “Israel” citizenship under the racial laws, who under colonial fake-legality would also lose all significant contact with the remainder of Palestinians, the latter to be deported either to neighboring countries or to heaven.

        Thanks for the clarification.

        || Your interpretation of the armistice line, or of the “two-state” diversion may be aligning with that. ||

        If you say so, although it’s quite a stretch to “align”…

        – two secular and democratic states of and for all of their respective citizens, immigrants, expats and refugees, equally;
        – the right of the voting publics of those states to democratically unify their states into one;
        – accountability for past and on-going (war) crimes committed; and
        – respect for international laws and obligations thereunder (including honouring RoR)

        with…

        – a maximum of 15% of the population allowed to be Palestinian with second-class citizenship;
        – racial laws; and
        – the remainder of Palestinians to be deported either to neighboring countries or to heaven

      • echinococcus
        November 29, 2016, 2:57 pm

        || echinococcus: Certainly. Except all I am doing is challenging you and Talknic to bring a Palestine plebiscite approval in due form to your inane, colonial legalisms. ||
        OK, well, knock yourself out.

        Always useful to clearly define positions.

        As for your dream of Zionists retreating without application of force to any of your dream “two state solutions”, good luck in cloud-cuckoo-land. Besides, it remains without any proper approval from the owners of the place. Meaning, it is a realization of the Zionist invasion and racial supremacist takeover project with some limitations.

        In any case, including not only your daydreams but also today’s harsh reality, your position is the exact application of the Weitz project: you continue to forbid unrestricted access of Palestinians to the entirety of Palestine.
        15 or so % slaves and many more subjects under the one of most brutal occupation regimes since WWII, without free communication, all applauded by the Zionists, their allied powers, and a public including Messrs. Eljay and others.

      • eljay
        November 29, 2016, 3:29 pm

        || echinococcus: As for your dream of Zionists retreating without application of force to any of your dream “two state solutions”, good luck in cloud-cuckoo-land. … ||

        Given your dream of effortlessly and bloodlessly wiping Israel off the map and pushing all non-indigenous Jews out of the Levant, I’ll save you a seat in the rubber room.

        || … Besides, it remains without any proper approval from the owners of the place. … ||

        I don’t need “proper approval from the owners of the place” in order to have an opinion.

        || … Meaning, it is a realization of the Zionist invasion and racial supremacist takeover project with some limitations. … ||

        Yup, just a few trivial limitations such as:
        – no racial (or religion-based or ethnic) supremacism;
        – full equality;
        – secularism and democracy; and
        – respect for international laws and obligations thereunder.

        || … In any case, including not only your daydreams but also today’s harsh reality, your position is the exact application of the Weitz project … ||

        Wow, an exact application! That’s pretty impressive. :-P

        || … 15 or so % slaves and many more subjects under the one of most brutal occupation regimes since WWII, without free communication, all applauded by the Zionists, their allied powers, and a public including Messrs. Eljay and others. ||

        Looks like you’re already in the rubber room. Be careful in there.

      • Annie Robbins
        November 29, 2016, 3:47 pm

        just for the record, we have no “proper approval” around here, we have moderation approval (as defined in the comment policy). if you’re reading it, it’s approved.

        and as for a “plebiscite approval in due form” — o my, nobody has that, it’s all talk talk talk.

      • echinococcus
        November 29, 2016, 4:43 pm

        Eljay,

        Given your dream of effortlessly and bloodlessly wiping Israel off the map and pushing all non-indigenous Jews out of the Levant

        Now you’re almost entering propaganda.
        I always, religiously almost, take pains to indicate that Palestinians include 5(-8)% of Jewish Palestinians!
        Most of the time I write anything about it, I specify that and specify that one acceptable definition of the population admitted to the plebiscite must be all (descendants of, where applicable) Palestinians, including Jewish or Satanists or whatever, in the country as of the time the Zionist bandits declared their intention to invade to overturn sovereignty, i.e. 1897.
        Michael here responds to it if his facts are correct.

        Nobody invited the invaders to the “Levant” but themselves and HMG. Not anyone else’s problem.

        Then, again, when have I ever said I believe in any of it being ever doable “effortlessly and bloodlessly”? What a totally insane idea!

        Having anything positive done there is totally impossible without sufficient application of force. The amount to be applied will be proportional to the fanaticism of the most rabid Zionist.

        Meaning I expect the injustice to explode in a very big way, with many international actors. The only alternative to it is a successful genocide of the Palestinians, which is proceeding as we speak.

        Believing that the Zionists will just give up and compromise even if we suddenly dump them is ludicrous.

        Believing that Zionism is governed out of Tel-Aviv or wherever, instead of directly from NY and DC, is just as crazy: talking of pipe dreams, having the US Government change course re the Zionist entity is the most improbable pipe dream of all.
        But have it your way, as what I say there is controversial now.
        What is absolutely certain, though, is that your nice dreams are a total impossibility; even in the case of a compromise being agreed by the Zionists, it will be a compromise on the side of the Palestinian people.
        Look up the word “compromise”. Any agreement in the absence of due plebiscite still will not mean that it is just and legal forever without that plebiscite approval.

      • Annie Robbins
        November 29, 2016, 5:07 pm

        Then, again, when have I ever said I believe in any of it being ever doable “effortlessly and bloodlessly”? What a totally insane idea!

        it’s merely a style of argument you’re so proficient in ech, don’t you recognize it?

        Nobody invited the invaders to the “Levant” but themselves and HMG.

        wow. really? i had no idea. what would we do without these pearls of wisdom hammered down on us in your always graceful intuitive style.

      • Mooser
        November 29, 2016, 6:00 pm

        “your always graceful intuitive style”

        I’m not sure “creole” as a disparaging simile for Modern Hebrew is appropriate. Or fair to Creole. But other than that…

      • Annie Robbins
        November 29, 2016, 8:52 pm

        I’m not sure “creole” as a disparaging simile for Modern Hebrew is appropriate

        mooser, when something so blindingly obvious is totally ignored, the obvious has to be hammered in.

      • echinococcus
        November 29, 2016, 6:06 pm

        Annie,

        Never mind “graceful” or “intuitive”; I’ll happily leave both to you.
        To the substance. When something so blindingly obvious is totally ignored by the poster, the obvious has to be hammered in.

      • eljay
        November 29, 2016, 6:25 pm

        || echinococcus: Now you’re almost entering propaganda. … ||

        Not even close.

        || … I always, religiously almost, take pains to indicate that Palestinians include 5(-8)% of Jewish Palestinians! …. ||

        Which leave 92-95% of Jews pushed out of the Levant. Thanks for almost religiously taking pains to indicate that.

        || … Then, again, when have I ever said I believe in any of it being ever doable “effortlessly and bloodlessly”? What a totally insane idea! … ||

        When have I ever said I believe that all Zio-supremacists occupying not-Israel will retreat back into Partition-borders Israel without force?

        || … What is absolutely certain, though, is that your nice dreams are a total impossibility … ||

        As are yours.

        || … Look up the word “compromise”. … ||

        Compromise:

        transitive verb
        1 obsolete : to bind by mutual agreement
        2 : to adjust or settle by mutual concessions
        . . .
        intransitive verb
        1a : to come to agreement by mutual concession
        b : to find or follow a way between extremes
        . . .

        You’re absolutely right: A solution comprising two secular and democratic states within their respective Partition borders sounds very much like a compromise.

      • talknic
        November 29, 2016, 9:25 pm

        @ echinococcus ” I am doing is challenging you and Talknic to bring a Palestine plebiscite approval in due form to your inane, colonial legalisms”

        Too late. Israel like it or not, legitimate or not, agree with it or not, already exists.

      • echinococcus
        November 29, 2016, 9:51 pm

        Mooser,

        I’m not sure “creole” as a disparaging simile for Modern Hebrew is appropriate. Or fair to Creole. But other than that…

        Well, it’s not disparaging and it is a purely technical expression. It is used by some linguists for Modern Hebrew because of a number of its characteristics, as I have explained elsewhere. As I already said, I am not a Semitist; that’s why I rely on work by specialized Semitists, some of whom do use the term creole to describe this language.

        The term is not uncontroversial technically speaking, as it might be a stretch to call MH at its first generation a pidgin, while it certainly has a good amount of the characteristics of it.

        Just one mention, at random:
        http://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/89/can-modern-hebrew-be-considered-an-indo-european-language
        And for completeness a short opinion to reject that hypothesis:
        https://www.quora.com/Does-Modern-Hebrew-fit-the-definition-of-a-Creole-language

      • Sibiriak
        November 29, 2016, 10:17 pm

        eljay: Which leave 92-95% of Jews pushed out of the Levant
        —————-

        Indeed. Putting aside whatever plausible deniability he thinks he gets his imaginary “plebiscite” notion, that is exactly what echinococcus is calling for.

        And in doing so he is simply repeating (ad nauseum) a central Zionist talking point– that the ideal goal of the BDS movement, and Palestinian resistance in general, is to dismantle the State of Israel and throw out the bulk of the Jewish population.

        I’m not saying that echinococcus is a “crypto-Zionist”, though he could be. It’s impossible to know for sure.

        More likely he repeats Zionist talking points simply because they are the logical outcome of his moral purism, his idea that “strict justice” trumps every other human value, and that the voicing the morally perfect position is more important than actually achieving any increase in human welfare.

        Echinococcus’ moral purism in his own words:

        This is about what should be strived for in strict justice, not about what will effectively be done […] [emphasis added]

        http://mondoweiss.net/2016/08/criticize-israel-beinart/#comment-849967

        The ultimate aim of echino’s moral purism is virtue signaling:

        [echinococcus] Your problem may be in the following:

        [eljay:] I acknowledge that the “Jewish State” project is illegitimate

        Acknowledging does not show your intentions with regard to an injustice; your readiness to overturn it is the only objective criterion. [emphasis added]

        http://mondoweiss.net/2016/08/criticize-israel-beinart/#comment-849911
        ——————

        So there you have it: for echino, showing morally perfect intentions are all that count; realism and results don’t matter much.

      • Annie Robbins
        November 29, 2016, 10:35 pm

        well stated Sibiriak.

      • echinococcus
        November 30, 2016, 2:06 am

        Sibiriak,

        I certainly don’t care about you guys’ lofty moral philosophizing, so trying that line won’t work.

        Just a couple things that don’t fit with your blah:
        – How many peoples in history have just put up with a very major injustice and held their peace forever? Take any example at random. Kurds, say.
        – Nothing against any compromises, as long as the rights are not given away. BTW, anyone who expects any compromises from the Z please stand up.

        The fear that if some liberals believe that BDS wants to throw out the Zionist invaders it will be bad for BDS seems to be what directs your thought. Not a good basis for discussing essentials. Politics are made based on clear positions. If you keep that attitude, there is no way BDS can contribute in any way to educate the US public (an objective that is anathema to JVP and Co., too.)

        Your concern for the invading Zionists is touching, too. Certainly to your credit, but I don’t see them reciprocating. They seem to know much better than you that they are in a war they started.

        Be it as it may, the net result of what some are doing here is to further entrench the propaganda-fed general impression among the general public that the Zionist invader presence in Palestine is in some way legitimate.

      • MHughes976
        November 30, 2016, 6:07 am

        About strict justice and virtue signalling – virtues even if signalled are still virtues and justice even if strict and not attainable should still not be forgotten. Might is not right and rights are not created, so surely not inherited, by wrong, by force or by fraud, though they can, I think, be created by agreements that end conflict.
        There’s something of a paradox about justice, though, because there seems always to be a need for grace, forgiveness and accepting less than is due, or ‘strictly’ due – a need which perhaps increases over time and over generations. This seems to make compromise not just a seedy concession to circumstances but a moral act in itself.
        It needs to be remembered that the Zionist onslaught on the Holy Land did not create any rights for current Israelis to inherit and that there has been no final agreement or treaty. I think that they have the right to be offered a compromise if they would accept one. However, they show no inclination to compromise.
        I don’t think that echino is a Zionist plant.

      • eljay
        November 30, 2016, 7:25 am

        || echinococcus: … When something so blindingly obvious is totally ignored by the poster, the obvious has to be hammered in. ||

        It’s more yammering than hammering, but I guess it’s what you do best when you’re not busy “throwing the towel in” or making insincere promises to stop pestering me.  :-P

      • echinococcus
        November 30, 2016, 11:24 am

        Hughes,

        Might is not right and rights are not created, so surely not inherited, by wrong, by force or by fraud, though they can, I think, be created by agreements that end conflict.

        Exactly. You’d think it should already be clear to everyone.
        It all revolves around the question of who exactly is entitled to make that agreement, though.
        That is all-important because of a matter of collective resentment, not a question of morals or so (I suppose having to do with reams of stuff written on psychology of the masses etc. but irrelevant here.)

        One example we are supposedly all familiar with: Marshal Pétain made such an agreement with the Nazi occupier. We all know how well that was received by the local yokels, conferring it the definitive legitimacy that only the collective mind can ratify: exactly 0 seconds. The Oslo agreement between the USandZionists and their Palestinian puppets was just such an agreement, too. The local yokels didn’t give it better legitimacy, past the first moment of confusion.

        If you go over the moments in history you like reading about, check your statement about the “need for grace, forgiveness and accepting less than is due, or ‘strictly’ due” increasing with time. Everything I have seen shows that the bitterness and humiliation being felt more strongly is instead increasing with time. The continual atrocities and humiliation visited by the Zionist invaders since before 1947 will not increase a desire for grace, I suppose.

        Re offering a compromise, well there I think you are inversing the roles; it’s not the invader but the owner of the place who should be offered a compromise and be fairly allowed to approve or reject it. Be that as it may, it’s all moot as 70 years exceed any reasonable delay to know if the Zionists will ever compromise to reason over ideology. The answer from even the most liberal is still No.

        Thank you for defending me; it shows your fairness but I don’t think I need to defend myself before aspersions coming from people dedicated to legitimizing the idea that Zionists should remain in Palestine against the express will of its owners. You see the general hostility to even mentioning the matter of permission.

        It looks as if the Palestinians will have to continue to be genocided until they agree to foreign liberals making them equal to huge numbers of armed invaders in their own home, as opposed to being slaves and undesirables in their own home (no matter that the King ain’t listening.) It’s kind of an improvement, so who needs to consult the local yokels?

      • Annie Robbins
        November 30, 2016, 12:41 pm

        o doubling down i see. how unusual s/

        people dedicated to legitimizing the idea that Zionists should remain in Palestine

        oh yes our favorite pass time. you just can’t hear. talknic said it best:

        Too late. Israel like it or not, legitimate or not, agree with it or not, already exists.

        but you can’t hear that, you chose to translate it into “dedicated to … should remain”. recognizing a reality becomes our “lofty moral philosophizing”.

        but this really takes the cake:

        liberals believe that BDS wants to throw out the Zionist invaders it will be bad for BDS seems to be what directs your thought. Not a good basis for discussing essentials. Politics are made based on clear positions. If you keep that attitude, there is no way BDS can contribute in any way to educate the US public…

        um, this is a palestinian led movement. i’m not understanding where you’re coming up with the idea “BDS wants to throw out the Zionist invaders” because, regardless of what thoughts any individual may harbor this is not and has never been a stated policy or goal of bds. and if, as you say “Politics are made based on clear positions” then why are you blaming “liberals” for the clear position of bds?

        It looks as if the Palestinians will have to continue to be genocided until they agree to foreign liberals making them equal to huge numbers of armed invaders in their own home….. It’s kind of an improvement, so who needs to consult the local yokels?

        but the bds movement’s stated goal is equality. who are you to imply the goals of a palestinian lead movement are made by “foreign liberals”?

        “who needs to consult the local yokels” you ask? why you do, that’s who. the bds movement was conceived of, initiated by, and directed by local yokels, and they want equality. there’s nothing in their stated goals that says ‘throw out the invaders’, probably because this is a reality based movement. not dictated by virtue signaling loonies.

      • echinococcus
        November 30, 2016, 2:04 pm

        Annie,

        Wasn’t there an “if” at the start of what you are quoting? I think the full sentence was:
        “The fear that if some liberals believe that BDS wants to throw out the Zionist invaders it will be bad for BDS seems to be what directs your thought.”

        I don’t know why you would truncate a sentence to make me say the opposite of what it obviously says; probably because of speed reading again. Of course boycott does not intend the destruction of the Zionist entity nor can it achieve any such thing any time –its main benefit is educating the American public –provided each participant states his political position clearly: if one shows any Zionist presence as legitimate, that is *not* educating the American public.

        As for “Israel like it or not, legitimate or not, agree with it or not, already exists”, let’s not be absurd. Lots of things that existed are no longer. That is not even an argument. If you believe that, why are you trying to change anything?

        you chose to translate it into “dedicated to … should remain”

        No, that was clearly applied to recognizing Zionist presence as legitimate in the absence of a Palestinian plebiscite –general and without duress.

        Of course I know that the newer boycott action, now under the BDS initials and specifically organized, is organized following an appeal by, and together with, some Palestinians working under Zionist occupation. Of course any boycott action is welcome, be it so small. Provided one openly and fully discusses Zionist legitimacy.

        I have no idea the specific shape that the will of the Palestinian population will take, of course not. One thing is sure, neither overt resistants under Zionist occupation nor such who approve witch hunts that prioritize so-called “antisemitism” over resistance are likely to be reliable.

      • Annie Robbins
        November 30, 2016, 2:42 pm

        ok, let’s try this again:

        “The fear that if — some liberals believe that — BDS wants to throw out the Zionist invaders it will be bad for BDS — seems to be what directs your thought.”

        whose fear. i’m not afraid. Sibiriak said you were “simply repeating (ad nauseum) a central Zionist talking point– that the ideal goal of the BDS movement, and Palestinian resistance in general, is to dismantle the State of Israel and throw out the bulk of the Jewish population.” which is what you’re doing. where’s the fear. you want to echo zionist talking points have at it. and then hammer everyone not as pure as you imagine you are.

        where’s our fear?:

        More likely he repeats Zionist talking points simply because they are the logical outcome of his moral purism, his idea that “strict justice” trumps every other human value, and that the voicing the morally perfect position is more important than actually achieving any increase in human welfare.

        that part i had in bold, bds stated goals are not that. it’s an accusation made by bds opponents. what directs people’s thoughts have to do with the conversation they are in at the time. and for us at this time, that would be — namely this one. so it is people such as yourself, with opinions like yours that opponents of bds are pointing to to support their claim bds wants to kick all the jews out. but i don’t care, it’s easy to deflect that nonsense. (yes, i think you’re speaking non sense)

        it doesn’t “direct my thought” per se. it just is, and not reflective of the movement. i wasn’t speed reading.

        that was clearly applied to recognizing Zionist presence as legitimate

        you’re deaf ech, you hear only what you want to hear. again, legitimate or not legitimate they are there, it’s reality. this is not an argument for or against or related to “Lots of things that existed are no longer”, no one here is your idiot. and being on your high horse and claiming people are “dedicated” to making sure they should remain, does not accurately reflect the dedication of the movement (in the least — like i could care less), which is palestinian rights based. you’re worse than the hasbrats w/your accusations. anything to win an argument. you’re obsessed with slandering activists, as much so if not more than any self declared zionists lurking around here.

      • echinococcus
        November 30, 2016, 3:45 pm

        Annie,

        Let’s close this: boycott can be exerted by any single person or organization. Some have this goal, others another. I have been boycotting all my life and approve any gesture, including those by the BDS “official” movement (and including those by Zionists who want to limit the damage by calling attention to a difference between post- and pre-1967 and similar stuff.)

        The official BDS movement now, related to Palestinians who have to work non-clandestinely practically in captivity, under Zionist occupation and PA supervision, can define its own goals and it is one piece of the movement.

        Boycott supporters outside the official BDS will have opinions unpopular with Zionists, of course. These opinions will be used by Zionists to try and smear all boycott practitioners. Of course. So what? I may advocate one thing, others another. Let them smear, as if they wouldn’t do it otherwise. Official BDS cannot dictate my position and cannot stop me from continuing my boycott anyway. It’s the open discussion of such positions that will educate the American public re Palestine. Not limiting everything at 67 borders or 48 borders. Reducing debate to authorized argument plays into the Zionists’ hands.

      • Mooser
        November 30, 2016, 4:38 pm

        “Echin”, I don’t think the 48 partition and original statehood declarations and conditions are Israel’s “briar patch”. I can’t see Israel going back to its legally legal status and saying “Ha, ha, this is where I wanted to be all the time. Jokes on you!”

      • Mooser
        November 30, 2016, 6:46 pm

        “It looks as if the Palestinians will have to continue to be genocided until they agree to foreign liberals making them equal to huge numbers of armed invaders in their own home”

        Ho-kay! That’ll get those Israelis out of there. Now, where shall Palestine train its sons and daughters for the big uprising? Where should Palestinian headquarters be? Where should the arms depots and military airfields go? Got any ideas?

      • echinococcus
        November 30, 2016, 8:59 pm

        How the hell would I know, Mooser?

        All I know for sure is that it has to happen before the Z manage to find a way to finish their genocide. And whatever happened in places I heard a lot about –meaning the Nazi occupation and Algeria and places like that. It got organized without airfields or such under conditions yet harder than in Palestine. We all heard some about those, but there is no way of extrapolating with any confidence. Except perhaps that one has to get rid of the influence of the occupier’s puppets before any action picks up steam. Or that a major rearrangement in the international strategic alliances and wars is always possible.

        Now, how does that interfere with asking ourselves what is right? How does that kind of question about unknown means manage to convince the US to oblige the Zionists to compromise? Upstream from that, how do we get any change in US policy without very large-scale information of the US population-at-large, not just the usual suspects? Do we have to have all the answers on the future of the resistance to know how to behave wrt the US?

      • SandraLLAP
        December 1, 2016, 1:24 am

        @Annie- OK, OK, OK- I’ve ignored your “substantive points” no longer! Please see my latest comment, at the very bottom of this page, for my response (and please remember, I’m just one person, with limited time- I’m trying my best, really! Why you feel compelled to be so friggin’ snotty, Jah alone knows…)

      • Annie Robbins
        December 2, 2016, 2:00 pm

        Why you feel compelled to be so friggin’ snotty

        resorting to ad hominem, color me shocked.

        The torrent of hostility that has been unleashed against me all came from my mere (and, sorry folks- RATHER SENSIBLE) suggestion that the actual “nuts & bolts” implementation of the right of return for Palestinians, might be somewhat difficult. But the prevailing attitude here is that if anyone deviates even the slightest bit from your standard, staunch anti-Israel party line, then they must be some heartless demon.

        speaking of snotty, you didn’t address my question, which i posed to you seriously. here’s you being “RATHER SENSIBLE”: the pipedream fantasies that everyone here seems to have for the world’s entire population of Palestinians to relocate to Israel.

        you painted a broad brushstroke encompassing “everyone here” as having “pipedream fantasies” regarding an idea i have not ever heard even once. you did that to counteract a completely biased and racist position that i pointed out to you (that you have since tried to modify sans one iota of acknowledging the biased racism inherent in your original statement).

        raph: It would be interesting to know if any of the writers here have a drinking problem.

        you: I think I see what you’re saying- that perhaps having a harsh attitude like that doesn’t necessarily imply that the person is really bad deep down, it might just be more of a cultural thing.

        amusing. a cultural thing. is it a cultural thing for you, when called out on biased racist ideas to resort to (snotty) little allegations about everyone else’s “pipedream fantasies”? or maybe you just have a drinking problem and are not really a bad person… deep down and all that ;)

        and no one called you a “heartless demon”. maybe try not using these exaggerating strawmen to make your points. remember, we can throw it (snot?) right back at you when you initiate it.

      • Raphael
        December 1, 2016, 9:36 am

        SandraLLAP

        I have a theory, it is 100% conjectural though; and a after thought of sorts.

        I never met her in person, as well.

        Perhaps, it has to do with socialism. Maybe, they have some socialists, or communists belief cultural belief systems, and it is the way they communicate, within their tribe, as a atheistic socialist Jewish world of sorts.

        I’m not a socialist or a communist, or a atheistic. My father was a Jewish agnostic or atheistic, who had ancestors from the same area of Russia, as those in the Russian community I was in while in Israel. I. for a time lived in that community while in Israel.

        I lived in a Russian Jewish house of a atheistic Russian Jewish, culture, with other Russian Jews… but I don’t know if they were atheistic too.

        I seen the same arrogance, even among themselves when they would talk to each other. One time, they were drink and directed the arrogance at me, but I think it was not a genuine arrogance just a cultural thing.

        It would be interesting to know if any of the writers here have a drinking problem.

        They, for example, while in public would speak, Hebrew, but when they returned home…. I was living in their home… they spoke Russian.

        So, in many ways I felt like I was living in a Russian world community within Israel. When, they got angry it was the same arrogance as a husband, and wife in a bitter fight, that could be heard for three blocks away. In a way, I would after time find it all to be humorous… the way they would fight day in and day out screaming at each other at the top of their lungs, in Russian, completely oblivious that all their neighbors could hear them.

      • SandraLLAP
        December 2, 2016, 3:43 am

        Raphael, yes, I think I see what you’re saying- that perhaps having a harsh attitude like that doesn’t necessarily imply that the person is really bad deep down, it might just be more of a cultural thing. That is a charitable way of looking at it… and maybe it is better to give the benefit of the doubt.

      • Mooser
        December 2, 2016, 12:21 pm

        “That is a charitable way of looking at it… and maybe it is better to give the benefit of the doubt.”

        Don’t be defeatist, “Sandra”! Don’t give up anything we don’t have to.
        2 billion Jews (and growing towards 4!) don’t need to give anybody “the beneifit of the doubt”!
        We reserve all benefits to ourselves, until such time as we agree to give them up. We know what happened in Germany when we gave them “the benefit of the doubt!”

      • Mooser
        December 2, 2016, 2:37 pm

        “remember, we can throw it (snot?) right back at you when you initiate it.”

        “Annie” if Sandra“LLAP” doesn’t get the last word, you will find out exactly what “using the force” is all about!

      • Raphael
        December 2, 2016, 7:16 pm

        Annie Robbins

        I did not say you had a drinking problem… it was a guess about some BDS activists , in general. In fact, I never even thought of you, personally, about that attitude of some Arab Activists for BDS, when I was thinking, drinking, might be behind some of the defensive language, about me being a Zionist.

        In other words, in plain English… I would say I’m a Zionist even if AIPAC, American Jews, and the state of Israel never even came into existence.

        And, if the Arabs in the ME, never even heard of Zionism, and if if all the Jews were living in Russia, or the Ukraine…and they also never heard of Zionism.

        I explained here over , and over and over again. My Zionism has nothing to do with traditional Zionism. it is self defined, self created in my own life and in my own world . My individualist world as a goy Israeli.

        They are not racist remarks, they are my questions as a pacifist, as a new citizen of Israel about the propaganda nature of the BDS activist tactics.

        You never did entertain my questions about Arab wave flagging tactics at demonstrations for BDS, and, anti Zionist countries that are technically at war and/or conflicts with Israel, and their use of those tactics for propaganda… or not for propaganda… in their media networks.

        Perhaps, American Jews don’t care about the answer or they never would ask the question, because, they are in the bubble of the American Dream, living in the tribe of the American Jewish community… but I have to ask myself those questions. it is question of survival… it has nothing to do with race. It is questions about tactics, wars, peace, propaganda, things like that.

      • Annie Robbins
        December 2, 2016, 11:31 pm

        I did not say you had a drinking problem… it was a guess about some BDS activists, in general

        I have a theory, it is 100% conjectural though; and a after thought of sorts.

        I never met her in person, as well.

        … I seen the same arrogance, even among themselves when they would talk to each other. ….

        It would be interesting to know if any of the writers here have a drinking problem.

        raphael, if i don’t respond to all your points, it’s because i often scroll through them. i only have so much time — and not enough for liars, games* and bs.

        *that would include your extended (now trashed) musings on drunk socialists – take it somewhere else.

      • SandraLLAP
        December 2, 2016, 9:59 pm

        Annie, this discussion is getting increasing surreal… Do you realize that you’re complaining about my “ad hominem” of calling you “snotty” (as you then proceed, snottily, “color me shocked”), and then, no less than 3 times in the same comment, you accuse me of bias and racism (but I guess it’s not “ad hominem” when you do it?) And it hasn’t been just you- to quote Mooser: “You, ‘Sandra’ have done nothing to convince me you aren’t entirely motivated by crass self-interest and bigotry”, and to quote eljay: “You reveal your underlying hatred and bigotry”, and “You Zio-supremacists should: – stop being so sheerly intolerant (and supremacist)”. So, let’s review the “ad hominems” against me in this thread: I’m a racist, a bigot, intolerant, and supremacist- gee, it sure does seem like I am in fact being portrayed as a heartless demon, just like I said (and by the way, I am actually *not* racist, or bigoted, or intolerant, or supremacist, in the slightest.)

        And, as to your continued insistence that I haven’t addressed your points, this is from my comment that I had directed you to, which you evidently missed: “Take for instance, Annie Robbins- she pointed out that in practice, it might not actually be the bulk of the diaspora Palestinians who would relocate to Israel if they were granted the right of return. And to that I would say- if it would in fact be just, maybe, thousands, rather than millions, then, yes- in that case, Israel should be able to take them in. Like I had said, I don’t think it would be any more feasible for Israel to admit millions of foreign Jews, either (thousands of Jews or Arabs, yes, but millions, no. I’m just trying to be practical here, folks!)”

        (So, can we make nice now, Annie? Please??)

      • Annie Robbins
        December 2, 2016, 10:52 pm

        And to that I would say- if it would in fact be just, maybe, thousands, rather than millions, then, yes- in that case, Israel should be able to take them in.

        thanks, yes i saw that before. it would be certainly more than a few thousand, easily more than a million. either way, it’s not the point.

        re you accuse me of bias and racism (but I guess it’s not “ad hominem” when you do it?)

        an ad hominem is “(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.” my accusation was based on your argument. the one where you maintained israel should be able to decide whatever it wants regarding jewish immigration while (paraphrasing) it would be impractical, unreasonable, no feasible way, unrealistic, more complex, not all of them [palestinians] were [driven away] which you think is “very significant, because it complicates the matter of determining who specifically has a legitimate claim” (contrasted to a jewish ‘legitimate claim’ which you do not question). etc etc. that’s not ad hominem, i was addressing your position as racist and biased. can you see the difference?

        either way, i was merely pointing out you started it, with your over all dismissal of a legitimate claim of return, characterizing it as a “pipedream fantasy”. but i accept your restructuring of your opinion to suite a less biased position. and you can just admit at anytime, which you’ve failed to do, that you made up out of whole cloth, a position you can’t back up and never could, that everyone here shares in some fantasy no one in fact has ever stated, and you did it for the convenience of your argument. no big deal. but try slinging around insults like calling me snotty and discussions about whether your ideological adversaries here are drunk or just culturally deficient, well, i can play that game too — if it suites you that is.

        sure i can make nice — when your ideas are nice. let’s face it tho, we don’t make the rules on i/p — who will be allowed to return. you’re here to defend the colonizing oppressor, we see that. if the best you can do is attempt to show us in a negative light (snotty culturally deficient drunks) — o well.

      • SandraLLAP
        December 2, 2016, 10:04 pm

        @Mooser: (*heavy sigh*), OK, at the risk of going a bit off-topic:

        “the force” = Star Wars
        “long live and prosper” = Star Trek

        (And I swear Mooser, you would try the patience of both Vulcans and Jedis…)

      • eljay
        December 2, 2016, 10:26 pm

        || SandraLLAP: Annie … you accuse me of bias and racism … And it hasn’t been just you- to quote Mooser: “You, ‘Sandra’ have done nothing to convince me you aren’t entirely motivated by crass self-interest and bigotry”, and to quote eljay: “You reveal your underlying hatred and bigotry” … ||

        I was quoting the accusation you hurled at RoHa. If you don’t like having those words used against you, you shouldn’t use them against others.

      • Annie Robbins
        December 2, 2016, 11:48 pm

        eljay, me thinks stirring sh*t and then feigning victimized damsel in distress; ‘can’t we all just get along’

        trolls are such a waste of time. why do we ever bother.

      • SandraLLAP
        December 3, 2016, 12:36 am

        Annie & eljay- RoHa characterized Israelis as “replusive”. That sounds pretty racist to me. I’ve never talked that way about any nationality/religion/ethnicity. I devote a fair bit of my site to promoting the wonderful groups Israel-loves-Palestine and Palestine-loves-Israel. Please see for yourself- would a bigot/racist/supremacist ever write something like this? http://sandra-llap.rhcloud.com/peace-sells/liars/

      • Annie Robbins
        December 3, 2016, 2:38 am

        RoHa characterized Israelis as “replusive”.

        no, he didn’t. here’s what he said:

        First, it is by no means certain that all, or even most, of the people entitled to return would return. Many might give up the right in return for compensation and assistance to settle elsewhere, rather than having to live with the repulsive Israelis.

        referencing the repulsive israelis doesn’t even reference the israelis who are not repulsive. it’s like saying ‘i don’t want to live in aleppo w/the repulsive isis’. it doesn’t mean everyone in aleppo is isis. it’s not a racist statement to not want to live w/isis.

        would a bigot/racist/supremacist ever write something like this?

        no, but i am not judging you solely by what you wrote there, which i didn’t know about. my views are more related to what you wrote here, which belies your prejudice.

        regarding your site:

        Lying doesn’t advance your position. All you ever accomplish by lying, is that you reveal yourself to be a liar. And the tarnishing of your character in this way casts suspicions on your motives, and the veracity of anything else you say will subsequently be questioned. In the examples I’ve given here of lying, note once again that the lies are unnecessary, in that the truth is bad enough. So if the truth is already sufficiently damning, then why lie? Well what the lies attempt to do, is make things seem even worse than they actually are- to demonize the other. And why the desire to demonize– what does this stem from? It all leads back to my hypothesis of what force is a major factor in all of this… hate.

        so tell me, did anyone here claim you or anyone else was a “heartless demon”? or was that your rhetorical flourish in which to position yourself as a victim of unfair scrutiny? Lying doesn’t advance your position. All you ever accomplish by lying, is that you reveal yourself to be a liar. And the tarnishing of your character in this way casts suspicions on your motives, and the veracity of anything else you say will subsequently be questioned. note that the lies are unnecessary, in that the truth is bad enough. So if the truth is already sufficiently damning, then why lie? (ie, claiming we all share the same pipedream fantasy that you cannot source) Well what the lies attempt to do, is make things seem even worse than it actually is – to demonize the other. And why the desire to demonize- what does this stem from? according to you sandra “It all leads back to … hate.”

        so tell me, was it hate that motivated you to insinuate we called you a demon? a heartless one at that? and why would you claim RoHa “characterized Israelis as “replusive” [sic] when in fact he only referenced the israelis who were repulsive. or do you think there are no repulsive israelis?

        btw, i don’t think you are a demon. nor evil. i don’t use these sort of inflammatory biblical terms, that would be you making these sort of statements, for whatever reason, i suppose for the sake of argument (unlike you i don’t have a theory that leads back to any alleged hatred on the part of my adversaries — i don’t demonize them, because it doesn’t serve my interests). but in essence, it’s lying.

        and for the record, i think you are an ordinary zionist. no special powers — not a demon.

      • RoHa
        December 3, 2016, 12:55 am

        Do I have to be the first to admit to having a drinking problem? I’m sure you can guess what the problem is.

      • echinococcus
        December 3, 2016, 1:19 am

        Sandrallap,

        Star Wars, Start Reck…

        Right. That’s just the kind of bullshit we needed right now.
        The ancient zookeepers, who decreed “Do Not Feed” the ehm… exhibition material, seem to have had a reason for that.

      • RoHa
        December 3, 2016, 5:07 am

        Sandra, did it never occur to you to look at the context? The suggestion was that Palestinians might regard the Israelis as repulsive. And why wouldn’t they, considering what they have suffered from the Israelis?

        Instead of complaining that the word is racist, bigoted, etc. , why not think about whether or not it may be justified.

        Alternatively, accept that some people do have that view of Israelis, and seek to make peace with them anyway. It is easy to make peace with those who love you, but peace with those who don’t is what is necessary.

      • eljay
        December 3, 2016, 9:06 am

        || SandraLLAP: Annie & eljay- RoHa characterized Israelis as “replusive”. That sounds pretty racist to me. … ||

        RoHa has already addressed this, but I’ll respond with my own perspective: Unless you can show that he thinks Israelis who advocate and defend justice, accountability and equality are repulsive (to Palestinians), he would have been characterizing hateful and immoral Zio-supremacist Israelis as repulsive (to Palestinians). That would be an accurate characterization, IMO.

        || … I’ve never talked that way about any nationality/religion/ethnicity. … ||

        So…as long as an anti-Semite doesn’t “talk that way” about Jews he’s not anti-Semitic? Interesting.

        Some Zio-supremacists couch their bigotry and hatred in pretty words. You appear to be of that number. To be fair, you may have…
        – condemned Zionism and the unjust, immoral and religion-supremacist “Jewish State” project; and
        – called for justice, accountability and equality in I-P,
        …and I happened to miss that post. If so, please provide a link and I will retract my assertion.

      • echinococcus
        December 3, 2016, 9:53 am

        Sandrallap,

        It all leads back to my hypothesis of what force is a major factor in all of this… hate.

        Well, duh! If you don’t want to be hated, there are a couple Commandments: Thou Shalt Not Invade, Thou Shalt Not Intrude, Thou Shalt Not Steal Land, Thou Shalt Not Commit War, Thou Shalt Not Commit Genocide. Simple. One gets hate for a lot less than that.

        You can complain about it at “the wonderful groups Israel-loves-Palestine and Palestine-loves-Israel”; they look designed for just that, Myriam. Sounds like a site where it won’t have the effect of the cartoon cat in the night one throws a perfectly good shoe at out of exasperation.

      • Mooser
        December 3, 2016, 12:05 pm

        “(So, can we make nice now, Annie? Please??)”

        “SandraLiveLongandProsper” let us be frank. “Annie” has always had a problem showing the proper deference and respect to her betters.

        You might just have to get used to it.

      • Annie Robbins
        December 3, 2016, 12:18 pm

      • Mooser
        December 3, 2016, 12:17 pm

        “Do I have to be the first to admit to having a drinking problem? I’m sure you can guess what the problem is.”

        I am trying to arrange for Amazon to drone a pitcher of Martinis to your GPS location. Hang on “RoHa”! The sun is nearly o’er the yardarm.

      • SandraLLAP
        December 3, 2016, 2:17 pm

        OK y’all… let’s just zero right in on the crux of our disagreement: my vision for peace, is what I have stated way down below on this page (in a reply to Ossinev), part of which does indeed have Israel continuing as a nation that may grant preferential consideration for Jews, with respect to immigration (and similarly there will be a Palestinian nation, that can have whatever immigration policies it chooses to). This is what you seem to object to, as being “supremacist”, and your objection to this is so strenuous, that it overshadows everything else. But stepping back for a sec and considering the bigger picture- we are not actually in disagreement, about everything. I think it’s fairly safe to say that we all agree that the I-P situation as it is now, has some serious problems, and so some change is needed to address these problems. And I think we all agree that nonviolent tactics, like boycotting, are the preferred ways in which to bring about change. The BDS movement has been going on for a while now, but thus far, as best as I can tell, it has not been effective in pressuring Israel to make any of the changes that BDS desires. What I believe, is that a boycott movement is more successful when there are more people in support of it. It is also my belief that the reason that BDS does not have more supporters, is because it is perceived as being too radical. I feel that the general public would be more inclined to be in favor of my two state vision (as offensive as it might be to you, regarding what you see as the “supremacist” aspect to Israel), than see things your way, in how you exclusively vilify Israel, and find no fault whatsoever with the Palestinian side. But this is all speculation- so maybe I’m wrong and you’re right, and all of your ranting & raving against Israel will eventually persuade the populace to get behind BDS, and with such weight behind the movement, it will force Israel to cave in, and everything will become the way that you would rather it be, according to your ideals. Personally, I’m skeptical that staunchly sticking with your current approach will yield such a result, but that’s just my hunch. I guess time will tell.

      • Mooser
        December 3, 2016, 5:52 pm

        .” I guess time will tell.”

        And time is on Zionism’s side, too! The recent increase in the worlds Jewish population from 180 million to 2 billion is the precursor to great earth-changing events!

      • oldgeezer
        December 3, 2016, 6:51 pm

        @SandraLLAP

        To truly cut to the chase you would need to recognize that peace is antithetical to the GoI and right wing zionists.

        The Palestinian papers as disclosed by wikileaks have shown that the PA has conceded to practically every demand made by Israel. Including limiting the right of return to appox 10,000 people at the rate of 1,000 per year. Hardly impractical.

        This has not been enough to satisfy Israel and peace is probably further now than it has ever been.

        The Israeli court of justice has recognized that the west bank and gaza arw held under belligerent occupation. The GoI has argued this same fact in it’s defense in several law suits. The ICJ and UNSC have as well and the UNSC has held Israel in flagrant violation of the Geneva conventions. The security council. Not the general assembly.

        Israel has not lived up to it’s promises and commitments under Oslo.

        Israel is a rogue state.

        If you truly believed in peace you would recognize the reality and also recognize your risible formula for peace has long been rejected by the GoI.

        BDS has not had huge impact. It’s impact is growing and Israel is scared.

        It will be a goid day when Israel stops killing unarmed civilians and lives up to it’s responsibilities.

      • Mooser
        December 3, 2016, 8:14 pm

        “Right. That’s just the kind of bullshit we needed right now”

        “Sandra” knows the farce is on her side. Use the farce, “Sandra”! The farce is with you.

      • RoHa
        December 3, 2016, 8:23 pm

        Thanks, Mooser. I knew I could rely on you.

      • SandraLLAP
        December 3, 2016, 10:35 pm

        @Annie- thank you for reading that page from my site, that I had linked to (I’m truly grateful to any who take the trouble to read what I’ve put up on that site). So please see my latest reply to RoHa, for within that comment I include my response to your newest comments.

      • RoHa
        December 4, 2016, 12:39 am

        Sandra, I started by saying that I agreed with you that perfect justice is unobtainable and compromise is necessary.

        But I think our responses have shown you that your suggestion requires all the compromise on the Palestinian part, and no justice, and that even when those compromises are made, the Israeli government still refuses peace. (I hope you have also learned the truth about the 1967 war.)

        You may be surprised to know that I agree with you that boycotts are more effective when they have greater support and that BDS might seem a bit too radical to gain mass support.

        But if BDS is watered down to the level you want, it ceases to be a movement for any justice at all. Great support is not a lot of use if it is support for nothing of value.

        I hope you will continue to work for a just solution, and incorporate what you have learned here in your efforts.

        And now for the really, really, important point.

        “It is also my belief that the reason that BDS does not have more supporters, is because it is perceived as being too radical.”

        You have put a comma between the subject clause and the verb. This is as wrong as writing “The cat, sat on the mat.”

        As a rule of thumb, either (a) no comma before the verb, or (b) two commas before the verb, with a subordinate clause between them.

        That should help you to bring peace to the world.

    • amigo
      November 28, 2016, 4:19 pm

      “The reason Israel has that territory in the first place, is because it was gained from winning an unprovoked war of self-defense.” Sandra.

      So what , are you not familiar with the term , “the inadmissibility of territory gained through war , regardless of who started it” .

      “The second preambular reference states:

      “Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security.”

      John McHugo says that by the 1920s, international law no longer recognized that a state could acquire title to territory by conquest.[17] Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations requires all members to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.[18]

      Michael Lynk says that article 2 of the Charter embodied a prevailing legal principle that there could be “no title by conquest”. He says that principle had been expressed through numerous international conferences, doctrines and treaties since the late 19th Century. Lynk cites the examples of the First International Conference of American States in 1890; the United States Stimson Doctrine of 1932; the 1932 League of Nations resolution on Japanese aggression in China; the Buenos Aires Declaration of 1936; and the Atlantic Charter of 1941.[19] Surya Sharma says that a war in self-defense cannot result in acquisition of title by conquest. He says that even if a war is lawful in origin it cannot exceed the limits of legitimate self-defense.[20]

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_242#Preamble

    • echinococcus
      November 30, 2016, 6:50 pm

      Mooser,

      All correct. No objection.

      Only this is not because of what the Zionists are going to do about it. They should be worried about legality… It is about the idea that seems to be implanted in the minds of a majority, including many anti-Zionists, that the initial settlement and the 1948 state / or then the 1967 green line are legitimate (while they object to enlargements over that.) How can one make the case for Palestinian rights to deciding for the entirety of the territory, including the invasion, while admitting a total nonsense of a legitimate initial state?

      So either it’s an invasion, or the initial settlement and state are legitimate, in which case it’s just a question of overreaching. No talk of Palestinian rights.

      • Mooser
        December 2, 2016, 12:25 pm

        “that the initial settlement and the 1948 state / or then the 1967 green line are legitimate (while they object to enlargements over that.)”

        Once again, the 48 state is not Israel’s “briar patch”. It is Israel’s “tar baby”. And they know it. They won’t touch it. Long before they reach the ‘sanctuary’ of the 48 state, Zionism will collapse and run.

      • echinococcus
        December 2, 2016, 12:43 pm

        Once again, this is about legitimacy, period, of any Zionist presence in Palestine after the Z announced their hostile intent. Keyword “any”. In the mind of the general public, not the Zionists’.

        While we are at it, also note that there is a way larger justified Jewish presence than many realize, ie the refugees from Nazi occupation in a British-administered area, 1933-1945. Not to be confused with Zionist invasion.

      • Mooser
        December 2, 2016, 2:30 pm

        “Once again, this is about legitimacy, period, of any Zionist presence in Palestine after the Z announced their hostile intent.”

        And when 2 billion people announce a hostile intent, all questions of legitimacy go out the window. 2 billion united people is legitimacy enough!
        And the power of 2 billion united people is the only thing which Israel needs to make anything it does legitimate!

      • echinococcus
        December 2, 2016, 6:07 pm

        You just overwhelmed me.

  9. Theo
    November 28, 2016, 10:59 am

    Yes, my friends, we live in a real world and the politic must match it! I personally am also a half baked idealist, however had to learn that mashing my head againt a wall will not bring it down, contrary to my head.
    Although good 90% of israelis have no hebrew forfathers, one even says that around 30% are not even jewish, but immigrants to a better life from the Sovietunion, they will stay there until we have another government in Washington, who is not bought and paid by zionist interests. Don´t ask me if we live long enough to see it!

    • echinococcus
      November 29, 2016, 9:54 pm

      Talknic,

      Too late. Israel like it or not, legitimate or not, agree with it or not, already exists.

      Lame, lame. The Byzantine empire and old South Africa also existed. What exists can be made to unexist.
      Anyway, if you don’t want to touch the existent why are you trying to change anything to the statu quo of the Zionist entity?

      • Sibiriak
        November 29, 2016, 11:12 pm

        echinococcus: What exists can be made to unexist.
        —————

        Only if there is sufficient power to make such a change.

        How do you propose to make Israel unexist?

        Oh, you’ve already told us– you think the nuclear-armed and superpower-backed State of Israel is going to be militarily defeated in a great bloody regional conflagration.

        Extremely unlikely, and not particularly desirable.

        On the other hand, you wish to negate two of the most powerful forces on the Palestinian side–international law and the rights- based BDS movement, both which call for an end to Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory acquired in 1967 , not the demise of Israel itself.

        The fact that Israel exists and is a recognized member of the U.N. means that, like it or not, morally correct or not, the state of Israel has rights under international law, the most important being the right to territorial integrity . On the other hand, international law makes it clear that Israel has no right to deny the Palestinian people its right to self-determination on its own territory in the West Bank and Gaza.

        You, however, call for the military destruction of the state of Israel and a plebiscite that would allow Palestinian Arabs to strip most Jewish Israelis of their citizenship and subject them to expulsion. Both of those actions would be blatant violations of international law.

        International law is obviously highly flawed and morally imperfect– but it’s a powerful force that’s on the Palestinian side.

        It would be an incredibly stupid move to throw that away, considering the overall weakness of the Palestinian position.

        And it would be an incredibly stupid move to reject the rights-based BDS movement, which harnesses international law to its cause, avoids the divisive 1SS vs 2SS debate, and has thereby been incredibly successful.

        And yet, you do both.

        Out of an utterly misguided moral purism.

      • talknic
        November 29, 2016, 11:13 pm

        @ echinococcus November 29, 2016, 9:54 pm

        “What exists can be made to unexist”

        Indeed

        Anyway, if you don’t want to touch the existent why are you trying to change anything to the statu quo of the Zionist entity?”

        Please explain

      • echinococcus
        December 1, 2016, 3:00 pm

        Sibiriak,

        Who ever said to oppose a (mythical) retreat of the Zionist entity, be it so small? Or a non-directly occupied Bantustan? Or, even better, a *really* independent Palestinian rump state on part of their land (fat chance as long as the US is a significant power)?
        No one.
        Of course all UN resolutions should be implemented.
        I’m all for it.

        All that can be done unilaterally, without even consulting any Palestinians.
        Where did you get the crazy idea that I oppose it?

        What I am opposing is how you guys insist that Palestinians give up their rights forever and stop talking about it. I keep reminding you guys that no peoples I know of have stopped asking for justice as long as they keep alive, that international law is not the same as violation of the laws by colonialist powers, and that without the required plebiscite it all continues to be happening without proper authorization. No matter what progress is made (good chance having even an inch of it realized without either bloody wars or regime change in the US…) that will continue to be required. And I bet my last red cent that resistance will develop and continue in some form until then.

    • Raphael
      November 30, 2016, 5:42 pm

      Theo

      I think from when I was there most are quasi refugees, too Israel. Many French Jews seemed to me very kind people; going through a transition too living to Israel. Perhaps, the media in the US, and Israel shows the arrogant Russian tough guy Russian Jew, as the typical Israeli as being the tough guy Zionist.

      I did not see that Zionist larger then life Jew talked about here, in ordinary Israelis. I met I think one Zionist from the old school,that may fit that image, and he was quite a talkative, friendly and interesting person. I think it is only the government type of Israelis that the controversy is over.

      • Theo
        December 2, 2016, 10:11 am

        Yes, Raphael, they all have hearts of gold!

        The palestinians bomb and shoot themselves, Gaza built the wall so their people cannot escape to Israel, they like the occupiers so much that they built roads for them, what they themselves will not use, not wanting to disturb their guests.
        Jews like to have swimming pools, so the old inhabitants gave them their share of the scarce water, cut down their orchards not wanting to block the fine view of the israeli settlements. Arabs always liked to go through control points, it is very exciting not knowing will they be shot or not when passing through, and heck with travelling, it is so beautiful looking up at the new zionist towns, where the sewerage is directed at their homes and fields. Inhaling teargas makes the day for many of them, not forgetting the butts of rifles in the ribs and police batons on the head.
        I could go on, however we all got the message, except you, Raphael!

  10. Ossinev
    November 28, 2016, 12:41 pm

    @sSandraLLAP
    Thank you for your response.With respect you come across as an archetypal “Liberal Zionist” who tip toes fearfully round the reality of what Israel is and was intended to be from the start = an ethnocentric cult colony for current practitioners of the Jewish religion whatever their national and religious background (eg conversion). The overwhelming majority of these Israelis have zero connection to the Land of Palestine unlike the Diaspora Palestinians who have 100% connection. Every American,British , French,South African etc Jew who is facilitated in their “Right of Return” to their “homeland” is a straightforward spit in the eye to those native Palestinians who are living in enforced squalor in refugee camps in the Middle East and a one fingered gesture to International Law and Conventions. The “compromises” you refer to the Israelis being prepared to make are completely and utterly spurious. They were and are and ad infinitum will continue to be, pending a 1SS, meaningless shop dressing to assuage the International Community and to preserve and accelerate the river to the sea settlement process.

    It was “unrealistic” for the UN to recognize Israel as a state in 1948 but under International ie a UN Resolution it happened. So with UN Res 194 it can and will happen in due course – short of Israel eventually having a despairing Masada moment and detonating one of its might have might not have nuclear weapons so that the non chosen Palestinian people will never have the pleasure of living in peace and happiness in their native land.

    “I don’t deny that some Palestinians were forcibly driven away, but not all of them were”

    Are you really serious ? “Some !!” The bulk of the native Palestinian people ( up to 700,000 according to the once eminent Israeli historian Benny Morris ) were deliberately driven out of their homeland during the Nakba as part of a planned and structured Zionist ethnic cleansing project which incorporated regular small scale local genocides “pour encourager les autres”

    “The reason Israel has that territory in the first place, is because it was gained from winning an unprovoked war of self-defense.”

    Pure unadulterated Hasbaraitis I`m afraid. Fact , fact , fact = Israel attacked Egypt in 1967 and Egypts regional allies attacked Israel in support of their ally. Israel was the aggressor and the aggression was driven behind the scenes by the Zionist plan to colonise fully from the river to the sea. Anything which got in the way of that plan including the USS Liberty was a legitimate target in Zionist eyes. You do yourself no service by parroting this tedious falsehood about poor little Israel being attacked in 1967.

    “Just as the Palestinians can agree to do without having the right of return, as a gesture of their admission of the unjust harm they have caused in the past and commitment to doing better in the future, the Israelis can choose to give up the Occupied Territories, as a gesture of their admission of the unjust treatment that they have doled out towards the Palestinians”

    “Unjust treatment they have doled out towards the Palestinians”. Sorry but this is naive at best and infantile at worst – it really does approach the level of describing the Holocaust as “unjust treatment doled out by German Nazis”

    “You had criticized Israel’s immigration policies as being racist, and I suppose I can see how it may seem that way to some”.

    It may seem that way !! Are you serious? It is full frontal in your face racism and internally ( in the OT for sure – in Israel itself pending ) the reality is full frontal in your face racist Apartheid.

    Sandra as I said you are tip toeing around the mirror desperate not to face up to and confront the reality of the barbarism which Zionists from the 1940`s onwards have inflicted on the native Palestinian people and your talk of both sides having to make compromises is nonsense.Just as with Israel “having no preconditions for negotiations” Israel has no intention whatsoever of compromising on the Eretz Israel river to the sea colonising project. And each year the US ignores Israel`s crimes Israel will continue on this course towards their own demise as a “Jewish Democratic State” because the 1948 ethnic cleansing project was perversely stalled by UN recognition and the poor suffering eternally threatened Israelis
    are stuck with this huge demographic problem of the approx 6 million and growing Palestinian population between the river and the sea. As much as they wish there is no “Final Solution” which they can implement to deal with this problem – it is after all 2016 and not 1936.

    • SandraLLAP
      November 28, 2016, 3:29 pm

      OK Ossinev (and everyone else)- I’m going to just “cut to the chase”, by asking the one question that matters above all else: what, exactly, is your vision for peace between the Israelis and Palestinians?

      • Annie Robbins
        November 28, 2016, 4:33 pm

        equal rights between now and whenever it is they come up with a long term solution.

        some people live in this fantasy that israel would ever agree to a palestinian state, i’m not one of them. and since time and again it’s been proven that israel would not even agree to a proposal of borders for 2 states it seems logical that while they are figuring it out palestinians should not have to continue to live with no rights. the occupation should end today. and israel can take all the time they want to agree to relinquish all the occupied territories — but no one has to hold their breath in permanent prison of occupation until then.

        and alternative might be, since israeli jews have been controlling all of palestine/israel for decades, they could reverse that and put palestinians in charge. generously grant israelis the same rights they’ve afforded palestinians for the last half century, for the next 1/2 century. i bet israel could figure out an alternative they could live with pretty fast if that happened. equal rights might sound very doable under those circumstances.

      • Mooser
        November 28, 2016, 4:39 pm

        “what, exactly, is your vision for peace between the Israelis and Palestinians?”

        How many Israelis are we talking about? Potentially, the entire Jewish population of the world?
        Peace between how many Israelis and Palestinians?

      • Raphael
        November 28, 2016, 4:58 pm

        It seems to me that the powers that be currently are fundamentalists. And my guess it would be a miracle if it is changed even 100 years from now.

        There is a expression don’t hate anything to much, because, there is a danger of becoming what is hated. In plain English Rome (or Roman philosophy)never left the Middle East. They conquered and won. When in Rome do as the Romans do.

        Going to the US for advice on how to be a democracy or to meditate a “deal” is useless. Trump never even wrote the Art of the Deal…. it was written by a ghostwriter that thinks Trump is a sociopath, after being around him for 18 months…that is his opinion of the current leader of the so called free country, the greatest democracy on earth, America.

        Good luck on hoping in the future that the sociopath Trump can negotiate a peace deal, anywhere in the world let alone the ME. I say, let the Arabs live in Israel by having a state within the state of Israel in Judea and Samaria, as the best possible deal between the Arabs and the Jews.

      • SandraLLAP
        November 28, 2016, 5:14 pm

        @Mooser, I’ve already stated in a previous comment that I don’t think it’s feasible for all of the world’s Jews to relocate to Israel, just as I don’t think it’s feasible to allow this for the world’s Palestinians. So to answer your question: I mean peace for all of the current population of Israel & the Occupied Territories.

      • Maghlawatan
        November 28, 2016, 5:20 pm

        Mooser

        One of the mental traps people fall into when considering israel is stability bias. Because Israel was stable in the past it will be stable in the future. And in reality the occupation has corroded Sabra society and will continue to do so. Jews who grew up normally in the US and don’t hate Palestinians are different to ISraeli Jews already but spin it out 20 years and the gap will be even wider. Say American non elite Judaism is hello muddah hello fadda. Israeli Judaism is Erika . Israel is not stable. The people in their 30s now are more extremist than those who were in their 30s 20 years ago.

      • SandraLLAP
        November 28, 2016, 5:23 pm

        @Raphael, you have an interesting perspective. But I think I would prefer a real, “bona-fide” Palestinian nation, rather than a “state within a state” (and considering that I’ve been regarded as Hitler incarnate for merely daring to suggest that there might be practical challenges associated with an influx of millions of Palestinians into Israel, I’d wager to guess that what you suggest probably won’t go over too well with this insanely anti-Israel bunch…)

      • talknic
        November 28, 2016, 5:42 pm

        @ Raphael ” I say, let the Arabs live in Israel by having a state within the state of Israel in Judea and Samaria”

        Judea and Samaria were officially renamed the West Bank by the official sovereign, Jordan. The area was legally annexed at the request of representatives of the majority of the legitimate citizens of the territory. Jordan’s annexation was as a trustee only by demand of the other Arab states (Session: 12-II Date: May 1950) in keeping with the UN Charter Chapt XI http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-xi/index.html

        “.. as the best possible deal between the Arabs and the Jews.”

        Nonsense. You’re advocating that the thief keep your car and allow you to have the spare wheel. The best possible deal is for Israel to withdraw from ALL non-Israeli territories it has occupied since 1948 http://wp.me/pDB7k-Xk

      • talknic
        November 28, 2016, 6:08 pm

        @ SandraLLAP November 28, 2016, 3:29 pm

        ” I’m going to just “cut to the chase”, by asking the one question that matters above all else: what, exactly, is your vision for peace between the Israelis and Palestinians?”

        Very simple. For Israel to f*ck off out of all non-Israeli territories. Take all its illegal settler scum or leave them to become Palestinian citizens IF the Palestinians want ’em

      • echinococcus
        November 28, 2016, 6:19 pm

        Sandrallap,

        I don’t think it’s feasible for all of the world’s Jews to relocate to Israel

        You don’t say. It is still totally illegal for any non-Palestinian Jew or Buddhist or anything to invade Palestine without express authorization by its owners the Palestinian people.

      • Mooser
        November 28, 2016, 7:06 pm

        “@Mooser, I’ve already stated in a previous comment that I don’t think it’s feasible for all of the world’s Jews to relocate to Israel”

        I read you loud and clear, “Sandra”!
        Loud and clear.
        For all the money I and my family has contributed, all the effort we have put into Zionism, ( for gawds, sake, “Sandra” I’ve broken US law for Israel by contributing to illegal settlements), and for all the heartfelt prayers I have offered for Israel, I get bupkis? I get the sheft?
        My line of Jewish mothers mean nothing? The members of my family who perished in the Holocaust, all mean squat, huh? This is strictly a one-way street, huh? Thanks for letting me know, anyway. And thanks, “Sandra” for letting non-Jews know just what Jewish tribal unity is really worth. Believe me, they are noticing.

        Okay, got it, I shouldn’t even think about Israel as a Jewish refuge. Thanks, “Sandra” Okay, okay, Anyway, how much more will it take to guarantee, to reserve my refuge in Israel? I’ll send a check.

      • RoHa
        November 28, 2016, 9:10 pm

        “the policy largely serves to provide a safe haven for persecuted Jewry ”

        And other persecuted people can go whistle.

        I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. (And probably again and again and again.) If a “safe haven” for Jews requires the dispossession or suffering of others then Jews will just have to forgo their safe haven. Potential suffering of Jews is not more important than actual suffering of non-Jews. Further, actual suffering of Jews is not more important than actual suffering of non-Jews.

        Your sense of entitlement is stunningly outrageous.

        You are saying that the safety of Jews from merely possible, future, injustice is more important than the actual injustice being afflicted now on the Palestinians. The Palestinians have to be sacrificed as an insurance policy for foreign Jews.

        It’s “We matter and you don’t.”

        This grotesquely immoral claim should be exposed and protested every time it emerges.

      • Maghlawatan
        November 28, 2016, 9:50 pm

        Israel is not viable . An elaborate system of human rights abuses is required to give the impression of Jewish control.
        But the whole point of being Jewish is not to be a ****

      • SandraLLAP
        November 28, 2016, 11:10 pm

        @talknic, you say, “Take all its illegal settler scum or leave them to become Palestinian citizens IF the Palestinians want ’em”, and believe it or not, this is actually very close to my vision (yes, ME- that horrible, monstrous, evil, soulless ” Zio-supremacist” etc. etc. etc. commenter that you’ve all come to bitterly despise- SANDRA) as well (minus the “scum” part… have you ever thought about, say, _not_ being so hateful?? You might consider giving that a try sometime- just sayin’.)

        But anyway- I happen to be in favor of the formation of a Palestinian nation, and allowing the settlers to remain where they are, and become citizens of the new nation. I was honestly a bit surprised when I read your comment, because I’ve never seen this idea anywhere else before (I had come up with it on my own), but it seems to me to be the best possible solution (it certainly appeals to me as being the easiest to achieve, since it involves no mass relocations i.e. “ethnic cleansing” whatsoever, which requires tremendous effort, not to mention the human suffering that goes along with it…)

      • Raphael
        November 28, 2016, 11:24 pm

        SandraLLAP

        I’m guessing that 99% of them want to be Americans, or Arab Americans rather then have anything to do in the physical land of Israel itself.

        I was a peace activist after the 60s… but many years ago.

        And, I think the culture of the 60s radicals, hippies, yippie’s was a fad, that ended in the 60s. Most of the peace groups I was part of were self- serving. More interested in fund raising, then with a compassion for humanity.

        I never personally met any current advocates for the Arabs because I’m a pacifist. It seems that the current activists for the Arabs justify violence in the name of the Arab cause. As a Conscientious objector to wars; I’m opposed to all violence.

        I guess the point I’m trying to make is I don’t think; they actually even care much about Israel. It perhaps is a convenient way for them to sell peace, or build up their egos by being good philanthropists… but that serves those Jewish communities, in a way more then that of serving, or helping the the Arabs (self -serving).

        I could be wrong… I never actually met any of them in person . As far as I can think, I can’t seem to have ever. Any liberal Jews I know are pro Israel, and they are, probably, more to the left then the Arab activist groups in the US.

        So if they (Arab activists) could care less of the language or the culture of Israel; other then perhaps thinking of a few slogans for a rally; then they might as well be talking to a wall, even if they are anti Israel.

        Many Arabs in Judea and Samaria, go day to day too Israel to work; some I think many off the books. They (the Arabs and Jews) talk to each other day to day. They also live separately in Judea and Samaria, and East Jerusalem…even a visit to the Old City in Jerusalem has separate regions for the Arabs, Jews, and Christians… already in a quasi state within a state run by de facto laws, simply by the difference of their culture , language and politics… separated by physical and invisible walls. No peace agreement on the books say for two states between Trump, the Arabs, and the Jews will ever break down those invisible walls; so within a year they will be fighting again.

        If they had official limited rights, to have a state within a state of Israel; then they would have political sovereignty, on that part of the land; that is their state. Limited rights… but those limits are only needed because Israel is a Jewish culture, and political system.

      • SandraLLAP
        November 28, 2016, 11:30 pm

        @echinococcus, you said- “It is still totally illegal for any non-Palestinian Jew or Buddhist or anything to invade Palestine without express authorization by its owners the Palestinian people”, and FYI, I happen to be against settlers moving into the West Bank.

        The torrent of hostility that has been unleashed against me all came from my mere (and, sorry folks- RATHER SENSIBLE) suggestion that the actual “nuts & bolts” implementation of the right of return for Palestinians, might be somewhat difficult. But the prevailing attitude here is that if anyone deviates even the slightest bit from your standard, staunch anti-Israel party line, then they must be some heartless demon. All of these hate-laden comments haven’t won me over to your thinking, but rather, if anything, they’ve only reinforced my belief that narrow-mindedness and intolerance are as big an obstacle to peace as anything. Here’s a suggestion, everyone: how about if you want to convince someone of something, you stick to calm, respectful, rationality? (Perhaps some soul searching on your part is required, to figure out why this is so beyond your capability.)

      • SandraLLAP
        November 28, 2016, 11:37 pm

        Oy, Mooser- you want to make aliyah to Israel, go right ahead! I, and no one else, is stopping you. Jews from all of the world make aliyah all the time. I was only saying that it would be monumentally difficult for Israel to absorb ALL of the world’s Jews at once (which is simply the truth), but this isn’t really an issue, because such a spontaneous mass Jewish migration to Israel isn’t going to happen.

      • RoHa
        November 28, 2016, 11:44 pm

        One desirable feature would be a change in the mindset of Israeli Jews. I would like them to stop concentrating on being Jews in a Jewish state and start thinking about being humans and citizens of an egalitarian state.

        My frequent use of the name “The Socialist and Democratic People’s Republic of the Holy Land” is not just a joke.

      • SandraLLAP
        November 29, 2016, 12:48 am

        @talknic again- I wrote my previous reply before I thought to check my website- and now I see that you had actually visited my site, and so you probably had just been referring to it, in your comment here. Well thanks for reading, and for your feedback (I’ll publish your response, and I’ll reply to it on my site after I’ve had some time to mull it over…)

        Well, I’ll give you all credit for one thing- you certainly don’t lack for passion or enthusiasm!

      • talknic
        November 29, 2016, 10:32 am

        @ SandraLLAP “have you ever thought about, say, _not_ being so hateful?? You might consider giving that a try sometime- just sayin’.)”

        What’s not to hate of criminals and people who spout their propaganda nonsense about “… an influx of millions of Palestinians into Israel”

        “I happen to be in favor of the formation of a Palestinian nation, and allowing the settlers to remain where they are, and become citizens of the new nation”

        IF Palestine wants them and why would they want the most hateful, zealous, anti-Arab Jews in their midst? No other country in the world accepts people who hate them

        But let’s say the Palestinians did allow these illegal Jewish settlers to stay. They should of course be required to PAY for the properties they have stolen and if they can’t then Israel should be required to compensate both Palestinians and stupid settlers who’ve been duped by successive Israeli Governments into believing they had a right to settle in non-Israeli territories while taking their money for the privilege of being endangered by being illegally settled on the front lines of so called defense

        BTW there was already a Palestinian Nation. It’s Nationality Law was adopted in 1925 per the LON Mandate for Palestine, Article 7

        “I was honestly a bit surprised when I read your comment, because I’ve never seen this idea anywhere else before”

        Try getting out more

        ” it seems to me to be the best possible solution (it certainly appeals to me as being the easiest to achieve, since it involves no mass relocations i.e. “ethnic cleansing” whatsoever, which requires tremendous effort, not to mention the human suffering that goes along with it…)”

        It will require enormous amounts of money that Israel doesn’t have. Israel won’t agree because it can’t afford to agree, it would be sent bankrupt

      • Mooser
        November 29, 2016, 12:03 pm

        “I happen to be in favor of the formation of a Palestinian nation, and allowing the settlers to remain where they are

        Yup, that’s Zionism! Criminals, breakers of Israeli and international law get an amnesty and privileges. Law-abiding, Zionist Jews from other countries get screwed, so the settlers can get theirs. Thanks “Sandra”

      • Mooser
        November 29, 2016, 12:08 pm

        @Mooser, I’ve already stated in a previous comment that I don’t think it’s feasible for all of the world’s Jews to relocate to Israel,” “Sandra”

        But then I said I would send a check! And look what happened! I got a ticket for the Kastner Train.:

        SandraLLAP November 28, 2016, 11:37 pm
        “Oy, Mooser- you want to make aliyah to Israel, go right ahead! I, and no one else, is stopping you. Jews from all of the world make aliyah all the time”

        Amazing what a little applied pelf can do! Sorry, all you other Jews. Enjoy the camps.

      • echinococcus
        November 29, 2016, 12:14 pm

        Sandrallap,

        I happen to be against settlers moving into the West Bank

        My suggestion had nothing to do with banks –or any shtetlers separate from other Zionist invaders.

        Repeat, any Zionist invader’s presence anywhere in Palestine is illegal. Palestine is the entire area covered by the late British mandate as of 1947.

        If you want to legalize any presence of such invaders, starting with the date in which the 1897 Zionist Congress in Basle declared its intent to occupy and take over the sovereignty of Palestine, you need to bring a valid, collective assent of the Palestinian people, for example in the form of a proper plebiscite. That does not mean collaboration by your own puppets.

        In “calm, respectful, rationality”, as long as the owners of the place insist in not inviting you people and you don’t have that plebiscite, the right thing to do by you guys is to go back to your respective homes.

      • RoHa
        November 29, 2016, 8:55 pm

        “The torrent of hostility that has been unleashed against me all came from my mere (and, sorry folks- RATHER SENSIBLE) suggestion that the actual “nuts & bolts” implementation of the right of return for Palestinians, might be somewhat difficult.”

        Without making a careful analysis of all the posts responding to you, I would say that the hostility (such as it is) comes from (a) you apparently rejecting the possibility of ROR, rather than merely pointing out that it “might be somewhat difficult”, (b) the stuff you write about the 1967 war being defensive and giving Israel rights over the conquered territory, and (c) your apparent concern for maintaining Jewish supremacy.

        “Here’s a suggestion, everyone: how about if you want to convince someone of something, you stick to calm, respectful, rationality?”

        Such as responding to the substance rather than complaining about “hate”?

      • JustJessetr
        November 30, 2016, 5:36 pm

        Annie wrote: “and alternative might be, since israeli jews has been controlling all of palestine/israel for decades, they could reverse that and put palestinians in charge. generously grant israelis the same rights they’ve afforded palestinians for the last half century, for the next 1/2 century. i bet israel could figure out an alternative they could live with pretty fast if that happened. equal rights might sound very doable under those circumstances.”

        So your secret hope is for revenge. Amusing, but not surprising.

      • Annie Robbins
        November 30, 2016, 5:53 pm

        no, not a “secret hope”. i was making a point about how fast they’d be coming up w/alternate plans if it was them under foot, instead of dragging out this colonization ad nauseum for decades under the guise of “security”.

        are you a sadist j jestur? is it fun for you trying to catch me? playing word games while people suffer.

      • Mooser
        December 4, 2016, 2:57 pm

        “So your secret hope is for revenge.”

        “Jesse”, stop worrying, already! Nobody takes “revenge” on 2 billion Jews. They wouldn’t dare.
        And given the rate of increase (truly phenomenal!) there’s every reason for Jews to adopt a forward, aggressive stance in world affairs.

        We’ve got to have “room to move” as the song says.

      • eljay
        December 4, 2016, 3:33 pm

        || JustJessetr: Annie wrote: “and alternative might be, since israeli jews has been controlling all of palestine/israel for decades, they could reverse that and put palestinians in charge. generously grant israelis the same rights they’ve afforded palestinians for the last half century, for the next 1/2 century. i bet israel could figure out an alternative they could live with pretty fast if that happened. equal rights might sound very doable under those circumstances.”

        So your secret hope is for revenge. Amusing, but not surprising. ||

        Revenge? You make it sounds as though Zio-supremacist Jews in (Mandate) Palestine have been doing unto others acts of injustice and immorality they would not have others do unto them. Interesting, but not surprising.

        But you must be mistaken, because we all know that Israel is a “Jewish and democratic” state that treats all of its people as only a “moral beacon” and “light unto the nations” state would and could do.

        Zio-supremacist Jews should welcome the role reversal – a “non-Jewish and democratic” state modeled on present-day Israel – and enjoy finally receiving some of what they have selflessly been giving for the past half century.

    • Raphael
      November 28, 2016, 7:38 pm

      talknic

      I recently became a Israeli citizen; and I find Israeli Jews more friendly to me then American Jews even though I’m a Goy Israelite.

      I think if I recall, the Israelis while I was living there call the West bank region Judea and Samaria. I’m in the process of learning modern Hebrew. I have no plans of ever joining a synagogue, or Arab advocacy groups of any kind ever in the US.

      I’m a individualist Goy Israelite, so I could care less if I offend Arab advocates, in the way I use the Hebrew language. Though I have no intention to offend.

      I’m curious why would you think; the Israelis would agree to move from Israel? Is that and attempt to scare them, into negotiating, or something? Is it written in some Arab publications?

      • talknic
        November 28, 2016, 8:57 pm

        @ Raphael November 28, 2016, 7:38 pm

        “I recently became a Israeli citizen … etc etc”

        Irrelevant to the issue

        “I think if I recall, the Israelis while I was living there call the West bank region Judea and Samaria. “

        It no longer carries those names

        “I’m curious why would you think; the Israelis would agree to move from Israel?”

        I’m curious where you got such a completely false notion

      • Mooser
        November 28, 2016, 9:07 pm

        ” I’m curious why would you think; the Israelis would agree to move from Israel”

        Because there won’t be enough of them, nor will they have the resources to hold it. Another unsuccessful colony. There’s been bunches, some larger than Israel. All gone, bye bye

      • Maghlawatan
        November 28, 2016, 9:52 pm

        Raphael

        It’s written in the book of Algeria, Chapter 16 , 1960-1964
        It’s not about what people want to do. It’s about what happens when it all goes tits up and the system falls apart.

      • Theo
        November 29, 2016, 8:18 am

        Congratulations, Raphael, you just became a member of the last colonising nation on Earth!! How does it feel to be responsible for the many dead palestinians, you kill a few of them almost every day, your IDF and police does it in your name?
        As far Judea and Samaria go, those names are only a small part of the history of Palestina. Before Joshua showed up and butchered the inhabitants of those city-states, like Moab, so the jews will not have to fight them again, there were peoples living there for thousands of years. Don´t they count? The Palestinians, previously called the Philisters, were living there long before the jews came, don´t they have a stake in the area? How about the arabs, being there about 1,400 years, a lot longer than the ancient Israel ever was, they don´t count either?
        If all peoples would have the rights to move back to the area where they lived 2,000 years ago, what a chaos would that cause? Or do you think the so called jews, as half of them are not, have these rights, however the palestinians, who live there since 3,000 years, have not?
        What a twisted idea of fairness.

      • Raphael
        November 29, 2016, 9:43 am

        Theo

        I’m a conscientious objector (pacifist).

        I never joined the IDF the brief time I was living there. If they had requested I participate in military exercises I would have refused to cooperate. I would do the same thing anywhere I live in the world.

        I am, of all people, am probably, deeply, more for the equal rights then many of the Arab activists; and at least half of the the Jewish Arab activists that are part of synagogues that have policies of being anti-Israel (self hating Jews).

        The Arabs, and the Jews have invisible walls, in their cultures based upon fundamentalism, policed by fundamentalist militaristic politics.

        Those invisible walls are in all political groups left to the right, from BDS to Bibi with theonationnal nation-state policies. At least half of the Jewish BDS activists would rip up there membership card, and move to Israel in a time of crisis.

        In the US they called it a separate but equal policy. Most American right wing ideologues in all the groups involved in the identity politics of that time approved of it to inflame the conflict between the groups during the 60s because it would benefit there own self serving fundamentalist groups, identity.

        See Obama… a classic identity Black power fundamentalists, like Malcom X as a example of self serving group that wants a separate but equal invisible wall to serve their own self serving agendas, rather then that of real equality, in a true democracy.

        If he had done even one of things, all his voters had hoped for when he was voted in… the Democrats would still be in power.

        Unless they are voted out of office, they are the “powers that be” in the 21st century, in most places of the world. There invisible walls are self imposed walls of us vs. them. Even if all the walls were torn down, they would build them again, and fight with each other, over and over again, in endless wars, throughout infinity.

        Non Violence is the most powerful force in the universe, up until the time when people cooperate with that force of non-violence in themselves, and in the world then wars, conflicts, and inequality will always exist.

      • Mooser
        November 29, 2016, 1:55 pm

        “I’m a conscientious objector (pacifist).
        I never joined the IDF the brief time I was living there. If they had requested I participate in military exercises I would have refused to cooperate”

        So you were under no compulsion at all to join the IDF, but you say you wouldn’t even if they “asked”? Now, that’s what I call “conscientious”! Very conscientious!

      • Raphael
        November 29, 2016, 4:26 pm

        Mooser

        Does the BDS movement say that its members have a… conscientious objection to violence against Jews, Israelis, and half Jews?

        Something tells me…. all the sages of the BDS movement, in their infinite wisdom of the Arab Israeli conflict, never even had the time to put the issue on the table.

      • Annie Robbins
        November 29, 2016, 4:52 pm

        you can go on their website raphael. what about you? do you have a conscientious objection to violence? does aipac? does the government of israel? what about hillel? how may israelis are conscientious objectors? what other groups are you wondering about? besides the palestinian non violent bds movement? anyone?

      • Mooser
        November 29, 2016, 5:49 pm

        “Does the BDS movement say that its members have a… conscientious objection to violence against Jews, Israelis, and half Jews?”

        BDS doesn’t just imply violence toward Israel! The violence of not buying from Israel is intrinsic to the violent act of not buying from Israel, and is an act of violence in itself! You have every right to want reassurance on that point “Raphael”. Not-buying is an act of personal violence toward Israel, (but it is never directed at Catholic Jews, so you are off the hook “Raphael”.)
        And perhaps it is time we made it explicit exactly who (or whom) people are not buying from when they don’t buy from Israel?

        ” you have a conscientious objection to violence.” “Annie”

        “Raphael” is so conscientious about this the Israeli government didn’t even dare ask him to join the IDF. They knew he would turn them down. He is, after all, a Catholic Jew.

      • Annie Robbins
        November 29, 2016, 8:58 pm

        mooser, we shouldn’t be too hard on ol rapha because he’s logically impaired. when he’s not battling it out earning his hasbrat creds here on mondoweiss he dreams about trolling iof sites querying them if they have a conscientious objection to violence against palestinians. so he has a good heart and building up the courage to challenge the violent torturing oppressors. in time, all in good time.

      • Raphael
        November 29, 2016, 6:33 pm

        Annie Robbins

        Yes, I object to violence. I’m not a Arab activist, and I was living in NYC during the time of 9/11… so I simply have a negative reaction too Arab flag wavers. Why should I not be worried?

        I recall… some Arab demonstrators going past my house with Arab flags, after 9/11.

        I don’t know if Israelis have a pacifist bent… I was not living there that long.

        Why do they have to wave the flag for a country that does not have non-violent resolutions then?

        If they wave a flag for a country, then are they really “non-violent” …. if that country is technically at war with Israel? How about some groups like the Arab league?

        Are they non-violent toward the Jews?

        Algeria, Bangladesh, Brunei, Iran, Iraq (except Iraqi Kurdistan,Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Oman, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.

        Which of the above countries ever even considered on the table non-violent resolutions toward the Jews, or Israel?

        When they wave the flag for BDS… what is the above countries position about the flag wavers during BDS movement actions about that country that they claim to represent at BDS demonstrations? Is it more like propaganda news, if there is any coverage?

        Or is it independent news?

        How much funding have they received, and by what specific funders, if any? Do they get press coverage in those above countries about those demonstrations? If so is the press coverage, the same, in those above countries, as it is in the US?

      • Annie Robbins
        November 29, 2016, 8:43 pm

        so that would be a “NO”, you have no other groups you’ve questioned about having a conscientious objection to violence. nor the israeli gov, nor hillel, nor aipac. you have no idea how may israelis are conscientious objectors. you’re only curious about the palestinian non violent bds movement, a vibrant global movement made up of unions, academic associations, churches and grassroots movements across the world dedicated to palestinian freedom and equality, launched by 170 Palestinian unions, political parties, refugee networks, women’s organisations, professional associations, popular resistance committees and other Palestinian civil society bodies inspired by the South African anti-apartheid movement — urging nonviolent pressure on Israel until it complies with international law.

        got it.

        BDS is an inclusive, anti-racist human rights movement that is opposed on principle to all forms of discrimination, including anti-semitism and Islamophobia.

        https://bdsmovement.net/what-is-bds

      • Mooser
        November 29, 2016, 7:26 pm

        “Raphael” has anybody ever pointed out that you contradict yourself within sentences, and then contradict yourself every other sentence, and then do it again in the next paragraph?

        Not to mention your inane and offensive habit of inventing all kinds of self-serving categories, and your obsession with them.

        And the stuff about your Mom and parents. I shouldn’t wonder if you make hardened shrinks wince.( Not to mention that insightful analysis of Obama, “classic identity Black power fundamentalists” and “separate but equal” in America)

        “Non Violence is the most powerful force in the universe, up until the time when people cooperate with that force of non-violence in themselves, and in the world then wars, conflicts, and inequality will always exist.”

        What is this kind of nonsense supposed to achieve, or do you just have a bad case of rhetorical dyslexia?

      • Raphael
        November 29, 2016, 9:58 pm

        Annie Robbins

        I will not be joining the BDS movement. I was curious about it, though because I’m half Jewish, and now currently a new Israeli citizen. I seen Bibi having a nervous breakdown over BDS, so it was sort of interesting to see what all the controversy was over.

        I see the language of BDS activists as more as veiled threats toward Israel, though. I personally ignore threats. I don’t know if that is how Israelis react to BDS activists that have lived there longer then me. When I moved there, I made it a point to stay way from politics for one year.

        Do the BDS activists ever talk to media people in Israel? If they are ignored by the Israeli media; it seems to me that BDS is talking to a wall. Most Israelis don’t watch the US media, it seemed to me.

        Are any of the leaders of BDS fluent in Hebrew?

      • Theo
        November 30, 2016, 11:44 am

        Hallo Raphael

        So you are a pacifist, you don´t join the IDF, but gladly watch when they do their dirty work! How human, in Germany good 75 years ago there were millions of your kind, they did not join the nazi party, however did not bother to save the life of a single jew!!! They all were pacifists!
        If you are not a jew, what are you doing in Israel? Trying to boost the headcount in favour of zionists?

      • Mooser
        November 30, 2016, 4:16 pm

        “Do the BDS activists ever talk to media people in Israel? If they are ignored by the Israeli media; it seems to me that BDS is talking to a wall”

        That’s true isn’t it? Nobody in the world can stop buying Israel’s goods or investing in Israel until the Israelis give us permission to do it!

  11. SandraLLAP
    November 28, 2016, 5:08 pm

    @Annie, we’ve come full circle, back to the point of my very first post on this page. If the fundamental problem is that Israel is reluctant to agree to concessions, then this is where non-violent tactics such as boycotting can come into play. However, as I’m trying to get across, if the demands associated with the boycott are unrealistic, then progress will be unachievable. If, say, you insist that every Palestinian child be given a purple unicorn, then you can all stomp your feet and scream your heads off about “Zio-supremacists” until the heat death of the universe, and we’ll never get anywhere. But if a plan is laid out for which there is actually some chance that Israel can accommodate it, then we can finally move towards peace.

    • Annie Robbins
      November 28, 2016, 5:37 pm

      if a plan is laid out for which there is actually some chance that Israel can accommodate it, then we can finally move towards peace.

      tell you what sandra, why don’t you go lobby the goi to come up w/a plan then. because since it appears you’ve not been following events in the last decades, there have been several plans palestinians have laid out which there is actually some chance that israel could accommodate, and they didn’t. maybe you should start here: https://www.theguardian.com/world/view-from-jerusalem-with-harriet-sherwood/2011/jan/24/palestine-papers-palestinian-territories

      The Palestine Papers – the cache of documents from Israel-Palestine peace negotiations over the past decade which the Guardian is revealing this week – make fascinating reading for anyone interested in both the history and the future of this place.

      Many Palestinians will be shocked at how much their negotiators were prepared to offer to reach a deal in 2008 – on settlements and on the right of return of refugees.

      But there’s another side of this coin too – the documents also show the Palestinians were serious about negotiating, and were willing to make big and painful concessions for peace and to secure their dream of a state.

      From the papers I’ve read, there is little evidence of the Israelis matching this approach by making serious and painful concessions of their own.

      Indeed Tzipi Livni is fairly dismissive of the offer on East Jerusalem settlements, focussing on what the Palestinians would not agree to, rather than acknowledging the magnitude of what they were prepared to concede.

      Among the settlement blocs that the Palestinians were not willing to give up were Ariel and Ma’ale Adumim.

      more at the link. then there’s this: http://mondoweiss.net/2011/12/europe-asks-wheres-israels-proposal/

      On November 14th Palestinian Authority President Abbas turned over proposals for Palestinian state borders and security arrangements to the Quartet “as a demonstration of flexibility and to garner the support of the international community. Abbas also committed to suspending any unilateral steps at the UN until January 26.”

      The Quartet then requested that Netanyahu provide a counter proposal. The Israeli premier balked, citing as an excuse that such proposals should be presented in direct negotiations. Thus far Israel has refused to submit a counter-proposal.

      then they had direct negotiations, and israelis came empty handed!. and here’s an even more current occurance of the same thing: http://mondoweiss.net/2014/04/the-borders-stupid/

      either way, there already is a plan and a proposal. it’s posted on the bds website. if israel is interested in a modification maybe it’s their turn to make a counter offer.

      If the fundamental problem is that Israel is reluctant to agree to concessions, then this is where non-violent tactics such as boycotting can come into play.

      exactly. the fundamental problem is that Israel is reluctant to agree to a palestinian state, hence, the boycott. your pie in the sky idea, about israel agreeing to give up the occupied territory, is a radical fantasy. they will not agree to that, ever. they will not agree to even more moderate proposals than yours. i’m not understanding why, under the circumstances, you are not spending your valuable time somewhere over on the far right spectrum of the internet lobbying your ideas to likudites about 2 states. unless you’ve got some evidence they’ve made numerous proposals that were all turned down.

      here’s what team israel has to offer: hasbara and pr and no change of policy.

      here’s what team palestine has, virtually nothing to bargain with. and you want them to make concessions? because it’s so complex no doubt.

      israel’s generous offer has generally consisted of “move to jordan”. sustained pressure in the form of BDS is the most logical conclusion. but then you do seem a tad logic impaired.

      • SandraLLAP
        November 28, 2016, 7:06 pm

        Annie, thank you for your detailed & thoughtful (albeit somewhat rude as well, but hey, I guess I can’t have everything) response. Well, first- what makes you think that I’m not also arguing with the other side? (See the comments on these 2 links, for some examples: http://www.newsweek.com/election-donald-trump-two-state-solution-stake-524353?rx=us , and
        http://www.newsweek.com/trump-election-prods-bibi-make-choice-524412 ) And second, why are you so pessimistic as to say, “they will not agree to that, ever. they will not agree to even more moderate proposals than yours”? For I would like to think that a boycott & other non-violent tactics, towards *reasonable* goals, could be effective, just as it had been with South Africa.

      • amigo
        November 28, 2016, 10:40 pm

        “Well, first- what makes you think that I’m not also arguing with the other side? (See the comments on these 2 links, for some examples”Sandra llap

        I took the trouble of checking both of the links you provided and no surprise , the second one had only 2 comments , neither of which had anything to do with arguing with the zionist side.

        The first link had one comment —the following screed –is that you???.

        “-Areas heavily populate by Arabs in the West Bank and part of the land inhabited by Arabs from Israel will be governed by Jordan.

        -Areas populated by Jews in the west bank will be included in Israel.

        -Both Arabs and Jew will remain in their current homes, villages and towns- nobody will have to move physically. Nobody will be transferred. The only think they will change is the government less”.

      • amigo
        November 28, 2016, 10:53 pm

        “For I would like to think that a boycott & other non-violent tactics, towards *reasonable* goals, could be effective, just as it had been with South Africa. ” sandra llap

        Allow me to remind you that the goal in SA was one state with justice and equality for all it,s citizens.It required that the White minority give up their control and stop breaking international law.Me thinks that was a reasonable goal.Don,t you agree ?.

      • SandraLLAP
        November 30, 2016, 3:05 am

        amigo- I really, genuinely appreciate that you took the trouble to check the links in my comment, but I’m not sure why you couldn’t find my comments on those pages that I linked to (I use a similar icon on them, my “peace on Earth” graphic). I’ve got 3 comments on the first page, and 5 on the second. Well if those links I gave somehow didn’t work for you, try Googling “Newsweek Trump’s Election Prods Netanyahu to Make a Choice”, and “Newsweek With the Election of Donald Trump, the Two-State Solution Is at Stake”. (Or maybe, did you perhaps just neglect to click the “load more comments” button, at the bottom?)

        I could provide lots of other examples too, but I chose those 2 pages because of the relatively low total number of comments on them (not thinking it would be fair to expect you to wade through hundreds of comments to find mine). Well, this one has “only” 63 comments, many of which are mine (same icon)- https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/sweden-deeply-concerned-over-israels-settlement-bill/2016/11/18/edcde66e-ad7c-11e6-8f19-21a1c65d2043_story.html (and in particular, you might appreciate the lively sparring match I had herein with TedDruch).

        I’m feeling compelled to “exonerate” myself, because it should be clear from my comments on these other pages that I am no “zionist wannabe apologist” (referring to one of your other comments).

      • amigo
        November 30, 2016, 1:58 pm

        “and in particular, you might appreciate the lively sparring match I had herein with TedDruch). – ” Sandrallap

        You so called sparring match was a debate between a far right wing zionist nutjob (druch) who claims all Palestinians want to kill all the Jews and you, who affords legitimate ownership of land Israel gained in a war of defence (untrue) .You also conceded to this druch character that the Palestinians are mostly to blame.You also did not haul him up when he stated that Palestinians do not want peace.You conceded that the Palestinian leadership bore all the blame but by omission you gave nutandyahoo /Barak/Peres/Olmert/Shamir. et al a pass.Your sparring match was more like two white slave owners arguing the degree of punishment that should be meted out to a black slave.

        Nothing there to pat yourself on the back fo.

        Instead of sparring with those here who support equality and justice for all , you might try following the links they provide and enlighten yourself as to what exactly Israel has been doing for the last 60 +years.Some of our commenters are extremely knowledgeable Finding the truth can be very liberating.

        You can start by googling “Inadmissibility of territory gained through war”.

      • SandraLLAP
        November 30, 2016, 8:18 pm

        Wow amigo- thanks for taking the effort to look at that thread (and again, I’m being completely sincere). Although, I would have to disagree with your characterization of it. Technically, I didn’t actually concede to him that the Palestinians were mostly at fault- the strongest statement I had made in that direction, was just an acknowledgement of the possibility that they *may* be more at fault (proof of how weak a statement that was, is TedDruch’s angry reaction to it- to quote him, “That the Palestinians ‘might’ be more at fault is a pretty laughable construction.”

        The only thing I feel fairly certain of, is that neither side has acted perfectly. But I’ve held off on making any definitive statements as to which side may be more at fault. I feel such an assessment would require a comprehensive analysis of all the actions taken by both sides since the beginning of the history of the conflict, which is no small task (and, please, you needn’t respond with a extensive cataloging of all the wrong done by Israel, although I have no doubt that many here are very capable of producing such. I’ve seen it all before, as well as the equally lengthy cataloging done by the other side. Oh right- but that’s all “Zionist propaganda”… My experience from arguing with both sides has shown some irony in all this, in that as much as the two sides detest each other, I’ve found that in a way they’re actually similar, in only factoring in what supports their view, and anything that doesn’t is either minimized/trivialized, or reflexively dismissed as propaganda.)

        But there is one thing that I feel can be said with certainty (and it goes in your favor), which is, which side is currently in a stronger position: no extensive research is needed to determine this- it’s patently obvious that Israel now has the upper hand. And for this reason, I don’t feel we need to dwell so obsessively on who has been “more wrong”. Regardless, even if the Palestinians have been “more wrong” (which, again, I’m NOT necessarily saying is so), Israel nonetheless, as of right now, has more power to move in the direction of making peace (because otherwise, if Israel was powerless to do anything, then why even discuss boycotts- what would be the point, unless Israel has the capability to make the changes that we hope a boycott could bring about?)

      • Mooser
        November 30, 2016, 9:34 pm

        “But there is one thing that I feel can be said with certainty (and it goes in your favor), which is, which side is currently in a stronger position: no extensive research is needed to determine this- it’s patently obvious that Israel now has the upper hand. And for this reason, I don’t feel we need to dwell so obsessively on who has been “more wrong”.”

        Yeah, ‘might and numbers make right’ is a principle which has always served us Jews well in the past, and why not even more so in the future, given our burgeoning growth and unity.
        For a nation of 2 billion people, what you are saying makes perfect sense, “Sandra”.

      • talknic
        November 30, 2016, 10:08 pm

        @ SandraLLAP
        “I didn’t actually concede to him that the Palestinians were mostly at fault- the strongest statement I had made in that direction, was just an acknowledgement of the possibility that they *may* be more at fault … “

        This yours? “The reason Israel has that territory in the first place, is because it was gained from winning an unprovoked war of self-defense.”

        Gentle reminder … Palestine did not decide to colonize anyone in 1897. The wars and bloodshed following the Zionist Federation’s 1897 decision to colonize Palestine are entirely the fault of the Zionist Federation

        ” But I’ve held off on making any definitive statements as to which side may be more at fault. “

        This yours? “The reason Israel has that territory in the first place, is because it was gained from winning an unprovoked war of self-defense.”

        “I feel such an assessment would require a comprehensive analysis of all the actions taken by both sides since the beginning of the history of the conflict, which is no small task …”

        It’s quite simple. Israel declared its frontiers in its plea for recognition and was subsequently recognized as such, no more, no less. Nothing outside of Israel’s frontiers was or has ever been agreed to be Israeli thru any legal agreement with Palestine/Paslestinians. Whether Palestine was a state or not is irrelevant. There is not a single Zionist/Israeli argument that actually passes scrutiny.

        “I’ve seen it all before, as well as the equally lengthy cataloging done by the other side. Oh right- but that’s all “Zionist propaganda”…”

        It IS Zionist propaganda. It is blind to the fact that the Palestinian actions are a response to the Zionist Federation decision to colonize and finance the colonization of Palestine at the expense of the people of Palestine and at the expense of repayable loans to Jewish settlers who they sent to the front lines while they wined and dined in the safety of the rich and influential and; it dismisses entirely or misrepresents International Law, the UN Charter, it’s own Declaration of statehood and even its own high court decisions

        “… it’s patently obvious that Israel now has the upper hand. And for this reason, I don’t feel we need to dwell so obsessively on who has been “more wrong”.”

        This yours? “The reason Israel has that territory in the first place, is because it was gained from winning an unprovoked war of self-defense.”

        ” Israel nonetheless, as of right now, has more power to move in the direction of making peace “

        Israel has always had the ability and power to end the conflict by simply adhering to its obligations to International Law. It hasn’t. Instead it has illegally escalated the conflict at every opportunity

        “… why even discuss boycotts- what would be the point, unless Israel has the capability to make the changes that we hope a boycott could bring about”

        ONLY Israel can end its illegal occupation. Only Israel can withdraw from all non-Israeli territories.

        Israel can do it immediately except for the fact that it would send the Jewish state to the wall because Israel does not have and will never have the capability of affording to adhere to the law.

        Under the law, Israel is required to get out of all non-Israeli territories, including Jerusalem. Remove from non-Israeli territories its institutions, Knesset, High Court, illegal settlers and every other illegal fact on the ground and f*ck off back to Israel and then; pay compensation for 70 years of war crimes, dispossession and illegal use of non-Israeli resources

        Israel and the Jewish people and the Palestinians have been screwed by Zionist greed and corruption

    • Maghlawatan
      November 28, 2016, 9:54 pm

      Who defines unrealistic ?
      the Torah says you have to respect people.
      You can run nihilism fo a while but eventually it catches up with you.

      What do you not want is to lose control. But it is impossible to control nihilism.

    • Theo
      November 29, 2016, 8:29 am

      BS, SandraLLAP

      Not the palestinians, but the israelis go back on any agreement, like the Oslo one, steal more and more of the land that should be part of future Palestina, cut up the land with jews only roads, and destroy old arab towns, wells and orchards! As the zionist already planned in the 1930s, you want all the lands that supposedly once was Israel, and will do anything to achieve it.
      The present palestinians leadership was bought a long time ago, they do what the USA/Israel tells them to do, Abbas is a lapdog.

      • Raphael
        November 29, 2016, 10:12 pm

        RoHa

        Some cultures of people in this world want to be live separately… away from others. Even the blacks during the civil rights era were split in half… half the blacks wanted what is called separate but equal to be the law of the land… the other half wanted civil rights.

        It gives them a reason, a group a chit chat environment too justify the hate, and the object group to hate. But they lost and the civil rights laws were passed.

      • RoHa
        November 30, 2016, 12:44 am

        People who want to live separately should not plonk themselves down in the middle of a lot of other people. They should do what the Amish did, and go and live in some God-forsaken wilderness miles from civilization. That’s what the USA is for.

      • echinococcus
        November 30, 2016, 2:29 am

        RoHa,

        Well said.

        As for:

        Would it not be better for the secular Israeli Jews to give up this nonsense, and start thinking in terms of citizenship in a state for all its citizens

        One has to observe that all incoming Zionists have their own citizenship and passed the rights to it to their local offspring. The new citizenship is more of a “vanity” citizenship, valuable to them only insofar as it is tethered to their particularism nonsense and opposition to the local nationality. For the overwhelming majority of course, not the few marginal cases. Compare to the other side.

        If, say, St. Nicholas decided to operate a major miracle once more and created a state with effective equality, I’d open a book for betting on the percentage of uninvited Zios who would accept to stay vs those legging it.

      • Mooser
        November 30, 2016, 4:21 pm

        “half the blacks wanted what is called separate but equal to be the law of the land… the other half wanted civil rights.”

        “Seperate but equal” was never the “law of the land”. “Seperate but equal” was an excuse used by one state ( South Carolina?) in justifying school segregation and the unequal funding of the segregated schools.
        As to “Raphaels” summation of what “half the blacks wanted”, I will defer to his superior imagination.

      • Mooser
        November 30, 2016, 4:26 pm

        “They should do what the Amish did, and go and live in some God-forsaken wilderness miles from civilization. That’s what the USA is for.”

        And really, when you look at it, the Amish people’s entire privileges consist of praying the way they want, screwing with their kids minds til they’re 18, and growing as much hair as they desire. That’s really no more than anybody else gets.
        And it’s up to “RoHa” if “kids” or “minds” or both gets an apostrophe.

      • RoHa
        November 30, 2016, 9:08 pm

        I wish I could grow as much hair as I desire. My pate is becoming more exposed to the elements every day.

      • Mooser
        December 3, 2016, 8:00 pm

        “I wish I could grow as much hair as I desire. My pate is becoming more exposed to the elements every day.”

        Get in touch with the Amish. And if you get any advice that works, tell me. I too, am suffering from age related desertification of the dome.

        Have you tried rubbing your scalp with a nitric-acid and lemon-juice solution? Well, don’t!

    • RoHa
      November 29, 2016, 8:58 pm

      “I’m not going to ignore your hatred. It is significant, because this level of abject hatred is not compatible with peace. I feel that all relevant components should be factored in, including the hatred, and the fact that the Palestinians haven’t exactly acted like perfect angels, either.”

      Perhaps you could ask yourself what generated the alleged hatred, and what caused the Palestinians to act badly.

      I seems to me that you are concentrating on “hate” to avoid meeting the points we make.

      But since you are so concerned with attitudes that are not compatible with peace, perhaps you could start with the attitude that being Jewish is terribly important, since that is at the core of the desire to maintain a Jewish state.

      I can understand religious Jews regarding it as important, but not secular Jews. For them, being a Jew is (according to Mikhael) a matter of having Jewish ancestors. Why is this such a big deal? Everyone has ancestors – even me! And most people’s ancestors are as boring and inconsequential as mine. (No titles of nobility, no vast family fortunes built on piracy, slavery, or the opium trade. My ancestors did little to earn my gratitude.) So why does it matter whether or not they were Jews? What is the point of thinking in terms of being a “national group”?

      Would it not be better for the secular Israeli Jews to give up this nonsense, and start thinking in terms of citizenship in a state for all its citizens? And then invite the Palestinians to give up any similar nonsense they might believe, and be equal citizens of the state.

      Why not learn to live together, rather than maintain separation?

      • Raphael
        November 30, 2016, 12:00 am

        RoHa

        For many years of my life I had a similar view in ways. I was a American; I lived in the present, read poetry, and life was heaven on earth.

        Why would I even care about in depth ancestry work? Would be a question that would not of ever even entered my mind, until I was physically attacked, because, of being perceived as being Jewish.

        My whole life was turned upside down. I had survived yes. But, I was a different person. I could not believe, I would have to from that day on in my life be something I never wanted to be a American Jew.

        I never even liked my father; he seemed like a nice guy he was Jewish; but he had divorced my mother, so I just wanted to go on with my life. But, I was forced to be a part of his world.

        So to deal with the divisions of being both a goy and a Jew; I did similar research into my ancestry; and things got even worse. I was starting to know; no matter what I may think; that my Jewish nose, my Jewish face was exactly like that of my father’s.

        And he lived in a exclusive Jewish community all his life as a stereotypical American Jew. And here he is living a secure life in a sort of gated community, and I’m being attacked not just once, but other times for being Jewish, and I was not even a Jew.

        But, in facing the things I did not want to it became interesting. My ancestry was in many ways fascinating for me; and it eventually led me to become a Israeli citizen. which for me is one of the best things I ever did in my life.

        Because, I seen a whole world I never even knew existed in Israel, and I had roots in it, a home that not only I lived in, but also others like me, all going through similar life stories like that I go through day to day. And, my Israeli citizenship papers says I’m Israeli which for me is perfect for me… because I never wanted to be a American Jew.

      • Mooser
        November 30, 2016, 4:42 pm

        “And, my Israeli citizenship papers says I’m Israeli which for me is perfect for me… because I never wanted to be a American Jew.”

        Stop bullshitting “Rapahel”. You didn’t lose your American citizenship, nor is your US passport invalid.

        And now you can be a Catholic Jew in Israel. Ho-Kay! See you at Mass.

        “until I was physically attacked, because, of being perceived as being Jewish.”

        Uh “Raphe” do you know how many different stories you have told about this by now? Anyway, keep up the individuation and self-actualization. It’s your strongest point.

      • SandraLLAP
        December 1, 2016, 1:17 am

        RoHa- you have a very interesting comment here… please see my latest comment, at the very bottom of this page, for my response.

  12. talknic
    November 28, 2016, 5:30 pm

    SandraLLAP spouts the usual ignorant Zionist bullsh*t

    RoR to Israel only applies to:
    A) Israeli territory as officially proclaimed effective by the Israeli Government in 1948 http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf
    B) Those non-Jewish Israeli citizens Israel was begging to stay as it was simultaneously dispossessing most of them
    http://pages.citebite.com/b3n4r7v9f8xit

    • Maghlawatan
      November 28, 2016, 10:19 pm

      After 50 years of occupation the idea that Israel owns 78% of the land is nuts.

      It’ll have to be split 50/50
      If Yossi Israeli doesn’t like it, fuck him

  13. amigo
    November 29, 2016, 12:14 pm

    For your benefit Sandra llap

    http://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.ie/2008/07/how-to-make-case-for-israel-and-win.html

    “To the benefit of the many not-very-bright zionist wannabe apologists who read this blog assiduously, I decided to offer a clear and simple method of arguing the case for Israel. This clear and simple method has been distilled from a life spent listening to and reading Zionist propaganda. It is easy to follow and results are guaranteed or your money back.

    So don’t hesitate! Take advantage NOW of this revolutionary rhetorical system that will make YOU a great apologist for Israel in less time than it takes to shoot a Palestinian toddler in the eye.

    Ready? 1..2..3..GO!

    You need to understand just one principle:

    The case for Israel is made of four propositions that should always be presented in the correct escalating order.

    We rock
    They suck
    You suck
    Everything sucks

    That’s it. Now you know everything that it took me a lifetime to learn. The rest is details; filling in the dotted lines.

    You begin by saying how great Israel is. Israel want peace; Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East; the desert blooms; kibutz; Israelis invented antibiotics, the wheel, the E minor scale; thanks to the occupation Palestinians no longer live in caves; Israel liberates Arab women; Israel has the most moral army in the world, etc.

    This will win over 50% of your listeners immediately. Don’t worry about the factual content. This is about brand identity, not writing a PhD. Do you really think BP is ‘beyond petroleum’?

    Then you go into the second point: They suck. Here you talk about the legal system of Saudi Arabia, gay rights in Iran, slave trade in the Sudan, Mohammad Atta, the burqa, Palestinians dancing after 9/11, Arafat’s facial hair, etc.

    There is only one additional principle you need to understand here. It will separate you from the amateurs. You need to know your audience. If you’ve got a crowd already disposed to racist logic, go for it with everything you have. But if you get a liberal crowd, you need to sugar coat the racism a bit. Focus on women rights, human rights, religious tolerance, “clash of civilizations”, terrorism, they teach their children to hate, etc. Deep down your audience WANTS to enjoy racism and feel superior. They just need the proper encouragement so they can keep their sophisticated self-image. Give them what they crave and they’ll adore you! But be careful not to ‘mix n match,’ because it will cost you credibility.

    When you’re done, there will always be dead-enders insisting that abuse of gays in Iran does not justify ethnic cleansing in Palestine. Take a deep breath, and pull the doomsday weapon: You suck!

    You’re a Jew-hater, Arab-lover, anti-Semite, you’re a pinko, a commie, a dreamer, a naive, a self-hater, you have issues, your mother worked for the Nazis, Prince Bandar buys you cookies, you forgot you were responsible for the holocaust, etc. The more the merrier. By the time you end this barrage, only a handful would be left standing. For mopping them up, you use the ultimate postmodern wisdom: Everything sucks.

    War, genocide, racism, oppression are everywhere. From the Roma in Italy to the Native-Americans in the U.S., the weak are victimized. Why pick on Israel? It’s the way of the world. Look! Right is only in question between equals in power; the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. Ethics, schmethics. Life is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Eat, drink! Carpe diem! The Palestinians would throw us into the sea if they could. Ha ha!

    Trust me, that’s as far as words can go. If you followed this method faithfully, you’ve done your work. You should leave the few who are still unconvinced to the forces of order.

    Congratulations!
    You are now ready to
    apologize for Israel like a pro.

    Posted by Gabriel @ 1:44 pm 47 Comments

    • MHughes976
      November 29, 2016, 12:33 pm

      That’s all very well, amigo, but what about ‘self-determination in the historic homeland’?

      • amigo
        November 29, 2016, 1:55 pm

        “That’s all very well, amigo, but what about ‘self-determination in the historic homeland’?”MHughes976

        The Historic Homeland definitely sucks.

    • Mooser
      November 29, 2016, 1:04 pm

      “The case for Israel is made of four propositions that should always be presented in the correct escalating order”

      “amigo” mon ami, you’ve got to be careful with that article! I once recommended it to a Zionist here, and they took it seriously, and said ‘I know all that, that’s how any argument or advocacy is presented!’

  14. SandraLLAP
    November 30, 2016, 2:17 am

    To my Mondoweiss fan club: I have to say, I’m feeling a bit conflicted… on the one hand, I feel I owe you all replies, because of the considerable effort that’s obviously been put into this torrent of comments towards me (even though, on the other hand, you’ve railed against me as though I was Satan himself…) But, perhaps this can serve as an example of the feasibility concept, that I’ve been trying to get across: in an ideal world, I would write
    careful, thorough replies to everyone, but due to practical limitations in the real world, I’m afraid it’s not feasible for me to do so. (I’ll make an attempt though, but I can’t make it be instantaneous- there’s just one of me, and many of you.) In the meantime I suppose you could return to the positively riveting discussion you were all having before, on the placement of commas. ;)

    • Mooser
      November 30, 2016, 5:33 pm

      “To my Mondoweiss fan club:”

      No, thank you “SandraLLAP”! It was time somebody disabused me of my blintz-in-the-sky fantasy that Israel might be a place of refuge for Jews when troubled by anti-Semitism. I’ll make other plans, if I can.
      But I see your point, if there isn’t room for the world’s Jews in Israel, there certainly isn’t room for all the Palestinians you kicked out.
      Thanks for letting me down easy. “SandraLLAP” It just isn’t, well, feesible.

  15. Ossinev
    November 30, 2016, 6:28 am

    @SandraLLAP
    “OK Ossinev (and everyone else)- I’m going to just “cut to the chase”, by asking the one question that matters above all else: what, exactly, is your vision for peace between the Israelis and Palestinians?”

    Still tiptoeing round that mirror Sandra. Cutting to the chase as you request I have no vision for peace. The”peace” you are referring to and are desperately clinging on to is the faux Oslo Zionist peace concoction with your beloved colonials still lording it over Palestine assisted by their little Vichy PA muppets. As Mooser has indicated it is basically down to good old demographics and the disintegration of yet one more, and in this case particularly absurd colony. One state in Palestine will emerge. I don`t think it will be a “peaceful” scenario judging by the core loony settler element now calling the shots in Israel. However a significant proportion of the relatively “patriotic” Israelis will jump ship and head off back to their native soils in the US and Europe once they realise that they will have to share real estate with Arabs ( possibly also a significant number of Russian emigrant”Jews” who will return to their by now more attractive motherland and reconvert rapidly to actual religion ).

    Please summon up the courage.Look in the mirror.Admit that your Zionist dream is unravelling. Then you at least might find some peace.

    • SandraLLAP
      December 1, 2016, 10:59 am

      Ossinev- I asked you the “cut to the chase” question, because based on your reply to my reply, I had guessed that either, 1- you had no vision for peace, or, 2- if you did have one, it would probably have some deficiencies. But it’s fine- this gives me an opportunity to present my version again (you’re right, I shouldn’t “tiptoe”… I should stride forth, boldly…) So, my preference: 2 states, with the new state of Palestine encompassing all of Gaza and the West Bank, _including_ the land of the Israeli settlements. The Israeli residents of the settlements have the option to either remain where they are, as citizens of Palestine, or relocate to Israel if they wish to remain Israeli citizens. And these two nations not only cease to be enemies, but they actually become allies (yes, allies- because if Germany and France were able to do it, then goddammit, so can Israel and Palestine). They *finally* decide to stop this UTTERLY POINTLESS debating, over who is more “genocidal” than the other, and realize that perhaps it would be a tad less idiotic to instead band together to insure that the *actual* genocidal folks (you know, the darlings currently wreaking apocalyptic havoc right next door to them), stay the #@$%! away from them.

      And thus, we have a free & independent Israel, with a Jewish majority and an Arab minority, living side by side with a free & independent Palestine, with an Arab majority and a Jewish minority (it has a lovely “yin-yang” sort of symmetry to it, don’t you think?) And this plan has other advantages, aside from abstract aesthetics. Note that there’s no “ethnic cleansing” involved whatsoever to bring this peace about, so we don’t have any of the human suffering typically associated with that. And this consequently also spares anyone from having to expend the considerable efforts required to carry out ethnic cleansing. In fact, all that’s needed for this peace to happen, is simply for enough people to decide to want it.

      But in the end, it’s all speculation- none of us can predict the future, because the future is determined by what people decide, and it is impossible to know what choices people will make, because with free will, people can choose anything. So, you could be right- maybe we will eventually end up with a single state, encompassing all of the land of Israel and the territories. And because, with the combined populations of Israel, the territories, and the settlements, there will be roughly the same number of Jews as Arabs, then this new country will be neither a Jewish country or an Arab country, but rather, over time, comes to take on some new, unforeseeable variety of hybrid, conglomerate character…

      It all basically comes down to which long term outcome people choose- which one they decide appeals to them more.

  16. SandraLLAP
    December 1, 2016, 1:05 am

    I’ve thought about what might be the best way to go about responding to the avalanche of comments I’ve gotten, and decided it would be most efficient to combine replies to several of you, into one comment. So, from RoHa:

    “What is the point of thinking in terms of being a ‘national group’? Would it not be better for the secular Israeli Jews to give up this nonsense, and start thinking in terms of citizenship in a state for all its citizens? And then invite the Palestinians to give up any similar nonsense they might believe, and be equal citizens of the state. Why not learn to live together, rather than maintain separation?”

    Now that sentiment, I can’t call hateful. In fact, it seems the very opposite of hateful… to me, it evokes the idealized peace that John Lennon sang about in “Imagine”- where all the people of the planet only see themselves as human beings, making no distinctions along religious, ethnic, or national lines, and simply live together in harmony. I admit, it’s a truly beautiful vision, but the forces behind why people choose to maintain their religious/ethnic/national identities is a profoundly deep matter, which I’m not saying isn’t worthy of discussion, but I feel that a truly adequate treatment of such a complex issue would be beyond what could be accommodated in this comment forum.

    There is one aspect to this though that I feel I should point out, because Raphael had touched upon it in one of his comments. Jews have historically found that even if they decided themselves that they no longer cared to retain their Jewish identity, it’s not completely up to them, because the world often still insists on seeing them as such. Note that Raphael said he was physically attacked, only for *looking* Jewish, due to having a Jewish father (since his mother isn’t Jewish, he technically isn’t Jewish, unless he chooses to convert). And this is a good segue to a point I wanted to make, as to something else RoHa had said in that same comment:

    “Perhaps you could ask yourself what generated the alleged hatred, and what caused the Palestinians to act badly.”

    Hatred doesn’t always have a rational cause. Raphael being attacked for appearing to be Jewish, is a perfect example of this. Of course, this doesn’t excuse any wrongdoing on Israel’s part. And I do believe it is quite possible that the Palestinians would be less angry if Israel did treat them more favorably. However, I also believe it is possible that even if all Israelis from now on acted like perfect saints, that Palestinians would still continue to carry out terror attacks against them, for no other reason than pure bigotry and hatred. And please note that I’m not necessarily saying that this would happen, only that it could be like that- and it is impossible for anyone to prove otherwise.

    Personally- I was born Jewish, and have chosen to retain my Jewish identity (as to how I look- growing up in New York City, I was frequently mistaken for being Italian or Greek, so I suppose I could perhaps “pass” as a gentile, if I were to choose this). But again, to fully go into all the many facets of my heritage that I treasure, would be way too much for these comments. So instead I’ve picked just one piece of Jewish wisdom, that I love so much that I live by it, to share with you: “Who is strong? He who can control his impulses. Who is rich? He who is satisfied with what he has. Who is wise? He who can learn from everyone.” I chose this in particular, because it’s a big part of why I’m here in this discussion- yes, even those here who have relentlessly vilified me, I feel I can learn from. Take for instance, Annie Robbins- she pointed out that in practice, it might not actually be the bulk of the diaspora Palestinians who would relocate to Israel if they were granted the right of return. And to that I would say- if it would in fact be just, maybe, thousands, rather than millions, then, yes- in that case, Israel should be able to take them in. Like I had said, I don’t think it would be any more feasible for Israel to admit millions of foreign Jews, either (thousands of Jews or Arabs, yes, but millions, no. I’m just trying to be practical here, folks!)

    And another valid point (brought up by several- i.e. eljay, RoHa, talknic), is to provide monetary compensation to those diaspora Palestinians who had been forcibly removed, if perhaps there’s too many for Israel to be able to take in. OK, fine! Because, that is something which is actually “doable” (yes- *feasibilty* makes all the difference!!)

    And now, is there anything that you might be able to learn, from me? Have a review of my responses, versus most of yours. If I’m so stupid, then if it’s within my capability to be civil, then you should be capable of this too. And why I’m making such a big stink about this- it’s not that you’ve hurt my feelings. As I’ve pointed out to amigo, this ain’t my first rodeo, so to speak. Because I’m critical of both sides, I’ve been attacked by just about everyone. I’ve been called literally everything from A to Z- from “anti-Semite” (yes, even that) to “Zionazi”. But truthfully, that doesn’t bother me (I only get a little annoyed when I’m misquoted or misrepresented, which does happen a fair bit). The underlying point here, is that whether you like it (or acknowledge it) or not, BDS has an image problem (in the wider world, outside of this Mondoweiss bubble. Just Google “bds anti semitic”). And no Annie, it doesn’t matter that much what’s on the BDS website. If you can’t discuss Israel without saying things like, “vile aggressor”, “repulsive Zionist colonizing scum”, “f*cked up, evil state, run by criminals”,
    “Zionist abomination” (all direct quotes from your comments), all the while never uttering a single word against the atrocities committed by the Palestinians, then you sound like haters, which alienates people. YES, as I’ve said a billion times, Israel isn’t perfect, but it isn’t the
    #%[email protected]!ing Third Reich, for crissakes. And you may protest, and say, “I don’t care what the brainwashed masses believe! We’re absolutely, ONE HUNDRED PERCENT right!!!” But you should care, because boycotts don’t work without mass support! So what’s really more important- nursing your rage, or taking appropriate, rational, strategic measures towards helping the Palestinians?

    • Citizen
      December 1, 2016, 10:31 am

      “BDS has an image problem (in the wider world, outside of this Mondoweiss bubble.”

      Compare Israel’s image problem–obviously Israel thinks it has one, which is correct; what the AIPAC matrix and Israel still don’t realize is that the rest of the world (excluding most Americans as they remain ignorant thanks to dereliction of duty by constitutionally protected US fourth estate) is looking at Israel’s deeds, not it’s hasbara creed.

      The USA has an image problem too, no small part due to its rubber-stamping, funding of Israeli policy and conduct. The only country with a worse image problem currently than the USA/Israel is N Korea.

      BTW, I want to agree with those who keep telling you here that Israel’s war in 1967 was an aggressive war, the very kind named as the umbrella evil motive at Nuremberg. It was not “defensive,” and many top Israeli leaders at the time subsequently wrote so. That Israel will do anything to gain Greater Israel is shown by the USS Liberty incident. I am still waiting for my country, USA, to confront this issue. Instead, my government just takes more out of my pay check to support Israel’s rogue conduct.

    • eljay
      December 1, 2016, 11:24 am

      || SandraLLAP @ December 1, 2016, 1:05 am ||

      That’s quite the avalanche of words just to reiterate that you are:
      – against the universal and consistent application of justice, accountability and equality; and
      – in favour of Jewish supremacism in/and a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” in as much as possible of Palestine.

      || … Hatred doesn’t always have a rational cause. Raphael being attacked for appearing to be Jewish, is a perfect example of this. Of course, this doesn’t excuse any wrongdoing on Israel’s part. And I do believe it is quite possible that the Palestinians would be less angry if Israel did treat them more favorably. However, I also believe it is possible that even if all Israelis from now on acted like perfect saints, that Palestinians would still continue to carry out terror attacks against them, for no other reason than pure bigotry and hatred. … ||

      Acts of injustice and immorality committed against Jews do not justify acts of injustice and immorality committed by Jews. And Jews are not entitled to do unto others acts of injustice and immorality they would not have others do unto them.

      The people who attacked Raphael should be held accountable for their actions. Israel/is should be held accountable for its/their actions. Palestinians who carry out terrorist attacks should be held accountable for their actions. Nothing justifies the existence of any type of oppressive and/or (war) criminal and/or (religion-)supremacist state.

    • Mooser
      December 1, 2016, 4:59 pm

      See “amigo”! “Sandra did read the article. And put it to good use in each paragraph.

      But that’s all right. As long as we can discuss this and treat Zionist power and Jewish support of it as a constant, not a variable, she’ll be happy.

    • RoHa
      December 3, 2016, 5:46 am

      “Jews have historically found that even if they decided themselves that they no longer cared to retain their Jewish identity, it’s not completely up to them, because the world often still insists on seeing them as such. ”

      I’m having difficulty in following the chain of reasoning here.

      It looks to me as though you are saying “a bunch of arseholes think my Jewish ancestry is sufficient reason to beat me up, or at least class me as being in some important way different, so I should agree with them and regard myself in that way”.

      Could you clarify what you really mean, please?

      “However, I also believe it is possible that even if all Israelis from now on acted like perfect saints, that Palestinians would still continue to carry out terror attacks against them, for no other reason than pure bigotry and hatred. And please note that I’m not necessarily saying that this would happen, only that it could be like that- and it is impossible for anyone to prove otherwise.”

      It’s also possible that it wouldn’t happen. Is there any reason to suppose that Palestinians are more given to pure bigotry and hatred than Israelis, or Hungarians, or Belizeans? This is just a desperate attempt to find a reason for denying Palestinians their rights.

      • SandraLLAP
        December 3, 2016, 10:19 pm

        RoHa, I believe very much in being realistic. Perhaps, in a perfect world, we can all just see each other only as fellow human beings, and all join hands and sing Kumbaya, but the reality is that many will always regard Jews differently, no matter what we do. I could win the Nobel Peace Prize, and to them I’d still be just a goddamn Jew (and to contest this, would be willful ignorance). Although note that I had also said that it was not just the negative, like this, which keeps me grounded in my Jewishness- there are positive forces as well that motivate me in this direction (which are too much to cover in one of these comments, hence why I chose only that one example in my other comment). But no, I NEVER said that because there is some unfounded hostility towards Jews in general, that is a reason to deny Palestinians their rights. Note that I had explicitly said, “Of course, this doesn’t excuse any wrongdoing on Israel’s part.”

        And I had said in a prior comment, “My experience from arguing with both sides has shown some irony in all this, in that as much as the two sides detest each other, I’ve found that in a way they’re actually similar, in only factoring in what supports their view, and anything that doesn’t is either minimized/trivialized, or reflexively dismissed as propaganda”. In an intriguing, parallel way, I’ve observed this exact same tendency to cherry pick, play out in these Internet discussions, i.e. your accusing me of being an apologist for Israeli transgressions, because you did not heed what I had said to the contrary. Similarly in my arguments with the other side, I’ve been accused of being an apologist for terrorists because I criticize the settlements, even after I repeatedly re-quote to them my declarations that I most certainly do not condone any terrorism.

        There was another interesting dynamic in this conversation: you had used the phrase “repulsive Israelis”, which set off red flags for me, as this is how haters talk, and then it snowballed from there- the charge of being a racist was then thrown back at me, and then I reacted to that by saying that I was being regarded as a “heartless demon”. Annie pointed out that this was an exaggeration, and then quoted from my site where I said that exaggerations were rooted in hatred. So, to set the record straight- no, not *all* exaggerations stem from hating- in my case it was only really, as Annie had also conjectured, “rhetorical flourish” on my part. Honest to Jah, I don’t hate any of you, in spite of how you have been towards me. You all have an enthusiasm and passion that I find impressive, and
        you have some valid points, beneath the hotheaded exterior. But getting down to my point here- I think you need to honestly reflect upon to what extent my interpretation of your “repulsive Israelis” remark was due to you not being clear enough, for I would say that had you chosen more precise and careful wording, then this whole mess would have been avoided. And certainly, I could stand to be more careful myself in my writing. I’m not claiming to be perfect (although, overall, I think that my tone has been a lot sweeter than any of yours…)

      • Mooser
        December 4, 2016, 12:43 pm

        “RoHa, I believe very much in being realistic.”

        “the force” = Star Wars
        “long live and prosper” = Star Trek

        Okay “Sandra”, I can now be realistic. Thanks. How do you feel about getting the last word? I think you are more than entitled to it. After all, how unrealistic is it for people to love the people who invaded them killed them and took their land?

        And ‘realistically’, “Sandra” how many Zionist Jews will it take to hold “Israel” (Palestine)? What’s the minimum number? Where will they come from?

      • Mooser
        December 4, 2016, 1:04 pm

        “a, but the reality is that many will always regard Jews differently, no matter what we do. I could win the Nobel Peace Prize, and to them I’d still be just a goddamn Jew”

        Well, that may be a perfectly “realistic” reason to take it out on the Palestinians, but if it is any comfort to you, “SandraLLAP”, I’ve noticed that many people have lots of prejudice towards Africans, and certain Asians. Of course, the prejudice against them is a pale simulacrum of the bigotry we encounter.

      • Annie Robbins
        December 4, 2016, 1:47 pm

        RoHa, I believe very much in being realistic. Perhaps, in a perfect world, we can all just see each other only as fellow human beings, and all join hands and sing Kumbaya, but the reality is that many will always regard women differently, no matter what we do. I could win the Nobel Peace Prize, and to them I’d still be just a goddamn female (and to contest this, would be willful ignorance). Although note that I had also said that it was not just the negative, like this, which keeps me grounded in my feminism – there are positive forces as well that motivate me in this direction (which are too much to cover in one of these comments). But no, I NEVER said that because there is some unfounded hostility towards women in general, that is a reason to deny men their rights. Note that I had explicitly said, “Of course, this doesn’t excuse any wrongdoing on the part of women”

        i’m a woman hear me whine roar.

      • Annie Robbins
        December 4, 2016, 2:07 pm

        ok, i realize that wasn’t very nice. lots of justifying words there sandra, just thought i’d point that out. and in your long comment where you laid out your version of what happened here (as if we can’t just scroll up ourselves).. this is what i heard

        you had used the phrase “repulsive Israelis”, which set off red flags for me… you need to honestly reflect upon .. you not being clear enough, for I would say that had you chosen more precise and careful wording, then this whole mess would have been avoided….I’m not claiming to be perfect (although, overall, I think that my tone has been a lot sweeter than any of yours…)

        and an even shorter version might read like this:

        don’t say repulsive israelis, i don’t like it. it’s not nice. my tone is sweet and yours isn’t.

      • gamal
        December 4, 2016, 1:09 pm

        “After all, how unrealistic is it for people to love the people who invaded them killed them and took their land?”

        may i

        “After all, how unrealistic is it for people to accept the people who are invading them killing them and taking their land?”

        may i stand behind you i shouldn’t like to be passively aggressed by llap.

      • Mooser
        December 4, 2016, 1:20 pm

        “gamal”! Hello again!

        “Oh, won’t you stay
        We’ll put on the day
        And we’ll talk in present tenses”

      • gamal
        December 4, 2016, 1:52 pm

        “We’ll put on the day
        And we’ll talk in present tenses”

        thats brilliant you old incense owl

      • eljay
        December 4, 2016, 2:30 pm

        || SandraLLAP: … Perhaps, in a perfect world, we can all just see each other only as fellow human beings … but the reality is that many will always regard Jews differently, no matter what we do. I could win the Nobel Peace Prize, and to them I’d still be just a goddamn Jew … ||

        I could win a Nobel Peace Price and to many I will always be just a goddamned (ADD-afflicted) goy. :-(

        In order to try seeing each other only as fellow human beings, let’s do this:
        – You stop identifying yourself as a Jew.
        – I stop identifying myself as a goy.
        – Neither of us asks for or demands any special Jew-specific or goy-specific rights from society.

        With that accomplished, your position on I-P should shift from your existing vision of ersatz “peace” to a vision that advocates and defends justice, accountability and equality.

        || … Although note that I had also said that it was not just the negative, like this, which keeps me grounded in my Jewishness … ||

        Okay, let try again. Go.

      • amigo
        December 4, 2016, 3:40 pm

        Sandra llap when you claim that Israel has sovereignty over land it took in a war –and no , it was not defensive as has been shown to you but you choose to ignore those facts , just as you ignored my request that you check out the term , “inadmissibility of territory gained through war” you are not inviting kind and comforting responses and your Jewishness has sfa to do with it.You insult others here when you suggest that they are only opposed to criminal Jewish behaviour.

        If you wish to be taken seriously , then have the good manners to check out the links you are provided with and respond.Otherwise you will be seen for what you are –a dishonest apologist for zionist crimes which does not entitle you to nice cuddly treatment–whether or not you are Jewish.

        Now about my 3rd request to you to check out the following , “The inadmissibility territory gained through war”.

        If you do not have a credible response , then dont bother responding with your usual claim that you are the victim of hatred.That is a repulsive claim.

      • Philemon
        December 4, 2016, 9:12 pm

        The phrase that sprang to my eyes was “keeps me grounded in my Jewishness.”

        Not only is that very odd (“keeps me grounded in my Episcopalianism,” really, play mad lib with it, with anything), anyone who says something like that is obviously very insecure.

      • RoHa
        December 4, 2016, 9:23 pm

        “Perhaps, in a perfect world, we can all just see each other only as fellow human beings, and all join hands and sing Kumbaya,”

        I’m all in favour of justice, world peace, recognition of common humanity, and so forth, but not if singing is required. That price is too high.

        “but the reality is that many will always regard Jews differently, no matter what we do. I could win the Nobel Peace Prize, and to them I’d still be just a goddamn Jew”

        But why do you let those people call the shots? Why do you agree with them that being Jewish is so desperately important? Can’t you just say “Sod them. I’ll make my own decisions”?

        “But no, I NEVER said that because there is some unfounded hostility towards Jews in general, that is a reason to deny Palestinians their rights.”-

        Your support for maintaining the Jewishness of Israel, and the idea of Israel as a “safe haven” for Jews, does rather hint at that, though.

      • RoHa
        December 5, 2016, 12:14 am

        “you had used the phrase “repulsive Israelis”, which set off red flags for me, as this is how haters talk,”

        That raises several issues. I should point out that I am not quite in the first flush of youth. My waistline is expanding, my hairline is receding, my knees are creaking, and I tend to begin sentences with “I remember, from many years ago…”, “when I was a lad…”, and the ever-popular “Young People today …”.

        This means that my language habits and thinking habits were established half a century ago. So I don’t have the hair-trigger super-sensitivity to “hate speech” that is so fashionable now. I am much more concerned with truth and morality than with whether this or that word is rude, or racist, or “hateful” in some way or another. And neither justice nor practicality requires people to have fond feelings for each other. Sensible people can co-operate even with those they hate, and those who hate them.

        If you pay attention and live long enough, you will recognise that if an idea is popular, fashionable, accepted by all the right people, treated as self-evident, and widely used in political or social commentary, then it is most probably empty-headed nonsense.

        The current obsession with “hate speech” and “haters” is just a symptom of the lack of logic and rationality even amongst the allegedly educated part of the populace. I have grave doubts as to whether there really are “haters” who hate for no reason. It seems to me that people who hate either have reasons for their hatred or are taught to hate by those who have reasons. The reasons may be utter nonsense, but they are the reasons nonetheless.

        ” But getting down to my point here- I think you need to honestly reflect upon to what extent my interpretation of your “repulsive Israelis” remark was due to you not being clear enough,”

        I’m not in tune with this “reflecting” business, either. I had a student who was majoring in education. After using up a whole red pen in correcting the grammar errors on one of her philosophy essays (I needed another to comment on the philosophy) I suggested to her, fairly gently, for me, that if she was going to teach in schools it would be a good idea to improve her grammar.

        She said, “I’ll reflect on that.”

        I said, “Don’t reflect on it. Just learn the grammar.”

        And that allows me to move on to something important.

        “(and to contest this, would be willful ignorance).”

        I hope it was an honest mistake, and not willful ignorance that led you to put a comma before “would”. Take out that comma and recycle it. Put it before “because” in this sentence: “But no, I NEVER said that because there is some unfounded hostility towards Jews in general, that is a reason to deny Palestinians their rights.”

      • Mooser
        December 5, 2016, 11:40 am

        “I’m all in favour of justice, world peace, recognition of common humanity, and so forth, but not if singing is required”

        What? Do it without a song?

        Unthinkable

      • RoHa
        December 5, 2016, 6:42 pm
      • Mooser
        December 5, 2016, 7:10 pm

        “You want this?”

        No, thanks. I’m expecting a drone with a pitcher of martinis.

  17. Citizen
    December 1, 2016, 9:41 am

    My (unrealistic) vision for peace starts with the notion that Lameduck Obama does not veto the next attempt at the UN SC to make Israel a tad accountable for its conduct. It picks up with the same hope offered by President Trump. In accord then, POTUS must actually tweet to the US public (over the head of mass main media (a la FDR’s radio chats) that he will use US aid to Israel (spelling how much of total US foreign military aid that is, as well as the size & world economic position of Israel) as leverage to coerce Israel to take peace negotiations seriously. Hence, POTUS will also demand Israel end its illegal settlements.

Leave a Reply