The Peoples Poet

They can try to hoodwink the public with press releases declaring their latest fake victory. They can interrupt ballet performances by shouting and blowing bullhorns (and turn the entire audience into Zionists in the process). They can even show up in the comments section of this blog demanding answers to irrelevant questions and never respond when we answer their challenges by smashing their points to bits. But when they start messing with the brand, in the words of my favorite never-say die hero: this means war.

I’m talking, of course, of that maybe-one-day-to-be-slightly-famous poet Remi Kanazi whose latest masterpiece – are you ready for this – is called “Normalize This!” (Gee, I wonder where he got that name from?!)

During the three-minutes and twenty-six seconds needed to complete recitation of this work of (yet more) impenetrable outrage, poet Kanazi somehow manages to pack every cliché that’s ever been written on any anti-Israel web tract, pamphlet, hand-scrawled poster, website, Facebook posting, and Tweet, into a presentation that has more in common with rap video than Emily Dickenson.

During the course of his presentation, artist Kanazi manages to switch t-shirts a half a dozen times, no mean feat for a man allegedly living on the Prison Planet of Palestine. Oh, but wait. It turns out this champion for the underdwellers of the new Warsaw Ghetto of Gaza hails from New York City, which probably makes it easier for him to catch a plane to his various tour dates where he can put on his angry young Palestinian minstrel show before stunned audiences of the like minded.

As I’ve mentioned before, I begrudge no one who has been able to carve out a decent living from the whole anti-Israeli propaganda cornucopia (Lord knows I’ve never been able to pull such a feat off from the other side of the political divide). And while it doesn’t look like Kanazi is doing quite as well as Omar Barghouti (who plays his politics and sells his wares while under the protective umbrella of the Zionists he condemns), Kanazi seems to be making a pretty good run of things.

The only trouble is that – outside of those whose every waking moment is taken up despising the Jewish state – Kanazi’s act is nothing more than a resurrection of the old “People’s Poet” routines we saw 40-50 years ago featuring uncompromising and furious members of some ethnic group who would parade before mostly white audiences declaring their uncompromising fury. The fact that this latest version of the brand looks ready to throw anyone who disagrees with him into a neck-breaking headlock probably only increases the erotic thrill of spending $35 to hear him sneer at and condemn audience members for living in a house half as nice as the one he grew up in.

Unfortunately, this act is so old that parodies of it are at least the same age as the artist himself. And so I leave you with the final word on the subject, the Young One’s 1982 take on “The People’s Poet”:

27 Responses to The Peoples Poet

  1. Anonymous November 7, 2012 at 12:52 am #

    I have to say I love this video. Watch it and in just a couple of minutes you can understand the Arab – Israeli conflict and why it's so intractable. Just listen to what the “poet” says. It's all the Jews' fault so there's no need to talk to the Jews, no need to consider the Jewish point of view, no need for the Palestinians to reconsider or reflect or examine their own society, no need to take an honest look at the long history of Jew hatred in Arab/Muslim/Palestinian culture. Nothing the Jews think is right. Nothing the Palestinians think is wrong.

    In that way, the “poet” is an extremist no different from the any fanatic — he can't see and won't even hear anybody else's views, only his side is right — it's just he's trying to massacred as a moderate who wants peace. In that way, he's a lot like the BDS movement. In the end, it's just more BDS BS.

    • Anonymous November 8, 2012 at 2:10 am #

      You're baselessly implying that Remi Kanazi is anti-semitic for equating all Jews with Zionist right-wing Israeli policies, which is exactly what he doesn't do. Notice that he doesn't refer to the aggressors as “Jews”, as you assert, but rather Zionists and the Israeli government. On the flip-side, you thinking that all Jews are Zionists is anti-semitic and offensive in itself, so I'd watch what you say.

    • Stop BDS Park Slope November 11, 2012 at 2:38 am #

      I suspect that you don't view yourself as a Jew-hater, yet you freely engage in anti-Semitic rhetoric.

      Your statement that “thinking that all Jews are Zionists is anti-semitic and offensive in itself” is an example. Zionism is a political idea that the Jewish people are a distinct nation, and as such, have a right to self-determination and self-actualization in their land and to return to their place in history. Saying “all Jews are Zionists” would be inaccurate, just as saying “all Jews are Democrats” would be inaccurate. (although you would be correct in both cases about 70% of the time.)

      However labeling the statement as “offensive” reveals a pejorative attitude towards Zionism. Zionism is a movement of and for the Jewish people, it is a national movement no more or no less than that of any nation, such as Armenians, Kurds, Greeks, etc.

      Labeling Zionism a “colonial imperialist” movement, is not only incorrect, is is also anti-Semitic. Purchasing land and legally immigrating is not imperialism. Use of the term denies the history of Jewish connection and presence in the Land of Israel.

      As I write this, more than 30 rockets have been launched in the last 7 hours from Gaza into Southern Israel. One million people are under target, and schools will be closed on Sunday. Rockets have been intercepted by the Iron Dome paid for with American funds that you object to. Rocket fire from Gaza has been nearly constant for the last several weeks, with nearly 200 rockets launched.

      Do you object to Israel targeting the the terrorists who launch these rockets? Do you object to Israel taking measures to minimize the entry of armaments into Gaza? What do you suggest?


    • JayinPhiladelphia November 11, 2012 at 6:22 am #

      Comment of the year!

    • Anonymous November 11, 2012 at 5:03 pm #


      a) Individual ethnic groups are not entitled to self-determination. If that were the case, hundreds, if not thousands, more countries would have been conceived over the course of history, which I'm sure you would agree isn't very sustainable. But more importantly…

      b) if you think that “purchasing land and legally immigrating” accurately describes how Zionist ideology is currently applied in Israel/Palestine, you are either delusional, stupid, or in denial. Because, as we all know, Zionism (or, in many circles, the belief of entitlement to all the land between the river and the sea) is consistently used as a justification for stealing land in the West Bank, appropriating resources, and sustaining the occupation. It doesn't matter whether you think that the early Zionists had good intentions or not. Also, “purchasing land and legally immigrating” is very different from establishing a Jewish state on land previously occupied by the native people, so let's be honest with each other.

    • fizziks November 11, 2012 at 10:04 pm #

      Aaaand on cue, this is pretty much indistinguishable from what I've satirized below.

      This is what it always comes down to with anti-Israel people, and why in the past 5 years I have personally made a major transition from mostly uninterested to very pro-Israel. It always comes down to these irrelevant masturbatory ramblings about who is “indigenous” or not, who is “brown”, who is more “authentically semitic” (see the comments section of today's article about Israel returning fire into Syria) and other irrelevant nonsense.

      All of that can be disputed, all of it is said ad nauseam as the primary refuge of anti-Israel partisans such as in the comment above mine, and all of it sounds like a parody of ignorant juvenile fetishization of negritude, but none of it matters.

      The only salient fact in adjudicating the morality of the Israeli-Arab conflict is this: In the British mandate, there were two main peoples living in Palestine, both of which had a claim to portions of it. The UN proposed to divide the land in a fair manner, giving the Arab side the majority of the non-desert areas, and the Jews accepted the division while the Arabs did not an invaded. The Jews won that war, the stated aim of which was to exterminate them, and have won every war since, and the Arabs have not dropped their goal of extermination. Meanwhile throughout the Middle East countries killed and forced out their Jews at gunpoint, and they were taken in by Israel where they now form most of the population.

      That's it – that's all that's relevant. It doesn't matter who is considered to be more indigenous, native, semitic, or any other of the extremely dubious classifications that keep getting pushed.

      I'm serious when I say that five years ago when I started encountering anti-Israel rhetoric more frequently on the internet, I really was surprised at the low quality and depth of it, and it turned me into a strong Israel supporter. I concluded 'if this is the best they've got, these silly appeals to concepts that sound like a parody of Farrakhan, and they've never heard of the UN Partition plan or the 1948 war, then Israel's cause must be fundamenatally just.'

    • Stop BDS Park Slope November 11, 2012 at 11:21 pm #

      Dear Anon:

      a) We now see that you are an extremely rude interlocuter by this statement: “you are either delusional, stupid, or in denial.” However, that is immaterial.

      b) Jews have a history of having a distinct language, culture and political entity, and we have been historically treated and referred to as a distinct national group. The national rights of Arabs were secured in some 21 states, created in the aftermath of WWI and the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. (And if you ask me, the leaders of these states have failed in their role as the securer of the welfare of their peoples – but that is a different story.) We are not just an ethnic group.

      c) Your failure to comment on the current rocket attacks against Israel (over 100 in the last 24 hours) reveals a lack of concern for human life. A remark such as, “I don't think Israel is right, but I don't agree with shooting rockets at civilians either. I hope things get quiet soon and there will be no escalation of violence,” might have been an indication of genuine concern.

      d) Let's be honest with each other. Your information is historically incorrect, and you mischaracterize Zionism. You need some background.

      Arab (Muslim) discrimination and violence against Jews predates modern Zionism. Prior to the British Mandate, the area that is today Israel was divided into 3 different administrative provinces under the Ottomans. It was a backwater area, mostly neglected and depopulated. Jews were a majority of the population in Jerusalem; Christians of mixed nationalities, including a large percentage of Europeans, was the 2nd largest group.
      The immigration of Jews to the area created an economic boom, resulting in an influx of Arabs from the neighboring regions.

      The objective of the British Mandate was to create a “homeland for Jews,” a place where Jews would legally be allowed to immigrate, have full rights and could never be expelled. And yes, the initial resettlement of Jews in the Mandate, prior to Statehood was legal and through purchase of land. Privately held land was never stolen, and to say so is a lie.

      And yet, the Arabs could not accept the concept of Jews coming to live there as equals and with full rights. Local effendi exploited Arab xenophobia for political purposes and encouraged violence, ultimately causing tragic and disastrous results for the local Arab population, as well as for the Jews.

      As to your statement(b), throughout the 20th century the solution to group directed violence has been separation, as in the creation of India and Pakistan, the dissolution of Yugoslavia, etc. The partition of Palestine was the recommended resolution for Arab/Jewish violence. Six times the State of Israel or its pre-cursors have accepted partition and the creation of an Arab state in part of the territory. And 6 times the offer has been turned down, and met with violence and vows to exterminate the Jews.

      In 2000, in spite of Oslo, Arafat rejected an offer of Statehood and a resumed a state of armed conflict with Israel. Everything that has happened there since, is because the Arabs refuse to live with Israel.

      Finally, you give us one more hit of anti-Semitic rhetoric: “It doesn't matter whether you think that the early Zionists had good intentions or not.” What I think doesn't matter, is true. However, the initial intentions are completely what matter. Your saying they don't means you reject the idea of a Jewish nation-state, and unless you also reject Armenia, Greece, Lithuania, etc., you have a double standard.

      Do you also object to the existence of the United States? Did the colonists not establish a “state on land previously occupied by the native people”?


    • Stop BDS Park Slope November 12, 2012 at 12:49 am #

      Good job, Fizziks.

      Or to make it even simpler, the heart of the conflict:

      The Arabs want to kill the Jews.
      The Jews don't want to die.


  2. Anonymous November 8, 2012 at 4:12 am #

    No, I'm saying that like BDS he claims that the Jews are wrong about everything, so wrong that he doesn't even need to talk to them unless they agree with him completely. He says that agree with him completely will somehow liberate the Jews. He says all this while ignoring the long history of Jew hate in Arab/Palestinian and Muslim culture.

    Much like BDS BSers, he thinks that a tolerant society will somehow arise in Palestine and the rest of the Arab world I suppose, without the Arabs spending even two seconds examining their long history of violence and discrimination against Jews, and other groups too, and without any thought to how their prejudices created, shape and now perpetuate the conflict.

    I would take BDS and people like Kananzi seriously if they were to admit that that Arabs have a 1300-year history of discrimination and hate and to talk honestly about it and admit that Arab attitudes are part of the problem. Instead, it is ignored so people like you can blame everything on “Zionist right wing-wing Israeli policies” without ever thinking that the Arabs have ever done anything wrong or that they could learn anything about how they have mistreated others by talking to the Jews. You want to blame it all on the Jews while hearing nothing that might make you look at the complexities or at your own or the Arab actions.

    Of course BDS can't talk about that history, or Arab Jew hate or that PAlestinians might have been the aggressors, because the whole goal of the movement is to eliminate Israel and this is called justice because Israel is imperfect. If it is admitted that that the Palestinians are imperfect, have murdered and oppressed and discriminated, then well, really what right do they have to a state.

    In a way, I suppose the poet's performance is anti-Semitism since what he's claiming is that it's all the Jews', I'm sorry Zionists' fault, and that has been for centuries the heart of anti-semtism, that the Jews are to blame for everything wrong in any given place and that if the Jews are stopped, the world will be a perfect place. Certainly he's not claiming the Arabs and their past discriminatory and violent actions are responsible for those evil Zionist policies. He's saying the Jews are.

    That you try to say that the poet separates Jews and Zionist and that I'm the racist is just silly. Of course he's blaming the Jews. As MLK said when people talk about Zionists, they mean Jews. It's code. What you and he are doing is called dog whistling. You used coded language that other racist and the group being targeted understand, but you hope will give you deniability with people who don't understand the code. It's no different than when Gingrich (I think) called Obama the “welfare president.” That was dog whistling and Dr. King understood that talk of Zionists instead of Jews was just the same.

    I now expect a long, ignorant response maybe telling me how saying Zionist isn;t racist or maybe telling me how well Jews were treated in Arab lands. I'm certain it will be amusing. Let the BDS BS flow.


    • fizziks November 8, 2012 at 5:46 pm #

      Let me fill in for our BDS friend. Since we know exactly how he is going to respond anyway, I'll just save him the trouble and put the response here:

      Until the white Zionist Colonialist Apartheid regime, the Arab world was a model of tolerance. For thousands of years, Muslims, Christians, and Jews lived together in equality in a social democracy with full gay rights.

      But then the awful white Apartheid colonialists who are actually Khazars came in oppressed all of the indigenous people, subjecting them to Bantustans and Apartheid. Then there was a Nakba. I have never heard of the UN partition plan or the 1948 war or the six day war so I don't know what you are talking about there. Also if there were Jews in other Arab countries I am sure they were treated with the utmost respect by their hosts and tricked or brainwashed by the white devil Zionists.

      But I do know that there is an Apartheid Occupation, and that the White Settler Colonialist Zionist Regime is oppressing the indigenous people, the Palestinian Arab Muslims who have lived there for thousands of years, and were a model of progress until some white European Khazar Jews came in and started every war.

      Also Chomsky, and I once read on the internet there this quote by David Ben Gurion, who was the first Zionist:

      “I fucking hate Arabs”

      I know it is true because I saw it on Mondoweiss. See how bad Zionists are! Also being anti-Zionist does not make me antisemitic, you Jew!

      A Typical BDS Person

    • Anonymous November 8, 2012 at 8:56 pm #


      Actually, no. The Arab world certainly has its own problems and it most definitely is not a “model of tolerance”. Having said that, I am neither an Arab nor Muslim, nor do I feel that my status as an American inextricably links me with injustices committed by most governments across the Arab world.

      On the other hand, as someone who cares deeply both about how my taxes are spent and about how my country treats other people around the world, I do feel an obligation to speak my mind about Israel. It's patently absurd to label an American citizen an anti-semite for criticizing his own government for pouring billions of dollars into Israel every year while our education system, our infrastructure, and our economy are failing us at home.

      Don't you find it a bit strange when Mitt Romney proposes that we cut the petty $300 million in federal funding to PBS, an invaluable educational network for millions of Americans, but no one ever proposes cutting some of the $3+ billion we give to Israel every year? Or, how about when two presidential candidates devote the majority of their foreign policy debate to a discussion on Israel while completely ignoring a number of important issues elsewhere? If we get into a war with Iran for the expressed purpose of protecting Israel, am I still not allowed to criticize Israel for fear of being labeled anti-semitic?

      An Actual BDS Person

    • fizziks November 10, 2012 at 12:25 am #

      Hello Actual BDS,

      Well, I've answered these questions a million times, but here we go again:

      Don't you find it a bit strange when Mitt Romney proposes that we cut the petty $300 million in federal funding to PBS, an invaluable educational network for millions of Americans, but no one ever proposes cutting some of the $3+ billion we give to Israel every year?

      Well, first of all you are wrong from the outset. Many people indeed constantly demand that we cut some of the 3+ billion that we give to Israel every year. Those people include mainstream politicians such as Senator Rand Paul, many mainline Protestant organizations (as evidenced by the recent letter that you were crowing about, remember that?), and millions of poorly informed boobs and antisemites all over the internet. The fact is that much of our aid to Israel is mandated by the Camp David accords, and there is a broad bi-partisan consensus for it that eludes many other hot button issues. As for Mitt Romney and Big Bird, Republicans propose many whacky and nonsensical things so don't turn to me for an explanation of that. Anyway, I have never seen BDS ever list it as one of their goals or aims to affect US aid to Israel, so it is odd that you should bring that up at all in this context! The stated goals of BDS are to force a change in the behavior of Israel. I have never seen forcing a change in US foreign aid structure as a BDS plank. Otherwise, they'd be B, D, and S-ing the United States.

      Or, how about when two presidential candidates devote the majority of their foreign policy debate to a discussion on Israel while completely ignoring a number of important issues elsewhere?

      This is simply incorrect – Israel was involved in one or two of the approximately eight questions in that debate. And even if Israel did dominate the debate (which it didn't) that would be understandable because Israel is a cornerstone of US alliances and it happens to be right smack in the single most volatile and troubling part of the world right now.

      am I still not allowed to criticize Israel for fear of being labeled anti-semitic?

      For the trillionth time, it depends how you criticize Israel and what you criticize it for. Criticism of Israel that is proportional and not different than that which would be directed at another nation are not antisemitic. But are you holding Israel to standards that you don't expect of other nations? Do you criticize Israel for things that you don't object to when other nations or entities do them. Are you hyperbolic, for instance equating what Israel does with Nazi Germany? Do you support self-determination for other ethnicities but not for Jews? Then, yes, you are an antisemite.

    • Anonymous November 11, 2012 at 5:31 pm #


      Let's try this again, because you clearly didn't understand me the first time (or the first “trillions” of times, according to you). Yes, I do hold Israel to different standards than I do other nations. Why? Because Israel receives egregious levels of American tax money and complete moral approbation from virtually all of our politicians; in many ways, our relationship with Israel dictates our foreign policy in the Middle East. It worsens our relationships with other important actors in the Middle East and puts all Americans at risk from terrorist attacks from extremist groups.

      But I've said all that in the past. In fact, I said most of that in this very same thread, so I'm not sure why it hasn't gotten through to you. Let me try to explain it with some more elementary examples:

      1) Which do you care more about?
      a) whether or not your tax dollars are spent on building new roads in the United States
      b) whether or not Moldova builds new roads

      2) Which do you care more about?
      a) whether or not you will buy a new car
      b) whether or not Joe the Plumber will buy a new car

      3) Which do you care more about?
      a) the United States spending billions of dollars every year fighting an ineffective drug war
      b) corruption in the Democratic Republic of Congo

      If you answered “a” to all those questions, congratulations. You, like virtually everyone else, are someone who prioritizes issues that directly impact you over issues that are largely irrelevant to your own interests. I'm not going to say you have a double standard because you are more apt to criticize the United States for implementing policies with which you disagree than you are to criticize Congo for the same thing, but by your logic, you do. Similarly, I'm totally in my right to spend my time protesting US aid to Israel because that directly impacts me.

    • fizziks November 11, 2012 at 9:40 pm #


      You are trying to make the case that you are in your right to protest US aid to Israel. Well, fine, go and do it.

      But that isn't what BDS does. That isn't even one of the stated goals of the BDS movement, if you consult their web page, which are ending the “occupation” and remaking Israel as a bi-national state. The tactic of boycotts of Israel is aimed at forcing a change in Israeli government policy, not US government policy (otherwise the call would be to boycott and divest American interests – duh).

      So I don't even know why you would even bring this whole issue about US aid to Israel into a forum where I have (very accurately) satirized the kind of people who make up the BDS movement. I think you should read up on the motivations and goals of the BDS movement before acting as a defender and/or spokesperson for them.

      However, if you want my blessing that being opposed to US aid to Israel doesn't make you an antisemite, I'm not going to give it. US aid to Israel constitutes about $3 billion per year. Are you equally concerned about similar foreign aid outlays, such as to Egypt? Are you equally concerned about $3 billion chunks for various programs elsewhere in the federal budget? Do you fail to recognize the fundamentally moral case for Israel's continued existence, and the perilous situation they are in given their tiny size and their neighbors' unquenched 80 year bloodlust? Then yes, you are an antisemite, or at best, a useful idiot.

    • Anonymous November 11, 2012 at 9:55 pm #


      You are wrong (yet again). Try Google. It takes 3 seconds.

      From the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation:

      “The United States supports Israeli occupation and apartheid through military aid, diplomatic backing at the U.N., and resolutions in Congress. The US Campaign works to change U.S. policy toward Israel and the Palestinians to support human rights, international law, and equality.”

      If you visit, , you can read what they've done with regard to US aid.

      By the way, you guys keep bringing up aid to Egypt as if that's a justification for aid to Israel. First, aid to Egypt has always been contingent on its maintenance of diplomatic relations with Israel. This aid, which underpinned the rule of a tyrannical dictatorship for several decades, has always been supported by your side and opposed by mine. So, no, the Egypt argument not only fails for you, but it actually supports my side.

      Really, Fizziks. You have consistently shown that you know close to nothing about BDS, Israel, or really, any issue of pertinence in the Middle East. Why do you continue to dig your side into an ever-deepening pit by posting here?

    • fizziks November 11, 2012 at 10:12 pm #

      Nope, the “US Campaign to end the occupation” is not BDS. Here's real world BDS, and their platform:

      1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall

      2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and

      3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194.

      See anything about attempting to influence US government policy and aid to Israel through sanctions in there? Nope, me neither.

      Oh, and you oppose aid to Egypt too on the grounds that it is also too helpful to Israel? That doesn't really help your case here. All it shows is that you are that much more fixated on harming Israel via changes to US foreign policy.

    • Anonymous November 12, 2012 at 12:07 am #

      I'm not sure if you understand what BDS is. BDS is a tactic, not an organization. The three pillars you copy-pasted from the BDS movement's website are the goals of BDS, not the means of achieving said goals. Having said that, attempting to influence US government policy is a tactic (a means of achieving the three goals) used by BDSers, evidenced by “US Campaign to end the occupation”'s website. And yes, cutting US aid to Israel does fall under “Sanctions” in Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions. This is an asinine conversation. Read something before spouting off inaccuracies.

      And yes, of course I oppose sending billions of dollars of aid to Egypt as a part of a wider American policy of coercing tyrannical governments to accept peace treaties with Israel. That, in my opinion, is a waste of my government's money, which could be put to better use in improving our lives at home.

    • Stop BDS Park Slope November 12, 2012 at 1:08 am #

      Do you see how Anon makes a subtle bait and switch here? But we see through it?

      He objects to foreign aid because it takes away money from domestic causes. But does he universally object to foreign aid? No, only Israel, because:

      1) The US relation to Israel hurts the US.

      2) Israel and the US share no interests and the US doesn't benefit from it.

      3) Israel is an immoral, apartheid country with no right to exist.

      All 3 are wrong. You might read this:
      article from the LA Times about the benefits to the US from aid to Israel, over 70% of which is spent here, creating jobs.

      The US has an interest in keeping the Suez Canal open and stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons, which would effectively give it control of the entire middle east oil supply.

      And finally, it is not apartheid, and to use the word is a vile disrespect to the true suffering in South Africa.


    • Anonymous November 12, 2012 at 5:18 am #

      I don't universally object to foreign aid. I do believe in sending aid to countries in which people are starving to death. I don't believe in sending exorbitant amounts of aid to first world countries that routinely violate international law. Also, just to put things into perspective: Malawi, a country in which tens of thousands of people die of AIDS, famine, and malaria each year, receives about $300 million/year in US aid, while Israel receives upwards of $3 billion. That's a big difference, especially considering that Israelis live very comfortably compared to most of the world.

      The US can keep the Suez Canal open and Iran nuclear weapon-free without the help of Israel. In fact, Israel is probably a motivation for Iran's nuclear program, not a deterrent.

      Lastly, you should ask South Africans how they feel about the apartheid label for Israel. It's no coincidence that the firmest support for BDS comes out of South Africa. From Desmond Tutu to the South African foreign ministry, BDS has been endorsed by the highest echelons of South African society. I don't think they feel disrespected, but of course, you must know better than they do.

    • DrMike November 12, 2012 at 9:01 pm #

      Did I catch that one properly, Anon? “Having said that, attempting to influence US government policy is a tactic (a means of achieving the three goals) used by BDSers, evidenced by “US Campaign to end the occupation”'s website.” So you DO agree that the end goal of the US Campaign, as well as other similar organizations, is to end the existence of Israel (or at least end its existence as a Jewish state).

      This is why we express skepticism that it's really just about your tax dollars. It's not about the 2 grande lattes per year per capita that the US spends on that aid(and as noted above, gets most of it back in terms of purchases).

      Let's take the US aid issue out of it and I will pose two questions to you:

      1. I support peace between a Jewish state of Israel and an Arab state of Palestine– do you?
      2. If (theoretically) Israel were to pull back tomorrow to the June 4 1967 lines, place barbed wire across Jerusalem, evacuate every Israeli living across the Green Line and allow the creation of a Jew-free state of Palestine, would then you stop supporting BDS tactics against Israel? Yes I know that won't happen, but I want to know where YOUR endpoint is. I know where Omar Barghouti's and Ali Abunimah's are. Here's your chance to declare yours.

    • Anonymous November 13, 2012 at 12:08 am #

      Dr. Mike,

      You've posed those two questions multiple times in the past, and I've answered them each time. Go read previous threads if you need to be reminded of my responses.

    • DrMike November 13, 2012 at 11:12 pm #

      And how was I (or any reader) supposed to know that you're the same Anonymous as on the other threads?
      of course, there are two possible responses to those questions. If you answer YES then you are not only in direct contradiction to the goals of the BDS movement, but you are someone with whom we can have a reasonable discussion, based on a small amount of common ground that we share. You would, of course, be run out of any meeting of a BDS group for promoting those positions.
      If you answer NO, then you are acknowledging that the issue of US aid, while a genuine point of contention for you and others, is not at all the point of the effort. The core issue to those who answer NO is the very existence of Israel, and any political action that you endorse is strictly to the goal of ending it.
      So no, I don't recall your anonymous position vs those of other anonymous BDSers. It really would help if you at least pick a nom-de-BDS so we can tell our interlocutors apart.

  3. Anonymous November 8, 2012 at 9:45 pm #

    Here's a prime example of changing the subject. I especially like the “kitchen sink” approach here. Rather than talk about BDS, an extremest movement aimed at destroying Israel so certain in the rightness of it's positions that it doesn't even need to talk to Jews,this actual BDS person wants us to talk about US aid to Israel, as if the movement spends most of its time debating budget priorities as opposed to attacking Israel. Talking about the US budget is also much better than discussing Arab and Palestinian discrimination against Jews or looking at how that discrimination is responsible for the ongoing conflict.And the budget is certainly better than talking about how the BDS movement tries to whitewash the history.

    I'm impressed with your rhetorical skills. They are certainly better than mine and certainly what's needed to make an extremist movement like BDS seem palatable to some. Of course this need to fall back on rhetoric rather than having a real discussion also shows that BDS isn't interested in peace. There's no desire to understand the Israeli point of view, no need to address Israeli and Jewish concerns. That's why the video's poet want talk to Jews oops I'm sorry Zionists. Like BDS, he already knows Jews are 100 percent wrong and he is 100 percent right. BDS and the video have the same message — no compromise. That's the extremist view.

  4. Anonymous November 9, 2012 at 3:29 am #

    news on the protestant churches…

  5. JayinPhiladelphia November 9, 2012 at 1:53 pm #

    Yeah, I much rather prefer the art I'm going to enjoy next week. The fifth annual Philadelphia Israeli JazzPhest kicks off this Sunday, and goes through the 18th.

    Apparently, Dida Pelled and Ravid Kahalani and the rest of the performers haven't heard that organizations as powerful as the Delaware County (PA) Green Party and a few tools at Temple don't want them here. Losers…

  6. Stop BDS Park Slope November 11, 2012 at 11:50 pm #

    Jay in Philadelphia –

    Thanks for your comment above. You are too kind.

    Sylvia –

    I hope you are checking in here. Just know that you and all of south Israel are in my thoughts and prayers these days. I pray for your safety.

    I have a son at kibbutz in the region.


  7. Aparrna P December 5, 2018 at 8:41 pm #

    Thank you for making me that much more ardent a supporter of the BDS movement. #FreePalestine

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes