Boycott Blues

I just had a visit with folks from Sacramento, the location of the food co-op I mentioned earlierthat has decided to severely limit the practice of boycotting products, rather than have to deal with endless calls to boycott Israel disrupting the organization (regardless of the number of times the boycotters are told no).

Needless to say this decision resulted in howls of protest on the part of the BDSers. And even if their cries of “democracy denied” sound a little hollow (given that their only co-op victoryto date was the result of a co-op board acting behind the backs of the membership), this happens to be one of those cases where (like the proverbial broken clock that is right twice a day), the BDS cru does have a point.

After all, major policy decisions of an organization like a co-op should come out of a process involving as many people in the institution as possible. And just because boycott-Israel advocates have succeeded in poisoning the atmosphere of the co-op doesn’t necessarily mean that restricting the store’s ability to make political statements via the boycott mechanism does not carry a price.

The flaw with the BDSers reasoning, however, is that it only takes into account one set of rights – their own (surprise, surprise).

In the boycotters’ view, their right to relentlessly and endlessly push their boycott project, no matter how much it offends and appalls the wider community, is paramount and trumps all other rights of everyone else. If there is no consensus on a boycott, they’ll push it anyway. If the leadership looks to precedent from the many other co-ops that have rejected boycotts (such as Davis and Port Townsend), they’ll scrutinize the rules with a fine-toothed comb looking for new loopholes to exploit. And now that the board has taken action to prevent this issue from haunting the institution forever, the BDSers have gone on the attack to cause maximum disruption of the organization in whose name they so desperately want to speak.

One of the reasons food cooperatives have been in the BDS news recently is that co-ops (like student councils and aging rockers) represent “soft targets,” places where the divestment cru has a hope of achieving some kind of win after a decade of major institutions (such as universities, churches and municipalities) rejecting calls to divest from the Jewish state.

In the case of co-ops, this opportunity comes from the informal (sometimes loose) governing rules at many co-op organizations which take for granted that any shortcoming in rules and regulations can be worked through in the spirit of cooperation and good will one normally finds at a member-owned small organization.

Boycott policies are a perfect example of this phenomenon. Having seen various rules put in place to govern boycott decisions at different co-ops (one in Massachusetts, for example, allows a boycott to be vetoed by 10% of the membership signing a petition), it’s clear that these rules were designed to help implement political decisions that have already become a consensus position within the organization, if not the nation at large (a la South Africa or green/environmental issues).

But what if a person or group is not acting in good faith or in the aforementioned spirit of cooperation? What if their goal is to add the “brand” of a particular co-operative store to their trophy cabinet, allowing them to bellow across the country that “XXXXX Food Co-op has boycotted Apartheid Israel and you should too!!!!!!,” pretending to speak in the name of every man, woman and child in the organization?

In that case, the co-op’s leadership and membership are not parties to the conflict, but simply a speedbump in the way of the BDSers getting the bragging rights they so desperately desire. And if such behavior offends other members or causes mayhem in the organization, what do the boycotters care? After all, their audience lies elsewhere.

As mentioned above, a co-op deciding it can no longer make political statements using the mechanism of boycott (a mechanism that has worked effectively in other situations) is not without negative consequences. But if the boycott tool has been removed from the box at a place like the Sacramento Food Co-op, the BDSers have only themselves to blame. Like everything else it touches, BDS has so soiled the boycott option that places like Sacramento are better off living without it, rather than let it continue to be exploited at the expense of everyone except a small minority of partisans committed to getting their way no matter who else is hurt in the process.

, , , , , , , ,

36 Responses to Boycott Blues

  1. Anonymous April 14, 2011 at 9:04 pm #

    Oooops !

    Only Iran, North Korea and Pakistan are viewed more negatively than Israel in BBC survey.

    As Jon Hubris told me a few days ago “Point of fact, Israel has never faced a “de-legitimization” crisis. “

  2. Anonymous April 15, 2011 at 3:26 am #

    Jon –

    Regarding food co-ops, the loose governance works because most of their decisions deal with the operation of the co-op. Everybody shares a narrow common interest, namely the success of the enterprise. Therefore they are able to arrive at a consensus.

    Co-ops should stop carrying products when people stop buying them. Just like a regular store.

    I have found in my own co-op, that most people come for the food, not the politics. And there is a lot of resentment directed at those who try to exploit the community for political purposes.


  3. Jon April 15, 2011 at 1:24 pm #

    If you want to know why BDSers always get surprised when their latest campaign blows up in their face, one need look no further than our permanently anonymous commenter taking great glee that a BBC poll shows Israel ranking at the bottom of the list in a recent survey.

    When you construct your reality by searching out facts or (more often) just opinions that already reflect your views, being surprised by real reality becomes inevitable. And thus a poll in which people in many nations were asked which countries have a positive vs. negative influence on the world (not whether or not they support one country or another) Israel ranks with countries such as Iran and Pakistan.

    Could it be that attitudes towards countries having a “positive” vs. “negative” influence might involve something other than support over who is right or wrong in a specific conflict (unnamed in the survey)? And might the fact that Egypt and Turkey (among other Islamic states) contributed to the poll possibly be responsible for lowering Israel’s numbers? And what might have happened if Arab countries (none of which were included in the list of 21 countries being asked about) been added to the list?

    Our anonymous poster does not ask himself these obvious questions, or even cares that much about the poll itself. He (or she) is only concerned with having one more bit of “truthiness” to bolster his or her own opinions, opinions that will never change regardless of how many facts they are exposed to.

  4. Anonymous April 15, 2011 at 6:42 pm #

    I was just responding to your earlier comment that Israel has no delegitimization problem. The poll is pretty comprehensive as it is based on almost 30,000 respondents living in 28 countries (includes US, Canada, Brazil, Chile, Japan, Russia, China, India, Australia, Turkey, ……). Regardless of my opinion, the results are the results.

    Anyone who states that Israel has no such crisis (whether the crisis is justified or not) has either been living in a cave for the past decade or simply refuses to accept reality.

  5. Jon April 15, 2011 at 7:35 pm #

    I believe I said that Israel does not have a delegitimization problem so much as it has a propaganda problem in that dozens of wealthy and powerful countries, in tandem with domestic and international organizations that subscribe to the BDS program of vilification, work tirelessly to repress the truth about the Middle East and cast reality in the image they wish. Given this, Israel certainly must contend with issues faced by no other country.

    You seem to think that any negative perception in a poll like the one you quote must be seen as being the result of Israel’s actual behavior, rather than the work of tireless propagandizers like yourself. I was simply pointing out that polls like this one are just of many data points. And knowing what I know about statistics, the fact that you’ve got a poll of people’s attitudes towards just 21 out of 200+ countries combined with the fact that two participating countries (Turkey and Egypt) are two of the most populous Muslim countries who have been exposed to anti-Israel propaganda for decades, and suddenly the results begin to look like something that must be served with a grain of salt.

    Naturally, you choose to read a meaning into this poll that jibes with what you already believed before this survey was even commissioned. Similarly, you no doubt don’t have time for other data points (such as the 20 increase in popularity of Israel in the US or the fact that Europe now invests more of its venture money into Israel – allegedly a country it hates – than it does into any European country).

    So just whose head is buried in the sand?

  6. Anonymous April 15, 2011 at 11:01 pm #

    “You seem to think that any negative perception in a poll like the one you quote must be seen as being the result of Israel’s actual behavior, rather than the work of tireless propagandizers like yourself.”

    And you, Jon, seem to think that any negative perception of Israel reported in a poll must be the result of some propaganda machine as opposed to WHAT ISRAEL ACTUALLY DOES. You are giving way too much credit to the propaganda machine and way too little credit to Israel's actions/behavior. In doing so you are also giving too little credit to people's intelligence to observe events and judge for themselves.

    As to your knowledge of statistics, it is pretty much in line with your knowledge of the world: totally biased and Israel centric. The poll represents the views of 28 (and not 21) nations, and 5 of those nations (none Arab, none Muslim) represent over 3 billion people and close to half of the world's population.

    Your head is definitely buried, but not in the sand.

  7. Jon April 15, 2011 at 11:43 pm #

    Actually, some of the most populous non-Muslim countries participating in the survey (notably the US, Russia and China) answered most favorably towards Israel in the survey.

    I have simply pointed out that if you include three of the most populous Muslim countries in the world (Egypt, Turkey and Indonesia) and ask them about just 17 out of 200+ countries, and ask them a question which can be interpreted in more than one way, such as:

    “Please tell me if you think each of the following countries is having a mainly positive or mainly negative influence in the world,”

    then it is important to not read more into the results than should be warranted, given all these specifics about the poll itself.

    Of course, I could play the same game as the BDSers and claim that “Muslim nations top the lsit of the world's most hated regimes!” or some similar headline, claiming the exact same poll as my source. But that would be as inacurate and self serving as the interpretation you would like us all to accept at face value.

  8. Anonymous April 18, 2011 at 6:05 pm #

    Israeli wine and stolen land

    Who Profits from the Occupation

    WHO PROFITS/The Israeli Occupation Industry
    Who Profits from the Occupation is a research project of the Coalition of Women for
    Peace. Initiated in response to the Palestinian call for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) on Israel, this research
    project is dedicated to exposing the commercial involvement of Israeli and
    international companies in the continuing Israeli control over Palestinian
    and Syrian land. The project publishes information about these companies on its website (, produces in-depth reports and
    serves as an information center

    P.O.Box 29214
    Tel Aviv 61292,
    Tel: 972-3-528100

    The Coalition of Women for Peace

  9. Jon April 18, 2011 at 6:42 pm #

    You've got your shopping list guys!

    Now here's where to find our latest anonymous poster's wine recommendations:

  10. Anonymous April 18, 2011 at 7:21 pm #

    You have no shame do you? Golan Heights Winery? Israel steals other people's lands, builds wineries on them and you expect no negative reaction? Bravo!

  11. Jon April 18, 2011 at 7:38 pm #

    Actually, if we could just capture the endless flow of whine from you and your fellow BDSers, you could flood the whole Galilee (you know, the area Syria spent shelling for decades from the heights of the Golan).

    Oops! Sorry for bringing up a fact that you don't want out there in the open! I'm heading out so feel free to pull your fingers out of your ears.

  12. Anonymous April 18, 2011 at 7:57 pm #

    If you (and your fellow Zionist pigs who are apologists for Israel) feel that occupied land taken in the 67 war over 44 years ago should be converted to stolen land with civilian settlers (and wineries), that is your opinion, but don't write your whiny puny blogs about how Israel is the target of a negative PR machine. Israel deserves what it gets and then some.

    I will pull my fingers out of my ears if you promise to pull your head our of your ass.

  13. Jon April 18, 2011 at 8:27 pm #

    Spare me your self-righteous indignation and potty-mouth, this week’s Anon. Today’s entire Middle East world is basically one big case of land theft (i.e., conquest followed by forced conversion). And one need not even go back hundreds of years to ask the question of why Kurds, Christians and every other ethnic and religious minority must take a back seat to the political aspiration of one ethnic group and one religion in the 99% of the Middle East that happens to be controlled by someone other than Jews.

    The fact that this 1% of the region refuses to be swallowed whole by the tyrants, thieves and war criminals you endlessly apologize for simply demonstrates that someone has the ability to stand up to the forces of hatred and totalitarianism that you clearly find so lovable (or at least ignorable).

  14. Anonymous April 18, 2011 at 9:05 pm #

    Oh so Israel's land theft is one in a long series of land thefts huh? Israel must be the last “conquerer” and “converter” in the region, I don't remember any such land conquests/conversions since the Palestinian expulsion of 1948 and the 1967 war.

    And as the logic goes Israel is somehow entitled to occupy and settle because Muslims are in the majority and Jews in the minority?

    Nobody buys your argument that occupation followed by settlement is or ever was intended for security; Israel is no more secure today, only much more hated than it was a few decades ago, thanks to a large extend to apologists like you.

    Keep up the good work Jon.

  15. Jon April 18, 2011 at 9:12 pm #

    I was simply pointing out that if you define acqusition of territory in war as land theft, then the entire Middle East is one big robbery scene with your allies in the BDS movement (the Arab states) the primary and unquestionably guilty perps.

    The difference is not one of timing, but the fact that you choose to apologize for and ignore one set of conquests by the majority while condemning land acquisition by war of the minority as some form of crime.

    Interesting crop of militant moralists we're raising these days.

  16. Fred April 18, 2011 at 9:19 pm #

    Gotta love it !

    Report: Israel chief rabbi says Obama must free Pollard if he wants another term.

  17. Anonymous April 18, 2011 at 9:28 pm #

    Yes Jon I understand timing is of no consequence, after all Jews lived in Judea and Samaria a couple of thousand years ago and are therefore entitled to this land.

    Maybe we should bring in the Persians, Romans and Greeks into this discussion, I am sure they have a few things to say!

  18. Jon April 18, 2011 at 9:37 pm #

    OK – If timing is of no consequence, then I presume you will agree wholeheartedly that no one, not Jews, not Palestinians, can be considered indigenous people who “deserve” the land, and thus this is simply a border dispute which has nothing to do with “occupation” (legal or otherwise).

    In which case, the means towards a resolution is negotiation between the parties (none of whom is indigenous, and thus none of whom can be considered the victim of a crime). Unless, of course, someone's preference is for war, rather than peace. In which case, propaganda regarding criminality and occupation are probably your best way to go.

  19. DrMike April 18, 2011 at 10:04 pm #

    I would hazard a guess that the Anon(s) above most likely live in the US. I wonder if s/he/they are aware that there was an indigenous (brown) population living here prior to the arrival of white European colonialists who stole their land. And we're talking TRUE colonialists here– chartered by the kings, and carrying the flags, of England, France, Spain and Holland. Colonialists whose families never lived here, whose homeland wasn't here, who had not been praying for centuries to return here.

    If s/he/they are so concerned about this moral outrage, I suggest that a good starting point would be turning one's own home over to the descendants of those Native American tribes. Then one can start lecturing others on such aspects of moral purity. Until then, I believe the word that applies is “hypocrite”.

    And, if I recall my history correctly, there wasn't war being waged by the Iroquois, the Lenape, etc. against those European powers. It's not like they were attacking them on their home soil the way that Syria shelled Israel from the Golan from 1948-1967. But I guess as long as it's just the Jewish state being attacked, it's not a war crime and no right of self-defense exists. Some things never change.

  20. Anonymous April 18, 2011 at 10:26 pm #

    750,000 Palestinians were thrown out of their land in 1948 to make way for the creation of Israel (oh by the way through a UN resolution, the body so you despise). For decades Israel masked this fact by a. denying that there ever was a Palestinian people (GM) and b. stating the Palestinians left voluntarily. Now that these lies have been fully debunked, apologists like you want to talk about negotiations. What happened to the Palestinians is in no way equal to Jews leaving Arab countries.Though Jewish migration from Middle Eastern/North Africa began in the late 19th century, it had not become significant until 1948 .

    One party out of two is occupying the other and continuing with settlement construction on LAND THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE SUBJECT OF THE NEGOTIATIONS. Is that your idea of negotiations Jon?

    When the Palestinians used violence and armed struggle to resist and fight back they are labelled as terrorists. When they engage in peaceful non violent demonstrations they are beat up, harassed and jailed. When they pursue the non violent boycott, divestment, and sanctions approach, they are labelled as a fraud and a hoax. What is yours suggestion, that the Palestinians shut up and go along with the Israeli version of peace/settlement that gives them a few disconnected bantustans? Will never happen.

    When some Palestinians and their supporters talk about one democratic state for all , then you scream they want to destroy the Jews and push them all out to sea. Israel can dominate the negotiations as it has for so long, but it will never live in peace.

    Peace will come when Israel first acknowledges what happened in 1948 and compensates the victims. You don't kick people out of their land and act like you are the victim. It does not work like that.

    And finally DrMike, the world has changed since the native American Indians were thrown out of their land by the European settlers starting 500 years ago! Slavery was also common practice in America and started in the mid 16th century? Does that justify slavery today? Crimes committed hundreds of years ago do not the same crimes today I am afraid.

  21. Jon April 18, 2011 at 11:33 pm #

    I must admit that this is the first time I’ve ever seen someone break into faux outrage over the alleged denial of Palestinian expulsion in one sentence, only to deny the amply-documented Jewish expulsion from Arab lands IN THE SAME PARAGRAPH! Apparently Palestinians are “thrown out of their land” (even if that land has been made a war zone by five invading Arab armies), but Jews “migrate” when they were kicked out of their homes and all their possessions stolen after 1948 for the crime of being Jewish after another group of Jews in another part of the Middle East won the aforementioned war against those invading armies.

    What is most fascinating about the exchange that culminated in the posting above is that this week’s Anonymous screamer clearly has no idea how much this ridiculously hypocritical behavior undermines her claim to moral superiority on all matters, not to mention opens the eyes of any fair-minded reader that the long list of accusations that inevitably swells a BDSer post more than one sentence long should be taken with a 5000 pound grain of salt.

    Imagine the social scene in which boycott and divestment advocates sit in a circle congratulating people like our Anonymous poster on their virtue and courage for making statements like the hysterical, self-exposing, self-defeating nuttiness represented by the last comment. That, my friends, is Planet BDS in a nutshell.

  22. Anonymous April 19, 2011 at 12:43 am #

    Jon: “alleged denial of Palestinian expulsion” …sounds like I am making this up.

    “There is no such thing as a Palestinian people… It is not as if we came and threw them out and took their country. They didn't exist.”
    — Golda Meir, statement to The Sunday Times, 15 June, 1969.

    Jon: “…only to deny the amply-documented Jewish expulsion from Arab lands”

    a. I never denied Jews were expelled from Arab nations. I said these were different and not equal.
    b. Wikipedia: “The reasons for the exodus included persecution, antisemitism, political instability, and the desire to fulfill Zionist yearnings”. I was not aware that political instability and the desire to fulfill Zionist yearnings equates to Jewish expulsion.

    c. The Jewish expulsion from Arab nations occurred AFTER the expulsion of the Palestinians from their home. The Jews by and large landed in Israel, the Palestinian are still homeless refugees.

    Jon: “..even if that land has been made a war zone by five invading Arab armies”.

    All wars and hostilities occurred AFTER the Palestinians were ethnically cleansed.

    With regards to “fair minded readers” and their reactions:
    a. I don't believe you have any fair minded readers here (I don't think you have many readers here period).
    b. I have yet to see a response to many points made in the posting above.

  23. Jon April 19, 2011 at 1:11 am #

    Dude (or dudette) – you are clearly confusing me with yourself in that it is you (not I) that is spinning in circles trying to claim that one “expulsion” (of Arabs) represents the crime of the century (if not all of recorded history) while struggling to minimize and disemble on the expulsion by Arabs of their Jewish minority.

    Personally, I'd be willing to accept that the 750,000 Palestinians you claim were expelled (see – I'm ready to accept your numbers) and the 850,000 Jews who were kicked out the Arab world (kindly return the favor) represent a population transfer, similar to ones that took place in Europe and India/Pakistan around this same period. Not pretty, but part of history.

    In such a case, the only difference is that Israel welcomed Jewish refugees with open arms and let them rebuld their lives, while the Palestinians “brothers” kept them in squalid camps for generations ot use as perpatual weapons against the Jewish state.

    But clearly the need to criminizale anything done to Arabs while whitewashing ethnic cleansing by them is your stock in trade. Given this, it's no surprise that Wikipedia (a source I teach 8th graders to utilize with caution) is good enough to suit your purposes.

  24. Anonymous April 19, 2011 at 1:45 am #

    Thank you Jon. If you agree that 750,000 Palestinians were expelled from their homeland in 1948 then you may begin to see the source of the Palestinian Israeli conflict.

    If you think the ethnic cleansing of 750,000 Palestinians to make way for the creation of a new nation (Israel) is the same as the expulsion of the same number of jews in RESPONSE to this atrocity happening over a 25 year period and from a multitude of nations (not to mention that some if not many of these jews wanted to move to Israel) and represents a mere “population transfer that is not pretty but part of history” you will never understand this conflict and you are back to the zionist asshole I have gotten to know all too well on this blog.

  25. Jon April 19, 2011 at 2:04 am #

    Sorry – But if you're willing to pocket a generous willingness on my part to accept your number, then you are required to accept mine (otherwise all bets are off).

    In which case, the number of Jews expelled from the Arab world exceed even your chosen number of Palestinians by 100,000. And given that those Jews had their property stolen on the way out (unless you're claiming they were so excited to get to the Jewish state they willingly left that property behind), and given that this property amounted to five times the size of the current Jewish state, then we have a simple formula for calculating what Israel owes the Paletinians.

    Simply tell us what you now believe the Arab world owes the Jews for this massive theft, and we simply have to divide that number by five.

    Glad to know we are finally in agreement.

  26. Jen April 19, 2011 at 2:53 am #

    “ethnic cleansing of 750,000 Palestinians to make way for the creation of a new nation (Israel)”

    I'm lost — where in this story is the creation of the new nation Jordan?

  27. uncle yo-yo April 19, 2011 at 3:22 pm #

    Where in Anonymous' story is there any recognition of the Jews kicked out of the old city of Jerusalem (my family among them) and the West Bank/Hebron (my family among them)? For me, the occupation started in 1948 and ended in 1967. But then, I do not count to Anonymous because I am a Jew (it always comes back to that doesn't it, Anonymous?).

    Also, to claim that hostilities started with the arab armies after the Palestinians all left is ahistorical (to put it kindly).

  28. Alex Bensky April 19, 2011 at 10:21 pm #

    Not that it means anything to Anonymous, but had the Arabs accepted the 1947 partition plan the sum total of displaced Arabs would have been: none.

    In some localities, usually but not always for military reasons, the population was forced out. In many others they left voluntarily or were persuaded to leave by their leadership–checking into the story of the Arabs who left Haifa is a good place to start. And in some areas the people just did the sensible thing and got out of the way of the shooting.

    What's interesting is to look at the Arab sources from 1948 until the early fifties. Most of them ascribe the refugees to failings in their own societies. It wasn't until it looked like Israel wasn't going anywhere that the narrative was devised about the innocent Arabs and the brutal, cofiscatory Israelis.

    But even if that were true–the lowest estimate I've seen of displaced people in Europe after World War II is thirty million. This doesn't count the 400,000 Karelian Finns expelled after raw Soviet aggression. The number of Muslims and Hindus who went between India and Pakistan in 1847 can never be known but I think a conservative estimate is ten million. And Jon has mentioned the 800,000 or so Jews who left Arab lands, generally not out of idealistic Zionism but for more practical reasons.

    Sixty-some years later not one of those refugees is in a refugee camp, the world does not concern itself with the plight of eastern Poles, and for that matter Sudeten Germans are not engaging in savage terrorism because of their lost land. Only the Arab Palestinians have this supposed “right of return.”

    Of course, Jon, as you point out this is because every other country accepted the need to absorb its own people. The Arabs kept the Palestinians in festering refugee camps because they don't give a hoot in hell about them except as political weapons. If the Palestinians ever come to realize this, we may see the glimmerings of peace.

    My sympathy for the plight of the poor Palestinians is no less, but no greater, than that of the Sudeten Germans. That's all they deserve.

  29. Alex Bensky April 19, 2011 at 10:22 pm #

    The partition of India was, of course, in 1947, not 1847.

  30. Jon April 20, 2011 at 10:23 am #

    Keep in mind that the comments that everyone has recently been commenting on represent a Palestinian-o-centric view of the universe, which is similar to religious belief in a transcendent God (or, more aptly, primitive belief in the earth being at the center of the universe).

    In this case, all of history and morality must be re-arranged to make room for a view of the world which cannot fathom anything other than Israeli villainy and Palestinian pristine innocence. Thus five Arab armies marching into Israel for a self-declared war of annihilation is recast as a war of liberation for Palestinians, many of whom left their homes as a result of that very war (an inversion of historic events similar to someone who once tried to explain to me that the PLO was founded in 1964 as a reaction to Israel’s “occupation” of the West Bank in 1967.

    The fact that Gaza was grabbed by Egypt, the Golan by Syria and the aforementioned West Bank by Jordan and greedily held for decades (despite claims that this is “Palestinian land” allegedly dreamed of by Palestinians as a homeland for centuries) does not seem to bother someone who is simultaneously trying to portray the armies of Egypt, Syria and Jordan as forces of Palestinian liberation.

  31. DrMike April 20, 2011 at 4:23 pm #

    Jon, I humbly disagree that it's a Palestinian-o-centric viewpoint that motivates many of these people; unfortunately, in too many cases it's a Jew-centric viewpoint. As Alex pointed out, their fellow Arabs don't give a rat's ass about the Palestinians, otherwise they wouldn't have locked them into refugee camps for decades. Lebanon still has laws that prohibit Palestinians from owning land, or entering a wide variety of professions– but you won't hear the “Palestinian rights” groups complaining about this. The issue in 1947, and the issue now, is the existence of a JEWISH state. That's why “human rights” groups raise a worldwide outcry when, for example, armed Turkish jihadists who seek to aid Hamas are killed when attempting to run a completely legal naval embargo– yet the illegal Turkish occupation of northern Cyprus (remember Cyprus? it's an ACTUAL country, unlike “Palestine”) doesn't register anywhere on their radar.

    The BDSers, of course, continue to show their hand by always bringing their arguments back to 1948 and the “original sin” of the founding of Israel. Yet they try, with whatever semblance of righteous indignation they can muster, to simultaneously claim that the BDS movement doesn't have as its goal the elimination of Jewish statehood.

    No, I'm not claiming that all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic; but those using double standards and demonization to delegitimize Israel (and ONLY Israel)are certainly using time-honored techniques handed down from their historical predecessors.

  32. Anonymous April 22, 2011 at 1:29 am #

    And Jon, dollars to donuts the ” who profits” anonymous commenter up above is the one who vandalized bottles of kosher wine in the Davis co-op last week. Yes, delivering another great big f**k you to the BDS'ers, our beloved food co -op in Davis has stocked the shelves with Israeli wine for Passover. And Maggie and Patricia and their little winged monkeys from Team BDS vandalized them. Guess what, girls? That just made me and others buy 'em up. Mmmmmm. The Golan Cabernet was particularly nice, and knowing exactly why the co-op bought the cases made it so sweet.
    Goes well with scapegoat, girls. Try it sometime.

  33. Anonymous April 25, 2011 at 11:02 pm #

    “The Golan Cabernet was particularly nice”

    Damned straight it was.

    The press release from the Vinitaly International Wine Competition couldn’t be any clearer… the best wine producer in the world … comes from Israel. The 2011 edition of the International Wine Competition rewarded the Golan Heights Winery – a relatively young reality founded in 1983 at Katzrin (Israel). It is the first time that the Gran Vinitaly Special Award has been assigned by the jury to an Israeli wine-maker.” The 105 jury members selected The Golan Winery out of a competitive group of over 1,000 wine-makers from 30 countries around the world.

    So, uh, hows that boycotting coming, btw?

  34. Anonymous April 26, 2011 at 2:25 am #

    It is interesting to note that at roughly the same time as the Arab War Against the Jews (later, after a Jewish victory, was re-named ” Nakba” or “disaster) Muslim intolerance of other caused both the division of India and Pakistan and a population exchange of millions. Despite the fantastic political and historic overlap, there is no equivalent to this “hate Israel, n matter what movement”. The reason might be the lack of a petroleum funded , decades long propaganda effort or perhaps a problem with the concept of either a Jewish” Nation or Jews having a nation.

  35. Anonymous April 26, 2011 at 2:45 am #

    While I have a moment, in 1929 , The Arabs ethnically cleansed the city of Tsvat or, “Safed” of it's entire Jewish population, slaughtering at least 20 Jews in this ancient center of Jewish study. Between 1929 and 1948, Jews returned and re-built their community. In 1948, when it seemed clear that here was to be a Jewish victory, the Arab community of Tsvat met, and all 12,000 left one night, disturbing only the amazed night watchman. Among them was the family of Mohmand Abbas. I have always wondered, “did the Arabs fear that Jews would do to Arabs precisely what the Arabs had done to the Jews? Or, did the Arabs fear prosecution for their crimes of 19 years prior?”. There is a big difference between “refugee” and “fugitive”, eh?

  36. Anonymous April 27, 2011 at 3:23 am #

    During the 1947-49 Arab War Against the Jews (later called the “Nakba” after the Jewish victory, or “disaster”) the Arabs that owned their homes tended to stay, and thus became the ancestors of today's “Israeli-Arabs, roughly 20 percent of Israeli citizens. Arabs with loyalties to King Abdullah, moved to Jordan. Arabs that couldn't tolerate the concept of living nears Jews, and who had nothing to lose as impoverished share toppers etc, became “Palestinians””. The Grand Mufti's campaign of assassination of rivals had already caused the Arab intelligentsia and monied “Effendi” class (like Edward Said's family) to have “cashed out ” and moving to more stable Arab capitols in the '20-30's. Simply “Palestinian ” is an Arab political identity NOT an ethnic or tribal label. Hypothetically, three brothers in 1948 could now be one Israeli-Arab, one Jordanian, and one “Palestinian”, depending. On their political choices.

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes