in attacking BDS, boycott, divestment and sanctions, a program we always spell out to readers, Stephens does not spell out what B.D.S. means.
Has any anti-BDS writer in the NYT actually written out the three stated goals of the BDS movement? The fact that they don't shows that they know that it doesn't help their side.
There's a different tack that hasbarists could take when addressing the ignorant: namely, that the BDS movement's three stated goals have already been achieved. They could say that
(1) Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel are already full and equal citizens under the law;
(2) Israel does not "occupy" any "Arab lands"; and
(3) Palestinians who lost their homes in 1948 actually left voluntarily, or even, they didn't actually live in what's now Israel, but are only saying that they did because they want to destroy the Jewish state.
Obviously, making claims (1)-(3) would be thoroughly dishonest, but such a prissy concern hasn't prevented hasbarists from saying a lot of other things, and they are secure in the knowledge that most of their audience will believe them and not even listen to debunkers who are immoderate or radical or anti-Semitic or Arab or Muslim, etc.
I still haven't seen any writer make this kind of argument claiming that BDS is unnecessary because its stated goals have all been achieved. Has anyone else seen it anywhere?
I heard a couple of words differently from one of the quotes above, starting at 21:45, but then notice how Speaker Pelosi continues:
Because we really want to see again Israel to prevail as a Jewish democratic state. But we have to make sure that there is security, because that is the first responsibility of any government. It's the oath we take as members of Congress, and any of you who are part of any official organization, to protect and defend. And we have to make sure that the security of Israel is essential to a solution.
"Protect" and "defend" are both transitive verbs, but notice how their objects are missing here?
From George Washington's Farewell Address, 1796:
a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.
It is unclear how much of his political activities were grounded in Arab nationalism and anti-colonialism, and how much in anti-Semitism. The Arab nationalism and anti-colonialism are understandable responses to the British Empire and Jewish settlement in Palestine; the anti-Semitism is unforgivable.
Anti-Semitism is the view that originated in Germany in the 19th century that Jews are a racial group of non-European origin, and as such, don't deserve the same rights as "real" white people. It doesn't make sense to suggest that a Palestinian Arab might even have such a view. Of course a Palestinan Arab might well hate all Jews, but not for this reason. Now if you're using "anti-Semitism" as a catchall term for all anti-Jewish hostility, how can you call one form of it "understandable" and another form of it "unforgivable"? A lot of people who lived in Europe during WW2 are anti-German as a result of that experience, but who's going to wag a finger at them and say that although anti-German sentiment is an understandable response to German invasion and genocide, anti-German sentiment that comes from anti-Teutonism is unforgivable?
That said, it is important to remember that there never was a Nazi party in historic Palestine
How could there have been? Unlike, say, a Communist party, a precondition for the existence of a National Socialist party would be an already established state that could exert military power. Palestine was governed as a colony, and correct me if I'm wrong, but no colony anywhere had a Nazi party.
and that Islam does not have the centuries old history of Jew hatred that is found in European Christianity.
My understanding is that Jew-hatred such as it has been in the Islamic world is all about religious difference, never about racial difference. If you were a member of the Ummah, it didn't matter if you had Jewish ancestry.