Trending Topics:

Major Jewish org: boycott vote is wake-up call in battle against ‘extremist’ delegitimization of Israel

Israel/Palestine
on 121 Comments
Malcolm Hoenlein

Malcolm Hoenlein

The landslide American Studies Association vote in favor of academic boycott is proving to be a highwater mark in the BDS movement, and it is galvanizing both sides in a fierce struggle.

The ASA’s action has sparked a reaction from many official groups, with boycott opponents calling on the organization to rescind its resolution.

A US congressman (and major supporter of Israel, Eliot Engel) has written to the ASA president, according to this supportive piece in the Washington Post, describing the Israeli denial of human rights as “purported,” and implying that the vote is anti-Semitic:

Unfortunately, your response that “we have to start somewhere” when queried about this contradiction only serves to highlight your organization’s bias against Israel. If you must “start somewhere,” than I strongly suggest the ASA turn its attention to Syria, where Bashar al-Assad’s forces have indiscriminately shelled universities, killing students even as they sat for exams.

The Boston Globe also has a piece highlighting opposition to the vote, though it includes this excellent point from Cornell’s Eric Cheyfitz, who has a child living in Israel:

“[T]he boycott is a time-honored, time-tested mode of civil disobedience in the face of the refusal of political entities to do social justice.”

Dozens of university executives have come out against the measure. That includes the Yale president, the Penn president, the University of Chicago, the University of Connecticut. I have that list because the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations issued a statement compiling the statements of university presidents who have come out against boycott and describing the issue as a line in the sand.

It seems that the Conference of Presidents solicited the letters:

[The Conference] welcomed the many responses from presidents of leading universities and academic associations across the United States rejecting the call by the American Studies Association for a boycott of Israeli universities. Responding to a letter from Conference leaders, Robert G. Sugarman, Chairman, and Malcolm Hoenlein, Executive Vice Chairman, that underscored the impropriety of the boycott vote and the need for all institutions with a relationship to the ASA to withdraw their support and any direct or indirect funding, many university presidents provided responses that rejected and condemned the ASA’s decision, unfettered.

Sugarman and Hoenlein said, “It is essential to draw the line here and now. The ASA resolution is a wakeup call. Allowed to go unchallenged, it will lead to other associations being hijacked by extremist minorities seeking to isolate and delegitimize Israel. Only about 16% of the members of the ASA actually voted in favor of the resolution. We call on the ASA to promptly rescind the decision publicly.”

The Israel lobby is obviously deeply alarmed and is taking BDS seriously in an all new way. There is bound to be a public debate on the question in the US at last, and we can anticipate that Establishment organizations will line up behind Israel. My response to that reaction: to itemize Palestinian rightslessness  and then document Cheyfitz’s standard, “the refusal of political entities to do social justice”: describe 66 years of meaningless international promises to grant Palestinians a state (even as South Sudan and Kosovo and Kazakhstan and countless other states have been born), show the relentless colonization of Palestinian land even as a “peace process” unfolds over decades, and point out the racist indifference to the human rights of Arabs throughout our Establishment just so long as the Jewish state is protected. From the NYTimes’ editorial on Egypt’s emerging dictatorship (boldface mine):

If it were another country, members of Congress would be furious. Instead, because the United States considers Egypt crucial to regional stability and because of Egypt’s peace treaty with Israel, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday approved legislation that would make it easier to resume aid, which was largely suspended after Mr. Morsi was deposed. The generals are almost certain to interpret that as an endorsement of their authoritarian methods.

What conditions will governments tolerate for The Other so long as the rights of the Privileged are preserved?

That is the essential question. Outrage over that glaring double standard fueled the (very violent) Civil War and the (nonviolent) Freedom Riders. Boycott is a non-violent answer.

philweiss
About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

121 Responses

  1. ramzijaber
    ramzijaber
    December 25, 2013, 12:47 pm

    Only the zionists are de-legitimizing the zionist entity. Only the zionists are giving credibility and argument for BDS. Only the zionists are pushing extremist positions. The truth always comes out. Fear is self-defeating. The arc of history always bends towards justice. Palestine is just.

    Merry Christmas and peace upon us all!

    • annie
      annie
      December 25, 2013, 12:50 pm

      peace be upon you and everyone Ramzi. let’s free palestine together this year, merry christmas.

      • ramzijaber
        ramzijaber
        December 25, 2013, 1:51 pm

        indeed annie, i believe 2014 is a critical fork year. merry christmas to you too!

    • ivri
      ivri
      December 25, 2013, 1:23 pm

      I am amazed by how people can let slogans captivate their minds. What in reality waits behind well-sounding slogans as “fear is elf-defeating”, “let`s free Palestine” or in getting intoxicated with a subjective understanding of justice is violence and bloodshed. In practice the people in the Wets-Bank joining the general Mid-East scene where everybody uses similar slogans, (only adapted to the local context) and it nowhere leads to peace but to the opposite. In the concrete case here it would mean that an Arab population that by and large until now escaped the misery of Syria. Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Sudan and others in the region will “join the crowd” in endless futile fights. Is that what you wish them? And is the likely suffering that it will bring to Jews in Israel justifies that and makes it worthwhile?

      • annie
        annie
        December 25, 2013, 1:41 pm

        In the concrete case here it would mean that an Arab population that by and large until now escaped the misery of Syria. Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Sudan and others in the region will “join the crowd” in endless futile fights. Is that what you wish them?

        it never ceases to amaze me the inane mindnumbing crap hasbrats come up with sometimes. merry christmas to you too ivri, peace be with you.

        and “in the concrete case” is that code for “hard fact” or something? jeez.

      • ramzijaber
        ramzijaber
        December 25, 2013, 1:50 pm

        ivri, i’m sorry but i really do not understand your point. just sounded to me like it was produced by some incoherent bs generator for zionist propaganda. am i missing something? please explain in simple terms that i can understand. thank you.

        merry christmas!!

      • ivri
        ivri
        December 25, 2013, 4:16 pm

        There is no Hasbara here Annie just plain facts and cold logic. Ramzi, given what we already know about the situation on the ground and with so many years of experience behind us you can conclude yourself that viewing Israel as the big and eternal enemy was not good for either side. In the West-Bank placing all the hopes on the expulsion of some hundreds of thousands of setter Jews from the West-Bank, under the banner of “freeing Palestine”, while viewing them as land thieves just because they arrived later after the indigenous population (as is the case in many places including the US), is what spoils everything. Why not rather try to cooperate for the benefit of all the people there? There is a big scope for that. As a matter of fact that was the situation long time ago in Israel proper until eyes got opened and real cooperation between Jews and Arabs has begun and even if imperfect it worked far better for both sides. Suspicions, irrational enmity and empty slogans have been replaced by realism and hard work and advanced common interests. Now, isn`t that more compatible with the spirit of peace?

      • annie
        annie
        December 25, 2013, 4:57 pm

        placing all the hopes on the expulsion of some hundreds of thousands of setter Jews from the West-Bank, under the banner of “freeing Palestine”, while viewing them as land thieves just because they arrived later after the indigenous population (as is the case in many places including the US), is what spoils everything.

        so if it spoils everything why’d you bring it up? i didn’t see anyone today advocating ‘the expulsion of some hundreds of thousands of setter Jews from the West-Bank’. i can personally think of alternatives to freeing palestine than that. that is not what i meant by free palestine. the concept of free palestine is the concept of equal rights and freedom and liberty in the whole land of palestine, whether the part israel is in, or over the green line. it’s the concept of freedom and free people.

        merry christmas

      • ramzijaber
        ramzijaber
        December 25, 2013, 6:31 pm

        oh my dear ivri, how i wish to believe your sweet words. but beneath them lies the ugly truth that you want so desperately to forget at best or may be hide at worst.

        let’s talk about the situation on the ground……………

        1- after many years of treating pre-1948 palestinians in israel proper as second class citizens, as was formally indicated in the israeli passports issued to them, the zionist regime gave us “equality” on paper. many many years after that paper equality, and till today, pre-1948 palestinians in israel proper are still treated as second rate citizens, not given equal access to funds and services as jews, not treated by the judicial or civil or military systems as equal. THESE ARE THE FACTS ON THE GROUND after 65 years of the establishment of israel.

        2- with over 43 years of brutal, oppressive, and illegal military colonizing of 1967 palestine, the zionist regime continues with destroying us, destroying our daily lives, negating our freedom and basic human and civil rights, humiliating us on the roads as we go about doing our normal mundane day-to-day affairs, robbing us of our dignity, murdering and killing us for no reason just because of who they are, harassing us as we travel with inhumane and animalistic treatment, refusing us the education and culture that we want and strive for, demeaning our existence and call for equality, liberty, freedom, justice, and peace. THESE ARE THE FACTS ON THE GROUND after over 43 years of illegally occupying 1967 palestine.

        3- after over 65 years of stealing our land, kicking us out of our homes, making us refugees, killing a large number of us, eradicating almost 500 palestinian towns and villages, trying (unsuccessfully) to erase us of the face of the earth, demonizing us in the eyes of the world, acting as the supreme power and the supremacist race over the “cockroach palestinians” as many criminal terrorist zionists said, banning us from returning to our homes even after a short overseas visit or studies abroad, your offensive criminal military raiding our homes at any time as you wish for the sole purpose of intimidation and subjication, and destroying our houses and our fields and rendering a great number of families and children and women and old people homeless and helpless. THESE ARE THE FACTS ON THE GROUND that the illegal zionist entity has established over the past 65 years.

        4- after 65 years of the nakba, the pain, the suffering, the wrongs that the zionist regime committed daily, the sins, and the crimes, and not one word of apology, remorse, reconciliation, truth, acceptance of responsibility, acknowledgment of pain that you inflicted when you stole our land and created your zionist state, how do you expect or ask for peace without such truth, repentance, and reconciliation? THESE ARE THE FACTS ON THE GROUND that your glorious zionist leaders have created over the past 65 years.

        so ivri, please do not try to sweet-talk your way into anyone’s heart or mind. do not preach about empty slogans. instead stop your or your support of illegal criminal zionist acts then we can talk peace, then we can talk truth, then we can talk reconciliation. that is the true spirit of peace. and you will certainly recognize it in your heart if you were honest and truthful with the past and with the true nature of zionism. otherwise, it shall be 1S1P1V thanks to you and the zionists who are establishing the FACTS ON THE GROUND that will soon make 1S1P1V a reality – a place where all the Christian, Moslem, and Jewish citizens of the democratic state of the Holy Land will live in peace, equality, justice, freedom, liberty, dignity, and mutual respect.

        merry christmas. may you see the light and may your soul and spirit be free to see, accept, and advocate the truth. thank you.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        December 25, 2013, 8:14 pm

        “while viewing them as land thieves just because they arrived later after the indigenous population ”

        No, viewing them as land thieves because they drove the indigenous population off the land and took it from them by force.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        December 25, 2013, 9:57 pm

        “while viewing them as land thieves just because they arrived later after the indigenous population ”

        Talk about cherry picking. If I arrive at your home after you’ve been there and expel/murder your family, knock down your house and build another on the same plot of land, that makes me more than a thief. It makes me a murderer too.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        December 25, 2013, 10:08 pm

        viewing Israel as the big and eternal enemy was not good for either side.

        Would viewing the Nazis as something other than the big and eternal enemy been good for Jews on Germany in 1939.

        Why not rather try to cooperate for the benefit of all the people there?

        What would cooperation look like Ivri? Should they grab whatever guns they can find and kill their families before turning the guns in themselves? Perhaps mass suicide bombings in crowded town squares? Or should they all pack their bags and make their way to another Arab country?

        How would cooperating with the Nazis have helped the Jews in 1939 and to what benefit – saving Hitler railway transportation costs or the cost of building concentration camps?

        Is that the kind of peace you had in mind?

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        December 26, 2013, 12:56 am

        @ ivri
        The Zionist state mentality is to view all goys as anti-semitic, just waiting to come out of the closet. Beiden parroted this mentality at the last annual AIPAC conference. Nobody called him on it, even though he included all Americans as such to justify the US government’s enmeshment with the Zionist insurance policy, the “Jewish and democratic” state of Israel. Let’s see, who’s lawn needs mowing…

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        December 26, 2013, 5:50 am

        ivri:

        In the West-Bank placing all the hopes on the expulsion of some hundreds of thousands of setter Jews from the West-Bank, under the banner of “freeing Palestine”, while viewing them as land thieves just because they arrived later after the indigenous population …

        You would find no problem either, then, if hundreds of thousands of Palestinians settled in Israeli territory today? Let anybody settle where they wish, is that your position?

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        December 26, 2013, 9:12 am

        “while viewing them as land thieves just because they arrived later after the indigenous population”

        No, they’re viewed as land thieves because they are. They stole the land from those already there.

        “Why not rather try to cooperate for the benefit of all the people there? ”

        Yeah, the Palestinians tried that in the early part of the 20th C. They wanted to have one state of Palestine for the benefit of all the people there. For their troubles, they got an attempted genocide, a theft of their land, and decades of oppression and racism. It would be cruel to ask them to dance with the devil, given that history.

      • Stephen Shenfield
        Stephen Shenfield
        December 25, 2013, 1:52 pm

        “Fear is elf-defeating.”

        Unfortunately many elves have been defeated by fear down through the ages.

        Blessings upon you all, fellow elves!

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        December 25, 2013, 8:24 pm

        Elves deserve a country of their own, preferably in the territory of their ancestral elfland.

      • Taxi
        Taxi
        December 25, 2013, 1:53 pm

        ivri,

        Sixty-five years of brutally occupying Palestine and you’re STILL claiming victimhood. Why don’t you buzz off with you whining! End the freaking occupation! Stop complaining about the hostility towards israel – cuz that’s what you’re always gonna get so long as israel’s boot is on the neck of Palestine.

        It’s NOT “extremist” to abhor Apartheid and ethnic cleansing! It’s the frigging NORM!

        What’s actually “extremist” is your ziosomnambulism!

      • ivri
        ivri
        December 25, 2013, 4:58 pm

        It is not about victimhood Taxi, rather exasperation with the Palestinians in their incapability to see where their real interests lie – not in a zero-sum and eternal conflict with Israel but rather in finding ways to cooperate with it. They keep looking for the next big fight but will that bring them the hoped for salvation?

      • annie
        annie
        December 25, 2013, 5:10 pm

        rather exasperation with the Palestinians in their incapability to see where their real interests lie

        ivri, they live under a brutal military occupation for decades. please don’t pretend this is some benevolent rule and in their best interests. seriously, your hasbara is stuck back in the joan peters days. nobody is this stupid anymore.

      • talknic
        talknic
        December 25, 2013, 7:05 pm

        @ ivri “exasperation with the Palestinians ..”

        After being given one car in the car lot and hundreds of warnings not to steal the other car and drive over the cliff, the brain dead thieves blame the people whose car they stole, complain about being warned and drive over the cliff

        “There is no Hasbara here Annie just plain facts and cold logic”

        Uh huh … then

        “… viewing them as land thieves just because they arrived later after the indigenous population”

        What a cute little dollop of Hasbara poop! No matter what religion, culture, race or ethnic background, Jewish or non-Jewish, International Law prohibits the citizens of an Occupying Power from illegally settling in the territories they occupy. Israel is the Occupying Power over non-Israeli territories.

        “Why not rather try to cooperate for the benefit of all the people there?

        Why not adhering to one’s legal obligations instead? It’s never been tried

        “Suspicions, irrational enmity and empty slogans “

        Like … “We made the dessert bloom” & “Mark Twain said” Irrelevant nonsense which has no bearing on the legal extent of Israel’s Internationally recognized sovereign extent under International Law and/or the illegality of Israel’s activities as the Occupying Power over non-Israeli territories

        “”The LoN Mandate gave Jews the right to a state “ Article 7 tells us the state was Palestine

        “Israel has no borders” The Israeli Govt proclaimed its frontiers effective at 00:01 (ME time) May 15th 1948

        “defensible borders” The phrase doesn’t appear in any UNSC resolution, the Laws of War, the UN Charter or convention and Israel has no more right to defensible borders than its neighbours

        “UNSC res 242 says negotiations over borders” The word negotiation does not appear in UNSC res 242

        “UNSC res 242 did not require Israel to withdraw from “all”/”the” territories” the theory is shown to be bullsh*t by subsequent UNSC resolutions like UNSC res 476, one of EIGHT reminders of UNSC res 252

        “The UN is biased against Israel” The UN has given Israel hundreds of opportunities to adhere to the law and has never taken any action against Israel for not having adhered to the law as it has with other states

        The list of Israeli apologist slogans is long and littered with ziopoop

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        December 25, 2013, 8:16 pm

        So exactly how can the Palestinians cooperate with Israel in order to become full, equal, citizens of a unified state?

      • Daniel Rich
        Daniel Rich
        December 25, 2013, 9:01 pm

        @ ivri,

        The sad thing is, ivri, we both know that there isn’t a single fiber in your body that really cares about the plight of the Palestinians. You go in to full fledged Yak-mode – circle the asses tight together and stave off the hordes of howling wolves.

        There are no wolves, ivri.

        What you see is a bunch of rational individuals who can’t be fooled. You can’t stop the flow of information reaching every corner of the globe. The Genie’s out of the bottle and no matter how hard you try, it/s/he won’t go back. ‘You’ overplayed your hand and your ‘opponents’ are currently calling the shots.

        I’m afraid you have to get used to that particular setback in your defense of Apartheid.

        Good luck and all…

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        December 25, 2013, 10:18 pm

        Nicely put Daniel,

        It seems that Ivri, Mehane and JeffB are resorting to passive aggression these days. Evidently they got the message that Nakba denial is a lost cause and rewriting the history of the intentions if the Zionist founders is a losing strategy, so now they are trying the “let’s all be friends”, approach with conditions.

        The message is, roll over and die for us and we promise it won’t hurt.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        December 26, 2013, 1:00 am

        @ ivri

        I am a Palestinian. I have my house key. Can I have my house back? How about my olive trees? My water? Will you let my kids out of jail? Don’t the Nuremberg Trials afford me these things?

      • puppies
        puppies
        December 25, 2013, 11:21 pm

        Taxi, energies could be better expended than answering official …. personnel.
        I just cannot understand this: Most threads contain buds of discussion which, developed and discussed thoughtfully, may sometimes lead people here to devising useful action. Yet every thread is under continuous bombardment by official “Hasbara” agents, encouraged by the Management…[..]

      • annie
        annie
        December 26, 2013, 10:30 am

        puppies, we have a comment policy thread (scroll up) for extended discussion/complaint of comment policy.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        December 25, 2013, 10:33 pm

        In the concrete case here it would mean that an Arab population that by and large until now escaped the misery of Syria. Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Sudan and others in the region

        No they haven’t. Petulant people, like yourself, are enclosing them in walled enclaves, destroying their crops, stopping them at checkpoints, denying them housing and destroying as much as possible, and invading their remaining homes in the middle of the night to haul their kids off to jail. When they object or demonstrate, your goon squads persecute, kill, or imprison them just like the thugs in neighboring countries and call them militants and terrorists.

      • eGuard
        eGuard
        December 26, 2013, 5:23 am

        Why is ivry reducing Palestinian people to people in the Wets-Bank?

    • December 25, 2013, 2:36 pm

      I think we know who the real extremists are.

    • December 25, 2013, 11:24 pm

      hey phil weiss,didn’t you forget something? like wishing us all a merry christmas.
      it only happens once a year.
      btw, i noticed, if my memory serves me correct, that the president of duke was opposed but the university as a whole was for it. interesting

      • libra
        libra
        December 26, 2013, 5:10 pm

        hey phil weiss,didn’t you forget something? like wishing us all a merry christmas.

        A little less lèse-majesté and you just might be lucky enough to have Phil pop round on Boxing Day with the traditional gift of Christmas leftovers.

  2. Krauss
    Krauss
    December 25, 2013, 1:06 pm

    Only about 16% of the members of the ASA actually voted in favor of the resolution.

    Ah, this argument. First of all; the Israel resolution was the most voted on resolution of all time for the ASA, and more people voted than 16% even if they use that number to try to downplay it.
    So if anything, the engagement anyone questioning other resolutions the ASA made even if they had lower participation.

    Second, what makes Hoenlien et al think that the non-voting bloc would, to 100%, back the Israeli side? This is something political scientists have looked at. They’ve found that non-voting blocs tend to follow those who voted but they just feel less energized about it, even if the opinions are fundamentally the same.

    • Krauss
      Krauss
      December 25, 2013, 1:12 pm

      A few dispersed observations:

      1. I’m surprised how few universities they have gathered. Princeton’s missing. Berkeley is missing. Uni of Virginia is missing. UNC is missing. Swarthmore is missing. Most if not all elite liberal arts colleges are missing. Vanderbilt is missing.

      And so on. I actually thought they could muster more support for their reactionary retaliation. What happens if MLA passes a resolution this January?

      2. One unintentional side-effect of this ferocious assault is that the lobby is forcing academics to really think through the resolution. People will become more identified/passionate about the issue as well as read much more on the topic. As they say, the hardest steel goes through the hottest fire.

      The result of this will be that the leading voices of the ASA boycott resolution will be able to act as evangelists to other academics and they will be equipped with great arguments as well as a deep knowledge of the other side’s counter-arguments, coupled with less fear as they’d be used to the intimidation tactics of the others.

      3. The reaction of Hoenlein confirms my suspicion I’ve had before. The lobby deliberately went soft when the Asian-American Studies Association went pro-boycott. They wanted to silence it to death. Don’t give it oxygen.

      It was a miscalculation and now they are racing to catch up.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        December 25, 2013, 3:09 pm

        @Krauss

        Princeton’s missing

        I don’t know about the rest of the list. But in the case of Princeton they aren’t missing. The President of Princeton denounced the ASA but indicated that Princeton wouldn’t pull out over the boycott (i.e. we don’t boycott). However both departments and faculty at Princeton may. Given an official multi-paragraph denouncement with more action to come I wouldn’t consider Princeton “missing”.

        . One unintentional side-effect of this ferocious assault is that the lobby is forcing academics to really think through the resolution. People will become more identified/passionate about the issue as well as read much more on the topic. As they say, the hardest steel goes through the hottest fire.

        This isn’t close to the hottest fire. Wait till a BDS supporter does a mass shooting at a synagogue or at an Israeli independence day parade. Wait until someone associated with Al-Qaeda gets caught and it turns out they were radicalized in college as part of BDS. The fire will get much much hotter.

        That being said I agree that this approach gives the ASA boycott tons of publicity.

        coupled with less fear as they’d be used to the intimidation tactics of the others.

        You are assuming the effect is minimal. It might not be. It might be that 5-2 votes for tenure turn into 4-3 votes and suddenly the dean rejects. It might be that ASA membership starts harming graduate students and statistically say 45% of non-members vs 30% of members get placements causing more students not to join. It may be that more junior members of the ASA who signed aren’t invited to present on panels. Or they are on panels and something like what happened at George Mason happens and they get subject to a walkout.

        ASA members are not used to being on the political front lines. I don’t think a lot of them understood that on this issue they would be. Mainstream Democratic politicians have to deal with issues where the other side can and does fight back. They have attack ads run against them. They have to deal with hostile propaganda that’s often quite mean. Liberals generally lose in convincing mainstream Democrats to back their causes, but they don’t face counter fire. Israel/Palestine as a debate within Liberalism is one where that isn’t true.

        Certainly some of the ASA members will learn to be politicians and become much more effective activists having handled counter fire. I suspect far more will wonder why they picked one of the few causes that is likely to draw counter fire.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        December 25, 2013, 8:08 pm

        This isn’t close to the hottest fire. Wait till a BDS supporter does a mass shooting at a synagogue or at an Israeli independence day parade.

        Because we know that there zero consequences for anti BDS or pro Israeli supporters when they do the same. I don’t recall the settler movement suffering any set backs after Baruch Gildstein let lose.

        Shooting up religious congregations or rallies is anIseaeli past time.

        Wait until someone associated with Al-Qaeda gets caught and it turns out they were radicalized in college as part of BDS.

        Now you’re just embarrassing yourself. There is no way in earths member of AQ would consider anything as banal as BDS.

        ASA members are not used to being on the political front lines. I don’t think a lot of them understood that on this issue they would be

        I am sure they are more than aware of what they were up against and the fallout of their vote. But again, the political over reaction to their resolution will serve to draw more attention to the issue, so those attacking them will also be taking a risk here.

      • LeaNder
        LeaNder
        December 26, 2013, 9:57 am

        Now you’re just embarrassing yourself.

        Actually he is praying that the Israeli secret services will plan something similar. May help to get the image of Israel as the foremost bastion of democracy against the savages back in US minds. Israel didn’t study the Arab mind for nothing, ask the neocons. ;)

      • American
        American
        December 26, 2013, 11:37 am

        This isn’t close to the hottest fire. Wait till a BDS supporter does a mass shooting at a synagogue or at an Israeli independence day parade. Wait until someone associated with Al-Qaeda gets caught and it turns out they were radicalized in college as part of BDS. The fire will get much much hotter.’…jeffb

        Wait till outbreaks like this happen in the US as the Zios get more aggressive and militant in demanding Americans and their rights be curtailed by the government for Israel.
        The zionism inspired sense of entitlement and of being above all law that Israel and those like you feel to do violence to , threaten and rule over all others is going to burn you to death.

        http://www.jta.org/2013/12/24/news-opinion/world/report-french-jewish-defense-league-stage-attacks-near-lyon

        Report: French Jewish Defense League stage attacks near Lyon
        December 24, 2013 12:30pm

        (JTA) — French police arrested six Jews they believe staged vigilante attacks against suspected anti-Semites.
        The attacks occurred on Dec. 21 in Lyon and Dec. 22 in nearby Villeurbanne and are believed to have been perpetrated by members of France’s Jewish Defense League, or Ligue de Defense Juive (LDJ), the local branch of the militant group associated with the late Rabbi Meir Kahane.
        The victims were targeted on social networks and tracked down for performing the “quenelle,” a gesture conceived by the anti-Semitic comedian and Holocaust denier Dieudonne M’bala M’bala,the Le Progres daily reported.
        The attack Dec. 22 involved six young members of LDJ, the newspaper reported. The report said they beat a man suspected of performing the quenelle and locked him inside the trunk of a parked car. The report, which named neither the suspects nor the alleged victim, said two of the six were arrested that night and the remaining four were arrested the following day. Two were remanded to police custody Tuesday on suspicion of assault, Le Progres reported. The report did not say how badly the man was hurt.”
        According to Le Progres, the first attack began late on Dec. 21 and was directed at an employee of the Mama Shelter Hotel in Lyon. A few small teams entered the hotel looking for the employee, who was not named, while their friends stayed outside, the report said.
        In total, a few dozen men were involved in the incident, witnesses told the newspaper. The hotel’s security agents fought off the intruders and prevented them from attacking the employee. Several dozen guests were briefly evacuated from the hotel, according to the report.
        In June, LDJ announced that its “soldiers” had put a young Arab in the hospita, calling it “a rapid and effective response” to the man’s attack on Jews at Saint-Mande, just east of Paris. The announcement drew calls to ban LDJ. As criticism mounted, LDJ retracted the statement and denied any involvement in the violence”

      • annie
        annie
        December 26, 2013, 11:53 am

        Wait till a BDS supporter does a mass shooting at a synagogue or at an Israeli independence day parade.

        wait til the Jewish Defense League pulls of a false flag terror operation and tries to pin it on a BDS supporter.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        December 26, 2013, 12:13 pm

        “Wait till a BDS supporter does a mass shooting at a synagogue or at an Israeli independence day parade. Wait until someone associated with Al-Qaeda gets caught and it turns out they were radicalized in college as part of BDS.”

        What an incredibly racist thing to say. Besides, those kind of things are more the work of fans of israel

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks

        ” Israel/Palestine as a debate within Liberalism is one where that isn’t true.”

        Those who favor the zios aren’t liberals, so this is not a debate “within Liberalism”; this is a debate between liberals and zionist reactionaries who are pretending to be liberals on the other.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        December 26, 2013, 5:38 pm

        wait til the Jewish Defense League pulls of a false flag terror operation and tries to pin it on a BDS supporter.

        Just wait till a JDL or Shah’s supporter really does try to assassinate Obama as a number of Israeli firsters suggested should be done when Obama began complaining about the settlements.

      • kma
        kma
        December 27, 2013, 11:22 am

        this comment about a BDS supporter getting violent needs way more reality injected into it:
        the possibility of someone who has watched their family die or their home bulldozed or who lives under drones and airstrikes and ONGOING terror doing something violent in response is always a possibility.
        the reality is that Israel is committing the violence every day. Israel is doing what JeffB says is going to stoke a fire. Israel has stoked it, and the response by the international community is BDS.
        we don’t need to talk about the JDL or anything else to view the big picture of where the extremist violence is and how much of it is going on every day. we know how much land, lives,money is consumed by Israel every day. one counterattack by a victim isn’t going to stop BDS, and yes, zionists will label anything like that as “BDS” (it isn’t).

    • HarryLaw
      HarryLaw
      December 25, 2013, 5:03 pm

      Krauss @ “They’ve found that non-voting blocs tend to follow those who voted but they just feel less energized about it”, thanks for that, I remember arguing with my brother in law when over 1 million people marched in London against the Iraq war, he said something facile like “in that case there could be 50 million for the war who decided to stay at home”.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        December 25, 2013, 5:32 pm

        @Harry —

        a) National elections are different than small groups. For example in America:
        the population is to the left of
        eligible voters who are to the left of
        registered voters who are to the left of
        frequent voters

        It is a highly non-random process

        b) The same thing doesn’t apply to demonstrations. You need to actually poll in some way and getting people to demonstrate isn’t a poll.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        December 25, 2013, 8:23 pm

        The fact is that BDS is only going to grow and gather power and momentum.

        The lobby and it’s paid stooges are just running around and plugging holes in the dyke.

    • tree
      tree
      December 25, 2013, 7:21 pm

      Only about 16% of the members of the ASA actually voted in favor of the resolution.

      And on the flip side, less than 8% of the members actually voted against the measure. If Hoenlein wishes to use the low voting percentage as an indication of lack of support, then he should likewise acknowledge that the much lower “no” vote number indicates an even greater lack of opposition to the measure. But he won’t, because honesty would be counterproductive to his talking points.

  3. Walid
    Walid
    December 25, 2013, 1:10 pm

    “… The generals are almost certain to interpret that as an endorsement of their authoritarian methods….” (NYT)

    100% correct about the US endorsement; Egypt has declared the MB a terrorist organization; from Canadian Press:

    “Hossam Eissa, the minister of higher education, read out a cabinet statement after a long meeting, saying: “The cabinet has declared the Muslim Brotherhood group and its organization as a terrorist organization.”

    He said that the decision was in response to Tuesday’s deadly bombing targeting a police headquarters in a Nile Delta city, in which 16 people were killed and more than 100 wounded. The Brotherhood has denied responsibility for the attack in Mansoura, for which an al-Qaeda inspired group claimed responsibility on Wednesday.”

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/muslim-brotherhood-declared-a-terrorist-group-by-egypt-1.2476226

  4. Justpassingby
    Justpassingby
    December 25, 2013, 2:35 pm

    And there comes the whining..

  5. Les
    Les
    December 25, 2013, 2:36 pm

    On Saturday January 11 members of the upcoming Modern Language Association meeting will also vote on BDS.
    Here is a scheduled discussion session.
    48. Academic Boycotts: A Conversation about Israel and Palestine

    Thursday, 9 January, 1:45–3:00 p.m., Sheraton I, Sheraton Chicago

    A special session

    Presiding: Samer M. Ali, Univ. of Texas, Austin

    Speakers: Omar Barghouti, Independent Scholar; Barbara Jane Harlow, Univ. of Texas, Austin; David C. Lloyd, Univ. of California, Riverside; Richard M. Ohmann, Wesleyan Univ.

    Responding: Samer M. Ali

    Session Description:

    This roundtable addresses the political movement Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions against Israel, seen by its defenders as a viable means to end the Palestinian occupation. Many academics face questions about how to respond to this boycott or how to evaluate academic boycotts more generally. This roundtable is intended to promote discussion of strategy, ethics, and academic work in larger world contexts through the lens of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

    Last updated 23 October 2013

    https://www.mla.org/program_details?prog_id=48&year=2014

  6. Sycamores
    Sycamores
    December 25, 2013, 3:48 pm

    “There is bound to be a public debate on the question in the US at last”

    fingers crossed

    • Castellio
      Castellio
      December 25, 2013, 4:03 pm

      The Zionists are quite convinced that they can win any polarization around the issues through institutional intimidation.

      • December 26, 2013, 8:37 am

        “The Zionists are quite convinced that they can win any polarization around the issues through institutional intimidation.”

        That is there only chance. They sure as Hell can’t win if open and honest debate is allowed

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        December 26, 2013, 10:21 am

        @Giles

        That is there only chance. They sure as Hell can’t win if open and honest debate is allowed

        Sure they can. They won in the 1940s with Truman when there was on open honest debate about what to do with the Jewish refuges. The arguments about a Jewish homeland and then a state were heavily discussed. There was a clear understanding about how this could displace the existing inhabitants. The Zionists won that debate. In the 1970s Ford presented a clear debate regarding the settlements and how the USA shouldn’t be indirectly encouraging them by maintaining a strong alliance with a country building permanent infrastructure on occupied territory since this was a violation of the Geneva Convention. Ford lost. There have been mini flareups and the Zionist side, generally but not always wins.

        Most people in America don’t buy into this anti-colonialist radical chic pro-Palestinian world opinion. They look at one side that has assisted the United States and follows orders even when they disagree, and another side which is traditionally hostile, mostly hostile now and likely to remain that way and they know which side in the conflict they would rather be on.

        To most Americans there are many many tribal conflicts all over the planet, lots of tribes don’t like each other. And they don’t want the USA aggressively settling these disputes.

      • annie
        annie
        December 26, 2013, 10:44 am

        They won in the 1940s with Truman when there was on open honest debate about what to do with the Jewish refuges. The arguments about a Jewish homeland and then a state were heavily discussed. There was a clear understanding about how this could displace the existing inhabitants. The Zionists won that debate.

        hmm, then what is the meaning of this phrasing in israel’s declaration of state?:

        it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine,

        also, james north ask you a question. you’ve yet to respond:

        JeffB: This comment once again prompts me to raise the question I posed to you earlier today, which you haven’t answered. Your main theme once again is that Israel is powerful, and the forces critical of Israel are puny and insignificant. Why then do you spend hours every day on Mondoweiss? I don’t hang around over at the Flat Earth Society website, commenting away.

        http://mondoweiss.net/2013/12/debate-future-israelpalestine.html#comment-623479

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        December 26, 2013, 10:58 am

        “They won in the 1940s with Truman when there was on open honest debate about what to do with the Jewish refuges.”

        Like hell there was open and honest debate. At that time, as now, the interests of the non-Jews were discounted due to religion and racism. If Jesus wasn’t a Jew or if Palestinians were European, the odds that there would be an “israel” today approaches zero. There was nothing open nor honest about anything in connection with that damnable state.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        December 26, 2013, 12:50 pm

        @Woody

        Thought you were dropping out?

        Like hell there was open and honest debate [in the 1940s] At that time, as now, the interests of the non-Jews were discounted due to religion and racism. If Jesus wasn’t a Jew or if Palestinians were European, the odds that there would be an “israel” today approaches zero. There was nothing open nor honest about anything in connection with that damnable state.

        Giles was making the claim that an honest debate among Americans as they actual exist would solve the problem. Which means in the 1940s they are racist, but they are also anti-Semitic; while in 2014 they are racist (mostly) but they are still angry about 9/11 and also heavily influenced by Christian Zionism.

        Obviously an honest debate among people who agree with you on Israel wouldn’t have had that result. But so what? That’s not who would be part of an honest debate.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        December 26, 2013, 12:54 pm

        @Annie —

        hmm, then what is the meaning of this phrasing in israel’s declaration of state?:

        The sort of facile promise that is often made to swing people who are on the border like “if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor”. Most everybody on either the pro or anti Jewish homeland / state debate knew that creating a Jewish state would be devastating to the interests of the existing populations. So they asked for promises.

        If your point is that Ben Gurion made such promises, he did.

      • talknic
        talknic
        December 26, 2013, 2:05 pm

        @ JeffB ” They won in the 1940s with Truman when there was on open honest debate about what to do with the Jewish refuges”

        Uh huh … ‘with Truman’ amongst a very small number of people, where was the public debate? The internet is opening up the issue to potentially include millions of people in numerous avenues, with vast amounts of instantly verifiable information at their fingertips showing just how deceitful the Zionist lobby is.

        “In the 1970s Ford presented a clear debate ..”

        Ditto

        “Most people in America ..”

        .. likely don’t even know about it and haven’t been interested

        “To most Americans there are many many tribal conflicts all over the planet, lots of tribes don’t like each other. And they don’t want the USA aggressively settling these disputes.”

        A) Your constant use of ‘most’ in respect to the I/P issue is delusional and; B) via BDS the US isn’t being asked or required to aggressively settle the dispute.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        December 26, 2013, 3:20 pm

        @talknic

        Uh huh … ‘with Truman’ amongst a very small number of people, where was the public debate?

        Thomas Dewey and the Republicans were running for President with this as one of their issues. Encouraging Jewish voters to break from the Democrats over it. I’m not sure how much more mainstream a debate can be in American than it being part of a presidential election.

        There most certainly were people arguing the anti case at the time to Jews, for example:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Council_for_Judaism

        For Truman the issue was simple. Siding with Israel would harm America’s oil interests. Siding against Israel would harm Truman’s chances of re-election. The public debate was about how much, that is how many Jews would swing Republican (Dewey) if Truman was hesitant and how many Jews would swing Republican if Truman came out against. And the polling at the time indicated a lot.

        Had there been a large number of gentile Dewey supporters who would have swung Democratic if Truman had supported the Arab position and let the Jewish refugees freeze to death in Europe odds were he would have supported the Arab position given his strong support for oil interests.

        The internet is opening up the issue to potentially include millions of people in numerous avenues, with vast amounts of instantly verifiable information at their fingertips showing just how deceitful the Zionist lobby is.

        Notice how the support for Israel has been growing not shrinking during this period of opening.

        “In the 1970s Ford presented a clear debate ..”

        You mean the debate over the support resolution that took place on the floor of the United States Senate? That’s a public debate. Not only that Carter ran against Ford on the Israel issue, so again it was quite public.

        B) via BDS the US isn’t being asked or required to aggressively settle the dispute.

        Of course it is.
        B means setting up and establishing a social system of widespread anti-Israel discrimination which since it is likely to be opposed by Jews means state supported anti-Jewish propaganda.

        D requires agencies like the IRS to assist with enforcement
        and S to be effectual requires the government directly.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        December 26, 2013, 5:46 pm

        I’m not sure how much more mainstream a debate can be in American than it being part of a presidential election.

        The issue was not about Jewish voters but campaign contributions, which is the domain of a handful of powerful and very wealthy individuals, so it was never mainstream. Jewish voters didn’t even appear as a blip on the voter registry.

        And the polling at the time indicated a lot.

        Polling showed nothing to do with Israel. You’re just making shit up as you have done repeatedly.

        Notice how the support for Israel has been growing not shrinking during this period of opening.

        No we haven’t because the US is the only state in the world where Israel enjoys any approval. Since 911, Israel’s reputation has plummeted and Israel is regarded as the greatest threat to world peace with a popularity similar to that of North Korea.

        You really have no idea what you are talking about or are simply a shameless liar.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        December 26, 2013, 9:10 pm

        You think it was about money and not votes then take it up with Clark Clifford, he was in the room during the debates with Marshall and passed on the information to Richard Holbrooke who published it. You weren’t.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        December 26, 2013, 11:24 pm

        You think it was about money and not votes then take it up with Clark Clifford

        Nothing in Holbrooke’s article backs up your assertion. Do you even bother to read your own sources?

        As Marshall said at the time:

        “I don’t even know why Clifford is here. He is a domestic adviser, and this is a foreign policy matter. The only reason Clifford is here is that he is pressing a political consideration.”

        So Clifford was not an unbiased observer but had a clear agenda and was only being allowed to attend those because he was a political advisor, who was beholden to the Jewish lobby.

        Holbrooke’s account verified that this was about political pressure from a small but powerful group of people ie. it was about money.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        December 27, 2013, 1:08 pm

        @shingo

        Nothing in Holbrooke’s article backs up your assertion. Do you even bother to read your own sources?

        Yes I do. And I see nowhere in there that Holbooke talks about money. Clifford we know frequently spoke about “five million Jews” whenever the subject of Israel came up. That’s not money that’s votes.

        If you want another source, earlier when Truman took steps forward New York Times on 7 October 1946, “The President went against his advisers’ foreign policy and chose to follow the promptings of those who were primarily interested in retaining Democratic majorities in Congress.”

      • talknic
        talknic
        December 26, 2013, 7:38 pm

        @ JeffB “Thomas Dewey and the Republicans were running for President with this as one of their issues.

        Recognition of the Jewish state was on their platform. Not Jewish refugees

        “Notice how the support for Israel has been growing not shrinking during this period of opening.”

        I see more and more well informed argument against Israel’s illegal activities. Notice how BDS has appeared and put the wind up Israel’s apologists who’ve had a mini influx here of late

        “You mean the debate over the support resolution that took place on the floor of the United States Senate? That’s a public debate”

        It’s Senate debate in public. Not public debate.

        “Not only that Carter ran against Ford on the Israel issue”

        Not Jewish refugees

        // via BDS the US isn’t being asked or required to aggressively settle the dispute//

        “B means setting up and establishing a social system of widespread anti-Israel discrimination which since it is likely to be opposed by Jews means state supported anti-Jewish propaganda”

        Nice piece of conflation there. From Anti-Israel (in fact Israeli policies) to anti-Jewish (in fact Israeli policies) to propaganda. Boycott means boycott and; a boycott based on factual information enabling people to have an informed opinion, is not propaganda. The boycott on Iran is based on propaganda. Suspicions and accusations are not evidence. Its propaganda to pretend they are

        “D requires agencies like the IRS to assist with enforcement
        and S to be effectual requires the government directly”

        It’s aggressive to live up to ones obligations to the UN Charter and International Law? WOW! New Zealand is so aggressive!! But Israel who is in breach of the UN Charter and International Law and has been building illegal facts on the ground for 65 years, isn’t. A miracle befitting only the chosen

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        December 26, 2013, 9:30 pm

        @talknic

        Recognition of the Jewish state was on their platform. Not Jewish refugees

        First off your claim had been there had been no public debate on Israel. That’s refuted. I don’t even know what you are trying to argue now. Jewish refugees and a Jewish homeland in Palestine were the same issue in 1948. Most of the west was horrified by the Arab / British position of letting the Jewish displaced persons from Germany freeze to death and remain homeless indefinitely rather than resettle them in Palestine. The USA had liberalized its immigration policy and had taken in most of the 400k refugees, 80k of them Jewish. The British / Arab / Palestinians position was that the Jewish homeland should have 0 so as not to disrupt the current balance…. Americans found that morally appalling.

        You may not agree with them. I suspect you don’t since you don’t care about Jews. But the issue of refugees and the issue of a Jewish homeland and the issue of a Jewish state were all interrelated. Because of Arab intransigence (mostly the same arguments one hears on MW today) the moderate positions had disappeared and Americans were faced with a simple choice. There was a public debate and Zionism won.

        It’s Senate debate in public. Not public debate.

        That’s what public debate on serious issues looks like in the United States. The president takes a position and congress disagrees there is a debate across the public that eventually gets reflected in policy. There certainly are articles from the time. Debates that don’t get political are fine for Miley Cyrus and twerking. But if there is going to be a serious conversation about foreign policy it happens via the congress or the white house.

        JeffB: Not only that Carter ran against Ford on the Israel issue”
        Talknic: Not Jewish refugees

        What are you talking about. What Jewish refugees in the 1970s?

        The boycott on Iran is based on propaganda. Suspicions and accusations are not evidence.

        There is no substantial ethical boycott of Iran. There are severe sanction on Iran. I don’t want to get dragged into this side point. But the UN instructed Iran to provide additional information, it refused, and it was sanctioned for refusing.

        It’s aggressive to live up to ones obligations to the UN Charter and International Law? WOW! New Zealand is so aggressive!!

        Yes. No one cares what New Zealand does. New Zealand can do whatever with almost 0 effect on the world. The USA in military does not have that privilege. What we do or choose not to do has tremendous effect. The situation is not remotely similar to New Zealand.

        It is similar for the USA in things like wool exports while New Zealand conversely has to take their obligations to the global wool market seriously because their actions are highly impactful.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        December 27, 2013, 4:11 pm

        And I see nowhere in there that Holbooke talks about money.

        Nor do you see any mention of Jewish votes. Five million votes would not have made any difference whatsoever to the vote at the time, but what we do know is that Truman’s campaign ran out of money and then it magically appeared when he recognized Israel.

        Clifford was not talking about votes. He was a political shill for the Jewish lobby was there to bribe Truman and it worked.

        If you want another source, earlier when Truman took steps forward New York Times on 7 October 1946, “The President went against his advisers’ foreign policy and chose to follow the promptings of those who were primarily interested in retaining Democratic majorities in Congress.”

        That’s not a source either as it has nothing to do with Israel.

        I am amazed at how lame and half hearted your attempts are Jeff – just like your BS claim that the 3 “nos” of Kartoum were i response to any offer to return the occupied territories .

  7. biorabbi
    biorabbi
    December 25, 2013, 4:14 pm

    American Studies sounds like a pinko front group. Oh, and Merry Christmas.

  8. piotr
    piotr
    December 25, 2013, 8:08 pm

    In my theory of the Lobby, the professional Zionists (like the cadres of major Jewish organizations) are deeply pleased. Every week (or at least, every month) they need an issue that would allow to appeal for funds because “Israel now, more then ever, needs your help”. The armies of the King of Kings threatening to invest Levant once more (the last time, it was Khosrau II) are a nice threat, but the opposition to negotiations with Iran is not universally popular to the left of Sheldon Adelson. Military opposition to Israel is more pitiful than ever, economy is doing nicely, terrorism is at long time lowest, isn’t it time for the lobby to go on an unpaid holiday?

    Right now the leftist horders overrunning ASA with anti-Israeli message and threatening to spill over the county side sizing other learned societies and an occasion food coop are the most reliable foe to show. With luck, long lists of condemnations and letters of support will be there to brandish and less attention will be given to warmongering.

    By the way, biorabbi, for all the pink washing, Israel is still threatened by pinko groups?

    • JeffB
      JeffB
      December 25, 2013, 8:34 pm

      @piotr —

      Every week (or at least, every month) they need an issue that would allow to appeal for funds because “Israel now, more then ever, needs your help”.

      That’s a pretty good theory. That the lobby is drumming this up to keep Jews in line. There certainly are other issues but this one is getting people riled up so… Makes a lot of sense.

  9. just
    just
    December 25, 2013, 9:29 pm

    ivri and his/her fellow hasbarists are truly desperate liars.

    There. I said it.

    I’m with Ramzi and Annie.

    • yrn
      yrn
      December 26, 2013, 4:18 am

      Just

      “I’m with Ramzi and Annie.”
      No surprise, even if they said the geocentric (earth-at-the-center) view of the solar system.

      • Walid
        Walid
        December 26, 2013, 9:02 am

        “even if they said the geocentric (earth-at-the-center) view of the solar system.”

        Isn’t that really part of the chosen people – Israel is at the center of the universe Biblical thing? Why are you pinning it on Annie and Ramzi?

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976
        December 26, 2013, 10:33 am

        Ezekiel 5:5 has Jerusalem at the centre of the nations. The Greeks claimed that Delphi was the navel of the world and this idea seems to have been borrowed for Jerusalem in medieval times. I think that Ezekiel starts a tradition of surrealistic language about everything to do with the Temple: if this is the place where God touches the earth normal descriptive standards become inept and misleading.

      • ramzijaber
        ramzijaber
        December 26, 2013, 11:06 am

        yrn, seriously? really??? i’m sure you meant this as a joke…….. you know, after all, thomas friedman did prove very recently that the earth is flat!!!

  10. Daniel Rich
    Daniel Rich
    December 25, 2013, 9:41 pm

    In the grand scheme of life ‘Israel Has Been “Singled Out” in the US for a Very Long Time‘ might be of interest.

  11. Hostage
    Hostage
    December 25, 2013, 10:19 pm

    If you must “start somewhere,” than I strongly suggest the ASA turn its attention to Syria, where Bashar al-Assad’s forces have indiscriminately shelled universities, killing students even as they sat for exams.

    As if our government isn’t already funding the Syrian opposition. It’s not like it funded the opposition when Israel did the very same thing to UN schools during Operation Cast Lead and the 2006 war in Lebanon, which destroyed over 350 schools.

    • Shingo
      Shingo
      December 25, 2013, 10:42 pm

      As if our government isn’t already funding the Syrian opposition. It’s not like it funded the opposition when Israel did the very same thing to UN schools during Operation Cast Lead and the 2006 war in Lebanon, which destroyed over 350 schools.

      Hostage,

      You have an amazing capacity to cut right to the bone in destroying such pathetic talking points.

      BTW. Does the ASA even have a relationship with Syrian academic institutions that it could even boycott?

    • Sibiriak
      Sibiriak
      December 26, 2013, 6:10 am

      If you must “start somewhere,” than I strongly suggest the ASA turn its attention to Syria, where Bashar al-Assad’s forces have indiscriminately shelled universities, killing students even as they sat for exams.

      And if a group does condemn the Syrian government, then their condemnation of Israel suddenly becomes perfectly legitimate?

  12. Sycamores
    Sycamores
    December 26, 2013, 1:11 am

    [Unfortunately, your response that “we have to start somewhere” when queried about this contradiction only serves to highlight your organization’s bias against Israel. If you must “start somewhere,” than I strongly suggest the ASA turn its attention to Syria, where Bashar al-Assad’s forces have indiscriminately shelled universities, killing students even as they sat for exams.]

    the reason why the ASA vote in favor of academic boycott of israel and not Syria (or the other countries that the ziobots keep mentioning) is because their are no other grassroots movements calling for BDS of the said countries. the Palestinian BDS movement is the only one.

    the zionist straw man tactics don’t stand up to scrutiny

  13. Hostage
    Hostage
    December 26, 2013, 1:47 am

    You have an amazing capacity to cut right to the bone in destroying such pathetic talking points.

    Eliot Engel knows damn good and well that Syria’s government has been under US sanctions applicable to “State Sponsors of Terrorism” since December of 1979, i.e. section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act, section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act, and section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act.

    Does the ASA even have a relationship with Syrian academic institutions that it could even boycott?

    A better question would be to ask if ASA members could end up sharing a prison cell with the folks from the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development if they tried to assist the schools and students that Engel claims to be so concerned about?

    • Obsidian
      Obsidian
      December 26, 2013, 1:25 pm

      @Hostage

      You erred regarding Mandela and Israel….

      ‘David’ was Mandela.

      http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jun/29/arthur-goldreich-obituary

      See Paul Goldreich’s quote.
      http://972mag.com/did-mandela-actually-receive-training-from-the-mossad/84393/

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        December 26, 2013, 3:21 pm

        You’re not still pushing that story are you? The fact that the nonsensical story drops just as the israelis decline to pay respects to this great man due to the commonalities between their system and that which Mandela fought is enough for any thinking person to laugh it off. One doesn’t expect human decency from you zios, but insulting the man just after he died and can no longer defend himself?? I didn’t think you went THAT low.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        December 26, 2013, 5:30 pm

        @Hostage You erred regarding Mandela and Israel….

        Where on Earth does that bullshit come from? I said the Mossad report was made after the fact, and that Haaretz had only reported that the Mossad thought the man the South African’s had in custody was the same man Mossad had trained, but the report wasn’t confirmed at the time.

        Now it turns out the notion that Mossad did any training at all originates with the researcher and the Haaretz reporter, not the actual wording of the document from the State archives they were discussing:

        So how can we explain this discrepancy? Surprisingly, given the initial hype, the Mossad actually made no claims to have trained Mandela. Its document says that training was provided by “the Ethiopians,” and then that Mandela did have discussions with “our people.” An obscure reference follows: “The Ethiopians tried to make him into a Zionist.” Aderet infers that the Ethiopians were actually Israeli agents (otherwise why would they try to advocate Zionism?) – a baseless speculation. The document clearly distinguishes between “the Ethiopians” who provided training, and “our people” who engaged in discussions. In other words, we do not have competing versions: Mandela and Ethiopian officials on the one hand, and Mossad on the other. In fact, all three agree that the training was provided by the Ethiopians. It is the Haaretz journalist who introduced the notion that Israeli agents provided the training. The Mossad never made this claim.

        http://972mag.com/did-mandela-actually-receive-training-from-the-mossad/84393/

        Likewise, Paul Goldreich’s comment was made long after the fact and the second-hand information from his father about 1972 is utterly irrelevant. Mandela was already serving a life sentence that was handed-down in 1964. So obviously he can’t be claiming that Mandela personally received training from the Israeli Secret Service beginning in the 1970s.

      • Obsidian
        Obsidian
        December 27, 2013, 10:37 am

        @Hostage
        Here is a copy of the original Mossad document from 1962.

        What are the chances that Mossad had trained a different ‘David’ living in exile in Ethiopia? Pure coincidence that Mandela’s nom de guerre was also David?
        Please.

        http://israelsdocuments.blogspot.de/

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        December 27, 2013, 1:38 pm

        “What are the chances that Mossad had trained a different ‘David’ living in exile in Ethiopia? Pure coincidence that Mandela’s nom de guerre was also David?”

        Let’s see, it’s one of the most popular names in the world, especially in that part of the world, thanks to a British colonialism, and Ethiopia is a predominantly Christian nation, so I’d say that the odds are significantly better than the odds that it just so happened that this document came to light after the israelis insult Mandela’s memory and after he can defend himself from these filthy insinuations.

      • Obsidian
        Obsidian
        December 27, 2013, 11:09 am

        @Hostage

        Not bullshit at all.

        From Mandela’s autobiography quoted in the Guardian obit, “Arthur had fought with the Palmach, the military wing of the Jewish National Movement in Palestine. He was knowledgable about guerrilla warfare and helped fill in many gaps in my understanding.”

        Add to that, that the Israeli representative in Ethiopia was not aware of Mandela’s true identity. Instead the two discussed Israel’s problems in the Middle East, with Mandela displaying wide-ranging interest in the subject. See below.

        http://www.archives.gov.il/NR/exeres/280A846F-5D8B-4947-AC1D-B6E8C3ECFE63,frameless.htm?NRMODE=Published

        So the African guy ‘David’ also knew a lot about Israel’s problems in the Middle East and probably learned it from Goldreich.

        Get off it, Hostage.

  14. giladg
    giladg
    December 26, 2013, 2:44 am

    Philip, whilst you are busy reminding everyone of the past 65 years of meaningless promises, you may want to remind us all of the multiple times war has been waged against Israel. You see Philip, when you intentionally leave out violence perpetrated by Arabs and Muslims against Israel, you greatly distort the picture, and being the liberal man you are, I am sure you have no intention of doing this? And don’t forget to mention the massacre in Hebron in 1929. You see Philip, many of us Jews with heads still on our shoulders (much to the displeasure of some who have plans to change this), we do not believe that the the Arabs and Muslims have any real intention of making a proper and just peace with Israel and the Jewish people. And whilst you are busy making comparisons between Israel and apartheid South Africa, remember one thing. The end result of the reconciliation in South Africa was sharing. Everything was shared. On the other hand the Palestinians have no intention of sharing. “We are here and you are there”. Take the Temple Mount for example, the holiest site for Jews. The Palestinians want this to be theirs exclusively with the stamp “Jews not welcome here”. Your Palestinians Philip are not worthy of any comparison to the Mandela’s and Blacks of South Africa who knew what reconciliation really meant. No matter how much you try Philip, you will not be able to sweep under the rug the violent nature of societies in the Middle East, including the Palestinians. Better go find another cause more worthy of world support. It certainly is not the plight of the Palestinians.

    • Woody Tanaka
      Woody Tanaka
      December 26, 2013, 2:58 pm

      “On the other hand the Palestinians have no intention of sharing.”

      Liar. They’ve already agreed to give up 3/4 of their land. It is you bastards who intent on having all of Palestine.

      “Take the Temple Mount for example, the holiest site for Jews. The Palestinians want this to be theirs exclusively with the stamp ‘Jews not welcome here’.”

      Yes, because for over a hundred years what begins with “sharing with the Jews” in Palestine has ended with Jewish gunmen murdering Palestinians and running the rest off of what was to be “shared.”

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976
        December 26, 2013, 4:24 pm

        ‘Sharing’ and ‘don’t want to share’ could mean different things. If most Palestinians think that they have no moral obligation to agree to a partition – ‘sharing out’ – of Palestine, so don’t really want to do it, I wouldn’t be surprised and I wouldn’t blame them. They may still be prepared to do what they don’t really want, as many people under pressure are. The relevant Muslim authorities are, I understand, the recognised owners of the Temple Mount, its land and buildings, by all normal standards, including Israeli law, confirmed by the secular state of Israel when it came to control the area. This is a commitment which Israel has honoured. Owners of religious buildings do not normally have an obligation to make their premises available for other rites. What is different in this case? It is something that many Jewish people would like, but a right does not arise from a desire, even an intense one. If there is an overriding obligation – but is there? – to honour the aspirations of all religions without discrimination – what of Christians and others? – then it would be interesting to see a proposal that achieved this.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        December 26, 2013, 4:49 pm

        @MHughes

        Jews have had some level of contact for about 400-500 years but not much since there was a neighborhood around the wall. When Palestinian nationalism started kicking in, it was expulsionist and there was a riot and a Jewish Palestinian battle over this site in 1929: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Palestine_riots

        The Jews mostly agreed to stay away in 1930 which won them PR points. They lost control of the wall in 1947-9 where it came under Jordan’s authority. When Israel won control in ’67 they started making huge changes, and created the plaza but then thought better of making more substantial changes. They essentially have pretended that Jordan is still in control and kept Jordanian law in effect inside the complex. does not recognize themselves as being the governing authority. However the religious authorities that Jordan had appointed for management are essentially running the interior and are willing to accept their authority, pretending that is isn’t coming from the Israeli government i.e. the Islamic waqf trust.

        Anyway:
        a) The Israeli government is the obvious authority. They clearly have the final say since there is no other government with a plausible claim.

        b) There is no such thing as “owning property” relative to a government claim. That’s Palestinian BS that comes up all the time. All the property in Israel is ultimately the Israeli government’s to reallocate as appropriate just as all the property in the United States is ultimately the US government’s to reallocate.

        c) There are lots of proposals for sharing that if there were trust would help. The Palestinians are understandably worried that any changes will be part of a gradual process moving towards an eventual rebuilding of the Jewish temple. So they have been very hostile. The Islamic waqf trust has been rebuilding stuff to try and keep the IDF further away.

        d) I’d say the Palestinians are misreading Israeli intentions and at this point Israel would rather keep this as a Mosque than rebuild the temple. It isn’t worth a war, and a war might be what it costs. Though this could change. IMHO antagonizing the Israeli moderates with a Palestinian “its ours and we can do what we want” is a good way to shift public opinion to the point that government will have no choice but to take full direct control. So I’d say such a policy is frankly stupid on the part of the Islamic waqf trust.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        December 26, 2013, 5:53 pm

        They lost control of the wall in 1947-9 where it came under Jordan’s authority.

        They never had control of the Wall before that.

        a) The Israeli government is the obvious authority. They clearly have the final say since there is no other government with a plausible claim.

        Yes, the PA does.

        All the property in Israel is ultimately the Israeli government’s to reallocate as appropriate just as all the property in the United States is ultimately the US government’s to reallocate.

        The difference being that the Israelis government has no legal claim to it, unlike the US government.

        d) I’d say the Palestinians are misreading Israeli intentions and at this point Israel would rather keep this as a Mosque than rebuild the temple. It isn’t worth a war, and a war might be what it costs.

        Israel has never had any problem with wars, seeing as it started pretty much all of them.

        IMHO antagonizing the Israeli moderates with a Palestinian “its ours and we can do what we want” is a good way to shift public opinion to the point that government will have no choice but to take full direct control.

        IMHO you are talking rubbish, because no matter what the Palestinias do or say, the right wing crazies in Israel will get their way.

      • talknic
        talknic
        December 26, 2013, 6:52 pm

        @ JeffB “When Israel won control in ’67 they started making huge changes..”

        Illegally (UNSC res 252 and EIGHT reminders) UNSC res 476 sums it up nicely http://wp.me/pDB7k-W8

        “They essentially have pretended that Jordan is still in control and kept Jordanian law in effect inside the complex”

        Jordan is in control of the waqf. Your “pretended” is … well … pretending.

        “Anyway:
        a) The Israeli government is the obvious authority.”

        Occupying Power is the correct expression (ibid) And it only has authority as the Occupying Power (ibid)

        ” They clearly have the final say since there is no other government with a plausible claim”

        The Occupying Power does not have authority to “alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem” (ibid)

        “b) There is no such thing as “owning property” relative to a government claim. That’s Palestinian BS that comes up all the time”

        It’s the Israeli claim http://wp.me/pDB7k-yI “owning property” is ‘real estate’. States own territory. Israel does not own any non-Israeli territory. Israel has no right to sell or alter in any way property in non-Israeli territory (ibid)

        ” All the property in Israel is ultimately the Israeli government’s to reallocate as appropriate”

        In Israel. Jerusalem is not in Israel. (ibid)

        ” just as all the property in the United States is ultimately the US government’s to reallocate”

        Property in the United States. The United States can’t allocate non-US property

        “c) There are lots of proposals for sharing”

        None from Israel. Israel has been illegally acquiring non-Israeli territory and wants more non-Israeli territory, which ISN’T sharing! Israel wants to swap non-Israeli territory for non-Israeli territory so it can keep non-Israeli territory. Also NOT sharing!

        The Palestinians have offered their own territory for peace http://pages.citebite.com/e9p5s8u2yhcd which IS sharing!

        “d) I’d say the Palestinians are misreading Israeli intentions”

        Israel’s intentions were tabled 31st Aug 1949 and Israel has since done everything in its power to make those intentions a reality.. illegally http://wp.me/pDB7k-l5#israels-intentions

        ” at this point Israel would rather keep this as a Mosque than rebuild the temple. It isn’t worth a war, and a war might be what it costs.”

        FFS !!! Stop driveling. There’s been war for the last 65 years

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976
        December 26, 2013, 9:41 pm

        The general idea (Locke’s Second Treatise is the locus classicus) is that governments exist to protect the property of those subject to it and that the right to expropriate is to be used only with a reasonable degree of support and consent (agreed taxation) or otherwise in very exceptional circumstances, still with an eye to the general good of all concerned.
        In my previous comment I was not addressing the right of governments to expropriate but the possible moral obligation to share what one possesses.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        December 27, 2013, 12:37 am

        “When Israel won control in ’67 they started making huge changes, and created the plaza but then thought better of making more substantial changes.”

        What a typical way for one of you zios to describe a war crime, crime against humanity and murder — the liquidation of the Moroccan Quarter — “making huge changes.”

        “a) The Israeli government is the obvious authority. They clearly have the final say since there is no other government with a plausible claim.”

        Nope. It’s the same as it has been. It’s “the Arab territories occupied since 1967.” It’s the Palestinians land. The zionsts are illegal occupiers. Nothing more. They’ve no more right to it than the Nazis had to Paris.

        “b) There is no such thing as “owning property” relative to a government claim.”

        I see you know nothing about law as well as history.

        ” All the property in Israel is ultimately the Israeli government’s to reallocate as appropriate just as all the property in the United States is ultimately the US government’s to reallocate.”

        Scratch a zionist, uncover a fascist. Well, just as well. Al-Haram ash-Sharif isn’t in israel. So, problem solved.

        “c) There are lots of proposals for sharing that if there were trust would help.”

        That assumes that the Jews have any right to “share.” You have your Western Wall. Go pray there.

        “IMHO antagonizing the Israeli moderates with a Palestinian “its ours and we can do what we want” is a good way to shift public opinion to the point that government will have no choice but to take full direct control.”

        Put a sock in the concern trolling. You can try the blame-the-victim routine all you want, but history has shown one thing it’s that zionists aren’t driven by reaction to how their Palestinian victims act, save for tactically. The zionists will try and seize and desecrate the site as soon as they think they can politically get away with it.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        December 26, 2013, 10:00 pm

        @MHughes976

        replying up a level.

        The general idea (Locke’s Second Treatise is the locus classicus) is that governments exist to protect the property of those subject to it and that the right to expropriate is to be used only with a reasonable degree of support and consent (agreed taxation) or otherwise in very exceptional circumstances, still with an eye to the general good of all concerned.

        Israel is a bit more socialist than that. But I’d say mostly they would comply with that conception. Which is why they are choosing not to reallocate that property because right now that they don’t think a reallocation serves the general good.

        In my previous comment I was not addressing the right of governments to expropriate but the possible moral obligation to share what one possesses.

        I’d start by saying the Islamic waqf trust has a moral obligation to understand the situation. The Israeli government is taking a tremendously unique national resource and putting it under their administrative jurisdiction. They don’t own it. Coming from that their attitude should be one of extraordinary gratitude and solemn responsibility to as best as possible not create a situation where drastic action ends up being taken. And so I think it is far to say they are under a moral obligation to not antagonize the Israeli people to the extent that their very special arrangement way outside the bounds of normative israeli law gets pulled.

        If there were a mosque in Tayibe or something no one would care. This is a unique national resource.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        December 27, 2013, 1:23 am

        “The Israeli government is taking a tremendously unique national resource and putting it under their administrative jurisdiction. ”

        They’re doing nothing of the sort. They’re simply not stealing a treasure that belongs to the Billion Muslims in the world, over a claim that, if it was any good, expired 15 centuries ago. The Jews have the Western Wall. Go pray there.

        “They don’t own it.”

        No, they hold it in trust for the Muslim people of the world. It is Palestinian land, though.

        “And so I think it is far to say they are under a moral obligation to not antagonize the Israeli people to the extent that their very special arrangement way outside the bounds of normative israeli law gets pulled. ”

        Isn’t it interesting that the longer one of you zios talk, you eventually get around to 1) justifying the Holocaust and 2) asserting that a proper government action is the equivalent of a mafioso shakedown??? LMAO.

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976
        December 27, 2013, 11:20 am

        If we’re roughly agreed on the question of property and expropriation well and good. I would have thought that Israel would claim to protect the property of individuals and private associations as well as the United States or the United Kingdom does. At that rate, Palestinian property rights are not ‘BS’.
        However it may be that the Israeli government claims to own the Temple Mount in any event. Perhaps it has made that claim explicitly, I don’t know.
        If it has, the claim would be ill-founded. Religious buildings and the approaches to them are normally the property of the adherents of the religion in question. What is different in this case? If a religious building is a major tourist attraction that does not transfer ownership to the government.
        If the Israeli government is the true owner and the Muslim authorities are in charge by grace and favour of that government, which does in fact undertake to exclude Jewish and Christian worship from the site, then they may have an obligation to be grateful: they probably do feel some gratification when the Israeli police and courts resist ‘settler’ pressure on the site. But surely not an obligation to disregard their own view – their own religious conviction that God wishes the situation to continue – to the point of actively seeking a change to their own disadvantage. The most that could be demanded would be that they listen and respond courteously to a proposal coming from government, not from private sources, for a more ecumenical use of the site. Meanwhile the government has a duty not to withdraw its grace and favour, even if it is only grace and favour and not an act of respect for private property, suddenly or arbitrarily.
        If the Israeli government has a long-term scheme for the use of the area it might or might not be worthy of discussion. I would think it would be extremely difficult to formulate any scheme of that sort.
        Meanwhile there is no justification at all for accusing Palestinians or Muslims of serious moral fault merely because they would like the existing situation to continue.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        December 27, 2013, 12:48 pm

        @MHughes976

        The most that could be demanded would be that they listen and respond courteously to a proposal coming from government, not from private sources, for a more ecumenical use of the site. Meanwhile the government has a duty not to withdraw its grace and favour, even if it is only grace and favour and not an act of respect for private property, suddenly or arbitrarily.

        I think that’s fair and moreover the likely situation. I don’t imagine that anyone would expect any sort of meaningful changes to arrive without the Knesset having specifically authorized it. I don’t own a crystal ball but I see no reason any changes would be either sudden or arbitrary. Israel has given every indication in both word and deed over the last 46 years that their intention is be careful, considered and very systematic in how they handle this site. Political parties have run campaigns and there has been plenty of discussion of even minor changes.

        For example archeological digs normally don’t get licensed from the full Knesset, they go through unelected functionaries. On this mosque Israel not only debates them directly in the Knesset but frequently meets with international bodies and takes their views into serious and meaningful consideration.

        Similarly on reconstruction work they not only debate them in the Knesset but discuss them with international bodies and welcome international input.

        Or for a third example while they normally are rather cavalier towards extremist terrorism directed at Palestinians on this site they are anything but. Israelis have been arrested and done real quantities of time for charges that in American terms would be conspiracy.

        If the Israeli government has a long-term scheme for the use of the area it might or might not be worthy of discussion. I would think it would be extremely difficult to formulate any scheme of that sort.

        Well there are factions in Israel that want to rebuild the temple that stood on that site until the 1st century CE, and resume the sacrificial cult of Yahweh. That is not government policy but that would be the most threatening long-term scheme. I’d suspect that any scheme like that would be best negotiated with the House of Saud. As Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques (a title in Islam that has existed for centuries) they would clearly be an international agency with authority to negotiate an arrangement. Of course negotiations require normalization, which hopefully will have happened prior to negotiations becoming needed.

        But for now, and likely the next few decades at least that isn’t on the table. I suspect if the Israeli government demands anything it would be minor changes.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        December 26, 2013, 10:02 pm

        “In my previous comment I was not addressing the right of governments to expropriate but the possible moral obligation to share what one possesses.”

        But as we know, Zionists do not understand moral obligations.

        (Of course, there are at least two types of sharing. One is “partition sharing”, as in sharing a cake with my brother, and another is “joint-use sharing”, as in sharing a Meccano set with my brother. The Palestinians were prepared to share in the latter sense.)

    • Bumblebye
      Bumblebye
      December 26, 2013, 4:01 pm

      giladg
      Your head is not as firmly on your shoulders as you pretend!
      Again with the Hebron massacre, you fail to remember that there were many, many ordinary Palestinians who sheltered and protected Jews in their homes. And all those wars! – which, all except one were started by Israel!
      You are also forgetting that Israel was founded only on its own terrorism and violence against the Palestinians and the British – so there is precedent for success on those grounds, no?
      Just get off and stay off the Temple Mount. You already stole more than half the Cave of the Patriarchs (more than because your gang constantly ban Palestinians from being able to go there).

      • giladg
        giladg
        December 27, 2013, 9:10 am

        Yes, and there were many Germans who did not gas Jews in concentration camps. What has the fact that some Palestinians protected Jews have to do with the main item of the massacre itself?
        And Palestinians band from the Cave of the Patriarchs? Really? I know that they are not so stop with your lies Bumblebye. There are time restrictions yes, but general bans, absolutely not. And the restrictions apply to Jews as well.
        And you need to start to come to terms with the fact that the Temple Mount was and still is the holiest site for Jews. And it has been so, long before it was important to anyone else.

    • eljay
      eljay
      December 26, 2013, 4:09 pm

      >> giladg @ December 26, 2013 at 2:44 am

      giladgeee knows that the rapist has had a victim chained in his basement for years, and that he rapes her on a regular basis.

      But he also knows that the victim refuses to share her body and that she has threatened to bring the law down upon the rapist’s head should she ever get or be set free.

      Therefore, according to giladgeee, the rapist is the real victim in all of this, and he should be permitted to continue with his immoral and unjust activities.

      This is how hateful and immoral Zio-supremacists “reason”.

    • talknic
      talknic
      December 26, 2013, 4:23 pm

      @ giladg ” whilst you are busy reminding everyone of the past 65 years of meaningless promises…”

      … to Israelis and the world

      We declare that, with effect from the moment of the termination of the Mandate being tonight, the eve of Sabbath, the 6th Iyar, 5708 (15th May, 1948), until the establishment of the elected, regular authorities of the State in accordance with the Constitution which shall be adopted by the Elected Constituent Assembly not later than the 1st October 1948

      The State of Israel .. will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; … it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

      The State of Israel is prepared to cooperate with the agencies and representatives of the United Nations in implementing the resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947

      The State of Israel is prepared to do its share in a common effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East. http://www.knesset.gov.il/docs/eng/megilat_eng.htm

      “you may want to remind us all of the multiple times war has been waged against Israel”

      Jewish forces were already in territories NOT slated for the Jewish state on the day Israel was declared. Israel has had military forces in territories outside the State of Israel from the moment it was declared until the present day. Arab Regional Powers had and still have the right to attempt to expel foreign forces from Arab territory outside the State of Israel.

      ” when you intentionally leave out violence perpetrated by Arabs and Muslims against Israel

      When you intentionally leave out Israel’s transgressions

      “And don’t forget to mention the massacre in Hebron in 1929”

      Not carried out by the Palestinians of today and irrelevant to the sovereign extent of the State of Israel today and its illegal activities as the Occupying Power over non-Israeli territory.

      “..the Palestinians have no intention of sharing.”

      You have been shown where the Palestinians have offered to accept only 22% of their rightful territories for peace. Israel replied by building more illegal settlements in non-Israeli territory. Lying is against the basic tenets of Judaism. Breaking the basic tenets of Judaism on behalf of the ‘Jewish’ state is really quite weird! Why do you?

      “The Palestinians want this to be theirs exclusively with the stamp “Jews not welcome here”

      Verbatim quote please. Meanwhile why would a Jew want to worship in a mosque?

      “No matter how much you try Philip, you will not be able to..”

      … influence a pathetic propagandist.

      However giladg, every time wave your limp schtick, you afford the opportunity to show other readers just how deceitful Israel’s apologists are.

      BRAVO! Keep up the good work.

    • Shingo
      Shingo
      December 26, 2013, 6:00 pm

      you may want to remind us all of the multiple times war has been waged against Israel.

      Israel started every war except 1973, which was payback for ’67, so there is your reminder.

      You see Gilad, when you intentionally leave out violence perpetrated by Jews and Israelis against Palestinians, along with ethnic cleansing, land grabs, home demolitions etc. you greatly distort the picture, but being the right wing extremist man you are, that is par for the course.

      And don’t forget to mention the massacre in Deir Yassin, Tantoura etc before the 1948 war.

      You see Gilad, many of you Zionists, who lost your minds long ago, refuse to admit that Israel has no real intention of making a proper and just peace with the Palestinians because the object is land not peace. And whilst you are busy denying comparisons between Israel and apartheid South Africa, remember one thing. The end result of the reconciliation in South Africa was sharing. Everything was shared. On the other hand the Israel have no intention of sharing – think Hafrada and “we must expell the Arabs and take their place”.

      Your Israelis Gilad, are fully deserving of any comparison to the aparthei South Africa.

      • giladg
        giladg
        December 27, 2013, 8:35 am

        Shingo, you and others like Woody are helping no one when you spew your mistruths and lies. Take the 1967 War for example. Yes, Israel fired the first actual shot to open the war but the massing of large amount of troops on Israel’s borders and the blocking of it’s shipping lanes, the action taken by the Arabs, was the declaration of war. Your definition of war most likely requires blood and body parts, but Israel was only defending itself with a first strike when it’s shipping lanes were closed and was about the be invaded by foreign armies.
        What you all carry on doing is the denial of the long term connection that Jews have to the land now called Israel, especially the West Bank and Jerusalem. The biblical lands are more about Jerusalem and the West Bank than they are about the coastal plains where most Israeli’s now reside. If you can bring yourselves to understand and accept that the contested lands were Jewish long before they were anything Palestinians, then maybe a solution can be found. Until then, as I said above, you are not helping the situation. You rejected the UN 1947 Partition Plan then then you quote from it. “We should have had this and we should have had that” you cry. You rejected the plan, not the Jews of Palestine. The Arabs of Palestine and then you went to war, and continue to look to the next round.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        December 27, 2013, 2:38 pm

        “Yes, Israel fired the first actual shot to open the war but the massing of large amount of troops on Israel’s borders and the blocking of it’s shipping lanes, the action taken by the Arabs, was the declaration of war.”

        How many times are you going to repeat these lies, giladg?? Abba Eban confessed that he knew the Arabs weren’t going to attack, but the israelis coveted the land, attacked, and used the troops as an excuse. And the there’s nothing wrong with blocking israeli shipping lanes, as the israelis weren’t guaranteeing what was necessary to be entitled to innocent passage.

      • giladg
        giladg
        December 28, 2013, 12:40 am

        Stop quoting Abba Eban already. Israel is a democracy and many opinions are expressed. The same way that prior to the outbreak of the war in 1973 there where those that were sure that the Arabs would not attack. Did Abba Eban also say that Egypt was not going to attack in 1973? He was not a military man in any case.
        And by the way, blocking another countries shipping lanes without a UN chapter 7 mandate, is an act of war. So says international law.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        December 28, 2013, 8:24 pm

        Stop quoting Abba Eban already. Israel is a democracy and many opinions are expressed.

        Eban was the foreign minister of Israel so he wasn’t merely expressing am opinion , but Israeli policy and political ideology.

        And by the way, blocking another countries shipping lanes without a UN chapter 7 mandate, is an act of war. So says international law.

        No it does not, which is why no one agreed with Israel’s argument at the time – especially given that less than 5% of Israel’s shipping were using that route.

        Remember that Nasser proposed that the des idiom of legality be put to the ICJ and Israel said no. Obviously Israel were far from confident that their claim had any validity.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        December 27, 2013, 3:57 pm

        It’s you who is spewing your mistruths and lies Gilad. You’re not even trying to be serious as you repeat all the garbage that has been repeatedly and comprehensively debunked here, and it’s only for the sale of visitors to this blog that I even bother to respond to your lame attempts to repeat hasbara.

        Yes, Israel fired the first actual shot to open the war but the massing of large amount of troops on Israel’s borders and the blocking of it’s shipping lanes, the action taken by the Arabs, was the declaration of war.

        Debunked by Israeli leaders who all admit that Nasser was not going to attack and that the build of troops in the Sinai was not a sign he was going to attack.

        As Menachem Begin said:

        “In June 1967 we had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us, We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”

        Get it Gilad? Begin describes the war as a war of choice not self defense.

        General Matetiyahu Peled said that:
        “Israel was never in real danger and there was no evidence that Egypt had any intention of attacking Israel.”

        What does it fee like to have your own hasbara destroyed by the statements by Israeli leaders?

        What you all carry on doing is the denial of the long term connection that Jews have to the land now called Israel, especially the West Bank and Jerusalem.

        The only Jews who had a long term connection that Jews have to Israel, the West Bank and Jerusalem were those living there in the late 1900s, before the immigrants began arriving. That number is no more than ten thousand at the time and perhaps no more than 10 times that today when you count their progeny.

        Otherwise, the connection between those territories as the rest of the Jewish population is no older than 100 years.

        The biblical lands are more about Jerusalem and the West Bank than they are about the coastal plains where most Israeli’s now reside.

        Then you should give the coastal plains and relocate Israel to Jerusalem and the West Bank, and return the coastal regions to the Palestinians. The fact is that you people can’t get your story straight. On one hand, you insist that the Jews accepted the partition (which excluded Jerusalem and the West Bank from the Jewish state) yet at the same time, you claim Jews cannot give up Jerusalem and the West Bank.

        So which is it?

        The lands are not contested in anyone’s mind but Israel’s. They were not Jewish before they were Palestinian, because they ceased to be Jewish 2 thousand years ago. In fact, they have been Palestinian for much longer than they were ever Jewish.

        You rejected the UN 1947 Partition Plan then then you quote from it.

        And you claimed to have accepted the UN 1947 Partition Plan and yet you insist Israel cannot accept it.

        Your not even trying to make a rational argument Gilad. This is just another one of your half hearted hit and run posts and you’ll run away only to return in a few months with another equally weak effort.

      • eljay
        eljay
        December 28, 2013, 9:25 am

        >> Yes, Israel fired the first actual shot to open the war but the massing of large amount of troops on Israel’s borders and the blocking of it’s shipping lanes, the action taken by the Arabs, was the declaration of war.

        Thank you for proving that Israel has declared and continues to declare war on the citizens of Gaza, and not the other way around.

    • tree
      tree
      December 26, 2013, 6:27 pm

      On the other hand the Palestinians have no intention of sharing.

      Zionists are like the kindergarten bullies who want to “share” other kids toys, by which they mean “What’s yours is mine, and what’s mine is mine, so don’t touch.”

      1929 came well after the early Zionist came to Palestine, bought land and put restrictive covenants on it barring any non-Jew from ever owning or working on the land, forcibly removed Palestinian tenant farmers, brought in cheap Yemeni Jewish labor to replace Palestinian laborers, paid Jews, and particularly Ashkenazi Jews, more than the few Arab laborers they employed to do the same level of work, demanded that the British Mandate government do the same (i.e. hire Jews in preference over Palestinian non-Jews and pay them more), refused to agree to any local Palestinian legislative council unless Jews were given half the seats (when they were only 10% of the population), violently boycotted non-Jewish agricultural products (destroying Arab Palestinian produce), etc. There was no vision of “sharing” on the part of the Zionists then, and the only vision of “sharing” by Israeli Zionists today is “give me half of everything that is yours, and then give me half again”, ad infinitum.

  15. seafoid
    seafoid
    December 26, 2013, 5:35 am

    A wake up call. As Abu Eban the famous Palestinian oracle from Jaffa said in 1882 as the first VW vans of the first aliyah rolled into town: these schmucks will never miss an opportunity to secure their future. He also famously observed after a very good shisha tufaah that destiny is a cruel master of the politically deluded.

    • Walid
      Walid
      December 26, 2013, 11:08 am

      Abu Eban, alayhi as-salaam, was right in both his predictions.

    • Citizen
      Citizen
      December 28, 2013, 10:14 am

      @ seafoid
      There’s never a successful wake-up call when it comes to ending US total support of Israel right or wrong. Nixon opted out, despite his personal antagonism of Jews in the US domestic political process; he opted of this conflict with Israel at the expense of US military defense capability, and just look how Johnson tossed the combined Kennedy brothers attempt (JFK & Bobby K) to make what is now AIPAC register as agent of a foreign country. Nixon, in his own version of Johnson ‘s cover-up of the USS Liberty attack by Israel, supported Kissinger’s MOU to starve Americans for Israel in the event of a Israeli energy crisis: http://thebilzerianreport.com/secretary-of-state-henry-kissinger-agreed-to-starve-americans-for-israel-in-the-event-of-a-crisis/

    • Citizen
      Citizen
      December 28, 2013, 2:30 pm

      @ seafoid
      There’s never a successful wake-up call when it comes to ending US total support of Israel right or wrong. Nixon opted out, despite his personal antagonism of Jews in the US domestic political process, he opted of this conflict with Israel at the expense of US military defense capability, and just look how Johnson tossed the combined Kennedy brothers attempt (JFK & Bobby K) to make what is now AIPAC register as agent of a foreign country. Nixon, in his own version of Johnson ‘s cover-up of the USS Liberty attack by Israel, supported Kissinger’s MOU to starve Americans for Israel in the event of a Israeli energy crisis: http://thebilzerianreport.com/secretary-of-state-henry-kissinger-agreed-to-starve-americans-for-israel-in-the-event-of-a-crisis/

  16. Yani
    Yani
    December 26, 2013, 8:26 am

    Try charting cries of antisemitism against the number of Jews enrolled in a university, which itself is an indication of the university policy.

    http://reformjudaismmag.org/_kd/Items/actions.cfm?action=Show&item_id=2888&destination=ShowItem

  17. Woody Tanaka
    Woody Tanaka
    December 26, 2013, 9:06 am

    “f you must ‘start somewhere,’ than I strongly suggest the ASA turn its attention to Syria, where Bashar al-Assad’s forces have indiscriminately shelled universities, killing students even as they sat for exams.”

    The problem with Engle’s statement, and those like him is that Engle doesn’t give a damn about the Syrians or Assad. We could say, “okay, then let’s start with both” and Engle would still object, because his only goal is to protect israeli regardless of the cost, the facts or the injustice in doing so. If he has to cynically use the suffering of the Syrians to protect the criminal zionists, he will happily do so.

    • Shingo
      Shingo
      December 26, 2013, 10:00 am

      Good point Walid.

      If tou started with both, Engle would complain that Israel is being compared with Syria.

  18. Nevada Ned
    Nevada Ned
    December 26, 2013, 1:24 pm

    Another straw in the wind…

    Over at CommonDreams, an article about the ASA boycott of Israel.

    Click this link to view.

    The author, (Prof. Thomas Harrington of Trinity University, CT) refutes the various US University Presidents who are deploring the ASA boycott of Israel. Harrington summarizes the case against Israel. What is most significant is that Harrington is neither Jewish nor Arab-American. If Harrington is able to write this, using his own name, without any serious repercussions, it will mark the spread of opinion critical of Israel beyond the restricted compass of the two groups who have spoken out in the past (Arab-Americans and SOME Jews).

    The times, they really are a-changing.

  19. stevieb
    stevieb
    December 29, 2013, 12:53 pm

    For Jeffb…the Jews in Europe displaced during the war had the option to return to their homes after Europe was ‘liberated’. Presenting that as a refugee problem was only for the benefit of illegal Jewish immigration into Palestine..

    • JeffB
      JeffB
      December 29, 2013, 6:06 pm

      @StevieB

      the Jews in Europe displaced during the war had the option to return to their homes after Europe was ‘liberated’. Presenting that as a refugee problem was only for the benefit of illegal Jewish immigration into Palestine..

      You seriously don’t know what you are talking about. Huge chunks of Europe had been destroyed. There was nowhere to house 20m refugees including the liberated Jews. They ended up in only slightly more humane concentration camps. Moreover just because the war was over the propaganda left its mark and the hatred of Jews didn’t stop. Patton’s treatment of the Sh’erit ha-Pletah (one group of Jewish refugees) was one of the reasons he was relieved of command.

      I think the amount of anti-Semitism on here is atrocious. But are you really going to stoop so low as to deny basic facts about the holocaust so as to pretend that it was all a big conspiracy to benefit the Jews trying to immigrate to Palestine? It is bad enough when it is just Israel.

Leave a Reply