Trending Topics:
Adam Horowitz

Adam Horowitz is Executive Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

95 Responses

  1. Les on March 26, 2012, 11:18 am

    Is this a put up or shut up moment for people like Arthur Waskow?

  2. Phan Nguyen on March 26, 2012, 12:26 pm

    This is the second time Waskow has argued against BDS in a debate on Democracy Now. He did so two years earlier against Omar Barghouti.

    His arguments are specious, but here I just want to point out his false suggestion that Martin Luther King would never support a boycott against an entire country:

    Even when Dr. King clearly, publicly, vigorously opposed the Vietnam War, he did not call for a boycott of all American products and producers. He didn’t do that in Europe or in the United States. He targeted where he was aiming. And I think BDS, as presently framed, doesn’t target.

    In reality, MLK supported full boycott, divestment and sanctions against Apartheid South Africa as early as 1962:

    From a joint statement by MLK and Chief Albert J. Lutuli, dated 9 October 1962 and again on 10 December 1962, addressed to the international community:

    Urge your Government to support economic sanctions;
    Don’t buy South Africa’s products;
    Don’t trade or invest in South Africa;
    Translate public opinion into public action by explaining facts to all peoples, to groups to which you belong, and to countries of which you are citizens until AN EFFECTIVE INTERNATIONAL QUARANTINE OF APARTHEID IS ESTABLISHED.

    From a speech in London, December 1964, en route to Oslo to receive the Nobel Peace Prize:

    Our responsibility presents us with a unique opportunity. We can join in the one form of non-violent action that could bring freedom and justice to South Africa—the action which African leaders have appealed for—in a massive movement for economic sanctions.

    In a world living under the appalling shadow of nuclear weapons do we not recognize the need to perfect the use of economic pressures? Why is trade regarded by all nations and all ideologies as sacred? Why does our Government, and your Government in Britain, refuse to intervene effectively now, as if only when there is a bloodbath in South Africa—or a Korea, or a Vietnam—will they recognise the crisis?

    If the United Kingdom and the United States decided tomorrow morning not to buy South African goods, not to buy South African gold, to put an embargo on oil; if our investors and capitalists would withdraw their support for that racial tyranny, then apartheid would be brought to an end. Then the majority of South Africans of all races could at last build the shared society they desire.

    From a speech in New York for Human Rights Day, 10 December 1965:

    Today, in our opulent society, our reliance on trade with South Africa is infinitesimal significance. No real national interest impels us to be cautious, gentle, or a good customer of a nation that offends the world’s conscience…

    The time has come to utilize non-violence fully through a massive international boycott which would involve the USSR, Great Britain, France, the United States, Germany and Japan. Millions of people can personally give expression to their abhorrence of the world’s worst racism through such a far-flung boycott. No nation professing a concern for man’s dignity could avoid assuming its obligations if people of all States and races were to adopt a firm stand. Nor need we confine an international boycott to South Africa. The time has come for an international alliance of peoples of all nations against racism.

    • hophmi on March 26, 2012, 1:45 pm

      And while it’s wrong to suggest that King would never have supported a boycott of another country, it’s equally wrong to suggest that he would have supported a boycott of Israel.

      • Phan Nguyen on March 26, 2012, 2:09 pm

        True, hophmi, but you are countering an argument that has not been made. Neither Mustafa Barghouthi in the Democracy Now debate nor I have claimed that King would have supported a boycott of Israel. I think that would be a presumptuous claim to make, seeing how King is not alive to confirm or deny.

        It was Waskow who stated as fact the supposedly limited scope with which King endorsed boycotts during his lifetime. I have demonstrated that this is false.

        Therefore, your point is?

      • Woody Tanaka on March 26, 2012, 2:11 pm

        “it’s equally wrong to suggest that he would have supported a boycott of Israel.”

        No it isn’t; you’re just trying to wish your preferences into reality. Whether he would or not is something that can never be known, but he was known to have supported it in a situation in South Africa that is very similar to the situation in Palestine.

      • hophmi on March 26, 2012, 3:03 pm

        Have read the transcript of the debate. You could have been the littlest bit honest and noted that Waskow was responding to Barghouti’s appropriating the mantle of King for the BDS movement, marking it as part of the the larger Palestinian nonviolence movement. That’s a suggestion on Barghouti’s part that King would have endorsed BDS as a tactic here. There’s little evidence he would have. Moreover, the BDS movement’s refusal to condemn Palestinian violence in any meaningful way makes them unworthy of any association with Martin Luther King.

        Moreover, Waskow’s main point was that King opposed Vietnam without calling for a boycott of American products. He opposed the policy, not the society.

        Barghouti had no effective answer to the charge that his campaign is about undermining Israel, not about ending occupation. And that’s because the BDS cult hopes to end Israel as a state, not end the occupation. Otherwise, Barghouti wouldn’t speak of some fictitious segregation system, which is certainly not the reality inside of the Green Line.

      • Woody Tanaka on March 26, 2012, 4:05 pm

        “Barghouti had no effective answer to the charge that his campaign is about undermining Israel, not about ending occupation. ”

        LMAO. Do you suppose that strengthening the lunatic Israeli state will end the occupation?? Damn right he should be undermining Israel. Everyone with any respect for human rights should be undermining Israel at every turn until all of the infiltrators are behind the 1967 lines where they belong.

      • Phan Nguyen on March 26, 2012, 4:06 pm

        Hophmi: “You could have been the littlest bit honest and noted that Waskow was responding to Barghouti’s appropriating the mantle of King for the BDS movement.”

        Wrong. Barghouthi was not “appropriating that mantle of King.” He simply said that he was utilizing the similar tactics as utilized by King and Gandhi:

        Well, BDS is a part of a larger movement of nonviolent resistance in Palestine, civil resistance, very similar to the civil actions and civil activities that were led by Martin Luther King here in the United States against segregation, and very similar to what Gandhi led in India as a nonviolent resistance against foreign dependence of India.

        Nothing in there is incorrect. It was Waskow who stated a falsehood about King, not Barghouthi.

        Hophmi: “That’s a suggestion on Barghouti’s part that King would have endorsed BDS as a tactic here. There’s little evidence he would have.”

        Wrong. There’s a difference between saying, “I am using tactics similar to those used by Martin Luther King,” and saying “Martin Luther King would endorse what I’m doing right now.” The former seeks inspiration from King. The latter seeks to put words in King’s mouth.

        Hophmi: “Moreover, Waskow’s main point was that King opposed Vietnam without calling for a boycott of American products.”

        Regardless of whether that was really Waskow’s main point, it doesn’t change the fact that Waskow said what I quoted him as saying, and which I then proved to be false. But let’s entertain your notion for a bit…

        MLK spoke out against Vietnam exactly one year before he was assassinated. He actually didn’t have a chance to take much action against Vietnam beyond making some public statements and endorsing the “Vietnam Summer” campaign. Therefore, using the extent of King’s actions against the Vietnam War as a gauge of what is acceptable protest is both preposterous for activists in general and out of context to what Barghouthi was saying.

        Hophmi: “He opposed the policy, not the society.”

        King opposed the policies of the apartheid South African government. And his proposed solution was exactly what I quoted: “An effective international quarantine” of South Africa.

        You don’t deny that, Hophmi, but you instead try to find novel ways of putting words in Barghouthi’s mouth, putting words in MLK’s mouth, and putting words in my mouth.

        Furthermore, it is fruitless to argue logic with people for whom defense of Israel is not based on logic.

      • Bill in Maryland on March 26, 2012, 4:49 pm

        There is no Green Line for Jewish Israelis hophmi, just for Palestinians who exceed the 20% quota for non-Jews permitted by “Israel”.

      • hophmi on March 26, 2012, 5:27 pm

        “Wrong. Barghouthi was not “appropriating that mantle of King.” He simply said that he was utilizing the similar tactics as utilized by King and Gandhi:

        Well, BDS is a part of a larger movement of nonviolent resistance in Palestine, civil resistance, very similar to the civil actions and civil activities that were led by Martin Luther King here in the United States against segregation, and very similar to what Gandhi led in India as a nonviolent resistance against foreign dependence of India.

        Whatever. That’s exactly what he’s doing. Palestinians are not in the same category as African-American Blacks or Indians. They have much too much blood on their hands.

        “Wrong. There’s a difference between saying, “I am using tactics similar to those used by Martin Luther King,” and saying “Martin Luther King would endorse what I’m doing right now.” The former seeks inspiration from King. The latter seeks to put words in King’s mouth.”

        Again, you can mince words all you want. It’s quite clear that Barghouti is using King as a reference point.

        “Regardless of whether that was really Waskow’s main point, it doesn’t change the fact that Waskow said what I quoted him as saying, and which I then proved to be false.”

        Honest quoting would at least acknowledge that Waskow was referring to a point Barghouti made rather than making it seem like Waskow brought King into the discussion out of nowhere.

        “MLK spoke out against Vietnam exactly one year before he was assassinated. He actually didn’t have a chance to take much action against Vietnam beyond making some public statements and endorsing the “Vietnam Summer” campaign. Therefore, using the extent of King’s actions against the Vietnam War as a gauge of what is acceptable protest is both preposterous for activists in general and out of context to what Barghouthi was saying.”

        Martin Luther King was a mainstream reformer who worked with white liberals and others to achieve integration (and was pillorized by many political radicals like Malcolm X for it). You know as well as I do that it is extremely unlikely that he would have advocated a policy like boycotting American products, which would have placed him far out of the mainstream). Maybe Malcolm X might have eventually advocated a policy like that, but I doubt it even in his case.

        “King opposed the policies of the apartheid South African government. And his proposed solution was exactly what I quoted: “An effective international quarantine” of South Africa.”

        Your point? I’m not disputing King’s stance on South Africa, and neither was Arthur Waskow. But you seem to be very quick to respond to Waskow’s assertion that King did not endorse a boycott of America by saying that King supported a boycott of South Africa. And you wrongfully asserted that Waskow argued King never supported a boycott anywhere, when, in fact, all he said was that King did not support a boycott of America in the case of Vietnam, a conflict where America killed hundreds of thousands of people.

        King did support sanctioning South Africa, a country with de jure apartheid that they defended. Israel is a democratic country that has tried to negotiate peace for many years. The international community has repeatedly endorsed a two-state solution that would result in two states for two peoples. BDS seeks to nullify that. Otherwise, it would do as Waskow says, and simply target the settlements.

        The BDS cult is about ending Israel, not about ending occupation.

      • Woody Tanaka on March 26, 2012, 6:06 pm

        “They have much too much blood on their hands.”

        Coming from a supporter of one of the most blood-stained countries on Earth, that’s rather pathetic.

        “King did support sanctioning South Africa, a country with de jure apartheid that they defended. ”

        And Israel is a country with a de jure apartheid system, in which the law in question is one in which Israel has integrated all of the Palesitinian lands, but calls it an occupation, so it doesn’t have to provide civil and human rights to the non-Jews.

        “The BDS cult is about ending Israel, not about ending occupation.”

        You say “ending Israel” like it would be a bad thing. If I were a praying man, I’d pray for an end to that brutal regime and a replacement with one which respected the rights of every person from the sea to the Jordan, every day. But then again, I’m no ethno-supremicist like you.

      • hophmi on March 26, 2012, 6:42 pm

        “Coming from a supporter of one of the most blood-stained countries on Earth, that’s rather pathetic. ”

        Which country is that? I’m from the US. African-Americans did not have a long history of killing innocent white people the way Palestinians have a long history of killing innocent Israeli civilians.

        “You say “ending Israel” like it would be a bad thing.”

        The negation of the Jewish right to self-determination would be bad, yes.

      • Phan Nguyen on March 26, 2012, 7:23 pm

        Hophmi: “You could have been the littlest bit honest and noted that Waskow was responding to Barghouti’s appropriating the mantle of King for the BDS movement.”

        Me: [Quoting what Mustafa Barghouthi actually said]

        Hophmi: “Whatever.”

        Me: Exactly.

      • Shingo on March 26, 2012, 8:38 pm

        Palestinians are not in the same category as African-American Blacks or Indians.

        True. After all, African-American Blacks were American citizens and Indians were occupied but had their own country.

      • Hostage on March 26, 2012, 9:43 pm

        Otherwise, Barghouti wouldn’t speak of some fictitious segregation system, which is certainly not the reality inside of the Green Line.

        12 years after the Ka’adans originally went to court, the family finally moved into their home in the community of Katzir. The Knesset reacted by adopting legislation that standardized and legalized the practices of communal villages’ acceptance committees in the Negev and the Galilee which vitiated the High Court’s landmark decision inside the Green Line. See Knesset to pass “separate but equal” communities bill http://972mag.com/knesset-to-pass-separate-but-equal-communities-bill-tomorrow/12368/

      • Hostage on March 26, 2012, 10:41 pm

        You could have been the littlest bit honest and noted that Waskow was responding to Barghouti’s appropriating the mantle of King for the BDS movement, marking it as part of the the larger Palestinian nonviolence movement.

        Citation please. Barghouti said that the Palestinian BDS movement was very similar to the civil actions and civil activities led by Martin Luther King in the United States against segregation @ 3:05-3:17. Phan Nguyen has demonstrated that those activities included King’s endorsement of the South African BDS movement. FYI, the 2005 call from the Palestinian Civil Society Organizations simply requested organizations and persons of conscience “to impose broad boycotts and implement divestment initiatives against Israel similar to those applied to South Africa in the apartheid era.” including an appeal “to pressure your respective states to impose embargoes and sanctions against Israel.”
        http://www.bdsmovement.net/call#.T3EhktnJp8M

        So no one misappropriated MLK’s mantle. Barghouti was talking about the similarity of aims and non-violent methods and you reframed what he actually said about the subject and started insinuating that Phan Nguyen is dishonest.

      • Woody Tanaka on March 27, 2012, 9:53 am

        “Which country is that? I’m from the US.”

        Yes, but your allegiance is, at least in part, with Israel, as you’ve amply demonstrated on this site.

        “African-Americans did not have a long history of killing innocent white people the way Palestinians have a long history of killing innocent Israeli civilians.”

        And as bad as the treatment of African-Americans was and continues to be in the US, they never faced the type of brutal inhumane catastrophe — the Nakba — that the Palestinians did, which demonstrated an intent by the Israelis to commit ethnic cleansing.

        “The negation of the Jewish right to self-determination would be bad, yes.”

        If they can’t exercise that right without committing crimes against humanity, than, no it would not.

      • Cliff on March 28, 2012, 12:13 am

        Israelis kill more innocent Palestinians than the other way around.

        And while you are apparently American, your comments consistently show a cynicism towards this country. You will debase the United States to whitewash Israeli crimes while simultaneously laud the fact that in America, the media is ‘balanced’ as opposed to Europe. That and you gloat about the Lobby’s success in waging a continually successful propaganda campaign to promote Zionism.

        The Native Americans have plenty of blood on their hands. Yet, in retrospect people sympathize with them.

        They do this because they look at the bigger picture and not the decontextualized violence.

        Israel is portrayed by you as an innocent victim when the power dynamic flips your bullshit framing on its head.

        This is not recent. This is how it has always been.

        Palestinians did not come to Palestine as immigrants and usurp the indigenous population. Your people did.

        You can brag about the power of your constituency within the American Jewish community, hoppy.

        But you are a true villain and a consummate a$$hole. Zionism never has and never will have the moral high ground.

        And even though pathological liars and intellectual crooks/sophists like you leap frog from realpolitik (‘there are worse countries!’) to identity politics and emotional blackmail (‘antisemite! Palestinians supported Hitler!’) to paying lip service to the 2ss (because the 2ss is f-ing dead) and issuing vomit-inducing platitudes – you mainly care about image and ‘defending’ Israel as a moral entity.

        Well, we are all just regular people here. None of us are IDF jailers in the longest modern occupation in history or Christian eschatologists or settlers or Kahanists or members of Hamas or whatever.

        So our concern has always been about. Right and wrong. Your concern is purely about maintaining the dominant Israeli status quo; maintaining the Zionist status quo.

      • Cliff on March 26, 2012, 2:23 pm

        No it isn’t Hophmi.

        Coretta Scott King support Mubarek Awad’s non-violent doctrine in the face of his inevitable deportation by the Israeli government.

        She wrote a letter to the Israeli president or something. This was reported on in the NY Times.

        Mahatma Gandhi supported the Palestinian struggle. So did Bertrand Russell.

        The notion that King would have been a Zionist and justified ethnic cleansing and the apartheid conditions in the Territories now, is absurd.

        There is no proof he ever wrote that b.s. letter about anti-Zionism = anti-semitism.

        In fact, did MLK write ANYTHING regarding antisemitism?

        And even if he did hypothetically, this was before the occupation went on for decades. This was before the end of apartheid in SA.

        It’s like quoting Zuheir Moshen (who said Palestine – and Lebanon/Jordan/etc. did not ‘exist’). Moshen was a pan-Arab nationalist. He didn’t believe in dividing the Arab world into States. But he died abruptly and did not see the end of pan-Arabism and the occupation as it has become and all the rest.

        It’s illogical to project the trajectory of MLK’s intellectual awareness on the I-P conflict as you have.

        It is far more likely he would have sympathized and supported the Palestinian struggle as his WIFE did. As Desmond Tutu does. As Nelson Mandela does. ETC ETC

      • hophmi on March 26, 2012, 3:50 pm

        “Coretta Scott King support Mubarek Awad’s non-violent doctrine in the face of his inevitable deportation by the Israeli government.”

        She did not support BDS. Supporting the idea that Mubarak Awad is nonviolent is not the same as supporting BDS as a tactic.

        http://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/06/world/israel-upholds-expulsion-of-palestinian-american.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

        “Mahatma Gandhi supported the Palestinian struggle.”

        Yes, he thought Jews living under Nazi rule should protest nonviolently as well.

        “The notion that King would have been a Zionist and justified ethnic cleansing and the apartheid conditions in the Territories now, is absurd.”

        Straw man; no one is arguing that King would have been a far-right Zionist. But given King’s close association with the Jewish community and his general political position as a mainstreamer and not a radical, it is unlikely that he would have supported either BDS or an end to the Israel, or that he would have used charged language like apartheid to describe the territories.

        “There is no proof he ever wrote that b.s. letter about anti-Zionism = anti-semitism.”

        And I didn’t claim that he did. It is apparently true, however, that he did once say that when you talk about anti-Zionism, you’re talking about antisemitism to a student who asked him a question about it.

        http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/01/martin-luther-kings-legacy-and-israels-future

        “It’s illogical to project the trajectory of MLK’s intellectual awareness on the I-P conflict as you have.”

        I haven’t. The assertion was that Waskow did, and as I have shown, it was merely a response to Barghouti, who didn’t have the right to do it either. King’s dead. He can’t endorse anything. There are more than enough living figures to endorse political movements without relying on a dead guy, no matter how saintly he was.

        “It is far more likely he would have sympathized and supported the Palestinian struggle as his WIFE did.”

        As many Zionist Jews do by calling for a two-state solution. It’s a chauvinistic (and silly) to assume that a man’s wife agrees with him on all political matters.

      • ToivoS on March 26, 2012, 6:01 pm

        Phan writes to Hophni:

        Furthermore, it is fruitless to argue logic with people for whom defense of Israel is not based on logic.

        I disagree. Phan’s wiping the floor with Hophni using iron clad logic is highly entertaining. Hophni’s only response is to transparently dissemble and distract and hope the audience has forgotten the two knock in the first two rounds.

        Dance Hophni, dance you make a great clown.

      • annie on March 26, 2012, 6:21 pm

        It is apparently true, however, that he did once say that when you talk about anti-Zionism, you’re talking about antisemitism to a student who asked him a question about it.

        are you still perpetuating that myth? the source on the mothers jones article:

        http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Quote/king.html

        “Source: Seymour Martin Lipset, “The Socialism of Fools—The Left, the Jews and Israel,” Encounter, (December 1969), p. 24. ”

        this has been debunked time and again.

      • hophmi on March 26, 2012, 6:36 pm

        “Phan’s wiping the floor with Hophni using iron clad logic is highly entertaining.”

        It’s Hophmi. Yes, yes, you agree with your fellow travelers. I get it. No matter what Phan says, you’ll slap him on the back, and no matter what I say, you’ll disagree.

        Phan’s argument is not especially logical. It’s disingenuous; the argument he attributes to Waskow didn’t actually make. Partisan political movements which try to appropriate MLK for themselves while doing things he would never have done, like refusing to condemn rocket attacks on innocents are not all that credible. MLK tried to appeal to the better angels of our nature and bring people together. The proponents of BDS are pushing a divisive policy that really is the opposite of that value, and the demonization of Israelis that is endemic in the rhetoric of that movement is also likely not the kind King would have employed.

        As I said before, it’s much more Malcolm X than it is King. The BDS movement employs fairly harsh rhetoric, refuses to condemn Palestinian violence (it’s the chickens coming home to roost, right?), and does not promote cooperation between Israelis and Palestinians but boycotts one party to the conflict. Just as Malcolm X found common cause with KKK members he thought were simply honest representatives of what white people thought, BDS members have find no greater advocate and no greater beneficiary than Israeli rightists, who, like them, want a one-state solution.

      • hophmi on March 26, 2012, 6:40 pm

        The letter has been debunked. Has the quote? I thought it had as well, but I wouldn’t think it would show up in a Mother Jones article. Do you have a source?

        At any rate, John Lewis has no trouble attributing pro-Israel views to King.

        http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=8&x_article=369

      • annie on March 27, 2012, 12:42 am

        camera? yes, it has been thoroughly debunked several times over.

        Has the quote?

        the quote has never been authenticated, ever. from one of the most archived men in american history. it’s fabricated by professionals..

        first off consider the source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encounter_%28magazine%29

        Encounter was a literary magazine, founded in 1953 by poet Stephen Spender and early neoconservative author Irving Kristol.

        it was a cia rag.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_to_an_Anti-Zionist_Friend

        Fadi Kiblawi and Will Youmans have questioned the authenticity of Lipset’s account.[6] According to a Harvard Crimson article published days after King’s death, King had not been to Cambridge since April 23, 1967.[8] Kiblawi and Youmans did not find any 1968 speeches by King in the Stanford University archives.[6]

        Israel’s apologists and the Martin Luther King Jr. hoax

        After one of the authors of this article informed SPME’s director of the quotation’s discredited status, he replied with hostility despite the simple verifiability of the claim that the citation is incorrect. After several exchanges he replaced it with another seemingly far-fetched quote:

        Martin Luther King addressed the issue in 1968, in a speech at Harvard when he said: “.. You declare, my friend, that you do not hate the Jews, you are merely ‘anti-Zionist.’ …When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews… And what is anti-Zionist? It is the denial to the Jewish people of a fundamental right that we justly claim for the people of Africa and freely accord all other nations of the Globe…When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews–make no mistake about it.”

        When a citation for this new quote was requested, he refused to provide one, leaving visitors only with its claim that Dr. King delivered it in a 1968 Harvard “speech.” However, the language of SPME’s new posting strongly resembles their original one – on account of the fact that it too comes from the same discredited “Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend.”

        The first time the fake letter was quoted, it could have been a mistake, but to draw on different lines from the same fictitious letter is strikingly unscholarly – as is the false citation of it to a 1968 “speech” at Harvard. Either this citation was invented or taken from another unspecified source–classic plagiarism, whether intentional or out of gross negligence.

        SPME’s reference to a 1968 “speech” at Harvard mirrors the details from a published account that appeared in two sources: First, it was in right-wing and ardently pro-Israeli sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset’s 1969 article in Encounter. Second, it was in a January, 2002 San Francisco Chronicle op-ed by Congressman John Lewis, who knew Dr. King personally.

        Lipset wrote in his essay “The Socialism of Fools: The Left, the Jews & Israel” about a “dinner” for Dr. King he attended. When one black student made “some remark against the Zionists,” Dr. King “snapped” back, “‘When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You are talking anti-Semitism’.” The piece by Congressman Lewis also quotes this same remark though it is not clear if it is gathered from Lipset’s essay.

        Congressman Lewis claims Dr. King made this comment “shortly before his death” during “an appearance at Harvard.” Lipset states it was “shortly before he was assassinated” at a “dinner given for him in Cambridge.” This quotation seems on its face much more credible. Yet, SPME presents snippets from the fake letter while apparently citing this statement (a 1968 “speech” at Harvard).

        There are still, however, a few reasons for casting doubt on the authenticity of this statement. According to the Harvard Crimson, “The Rev. Martin Luther King was last in Cambridge almost exactly a year ago–April 23, 1967” (“While You Were Away” 4/8/68). If this is true, Dr. King could not have been in Cambridge in 1968. Lipset stated he was in the area for a “fund-raising mission,” which would seem to imply a high profile visit. Also, an intensive inventory of publications by Stanford University’s Martin Luther King Jr. Papers Project accounts for numerous speeches in 1968. None of them are for talks in Cambridge or Boston.

      • ToivoS on March 27, 2012, 2:23 am

        Sorry Hophmi, Phan left you on the floor writhing in agony with a left-right-left logical combination that you could not counter. To be sure you came back in later rounds with many smoke and mirrors trying to deflect your earlier beating. Like I said before — it is highly entertaining watching an amateur like you get pummeled by a pro like Phan.

      • hophmi on March 27, 2012, 10:06 am

        “Sorry Hophmi, Phan left you on the floor writhing in agony with a left-right-left logical combination that you could not counter.

        Again, whatever you need to believe. It’s not credible when one extremist covers for another in a room dominated by them.

        “Like I said before — it is highly entertaining watching an amateur like you get pummeled by a pro like Phan.”

        I’m sure anything anybody writes that you agree with is highly entertaining for you.

      • hophmi on March 27, 2012, 10:07 am

        I’m aware that the letter has been debunked. But between you and John Lewis, I’m going to go with John Lewis. He knew MLK a little better than you did.

      • Cliff on March 28, 2012, 12:29 am

        You aren’t agreeing wi John Lewis because he is John Lewis.

        You are agreeing with John Lewis because YOU are a Zionist.

        There is no evidence to support the claim you make. It is a documented fabrication. But you trust someone you know nothing about based solely on their word? One of the most important people in history and Zionist sophists like you cannot substantiate this quote beyond ‘so and so told me so’.

        You like to call everyone here extremists while peddling your mendacious garbage.

        Get it through your thick skull.

        Most support for Zionism comes from Christian evangelicals. The Zionist lobby has been able to bully their political opponents into submission or ostracism. The media is by definition pro-government and pro-status quo. Your side is much more wealthy and assimilated while Arab-Americans and Muslims can’t even have a crappy boring reality TV show without some Christian fundies crying jihad this and that.

        Bottom-line: people don’t know what the f is going on in the ME because they get their news in the form of sound-bites and an overwhelmingly pro-Israel slant. People support Israel precisely because of a combination of lack of awareness, apathy towards the Palestinians (who are slandered as terrorists or as you call them, Hitler supporters), and because of anti-Arab racism, the supposed War On Terror, the Christian fundies, the fact that Jewish donors give tremendously to both parties and no one wants to stick their neck out for the Palestinians after the cost-risk assessment.

        Cutting to the chase: the game is rigged and has been for a long time. BDS is a way to undermine sophists like you, hoppy.

        That’s why your crying your Zionist heart out. So let yourself believe that Palestinians are pure evil and deserve no sympathy because they refused to be held down and raped by Zionism.

        NO OTHER PEOPLE ON EARTH would allow Jewish nationalism to usurp them in the manner in which it usurped Palestinian society. No one.

        Chalk that up to anther one of your disgusting and racist double standards.

  3. clenchner on March 26, 2012, 1:19 pm

    Rabbi Waskow is a long time courageous fighter for peace, human rights, and dignity for the Palestinian people. He has paid a price for this, professionally, that would have been easy to avoid.
    His basic argument is that BDS against Israel and Israelis will be less effective than the mass adoption of surgical BDS against specific targets that highlight the occupation or specific issues with Israel.
    In the end, it’s a strategic question. Do you adopt tactics that unify Israel’s opponents, or unity Israelis and their supporters? Waskow is in favor the former, indiscriminate BDS is the latter. But both share the same goal of Palestinian liberation.

    • Mooser on March 26, 2012, 1:58 pm

      “indiscriminate BDS is the latter.”

      And you know that because…? Because you wish it? Of course, you could be right, Israel has shown great unity in its intransigence and expansionism.

      • hophmi on March 26, 2012, 3:26 pm

        It’s quite clear that indiscriminate BDS has the result of strengthening the Israeli right by putting the Israeli left on the defensive. It’s also quite clear that some of these policies are laguhably self-defeating. One of the products that would be boycotted in the Park Slope Coop is Meditalia, a line of tapenades made by PeaceWorks. http://www.peaceworks.com/

        Daniel Lubetsky, the founder of PeaceWorks, is also the founder of the OneVoice movement, promotes cooperation between Israelis and Palestinians and sources his products from Palestinian farmers, and is a strong proponent of ending the occupation and two-state solution. That is who you are boycotting. The Palestinian farmers who work with people like Daniel Lubetsky are the ones who will get hurt.

        I’ve heard precious little from indiscriminate BDS proponents about how such a policy actually helps Palestinians and much more about how it’s a personal matter of conscience for those proponents. I’ve heard lots of explanations about why Israel deserves this or that, a lot of spurious comparisons of Israel with South Africa and lot of crazy unhinged comparisons of Israel with Nazi Germany.

      • Shingo on March 26, 2012, 3:43 pm

        It’s quite clear that indiscriminate BDS has the result of strengthening the Israeli right by putting the Israeli left on the defensive.

        It’s not like that has already happened and that the Israelineftis oractically non existent is I Hop?

      • Mooser on March 26, 2012, 3:55 pm

        “It’s quite clear that indiscriminate BDS has the result of strengthening the Israeli right by putting the Israeli left on the defensive.”

        I see, Hophmi. Because the Israeli “right” was so helpless, so unable to effect policy or affect attitudes before BDS was discussed. Wait, I know! When Israel decided to hold and settle the Occupied Territory, they were anticipating the thought of BDS. Of course!

        When Hophmi doesn’t have the facts, he pounds the law, when he doesn’t have the law, he pounds the emotions, and when he’s got nothing, he pounds the keyboard.

        And I rescind my earlier comment about your skills, Hophmi. If you were between the sun and an innocent client, you couldn’t raise a shadow of a doubt.

        And since when does the “Israeli Left” need BDS to put them “on the defensive”? I’m sure that’s right where they want to be.

      • Danaa on March 26, 2012, 4:12 pm

        hophmi:

        It’s quite clear that indiscriminate BDS has the result of strengthening the Israeli right by putting the Israeli left on the defensive.

        The israeli right is strengthening and the left is on the defensive without any help from BDS.

        Israel has been on the move rightward, at an accelerating pace, for many years now and the trends are crystal clear. No amount of sweet talking will do when the plan is to annex the West bank and get rid of the Palestinians.

        As for the left in israel – please share with us your magnifying glasses. We might actually find us a few thousand if we really look hard.

        The israelis – as a collective – along with their zionist/Jewish supporters in the US and elsewhere are long past the point of no return in their approach. they want the West bank – as much of it as they can – preferably with minimal number of palestinians in it. How to get there from here is really the only question on their mind (“their” as in the vast majority of Israelis + people like you who support what that country is all about).

        One of the purposes of BDS is to let Israelis (the collective, forget the government) know that the world has no intention of looking away as they embark on their dastardly deeds. BDS is there to clarify that there are consequences. It is not about “peace” because that’s just a buzz word. The israelis already have all the peace they can handle, now they are just looking for a way to get away with what they really want.

        Therefore, the way to look at BDS is as a last ditch effort to prevent the truly abominable acts israel is determined to carry out. It’s about saving the Palestinians from the fate that awaits them, if the world takes off its eyes for a minute.

        The corollary that since BDS is about saving a people from expulsion and increasingly brutal persecution, it should be expanded to include all of israel to maximize the effect. preferably I’d like to see the kind of sanctions imposed on South Africa. Better yet, impose world wide Iran style sanctions on the country of Israel. Were that to be done, we might actually see some movement. Israelis may not care about others, but they do care about themselves.

      • hophmi on March 26, 2012, 4:13 pm

        I don’t know why you bother arguing this point with me. You know as well as I do that exterrnal boycotts have the effect of strengthening whomever is in power. That’s one argument against bombing Iran; it would strengthen the regime.

        I understand your lack of feeling for the actual Israelis on the ground; I’m aware that to you, they’re all pretty much the same. Left, right; they’re all evil Zionists.

      • hophmi on March 26, 2012, 5:08 pm

        “Israel has been on the move rightward, at an accelerating pace, for many years now and the trends are crystal clear. No amount of sweet talking will do when the plan is to annex the West bank and get rid of the Palestinians.”

        And what caused this to happen? First, suicide bombing discredited the peace movement in Israel; that was how Netanyahu got elected the first time. Then Intifada II helped elect Sharon. And when Israel actually annexes the West Bank, you let me know. So far, it hasn’t happened.

        “As for the left in israel – please share with us your magnifying glasses. We might actually find us a few thousand if we really look hard.”

        There are plenty of supporters of the two-state solution who would like to see the occupation end.

        “The israelis – as a collective – along with their zionist/Jewish supporters in the US and elsewhere are long past the point of no return in their approach. they want the West bank – as much of it as they can – preferably with minimal number of palestinians in it.”

        Show me a poll that says most Israelis want to annex the West Bank.

        “One of the purposes of BDS is to let Israelis (the collective, forget the government) know that the world has no intention of looking away as they embark on their dastardly deeds. ”

        No intention of looking away? It’s got the heaviest concentration of journalists in the world. Who are you kidding?

        “BDS is there to clarify that there are consequences.”

        What consequences? That the same group of leftists will find common cause with the Arabs as they always did?

        “The israelis already have all the peace they can handle, now they are just looking for a way to get away with what they really want.’

        Tell that to people in Sderot.

        “The corollary that since BDS is about saving a people from expulsion and increasingly brutal persecution, it should be expanded to include all of israel to maximize the effect. ”

        Is that what it’s about? How many Palestinians have been expelled in the last 15 years? And last I checked, IDF involvement in the West Bank was way down and prosperity way up, no thanks to BDS.

        “Better yet, impose world wide Iran style sanctions on the country of Israel”

        Iran is run by a repressive regime of theocrats, engages in nuclear brinksmanship, and denies the Holocaust. If you can’t see the difference between them and Israel, it says more about you than it does them.

      • eGuard on March 26, 2012, 5:19 pm

        hophmi It’s also quite clear that some of these policies are laguhably self-defeating. One of the products that would be boycotted is Meditalia, a line of tapenades made by PeaceWorks.

        Margaret Thatcher opposed the South Africa boycott. Because she was worried about those blacks that would be suffering. Of course, in the process she prolonged their suffering under Apartheid.

      • Woody Tanaka on March 26, 2012, 5:59 pm

        “And when Israel actually annexes the West Bank, you let me know. So far, it hasn’t happened.”

        It’s been de facto a part of Israeli since 1967. De jure, it hasn’t because then the Israelis would have to treat non-Jews with full human rights, which they refuse to do if they cannot establish an ethno-supremicist state.

      • Shingo on March 26, 2012, 9:13 pm

        e. You know as well as I do that exterrnal boycotts have the effect of strengthening whomever is in power.

        Is that what the US and Israel are trying to achieve in Iran?

      • ErsatzYisrael on March 27, 2012, 2:29 am

        Comparing “Israel” with South Africa and Germany is rather “unhinged” hoppy, I mean “Israel” isn’t even a proper country, and that’s just for starters.

        Are you currently squatting on the land of some poor Palestinian farmer, hop? Is that why your heart bleeds for those Palestinian farmers you mentioned? Or is all this just another manifestation of that tedious White Jew’s Burden routine (which all you ZioBots have, built into your operating systems)?

      • ErsatzYisrael on March 27, 2012, 2:51 am

        Not “evil”, delusional. Possibly autistic. ADD, perhaps?

        And here’s a clue hop: talking up the B part, won’t make the D and the S parts go away.

        Erm, you do know that when you cover your eyes with your hands, you’re still there hops, right? Yes, the whole word can still see you. Yes, even the Palestinians. ;)

      • eljay on March 27, 2012, 7:55 am

        >> Iran is run by a repressive regime of theocrats, engages in nuclear brinksmanship, and denies the Holocaust. If you can’t see the difference between them and Israel, it says more about you than it does them.

        The Jewish state is run by religion-supremacist, colonialist fanatics, actually possesses a nuclear arsenal, and denies the Nakba. The difference is clear: The Jewish state is a nuclear-armed, expansionist, colonialist regime; Iran is not.

        “Israel: We may not be as good as the best but, hey, at least we’re not as bad as the worst!” (c)

      • Mooser on March 28, 2012, 12:22 pm

        “You know as well as I do that exterrnal boycotts have the effect of strengthening whomever is in power.”

        Yeah, like in South Africa!

      • Cliff on March 30, 2012, 9:47 am

        Bullshit hophmi.

        The US State Dept. quoted, approvingly, the words of human rights workers and NGOs during the First Intifada (BEFORE SUICIDE BOMBING) that the IDF was acting like DEATH SQUADS!

        Screenshots for the lazy:

        http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v450/NSix/Scan5.jpg

        http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v450/NSix/Scan8.jpg

        http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v450/NSix/Scan11.jpg

        http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v450/NSix/Scan10.jpg

        http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v450/NSix/Scan9.jpg

        http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v450/NSix/Scan7-1.jpg

        http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v450/NSix/Scan7.jpg

        Suicide bombing has always been a blip in the violence of this conflict. It’s exotic though and so Israel uses it to demonize the Palestinian people as a whole, culturally (clash of civ/they aren’t like us westerners who love life, blah blah).

        Israeli Fascist Soldiers beating children, women, the elderly:

        http://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/17/world/report-charges-violence-against-arab-children.html

        http://articles.latimes.com/1988-01-17/news/mn-36787_1_food-shortage

        Israel has murdered more civilians than Palestinian terrorism has. And Israel’s crimes in other areas overwhelm Palestinian crimes because it is ISRAEL that is occupying and colonizing – not the Palestinians.

        People like you want to falsely portray this conflict as if it’s the other way around. As if it’s the Palestinians occupying and colonizing and murdering Jews then turning around and saying, ‘Whoops, collateral damage, we’re the most moral blah blah on Earth because we dropped leaflets before incinerating you!’

  4. Bill in Maryland on March 26, 2012, 2:22 pm

    Why can’t rank-and-file Americans hear this debate? Why is it confined to Amy Goodman’s audience and the blogosphere? Why we don’t see this on Rachel Maddow or the Ed Show is why the Mondoweiss focus on the power and influence of the American Jewish establishment is so critical.

  5. DICKERSON3870 on March 26, 2012, 2:51 pm

    RE: “Barghouti and Waskow debate BDS on Democracy Now”

    MY COMMENT: I have considerable respect/admiration for Waskow, but we simply disagree on BDS. Consequently, I refuse to buy computers with Intel “blood processors”, and instead buy computers with AMD processors. After all, Sponsoring Tomorrow starts Today!™

    SEE: Intel chip plant located on disputed Israeli land, by Henry Norr, San Francisco Chronicle, 7/08/02

    (excerpts) Just how diligent was Intel’s due diligence when it chose to build a multibillion-dollar chip plant in Qiryat Gat, Israel? . . .
    …Intel calls the plant Fab 18 (“fab” being chip-industry jargon for a facility where the silicon wafers that are eventually turned into working chips are fabricated). The fab, which went into production in 1999, was the fruit of a $1 billion investment by the Santa Clara company, supplemented by a $600 million grant from the Israeli government. . .
    …But from a legal and historical point of view, Qiryat Gat happens to be an unusual location: It was not taken over by the Israeli military in 1948. Instead, it was part of a small enclave, known as the Faluja pocket, that the Egyptian army and local Palestinian forces had managed to hold through the end of the war.
    The area was surrounded by Israeli forces, however. When Israel and Egypt signed an armistice agreement in February 1949, the latter agreed to withdraw its soldiers, but it insisted that the agreement explicitly guarantee the safety and property of the 3,100 or so Arab civilians in the area.
    Israel accepted that demand.
    In an exchange of letters that were filed with the United Nations and became an annex to the main armistice agreement, the two countries agreed that “those of the civilian population who may wish to remain in Al-Faluja and Iraq al Manshiya (the two villages within the enclave covered by the letters) are to be permitted to do so. . . . All of these civilians shall be fully secure in their persons, abodes, property and personal effects.” …
    . . . Within days, the security the agreement had promised residents of the Al- Faluja pocket proved an illusion. Within weeks, the entire local population had fled to refugee camps outside of Israel.
    Morris presents ample evidence that the people of the Al-Faluja area left in response to a campaign of intimidation conducted by the Israeli military. He quotes, among other sources, reports filed by Ralph Bunche, the distinguished black American educator and diplomat who was serving as chief U. N. mediator in the region.
    Bunche’s reports include complaints from U.N. observers on the scene that “Arab civilians . . . at Al-Faluja have been beaten and robbed by Israeli soldiers,” that there were attempted rapes and that the Israelis were “firing promiscuously” on the Arab population. . .

    ENTIRE ARTICLE – http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/07/08/BU162036.DTL

  6. Mndwss on March 26, 2012, 3:11 pm

    If BDS only against German buisinsesses in Poland could have convinced Adolf to end the occupation, then why did the world (GB/France) declare war against Germany, when solutions are that simple?

    If only they had not declared war, but only economic war against the German companies that profitetd from the occupation, and not the German state and it’s people, there would have been no WW2.

    And also no Holocaust ?

    The Germans would just go home when they found that they could only do business in Germany + the rest of the world, but not in Poland?

    Would Rabbi Waskow support BDS only against the Nazi-Germany companies in Poland?

    Or against the country that occupied Poland?

  7. giladg on March 26, 2012, 3:16 pm

    The plan for BDS was there all along from the get-go. Arafat was, unknowing to him at the time, recorded in a mosque in South Africa, where he gave wind of his plan. It was on that trip to South Africa that he decided to adopt the same tactics used against South Africa. If Israel was not going to capitulate on every major Palestinian demand, the BDS plan would be implemented, and it has. There was never any goodwill from the Palestinians towards Israel. There as never any intention to negotiate and compromise. The Palestinians want it all, and they want the BDS soldiers to do the dirty work for them. To prove my point, I challenge anyone to name one significant compromise for peace that the Palestinians have given to Israel, ever, including at Oslo. And please don’t tell me they have nothing to give. Israel has never had a true peace partner and Rabbi Waskow cannot tell the trees from the forest. He show signs of understanding but then backs off supporting aspects of the boycott without understanding fully the bigger picture.
    All the talk about non-violence and Gandhi is all a fabrication. They are trying to force the comparison where there is none. By hook or by crook, they continue deploying their slick propaganda machine against Israel. They will not succeed. The truth will find its way to the top, eventually, although it won’t be easy. The Rabbi Waskow’s of the world need to understand this, and soon.

    • Woody Tanaka on March 26, 2012, 3:42 pm

      “To prove my point, I challenge anyone to name one significant compromise for peace that the Palestinians have given to Israel, ever, including at Oslo.”

      I’m thinking the fact that they agreed to let a bunch of immigrant, colonialist Jews take 78% of their country is pretty darned significant.

      • hophmi on March 26, 2012, 4:13 pm

        “I’m thinking the fact that they agreed to let a bunch of immigrant, colonialist Jews take 78% of their country is pretty darned significant.

        They let them? Really. When was that?

      • Woody Tanaka on March 26, 2012, 5:56 pm

        Yes, when the negotiations center on the green line, that amounts to the Palestinians letting a horde of colonialists steal more than 3/4 of their country.

      • Fredblogs on March 26, 2012, 10:02 pm

        Great, except the Palestinians have never agreed to that. They always demand the “right of return”, which would mean they get that 78% as well as the 22% in the West Bank and Gaza.

      • Peter in SF on March 27, 2012, 4:32 am

        Palestinian negotiators (who are presumably “the Palestinians” we’re talking about in this context) have agreed to allow immigrant, colonialist Jews to stay in the 78%, although it’s true that they have not given up the right of those Palestinians who used to live in what’s now Israel (or whose parents or grandparents did) to return to their homes. Usually it’s seen as a good thing when war refugees return to their homes after the fighting ends. See: Rwanda, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and what most people are looking forward to happening in Iraq eventually.

      • Woody Tanaka on March 27, 2012, 9:56 am

        “They always demand the “right of return'”,

        Nonsense. They demand a resolution of the right of return, which, in practice, means that the Israelis will have to pay proper compensation to all those they’ve harmed. They balk and would rather inflict death and destruction than pay proper compensation.

      • Fredblogs on March 27, 2012, 2:33 pm

        @Woody Tanaka
        No, they have always refused compensation schemes. They demand a full right of return, and to be given the land back, for all descendants of Palestinians who left in 1948. That’s just not feasible, it isn’t an end to war, it is the start of a civil war.

      • Woody Tanaka on March 27, 2012, 3:12 pm

        “they have always refused compensation schemes”

        Fredblogs,
        Cite to where the Israelis proposed a compensation scheme and detail how much the Israelis were willing to pay.

      • Bumblebye on March 27, 2012, 3:58 pm

        Oh Fred, do please provide a link so we can see just how comprehensive and ‘generous’ Israel’s “compensation schemes” have been! I could do wiv a larf!

    • eljay on March 26, 2012, 3:47 pm

      >> There was never any goodwill from the Palestinians towards Israel. There as never any intention to negotiate and compromise. The Palestinians want it all …

      The religion-supremacist Jewish state of Israel was born of terrorism and ethnic cleansing. The Jewish state has expanded beyond its 1948 borders. The Jewish state has expanded beyond the 1967 armistice line. The Jewish state remains engaged in an ON-GOING and offensive (i.e., not defensive) campaign of aggression, oppression, theft, colonization, destruction and murder. The Jewish state has the power to halt that campaign immediately and completely, but it refuses to do so. The Jewish state refuses to enter into sincere negotiations for a just and mutually-beneficial peace.

      But the Palestinians are the bad guys who “want it all”.

      This statement would be funny if it weren’t so disgustingly stupid and hateful.

    • Shingo on March 26, 2012, 3:53 pm

      Great peace of mind reading, and tarot card reading on your part Gilad.

      What a pitty for you that all history and evidence points to the contrary. I’m sure Netenyahu was even under Arafat’s spell, which must be the only explanation for why he confessed on video, to sabotaging Oslo.

    • Mooser on March 26, 2012, 3:57 pm

      Well, what do you know? I was right!

      Anyway, Goladg’s comment will be of use to me in my study of Eastern mystic riddles. I have now clearly heard the sound of one hand thwapping. Apparently the moderaters don’t Giladg’s comment was simply an excuse to use the Mondoweiss board to slime and threaten Palestinians, so it must have some positive attribute.

    • Mooser on March 26, 2012, 4:03 pm

      Giladg, the fact that Rabbi Waskow is, in fact, a Rabbi, means nothing to you? You do not feel that a man who has taken the Jewish religion for the source of his whole life has nothing to say to you?

      • Mooser on March 26, 2012, 4:10 pm

        Wait a minute, giladg’ even I am mixed up. You do realise that Rabbi Waskow is arguing against BDS, don’t you?

        Or is a very interesting thing happening here? A hasbaractchnik sees a Rabbi arguing, and assumes he is for BDS? Hmmmm……

      • Fredblogs on March 26, 2012, 10:05 pm

        The Rabbi was arguing for BDS against companies doing business in the West Bank. He was only arguing against BDS against the rest of Israel. He has a fondness for lasers at least in analogies, since he mentioned 8 or 9 times focusing attacks on the settlements “like a laser”.

        That’s balanced for you, a Palestinian to argue the Palestinians side and a Rabbi to argue the less extreme Palestinian side.

      • Mooser on March 27, 2012, 12:41 pm

        “That’s balanced for you, a Palestinian to argue the Palestinians side and a Rabbi to argue the less extreme Palestinian side.”

        Yeah, Giladg, you’ve hit on the big problem with Judaism! It’s those darn Rabbis, those traitors! Imagine a person being more concerned with ethical,religious and human matters than tribal bigotry and material gain.
        How the hell did we let those people ruin our religion?

        Or are you another “Jewish Atheist”?

      • Fredblogs on March 27, 2012, 2:39 pm

        Rabbi just means “teacher”. The Jewish religion doesn’t claim infallibility for its Rabbis, they make mistakes like anyone else. There is no central authority that sets policy for the Jewish religion, so you can find Rabbis on every side of any issue. In this case, the Rabbi thinks that supporting BDS against just settlement businesses is possible or desirable. I think he is wrong about that. I think that supporting any BDS leads to a wider boycott that is intended to go on until Israel ceases to exist as a Jewish homeland. Remember that one of the demands of the BDS movement is that Israel let the Palestinians take over. If that is what you want, by all means, boycott. If you don’t want the Palestinians to rule Israel, then don’t boycott.

      • Mooser on March 27, 2012, 3:04 pm

        Fredblogs, you couldn’t be righter! If we let the Rabbis take over, Judaism is doomed!
        And who the hell do they think they are, anyway. In reality, they are just contract employees, and they damn well better say what they are told to, or they’re out of a job, pronto.

      • Woody Tanaka on March 27, 2012, 4:31 pm

        “Remember that one of the demands of the BDS movement is that Israel let the Palestinians take over. ”

        LMAO. Yeah, god forbid that everyone subject to a government has an actual say in that government. Who could imagine such deviltry. And imagine — non-Jews actually demanding to be given their human rights. What horror!!!

      • Hostage on March 27, 2012, 6:39 pm

        Rabbi just means “teacher”. The Jewish religion doesn’t claim infallibility for its Rabbis, they make mistakes like anyone else. There is no central authority that sets policy for the Jewish religion, so you can find Rabbis on every side of any issue.

        Okay, so you slept through the lesson about majority rule and “The Oven of Akhnai” (and excommunication of Rabbi Eliezer) and the kerfuffle a few years back over the Zoo Rabbi and the scientific infallibility of the pronouncements of the Sages contained in the Talmud.
        http://jhom.com/topics/voice/bat_kol_bab.htm
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natan_Slifkin#Rabbinic_ban

        The journal of Orthodox Jewish thought explains (for a fee) that these are cases of Majority Decision Vs. Individual Truth
        http://www.traditiononline.org/news/article.cfm?id=104047

      • Mooser on March 28, 2012, 12:26 pm

        Thank you, Hostage.

    • Mndwss on March 26, 2012, 4:08 pm

      “There was never any goodwill from the Palestinians towards Israel.”

      We did not feel welcome when we created a Jewish state in Palestine!

      There was never any goodwill from the Palestinians towards the new Jewish state called Israel on their land.

      We were Goodwill Ambassadors on stolen land, but:

      There was never any goodwill from the Palestinians towards Israel

      We are the victims…

    • Bill in Maryland on March 26, 2012, 4:20 pm

      Giladg (Pinocchio) says: “All the talk about non-violence and Gandhi is all a fabrication….The truth will find its way to the top”

      Short video of violent Palestinians assaulting the Ghandi-like Israeli Defense Forces (deep in the West Bank).

  8. hophmi on March 26, 2012, 3:36 pm

    “I refuse to buy computers with Intel “blood processors”, and instead buy computers with AMD processors”

    LOL. Let me know when that helps an actual Palestinian, most of whom doubtless use computers with Intel chips.

  9. Les on March 26, 2012, 4:36 pm

    During the debate Waskow said he supported a boycott against products from the settlements but not against those produced within Israel. He should share with the Park Slope Co-Op how he personally was able to outwit Israel’s efforts to make sure that no one can distinguish between the two. If he is getting his information from God, or any other source for that matter, Waskow should let those who support his position know where he is getting his inside information.

  10. ToivoS on March 26, 2012, 6:18 pm

    I have difficulty in being too critical of Waskow or other progressive Israelis such as Uri Avnery for opposing BDS. After all these people devoted their lives to convincing the Israeli people to accept and make peace with their Palestinian neighbors. For them to embrace BDS would be to admit that their life’s work failed.

    This falls into the realm of denial or maybe even more extreme forms of delusion. As an example of the latter, Eitan Haber in a recent opinion about the killings in France writes:

    Historians will give this new era a name. I call it the ’era of Arabs riding high.’ For the first time, after hundreds of years, 1.3 billion Muslims feel they have the power to run the world and bend it to Islam’s laws and customs. Where are they headed? As yet there are no defined directions, except Islamic rule – and if necessary, by the sword.” (copied from today’s Angry Arab).

    This is the raving of the islamophobic, ultra-right, correct? Except Eitan is part of the Israeli left. When the establishment left has moved this far to the right, then it is time to ignore what the Israelis want any more. Bring on BDS and threaten them with financial ruin, their politics are so broken they cannot help themselves at this point.

    • on March 26, 2012, 9:33 pm

      David Wurmser and Jennifer Mizrahi had a similar conversation regarding Iranians in Annapolis in 2007. Wurmser was particularly concerned that Iranians were “self-confident” and that they were spreading that self-confidence to the Islamic neighbors in the region. http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/202444-1

    • giladg on March 27, 2012, 3:07 am

      You know what they say about those who hate? Those doing the hating suffer more.
      Peace and love ToivoS, peace and love. An whilst you are busy supporting BDS, you should stop using your computer because it has Israeli designed chips in it, as well as your cellphone, you big hypocrite.

      • ToivoS on March 27, 2012, 7:39 pm

        giladg I don’t hate Israel. I have had too many good Israeli friends over the years to feel that way. Israel is like an unruly child — sometimes it needs disciplining but that does not mean he who wields the rod hates the child.

        BDS is our rod and we will wield it lovingly.

      • annie on March 27, 2012, 8:04 pm

        toivo, all the hard core hasbrats are addicted to the crutch of hate assignment. assigning hate to their adversaries is one of their most effective tools, or so they think. waaaayyyyy too overdone. there’s something mindcrunching about imagining human rights advocates as haters but what.ever. meanwhile they support a brutal occupation day in and day out and never cop to being full of hate, ever (it’s just always on the tip of their tongue doncha know). even if their cup were runnething overtime on volumes of high dose octane ziocaine they would never ever admit to even an itty bitty-ness of hatred but they just can’t pryyyy themselves away from accusing others of it. if you google ‘mondoweiss and hate’ it’s probably mentioned at least a thousand times and 99 out of 100 would be from the hasbrats accusing …us.

        so old indeed. i’m starting to think it’s a zio cultural thing. something i was definitely not raised with, that’s for sure.

      • giladg on March 28, 2012, 5:41 am

        You have no idea what brutal means in the real world. The woman at “machsom watch” (monitor the checkpoints on the ground), spend 99% of the time monitoring mundane and peaceful activities and are board out of their minds. Brutal, you have no idea what brutal means. Go to Syria to learn what brutal means.

      • Hostage on March 28, 2012, 5:22 pm

        Go to Syria to learn what brutal means.

        Why? The people there are being killed by the same methods Israel employs, but in lower percentages:
        Population of Syria 20,446,609 – death toll 9,000 in one year.
        Population Gaza 1,657,155 – death toll 1,417, in less than one month.

        We could compare total area and arrive at the same conclusion. It would have been much more likely that you would have encountered instances of brutality in Gaza than in Syria.

      • eljay on March 27, 2012, 8:25 pm

        >> Those doing the hating suffer more.

        That would appear to explain why citizens of the religion-supremacist, colonialist Jewish state suffer so much.

        It’s not easy being an aggressor-victim!

    • Mooser on March 27, 2012, 3:07 pm

      “This is the raving of the islamophobic, ultra-right, correct? Except Eitan is part of the Israeli left.”

      Well, when you can sort the two out, let me know.

  11. ToivoS on March 26, 2012, 6:59 pm

    Another angle on how Israeli society is, in general, unhinged, or why an entire nation is in need of collective psychotherapy.
    http://consortiumnews.com/2012/03/24/israeli-refuseniks-reject-anti-arab-bigotry/

    • Mooser on March 28, 2012, 12:35 pm

      “Another angle on how Israeli society is, in general, unhinged, or why an entire nation is in need of collective psychotherapy”

      Who needs an angle? All you need, as far as I can see, is the Holocaust, and the century or two of persecution before it. Under those circumstances, who on earth can make good decisions? Saints, maybe, or those few extraordinary people who can find redemption in extreme suffering. (Not me, of course)
      It’s this simple: Some people, when a business is failing, make a plan, regroup, cut their expenses, or even close it, arrange their debts, and go on to something else.
      Others get a brilliant idea: ‘I know, I’ll set fire to the business and collect big insurance!’ Or, ‘Okay, I will let the Mafia use my business as a front! Anything but sell the Mercedes and the ten-bedroom house!’
      There’s your basic parable for what happened. Basically “Jewish leadership” was facing, between the Holocaust in Europe and religious democracy in the US, the exposure of their failure and irrelevance. So they made a “decision” if you want to call it that.
      You can send me the money you would have paid the shrink, if you like.

  12. kma on March 26, 2012, 7:20 pm

    Dem.Now is slow – the debate is done and BDS is in progress. what Goodman should be reporting on is on how it’s working, and then viewers would know how stupid the “con” argument about “laser beam” targets is. for example, Caterpillar and Veolia are not Israeli products, and the campaign is not necessarily aimed at the Israeli economy. these targets are simply providing services and products that violate US laws, international laws, and moral laws. DN failed today in doing any real journalism.

    most of the comments on this thread are neanderthal. are we supposed to quietly snicker at the discomfort of the racist nay-sayers? it is kind of sad. the truth is, South Africans in the 80’s said to us, “you don’t know what you’re talking about – one of them killed someone I knew – they aren’t human!” and guess what, Israelis have said to me, “you don’t know what you are talking about – one of them killed someone I knew – they aren’t human”. so I know that there are South Africans and Israelis who really are afraid and angry, so I can’t openly gloat to the hopmi’s on this thread, it’s not nice. but BDS is here, and the debate is done.

    how come there aren’t more of the better quality comments on this site?

    • annie on March 27, 2012, 12:58 am

      Caterpillar and Veolia are not Israeli products, and the campaign is not necessarily aimed at the Israeli economy.

      smart kma..hewlett packard too

    • Mooser on March 27, 2012, 3:14 pm

      “how come there aren’t more of the better quality comments on this site?”

      You’ll have to talk with Phil; and Adam about that. For some reason I am unable to determine, they have not banned me, in spite if the immediate improvement in quality, ambience, and general classiness which would obtain by doing so. In a word, less ichor, and more iker.

  13. Mayhem on March 26, 2012, 10:20 pm

    The video of the debate been cut prematurely.

  14. Peter in SF on March 27, 2012, 4:36 am

    Here’s another thing that deserves attention:

    RABBI ARTHUR WASKOW: … it seems to me that the present framing of BDS, that it aims at all Israeli institutions and processes and products, and that it talks about not only ending the occupation, but, for example, it seems to be talking about the return of millions of descendants, families, of refugees to within the legitimate boundaries of Israel. I think that is — adds up to an attack on the legitimacy of Israel as a whole.

    Someone who uses such logic to argue that this adds up to an attack on the legitimacy of Israel as a whole is saying that ethnic cleansing is some sort of essential component of Israel as a whole. And if that’s the case, isn’t it then a good thing to attack the legitimacy of Israel as a whole?

    Also, what chutzpah for the rabbi to say that people who used to live in what’s now Israel, and their descendants in refugee camps, should not be allowed to return to their own homes (unless they happen to be Jewish, I guess), when at the same time, the government of Israel (or is it Israel as a whole) welcomes the rabbi and his congregants on their visits, and even invites them to stay, offering financial assistance to do so. I’d like to hear him talk about the legitimacy of that kind of special treatment.

    • Mayhem on March 27, 2012, 10:06 pm

      @Peter et al: Two state solution = state of Israel for the Jews and state of Palestine for the Palestinians (including refugees). Sounds so simple doesn’t it?

      • RoHa on March 28, 2012, 1:17 am

        “Two state solution = state of Israel for the Jews and state of Palestine for the Palestinians (including refugees). Sounds so simple doesn’t it?”

        One state for all of them together. Even simpler.

    • kma on March 28, 2012, 12:00 am

      yeah, the very “existence” of Israel “as a Jewish state” means ethnic cleansing. quite a problem if you want to debate “legitimacy” as well.

  15. kma on March 27, 2012, 11:00 pm

    I don’t mean to belittle comments here, just that the discussion is initiated by ancient propaganda and most are just answering it.

    my gut reaction to Amy Goodman’s show was that it revealed her opposition to BDS. at a time when two major churches are signing on to fight apartheid, she “just happened” to do a tired piece on a “debate” that aired the crap that we’ve all heard for many years. it’s not going to promote a two-state solution, it’s just not going to work, etc. anyone else bothered by that?
    the upside is that the premise is FINALLY that the settlements are WRONG! anybody else thrilled by that?

Leave a Reply