Trending Topics:

BDS is the only means of ending the occupation — Derfner

on 47 Comments


Larry Derfner (Credit: Jewish Journal)

Larry Derfner (Credit: Jewish Journal)

In an inevitable development, Larry Derfner has a big piece up at +972 endorsing BDS as a liberal Zionist tool. All mainstream political means of causing Israel to cough up the occupied territories have failed, he says, and he acknowledges the surging power of the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement, says it’s the only thing that can end the occupation. 

Derfner begins by talking about the importance of Kerry’s failure, and the complete inability of Israeli political structure to make concessions: 

[N]either a [Isaac] Herzog [Labor] government nor any other government in today’s Israel can do what’s necessary to meet the Palestinians’ demands, which are backed by the entire world (myself included), and which involve, but are by no means limited to, the removal of between roughly 100,000 and 170,000 settlers from the West Bank…

Derfner says 100,000 of these settlers are lunatics and no ordinary political process could uproot them:

The first 100,000 live mainly in “ideological” settlements, many of which, such as Hebron, Yitzhar, Bat Ayin and the little “hilltop outposts,” are extremely violent, racist, religiously fanatic and politically deranged. The second 70,000 or so are the population of Ma’aleh Adumim and the Ariel bloc…

Trying to move out 100,000 people from the most dug-in settlements in the West Bank is, for the coming years at least, the mother’s mother of all non-starters….

I don’t believe Sharon, or Begin, or Ben-Gurion or anyone else could clear out those settlements under today’s conditions, when Israel isn’t paying any price for their presence. It would seem insane – why turn a stable, safe, prosperous country upside down, why invite bloodshed, why force such huge masses of Jews from their homes, why fork over billions to them in compensation, when nobody and nothing of consequence is bearing down on us to do it? 

Meantime the U.S. is politically hogtied by the Israel lobby:

The peace process has finally, truly hit the wall. Myself, I thought it was over in 2009 when Obama caved into Netanyahu and the Israel lobby and dropped his demand for an open-ended, total freeze on settlement construction.

So BDS is the only thing that can bring pressure. And Derfner is prepared to show solidarity with nonviolent Palestinian actions, like going to the International Criminal Court. The J Street approach is “toothless” and will change nothing on the ground:

I do believe there is still a chance to transform the situation peacefully, and the way to do that, again, is by bringing such international pressure to bear on Israel that it uproots those masses of settlers and ends the occupation for the sake of its own basic well-being.

From the Palestinians’ side, I’m talking, obviously, about the UN strategy, which ultimately means the threat of trying Israel for war crimes in The Hague. Their other viable options include unarmed “popular resistance”; “people power” marches to the separation barrier and the settlements; dismantling the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and “handing back the keys” to Israel; and/or demanding Israeli citizenship.

For everyone else, I’m talking, of course, about supporting the Palestinians in such actions, and supporting the BDS movement at one level or another.

Such a political stance is foreign to liberal Zionists. It was foreign to me, a liberal Zionist in Israel, until recent years, when I began to run out of justifications for not supporting non-violent tactics against the occupation. If a substantial number of the liberal Zionists who are appalled at what Israel does to the Palestinians were to give up trying to persuade Israel to change, and instead start holding it responsible for refusing to change, I believe it would have a jarring psychological impact on this country and its leaders. What I know for sure is that a continuation of the genial, toothless, J Street-style approach will continue to change nothing, at least not over here.

He says that the BDS movement is mutable: that it can be a movement for two states. I imagine that leaders of the BDS movement would reject Derfner’s support inasmuch as he does not mention one of its central demands, the right of return, and it does not feel that it needs liberal Zionist support. On the other hand, it is true that many Palestinian groups supporting two states are among the signatories to the BDS movement.

In fact, the boycott movement as a whole has now spread beyond the “one-staters” who started it – and for which they deserve full credit, whether one agrees with them or not – and moved to “two-staters” that include the European Union and numerous financial institutions within it. As Stephen Hawking had visited Israel four times before boycotting a major event in Jerusalem last year, it’s fair to assume he’s a two-stater as well. I’m a two-stater myself. And I have no problem supporting BDS because I know that if Israel ever gets to the point where it’s ready to concede to international pressure, it will be responding not to the small left-wing groups calling for it to give up Jewish statehood, but to the powerful forces in the democratic world calling for it to give up the occupation alone.

The growing international pressure would cause Israelis to wise up.

If push ever comes to shove, very few Israelis will be ready to endure the kind of ostracism that apartheid South Africa faced – and so they will throw in the towel well before things get that bad. The great majority of Israelis are practical people; they are not going to become the world’s pariahs for the sake of the settlements…

I don’t understand why this goal would not “invite bloodshed,” to use Derfner’s words (those 100,000 Jews are not practical people), or why a different form of upset would not be preferable: in which all people between the river and the sea were granted the vote. That outcome would be tragic for Derfner inasmuch as it would end his dream of a Jewish state, and it too would invite bloodshed. But he said Israelis are practical people.

James North adds: 

The people who run +972 generally avoid stating positions on BDS for or against because it’s technically illegal in Israel to advocate for BDS. So it is a demonstration of Derfner’s intellectual courage, that he is willing to run this risk, and continue to challenge an ideal that he was willing to change his life for, when he made aliyah to move to Israel as a young man in Los Angeles. He is in a society where there is a strong impetus to go along and get along and he deserves tremendous credit for this step.

Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is senior editor of and founded the site in 2005-06.

Other posts by .

Posted In:

47 Responses

  1. W.Jones on May 20, 2014, 10:28 am


  2. pabelmont on May 20, 2014, 10:36 am

    Derfner: “to meet the Palestinians’ demands, which are backed by the entire world (myself included), and which involve, but are by no means limited to, the removal of between roughly 100,000 and 170,000 settlers from the West Bank…”

    The “entire world” said that? I think the “entire world” speaks with a forked tongue, demanding a full right of return for the exiles of 1948, but never doing anything to back up that demand. And BDS is intended to energize the “entire world” to take tougher stands. tougher than what? We’ll see.

    Well, I’m glad Derfner has bitten this bullet. Must be risky in Israel to recommend any flavor of BDS, what with the anti-BDS law and public uproar and all.

    But as to his quote, I think he is reading Abbas’s last negotiating position as the permanent position of the Palestinian people. Well, the Palestinian people had no say and Abbas’s offer was quite possibly merely trying to show Israel up as opposed to ANY reasonable peace.

    Why should there be a “ratchet” in peace negotiations? Why must Palestinians be held to always offer more than last time?

    If BDS were to succeed in getting Israel into the mood, then such a BDS might be strong enough to get Israel even farther into the mood than merely to accept Abbas’s last “offer”.

    There are about 600,000-650,000 settlers all told, including in the Golan. They should all be required to fold up their tents (that is, dismantle their settlements). Any BDS worth its salt demand THAT.

    So what is Derfner signing on for?

  3. Kay24 on May 20, 2014, 10:56 am

    Better late than never I suppose. It will take voices like this to prompt others to rethink their stance on this, and realize that after all their support for the occupation, and for those who are under the illusion that Israel never does wrong, Bibi has made decisions based on greed for land, and rejected the peace initiatives by the US, for no credible reasons, other than keep the brutal occupation going. He has let his people down. Now that it is very clear, Israel has absolutely NO intention of freeing the occupied, and giving them their rights, Derfner has made the only logical solution – BDS.
    As for the lunatics who dwell in illegal settlements, whose crimes our State Department refers to as “terroristic activities”, it is time the IDF turned their
    brutality on their own, and reined them in. The Palestinians have suffered too
    much by the terroristic activities of the IDF, and the illegal settlers. They seem to share the same sadistic tendencies.

  4. eljay on May 20, 2014, 11:11 am

    >> He says that the BDS movement is mutable: that it can be a movement for two states.

    It can be a movement for two secular and democratic states of and for their respective citizens, immigrants, ex-pats and refugees, equally.

    It should not be a movement to separate Israel from Palestine so that Israel can remain a supremacist “Jewish State” – a state primarily of and for Jewish Israelis and non-Israeli Jews.

    • clenchner on May 21, 2014, 12:16 am

      The modern history of BDS begins with the launch of a boycott of settlement products in 1995, initiated by Gush Shalom, a group that strongly supports a two state solution.
      The Palestinian led-effort began years later. Derfner is on solid ground when he engages in ‘two-stater BDS.’

  5. Palikari on May 20, 2014, 11:55 am

    BDS is a racist anti-Semitic campaign that aims to destroy Israel. If they were really worried about the Palestinians, they would boycott ALL Arab countries that don’t give rights to Palestinians, not only Jewish-owned Israeli companies.

    • annie on May 20, 2014, 2:22 pm

      so much for the broad brush ad hominem. boring, over stated bloviation…and it’s all you got.

    • amigo on May 20, 2014, 2:40 pm

      “BDS is a racist anti-Semitic campaign that aims to destroy Israel.” Palikari

      Why would you worry about BDS .You are chosen and have God on your side.

      Right?, your most honorable esteemed greatness.

      BTW, is the Pali part of your moniker some sort of insult to the Palestinian People???.

    • eljay on May 20, 2014, 3:11 pm

      >> BDS is a racist anti-Semitic campaign that aims to destroy Israel.

      If the aim of BDS is to destroy Israel, it’s anti-Israeli, not anti-Semitic.

      According to Zach S, the fact that you think “Israel = Jews” means you’re a Palestinian or a Palestinian supporter.

      >> If they were really worried about the Palestinians, they would boycott ALL Arab countries that don’t give rights to Palestinians …

      “ALL Arab countries” are not guilty of:
      – the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from their homes and lands;
      – the on-going military occupation of Palestine and oppression of Palestinians in Palestine;
      – the on-going theft, occupation and colonization of land in Palestine; and
      – refusing to allow Palestinian refugees to return to the homes and lands from which they were ethnically-cleansed.

      • Palikari on May 20, 2014, 6:15 pm

        “If the aim of BDS is to destroy Israel, it’s anti-Israeli, not anti-Semitic.”

        If my aim were to destroy France, I would not be just anti-France but anti-French.

      • eljay on May 20, 2014, 7:27 pm

        >> If my aim were to destroy France, I would not be just anti-France but anti-French.

        Of course, because citizens of France are French. Citizens of Israel are Israeli, not “Semitic”.

      • amigo on May 21, 2014, 4:59 am

        “If my aim were to destroy France, I would not be just anti-France but anti-French.”Pallykari

        But why would you want to destroy France.

        France is not a racist supremacist Apartheid and oppressive Nation.

        At least , not anymore.

        Oh and btw, BDS does not need to destroy Israel.Idiots like you and Jack s are doing just fine all on your own.

      • Talkback on May 21, 2014, 8:06 am

        So the “descruction” of Apartheid was anti-Boer, the destruction of Communism was anti-Slavic, the desctruction of Nazism was anti-German … and the destruction of the Greek Junta was anti-Greek according to the ‘logic’ of a wannabee “palikari”.

    • Shingo on May 20, 2014, 4:49 pm

      Was boycott anti Semitic when it targetted apartheid South Africa too. Was South Africa destroyed as a result?

      What is it that you think will actually be destroyed by BDS? Jews as a whole or your apartheid wet dream?

      • Palikari on May 20, 2014, 6:16 pm

        Israel has nothing to do with South Africa.

        The answer to your question is Jews as a whole.

      • eljay on May 20, 2014, 7:31 pm

        Israel has nothing to do with South Africa.

        The answer to your question is Jews as a whole.

        Once again, a Zio-supremacist insists that “Israel = Jews”. I wonder if Zach S is paying attention…

      • Talkback on May 21, 2014, 8:04 am

        That’s what Afrikaners said, too, that they would be destroyed as a whole, if they abandon Apartheid.

    • Erasmus on May 20, 2014, 5:42 pm

      BDS is the LAST resort and only non-violent strategy to bring Israelis to senses – if ever this is possible at all.

      And after the failed Kerry-IP-talks – the time has come to implement BDS FULL SCALE.

      FULL SCALE also means for Christian pilgrims to delay their unholy land of Israel-visits until a final peace treaty will have been reached, signed and been implemented.

      • Palikari on May 20, 2014, 6:18 pm

        FULL SCALE also means for Christian pilgrims to delay their unholy land of Israel-visits until a final peace treaty will have been reached, signed and been implemented.

        Hahahaha! You’re very funny. That would harm the Palestinians, not Israel. Would you imagine Bethlehem without turists? Hotels, shops and restaurants would be forced to close!

    • pjdude on May 20, 2014, 7:00 pm

      Last time I checked there aren’t any Arab nations occupying Palestine. You want Arabs to pay for Israel’s crimes. I’m sorry but the only people who should pay for israeli crimes is israelis

    • talknic on May 20, 2014, 7:32 pm

      @ Palikari “BDS is a racist anti-Semitic campaign that aims to destroy Israel”

      A call for a state to adhere to the law is Antisemitic and aims to destroy that state? How?

      “If they were really worried about the Palestinians, they would boycott ALL Arab countries that don’t give rights to Palestinians”

      They have refugee rights & Arab countries have given refuge for 66 years and fought the legal battle and wars on their behalves. Host countries are not obliged to offer citizenship to people who’d rather return to their own country.

      Why is it that Israel refuses return of people who had a right to Israeli citizenship? After all the Declaration invite them to stay! Oddly enough as they were being dispossessed by Jewish forces! As if the Jewish people’s council didn’t know what was going on at the time….

      • Palikari on May 20, 2014, 10:10 pm

        They have refugee rights & Arab countries have given refuge for 66 years

        Hahaha! They have no rights. They are banned from studying, from jobs; they have no access to healthcare or housing. They are also banned from owning land, restrictions on movement.

        Are you justifying aapartheid?

        It’s funny, because the majority of those “refugees” have never set foot in Israel. They’ve born in those Arab countries but have no rights just for being Palestinian. It’s the country they’ve been born that should grant them citizenship, not Israel, a country where they’ve never been and that they don’t even recognize.

  6. LarryDerfner on May 20, 2014, 12:40 pm

    Phil and James, thanks very, very much for running this – and the 20-year-old photo of me. :) Just one thing – I actually first “came out” for BDS on +972 last year after Stephen Hawking boycotted that event in Jerusalem, and have written several pieces in favor of it since. But yeah, this was the first “manifesto” I’ve written on the issue. Thanks again.

    • annie on May 20, 2014, 2:19 pm

      thank you larry. i too think it was a courageous article, regardless of you ‘coming out’ before.

    • Dutch on May 20, 2014, 3:37 pm

      Larry, thanks. I’m with Annie.

      • Shingo on May 20, 2014, 5:02 pm

        Ditto Larry.

        Your Courage and moral clarity and inspirational

  7. Sycamores on May 20, 2014, 1:47 pm

    Larry Derfner says:

    But it is also said that the BDS movement is run by people who don’t just want to dismantle the occupation, they want to dismantle the Jewish state altogether in favor of a “state of all its citizens,” which is something Jewish liberals can’t support

    unless there is complete 180 in israeli policies, not seen since the inception of israel, within the next six years the occupation will remain irreversible. i believe the cause is lost for the Jewish liberal for some while now adding another 6 to 10 years and wearing blinders is not going to change anything.

    in the next 6 to 10 years you either choose Israel as a apartheid state but drop the liberal part or accept a state for all citizens and take on the future with all its woes and joys.

    • RudyM on May 20, 2014, 3:59 pm

      Liberals of any stripe shouldn’t be supporting Israel’s existence as anything other than a state of its citizens.

      Stop the presses, an Israeli Jewish writer (who doesn’t even have the excuse of having been born in Israel but who moved there from progrom-ridden Los Angeles?) supports BDS as a means to maintain Zionism lite.

      • RudyM on May 20, 2014, 4:11 pm

        And is it really appropriate for Mondoweiss posts to be using the vomit-inducing phrase “made aliyah” non-ironically?

      • amigo on May 21, 2014, 5:13 am

        What,s with this “Made Aliyah”. How is it possible to go back to somewhere one has never been .It,s similar to trying to unwring a bell.

      • SQ Debris on May 21, 2014, 1:38 pm

        “Aliyah” doesn’t mean “return.” It means ascend, or rise. Larry “ascended” from LA to participate in the “Let’s try out acting like 15th century white guys and tar anyone who criticizes us as anti-semites” project. BDS his “courageous” ass until he packs up, donates his digs to a Palestinian, and returns to his home. I mean.. Please!

      • Talkback on May 21, 2014, 8:09 am

        I don’t even get why these Jews call themselves “liberal”. It’s nearly the same oxymoron like “Jewish democracy”.

  8. HarryLaw on May 20, 2014, 2:23 pm

    On 11 July 2011, the Knesset passed a law making it a civil offence to publicly call for a boycott against the State of Israel, defined as “deliberately avoiding economic, cultural or academic ties with another person or another factor only because of his ties with the State of Israel, one of its institutions or an area under its control, in such a way that may cause economic, cultural or academic damage”. According to the law, anyone calling for a boycott can be sued, and forced to pay compensation regardless of actual damages. At the discretion of a government minister. Very brave of you Larry, I think Phil and James deliberately put that 20 year old photo up, my advice darken your glasses, grow a beard, and change your name.

  9. Citizen on May 20, 2014, 2:27 pm

    So, where are we on this issue? It’s not too clear.

  10. Kathleen on May 20, 2014, 3:08 pm


  11. Baldur on May 20, 2014, 4:21 pm

    A very brave move, and a small step in the right direction for Larry.

    Sadly, I don’t know which is more quixotic: Israeli liberals who hope BDS can transform Israeli popular opinion to the better, or Mahmoud Abbas, who renounces BDS in the hope that the bantustan PA government will get further independence. I believe both Larry and Mahmoud are very sincere, but in effect both are just prolonging the eventual resolution of the conflict, Larry at least when the BDS is done in the name of a two-state solution.

    Here’s the truth: there’s not going to be a two-state solution. It’s an utter impossibility considering the current and future political climate in Israel. There was once perhaps a time for BDS for a two-state solution, that would have been 25 years ago.

    Considering the future, settler population will only increase, which will increase representation of settler parties, and so on – it’s a vicious circle. Every second the occupation and the continuous ethnic cleansing goes on, the rot of ethnocratic far-right nationalism will devour Israel from the inside. That is the true curse of the occupation. I am reminded by a quote from Nietzsche (whom I hate to quote, but anyway): “Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look into the abyss, the abyss also looks into you.”. Israel’s stated purpose was to escape the evils of nationalism in Europe, however when the hasbara fades, Israel’s own policies of “Judaization” – that is what it is officially called! – are looking functionally indistinguishable from this.

    Israel is asymptotically heading for a more extremist, more polarized state with it’s population divided between ultra-Orthodox and nationalist settlers, with a significant Muslim minority. It’s a recipe for catastrophe. The I/P conflict is a wound upon the earth which has been allowed to fester for far too long, mostly due to American action and inaction – whatever the true remedy really is will be a hard puzzle to solve, and then a very sour pill to swallow.

    Let’s face it: a withdrawal of settlers from the West Bank is impossible. A viable two-state solution is impossible. Small-scale sanctions will only further cement the growing Israeli far-right’s image of Israel as unfairly treated by an anti-Semitic rest of the human race – which might hasten a US/Israel divide, but that is for better or worse.

    The only card left is fighting for a one-state solution: equal rights for Palestinians on the territory that Israel controls. If you can start by tricking the hungry Israeli fox to swallow the pancake that is the West Bank whole, or convincing Mahmoud Abbas to euthanize the PA, I bet the rest (Gaza, Palestinian RoR) will follow shortly – either the apartheid will be clear for all to see, or occupied West Bank Palestinians will get the right to vote and equality under the law at which point Israeli society can finally begin to evolve in the right direction.

    • Citizen on May 20, 2014, 6:24 pm

      Hey, you forgot the Samson Option. Israel has 400 nukes. It views the USA as a useful tool, but that might end once Iran is attacked.

      • Baldur on May 20, 2014, 8:23 pm

        Developments are definitely moving towards the crazy end of the political spectrum, however I think there will be a very, very long time until Israel would possibly threaten any Western country with nukes. A more realistic horror scenario goes like this:

        20 years from now, we have seen an Israel/US breakdown of relations over human rights issues. The US has in every imaginable way withdrawn their support from Israel, however stopping short of sanctions. Israel is run by a far-right government which would make the current one seem cuddly. Israeli nationalism is at an all-time high fuelled by the breakdown of relations with Western countries – this has been counterbalanced with closer relations to China and Russia. With a justification of making a “pre-emptive attack”, “securing unsafe borders” or something like that, Israel attacks Lebanon/Hizbollah, Syria or Egypt – in reality, the military and political establishment are talking internally about creating living space for the Jewish nation and restoring their “Eretz Yisrael”. The surprise attack is met with considerable success, however shortly after another regional power – maybe Turkey, Saudi Arabia or Iran – throws their army into the game under the pretext of “keeping the peace”. The war is also joined by jihadi groups, and success turns into defeat. Israel, being sure that the objective of their adversaries is a second holocaust, throws their nukes at population centres of their enemies in one last desperate move. That is pretty much the worst nuclear scenario I could imagine within reason.

        But you’re right in that it is very important to think about what will happen in the future if the I/P conflict is not resolved now. Certainly, the political scene in Israel is not going to move in a positive direction. Also, US hegemony will fade, making for a more unstable situation. The nationalism which the occupation breeds is a ticking bomb. Liberal Zionists are talking about international sanctions, another intifada (as if…), the horrors of a binational nation and so on and so forth, but the greatest danger of all is what the occupation is doing to Israel itself. You thought Netanyahu was bad in the nineties, just wait until Bennett’s boys are in power. What a typical irony that Israel was supposed to be the ark of deliverance of European Jewry from racial prejudice and policy, but now with every second is turning more into a monument of institutionalised racism itself. Like a wise man put it, “Zionism is exactly the wrong response to history”.

        It is a common misconception to think that what will happen if you keep the status quo is that the current situation will continue. This is completely erroneous in a changing world. The current I/P situation is somewhat equivalent to discussing whether you should keep the status quo if your basement is being flooded. It may seem it is only an unwanted swimming pool if you are optimistic, but underneath lie a fortune in bills for plumbing and mold remediation. We must do everything we can to solve the I/P conflict to prevent a future catastrophe.

  12. Nevada Ned on May 20, 2014, 5:38 pm

    Israeli Jews who are opposed to a Palestinian state have a lot of clout.

    So much clout that, in the absence of strong forces from the outside, neither a one-state solution nor a two-state solution is going to happen.

    My conclusion is that either a one-state or two-state solution would have to be forced onto Israel. Israel’s internal political forces are strongly opposed to virtually any concessions to the Palestinians, however small.

    • Citizen on May 20, 2014, 6:26 pm

      I agree, Israel will only change if the USA stops subsidizing its conduct. Doesn’t look likely so long as the US has the political campaign finance system it has. Best bet? For starters, a few SCOTUS members suddenly die. They’re all pretty old…

      • wondering jew on May 22, 2014, 2:19 am

        Which votes on the supreme court will lead to changes in campaign contributions? None. This is more nonsense.

      • Ellen on May 22, 2014, 3:09 am

        If that were to happen the US would become an enemy state to Israel. There are sadly too many in Israeli government and the population who would understand withdrawal of the welfare as an act of aggression.

        This is understood only by a few in the US government and feeds the intimidation of the United States by Israel.

        Think about it: Israel is the only state that truly frightens the US government. That is why our officials cower and never criticize. They behave like citizens frightened of their autocratic leaders.

        It won’t end well for the US or Israel.

      • LeaNder on May 22, 2014, 9:29 am

        It won’t end well for the US or Israel.

        Ellen, I doubt that the US will ever withdraw its “welfare”, if I understand what you mean by that. As far as support in defense and war tools are concerned the respective US lobby and its supporters in the diverse states simply cannot allow to let it happen.

        Admittedly I do not know much about it, and yes I am basically assuming, but my general impression is that the larger military complex both in the US and in the EU are closely connected. It is not only about jobs in the diverse states, but I would assume there are links in R&D, and last but not least, isn’t Israel an ideal playing field for some members of the larger circle to test future warfare scenarios?

      • LeaNder on May 22, 2014, 8:09 am

        Citizen, how would you want to change it?

        I won’t go into depth, but strictly even if you change it, I have absolutely no doubt that the experts will adapt themselves to these changes really quickly.

        Strictly, with flyover America versus the coasts in mind, wouldn’t it be better if the system changed to a real majority of votes? On the other hand, I have no doubt that would trigger dissent too. I could imagine–no, I do not know–that the majority of people actually lives in the respective coast states. No?

  13. soldier_wo_fortune on May 20, 2014, 8:51 pm

    One problem I noted concerning the description of Derfner is that he chose to make aliyah to Israel from Los Angeles, while refugees in Syria are not. Isn’t that the problem?

  14. NickJOCW on May 21, 2014, 10:45 am

    Asked why he made his sculptures so thin (maigre), Giacometti answered J’enléve tout ce qui n’est pas nécessaire*. Applying this principle to Derfner’s proposition, he would appear to be suggesting using BDS to encourage internal Jewish division to resolve the issue.

    *I remove all that is not necessary.

  15. Kay24 on May 22, 2014, 9:23 am

    They are afraid folks. They are afraid of BDS getting traction, and spreading fast.
    They even use their clout to stop one pro BDS individual from participating in a debate in Melbourne, Australia. They really know how to use pressure and intimidate.
    The more they resist, the stronger BDS will be.

Leave a Reply