This has been great blog and I’m sad to see the posts end. But I have definitely learned a lot here, and I’ll be referring back as needed.

I am soon going to be moving into a job at a university where, as with any university, it is possible that BDS or anti-Israel extremists in general may decide to set their destructive sights, so it will be good to have these toolkits and this experience.

The fight continues, and on that note perhaps today I will go buy some Yarden wine.

Is it any wonder that the BDS juggernaught keeps rolling up this impressive string of victories: https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=203229460730359996121.0004d75389533145866cf&msa=0?

And to add this story: a friend was in Brighton (the England south coast resort) with his family and noticed that there was a BDS demo outside the local Soda-Stream store. They are there, apparently, every Saturday afternoon for a couple of hours. However, the kicker is that right next to them, so to speak, is a pro-Soda-Stream/Israel stall, run by non-Jews. And they are there for the same period of time that the BDSers are.

Just people who believe in peace and freedom!

So, Jon, keep up the good work in whatever way you decide to do it. And look for us alongside you!

And, as I note in this final piece, I’m not going anywhere (even if my contribution to the fight will take a different form than continuing to add to the pile of postings that will remain on this site for all to use as needed).

You all know how to reach me, and best of luck with everything!

Jon

Even though we may have sometimes disagreed in the past, those disagreements, minor as they are, were always discussed in a friendly and respectful manner.

You have my sincerest appreciation.

And this was the first pro-Israel blog that I began participating on, as well, back when I lived in Portland, Oregon, not more than a couple dozen blocks from the Hawthorne New Seasons Market, which was the target of a BDS campaign ignored by everyone.

I once watched, amazed, as dozens of Portlanders (on Hawthorne freaking Boulevard, no less, which is like Berkeley, Boulder and certain blocks of West Philly all rolled into one and triple-concentrated!) walked right past the pamphleteers without acknowledgment. Amazing in more ways than one, actually, as Oregonians seemed constitutionally incapable of appearing rude to anyone, in any other situation. At least, from my experience. That was my first real-life confirmation that we will win this fight, too.

Raising my coffee mug in appreciation to you, and everyone else here…

Ditto everything Mike said and more.

Avi Mayer has created an interactive BDS Fail map.
https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=203229460730359996121.0004d75389533145866cf&msa=0

Unfortunately, he is only posting the victories starting in 2013. So mine isn’t up there.

Nycerbarb

I feel honored to be the first to post a comment with a deep and heartfelt THANK YOU and YASHER KOACH (for those of you readers who don’t know that Hebrew phrase, it approximately translates into “may the power (or force–small f!– be with you”; in practical use it means “job well done”). Your work has been an invaluable resource to many of us in the field who do work to hold the line against BDS on campus, in local government, and in the community. You have not only chronicled the failures of BDS, you have given us tools to use to ensure its continued failure.

I look forward to your future writing endeavors.

Often, just telling the electorate just who these people are (and many times, on the far right, they are thugs, not to say criminals with records of violence) is enough to turn that electorate against them.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/2013/02/26/boycottisrael_movement_distorts_history_and_reality_bercovici.html

You’ve done a service, Jon, over the last four years and I, for one, very much appreciate it.

You’ve offered a sharp analysis and you tend to be of a fair mind.

You have my best and I will look forward to dropping in when you do post.

Peace to you, please, good sir.

I think the biggest strength of the blog venue is that it easily reaches people. Because people are willing to engage reading a blog post. But don’t expect them to read a book, or other medium that involves larger commitment. So easy to reach many people this way.

All the best.

Second, thank you for all the advice and encouragement you gave to us during the Great Park Slope vote on the vote.

We carry on.

Nycerbarb

At first I considered pointing out the utter humorlessness required to respond to a parody with the standard BDS response of arch OUTRAGE!!!!! Or perhaps I could point out that The Onion is a humor newspaper which (while I might use it as a template for a particular style of parody) really isn’t something one should use as an important news source to back up your arguments (unless you’re a BDSer willing to claim anything – including deliberately published nonsense – as a demonstration of victory).

But the accusation of racism that starts his attempt at a tirade provides us the greatest insight into the anti-Israel mindset. After all, this is a “movement” that avoids engaging in any substantial argument with critics by insisting (utterly inaccurately) that the only thing those critics ever do is hurl unfair accusations of anti-Semitism cynically designed to shut them up.

But once again, this proves to be just another BDS projection since it is they (not we) who routinely accuse their opponents of racism at the drop of a skullcap. Like their accusations of indifference to human rights and support for illiberal governments and movements, the cynical use of accusations of bigotry in order to shut down conversation is just a description of the BDS personality projected onto their opponents.

So the next time you hear any of these accusations, keep in mind that this is really the way the BDSers provide a window into their own souls.

Thanks

“8-Year-Old Palestinian Boy Pleasantly Surprised He Hasn’t Been Killed Yet”
http://www.theonion.com/articles/8yearold-palestinian-boy-pleasantly-surprised-he-h,30446/

Israel Intercepts Massive Palestinian Rock Shipment
http://www.theonion.com/articles/israel-intercepts-massive-palestinian-rock-shipmen,1694/

Maybe you’d fair better if you started your own anti-Palestinian version of the Onion, although I doubt you’d appeal to a very wide audience outside of the 10 or so frequenters of this website.

Did the store seriously have a super-successful day? I forwarded a tweet that reported 100 people in the store.

Nycerbarb

Nycerbarb

and the original disection of Butler’s latest tome by Prof. Alan Johnson at Fathom:

http://www.fathomjournal.org/reviews-culture/parting-ways/

Nycerbarb

I sum it up here:
http://stopbdsparkslope.blogspot.com/2013/02/brooklyn-college-bds-wrap-up.html

Hint:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy

It’s strange that 60,000+ have died in Syria, yet the FAKE “anti-war” crowd doesn’t protest the killing in Syria, Arabs killing Arabs, in demonstrations across from the Syrian embassy/consulate/mission.

Why is that?

It’s called a circus.

For the point of that piece was that the various Middle East crises are NOT driven by Israel, Occupation, Settlements and various other BDS obsessions, but by the dysfunctional politics of every other nation in the region where monarchs fight it out with military strongmen who, in turn, battle religious fanatics to see who can tyrannize people inside their borders and terrorize people outside of them. In the case of Egypt, the tyrant Mubarak was simply the warmed over version of tyrant Nasser (once the darling of the anti-Israel alliance) who has now been replaced by the tyrant Morsi who has managed to not just duplicate his predecessors violent intolerance for dissent but intensify it (while insisting defying him actually means defying God).

At first, I thought that you might just be using the usual BDS tactic of avoiding arguments you can’t answer (like those in my Egypt piece) by inventing your own version of them and insisting everyone respond to your fantasy interpretation. But looking over the rest of your comment, I suspect we’re dealing with an intensification of the projection we see running throughout BDS thought and communications.

After all, when it comes to turning your gaze away from major human rights abusers (Syria, Egypt, Gaza, etc.), the BDS “movement” has no equal with regard to ignoring, excusing or apologizing for the worst of the worse (so long as they are pulling their weight in the anti-Israel coalition).

Actually, I take that back. For the Palestinians you support with all your heart and soul have managed to throw their lot in with every totalitarian movement of the last century: from Nazi Germany to the Soviet Union to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq to the Iranian Mullahs. And, in each and every case, all is forgiven by their supporters who can live with Palestinians cozying up to history’s greatest mass murderers, saving your intolerance for those Arabs interested in living in peace with their Jewish neighbors (who are subject to your boycott campaigns).

In fact, not only are anti-Israel forces dedicated to ignoring every human rights violation in the world in order to further their political agenda, but they have actively worked to corrupt every institution designed to protect the weak from the strong (the UN, human rights NGOs, etc.), all to ensure that their (your) agenda takes precedent over every suffering man, woman and child on the planet.

So please forgive me for seeing your accusation of “not giving a damn about human rights” as something you should more appropriately be shouting into a mirror.

http://garyfouse.blogspot.com/2010/09/belated-response-re-uci-marquee.html

I did not mean to imply you personally were ready to blame the Jews, but when I get in these exchanges, the issue of the so-called Jewish lobby is never far below the surface.

I have been attending MSU-SJP events at UCI for about 7 years, and have heard several anti-Semitic comments made by speakers such as Amir Abdel Malik Ali, Mohammed al Asi and Abdul Alim Musa. The MSU strongly denies they are anti-Jewish-only anti-Zionist, yet Ali comes virtually every year to UCI, where he spits out the words, “Zionist Jew” to identify certain public figures. True, I have also heard Jews like Hedy Epostein, Norm Finkelstein, Rabbi Ysroel Dovid Weiss of Neturei Karta and JVP speak against Israel at UCI. I consider them useful idiots, but the Jewish community is quite fragmented-even on issues of life and death to them.

As to your question. Maybe I was not clear enough. If I object to a university department sponsoring such a one-sided presentation of such a contentious issue, then I do concede your point that it would not be appropriate to sponsor the other side. I think a two-sided event like a debate would be proper. Of course, student groups can sponsor whatever they wish.

Make no mistake, however. The BDS movement was created by Palestinians and is part of a world-wide effort to deligitamize the Jewish state. The eventual goal is the elimination of Israel. Barghouti, responding to a question at UCI, stated that even if a treaty were reached between Israel and the PA, if it did not contain everything they wanted (right of return), BDS would continue.

And in my opinion, so would the drive to eventually destroy Israel. It’s not so much about the land as it is the religion.

However, the event did generate strong condemnations of BDS by just about every politician in New York City. In addition, the President of Brooklyn College made very clear her opposition to BDS and said the College has no intention of participating in the boycott.

Nycerbarb

I think a university department has to be cautious when it comes to such contentious issues that it is not appearing to endorse one side or the other. A few years back, UC Irvine put up an announcement of the MSU’s week of anti Israeli events on its outdoor marquee. It read (under the UCI heading): MSU presents Israel-The Politics of Genocide. It left the visual impression that UCI was putting its imprimatur on the message. Complaints went all the way to the governor’s office, and it was taken down. And don’t blame the Jews. I was the first one to report it since I am on campus everyday. I am not Jewish.

Anyway, based on the reports I have seen so far here is my take on last night.

http://garyfouse.blogspot.com/2013/02/omar-barghouti-and-judith-butler-don.html

For instance, one mission of this site is to report accurate information on BDS success and defeats and since there have been more of the latter than the former, I can see how you might get the impression that I’m chronicling Israel’s foes on the retreat.

But looked at with a wider lens, the point I have been making is that Israel is under siege and faces all of the challenges you state. The nations which oppose it are numerous, wealthy, powerful and ruthless. It is threatened by this century’s top totalitarian movement (Islamism). And a Red-Green alliance that ultimately hates modernity has focused on destroying the Jewish state as a stepping stone to greater power (or anarchy).

Given this overwhelming reality, I have tried to use BDS as a case study to learn about the strategy, tactics and rhetoric of the de-legitimizers in order to work up strategic, tactical and rhetorical techniques to oppose them. And while I have highlighted BDS’s many defeats, I have tried to use these examples to present the question of why – given all the advantages the other side possesses (especially with regard to their alliance with the wealthy and powerful) – they tend to lose among the very constituencies (grass roots civic organizations) they so desperately want to hijack.

This is not a small or side issue since the ability of civil society to reject the anti-Israel message of BDS might point the way towards getting it out of the system of larger entities. Also, it’s been these civic organizations from which the most successful foes of BDS have emerged.

Finally, if BDS turns out to be the weak link in the de-legitimization chain (given that it requires the cooperation of civic organizations that, for the most part, have shown enough common sense to avoid them – at least for now), that gives us a way to de-legitimization the entire de-legitimization project by pointing out that it is just as ugly, manipulative and (yes) ridiculous as the BDS movement chronicled here.

While I appreciate the sentiment (even if you cannot state it explicitly), I would reply that there is a great deal of suffering in the world that cannot all take a back seat to the obsessions of Israel’s detractors, even if they are willing to hijack the human rights machinery that was supposed to protect the weak from the strong in order to perpetuate their propaganda war.

Oh, and by the way, the only reason you perceive that this is our “only argument” is because you have systematically ignored or pretended did not exist the hundreds of other arguments made by Israel’s supporters, on this site and elsewhere for years.

As for waiting excitedly for the next Arab casualty, I believe this too is a projection since it’s been my experience that it is the boycotters who lick their lips in anticipation of the next Palestinian body count which they can use to fuel their self-righteous fury.

If I may say so…

It often strikes me when I read what you write that there is a disconnect between your assurances that BDS is a failing movement and the heightening of tensions toward Israel around the world. On the one hand, you often point to these constantly failing efforts to get this university or that co-op to divest from Israel. You reference in this piece how virtually nobody dropped in to see our friend Omar at UC Irvine, and if there is one place that you would think that he’d get some numbers that would be the place.

At the same time, however, when I look at relatively mainstream venues such as the Huffington Post or Daily Kos or the UK Guardian, I see considerable hatred perpetually spit at the Jewish State and the New York Times is not a whole lot better, really.

I see the Democratic Party distancing itself from Israel and the president of the United States demonstrating contempt for that country in various ways, such as suggesting that Jewish Israelis need to search their souls to see if they really want peace.

There is, thus, an inconsistency between your micro-analyses and the larger situation. This is not to say that your arguments are wrong, but that they don’t seem to well reflect the bigger trends.

I have to tell you, I read what you write and then feel pretty good and then I read the Jerusalem Post and, uhhh, not so much.

Keep in mind these are the same folks who disrupted Israeli ambassador Michael Oren at UCI a couple of years back (I was present). To them, freedom of speech is for them, but not for their opponents. Time and time again, they show what fascists they are.

I do think it is proper, however, to question the appropriateness of a university department putting its imprimatur on such an event. Is it the official policy of the Political Science department to oppose Israel in favor of the Palestinian narrative?

I just hope that someone in the audience can stand up for Israel and America during the Q and A.

Gary Fouse
Adj teacher

UC Irvine Ext

Thus, he would not have been surprised (saddened, dismayed, and probably horrified, but not surprised) at the way that the Nazis and Fascist, to say nothing of the Bolsheviks, used the state and other bureaucracies to create monsters of societies. We have to bear in mind that he witnessed the Bolshevik revolution and presciently [predicted that the “dictatorship of (meaning by) the proletariat” would, in fact, became dictatorship over the proletariat (and everyone else).

http://garyfouse.blogspot.com/2013/02/omar-barghouti-cont.html

About 25-30 people were there. I’d guess about a third or so of them did not agree with Barghouti’s goals of BDS – a one state solution where all the refugees can enter Israel.

He is the type of guy who thrives on controversy and those who made a big deal about Brookyln College co-sponsoring the event gave the talk much more attention than it deserves.

I came out a bit confused with his idea that each refugee has a personal inalienable right to return to Israel that the PA cannot negotiate away. Does he expect Israel to negotiate with each individual refugee?

He really played up the progressive universal rights angle and the idea that the Palestinian rights movement is like the the Civil Rights Movement. I don’t see the two being parallel but some may. Personally, I didn’t get it. Nor did I get the idea that if all his demands were not met that there would not be equality and there would be a master-slave relationship.

The area he really looked poorly to me when he questioned if Jews are a people during the q & a segment. He and the SJP who hosted the event would be probably be pretty upset (rightfully) if someone questioned if the Palestinians are a people. The lack of self-awareness on this was striking.

He also played up the Jews lived in harmony in Muslim lands myth. And denied that Jews were expelled from Arab lands.

http://www.meforum.org/263/why-jews-fled-the-arab-countries

UCI for years has been ground zero for this crap, but we are fighting back. Speakers know when they come to uci, they will be challenged.

Nycerbarb

http://garyfouse.blogspot.com/2013/02/omar-barghouti-at-uc-irvine-februry-4.html

For Divest This’s readership in the UK:
Feb.9th has been called as a “Day of rage” against Israeli produce. Please see http://5mfi.com/
for ways we can fight back, and share with your friends in the UK.

Examples:

•Stage a Buy Democracy counter demonstration at every supermarket they picket
?Buy Israeli products and make a point of showing the BDSers and any media present that you have done so
?Even better. Take a photograph of you and the product in front of the BDSers. Five Minutes for Israel will be glad to make an album (send to David’s email with Farming Justice in the Subject)
?This might be a good day to do your weekly shopping. Super market management is more likely to be impressed by paying customers.
•Use the PSC’s own form to send a message to the supermarkets.
•Write to the CEOs, media departments of the supermarkets. Numbers are important.

I would ask Judy if she really believes the Arabs would spare her life.

Nycerbarb

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/campus_hate_fest_jdikEFWuBjn2cwD0oAKQrM/1

It’s interesting that you reference this because it’s on point to the question that DrMike and I discussed at the panel discussion at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco not so long ago.

What I am seeing is anti-Semitic anti-Zionism, and a growing general dislike for Israel, gaining ground on the grassroots / netroots of the Democratic party and within the progressive movement. This could not have been more self-evident than in the voice vote at the Democratic National Convention around the status of Jerusalem in which our side was loudly booed.

The fact that the political science department at Brooklyn College, no less, would lend their name to the event is good reason for concern and I am pleased that you’ve highlighted this story.

I haven’t touched it at my joint, not yet, anyways.

Maybe I will print up “Sydney and Omar’s BDS Journey” and hand them out outside the event.

Nycerbarb

the first question is, ignore them vs respond to them. There’s a legitimate concern that silence, in the face of lies from BDSers, sends two messages: that we don’t have an effective response and that their chosen form of “discourse” (bullying, shouting down opponents) is acceptable. If the public only hears the BDS side, they might gradually shift their opinion which over the years in the US has been strongly and solidly pro-Israel. If they hear both sides, then they may do one of several things: weigh the competing arguments (we win), or tune out the issue entirely (we win again).

The second question is tactics– if we are going to respond then what do we say and how do we say it? That’s where surprise and creativity come in. Of course, it’s a lot easier to be creative if you’re also being creative with the truth. Portraying a simplistic, cartoon caricature of the situation– without having to anchor yourself to the actual facts– allows one a great deal of creativity! Another facet is what you described above– the selfish, manipulative behavior that we don’t want to resort to. To take one example– when hate-Israel groups set up mock checkpoints on campuses at which they verbally assault and physically obstruct their fellow students, pro-Israel students don’t want to lower themselves to that level. Nor should they. They’re not motivated by a deep hatred. That doesn’t eliminate the ability to utilize surprising and creative tactics, it just adds additional constraints (morality, accuracy) that are not part of the BDS armamentarium. A tangential point which you have previously raised that SHOULD be part of our side’s discussion is putting a human face on the conflict– talk about children who have lost parents to terror attacks, talk about the Arab child from Gaza who was being treated in an Israeli hospital even as his government was launching missiles aimed at that very hospital!http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/12/israeli-gaza-cancer-patients-become-hanukkah-best-friends.html

thank you for the kind words.

We’re all just trying to figure it out.

We’re all just trying to figure out how best to respond to the fact that our bothers and sisters in Israel are under siege.

And they are most definitely under siege.

Nycerbarb

On the pro-Israel side, we tend to have careers such as pediatrician, astrophysicist, engineer, and so on (just to cite the regular commentators here), which necessarily means that our time commitment has to unfortunately be more limited than is typical of the other side.

So (probably pre-empting Jon a bit here) the tactics of BDSers have created enemies in the organizations that they try to subvert. And they have prompted counter-efforts, such as buycotts, that have often resulted in INCREASED sales of those Israeli products.
It’s not necessary to adopt their tactics of lying and bullying. But what WOULD help on our side is some of the persistence and dedication that the other side has. Even though Israel supporters far outnumber Israel-haters, the number of activists on their side outnumbers ours.

That is such an on the money observation.

Another problem that we Jews have is talking too much. Part of why BDS can succeed is because they have only one simple message, they repeat only that message and they stay on that message.

OTOH, we can’t agree what should be our message, so we have many messages and we rely on nuance and relativism.

Barbara

in answer to question number one, part of the reason that the Jewish people are so poor at propaganda is because we tend to think that we should not need to be good at it. If we take progressive-left notions of social justice to heart the case for Jewish self-determination and self-defense is self-evident.

The reason for that, of course, is because from a moral perspective we have history on our side.

The problem is that western “humanitarians” do not respond to Jewish history because they are ignorant of Jewish history and the reason that they are ignorant of Jewish history is because we do not inform of them of it.

We don’t need propaganda.

As Dan Bielak, one of my friends at Israel Thrives is fond of saying, all we need to do is tell the truth and he’s absolutely right about that.

The Jews of the Middle East experienced 13 centuries under the boot of Muslim imperialism within the system of dhimmitude followed by 100 years of war against us because Jewish sovereignty on Jewish land is unacceptable to Islam.

The Jewish people do not need propaganda any more than did African-Americans in fighting against Jim Crow.

We just need to speak the truth of Jewish history under Islam, but we almost never do because we have convinced ourselves that to do so is somehow “racist” or even “Islamophobic.”

Can you imagine if black people thought that discussing the history of slavery was racist towards white people?

That is situation that we find ourselves in.

Nycerbarb

That said, I think it is worth it for all of us to keep the origin of our true enemy in mind, even as we do battle with its current manifestation. As you note, radical Islam is currently our greatest threat (although I’d add to that the radical Left to which it is allied – an analysis I suspect you’d agree with). But we need to remember that these are the two political tendenceis through which the ruthless feel that they can today come to power, exert their will and enact their mayhem. If this were 100 years ago, we’d be talking about Christianity and the political Right as the Jews historic and current tormentors. But today, it is within such groups that we find many of our allies (at least in the US).

According to the “Big Ugly” thesis I’ve described, however, this does not necessarily mean that Christians or Conservatives have evolved and can now be counted on to be our friends forever. Rather, it points out that – at least for the time being – ruthlessness struggles to find a home within these two movements (which is why it is current infecting a different host). And even if Islam is reborn as a religion shorn of expansionist ideology and the Left comes to its senses (or, more specifically, the responsible Left succeeds in marginalizing the radicals), that just means the fight will move elsewhere as the ever-opportunistic ruthlessness virus seeks out (and ultiamtely finds) a new home.

I would say that this is a very interesting and thoughtful series, but I do wonder if you are not becoming a bit too abstract in your analyses.

You are talking about certain tendencies within the human heart and mind that leads to conflict, in particular conflict against the Jewish people. And while I do not necessarily disagree I think that we must name our enemies because, as Jewish people, we do have enemies.

The primary enemy of the Jewish State of Israel is political Islam. Political Islam (or “radical Islam” or “Islamism”), as you know, is a growing international political movement that wishes to install al-Sharia as the foundation of government either within individual governments or within a larger caliphate.

Among the many, many aspects of Sharia there are two that should be of specific concern to Jewish people. The first is that Jews are considered second and third class citizens under the system of dhimmitude.

The second and related aspect is the fact that no land that was ever once a part of the umma can ever be considered anything other than Muslim land, which is the very heart of the long Arab-Muslim war against the Jews in the Middle East.

In any case, terrific material.

Thank you for this.

“Below this, you’ve got borderline cases of people imbued with fantasy ideology that allows them to think that everything they do is in the right. …At the bottom of the pecking order are naifs who, when confronted by a dire situation, feel like the must “do something” and thus partake in anti-Israel activities and swallow whole anti-Israel belief systems.”

This latter group is more like a continuum. And there is even a further group, who are sympathetic to the cause because it has “the correct pedigree” even though they don’t agree fully. They are ones who in my food coop would say “We have to give BDS a fair hearing.”

This continuum from “confirmation bias” to “shear fantasy” is a force that we are all subject to. It’s been shown in psychology experiments that when we learn a piece of information that is counter to our beliefs, we will try to discount it or justify it in some way that allows us to live with the contradiction. And we actually derive pleasure when we are successful in this process. As a completely unrelated example, look at the denial that went on in the Penn State community last year when the Sandusky abuse charges became public.

We have seen in the comments section of this list how pro-BDSers become in enraged when you call BDS anti-Semitic. If you say the BDS objective is to destroy Israel, they will deny it. Because in their universe, they cannot be on the side of the racists.

I am speculating, but I think much of the pro-BDS support comes from people in the anti-war camp. This is a blowback of the Gulf War. At least this is what Mondoweiss says brought I/P to his conscience. In their minds, US engagement in the Iraq War was tied to concerns for Israel’s security (or to the more extreme, soley for the benefit of Israel.) This, too, is a type of fantasy justification. How could the US undertake such a disastrous adventure? Only if they were controlled by a diabolical, super-powerful, external force – right?

Nycerbarb

First, you’ve got full-blown ruthless actors who understand that they can leverage opposition to the Jews and their state to achieve their own ends vis-a-vis amassing wealth and/or power. The leaders of the variosu states opposing Israel fall into this camp.

Then, you’ve got ruthless actors who don’t have access to such power, but would like to. I would put the leadership of most anti-Israel organizations into this camp, even if they have to limit their ruthless behavior to manipulating civic organizatons for their own ends as well as internal power struggles within “the movement” itself.

Below this, you’ve got borderline cases of people imbued with fantasy ideology that allows them to think that everything they do is in the right. This is what makes them so impervious to appeals that require empathy (which is why our questions regarding their tacit alliance with the world’s greatest human rights violators falls on deaf ears). I call these casees borderline for while they can lead to ruthless behavior (such as manipulating a school, church or city), people in this class are also the easist for the two categories of ruthless actors listed above to manipulate.

At the bottom of the pecking order are naifs who, when confronted by a dire situation, feel like the must “do something” and thus partake in anti-Israel activites and swallow whole anti-Israel belief systems. In some cases, these people are open to new information (which is why the volunteer ranks of BDS oragnizations are so volitile – since a percentage of them eventually learn what they are truly being asked to do and leave). But, in other cases, people will cling to their beliefs no matter how much they see and hear that should make them question such a world view. Ruth Wisse’s analysis of “blaming the Jews for the war waged against them” coupled with Lee Harris’ notion of forgetfulness (i.e., taking the benefits of the artificial societies we live in for granted to the point of denying the existence of ruthlessness) can explain this level of stubborness.

While many in this last category eventually leave “the movement,” some cling on either as perpetual dupes or as candidates to enter the world of ruthlessness themselves (if they are very, very unlucky).

An excellent, well thought out series.

So the bottom line is we must not be discouraged and realize this will be an ongoing fight.

The ruthless will inseminate hatred – in our case Judeophobia, the most frequent form, but not the only one that has or can be used – as means of concentrating power. Forgetfulness and fantasy have something to do with the ability of the ruthless to achieve this.

What makes someone cross over to the dark side?

Nycerbarb

How I became an ‘unconscious fascist’ – by Fiamma Nirenstein

She writes:

The Left blessed the Jews as the victim “par excellence,” always a great partner in the struggle for the rights of the weak against the wicked. In return for being coddled, published, filmed, considered artists, intellectuals and moral judges, Jews, even during the Soviet anti-Semitic persecutions, gave the Left moral support and invited it to cry with them at Holocaust memorials. Today the game is clearly over. The left has proved itself the real cradle of contemporary anti-Semitism.

And that’s what sucks most. I still do the same things I’ve always done, but now from my experiences with such types I can’t help but worry what lies just below the surface, as regards this one issue, of the person I’m spending a Saturday, say, digging up a vacant lot with to break ground on a community garden near McPherson Square.

Sometimes I think that if they’re this naive and gullible then maybe it’s my job to turn them around, and they just need a quick nudge or three back to common sense? Other times I just feel life’s too short to even try to deal with such ugliness. I dunno.

Regardless, understanding what the hell got them there in the first place would certainly help, of course.

That having been said, the anti-Israel people I encounter are definitely not good folks, the kind that would volunteer at a soup kitchen. Perhaps you have a different group back East.

Similarly, we can look at American racism and see its use as a political ideology.

But most of all, the BDS supporters are not trying to control a government and impose their rule of over America or Britain. They have latched on to the political goals of fascist, imperialist Arab movements, yet they don’t believe that they have. They believe that they are “fighting for human rights.” I know some of these people. And they are “good” people who are out there volunteering to pick up debris after Hurricane Sandy or working in soup kitchens or spending their weekends on small cooperative organic farms, etc. What explains their failure to recognize what they are supporting?

Nycerbarb

more on the war on Israel.

Nycerbarb

I suspect that the stealing of the “ic” in “Democratic” was entirely innocent in this case.

There was a time, not all that long ago, really, when I too was opposed to the Republican robbery of the Democratic “ic.”

Someone like Sarah Palin would refer to the “Democrat” Party and we all knew that it was a petty and intentional besmirchment.

My solution at the time was to give the Republicans the damn “ic” if they wanted it so badly so that they could be the “Republicican” party!

:O)

Oh, shit, was there ever a time when politics was actually kind of fun??

{I seem to recall there was.}

Here is a link to a recent video that I have also posted on the Israel Thrives sidebar.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Zrl6XVUT5qk

One of her major points is that political anti-Semitism draws people together who might otherwise be at one another’s throats. She points to late 19th and early 20th century Germany as an example and at the current Arab-Muslim world as another example. In a sense that’s the point.

She also makes what I think is an exceedingly apt point in a metaphor. She says that people will often say, “Look. I’m just criticizing Israel. There is no country on the planet that should be free from criticism.”

Sounds fair to me. Who could disagree with that?

Criticism is criticism. If you did not do a good job of taking care of your lawn and a neighbor complained, is it really their fault?

BUT what if all the other neighbors felt that you had no right to live among them and were constantly throwing garbage and rocks through your windows and threatening the lives of your children?

Would this other neighbor’s complaint about your lawn merely be just a complaint or would he be joining with people who want to see you dead?

It makes all the difference in the world, doesn’t it?

In any case, I actually came up with “the long Arab war against the Jews” independently. Or, at least, I thought that I did!

This makes me wonder if I did not come across it earlier at some point in some essay by Wisse.

Well, good for her because she’s absolutely right.

It is the long Arab war against the Jews and depending how you look at it, it’s been ongoing since either the 1920s or since Muhammed himself.

During the Pillar of Defense Operation, Yaacov Lozowick posted on his old blog Three Ways to be Against Israel . The first type is the ruthless Jew-hater. The latter two are naifs. One denies the historical reality and sees only the Jew as the guilty party. One has the fantasy that everyone just wants to get along, if only we could give peace a chance.

One is evil, one chooses to believe only the Jews are evil, one denies the existence of evil.

The first guy I understand where he comes from. It is either power or he is nurtured to hate. My question is where do the latter two come from? What is it that makes them discount anything that might contradict their point of view?

Nycerbarb

I recently gave a talk in Cambridge (UK) on this topic, arguing that parts of the left have fallen, in essence, for a new version of the “noble savage” myth to justify their opposition to Israel – and every so often falling into the antisemitic trap of conflating Jews with Israelis. Those who take this position are generally “relativists”: those who take the stance that human rights are, or can be, different in different parts of the world.

They have to do this to allow themselves to dub Israel as a worst breacher of other’s human rights than, for example, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Zimbabwe, Sudan in South Sudan before the division of Sudan, Syria, etc, etc…

Nick Cohen, in his book “What’s Left?”, illustrated this superbly, as one would expect. There was, he argued, a case for invading Iraq, but it was based on the fact that Saddam Hussein was a fascist dictator who was murdering his people, not that he was part of some sort of “Axis of Evil”, which he was not. On that basis, as Cohen saw it, the Stop the War coalition had got it wrong. But then, so had Bush and Blair.

Just some random thoughts, late at night from this side of the Atlantic!

~~~

Also, this is yet another fascinating piece, Jon. Keep it up!

But now allow me to swing in a different direction for a moment, as I am wont to do.

As a life-long liberal, and a Democrat, I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with admitting (or pointing out) that today’s version of ‘mainstreamed’ antisemitism is largely a phenomenon which derives from my end of the political spectrum.

However, your usage of “Democrat voting” sticks out to me like a sore thumb. Not to be too nit-picky and all, but I think we all here agree that language matters, and I’d just note that denying us our chosen appellation (Democratic) doesn’t ultimately help these matters in any way.

Apologies if that phrase was totally innocent, but this is indeed a specific sore spot for many of us on the left (who are, of course, often right on the front lines of battling BDS bigotry)…

I think Jon is really on to something. Antisemitism is a constant of human history and pervades all ideologies and migrates between them. At the moment I admire the American Right for its dilligence in trying to keep antisemitism out of its public discourse, but there is no guarantee that is a permanent condition.

Don’t know what is similarly driving the Right in this context.

I do not think that you have your head buried in the sand in regards the fact that the progressive-left is the major contributor to anti-Semitic anti-Zionism in the west today.

Not by any means.

And while The Big Ugly… I LOVE that, btw… may be a third force it is today primarily a force coming from a pretty specific political milieu. It should be reasonably obvious that anti-Semitism, throughout the centuries, has emerged out of any number of political movements, including ones going back throughout time that neither one of us have even heard of, but this does not change the fact that today, in the west, it is primarily a phenomenon of the left.

I know that you are not denying that fact and I understand your point about a “third force.” Nonetheless, we have to face The Big Ugly where it is and today where it is, in the west, is the political left.

My comments are not meant to be a refutation of your own, but parallel statements. My point is that pro-Israel Jewish advocates tend to bolster the case against us because they honestly believe that Israel is guilty of overarching crimes against the local Arabs. As you well know, ever since the 6 Day War Arab and Soviet propaganda has focused on the notion of Israeli “occupation” of Palestinian land and has turned the Arab “Goliath” into the Palestinian “David.”

This idea is the bedrock of western-left hostility toward Israel. All I am saying is that the Jews of the Middle East suffered under the boot of imperial Islam for 13 centuries and that as soon as they gained their freedom they have been subject to perpetual war because the very notion of Jewish autonomy on any land that was once part of the Umma is considered a theological abomination for most the Arab-Muslim world.

That is an historical fact and it is one that we must remind people of if we are going to make a case for Israel.

Part of the problem that we have as advocates is that the progressive-left has convinced any number of well-meaning Jewish liberals that the “Palestinians” are essentially innocent and that the Jews are essentially guilty. Progressive-left Jews who believe this (and not all of them do) bolster hostility toward Israel.

So long as we continue to use the language of our enemies and so long as we tend to think that maybe they kinda, really, actually have a point, then we can never win the argument.

I am not claiming that you do this.

I am claiming that the Gordis / Beinart debate grows right to the heart of the question.

Nycerbarb

Nycerbarb

Fair enough.

But to both VolleyBoy and Mike Lumish, let me suggest (probably pre-empting Jon’s next post…) that arguments both past and present about Left vs Right as the greater evil, or the root source, when it comes to Jew-hatred are both a waste of time and irrelevant. A generation ago it was the Right. Now it’s the Left. Maybe within my lifetime it will be back to the Right (depends on how the Islamists align themselves, as they are the driving force now rather than the European anti-Semitism of the 20th century).

I would suggest that the best people to fight the anti-Semitism on the far left are other leftists. Just as the best ones to fight it on the right are other rightists. And they are the ones with the responsibility to rid their own movement of this virus.

However, your point is well taken in the fact that it is a transcendent issue and infects every part of the political spectrum.

Personally, I see a lot of blending between the Far Right and the Hard Left. They are becoming one in the same these days with regards to this.

Similarly, one can find just as many examples of left-leaning individuals expressing sentiments that are just as ugly as those you site (even if their focus will be on Jews as killers of children vs. rejectors of Christ). But, again, do these data points generalize to the whole? And what if, as I am suggesting in this series, anti-Jewish and anti-Israel sentiments are part of a bigger phenomenon (what I’ve been calling “The Big Ugly”), one which has been with us since long before designations of “Left” and “Right” even existed, and one that will continue long past when such labels are forgotten?

Thanks

The point I am trying to make is not that “The Big Ugly” does NOT include everything you describe, but that it is a third force – one that exists separately from the politics of Left and Right, as well as separate from any other specific religion or political orientation/institution.

The through experiment I suggested was not meant to be a political recommendation, just a “mind-exercise” designed to prove a point. For if, as you suggest, our problems stem from progressive-left sentiment, then one sure way to make those problems go away would be to make the progressive-left IN ITS ENTIRITY go away. But if, under such circumstances (i.e., in a world where the Left in any way, shape or form no longer exists) Big Ugly sentiments still persist and find a home elsewhere (as they have in the past and the present), then by definition they must exist separately from what we just (theoretically) eliminated.

The nature of this separate thing is what I have been struggling to understand over the last several years, and I hope you’ll get a better understanding of what I think it consists of by the time this series is done.

and a letter from a soldier:

I’m not sure if it was deliberately placed under my bunk to build a case for plausible deniability, but it fits the pattern. Every day I showed up, more and more pamphlets were piled on my desk, and only on my desk. It was because of a Chaplain. He zeroed in on me because I requested he stop giving me pamphlets, as I am not a Christian. He said he “reserved the right to evangelize the unchurched.” I can’t link him or anyone directly to this Manga Messiah, because I received it in such a weird way (where I sleep rather than where I work).

Unfortunately, anti-Semitism rears it’s head everywhere (both left and right) but it politically originates on the Right and eventually will return (as it is already) when Rightists realize they can hate Jews as much as they hate Arabs and Muslims.

You are right that this is “the big ugly”

Jon, one need not join “The Right” in order to acknowledge that anti-Israel sentiment is mainly a progressive-left sentiment in today’s west.

The truth of the matter, nonetheless, is that the conservative-right in the United States has done a very good job of ridding itself of anti-Semitism ever since William F. Buckley addressed the issue as early as the early 1950s when he resigned from The American Mercury under protest. Furthermore, as you well know, American polling consistently show that conservatives and Republicans, particularly Evangelical Christians, are far, far more friendly to the Jewish State of Israel than are liberal Democrats who, as a group, tend to disdain that country.

The solution, if there is a solution, is not to join the conservative-right, necessarily, but to speak honestly about what is happening. The truth is that the progressive-left, as a movement, has betrayed its Jewish constituency through accepting anti-Semitic anti-Zionism as part of its larger coalition.

Like it or not, this is true.

What we do with that truth is up to each of us to decide, but I would suggest that pretending it isn’t so, as some do, or drawing some false moral equivalency between the large and rising tide of progressive-left anti-Zionism and some obscure and largely irrelevant right-wing movements in Europe or, say, from the Westboro Baptist Church in the United States, is an option that is both counterproductive and entirely disbalanced. Anti-Semitic anti-Zionism in the west is fueled by the left, by many Muslims, and in only in the most tertiary and marginal fashion from these obscure and tiny right-wing fringe groups.

It has to be understood that part of the reason that the western left has become so comfortable with anti-Semitic anti-Zionism is because western Jewish progressives, including western Jewish progressive supporters of Israel, have so often confirmed their worst anti-Zionist assumptions. This is certainly true of progressive-left western Jews who rail at Israel for turning toward the conservative-right with Netanyahu or Lieberman or Bennett, or who tend to dislike and regret Israeli efforts at self-defense such as Cast Lead or Pillar of Defense, or who spit hatred at their fellow Jews in Judea and Samaria for daring to live with neither Barack Obama nor Mahmoud Abbas want them to live, or who continue to think that the failure of Oslo is mainly Israel’s fault rather than the fault of the PLO and Hamas.

Again, until such a time as we truly convince ourselves that the Jewish cause in Israel is both right and just we can never effectively convince anyone else of it. The argument is not only between Jewish supporters of Israel and anti-Semitic anti-Zionists, but also between the Daniel Gordis’s of this world and the Peter Beinarts.

Gordis is not “right-wing” (he voted for Jesse Jackson, for chrissake) but he understands that Beinart’s dislike of Israel has negative consequences for Israel and is more a reflection of Beinart’s ideological grounding than it is of the Jewish State’s behavior.

Nycerbarb

partake in a tactic that seems to being such enormous electoral benefits to its practitioners.

should be “bring”

I’ve been talking about is just another flaw in the through process of one political camp.

Should be “thought”.

Nycerbarb

Nice “seeing” you around.

Propaganda and groupthink of course work on the foot- soldiers because of their homegrown, already-negative opinion, beside the fact that sharing that negative opinion with others gives them a sense of “belonging”, a “comfort” of sorts.
Conversely, and because judeophobia has been traditionally been a part of dominant (Christian, Muslim) societies, the new convert or newly naturalized might overtly adopt an anti-Jewish attitude as proof of “patriotism”. This can affect some Jews and all those dying to “belong”.

Now, Berman’s description is entirely correct with regard to currents of thought. Universalist, conquering movements, religions and ideologies have always seen necessary, for some reason, to define themselves in relation to Judaism.

I
Antisemitism, Judeophobia, Jew-hatred, or just negative opinion on Jews feeding on stereotypes, didn’t wait for Christianity, Islam, secularism to raise their ugly head. They existed already in pagan Egypt. In fact, what irritates those new religions, is that Judaism is the only religion to have survived the ancient world practically intact.

A little less than 2000 ago, Josephus has had to rebutt pagan clerics of Egypt on the same mantras you see on sites such as Mondoweiss -jewish privilege, jewish politics, Jewish origins, Jewish religion, who are the Jews, “dual-loyalty”, and we see exactly the same mantras on Jewish privilege, history, origin, religion, dual loyalty, etc.

With practically everything said and done, what is now to be done?

I say address the problem in neutral terms.

When I read the writing of people like Thomas Friedman or Peter Beinart or Jeremy ben Ami, not to mention any number of like-minded on-line pro-Israel advocates, it becomes very clear that many of us actually believe the charges leveled against the Jewish state.

Until we really understand that our own cause is truly just, which it is, we can never convince others of that fact.

You, Jon, are on the right track when you talk about the BDSers as reality challenged.

I found the Hazony piece to be very interesting, but I think he misses the point. I have truly come to believe the irrational hatred for Jews, Jewishness and Judaism is at the heart of the matter. The emotion does not come from the thinking, but rather the paradigm is invented to rationalize the hatred.

In an interview with Paul Berman in March 2009 (originally published at Z-Word, and now archived at The Propagandist), Berman shows whatever was the fashion of the day, the Jews are always defined as unable to fit in.

“The unstated assumption is always the same. To wit: the universal system for man’s happiness has already arrived (namely, Christianity (Jews weren’t Christian), or else Enlightenment anti-Christianity (Jews remained Jewish); the Westphalian state system (Jews were stateless), or else the post-modern system of international institutions (Jews insist on having a nation-state); racial theory (Jews are different race), or else the anti-racist doctrine (Zionism as racism) in a certain interpretation). And the universal
system for man’s happiness would right now have
achieved perfection—were it not for the Jews. The
Jews are always standing in the way. The higher one’s
opinion of oneself, the more one detests the Jews.

I believe it is the supersessionist mentality of all these movements – Christianity, Islam, Secularism – that is at the root cause and always will be, until these movements can embrace co-existence.

Nycerbarb

What does their rule book offer? Only one single idea in different colors : “Jews/Zionists bad”. The masses are bombarded with it day in day out under the guise of “news”, reports, and analyses. It’s classic propaganda.

Propaganda works mostly on ignorant people who still want to voice an opinion and be counted (loosely paraphrasing Jacques Ellul).

Everyone in the Muslim-Christian-Jewish world is practically born with a built-in opinion on Jews and that is what the anti/Zionist/Jewish propaganda is tapping into.
It has nothing to do with the situation of the Palestinians or the truth about the complexity of the conflict. They don’t want to know.

I can understand why anti-Zionists find it ridiculous that we would ask them what they think of the human rights situation in China or Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. It’s because they don’t have a ready-made opinion on the Chinese or the Pakistanis – on the other hand they can tap into that homegrown “knowledge” of Jews or that which particular circumstances helped them acquire. That turns them into experts without having had to study for it. Phil Weiss is a case in point. He knows nothing of the history, languages, politics of the Middle East but what makes him an expert he knows everything about propaganda.

The French philosopher Pierre-Andre Taguieff wrote a 550 page book “The New Anti-Jewish Propaganda” (I don’t know if there is an English translation) where he analyses and documents today’s anti-Zionist discourse. He found that it has only two main components: 1)Jews as racists (and its variants), 2) Jews as killers of children (and its variants).

“Jews as racists” include charges of supremacism, expansionism, apartheid, exclusion, hatred of the Other, etc or (when it comes from the reconstructionist “rabbi”) tribalism, and a plethora of discriminatory practices.

Examples of “Jews as killers and torturers of children” (the old ritual murder) are the Al Dura affair, “children” in Israeli jails, etc.

So, first and foremost, I think we should learn to classify the misinformation we are being fed into those two main categories, instead of going into lengthy arguments facts and figures to prove that it is not so.

It’s bigger than we thought, and therefore we should keep it simple.

As for trying to convince that “audience,” of allegedly uncommitted, hopefully rational folk, how can we compete with the whole world (aka the international community,) when they take every anti-Israel side they can at the good old UN?

It’s a huge uphill battle but I sure like seeing that there are those still up to the task like on this blog and elsewhere! Kudos.

Besides inventiveness, creativity and business savvy, what other advantages are there to those subjected to boycotts?

They know it. Everybody knows it.
And they don’t care. Not only they don’t care but I truly deeply believe there is nothing they would like better than see those single-passport-ed “Mizrahi” Jews disappear from the face of the earth, massacred.

Meanwhile, they are virtually deleting them from consciousness. Did you see their history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

And Mike, that’s “Jews of the Middle East” AND North Africa.

Fighting against BDS by helping civic organizations understand how the boycotters are trying to exploit them for thier own gain is another activity that is both good for Israel and good for the institutions we would like to support our views (or at least not work against the Jewish state).

If the boycotters were actually doing their cause any good by behaving in the beastly way they behave, it might be tempting to replicate their tactics. But the fact that their tactics are both obnoxious and ineffective should point us towards picking options that do not alinate the public we are trying to win over.

But we aren’t going to do it. Why?
Because its a symbolic act and a pointless waste of time
Because Israel/Palestine is an extremely complex issue and we shouldn’t take our frustrations out on minimum wage retail employees.
Because we see how silly and irrational the anti-Israel crew look when they take such actions.
Because it does nothing to further the cause of peacefully co-existence here, there or anywhere.

Any other reasons?

What (if any) are the reasons we ought to consider it?
Do we shortchange ourselves and our cause by not confronting our opponents on their own turf?

What do you all think?

And why is the moral high-ground such a frustratingly lonely place to be?

The interesting part of this is that it’s not the mainstream of a movement trying to distance itself from extreme elements (as for example mainstream activists against the Iraq War gradually distanced themselves from the loony far left as represented by International ANSWER). These are people trying to claim that they aren’t supporting the very foundations of the BDS Movement as represented in the BDS Call and subsequent reiterations of it, and as frequently espoused by movement spokespeople such as Omar Barghouti. That foundation is very clear– no end of BDS until the end of Israel within any borders at all.

So these people are either lying, or they have signed on to a movement without a clear understanding of what it is promoting. Unfortunately, the second can be just as dangerous as the first!

For throughout human history, the majority of horrors have been carried out by those who believe themselves to be unquestionably in the right…

One point that I frequently like to make is the fact that the Nazis were not cartoon bad guys indulging in evil, but genuine idealists who believed that their political movement was entirely just and right.

The same is true of progressive-left anti-Semitic anti-Zionists of the kind that tend to make up the BDS movement. They are convinced that the Jews of the Middle East have done a profound injustice to the “indigenous” population through violence, ethnic cleansing, and the appropriation of land.

They therefore believe that in opposing these alleged injustices that they are doing G-d’s work, so to speak.

It is for this reason that your notion of paradigm is important because the only possible way we can ever win the argument among western liberals is to present that argument within the context of Jewish history in the Middle East, rather than within the propagandistic anti-Israel paradigm that Israel’s western-left advocates tend (unconsciously) to use.

One advantage to this conscious altering of the paradigm through the altering of the terms that we use is that it can better reflect historical truth.

We do not need to resort to propaganda because historical truth is on our side.

For 13 centuries the Jews of the Middle East lived under the boot of Arab-Muslim imperialism within a system of persecution known as dhimmitude. This is simply a fact of Jewish history and one that we ignore at our peril if we wish to make the moral case for Israel.

Am I wrong?

BTW, these questions are all meant to be rhetorical.

I suspect that we’re back to much simpler answers: where it isn’t antisemitism (and on the Left it needn’t be), it’s holding Israel to a higher standard, higher, note, than they hold their own governments or superstates (such as the EU) to.

Go figure.

That is a fact of history.

In some places and times it was better and in some places and times it was worse, but dhimmitude was never better than Jim Crow in the United States at its worst.

Until we respect our history, including the history of the Mizrahim, no one ever will.

“but we cannot change the paradigm without also changing the terms of the debate and so long as we continue to use terms provided for us by anti-Israel advocates then we can never win the argument.”

Ultimately diaspora Jews, and the Israeli Jewish left, believes the core charges against us, which is why we are constantly on the defensive and back on our heels.

So long as we continue to deny, or ignore, Jewish history on Jewish land, of course they are going to take advantage of the advantage that we give them.

We need, as recently discussed here, to change the paradigm, but we cannot change the paradigm without also changing the terms of the debate and so long as we continue to use terms provided for us by anti-Israel advocates then we can never win the argument.

For example… and I use this one a lot but there are many… if Judea is the West Bank then we certainly have no right to any part of it. But if we have no right to Judea what right have the Jews to any part of historical Israel including Jerusalem, Haifa, or Beersheva?

So long as we fundamentally believe that the Jews of the Middle East are the oppressors, and the Palestinians are the oppressed, then we will lose the debate before the international community and therefore, eventually, lose Israel, itself.

Good to keep in mind for those inevitable occasions when I’m sure I’ll read “Jewish political activist Dalit Baum agrees that Israel [fill in the rest here]…”

And it is maddening. There is a cognitive dissonance that is extreme. No matter what you say, it always gets turned around.

I was in the audience at a panel that included Dalit Baum and Udi Aloni. They just ignore any statement that contradicts their world view.

Nycerbarb

Seriously, what’s that about? What drives someone to these extremes? I… sincerely (heh)… don’t understand it.

And, presumably, she does so as-a-Jew.

I do not doubt her sincerity, but what she fails to understand is that the Jewish people are under siege in the Middle East and have been for 14 centuries.

Glad we’ve got some people in the area ready to give the store the support it deserves.

Happy New Year, all.

http://www.buycottmonth.com/buycott-successes.html

Any chance someone could post the link?

As I commented before, I sent Cliff’s an e-mail of appreciation, which I encourage everyone to do. Also today I happened to be up in the city and I stopped in to give them some business – I bought a new colander and some wine glasses.

Seeing these BDSers’ especially nasty previous “actions” on the street outside perhaps did turn Cliff’s into a Zionist bastion or at least they know exactly where they stand vis-a-vis these BDS bozos. Not quite the result the BDSers expected, but very predictable otherwise.

Cliff’s will be seeing me walk through the door sometime within the next week or so, that much is certain.

http://divestthis.com/2012/11/gaza-propaganda-accuse-accuse-accuse.html

http://divestthis.com/2012/05/blame.html

See how our visiting BDSer has pretended to acknowledge that exploiting Christmas for political ends is generally bad, but rather than acknowledge the specifics I point out of the abuse of Christian imagery by his own allies in the NGO community, or the abuse of holiday cultural artifacts (such as mock Christmas caroling designed to abuse the public),he instead has fished out one example where Israelis have done something similar and declared this to be the supreme example of the phenomenon I am criticizing.

Just to make sure we’re talking about this “Pointing Finger” propaganda technique: Is it safe to say, our BDS visitor, that you unquestionably condemn the behavior outlined in the piece above regarding X-mas abuse by your friends and allies (not to mention the non-stop abuse of Christian symbols and actual Christians unfortunate enough to live under Palestinian jurisdiction)? After all, your “Well Israelis do it too!” argument only makes sense if we can count on you to join us in making sure your finger is, in fact, pointing in more than one direction.

“The Israeli Embassy in Ireland caused a storm of protest Monday when it posted on Facebook an image of Jesus and Mary and suggested that if the Biblical figures were alive today they would have likely been murdered by a mob of Palestinians.

On Monday afternoon, the following post appeared on the embassy’s official Facebook feed:

“A thought for Christmas… If Jesus and mother Mary were alive today, they would, as Jews without security, probably end up being lynched in Bethlehem by hostile Palestinians. Just a thought…….” ”

http://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-embassy-facebook-post-sparks-irish-ire/

Remember, this isn’t some random activist, but rather the official page of an Israeli embassy.

Cliff’s Variety Store in San Francisco’s Castro neighborhood recently stood up to BDS activists who were protesting Sodastream and kicked them out of the store. The BDSers are threatening to sue for “assault” and other nonsense. They have a video of the incident here: http://youtu.be/2s-6iK7sxZs Cliff’s is probably going to get a lot of flack so please take a minute to thank them. Especially if you live in the Bay Area, but I think everyone should do it. Their e-mail address is cliff@cliffsvariety.com

For example, here is what I wrote:

Dear Cliffs,

Sincerely,
- [My Name]
[My City], CA

What I am suggesting, tho, is that the tendency among pro-Israel advocates, particularly on the progressive-left, is to use that very same language even though the history of the Jews in the Middle East under Arab-Muslim rule, the history of dhimmitude, should mitigate against doing so and even though that language is entirely inaccurate and unjust when discussing contemporary Israel. If concepts of social justice or human rights mean anything then we have history on our side, yet we generally refuse, for politically correct reasons, to bring up that history and we tend to use the very language that our opponents have designed against us.

This, you must be aware, ties in neatly with your interesting discussion of Hazony’s paradigms.

As you synopsized in your piece and as Hazony writes:

For in taking up arms in the name of their own national state and their own self determination, the Jews, as many Europeans and others now see it, have simply taken up the same evil that led Germany to build the camps. The details may differ, but the principle, in their eyes, is the same: Israel is Auschwitz.

Indeed. I am not so knowledgeable about Hazony, but I want to thank you for pointing toward him because I certainly think that he’s on the right track. I would extend Hazony’s thesis further by suggesting that, in the eyes of the international left, not only is Israel condemned for championing nationalism, but also for championing that bastard child of European nationalism, white western colonialism.

The paradigm that is Israel is judged upon is not only a post-national paradigm but, as I am sure that you would agree, a post-colonial paradigm. The difference, of course, is that while Israel is quite clearly a national project, it is not in any meaningful sense of the word a colonial project given the millenia long Jewish presence on that land, a presence that long preceeds the Arab invasion of the 7th century.

What I see progressive-left anti-Zionists and Israel Haters saying is not so much that Israel should be condemned because it represents selfish nationalism, but far more so because of its alleged colonial sins, i.e., stealing land and oppressing the “indigenous” population as an occupying power.

That’s the paradigm that must be changed and it’s a paradigm that can be changed because it does not comport with the facts of Jewish history in the Middle East. In fact, it turns the history of Jewish-Arab relations in the Middle East entirely on its head. The suggestion is that Israel is an imperialist project, but the facts of history are that Israel represents a reaction against imperialism. The creation of the modern state of Israel was not a reaction against European national hostility against the Jews but also, in the case of the Mizrahim, a rejection of thirteen centuries of Arab-Muslim imperial rule of Jews in our native homeland.

And while I certainly agree with Hazony that there is a great need of a new scholarly trend to alter the prevailing toxic paradigm, it is unquestionably true that Israel’s advocates on the ground can begin the process through their own paradigm shifting.

The paradigm shift must, by necessity, precede the shift in discursive strategies. And that paradigm shift can only come about when pro-Israel advocates abandon the prevailing post-colonial view of Israel’s history and recognize that Israel is, itself, an anti-colonial project.

What I am suggesting, tho, is that the tendency among pro-Israel advocates, particularly on the progressive-left, is to use that very same language even though the history of the Jews in the Middle East under Arab-Muslim rule, the history of dhimmitude, should mitigate against doing so and even though that language is entirely inaccurate and unjust when discussing contemporary Israel. If concepts of social justice or human rights mean anything then we have history on our side, yet we generally refuse, for politically correct reasons, to bring up that history and we tend to use the very language that our opponents have designed against us.

This, you must be aware, ties in neatly with your interesting discussion of Hazony’s paradigms.

As you synopsized in your piece and as Hazony writes:

The paradigm shift must, by necessity, precede the shift in discursive strategies. And that paradigm shift can only come about when pro-Israel advocates abandon the prevailing post-colonial view of Israel’s history and recognize that Israel is, itself, an anti-colonial project.

In that context, I (re)propose a paradigm shift: to begin to see the larger framework not only through the ideological prism of Left vs. right (though they too are present), but rather as a diverse collective of agendas, or factions, or interest groups, who have joined forces around the conflict for the support, exposure and power they could never have had otherwise.

“Groupthink” is what keeps that “nebulae” in check.

Because those groups are different after all, with different sensitivities, it is important for them to eliminate from discourse anything that could cause inter-group friction and affect cohesiveness. Thus Anti-Semitism is out not because it is immoral, but because it could potentially anger some Jewish groups causing them to defect or become critical. Another example that Mike has brought up, is the consistent deletion from consciousness, by Jews, of the Jews expelled from Muslim countries because their mere mention could infuriate and perhaps even alienate pro-Palestinian groups and again, affect unity.

Needless to say, the most glaring proof of groupthink is offered by their talking points, which are invariably the same from group to group, from country to country, from language to language. It is clear that a unique script is being used by all, carefully written in a card stacking form that would discourage rebuttal.

Before further discussion as to the who, the why and the what’s-to-be-done, I propose examing the 8 symptoms of groupthink. I would like to know if anyone here doesn’t think they fit BDSers like a glove.

(From Wikipedia)

Type I: Overestimations of the group — its power and morality
1. Illusions of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking.
2. Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.
Type II: Closed-mindedness
1. Rationalizing warnings that might challenge the group’s assumptions.
2. Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, biased, spiteful, impotent, or stupid.
Type III: Pressures toward uniformity
1. Self-censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.
2. Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement.
3. Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of “disloyalty”
4. Mind guards— self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information.
5.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

Regarding the second phenomenon, it’s a time-honored debating tactic to force your opponent to use your own terminology, ideally in a way that constrains him or her to concede your points simply by using your vocabulary. We can see this in nearly every debate (over “Death Taxes,” “Assault Weapons,” “Pro-life” vs. “Pro-choice”) where opponents use terms that they hope will begin and end a political argument.

What you describe vis-à-vis terminology such as the West Bank (vs. Judea and Sumaria) or “The Occupation” or “Occupied Territories” (not to mention settlements vs. villages, or even the general language of human rights and international law) simply demonstrates that in the case of the Middle East conflict, Israel’s opponents are particularly disciplined at only using language that suits their goals and especially militant in condemning or ignoring anyone who uses an alternative vocabulary that blunts their arguments.

Coupled with this, you’ve got the community of Israel’s supporters who lack the same level of discipline and militancy with regard to refusing to acknowledge language that does not suit our purposes. But this derives not just from liberalism or general wooly-headedness. It also derives from the fact that, unlike our opponents, we lack the militant goals needed to make militant tactics our first and only choice. And we lack the ruthlessness to suppress the free flow of ideas, just to get our way.

I’m currently reading one of the last books written the European iconoclast Jean Francois Revel who documents this phenomenon in great detail as it relates to how totalitarian Marxists cowed their non-Marxist socialist and even liberal (small “l”) opponents into accepting demands that Communism be judged by the virtue of its alleged motives vs. the consequences of its actual results and actions. And the more I look at how debate over the Middle East takes place, the more I’m convinced that it is this tradition that Israel’s foes are tapping into, not the tradition of genuine progressive values.

It would probably have been more charitable to say that disputes over the age of the earth that were going on at the time were one challenge to Darwin’s theories, without being so absolute about it.

Fortunately, this is the first time I used this example in writing (although I have used in in conversation in the past, which I will now stop doing).

Anyway, hope the rest of the piece is not diminished by what turns out to have been an unsubstantiated flourish.

The Palestinians and their supporters present their arguments as a matter of human rights and social justice, but the truth is that Israel as a Jewish state and homeland for the Jewish people is a matter of human rights and social justice and we need to do a much better job of presenting the argument in such terms. We need to take back the terms of the discussion. Why should we refer to Judea and Samaria as the “West Bank” when doing so effectively erases 4,000 years of Jewish history on Jewish land? Yet progressive-left Jewish supporters of Israel do precisely that because they tend to think that only those heinous “right-wingers” talk about Judea and Samaria. Progressive-left Jewish supporters of Israel, furthermore, absolutely refuse to place their arguments within the context of the long history of Jewish persecution in the Middle East under the boot of Arab-Muslim imperialism. If we change the terms of the debate to better reflect the reality of Jewish history in the region then we can win that debate. If we refuse to do this, and if we refuse to consider creative ways in which we can change the terms of the discussion, then we have lost before we have even begun and must always play on the defense.

So long as pro-Israel progressive Jews talk about the “Israel-Palestine” conflict, they can never win and therefore do a disservice to the Jewish people by maintaining a counterproductive rhetorical strategy.

It did not take theories of nuclear physics allowing a long-lived Sun to favor an ancient Earth. An ancient Earth was firmly in place from geoscience by the 1850s.

But just as those who are today serving the same role as the courageous anti-Marxist leftists who saved American liberalism from totalitarian Communism had to contend with condemnations from both the Marxists and political enemies on the Right (who would like to associate the entire Left end of the spectrum with the worst aspects of Marxism, either out of sincere belief that totalitarianism is in the Left’s DNA, or for simple partisan advantage), so too will those fighting bigotry within Progressive organizations today will need to contend with attacks coming from both Left and Right.

It may not seem fair, but politics ain’t beanbag. And as I’m writing in a post that should go up later today, the issues we are all contending with go so far beyond today’s partisan concerns that we may want to keep the entire Left-Right spectrum thing in perspective as we try to build a paradigm that will help us navigate through crises that are sure to come.

Anyway, yeah.

It’s time for progressive-left websites to do some more banning of antisemites, and some less banning of those of us who tried to clean things up and expose them (before we were kicked out, ourselves, of course).

There’s a common misconception that the administration worries most about “the Jews.” The latest polls, however, show 73% of U.S. Jews supporting Obama’s policies on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Nearly as many want him to propose a specific plan for a two-state solution, even if it means publicly disagreeing with Israel. Nor is there too much reason to worry about Jewish money, since most Jewish contributors to the Democrats are liberals who are pro-Israel but also pro-peace.

…weren’t considered uncontroversial on progressive-left websites these days.

I got kicked off of that site a year ago for not being nice to antisemites, though.

I’m not necessarily proud of it, but I also voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 (in NJ – if I was in PA or OR then, I would have voted for Gore). Voted and worked for Kerry in 04; ditto for Obama in 08, and voted (but not worked) for the latter last month, too. If people like me (who in America can be leftier than a 2000 Nader voter?!) are getting this vinegar’ed off, there’s a problem.

My problem isn’t with the Democrats (I’m one myself), it IS with the folks like that I quoted above.

I’m not leaving the Left, and I never will. But it’s getting tiring being kicked in my ass every time I take them on, too…

“If support for Israel is seen as a “Republican” thing, then many Democrats will decide that they have to be against it.”

This is a so on the money. I would also add to it the corralary statement:

If supporters of Israel are seen as being irrationally anti-Democrat party or anti-Obama, then Democrats will be against supporting Israel.

Nycerbarb

Do you guys want us to succeed in that? I hope you do.

If your answer is yes, then the number one most important thing you can do to help us is to refrain from trying to make Israel a partisan wedge political issue in US politics.

As you know, most Americans – left and right – are not very politically aware on most issues and largely let group affiliations guide their opinions. If support for Israel is seen as a “Republican” thing, then many Democrats will decide that they have to be against it. Whereas if it is just seen as a bi-partisan thing, then Democrats will largely remain pro-Israel. It’s that simple.

It is just like the way that gun rights used to be roughly bi-partisan, as recently as the 80s both parties were split on the issue, but then got too associated with Republicans so many Democrats decided that they had to be against it, and now the issue is entirely polarized into one party. It is also just like the way that for years Republicans loved health insurance mandates, but as soon as Democrats declared they were for them, Republicans decided they had to be against them.

Israel has been the rare case of something that is more or less bipartisan in American politics. But if it becomes seen as partisan, then those days will be over.

We both agree that BDS (and other anti-Israel movements) are primarily coming at us from the Left, which has not yet made the kind of transition we have seen amongst other traditions (notably important segments of Christianity and the American political right) to purge such bigotry from their ranks.

You have pointed out the great difficulty such a change would be for the Left, given the number of people dedicated to an anti-Israel agenda within its ranks and the challenges faced by those trying to support Israel within such an environment (including the enforcement of language that places Israel’s friends at a disadvantage). And I agree that friends of Israel taking on this task face enormous challenges.

But in every generation, we have seen people ready to step up to the plate and fight against overwhelming odds to ensure their tradition does not get corrupted by the forces of hatred and tyranny. Those progressives and labor leaders who stood fast against Marxist totalitarianism come to mind as a model for this current struggle. And in most of the BDS battles I have been involved with, progressives with this same level of courage and understanding have led the fight.

From what you describe about your own political trajectory, you seem to be part of this tradition, even if you can’t understand why other Progressives don’t adopt the vocabulary you use to describe the Middle East (one that would allow sane moral decisions based on accurate facts). To which I would say that most of the allies I have worked with in the past understand (or are on their way to understanding) these matters, even if they are creating their own vocabulary and tactics to fight against the bigots making a claim to their political tradition.

There is, of course, another alternative for progressive friends of Israel: to abandon the Left entirely and join the Right (which claims to be the only true friend of the Jewish state) or drop out of political life entirely. But I think we both agree that such an argument is likely to fail, assuming as it does that Israel and Israel alone must determine one’s overall political orientation.

Given the hand we’ve been dealt, we can either abandon or marginalize the Left for the behavior of too many people in its ranks, or empower (or become) those willing to stand up to anti-Israel forces and make the arguments and fight the battles needed to drive the haters back to their bunkers.

And, if progressives decide to make any such effort, I certainly think that we should support them. The problem is that there is precious little evidence to suggest that progressives are, in fact, countering anti-Semitism. On the contrary, what we are seeing is a progressive movement that not only accepts anti-Semitic anti-Zionism within its larger coalition, but that is promoting humanitarian racism, as well.

Leaving that aside for the moment, it seems to me that one of our primary differences is in our perceptions of the relationship between the left and BDS. You argue that BDS has co-opted the language of the left, i.e., the language of social justice and human rights, but that BDS does not really represent such values. While I agree with you that BDS represents a corruption of the alleged values of the progressive left, I would argue that anti-Semitic anti-Zionism is, in fact, a welcome part of that movement and the real problem, therefore, is the progressive-left betrayal of their Jewish friends and allies.

Progressive-left anti-Zionism uses the language of social justice and human rights because it comes out of the progressive movement. The larger progressive movement thinks so, as well, which explains why it provides all sorts of venues for anti-Semitic anti-Zionists to get across their message. Whether we’re talking about progressive-left blogs and newspapers, or the progressive-left NGOs, or Yale University, Harvard University, or the University of Pennsylvania, it is out of the left that anti-Semitic anti-Zionism is coming and from within the left that they do their work. BDS may fail in its individual efforts to influence various universities and co-ops, but the larger anti-Zionist movement, from which BDS derives, is very much welcome on the left and has a tremendous influence in how progressives view the conflict.

In truth, they set the very terms of the debate.

This is not to suggest that there is no anti-Zionist presence on the right, but merely that its incarnation on the left is the primary obstacle. Everyone knows that David Duke is a racist, but how many would say the same thing about Alice Walker?

Thus the task here is not merely rescuing progressive-left language from “the haters,” but reforming the left as a whole so that it no longer provides support for those haters. The problem is not merely that anti-Semitic anti-Zionism doesn’t represent progressive-left values, but that the progressive-left no longer represents its own values, if it ever did. And I say this as someone who comes out of that political tradition.

You write:

just as Christians and Conservatives have had to struggle with their own histories of anti-Semitism in the ranks, Progressives need to do the same and should be supported in their efforts, even by those who do not agree with them on a whole host of other issues.

How about those of us who do, in fact, agree with them on a whole host of other issues, yet disagree with them in terms of their understanding of the Arab-Israel conflict because that understanding is hobbled by the ideological and discursive restraints policed by the left, itself?

Progressive-left diaspora Jewry can never wrest the terms of the discussion from anti-Semitic anti-Zionists so long as they insist on discussing the conflict within the very terms set by the anti-Zionists, themselves. Furthermore, unless they wish to be drummed out of the left, so to speak, they are compelled to use that language because it is considered politically unacceptable, even racist, not to do so within progressive-left venues. (For example, just try referring to the “West Bank” as Judea and Samaria among progressives and see how they respond.)

So long as progressive-left Zionists are reluctant to place the conflict within the context of the long history of Jewish dhimmitude under Arab-Muslim imperial rule, or cannot bring themselves to discuss progressive-left sympathies for the rise of political Islam throughout the Middle East, or refuse to discuss the fact that Palestinian nationalism, and the Muslim Brotherhood, owes an ideological debt to Nazi Germany, then they have no chance of doing what you and I agree that they need to do. However, if they honestly do wish to rescue the terms of the conversation from the anti-Zionists, they might start by recognizing that the conflict is not merely between Palestinian “Davids” and Israeli “Goliaths,” but between the larger Arab-Muslim world and the Jews of the Middle East. It’s not an “Israel-Palestine” conflict, but an Arab-Israel conflict or, more accurately, the long Arab-Muslim war against the Jews in the Middle East.

Until progressive diaspora Jewry makes the necessary conceptual switch they can never wrest the language back from the haters, precisely because they are using the language developed by the haters, themselves.

Regarding BDS, the ongoing failure of this “movement” does not mean the forces behind it are powerless. In fact, since those forces are able to enact their will in places like the UN (by voting in Palestinian statehood and condemnation of Israel, while keeping the butchery in Syria off limits, for example), by definition there are powerful state actors behind the global anti-Israel campaign. And even if these actors do not write checks to the BDSers, they have provided them the megaphone they need to raise their issue above all the genuine human rights issues on the planet. The failure of BDS demonstrates that it has been an unsuccessful tactic and that the people it targets (progressive institutions) are not interested in participating, but again this doesn’t mean that the people propelling the BDS message forward do not do so with powerful forces at their back.

The tendency of these forces to wrap their program (and other anti-Israel activity) in a Leftist vocabulary is a distinct issue that all of us need to grapple with. And those who identify with the left end of the political spectrum have the unenviable task of having to rescue that language from the haters. This is no small project, but just as Christians and Conservatives have had to struggle with their own histories of anti-Semitism in the ranks, Progressives need to do the same and should be supported in their efforts, even by those who do not agree with them on a whole host of other issues.

I haven’t read the book, yet, so I must limit my observations to your own claims. Given the breadth of the overall topic, there are all sorts of potential criticisms and questions and so forth, but I will limit myself to just a few that are of particular interest to me.

While I very much appreciate the overview of the political and intellectual history of the left’s move from ambivalence on the Jewish Question to current betrayal, I do have a question about a seeming contradiction in the heart of what you have written.

In the beginning of your first part you tell your readers that “there is general consensus with regard to support for the Jewish state and near universal revulsion at everything BDS is, does and stands for” in the United States. One of the primary messages that you present in Divestthis! is that BDS fails and fails and fails.

Yet in your conclusion you say, “I need to point out that those embracing a left-leaning worldview have the most heavy lifting to do since, for better or for worse, it is their tradition that is being co-opted and corrupted by ruthless totalitarians.”

If this is not a contradiction it is certainly a point of uncertainty in the argument. That is, either BDS is weak or it is not. If it is weak, as you very often imply, filled with perpetual failures, this suggests that it is, for most of us, nothing to be particularly concerned with.

But if this is the case, how is it possible that the left-leaning worldview is being co-opted and corrupted by ruthless totalitarians?

As a left-type myself it stings more when it comes from the left, both because that’s also my tribe and also because the left at least has in its intellectual repertoire a respect for cultural pluralism that is being implicitly rejected when they don’t accept the right of Jews to disagree (whereas the right doesn’t really have a well-developed tradition of respect for cultural differentiation).

But I agree with Fizziks that it is important not to look at this as lefties failing where righties have succeeded. The general rule in America is that Jews are respected — by the left and the right — precisely as far as Jews take amenable positions. Where we dare to deviate, to speak in our own voice, things get dicey — no matter who it is we’re challenging.

“And then there is the phenomenon of lifelong liberals who justifiably lash out against anti-Jewish attitudes within their own tradition who, unable to get genuine Israel-haters to respond to their accusations, turn their wrath on more moderate liberal voices that should be seen as friends, rather than foes.”

My thoughts exactly.

On a more meta-point, I think that US politics in general is terribly infected with people buying their politics wholesale and not thinking for themselves on any given issue. Most people are completely stumped that someone could be, for instance, a committed environmentalist and yet also pro gun-rights, because they just can’t conceive of someone evaluating each issue on its own merits rather than conforming to the party line on everything.

This is why we really need to prevent the default opinion on the Democratic Party side of American politics from becoming anti-Israel, because once it is, it will be hard to go back. Pro-Israel Democrats like me need to fight hard for this. But one of the best ways to prevent Democrats from becoming anti-Israel is for Republicans to stop trying to use Israel as a wedge. If Democrats perceive that Republicans are really for something in a huge partisan way, they will think they need to be against it. Just like when Republicans think that Democrats are really for something in a huge partisan way they think they need to be against it, even if it is the exact thing they used to want (e.g. Obama’s health plan).

Let’s be savvy in regard to the state of American politics. Israel should not be a partisan wedge.

Re PEPs, how about labeling the BDSers, etc, as PNEPs? Progressives for Nothing Except Palestinians (or Palestine, vary according to taste). When they look askance, ask why they don’t take their attitudes towards Israel and apply it equally to (take a deep breath and start to reel off your list of undesirable regimes)…

The BDSers, etc, will of course interrupt and insist on the peculiar nastiness of Israel and only Israel – that is, they are being relative as to the desirability of questioning breaches of human rights by anyone other than Israel. We should interrupt back and start demanding evidence, again and again and again and…After all, when they yell “pinkwashing” (or whatever) in our ears, we’re not expected to riposte “prove it”.

And we should, every time. We have evidence on our side. If they are so convinced that their case goes beyond ideology, they shouldn’t be afraid to produce evidence on their side.

I think we should be as vehement in our demands for their evidence as they are in refusing to provide it, relying, instead, on repetition of slogans.

Not good enough, by them.

The Wistrich is now on my list, but will have to wait until the current pile has gone down a little!

The history of the tension between Jewish nationalism and international socialism, from the 19th century until today, is something that we very much need to be aware of as we advocate for the State of Israel. This is necessary backdrop so I am glad that you, and Wistrich, are highlighting it.

Although I have not yet read From Ambivalence to Betrayal, I am now very much looking forward to doing so.

I definitely have my quibbles and criticisms of your first two parts in this series, quibbles and criticisms that I will be happy to articulate shortly, but this last part is important reading, I think.

Thank you for it.

I don’t limit it to I/P. I have seen numerous other causes promoted at our General Meetings.

Barbara

Actually, we just heard that plenty at the Hamas anniversary rally. Any given day you can find these kinds of statements on PMW in the Arab media.

The question is: “why are these ignored by the supposedly “human rights supporting” community?”

I think not.

We’re building a new one here in my North Philadelphia neighborhood, and it’s exciting to be involved right from the start. We don’t even have the brick and mortar up yet, and G-d knows we certainly need a good grocery store here in the poorest corner of the poorest large city in the US.

This also gets me to thinking how fragile the whole thing can potentially be, and how particularly selfish the BDSers are to poison community organizations / businesses / buying clubs / etc like these. Targeting Caterpillar or boycotting the NFL is one thing, but attempting to tear apart the fabric of local communities is quite another.

Just so you know….

thank you for the response. I certainly agree that the president of the United States is not the “puppet master of the world.” It’s not entirely clear to me why you say so, but I definitely agree with the you. While the POTUS is among the most influential people on the entire planet, I certainly do not think that he can merely snap his fingers and produce international results.

I guess, you would need to count me among those liberals who object to Obama’s deeply conservative foreign policy. This is a president who supported the installation into power of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and who hailed the rise of political Islam throughout the Middle East as something akin to the American Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s and who suggested, upon the fall of Tunisia, that the “Arab Spring” should be looked upon in the way we look upon the American Revolutionary Spirit of ’76.

I think that he was seriously mistaken.

It seems clear to me that Obama’s advocacy for the so-called “Arab Spring” has been exceedingly detrimental because I do not think that he recognized, or even recognizes now, that what we call the “Arab Spring” is actually the rise of political Islam.

Whatever Obama’s best intentions he essentially supported the rise of a deeply reactionary conservative political movement throughout the Middle East that oppresses women, murders Gay people, is genocidal toward Jews, and that is driving non-Muslims out of the Middle East.

As a liberal I tend to oppose such things and, therefore, very much encourage our government to do so, as well.

No taste, you people! (that’s irony, by the way)

As someone who buys not only my food, but also everything from furniture to candles to bike parts as local as possible, I’ve sure spent a good amount on things from Israel over the past couple of years. And it would have been much more, but I don’t drink wine. So BDS has at least accomplished that lately!

1) Stand With Us has a petition against boycotting Israel:
Here is the link: http://westandforisrael.com/

I don’t put a lot of stock in internet petitions, but I would like to see this one accumulate a lot names. I posted reasons to sign at my blog: http://stopbdsparkslope.blogspot.com/2012/12/why-sign-stand-up-against-boycotting.html

2) Or Barkan who blogs at BDS Gone Bad has written this really excellent piece.
http://www.thinkscotland.org/thinkpolitics/articles.html?read_full=11811&article=www.thinkscotland.org

3) Finally, a rather damning statement on the BDS/anti-Israel movement from the Protestant Consultation on Israel and the Middle East.
http://www.pcime.org/Declaration.aspx

Nycerbarb

The President of the United States is not the puppet master of the world. Not Obama and not any of his predecessors. The influence of the United States even in times of peace is very limited, how much more so during times of conflict. The Iraq War destroyed any good will and trust that might have existed between the US the Arab world.

I asked Elliot Abrams why during the 30 or so years since the Camp David accords, while the US was dumping all this money into Egypt, it wasn’t doing more to promote the establishment of democratic institutions. Abrams admitted part of the blame goes to lack of foresight from the State Dept. and part goes towards buying off Mubarak’s silence during Israel later campaigns against Hezballah and Hamas.

Nycerbarb

But does Barack Obama recognize it?

Even as recently as his latest UN speech he discussed the Arab Spring as something that his administration supported due to its allegedly democratic nature.

Yet there is nothing democratic about the Muslim Brotherhood or about the rise of political Islam, which is what we are actually seeing with these various uprisings and revolutions.

One State Solution

But part of that understanding has to include how the other side operates and, just as important, how we operate. For example, if they declare that a food coop in West Nowhere taking Israeli lentils off the shelf is fraught with political significance, we tend to respond to that news (by proving them wrong or showing how it doesn’t matter). But if we ask if the doubling of the Israeli economy and associated investment pouring into the Jewish state “proves” Israeli popularity (using the BDS formula of “economic activity = political support”), they just ignore the question in favor of carrying on with their own accusations, knowing full well that it’s just as likely we will respond to their charges as it is that they will never respond to ours.

That’s just one example, but I hope you catch my drift.

You’re a meta guy, Jon.

I’m just now coming to this fairly obvious realization. Something like Landis, and to some extent myself, but less like Rubin, you’re interested in the conversation around the conversation.

My only caution is to not fall into the trap of treating a particular issue as a “magic bullet” that – if we can just get the public to understand it – the justice of our cause would be clear to all.

I’ve seen many people get stuck zeroing in on a single accusation (often with regard to Muslim treatment of gays and lesbians) which they think will win over a progressive portion of the public (only to get frustrated when this one issue doesn’t move an audience).

Of course, I’m as guilty as everyone else, given how much I harp on a single solution to our rhetorical problems. But since I’m advocating that we re-learn the general tools of rhetoric to better fight our battles, these tools are applicable to different situations and can draw upon (and inform) what you and others are already doing.

One is the fact that I have gotten this far in life without really giving a fig regarding what a film star, TV star or rock-and-roller had to say about political issues that I care about (or even don’t care about). So just as I struggled to find any significant political meaning in The Red Hot Chile Pepper’s playing Tel Aviv (beyond the fact that Israel has grown into a venue well worth visiting for them and thousands of other artists), I can’t quite bring myself to care about where Stevie Wonder chooses to play or not play these days (especially since nothing he does today can hold a candle to his debut film performance: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nStJmVDZoUo).

More importantly, as the blog entry above discusses, there’s some serious SH*T going on out in the world. And if thinking about these matters solely in the context of domestic US or Israeli politics is so narrow as to be unenlightening, then thinking about them in the context of what a 72-year old rocker chooses to do with is time seems positively trivial (regardless of how much as I enjoyed “Songs in the Key of Life” when I was in 7th grade).

“Wonder’s representatives will claim that he did not know the nature of the group, the Friends of the Israel Defense Forces, and that he believes such a performance would be incongruent with his status as a U.N. “Messenger of Peace,” according to a source who has read email exchanges between Wonder’s representatives and organizers of the event.”

http://www.jta.org/news/article/2012/11/28/3113081/petitions-do-not-find-wonder-lovely

Looks like you spoke too soon.

It’s also a possibility that I’m the only person outside of their circle who even noticed their ‘call,’ but that is the task I’ve taken upon myself after all…

There is certainly nothing wrong with an appeal to emotion, particularly if that appeal is grounded in historical reality.

I suppose that in a certain kind of way my own writings are reflective of this approach in that I insist that we need to reintroduce Jewish history in the Middle East into the discussion.

Accuse. Accuse. Accuse.

One thing that BDSers and the anti-Israel contingent must be made to understand is that the Jews of the Middle East were, for 13 hundred years, subject to dhimmitude, i.e., second and third class citizenship under the boot of Muslim imperial rule and that the Arab war against the Jews of the Middle East only began when they attained their freedom with the fall of the Ottoman empire.

That’s the historical backdrop that we should embed our arguments in when those arguments call for the larger historical picture.

One can create a strong, effective argument built on premises that are either true or false. And I would say that such arguments based on the truth are stronger than equally well constructed arguments based on falsehoods.

Similarly, one can avoid reasonable argumentation and just engage in non-stop accusation or some other strategy (such as purely emotional arguments) that are designed to bypass reason. But in these cases too, a “pointing finger” or 100% emotional presentation is more effective if the accusations and images are based on the truth, rather than lies.

Obviously, the other side has the advantage of a megaphone provided by being aligned with the some of the world’s most wealthy and powerful states. But they also take advantage of the fact that our side thinks that facts alone can overcome their lies.

If we are faced with an opponent who will respond to reason, then it is incumbent up on us to build our truths into powerful and reasonable arguments. But if we are faced with an opponent who just wants to accuse, accuse, accuse and never listen or respond, then we are equally obliged to respond in kind, but to do so by continuing to speak the truth (with the promise that once they stop telling lies about Israel, we’ll stop telling the truth about them).

So it’s not a matter of our truth failing (which would imply that we too should resort to dishonestly). Rather, we have come up short rhetorically by allowing the other side to appeal to emotion or engage in other rhetorical tactics that we tend to consider beneath us.

“And because the accusations we are already hurling and should continue to hurl non-stop happen to be true, they will always pack more punch than the lies…”

I agree with the first half of this sentence and disagree with the second half, Jon.

The fact of the matter is that truth is on the side of the Jewish people in the Middle East, if we are willing to discuss it within the larger context of Jewish dhimmitude under Islamic imperial rule.

I must disagree with you on the second half because I simply see no evidence to suggest that the truth of the Arab-Israel conflict weighs more heavily than the lies and distortions.

Further, the way you characterize the site, and by extension those who engage there, implies to me you would go further if you could.

Your site is no less a thumb in the eye to tolerance in the manner it treats others who do not conform to its “progressive” ideal.

Perhaps it is best to address the matter of BDS, where the proponents are more accurately described as deranged in their agenda.

Strawman much?

And with that, I don’t really have anything to add, other than to say my preference is that people judge what I do here based on what appears in the left 2/3s of the screen, rather than the widgets that appear on the right 1/3. But that choice is entirely up to you and other readers.

Kids waking. Gotta go.

I think that in this particular discussion here you are obfuscating by claiming the mantle of diversity. As I said, there is diversity and then there is divisiveness. As you may know, I have a center-left pro-Israel blog called The Progressive Zionist. If the goal is diversity of thought within a pro-Israel framework, why not link to that?

This isn’t about diverse voices, it is about divisive voices. You have chosen the later, in spite of much of your readership.

Also, I don’t see diverse voices there. Those are all right wing blogs. Some of them are good blogs, such as Elder of Zion, which, while I sometimes disagree with their politics, are insightful and interesting, which is fine. Others are not, such as Israel Thrives. But don’t try to claim that you are promoting “diverse voices” with that menu.

I’m hoping that the perspective I provide here is informative enough that people who may disagree on other matters will find it useful. And with the election behind us (which I hope provides some additional perspective), I’m hoping to return to the subject of Left vs. Right support (and hostility) to Israel , but do so in a way that I hope provides more light than heat.

But before that, I’ve got a Thanksgiving weekend to get through, some follow up on this month’s Gaza war to reflect on, and Robert Wistrich’s book to finish (which I highly recommend everyone else read to gain a better perspective of the historic reasons behind much of our current Left-Right political disposition towards the Jewish state).

I hope you’ll be able to contribute to discussions in this area (and would even be happy to let you and others have a guest column to discuss your perspective). And in the meantime, I hope that you will not consider my continued linking to diverse voices a slap in the face to you or anyone else.

Thank you for your reply.

I understand what you are saying but you do not seem to be aware the extent to which that blog, and its inclusion on your blogroll, are a thumb in the eye of your progressive, liberal, and centrist allies.

That blog does not in any way have “respectful” discussion of left-right issues. It simply accuses anyone who voted for the President or who is to the left of Mitt Romney of “supporting the Muslim Brotherhood”, endorsing Jihad, and similar nonsense. There is a tremendous amount of unwarranted vitriol directed at your progressive and centrist allies there, Jon.

If you recognize that progressive and centrist Jews are a, perhaps the, crucial constituency for defeating BDS and anti-Israel activities generally, I hope you will recognize the potential to divide us and the alliance we have built over these things. Progressive and centrists like me will continue to support Israel, but it will be hard to convince them to do it working with people who gratuitously insult them at every opportunity. Mindlessly insulting your allies, or, in this case, endorsing those who mindlessly insult your allies, is not a good coalition building strategy. Please reconsider.

Regarding the rest of your comment, keep in mind that the strategy I’m suggesting above is not something we need to (or should) apply universally. As you and I both know, there are some people who want to debate the Middle East conflict honesetly, and there are many people whose minds are open to new information. In fact, I would include almost everyone I’ve worked with in this category. And when we interact with such people, we should be respectful, open and constructively engaged.

At the same time, there are people whose idea of “debate” is to accuse, accuse, accuse and never respond, never answer questions, never acknowledge when their accusations have been countered successfully. For these people, the strategy I recommend is not only appropriate, but the best way to (1) get them to recognize that the “pointing finger” is not going to work (once they realize others can use it too); and hopefully (2) become honest debating partners who realize that others are onto faux-debate tactics to the point where they no longer work.

A few technical comments, first:
1) Links from twitter are not working.
2) “Assadwashing” link doesn’t work
3) I think you need to make the grey tone of the text a little darker.
4) The new platform does not work well on my android phone.

Ok, on to a real comment.

Having been submerged in the twitterverse for the last few days, it seems to me all these discussions dead end and a different approach is necessary.

Our Euro-American-Leftist BDSer is usually motivated by thr belief she is protecting the poor, oppressed, and helpless from a big, bad, evil. And they have been very successful in framing Israel/Zionist Jews as that evil. But who is the true oppressor of the Middle East’s stateless Arabs? It is the corrupt, despotic, totalitarian Arab regimes scattered throughout the region. I believe if we reframe the discussion in this manner, we have an opportunity to change it. And I say all the above in complete sincerity, without guile or sarcasm.

We saw this week what Hamas did to 6 people. They are an evil on a par with Stalin or Idi Amin. And they are not a democratically elected government. Their party won many positions in the Parliament, but they overthrew the Palestinian Authority in a bloody coup. Furthermore, both the PLO and Hamas are mainly carpetbaggers, who violently squash an local efforts at creating pro-co-existence movements within the Arab population.

Empathy. I have a son who lives at kibbutz a few miles from the Gaza border. So these last weeks he has not only been hearing sirens and rockets landing in the Eshkol region, but also the launches from Gaza and the IDF attacks on Gaza. It was like living in a constant thunderstorm. Now just think how it sounded to someone living in Gaza. It must be terrifying. And think if all the information around is constantly telling you how evil Israel is.

So my approach will be, if I ever get into a discussion with someone, to establish how awful these leaderships have been for the Arab people, and to reach common ground on that. Then to establish the need for any totalitarian regime to have an “implacable enemy” that justifies its reign of terror. Finally, to show that the BDS narrative just helps to prolong that “needed enemy” role and actually works counter to human rights and peace and everything that the Euro-American-Leftist values.

The conflict in the Middle East has nothing to do with land or borders. It is not about Zionism or Jews. It is about corrupt, totalitarian leaders and the need to sustain perpetual conflict as a way of instilling fear, exploiting the population and maintaining power.

I will let you know how that works out.

Nycerbarb

http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/117322/how-gaza-changes-the-game?utm_source=tabletmagazinelist&utm_campaign=9b014dd2e4-11_21_2012&utm_medium=email

Regarding inclusion of Mike’s blog on the blogroll, I wanted to respond before a debate ensues that might turn out to be less than productive.

As you say, progressive Jews (and non-Jews) are not just a key constituency for this blog, but have also made up the bulk of people I’ve worked with on anti-BDS activity at places like Park Slope and beyond. So I understand and appreciate the sensitivity of opening up a Left-Right rift over an important subject (the fight against BDS) about which both Left and Right largely agree.

At the same time, I have found issues of both Left and Right support and opposition to Israel to be worth discussing, so long as they are done in a respectful manner.

Given that Mike has his own site where hard-core Left-Right issues can be discussed and debated, I’m hoping that both he (and people who agree with him) and you (and people who agree with you) can find common ground (or at least a place to respectfully disagree) on a site (this one) where – on a practical level – you have already found commonality.

Especially now that Israel will not be playing a role in election-year politics, I expect to return to subjects related to Israel, Jews, anti-Semitism, Left and Right and welcome people of all persuasions to join in these discussions (which I hope will be fruitful).

That’s my four cents.

OT, but I just saw that you have the Israel Thrives blog on your blog roll. I urge you to reconsider this, as it is a highly partisan blog which constantly demonizes liberals and Democrats who are an important part of both your readership and anti-BDS efforts generally (e.g. in Park Slope).

I believe these overly partisan right wing blogs are dangerous to Israel, and represent a divide and conquer strategy by anti-Israel forces. Please read this piece, about the general phenomenon (not that blog in particular): Endangering Israel

This is just a quick note to thank you for including Israel Thrives on your blogroll.

That is much appreciated, good sir.

And, yeah, the new look of this place is pretty terrific.

Keep up the good fight.

Mike

Also, the text of the post is coming in as gray, and it is a little difficult to see on the white background.

Nycerbarb

(except I agere with the comment above. The boxes for name, e-mail, and comment content are difficult to see.

Nycerbarb

Keep up the good work and wishing for you more traffic.

Nycerbarb

I've never stopped to talk with them (I'm hearing impaired, and on top of that I always seem to be a few minutes late every time I pass), though I've always been half-curious as to who they are. I do regularly nod and smile at them when I pass on the way to my food pantry work. So it's good to know there's already a built-in group who'll almost certainly be there to counter the lies.

I'll head on over there right afterward to see if anything's still going on then (and in fact I'll be able to stop by as I get off the subway around 11:30 or so), and I'll also keep an eye on their actions around here thereafter.

Thanks for the list!

List of actions:

Albuquerque, NM
Friday, Nov. 16, 5pm
UNM bookstore (Central and Cornell)
Contact: 505-268-2488 or abq@answercoalition.org

Baltimore, MD
Saturday, Nov. 17, 12noon
McKeldin Square
Contact: 443-759-9968 or baltimore@answercoalition.org
Boca Raton, FL
Thursday, Nov. 15, 9am-2pm
FAU Breezeway: 777 Glades Rd.
Boston, MA
Thursday, Nov. 15, 4:30pm
Copley Square

Chicago, IL
Thursday, Nov. 15, 4pm
Obama Headquarters, 130 E. Randolph St.
Contact: 773-463-0311

Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Saturday, Nov. 17, 2pm
Broward Federal Courthouse
299 East Broward Blvd.

Los Angeles, CA
Thursday, Nov. 15, 4pm
Israeli Consulate, 11766 Wilshire Blvd.
Contact: 213-251-1025 or answerla@answerla.org

New Haven, CT
Saturday, Nov. 17, 12 noon
141 Church St. (opposite the Green)
Contact: 203-903-4480 or ct@answercoalition.org

New York, NY
Thursday, Nov. 15, 5pm
In front of the Israeli Consulate (42nd St. and 2nd Ave.)

Philadelphia, PA
Friday, Nov. 16, 12 noon
Israeli Consulate: 1880 JFK Blvd.

San Francisco, CA
Thursday, Nov. 15, 5:15pm
Consulate General of Israel
456 Montgomery St Ste 1500, San Francisco

Friday, Nov. 16, 4pm
Israeli Consulate,
456 Montgomery St., SF
Contact: 415-821-6545 or sf@answercoalition.org

Syracuse, NY
Friday, Nov. 16, 12 noon
Federal building
Corner of Fayette St. and Clinton St.
Contact: 315-491-6987 or Syracuse@answercoalition.org

Washington, D.C.
Friday, Nov. 16, 6pm
Rally at the State Department (2201 C Street Northwest),
Followed by March to the White House
Contact: 202-265-1948 or dc@answercoalition.org

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.

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.

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.

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.

Nycerbarb

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.

Nycerbarb

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.

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.

Nycerbarb

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”?

Nycerbarb

http://www.bdsmovement.net/call

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

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.

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 cnn.com 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.'

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, http://www.endtheoccupation.org/section.php?id=30 , 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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

Nycerbarb

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.

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…

http://www.timesofisrael.com/at-interfaith-meet-in-jerusalem-a-grim-picture-of-jewish-protestant-relations/

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.

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?

Sincerely,
An Actual BDS Person

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.

Sincerely,
A Typical BDS Person

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.

.

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.

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/study-no-anti-semitic-anti-israel-incidents-at-most-american-college-campuses-1.472077

Isn't that a good job?

You will not see a less-anti-Israel environment ot a less antisemitic environment for that matter. First, because there have been forces at work “manufacturing consent” in the world since the early 1980s. It would take a huge counter-force and a lot of money to turn the tide around and I don't see anyone or any country doing that.

Second, committees of acceptance, Fullbright examiners, etc, are formed of those same biased professors who will give preference to those students from abroad who have never seen a Jew and are conditioned since childhood to believe the worst about Israelis. Those become the university activists.

Third, politics are today in some places a means of advancement, and have replaced true scholarship. Look at the drivel being produced today in American – and some Israeli – universities.

Another is Nobel Prize winner in quantum mechanics Moroccan-born Serge Haroche, who was scheduled to come to the Technion before his nomination.

The “smol” Israeli media made a point of course asking Serge Haroche about the boycott:
“Anyone really concerned with research doesn't pay attention to boycotts”, he said.

A clear pattern is emerging: True genius doesn't worry about boycotts, only the mediocre do. And that's the only way we -elitists!-will have it.

So, kind of like with the electoral college, what matters in reaching university students is not so much overall numbers, but where one is winning. I remain concerned until we see a less anti-Israel environment at places like Berkeley and Columbia (although, it should be noted, that anti-Israel attitudes of the extreme Mondoweiss type are a small minority at even those places).

But in this case, the subject of the story you have chosen to respond to (that the burden of proof falls on BDSers to substantiate their claims) is one you have already acknowledge through silence that you either agree with or have on answer to. And this burden of proof applies not just to alleged BDS “victories,” but to the accusations of bigotry you make as well.

In this instance, you have made an accusation related to a specific poll and have been asked to provide details on several occasions. While waiting for you to substantiate your claims (something my kids are now learning to do in elementary and Middle School writing classes), the adults in the conversation moved to other topics (such as BDSers selective morality).

But responding to those side conversations by tapping into your ready store of clichéd counter-arguments is not a substitute for coming up with the evidence that is still your responsibility to provide, given the accusations you've made.

So until we see it, we must only assume that (1) you don't want to acknowledge that the burden of proof does indeed fall on you; (2) you can't substantiate your claims (and don't even see the need to); and (3) you feel that simply restating your claims (or pretending that side comments represent the only things you have to deal with) will distract others from your inability to hold up your end of the argument.

Let me know if I've missed anything.

“Are the survey findings entirely rosy? They are not. 59% of Jewish Israelis believe Jews should receive preferential treatment when applying to work in government ministries (34% are opposed) (see question 4), and 49% believe the state should care more for the needs of Jewish Israelis than for those of Arab Israelis (an equal number, 49%, are opposed) (see question 7). 50% of Jewish Israelis believe Arabs are discriminated against when they apply to work in government ministries (29% say they are not) (see question 3), and 39% believe new immigrants are (35% say they are not) (see question 2). 47% of Jewish Israelis would like to see Arab citizens of Israel put under Palestinian control (40% are opposed) (see question 14).”

If you're OK with this account, even with the apologist “Storify” author omitting some of the more disturbing details, I feel sorry for you.

The comparison to Iran (and Syria, and Saudi Arabia) is, of course, absurd. The United States does not endow Iran with $3 billion in economic aid every year. We don't equip Iran's military with the most advanced weaponry or share classified national security secrets with them. Our politicians don't sculpt American foreign policy around Iran's expressed interests. Our presidential candidates don't mention their duties to protect Iran against foreign aggressors 31 times over the course of a one and a half hour foreign policy debate. And surely, our politicians don't praise the Iranian government even when its policies directly contradict U.S. interests in the Middle East and elsewhere.

Moreover, because all Americans are (negatively) affected by the U.S.-Israel love affair and because this problem can be solved domestically (through political pressure), it is certainly both our right and our obligation to speak out. On the other hand, I, and I think many of my BDS friends think very much about the situations in Iran and Syria, but In both those cases, I personally feel that our government is currently doing all that it can and should do, and because of that, I wonder what kind of impact “holding a march” would have on the situations in those two countries. Perhaps you could enlighten me?

Finally, your accusation of “supporting dictatorships” is simply wrong. The only reason why the recently deposed tyrannical Egyptian dictatorship was one of the largest recipients of U.S. aid over the past 30 years (look it up) was because they had to be “bought” to maintain their inorganic peace treaty with Israel. This was, of course, fully supported by your side and opposed by mine. When the Arab Spring broke out, we liberal BDSers embraced democratic revolution while AIPAC and its friends first asked, “What will this mean for Israel?” The U.S. has a long history of financially supporting Arab dictators who submit to American and Israeli interests. This policy is not something BDSers have ever supported.

http://rabbibrant.com/

The various flotillas also went through Syria. I particularly like the photos of some of Galloway's flotidiots posing with an SSNP flag — the SSNP being a fascist organization whose members right now are out on the streets murdering innocent Syrians.

So BDS and the anti-Israel movement were more than happy to associate with the Syrian government and more than happy use the Syrian people. Now that all those Syrian connections are embarrassing, you are happy to remain silent while the Syrian people are devoured by the lions.

The BDS people can't even be bothered to hold a march against the Lions. Instead you spend your time peddling excuses on why you have abandoned the Syrian people.

You are cowards. I dare you to go Damascus and hold a march supporting the people who you were so happy to use just a year ago.

BDS isn't any kind of human rights movement anymore than all those “peace activists” who go to Iran and meet with the government but never speak against what's happening to the Baha'i or Kurds or Arabs or Baluchis in Iran actually care about peace. And not surprisingly, lots of these peace activists are associated with BDS and other anti-Israel movements.

Why don't you be honest for once — admit what we all know that BDS will support any dictator or terrorist or murderer as long as they are anti-Israel. Of course that will never happen. Instead, what we will see is a long list a excuses for why you are silent while your former allies die.

And I notice you totally skipped any mention of the Ha'aretz poll now that it's clear it was a sham. Sort of like BDS in general.

http://storify.com/avimayer/haaretz-and-apartheid-the-full-picture

Our anonon BDS BSer shouldn't worry though. I'm certain he will find plenty of reasons to describe Israel as the worse place on earth. It's not like civilians are being massacred in in Syria or the Baha'i face actual Apartheid in Iran.

Anyway, why does Israeli public opinion matter to this discussion? When the University of Maryland polled Arabs throughout the middle east they found things that were much worse, such as that more Arabs think that Israel was behind 9/11 than think Al Qaeda was, or that less than 5% of Arabs liked Jews (http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/feb09/STARTII_Feb09_rpt.pdf). So I guess based on those much more scientific poll results that place his preferred side in a negative light, Anonymous will want to stop championing Arabs? Fat chance.

Here is an example from 2010 with the same pollster:
http://blog.camera.org/archives/2010/03/pollster_haaretz_misrepresente.html

In any case, it is important to know that the pollster, Camil Fuchs, is employed by Haaretz and that he has done polls in the past that Haaretz has also interpreted creatively.

Personally, I think the author was too dismissive of polls generally since, as you point out, they underlie a century of successful social science and market research.

But I think the author does have a point with regard to polls dealing with hot political topics (such as this year's election) which need to be carefully evaluated particularly closey with regard to accuracy, relevancy, bias and timliness since the temptation of people to believe the poll results that fits with their existing biases is just too great.

As a sociologist, I'd certainly want to ask critical questions of the survey: what were the questions asked and how were they phrased? (that is, were they leading, in that they virtually demanded a given answer?); what was the survey population? was it representative of the Israeli-Jewish population as a whole?; how large was the population? was it preceded by a sample survey?

Given the critical nature of the claimed results, these are the least we can demand of the item concerned. Given this info, we can probably think of further critical questions, but these will do for a start.

Answer them appropriately, and we might start to have a serious debate. Otherwise…

For example, we were recently visited by someone trying to tell us that the Quakers were the latest BDS victory. But by the very standards for measuring BDS success you have acknowledged through silence (which at least demonstrates your unwillingness or inability to challenge this sensible standard), we now know the Quaker story to be false.

Now you are asking us to believe serious changes of Apartheid based on a poll no one but you has seen the results of, which you have not yet provided background information on.

Once you provide actual evidence (and not just a link to a story you were ready to believe before it was printed), then we can have a conversation.

Until then, focus on supporting your assertions, rather than just rewording them.

Jon

What about attitudes of actual laws?: “58% believe Israel already practises apartheid against Palestinians, the poll found.” Maybe Jon should turn his focus to convincing Israelis, not BDSers, that Israel doesn't practice apartheid!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/23/israeli-poll-majority-apartheid-policies

In the meantime, I think the big win for both pro- and anti-BDSers who spend time on this site is that our anonymous BDS supporter seems to be OK with the argument I've been making regarding where the burden of proof lies regarding BDS victories. Otherwise, why would he gloss over responding in favor of discussing an unrelated poll?

So unless we're told otherwise, I think it's safe to say that we have agreement that the evidence of BDS success will be the same as in all previous instances of divestment politics: a public statement by the organization doing the boycotting declaring in no uncertain terms what they're doing and why.

See, you can make progress on contraversial issues online!

Moreover, attitudes don't matter as much as actual laws.

Meanwhile, that link you sent me to seems to behind a premium wall, so if you can send me information regarding the poll, I'll be happy to take a look at it.

Regarding polling generally, whenever I'm evaluating survey-related information (even, actually especially, if the poll results seem to “prove” a political opinion I support), the first thing I want to look at is the data behind the poll (especially sample size, the nature of the sample, and the actual wording of the survey questions).

Skipping all this and jumping right to assuming the conclusions to be 100% accurate creates the risk that you might fall for what is called “Proofiness” (https://www.google.com/webhp?source=search_app#hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=proofiness&oq=proofiness&gs_l=hp.3..0l4.1040.2647.0.2847.10.8.0.2.2.0.157.882.3j5.8.0.les%3B..0.0…1c.1.l7_KZ68uNSU&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=bb2e79c6c9080287&bpcl=35466521&biw=1366&bih=643), the automatic assumption that numerical information is superior to any other kind (a fallacy people tend to fall into, especially if the numbers seem to support positions they already believe).

“The majority of the Jewish public, 59 percent, wants preference for Jews over Arabs in admission to jobs in government ministries. Almost half the Jews, 49 percent, want the state to treat Jewish citizens better than Arab ones; 42 percent don't want to live in the same building with Arabs and 42 percent don't want their children in the same class with Arab children.

A third of the Jewish public wants a law barring Israeli Arabs from voting for the Knesset and a large majority of 69 percent objects to giving 2.5 million Palestinians the right to vote if Israel annexes the West Bank.

A sweeping 74 percent majority is in favor of separate roads for Israelis and Palestinians in the West Bank. A quarter – 24 percent – believe separate roads are “a good situation” and 50 percent believe they are “a necessary situation.”"

http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/survey-most-israeli-jews-would-support-apartheid-regime-in-israel.premium-1.471644

But what we're seeing today is something entirely different. You must have heard by now of the letter of the 15 Church leaders to Congress – if you didn't see the link provided by anonymous above.
A group of 13 Jews have signed a letter of support for this letter, 10 Rabbis, 1 cantor and 2 Rabbinical students.

ALL 10 RABBIS ARE RECONSTRUCTIONIST who
- are on JVP Rabbinical council
- are active BDSers and even got an award for their activities against Israel
- support the Free Gaza movement (flotillas)
- are founders of and support the Fast for Gaza movement.

How is it? I think it is important to know and urgent to find out. Where is the indoctrination taking place. I don't know, other than they all have in common the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College and that the Reconstructionist Federation knows of their activities.
Yet, they are extremely careful not to implicate their denomination and prefer to pass themselves for “Jewish Rabbis”. Why?

What are the motivations and goals of the Protestant Churches, some with a firm legacy of antisemitism going back all the way to their founders?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/21/us/church-appeal-on-israel-angers-jewish-groups.html?hp

The question is what are their goals and policies? What does BDS seek to achieve? Do you know? Because I don't.

If the goal of BDS is to bring Israel down to its knees, that won't and can't happen. All countries have here their representatives, their spies, their commissions, and they know full well there is no apartheid, but rather the stalemate of a peace program that they themselves imposed (the Quartet's road map, to name one).

Is the goal of BDS to weaken Israel's economy? That won't happen either and they know it. In fact, a BDS success would have exactly the opposite effect – since there are Israeli companies would like nothing better than develop industries for which Israel depends on Europe and the United States.

Is the goal of BDS to pressure Israeli society? To do what? Surely they do not expect Israelis to leave the country en masse – the overwhelming majority of Israelis are for the two states solutions, and it is clear to them that the stalemate is caused by the refusal of Mahmous Abbas to join the negotiating table.

Is the goal of BDS simply to demonize Israelis and Jews an incite against them? Impose the Palestinian narrative throughout the world? It certainly looks that way. I spoke of a BDS legal defeat in France in my post above, but French BDSers have now taken their boycott to the “suburbs” meaning the agglomerations of Maghreban Muslim immigrants and they are distributing inciting pamphlets there. What corporations and economic interests in Israel do these poverty-stricken immigrant populations have? What is their leverage? None. The immediate goal is clearly incitement.

But what is the long-term goal? This is where a thorough analysis must be done. Why do those Rabbis of JVP advocate for BDS? Does anyone seriously believe that it is because they are uniquely virtuous? Do you think the founders and signatories of the Jewish Fast for Gaza have any concern whatsoever for the victims of those they supports? Who among them has ever had a word of compassion for all those children and innocent civilians killed by Qassam rockets?

No, what I see is that BDS is a coalition of different and even diverging interests taking a ride on the same train. Those who think that BDS has unified goals and policies are making a grave mistake.

Voicing those goals would obviously divide and cause splits within the movement, which is precisely why they are not clearly spelled out.

Feel the momentum!

Hey Anonymous, I know Rome wasn't built in a day, but come on!

Of how many countries in the region could that be said? And that, within the Green Line, they're largely living in peace with one another. Oh, and you forgot the Bahai: didn't you get to the fantastic Bahai gardens in Haifa? Shame on you – you have to go back and see them.

That is, not everyone in the region (or anywhere else) sees Israel as THE problem, the solving of which (ie eliminating Israel) will surely bring POE & goodwill to all – to say nothing of Islamism forever for all of the region.

ww.gatestoneinstitute.org/3164/france-penalizes-boycott-israeli-products

http://leplus.nouvelobs.com/contribution/556641-boycotter-les-produits-d-israel-non-ce-n-est-pas-de-la-liberte-d-expression.html

Let us not forget that France is where it all started with the academic boycotts led by among others Ilan Pappe and the late Tania Reinhardt and who has since gone to meet her maker (Satan).

Interesting that nowhere in UANI materials is it suggested that Iran doesn't have the right to exist as an independent nation, or that its territory should be taken over and national self-determination for the Persian people be elimninated.

See the mention of boycott or divestment decisions that didn't amount to more than three figures (i.e., < $1000) of economic impact, and the reference to BDS decisions made in the dead of night behind people's backs. While not originally written with reference to the Olympia Food Co-op, both are 100% relevant to that story.

Jon

“The can't say they are divesting from Israel because of Zionist censorship.”

The more I read on statements by the anti-Israel crowd, the more racist derangement I see.

Nycerbarb

BTW you've got a typo: “University of Massachusetts pulled the plug on Sudan-related divestment” -> “University of Massachusetts pulled the plug on Sudan-related investment”

Boston Veolia is next in the BDS'er's crosshairs.

http://bcprights.org/veolia

http://www.verkeersnet.nl/3910/qbuzz-nieuwe-vervoerder-regio-utrecht/

Google translation : The award to Qbuzz follows the European tender for the urban and regional in the Utrecht region. The current concessionaire Connexxion / GVU and Qbuzz described in the auction. According to a scoring both offers tested for quality and price. Both offers met the requirements but on the basis of price and quality came Qbuzz higher, according to the regional board.

“The Board of the Utrecht Regional (BRU) has decided to grant the concession for the tram and bus in the city and region Utrecht to Qbuzz.

On its website (www.regioutrecht.nl ) BRU states that the other candidate for public transport “OV Utrecht region” also had presented a very good bid.
Of course they would have to say so, but we as U4P are satisfied that our campaign yielded a positive result thanks to all our phone calls, petitions and participation in the General Board meeting of the BRU.

We U4P did this to prevent the other candidate to get the concession.

“OV Utrecht region 'is actually Connexxion together with the GVU which is the current operator of the tram and bus in Utrecht.
These two companies have since 2011 been taken over by Veolia, the international group that violates international law in many ways, and profits from Israel’s occupation of Palestine.

Many thanks to all who have contributed to U4P’s campaign, especially the BNC and the Civic Coalition for Palestinians Rights in Jerusalem!
Finally, for your interest: A Different Jewish Voice in the Netherlands has compiled a fact sheet and file on Veolia in both Dutch and English, and posted it on its website, see http://eajg.nl/node/477. Very useful indeed!”
Marten Hoekstra
U4P@live.nl

All this using Israel as an alibi.

Anyone who hasn't noticed should wake up and start talking about it.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/church-leaders-urge-members-of-congress-to-reconsider-us-aid-to-israel/

Have all the protestant denominations lost their mind?

Statements specifically linking the decision to Israel, made by recognized leaders -not by an anonymous webmaster), on weekdays (not like thieves in the night who take advantage of a four day Jewish holiday celebrations when reactions are unavailable or a national holiday when the executives are unavailable to confirm or deny.

In three words:

1.Connection
2.Attribution
3.Timing

I supposed we could go down that route, especially since it means we should also believe anything else these important sources you are pointing us towards say including FrontPage's assertion that “Anti-Israel divestment activity has largely been a dud” (an assertion that appears in the very same article you insist we use as a source).

But my point in this posting is not to affirm or deny what the Quakers (or anyone else) did or didn't do. Rather, it simply provides a way to avoid ambiguity by asking BDSer to give us the same type of evidence every other boycott and divestment campaign in history has been able to generate without such a fuss: public statements from the person or organization that has allegedly made this boycott decision for the specific reasons assigned to them by you and your allies.

Perhaps you have such information (not quotes from third parties, and not interpretations of decisions from subgroups with an agenda, but statements from the organizational and financial leaders who made these decisions saying that they were made not for general anti-war or environmental reasons, but specifically in protest of Israel).

Provided such information, I can (as I have in the past) acknowledged when there was a genuine BDS victory at Israel's expense (such as the 2004 PCUSA decision). But given the track record of your “movement” for passing off general business decisions as BDS motivated (hoaxes that have been exposed time and time again), I really think it is in the interest of everyone (including you) that BDS plays by the same set of rules every other political movement uses (if only to avoid the perception that your victories only take place in your own version of reality).

I expect your statement here will stimulate loudly chirping crickets.

Johnny

Nycerbarb

Also, the divestment decisions on Caterpillar and HP appeared to hinge on whether or not their exports to Israel can be considered “weapons components”. Regardless of the BDS, Quakers avoid as a matter of principle investing in anything that has to do with weapons.

http://www.change.org/petitions/desmond-tutu-remove-your-endorsement-from-and-condemn-holocaust-deniers-2

https://www.facebook.com/events/466397250048794/

Israel – The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

The bottom line is that now that I've seen it for myself, I can say with more authority that the anti-Israel people are just plan wrong in most things they assert and believe. On the other hand, Israel does have some big problems, including some long term ones that will defy easy solutions.

correct?

And given that the UK actor Mark Rylance is a boycotter and the founding Artistic Director of The Globe, how's that for smack round the face with a wet fish?

The National Committee of the Presbyterian Peace Fellowship has voted unanimously to give its Peaceseeker Award for 2013 to Jewish Voice for Peace and the Israel/Palestine Mission Network.

The joint interfaith award recognizes Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) and the Israel/Palestine Mission Network (IPMN) of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) for their courageous work for justice and peace in Palestine and Israel and for their prophetic witness to the Presbyterian denomination at the 220th General Assembly in Pittsburgh last summer.

Or maybe it's a consolation award.

As I said, I wouldn't be shocked if the Reconstructionist clergy of JVP converted to Presbyterianism.

http://www.pcusa.org/news/2012/9/25/presbyterian-peace-fellowship-gives-top-award-jewi/

The only way to deal with them is to call them by their name, as I suggested in the past: They are Reconstructionist clerics with their own, pseudo-religious agenda – and the I/P conflict is a mere pretext for their nefarious anti-Jewish activity.

Frankly, I won't fall off my chair if I learn that all those named in the JVP Rabbinic Council abandoned Judaism and walked to the Church near them – blaming “the jooze” and taking with them as many members of their congregations (those who have one) as they can.

They have depleted Judaism of all meaning, and now that it isn't even remotely connected to the Judaism of their childhood, they don't like it anymore. They are proponents of an exacerbated form of individualism, which has nothing to do with Judaism, not even the most nominal Judaism.
I feel sorry for their congregations.

We know who they are. Jewish history is replete with them. Already in the Roman period they had to create a special prayer against them that was inserted in the 'Amida”.

In 13th and 14th century Spain some of the “Malsin” as they were called spent as much as ten years bashing their Jewish community while ingratiating themselves with their future tribe, ending up as the Dominican accuser of Jews at disputations.

A lot of the incitement that led to the massacre of Seville in 1391 was their work. They did it “to save the Jews”. Sounds familiar?

Those clerics, the Reconstructionist Federation and their congregations must be confronted with the truth. Before it is too late for the Jews in America.

But also a perfect day for the slanderers to claim another victory over…Veolia – while the jooze aren't looking.

I'd take that announcement with a large grain of salt. I find it rather amazing that all those companies always wait for a long holiday, or a Friday afternoon, or a Jewish holiday to divest.

Those companies are for-profit companies, they are not the UN, who convened their assembly this year to coincide with Yom Kippur eve, when there is no radio, no newspapers, no TV in Israel.

Just askin'

BTW – Given you chose not to acknowledge, much less respond to, the evidence presented in the report I discuss above, can we all assume that the Quakers are still the best you guys got?

Jon

Quite an understatement. Here's a typical BDS statement, describing the Red Hot Chilli Peppers concert in Tel Aviv in front of 50,000 adoring fans as a victory for BDS.

“Despite their breach of the Palestinian boycott call, Red Hot Chili Peppers campaign is a BDS success.”

http://zazafl.wordpress.com/2012/09/23/despite-their-breach-of-the-palestinian-boycott-call-red-hot-chili-peppers-campaign-is-a-bds-success/

It shows a breathtakingly poor grasp on reality.

What can we do but wish them another year of such victories?

“As we gather together over the next few days and celebrate Rosh Hashanah, we write to share with you some upsetting news that directly impacts our community. Yesterday, the UC Student Association (UCSA), a system-wide student organization with representatives from each campus, passed a resolution condemning HR 35, a California State Assembly resolution, and urging the UC Board of Regents to divest from companies aiding Israel in alleged human rights violations. We, your current and former ASUC elected representatives, were not informed that such a resolution was being considered nor offered the opportunity to engage our community in the conversation. While we are not assuming malintent, the Jewish community was excluded from the debate surrounding the UCSA resolution calling for Israeli divestment, even though the organization is meant to represent the views of all UC students.
>
> Even more than the issues with the bill’s content, we are deeply concerned by the lack of transparency on the part of UCSA and the ASUC External Affairs Vice President, our representative to the board, and the blatant disregard for community involvement that should be a cornerstone of such a democratic and representative body. Moreover, as systemwide student leaders, UCSA board members should be focused on building a healthier campus climate where every student feels safe, not advancing initiatives that lead to conflict and divisiveness.
>
> We firmly believe that free speech must always be safeguarded. However, there was no publicized agenda for this meeting, and the leadership of our community was not given advance notice that the bill would be discussed. The meeting location was not disclosed on the UCSA website (the site only stated it was in Berkeley). We were not made aware until the vote had already occurred, barring our ability to engage our community. This is absolutely unacceptable, and we will not as a community allow our voices to be silenced again. We all know Israel is not perfect – no democracy is – and we may not all agree on every viewpoint, but one thing we can agree on is the right for every community to have its voice heard.”

BDS advocates are afraid of a free and fair debate– even when they must defend themselves in open court, they will use intimidation as well as blatant lies to promote their agenda.

Reprehensible jerks to say the least.

http://www.dailycal.org/2012/09/21/tyranny-of-the-majority-ucsa-style/

http://standwithus.com/app/iNews/view_n.asp?ID=2435

Matt made a special trip there. He lives close to but not in Ann Arbor. All we know about what happened at the meeting is he made his pitch. I requested the minutes from the meeting from the CSG but they haven't gotten back to me. It's likely that nothing happened since but if anyone else is in the Ann Arbor area and would like to keep an eye on it, please do.

Park Slope Food Coop spent $35,000 on the meeting for the vote on the BDS referendum, and who knows how much it cost us in good will. Not only that, but hours of our time was put in to defeat their effort, not to mention the hours of professional staff time that was devoted to it.

It was a well publicized meeting. People who cared about it arranged their schedules, baby-sitters, etc. just to be there. All in all, less than 4% of the Coop membership voted in favor of the referendum. 90% abstained by not showing up.

It is a colossal waste of Coop resources.

Nycerbarb

What happened at the student council meeting?

Nycerbarb

Jon, Matt and I have published a couple of articles that you might find interesting. The first is about a discussion about BDS and the Red Hot Chili Peppers among a group of Lebanese youth:

http://hpmonitor.blogspot.com/2012/09/lebanese-bands-and-bds.html

And the second is a video we made about boycotters trying to get the University of Michigan student government on their side by lying to them:

http://hpmonitor.blogspot.com/2012/09/hpm-special-report-bds-liars-in-ann.html

So they harassed it, of course.

They are now claiming to have 'won' something at “the world's largest security conference.” It'd be kinda cute, actually, if only it weren't coming from such a bigoted, hate-filled bunch…

I couldn't think of a better place to pass our warts than the Presbyterian Church. Could you?

I don't think it increases their ticket sales but I do think that those who come despite the pressure are those who feel secure and confident in their trade – in other words, those at the top and therefore they'll get a full house. – while the lesser artists or those who once were great are afraid of the repercussions on their career's future and therefore cave in.

Conversely, an artist who doesn't sell many tickets in Israel usually invokes BDS pressure to cancel.

In that sense, Israel is a barometer of sorts because culture is very important here.

So it is the Israeli public who at the end determines who comes and who doesn't, not the boycotters.

Of course there are those times when security problems erupt on the day of a concert but they usually take that into consideration.

Do you think when BDS targets a band it increases their ticket sales in Israel?

Nycerbarb

Meanwhile, on Mondoweiss, they're still hoping as-we-speak:

“The Red Hot Chili Peppers are due to give a concert in Tel Aviv tomorrow night, but boycott advocates still hope that the band, last seen in Beirut, will change its mind.”

The coop I'm soon going to become a member of, Weavers Way here in Philadelphia, was apparently a BDS target in 2004 (hey, wasn't that before they claim their 'movement' was born, btw? heh), and the story I hear is that the leadership ultimately chose not to allow them to force a vote upon the community.

Unfortunately, nobody I know remembers anything else about it beyond those basics, and once again, I also can't find anything specific on the web about it.

If nothing else, this just goes to show yet another BDS failure. Even their losses in the fifth-largest city in the country don't even exist in the official record, or public memory, just a few years later…

From time to time I work on a few temporary plots growing in our all-too-numerous vacant lots, sizes ranging from one typical North Philly row house lot up to entire city blocks where textile mills once stood. Until they were burned down.

Being the poorest large city in the US has at least some advantages, in that we can use these lots to grow and bring healthy food to neighborhoods (like mine, Kensington) that desperately need and lack same, without worrying that the lots will immediately be turned into giant condos or something…

Drip irrigation rocks, and is yet one more thing Israel has helped the world with!

And btw, I wonder how many BDSers help grow kale for folks in our inner city neighborhoods? Or are these self-proclaimed 'progressive activists' otherwise too busy raging against Jews on the internet?

Fun note, now that I think of it – Emerald Street Urban Garden, just down the street from me, is in a neighborhood with a significant (and poor-ish) Arab population. So I think I can safely say that I've done more work with and for Arab Muslims than any given keyboard warrior BDSer has, too…

Do you mean “Food Coop” types?

Are you going to use drip irrigation?
netafimusa.com

Nycerbarb

Nycerbarb

Hello, that's what they always do… haven't any of us paid any attention for the last three or four decades?

(Don't smirk Republicans, this goes for you all at least as much, too…)

Domestically, I'd note that the odious crook Jon Corzine is still at large, and neither party seems interested in making it clear that the rule of law still matters in America.

But anyway.

Me? I've hooked up with a gang of urban gardeners and socialist bike guerillas here in North Philadelphia. Though some folks I know will still insist that I'm now a Republican, simply because I don't dream, shriek about and / or want to hug President Obama. Eye roll.

Anyway.

It's possible to not love the Democrats from the other side, too, ya know. Let me know when they wake up to seriously considering and supporting a national movement toward walkable towns, sustainable agriculture, building attractive things in communities on a human scale which are meant to last more than just a few years, etc etc…

Perhaps I'd be able to cut Democrats a bit more slack if they'd stop wasting innumerable resources on littering my city with crap like this, and would spend a bit more time on preserving our architectural treasures, rather than tearing them down for any given councilwoman's pet project (or parking lot).

Just saying. Since you brought up that last paragraph, I'd note that Big-D Party Democrats don't necessarily stand for “government investment, health care, progressive taxes and the environment,” either.

Today, America got an unvarnished look at the Democratic Party’s internal conflict on Israel. Half of the Party represents the pro-Israel consensus in America. The other half? Not so much. For all the talk about the unrecognizably extreme new Republican Party, it’s the Democrats whose fringe has quietly made deep inroads into the center—especially when it concerns Israel—and fundamentally altered the nature of the Party.

It doesn't mean anyone should abandon government investment, health care, progressive taxes and the environment – if that is what you believe. It means the other side is doing a better job at getting its message out than we are.

Nycerbarb

And don't read this until you are back stateside.

Continuing with the metaphor, I don't regard the Democratic Party as an organism, but rather a population. And I would say there are many carriers.

About an hour ago, the Dems amended their platform to include language acknowledging the Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (to my great relief). The vote was by voice, and you can find a video on youtube. The vote sounded like more in favor than against. But it also sounded close.

Now watch the twitter feed of this guy: @AlexYudelson. I know he is one guy. But I don't think he is a radical and I don't think he is a lone voice.

And for now, Jerusalem is a more symbolic than substantive issue. Nonetheless, I think this indicative of an Israel-as-paraiah meme becoming more acceptable.

Nycerbarb

YOU'RE IN ISRAEL! DON'T WASTE YOUR VACATION ON THE INTERNET!

Nycerbarb

This is what is behind a lot of this back and forth about where the “home” of BDS is.

Look, if one favors tax cuts for the rich, cutting federal programs, and removing environmental regulations, just be up front about it. That is a perfectly valid political philosophy, one with a long and distinguished pedigree in fact. Why do those people feel the need to 'hide' behind Israel – and pretend that the reason they support Republicans is that the Democrats are the “home” of anti-Israel people? People should just be up front about their beliefs.

But Democrats? It seems that their flirting with the faction of the left that will never be voting for them anyway comes from a place of ignorance–that perhaps a little lip service will get votes. And the Republicans are clearly no different–just look at the number who propose a “one state solution” and don't realize what that entails.

As for the rest of us, aren't domestic issues consistently more pertinent than any question of foreign policy? Are Jews to be the only people held to a different set of priorities? And it certainly does no one any favors by claiming we're all simply ignorant of the facts and positions. No, the head in the sand argument is laughable and assumes we all have only single peaked preferences.

First of all, I love the virus metaphor. Extending the metaphor, we can definitely talk about some people as being more susceptible to infection, and others as being more resistant.

Interestingly, I was privileged to listen to Yaakov (Dry Bones) Kirschen give a talk last year. He also talked about anti-Semitism as a virus, and the need to inoculate people against it.

If I understand Mike's position, he is saying that the Democratic party has become so infected with this virus, that it is incurable and insurmountable, therefore Jews should reject that party. And any Jew who does not recognize that the Democratic party is totally infected has “his head in the sand.”

While I agree that party has been infected, I don't agree with the diagnosis that the case is hopeless. But I do think strong medicine and therapy is necessary.

Enough with the metaphor!

Criticize the BDSers and anti-Israelites long and hard. Reject the Democratic party if you truly believe disagree with their policies. But don't let the BDSers determine your politics for you.

I reject this notion of bundling. If a person holds that abortion is the only issue important to him, and he will base his vote solely on the candidate's position on abortion, well that can be how it works in a democracy. If he has no opinion on any other issue, so be it. But if he decides his position on climate change will be based on whatever says the guy whose position on abortion he likes, and not on doing his own investigation, then he shirks his responsibility as a thinking citizen.

Nycerbarb

Great piece. I want to comment more later, but you have 3 quick corrections:

The author's name is Robert Wistrich, not Paul. He had a number of good essays around these days, promoting the new book.

The anti-Semitic parties are in the 19th century or 1800's not the 18th Century.

They were already influential by the end of last decades of the 19th century – hence Dreyfuss' accusation and conviction.

Nycerbarb

From the advance publicity on her book she [Judith Butler] seems to emphasize “Jewish.” No doubt this will bring out the universalist types who can’t handle Jewish particularity. But, who knows, Butler’s star quality might overwhelm them.

And indeed, those who can't handle the insane sacralization of Rachel Corrie are already coming out switching from the “new Christ” strategy to the “Holocaust strategy”: comparing that pea-brain playing hide and seek on the blade of a bulldozer to… Anne Frank -on the same “War On Ideas in the Middle East” site.

I want to stress that this is by no means all of it: the “Sacred” are only one of the factions/interests involved in the demonization of Israel.

But dissecting them to the bone is what all reasonable people who realize what are the inevitable consequences of the relentless satanization of Israel, should be doing.

The truth always wins at the end. I believe that.

And by the way, tractor doesn't only mean “farm tractor”. The vehicle in question could be fairly described as an engineering tractor.

Not well reported in Canadian media, and possibly nowhere else, but the Corries' own expert witness agreed that from the vantage point of the operators of the tank/tractor, their late daughter would not be visible, regardless of the orange vest just as it is constantly misreported that she was protecting houses from demolition whereas in fact she was standing on scrub lands above smuggling tunnels. The purpose of that afternoon's IDF operations were to destroy smuggling tunnels and remove brush cover that was used to shelter combatants who were firing weapons and or flinging grenades.

All these groups/institutions/individuals are BDSers or have among them a large membership that supports BDS. I'll develop later but I bet Anonymous the BDSer can help out there. I'll provide links or relevant info.

I'll continue a little my line of thought so brutally interrupted by rockets and mortars (one house hit one rocket split and hit a second house next to it).

Once you start seeing the “metaphysics” of BDS that's all you'll be able to see. Imagine then the reaction of a typical atheist/secularist who realizes with horror that all his/her efforts serve to promote “superstitions”.
He/she/ will distance his/herself from the whole business calling it a cult.

Not quite understanding where you are going with this, although I admit to not being all that familiar with the people you mention.

Are you talking about “Replacement Theology”?

BTW, we are not near the hurricane, and actually have been having really fabulous weather in Brooklyn the last few days. Devastating to see New Orleans hit again.

Nycerbarb

Members of the Rachel Corrie Foundation were instrumental in the ripoff of the coop membership.

“But BDS is not a normal political movement, is it? Rather, it is an abnormal movement of the self-centered and selfish who have lost another battle against an organization that made the normal decision to not hand decision-making power over to a bunch of obsessive jerks”
.Now, in the hometown of Rachel Corrie “the obsessive jerks” didn't bother with a battle at the coop;They simply stole the vote! No forums ,no dialogue, No nadda. Simply rip off the community. That, my friends, is the true nature of the BSers

Just don't want anyone to forget how the only coop in the country managed to get a “victory”

Here are a few main points:

- During the relevant period of time, the “Philadelphi Corridor” was the site of daily warfare, i.e. daily gunfire by snipers, missile fire and IED explosions directed at the IDF forces. During this period, unceasing efforts were made to kidnap IDF soldiers.
- During the period pertinent to this case, there was a military directive in force declaring the “Philadelphi Corridor” a “closed military area” and forbidding the entry of civilians.

The United States government issued a travel warning on March 16, 2003 to warn American citizens against visiting the Gaza Strip area or the West Bank.

ISM clearly knew it was a restricted area.The Corries should sue them.

In a nutshell:

From the Sabeel Liberation Theology of Naim Ateek, to the christologic analogies of Monsignor Tutu, to the Anglican Judaism debaser Rev. Sizer, to the Presbyterian and Methodist Churches doctrines on God’s punishment on the Jews, to the Reconstructionist Rabbis of JVP and that Movement’s 70 years old grudge against Israel’s dominant form of Judaism, to the cult of Rachel Corrie, to the “My Judaism” of Judith Butler, to “Prophet” Marc Ellis and his “Liberation Theology”, to all the holders of “Jewish values”, to all those ndividuals angry with Israel’s laws of Jewish descent, all the way down to the Halperites and to the Herskovites’ mini-cult – what do you see?

I’ll call it at this point “The Politics of the Sacred”.

Your thoughts.

“Rachel Corrie died in March during a protest against the demolition of a house in the southern Gaza Strip.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3025016.stm

“An Israeli Army bulldozer today crushed to death an American woman who had kneeled in the dirt to prevent the armored vehicle from destroying a Palestinian home in the southern Gaza Strip”

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/17/world/israeli-army-bulldozer-kills-american-protesting-in-gaza.html?ref=rachelcorrie

“At the time of her death, during a Palestinian uprising, Corrie was protesting against Israel's demolition of Palestinian homes in Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip.”

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israeli-court-u-s-activist-rachel-corrie-s-death-was-an-accident.premium-1.461156

But it is so fashionable these days to attribute evil intentions to Israelis just because they are Israelis.
It's like that fool who believed that settlers stole 400 years old olive trees from Palestinians and planted them in the entrance of their settlement just because that other fool told him so – because in his sick mind, it's what Israelis do.

b) She was not trying to prevent the bulldozer from destroying tunnels. On the contrary, she was standing between the bulldozer and a civilian's home that was slated for demolition. If she had been killed while aiding Hamas fighters in firing rockets over the border, you might have a case. But she was trying to prevent a clearly immoral, illegal, and universally condemned policy of house demolitions/ethnic cleansing from claiming yet another home. So whose fault is it really? Is it the fault of the woman who stood up against a policy even you condemn, or is it the fault of the Israeli government for routinely demolishing civilian homes and subsequently destroying the lives of countless innocent people?

The BDS Anon post is a Paulbot or LaRouchite. That much is clear from his rhetoric.

My friends just got back from Israel and a visit to their families Kibbutz. They showed me pictures of the “fireworks” that hit their kibbutz.

Sorry but those are deadly weapons. No doubt about it.

Very well said.

But even if he did kill her intentionally, she was attempting to interfere with a military operation – in this case it was the destruction of smuggling tunnels. She was attempting to stymie her enemy's military during an ongoing war. That is why I don't see how she can reasonably be seen as a non-combatant or a non-threat. She was a combatant on behalf of one side, just a poorly armed one.

Stan

“But BDS is not a normal political movement, is it? “

I have recently been reading about the anti-Semitic political parties in Germany and Austria-Hungary in 2nd part of the 19th century and early part of the 20th century.

I would have to say that BDS behaves similar to these hate movements. On that metric, BDS is quite “normal.”

Nycerbarb

” Turning to more local news, a Boston-based food coop has rejected appeals that they put a boycott of evil Israel-supporting hummus to a member vote, despite months of effort by BDS activists insisting they had no choice on the matter.”

Can you give a little more info on Harvest Co-op and what the decision was and how it was made? I did a little googling and all I found were people were collecting signatures.

Thanks
Nycerbarb

It is unlikely that the driver saw Rachel Corrie. However, only he can know for sure. If he saw her and ran over her it was murder. If not, it was an accident. Clearly, there is no proof that it was murder. I don't understand why the “activists” that were there that day weren't arrested, put in jail and deported.

Stan

Example: If we are discussing the dangers of climate change, I may say that yesterday was an unseasonably cold day in my town. While that may be a fact, and one can be corrected for getting it wrong, it is not very relevant to the major issue under discussion. I hope you would agree that much more relevant facts would be trends in aggregate global weather patterns and so on.

Likewise, on this Rachel Corrie question, the object that killed her is not very important when assessing the culpability and morality of the situation. Whether she was killed by a tractor or armored bulldozer or IDF bullet or even a Hamas rocket, the salient fact is, as I mentioned, that she chose to insert herself as a partisan on behalf of one side in an ongoing violent conflict in a war zone. And such an action is both dangerous and full of potential serious consequences for herself and others. She and those who sent her knew this, or should have known this.

The blame for Rachel Corrie's death rests with her and those who sent her. Her death is a tragedy only in the same way that any death of any fighter on a side of an ongoing war is a tragedy.

This woman chose to insert herself as a partisan on one side of an ongoing violent conflict. The fact that the she chose to become a partisan on behalf of the less well armed side is irrelevant.

When you volunteer to become a partisan on one side of a war, you may be killed in that war. Americans who went to the Spanish Civil War knew that, and at least they had the honesty not to call themselves and each other “peace activists”. Rachel Corrie is different than them only in that she chose to become a partisan for the side that generally lives by values that are repellent to Americans, and that has been trying for 60 years, without success, to wipe the other side off the map.

Now maybe she didn't realize that what she was doing was signing up to be a partisan for one side in a violent conflict in a war zone. If so, the fault is on her for her gullibility, and on the people, such as the ISM and apparently her college teachers, who misled her.

Does this look like a tractor to you? : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:D9-models002.jpg

But this brings up a question I have, and I know it is slightly off topic: Why does Israel even let these ISM types into their country? Why did Rachel Coorie even get past the airport terminal? They already do tons of behavioral profiling. If I was running security there, I would deny entry to someone if they didn't seem to have a legitimate tourist, business, or family purpose to their visit.* Why do they let in any random “activist” who wants to insert themselves as a warrior into the Arab side of this ongoing armed conflict?? It seems ridiculous.

* I will have all three!

I have been thinking of you these last few days and praying for your safety and the safety of all Sderot.

Nycerbarb

““The state many [sic] not be legally culpable, but the Jewish people are not exonerated, or free from the stain of Rachel Corrie’s death.”

http://palestiniantalmud.com/2012/08/28/rabbinical-thoughts-on-the-corrie-verdict/#comment-353

Well, folks, it seems like we have another deicide on our hands.

Is Insanity Left or Right?

As if there's any 'context' in which sounding exactly like a neo-Nazi can be acceptable…

No need for a link, it's all over the place, take your pick.

Now, isn't it time to drop that silly right vs left argument and face reality?

Do keep this up, please.

Yeah. Rock on with your bad self, Anon.

And you still owe Sylvia an apology.

You completely ignored the Ynet comments I provided you and thus revealed your outrageous double standard, you continue to insist that I owe Sylvia an apology even though she clearly misspoke in such a way that it changed the meaning of her comment entirely, and you continue to really say nothing of interest to anyone but yourself.

You fail. Really, it's just pathetic.

If you think you're 'winning a debate' by having your illiteracy pointed out in a joking manner, that's your problem. Not mine.

You haven't “refuted” anything, and you've only provided a classic example of BDSer ignorance.

Do keep trying though, Anon. It's kinda cute.

Aside from the fact that I've already thoroughly refuted Sylvia's main point, I don't feel the need to apologize for not believing her allegations because her initial comment implied that Weiss/Horowitz had published that message, not a reader of the site in the comment section. She said it was written by a “member” of Mondoweiss. I don't really know what that means. If I comment on a NYT article, does that make me a member of the NYT? No. That doesn't make sense. Had she said that some random person had written that comment instead, I wouldn't have thrown it out as rubbish.

And sorry, Sylvia – you can't just sue anyone with whom you disagree, just like I can't sue the individuals who wrote those racist comments on Ynet.

I don't think so. They're probably out enjoying their 40 000 pieces of silver

I feel threatened by these people if they come to my country. As a peaceful person, non-belligerent, a woman, a Zionist and an Israeli, it is my right to go to court to defend myself from threats. And I'll do it.

Did you say apology, Jay?

Anyway.

“Sylvia, either attach a link to your comment so I can independently verify your allegations or don't say anything at all. I read Mondoweiss all the time and I'm very curious to know where you read that “Zionists and their friends” should be “decapitated.”“

Right there, where I linked to, Anon.

“Of course, it's almost certain that you just made that up,“

This is where you owe Sylvia an apology.

“but I'll still be waiting for you to produce some form of evidence.

Done.

“Since JayinPhiladelphia was clearly duped by you too, maybe he could help you search.“

See above.

Thank you, Anon, for once again confirming my thesis, that you, like so many other BDSers, are a master of ignorance in all of its (possessive pronoun, see how that works?) forms.

And you still owe Sylvia an apology.

Comment 18) Let's start with one individual calling for Gaza to be obliterated and turned into a parking lot:
“any other normal country would have obliterated gaza from the air and turned it into a parking lot without sending in its young men to be slaughtered in hand to hand combat with these murderous butchers. Olmert and Barak we will never forget and forgive you for this. “

Comment 38) Hmm, here someone is saying that he's happy when the “problem” (Palestinians) dies: “But no-one cares about you or how many Palestinians civilians die – infact, the world is very happy because you'll be another problem out the way. “

Comment 22) This guy says to ignore the school bombings. After all, who cares about Palestinians, right???:
“Do not rush into a ceasefire. Keep going and ignore the school bombinga s it was provoked by the terrorists inside.”

And this is a separate, yet perfectly applicable instance, but how could we forget Ehud Barak's infamous quote, “Those who operate against us will be decapitated.” Sound familiar?

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4112000,00.html

Hypocrisy at it's finest today.

An apology? Don't hold your breath.

Something tells me Anon will pretend this never happened though, eh? I'm sure he'll just… ignore it.

He still owes you an apology, though.

And not just ANY moderated thread, Jay. It's an immoderately moderated thread.

“They are vipers who need to be decapitated.”

In a moderated thread. Not only decapitation, but also eliminationism.

Now apologize to Sylvia and the rest of us.

The goalpost store just called, and asked you to stop moving the merchandise around.

“Random quotes completely out of context”?

Thanks for proving my point in the comment above, Anon. Truth hurts oh so bad, don't it?

Fizziks, you're honestly no better than the Republicans who take that Obama quote “you didn't build that” to mean “the government built your business” rather than it's contextual meaning, “the government built the infrastructure to help your business succeed”. If you take random quotes completely out of context, it's very easy to draw similarities to a handpicked quote of any bigot of your choosing. I could easily pull quotes from your comments and compare them to those of white supremacists, but why would I? It's easier and more rewarding to defeat you on the issues rather than issuing desperate accusations of racism.

Some of them don't even realize how depraved and vile what they're seeing truly is, and when it's pointed out to them, instead of taking a step back to reassess the situation, their immediate reaction is instead to assume they're being 'attacked' by some malicious Zionist conspiracy, or whatever, and to double down (or worse) on the incitement and hate speech they've been led to believe aligns with their own political points of view.

That only applies to the naive amongst them, of course. Then there are the truly bad actors, who only pretend to not know what they're up to…

Threatening people with decapitation is a serious offense.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/25/997457/-This-Stuff-Could-be-at-Stormfront

(see if you can correctly identify which passages came from Mondoweiss and which came from a website that is open about being neo-Nazis, rather than occasiionally hiding behind a thin liberal veneer)

I know BDSers like you hate when the obvious is pointed out, but nonetheless it is still obvious.

I didn't refer to “someone” as “filth”. I referred to “something” as “filth”, namely the blog “Elder of Ziyon”. I realize now that the editor of that blog also refers to himself as “the Elder of Ziyon” but clearly I was referring to the blog and its contents because I said “You're the one who links to the Elder of Ziyon and similar filth.” One doesn't link to a “person”, but rather a website or an article, so let's stop perpetuating the myth that I called anyone “filth”. Saying someone is filth is a far cry from saying that what someone writes is filth.

And sorry if that offended you. I'm glad that you suddenly care so much about maintaining civil discourse between the pro-BDSers and anti-BDSers. I'm still waiting for you to apologize for the fact that many people on this website call all BDSers (not just certain ones) Nazis, anti-semites, white supremacists, bigots, conservatives (shout-out to fizziks), Communists, terrorists, America-haters, Jihadists, and virtually every other derogatory name one could think of. Of course, that doesn't mean anything to you because they're on your side, and I don't expect you to apologize. But let's stop pretending that me calling that blog “filth” even approaches the level of vicious rhetoric that others have used on this website, including you for that matter. Up until now, I've kept all of my comments fairly level-headed. I haven't resorted to your tactics by calling all Zionists bigoted, Islamophobic, or racists, because not all of them are. I've tried to engage with the issues presented here substantively, but for the past few comments, all you've been trying to do is frame me as an anti-Semite, associate me with Stormfront, and twist my words to mean something completely different. If anyone should apologize, it's you, Dr. Mike.

Sorry, associating Mondoweiss' ideology with Stormfront is a far cry from referring to someone as “filth”. If that's the most blatant hypocrisy you've seen, then you're not reading any of Jon's posts exposing the hypocrisy that is the entire core of the BDS movement.

You'll pardon the Jewish people's sensitivity to terms like that given the lessons we have learned both in the last century and this about people who use who refer to us as “filth”. And don't give me that shit that it's only “Zionists”. As Dr King said shortly before his death (no, this is NOT from the “Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend” which has been exposed as a hoax)”“When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You are talking anti-Semitism.” (Zionists= those who support the right of the Jewish people to national self-determination in a portion of their historical homeland. Not limited to settlers, Likudniks, neocons but rather including J Streeters, Meretz voters, and the overwhelming majority of both Democrats and Republicans).

You want to apologize for your own abusive language? Do it like a man (or woman). “Admittedly distasteful” doesn't cut it.

P.S. And the Goldstone report was authored by four people. Only Goldstone later repudiated the findings while all three of the others issued statements in support. I know full well what Goldstone has said since the report came out, and it doesn't change my mind about the findings of this report or those of any other's.

Anon doesn't care what Goldstone himself says, he only cares about the impression his friends get about what Goldstone must have meant when he was saying things that they don't believe he was really saying. Or something like that.

2. “nonsensical garbage, no further response necessary”. Gee, when I try to build an argument, I usually try to use facts. How about if I take any statement of the BDS cru and say “nonsensical garbage, no further response necessary”.

3. You are correct about that post referring to PCHR stats and not B'tselem. My bad– you must realize that it's hard to keep all those faux “human rights” groups straight. Here's a better reference about B'tselem's flawed methodology: http://spme.net/cgi-bin/articles.cgi?ID=5980

but let's get serious: Aside from the fact that your “legitimate sources” include the UN (remember, the same group that is about to elect SYRIA to the Human Rights Council and named Iran to the Commission on the Status of Women), your reference to EoZ as “filth” gives away both your agenda and your mindset.
I don't believe that I have used the word “filth” to describe those who I disagree with. And because I don't comment Anonymously, you can track MY comments on this site. I'm pretty damn sure Jon hasn't used it either. “Filth” is a term used by those who seek to delegitimize the very existence of opponents. It's language favored by Ahmedinejad, and by the extremist Islamic clerics whose sermons get broadcasted on PA and Hamas TV.
Referring to people as “filth” is the first step towards openly calling for their extermination. It's a time-tested tactic over the centuries. You want to have a legitimate political discussion? Fine. You want to refer to those with whom you disagree as “filth”? Get the fuck out of here, take your blatant anti-Semitism with you, and go back to the foul swamp of places like Stormfront where you will find plenty of people who agree with you.

Concerning the three links:
Link 1) Most of the controversy regarding casualties statistics stemmed from difficulties in determining the innocence of members of the police force. Both the Goldstone Report and B'Tselem statistics put the police in a separate category, separate from both civilians and fighters. I believe that this was the fairest way that they could have done it, don't you?

B'Tselem statistics: http://old.btselem.org/statistics/english/casualties.asp?sD=27&sM=12&sY=2008&eD=18&eM=01&eY=2009&filterby=event&oferet_stat=during

Also, it can sometimes be hard for international human rights NGOs to garner 100% accurate statistics when the Israeli government refuses to allow them entry before, during, and after the “war”. Just sayin'.

Link 2) This is nonsensical garbage. No further response necessary.

Link 3) This blog post refers to the PCHR statistics, not B'Tselem's. Am I missing something?

Actually, Dr. Mike, when I try to build an argument, I use legitimate statistics from legitimate sources (i.e. the UN, AI, HRW, etc.). You're the one who links to the Elder of Ziyon and similar filth.

more on B'tselem: http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2010/11/btselems-hypocrisy.html

here's a nice list of HUNDREDS of people classified by B'tselem as “civilians” claimed by terror groups themselves as active members:

http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2009/04/more-of-those-civilians-killed-in-gaza.html
who are you going to believe, B'tselem or Hamas, as to who was a terrorist?

so let's see–Goldstone repudiates the “apartheid” canard, B'tselem is repudiated by Hamas itself, Human Rights Watch has been repudiated by its own founder….. yep, “must-read” sources.

though I guess those references aren't reliable to Anon since they aren't BDS sites, which are of course impeccable in their accurate and unbiased portrayal of the facts….

http://www.investigativeproject.org/3716/israel-america-bashed-at-iranian-inspired-dc-rally

Great, high quality people you've got there on your side. So coherent! And peace loving!

I know, I know. Your anti-Israel people aren't like that. Somehow your anti-Israel people have very little web presence.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/01/opinion/israel-and-the-apartheid-slander.html

But how about this one?

On august 16, Massacre by South African police of mineworkers protesting their conditions. 34 dead.

Only Counterpunch calls it a massacre. And if you expect the usual “bleeding hearts” and white knights of “Jewish values” to mention it, well, don’t hold your breath. Only Hebrew graffiti awaken their compassion – and unleashes their outrage.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19290086
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/17/south-africa-mine-shooting_n_1794042.html

This is the problem with you guys. You're all so desperate to find any source that you can spin to fit your skewed romantic vision of Israel that you completely ignore the substantive human rights reports that are all but required reading for both sides of the political spectrum. If you don't understand the basic facts (and the fact that hospitals and schools used as civilian shelters were bombed is one), then you really need to learn something before you make decisions on which side to support in this conflict. Your ignorance affects real people.

The aforementioned reports:

Amnesty International: http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE15/015/2009/en/8f299083-9a74-4853-860f-0563725e633a/mde150152009en.pdf

B'Tselem – The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories – http://www.btselem.org/gaza_strip/castlead_operation

Human Rights Watch: http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2010/israel-occupied-palestinian-territories-opt

Goldstone Report: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/9/docs/UNFFMGC_Report.pdf

But I do read Mondofront. In fact, it was precisely their spasms of exctasy over Shlomo Sands et al. denying Jewish peoplehood, and their parroting of transparent antisemitic Iranian regime propaganda as fact, that first turned me on to the true danger that anti-Israel people pose.

I can pretty confidently say that if it wasn't for Mondofront, and their alter egos at Daily Kos, with their enthusiastic embrace of the Khazar hoax and other antisemitic extremism, I would have remained much less vested in defending Israel. But once I saw the anti-science, anti-rationality, hate filled psychopaths that dominate your movement, I sprung into action.

I know, I know, your anti Israel people aren't like that. But all the ones I have ever seen or heard from are. So boo.

Your assertion that Mondoweiss denies the historical Jewish presence in Palestine is an outright lie. Here's an excerpt from an article they published just 10 days ago:

“No one disputes that Jewish presence in Palestine has been continuous since antiquity, albeit in varying degrees of population percentage whereby Jews often represented a very small minority of the total population of Palestine. In 1517, when the Ottoman Empire seized control of Palestine, Jewish inhabitants of the region made up only 1.7% of the native population. By 1882, Jewish Palestinians comprised 8% of the population.”

http://mondoweiss.net/2012/08/standwithus-revisionist-history-train-campaign.html

Of course, if you would actually read Mondoweiss before routinely making ill-informed (and frankly, ridiculous) comments about its content, authors, and readership, you would have known not to write something that could be disproven so easily.

Secondly, I did not “implying that agents of the US government are to be taken as credible”. In fact, just the opposite. Dusty used that Wikileaks leak as “proof” that Israel hadn't bombed hospitals, and tried to paint it as unbiased proof by arguing that Wikileaks, who he believes is hostile towards Israel, published/wrote it. I corrected him, saying that Wikileaks merely published a leaked document it had received from a whistleblower, that Wikileaks itself obviously hadn't endorsed the contents of the cable.

Read, bro.

1) Most of the sane people in our area, opponents of Herskovitism, BDS, and other antisemitic movements, have _lives_ and cannot commit the same kind of time and energy that makes up the fanatic zeal of the Herskovite monomaniacs who live for nothing else _but_ hating Israel.

2) There are at least 3 or 4 of Herskovitz's goons stalking the synagogue every Saturday (and when he occasionally imports people out of the area, a few more), so how do we find enough people who have the time and energy to even picket _just_ cult leader Herskovitz's house, let alone the homes of the other handful of die-hard followers of the Führer of the local wannabe Brownshirts?

3) And most importantly, we don't need to alienate Herskovitz's neighbors especially since he has already earned their enmity with his desecrated Israeli flag (he desecrated it by painting the red international “no” sign over the Magen David) and having defaced the public sidewalk in front of his house with a “boycott Israel” hate message.

If his neighbors stay on his case, and they can legally pressure him to take his hate flag down and repair the sidewalk (unfortunately a recently-enacted millage will probably fix the sidewalk, meaning we taxpayers will have to cover the cost of his vandalism–I hope the city makes _him_ pay as it's not a case of normal wear and tear), that should keep him in full defensive mode.

We don't need to turn such a possible potent group of allies as his neighbors against those of us who have good reasons to despise this Himmler-mustachioed neo-Nazi rat. Let's hope that the neighbors continue a recent string of victories against this malevolent antisemitic hate monger.

Everywhere else, the winners of any war, esp. a war of self-defense, get to dictate the policy after they have successfully defended themselves and defeated the aggressors who attacked them, even if it ends up in gaining and _holding_ territory as a result.

And even the term _occupied,_ in this case, is a misnomer. When no permanent international borders have been agreed to by the parties involved, the land in question is called _disputed._

There are hundreds of such disputed boundaries in the world, yet the fixated BDSers like “Anonymous” above are concerned with Israel and only Israel. We never hear them call for boycotts of Hamas and the PA and Egypt and Syria and Sudan; we never hear them complain how despicably Palestinian Arabs are treated by their fellow Arabs in Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc. and how for PR points, they are kept in squalid, miserable refugee camps even in Palestinian Authority- and Hamas-controlled (I could just as easily say “occupied,” but I won't) territory, a fact of life for over 60 years for many Palestinian Arabs.

The multiple millions of dollars that pour into Hamas's terrorist coffers and the billions funneled into the corrupt PA bankroll could have built more decent housing at the very least for its long-suffering citizens. But, that wouldn't suit them or their antisemitic backers like Iran whose main goal is the destruction of the Jewish State and disseminating the propaganda and missiles that will bring that about according to their odious desires.

Supporters of BDS, whether willingly or unintentionally (how blind can one be?) by being suckered into it under cynical, phony “human rights” banners, aid and abet the genocidal target of utterly eliminating the State of Israel.

And yes, calling the Palestinian Arabs “backwards” is racism, too; it is a sort of faulty thinking that looks on the Arabs as benighted children incapable of making sophisticated, mature decisions and maybe even looking to long-term peaceful stability by swallowing hard and accepting a powerful non-Moslem—Jewish—majority in one tiny country in their midst.

As long as destroying Israel is more important to all-too-many Palestinian leaders, their virulently antisemitic backers such as Iran, and their jihadi cheerleaders in the ISM and BDS than the lives and future of the Palestinian Arab children, there will be continued war in the area.

And, Jon, your op-ed blog above about the battle between the Right and Left is spot on. I say this as a lifelong liberal who recognizes that support for Israel is and ought to be a true liberal value, whereas lining up behind its enemies is as far from “progressive” as one can get as the war with bullets, bombs, mortars, rockets, and propaganda against the Jewish State is one of antediluvian reaction. And, I, like I hope, the majority of my fellow progressives and liberals, have absolutely no problem with tossing the BDSers out of the “progressive” and “liberal tent.” As they are really witting or unwitting reactionaries, they have no place among the truly liberal ranks. And, on this—i.e., considering them unworthy debate partners in civil and social discourse—I will proudly join hands with my conservative pro-Israel friends.

Above you admitted that Jews have lived in Israel for “centuries”, in clear violation of Mondofront policy. And here you are implying that agents of the US government – ie the “second biggest terrorist in the world” – second to you-know-who – are to be taken as credible?

And this, again, is what so clearly demonstrates the two-faced lying nature of BDS people. When you're over there and similar places, you can't get enough parroting the antisemitic pseudoscience of Press TV and Shlomo Sands, and anti-American extremism such as 9/11 CT, but then you come in here and its totally different. Bleh.

Al-Quds hospital, located in the Tal al-Hawa neighbour-hood in the centre of Gaza City, was repeatedly struck from morning to night on 15 January by white phosphorus lumps, white phosphorus artillery shells and tank shells, eventually forcing medical staff and patients to
evacuate the facility. At the time, some 50 patients were receiving treatment at the hospital and about 500 local residents had sought shelter there from the bombardments and shelling
in the area.

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE15/015/2009/en/8f299083-9a74-4853-860f-0563725e633a/mde150152009en.pdf

Would that this were true for the Arab countries and their endless abuse of Palestinian 'refugees,' eh?

Ekta did indeed live up to its hype (mostly). The malai kofta, the baigan bharta, the paneer mangoli and the naan (garlic, onion, alu, paneer, palak, whatever… it's all good!). All just fantastic.

I did look it up, and according to Wikileaks, hospitals were not used for “civilians” See http://www.cablegatesearch.net/cable.php?id=09JERUSALEM317

Hamas operates interrogation rooms in hospitals,
clinics, former NGOs, and residences, al-Mughani said. He
described Gaza City's Shifa Hospital as “an operations center
for Hamas” and said it was a virtual “closed military zone”
during the December 2008 – January 2009 fighting. Anyone
attempting to visit patients during the conflict was subject
to scrutiny from Hamas security personnel.

That was from Wikileaks, Anonymous- hardly part of the evil network of Zionist media control.

Here is a start
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/clueless-in-cleveland-about-jewish-refugees/

Careful of that charge, for one could then claim that, say, Jews in Egypt in 1967 were not being discriminated against for being Jews. After all, they were just random “Egyptians,” right?

Which is not to say that our BDSer Anon friend isn't a bigot (I'd bet he is), but there are better ways to peg him than that. Just sayin'…

BDS BSer is right that Jews have lived in Israel for centuries and of course Arabs have discriminated against them for centuries. The Arabs haven't even spent five minutes examining their treatment of Jews, or any other minority for that matter. The BDS BS is simply to tow the line and spread the lie that Jews were treated well. This is of course false and given that half my family is Arab, I think I have a good handle on things.

The BDS hero Abunimah denies Jews are a people and states openly they will have no national rights in this wonderful one state you support. Further he has said that all citizens will have equal rights with exceptions for local custom — well local custom is that Jews have to wear distinct clothing, have to pay special taxes, can't testify against Muslims in court, etc… Local custom is to discriminate against Jews. He's telling you that the state the Palestinians want to create is a racist, apartheid state.

So once it exists, I suppose you will call for BDS against Palestine? You are a joke. All these anti-Israel people can't even be bothered to hold a rally against Assad in Syria. It's fine with you if innocent people die for real — you would much rather throw around made-up figures about Palestinians while Syrian children die.

I even know your response — that the US doesn't give Syria money so there's nothing to protest. Of course the BDS movement has worked closely with Assad. The “aid convoys” go through Syria. George Galloway and other stalwarts of the movement fawn over Assad. Anti-Israel activist pose with SSNP flags. The BDS movement is happy to list the Syrian groups that support it. You had an alliance with the Syrians or so they must have thought.

You have used the Syrian people and now that they are being devoured, you are willing to see them thrown to the lions without a word of protest on your part. If there are any Palestinians reading this, understand that this is what will happen to you once the BDS crowd is through with you.

If BDS really wants to see the one state they claim, then I would expect them to go about trying to convince Jews and Israelis that they could really create a state that would recognize Jewish rights. Instead, they align themselves with Jew-hating murderers and thugs and then sit quietly while those allies murder and rape and torture. Your leaders deny Jews even exist and spread racist lies about Jewish control of the media and political institutions.

No wonder most Israelis don't accept a one-state solution. It's all just BDS BS.

But they're not drawing their talking points from the right, are they? They're not claiming that boycotting Jews is a core conservative value, and they're not writing highly-popular blogs at RedState, are they?

Once again, I say this as a life-long liberal. I voted for Ralph Nader (much as I hate to admit) in the first presidential election I was able to vote in (I was only 17 in 1996, but I probably would have voted for Clinton then). I was a Howard Dean volunteer in 2003 / 2004, I was for Edwards later in that race and .

I knocked on doors for Tim Carden in NJ in 2002, for Steve Brozak in 2004, for Linda Stender in 2006.

I was in a small meeting of like fourteen people in a tiny room in Southeast Portland in 2008 when, planning our strategy which would eventually send a largely unknown Oregon State House representative to the United States Senate, we organized the plan for the Jeff Merkley campaign.

Certain people (not you!) like to lie about and smear me these days, but I am always what I have been, and I always will be what I am. I know how politics works. I've been a part of it all of my adult life. I've knocked on tens of thousands of doors canvassing. I know where the left is coming from.

Whether we want to believe it or not, BDS is a left phenomenon these days. It's not just the language. It's the whole shebang. They're gaining a solid foothold there, and BDS is not coming from the right.

This is not meant to be an insult to my fellow liberals, it's meant to let us know to keep our guard up. Of course, I obviously agree that BDS is not a liberal value. But again, the Penn BDSers aren't Young Republicans. They may not be Democrats, either, but that's not the point… if they're anything, they're leftists. They're not conservatives. BDS isn't coming from the right.

I'm not only drawing the conclusion from what I see on Daily Kos.

Which would be a grad student at Israel's largest public university.

BDS that, homies.

The guy has not only never been to Israel, but he has also clearly never even attended an Israeli event in the US (assuming he's an American — but I'm sure there are also similar events in the UK, Canada and Australia, etc), either, like the one I was just at earlier this summer, where Mizrahim and Sephardim were and are prominent amongst performers and participants.

Or he does know this, and he's lying. But then, neither one is good, is it? I mean, in the end, all one really has to do is a Google image search of Jerusalem or Tel Aviv to put the lie to this “white-only, apartheid” bullcrap.

The fact that you mention one without the other tells me that you are lagging behind in terms of the I/P Conflict debate.

I think part of the answer to your question comes from the fact that guys like Barghouti and Abunimah are coming out of a Marxist camp. As Marxists they do their “marketing,” as it were, among other Marxists and their close neighbors on the extreme left.

I think people from both sides of the spectrum are guilty of buying their politics bundled. Someone can say “Climate change is an important issue to me, and I see it is an important issue to Joe. Joe also says Israel is a pariah. Well, I don't know much about Israel, but because I agree with Joe on climate change, he must be right about Israel, too.” And there is the reverse, “I like Israel. Joe hates Israel. I don't know anything about climate change, but Joe thinks it's important. He is wrong on Israel, so he must be wrong on climate change, as well.”

But just to put things in perspective, and this is totally anecdotal. My Brooklyn Food Coop is probably overall left leaning just by virtue of being in Brooklyn and being a Coop. When we had our vote on holding a BDS referendum, 90% of the Coop stayed home. Only 4% voted in favor of holding the referendum, and some of them voted for holding the referendum, even though they opposed BDS, because they felt it to be the most democratic means of decision making.

I guess my point is, that Daily Kos or Huff Post, might seem overwhelmingly pro-BDS. But when you view the comments, you are looking at a self-selected subset, and you shouldn't draw conclusions from that.

Nycerbarb

I won't spell it out because I do not wish to sound politically incorrect.

Perhaps you should research it on your own. Nothing to do with “color”. Many Palestinians are whiter than we are.

Trust me, skin color is only in your mind – not ours.

It would be interesting (and of course, quite useful) to be able to track just how many of these types that there are, but this just isn't in the cards, I guess.

They can live alongside the Palestinians as they've done for centuries.

Admitting that Jews have lived in Israel for centuries??? Tsk tsk. That is definitely deviating from the Mondofront party line.

This is another example of the two-faced liars that comprise BDS. At Mondofront and Adalah and similar forums all you gullible idiots do is spin ridiculous conspiracy theories fed to you by Press TV and Shlomo Sands about the Khazars and 'fake' Jews, how Israel is nothing but a European colony and what not. And yet when you go out in 'public' and think other people are looking you try to make nice with a soothing concession such as this that completely contradicts what you all say over there. Bitch please, we weren't born yesterday.

I tend to think that phenomenon, number-wise, it is a pretty evenly divided combination of true, nasty antisemitism, and epic gullibility. Either way, it speaks very poorly of anyone involved.

Why are they still suffering tremendously in the places they were born, Anon? And are you also calling for the destruction of, say, Lebanon? And the other Arab countries, who continue to make them suffer? If not, why not?

And oops, I typed this before I saw the rest of your comment. Clearly, Dr. Mike was correct in continuing to reply to you.

“My neighborhood is comprised of Jews, Arabs, African-Americans, Asians, and everything else under the sun.”

So does mine. Kensington, Philadelphia. The River Wards. Look it up.

And so does Israel contain Africans, Arabs, Jews, etc etc. All citizens, and all with equal rights. Are you denying this is true? Are you really claiming Israel is a “white-only neighborhood?”

My g-d, Anon, can you even take three seconds to do a simple google search to correct your ignorance?

Your repugnant use of the term “backward” in reference to Palestinians also suggests that you see your “mission” as a white man's burden of sorts. Disgusting.

Ultimately, the question you pose is not 'why can't the Jews have a homeland'. They can. They can live alongside the Palestinians as they've done for centuries. No, the question is rather 'why can't the Jews have a state at the expense of 4 millon Palestinians in the WB and Gaza and hundreds of thousands of refugees who'd like to return to their ancestral homeland. To that, the answer is self-evident.

I, for one, would like to know when this particular Anon (the advantage of being an Anon, who can claim anything anywhere), who is obviously so concerned about 'human rights,' has ever denounced, say, the shooting of rockets at school buses or the decapitations of babies…

Fireworks? Your callousness is simply mind boggling.
And there is nothing “crude” about stone and glass-packed Qassam rockets or Grad missiles. Even a simple stone launched at that velocity and from that distance can kill.

You sound like you're sorry that we are doing a good job protecting ourselves?
To think that we owe the fact that we have reduced the casualties to Hamas and Islamic Jihad's compassionate heart would be hilarious if it didn't sound so pathetic.

But to respond to Anon, the BDS manifesto insists that there is a need for BDS until Israel is eliminated as the state of the Jewish people. So are you actually renouncing the BDS Manifesto that insists on the fictional “right” of return for generations of descendants of Palestinian refugees? Or is “oppression” the state of being a minority of Israeli citizens, and “occupation” being the existence of the Jewish state on any part of the Jewish people's homeland?
I don't recall meeting a BDS supporter here who stated that if Israel and the Palestinians came to a peace agreement– in which land borders were settled and the Palestinians got something real (a state) in exchange for renouncing a “right” that never existed– that he/she would then see no need for further BDS activities.

This is an aspiring author whose agent told him to increase his Twitter followers to make his naive, anti-Israel tome more attractive to a publisher. So he went to a popular left wing blog, not a right wing one, to get those followers. There's a reason for that, and it isn't because he wanted to aid some alleged conservative smear campaign.

This is not at all to make any sort of judgment call on the entirety of the Left's values as a whole (I am, after all, a lifelong liberal, and I'm sure I always will be), but the point is that his support there at that site, at least while I participated there until just last year, was quite instructive when it comes to the issue at hand. Even if BDS support at left blogs is only limited to a minority, it's certainly a much larger number than at right blogs; and is in fact not an insignificant portion of support, either. The diary I linked to above received well over 400 'recommends,' which means that he spent at least a day at the top of the prominent 'recommended diaries' list on the front page of that site, which claims over 3 million hits a month.

This level of support can not simply be explained away by claiming there's only a tiny, chameleonic group pushing this stuff, and that they're not welcome amongst 'the real left.' Which I agree (and know) that they actually aren't, in general as a whole (to add a bunch of qualifiers), but still… why does most of the BDSers' support, at least on the internet, come from left forums?

If we want to beat them, we'll need to understand how to counteract them on this.

I'm also pretty sure that the BDS-loving, anti-Israel kids at, say, the University of Pennsylvania, aren't members of Young Republican groups, either, but that's another issue for another time.

So either the community at places like Daily Kos (and HuffPo, Cif, etc etc) either are likely, in general, to support calls to end Israel, or they're just easily duped f'ing morons. Neither speaks well to the online left, or refutes the point at hand, to say the very least. So I guess I'd say that means there's a problem.

That all being said, I don't see how this is a mark against liberals as a whole, and I take no offense to this being pointed out. It just means we need to clean up our house, and keep on our toes. That's what I've been doing for a while now, anyway, and is what I'll continue to do.

If anyone here is genuinely interested in seeing on-the-ground footage of Cast Lead, they should watch this documentary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t238PXON8_Q

I hope that it will move you like it did me.

You should already be familiar with this quote, but just in case you aren't:

“During Operation Cast Lead, the Israeli Defence Forces did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare.

Israel did so while facing an enemy that deliberately positioned its military capability behind the human shield of the civilian population.”

Col. Richard Kemp, Commander of British Forces in Afghanistan, testifying before the UN “Human Rights Council” in 2009.

So let's hear it, Anon, what do YOU do to stop Hamas rocket fire? And no, Israel disbanding itself and turning the land over to the Arabs is not an acceptable response, though it might leave you without another.

Regarding your hypothetical, I would imagine that because Israel relies on US aid to sustain the occupation and its oppression of the Palestinians, there would no longer be a need for BDS. Undoubtedly, if the US were to genuinely cut off all aid to Israel until it meets its obligations under international law, Israel would have no choice but to do so.

But I really want to throw a different question at you: if the US did indeed stop its aid to Israel, would you then end your BDS efforts? Of course not. So stop claiming that this is your motivation.

But I do consider the attitude that can make light of rocket attacks against civilians by calling them “fireworks” genocidal indeed. Shame on you.

“Hamas is too economically crippled to do anything more than organize fireworks displays. “

You have the gall to call military rockets landing on and maiming and killing civilians “fireworks displays.” Of course when non-Jews are killed in the Middle East conflict it is the worst thing ever, but when Jews are killed it's “fireworks”. A big colorful explosion for you to enjoy. You are a disgusting person, and you are part of a disgusting, genocidal movement.

First there is this:

“BDS travels under a wholly liberal banner and expresses itself almost entirely with a progressive vocabulary”

I think it is more accurate to say that BDS expresses itself almost entirely with a progressive vocabulary when aiming their rhetoric at progressives. But when they are talking amongst themselves or to other audiences the rhetoric can vary greatly.

For instance, Mondofront and Yahoo News are often graced by comments to the effect of 'I don't want $3 billion of MY tax dollars being sent to Israel…' which have a distinctly right-leaning ring to them. And, of course, when amongst other audiences liberal buzzwords like “peace” and “coexistence” are replaced with “revolution”, “armed resistance”, “total victory” and so on.

Secondly, I disagree with the analysis that says the lack of 'progress' in the Middle East is what provides a conundrum to the progressive or liberal worldview. I think it is much simpler than that: The big tent of the left has two values that are now in fundamental conflict: a) universal human rights and b) cultural relativism. Many overlook the terrible anti-humanist nature of brutal regimes and societies in the Middle East, Africa, and elsewhere choose the later value when they are in conflict, and this is the source of the conundrum that the ME conflict and other similar issues present to the left / progressive alliance.

And a last thing: Pat Buchannon is both an antisemite and an anti-Zionist. I don't think he uses one to cover the other, I think he is rather open about both. And antisemitism is not, primarily, a religious hatred, but an ethnic or national one – I'm sure you know that but the way you phrased it in this piece was that Pat has a religious prejudice. Also, I would argue against the statement that he has been effectively marginalized by the right. He's still on TV, after all, and has been there for 30 years.

Nice try, but this argument doesn't work at all for two reasons: Firstly, the scope and motivation behind Israeli crimes outweigh, both morally and literally, the internal backwardness of Palestinian society. Secondly, the Israeli history of oppressive colonialism itself has caused or fostered much of the non-intellectual, unprogressive sentiment to which you refer.

To the first point, hardly anyone denies that there are certain facets of Palestinian society that don't meet our high progressive standards. However, it's a pretty uncontroversial opinion that no matter how backwards an individual may be, that person still doesn't deserve for his house to be bulldozed, his land appropriated, his family shot at, or his freedom of movement restricted. I'm certainly not proud of the general Palestinian mindset towards women and gays, but do you really think that I'm betraying my progressive values by defending Palestinians from the aforementioned heinous crimes that are routinely perpetrated against them? Gosh, Palestinian women's and gay rights groups themselves say that the oppressiveness of the occupation far outweighs the cultural and religious restrictions of Palestinian society, whatever they may be.

To the second point, It's always pretty laughable when Zionists exclusively blame the Palestinians for their own backwardness. Throughout history, societies living under oppressive regimes have consistently reverted to radicalism, often religious fanaticism, in hopes of freedom, and yes, they do often learn to dislike (hate) their oppressor. Furthermore, tolerance and progressivism are generally linked to economic growth and development. Unfortunately, both the World Bank and IMF have stated that the occupation places severe limitations on growth in the Palestinian territories, which of course affects education and other important areas of intellectual stimulation. Lastly, the Palestinians have virtually no real governance or leadership. One, because many of their real leaders are imprisoned as political prisoners, and two, because the PA merely exists as a negotiating partner for Israel while Hamas is too economically crippled to do anything more than organize fireworks displays. The real governing power in the West Bank is Israel (the occupier). That's not how you structure a society for success.

So yes, the distinction of PEP continues to fall on your shoulders alone.

I would add one point. The so-called progressive/liberal world – such as a University or my Food Coop – puts a value on free speech. Their tolerance for all points of view provides a soapbox for the intolerant. It is a problem of philosophically finding a way to oppose it.

You are 100% correct in saying that we need to cultivate the liberal language. For my food coop, one of the issues might be the value of maintaining an inclusive environment versus the value of free speech. I think it is also important to identify anti-Jewish racism when it occurs.

Israel is home to 40% of the worlds Jews and 80% of American Jews say Israel is an important part of their identification as a Jew. So anyone who says “I am anti-Zionist or anti-Israel but not anti-Jewish,” doesn't know what he is talking about.

For more about the blindness of the extreme left and the anti-Israel movements I recommend Paul Berman's “Flight of the Intellectuals” and Bernard Henri-Levi's “Left in the Dark.” Robert Wistrich has a new book out as well on the subject.

Nycerbarb

Henry the only clarification anyone needs from you is the name of your shrink…so he/she can be listed on Angie's list as a gross incompetent , given your plummet into malicious delusion under his/her care.

scarlet p.

BTW, Mr. Herskovitz, what Sylvia and others say is absolutely true. Just take a gander at http://www.hvcn.org/info/feh/ That sure looks like one of your vigil-anti goons with head covered by a coat holding one of your “neatly-lettered” hate signs before a congregant and his two small children. Is there any more proof needed of your malicious mendacity? You make up stuff about your so-called “vigil” and lie about Israel and Jews all the time, so who can believe anything you say?

And, speaking of hooded pickets, your buddy Blaine certainly looks very fashionable dressed all in terrorist black with his full face mask bravely standing in front of the downtown branch of Ann Arbor’s public library with his swastika-bedecked, obscenity-laden placard. He must have been waiting for some child library users to flaunt his wonderful little sign in front of, much as he does at city council meetings esp. when Boy Scouts are present.

Your pathetic toxic synagogue stalking hasn't helped a single Palestinian Arab while succeeding in raising more than six figures for Israel. In fact, as you know, local Islamic leaders have condemned your picketing as have the mayor and city council, the Interfaith Council, and just about everybody else in Ann Arbor and anywhere else where your malevolent activities are known.

And, now your neighbors are up in arms about your shattering the peace of where they live because of your antisemitic flag and your damaging a public sidewalk with another hate message. After losing your “trial of the century” battle over the removal of one of your picket signs, get set to lose even more when your neighbors win their impending case against your uglifying the block and lowering their property values. And, how did you ever find seven other people (besides yourself) to vote for your non-election as a delegate to the County Republican Convention? Almost as good as the 1% of the vote you got in 2009 when you and Chuck Loucks failed miserably to push your BIGot BDS hijack attempt of the People’s Food Co-op. How’s all that working out for you, Henry? You apparently love the attention so much even when it’s all negative that you’re just soaking it in.

You are to Jews what the soon-to-be bankrupt Andrew Shirvell is to gays.

All this alienation and you just can't seem to get enough of it while your purported cause gains nothing and loses much. It demonstrates clearly that only your self-aggrandizement along with your irrational hatred for all things Jewish are all that seem to matter in your life. It’s all you have, and that’s just pathetic, petty, and pitiable. Too bad for you, Henry, too bad.

Only a pathological egotist who doesn’t care how he gets attention would enjoy stirring up so much enmity. Guess you’ve learned something from your other role models: Charles Coughlin, the disgraced radio mouthpiece of Hitler and Mussolini in 1930s Detroit; Louis Farrakhan, the demagogic Jew-hating Nation of Islam Führer, the homophobic, antisemitic US military funeral-picketing Phelps Family; and an assortment of your fellow neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers. It takes a special kind of psycho-pathological type to enjoy so much (well-deserved) hostility directed at him. Have fun, Heinrich, have fun.

I was really impressed by this speaker, a pastor at a local church, who showed a greater comprehension of the situation in the Middle East than either the JVP or the Palestinian speakers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KA8gFuhD3Gw

Really? Have you attended our vigils? Please do, and dispel for yourself this ridiculous claim …

In looking at the Sacramento Bee article, I noticed that there were a number of comments from the anti-Israel crowd but mostly from people who just thought that this wasn't the business of the city council.

There was one horrible, raging ungrammatical antisemite on there using the screen name “jcksweat.” I reported his remarks as abusive, and somebody openly asked the Bee if they countenance hate speech. I think more people should look at the offensive comments by “jcksweat” and report them as abuse and/or comment. The racist rants were still up a few minutes ago.

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/08/15/4726563/sacramento-council-approves-sister.html

There was one horrible, raging ungrammatical antisemite on there using the screen name “jcksweat.” I reported his remarks as abusive, and somebody openly asked the Bee if they countenance hate speech. I think more people should look at the offensive comments by “jcksweat” and report them as abuse. They were still up a few minutes ago.

You are right. We do need to keep our “eye on the ball”. Particularly regarding BDS and the “We hate Israel (and the Jews)” crew.

It really is a place where the David Duke's of the world converge with self-hating Jews (JVP). Needless to say, it's a strange place as well.

The mainstream Republican Party is supportive of Israel because of religious reasons, and because they rightly see it is a vital ally and the 'front line' in the struggle against Islamic terrorism.

The mainstream Democratic Party is supportive of Israel because Jewish Americans have historically been one of the major building blocks of the modern Democratic party.

And of course, for mainstream elements of both parties, it is natural to support the side of the conflict that generally shares our values.

Was Ayn Rand left or right? She was extreme free marketer (right) but also entirely opposed to religion and a militant atheist and a sexual libertine (left). Was Stalin left or right? He was a Communist but also an extreme nationalist and destroyed the environment. What about the Baathist Arab dictators, who support a huge state sector in the economy and secularism to a degree, but also extreme ethnocentrism and misogyny?

The BDSers and anti-Israel movement generally are a similar case to the above. They are just political extremists, and exist in the space where extremists on the far left and on the far right meet. Hence their 'tent' can include Cynthia McKinney and Alice Waters, as well as Pat Buchannon, Ron Paul, and David Duke. But what their tent does not include is the mainstream left or the mainstream right, both of which they have been, happily, shut out from.

I think it would be marvelous if all of us sane and level-headed people who don't tolerate the toxicity emanating from the BDS camp united in fighting it together wherever it rears its ugly head and also compared strategies and developed new ones as needed.

Yes, we do have unique psychopaths running rampant around Ann Arbor.

My understanding is that the synagogue has exhausted every legal avenue to evict the scum who picket them, but to no avail.

Apparently, the First Amendment's free speech clause still trumps its clause on freedom of religion. I believe in freedom of speech wholeheartedly, except when it interferes with people's right to freely worship in peace and tranquility without fear of hatred, harassment, and intimidation, which is exactly what the Herskovites are doing. It's way past the point of ridiculous! I mean, nearly ten years!

The congregation's members have shown unbelievable and admirable restraint in the face of such shameless stalking, but it's more than high time to take very aggressive, but legal, action and get these sick clowns away from this Jewish house of worship.

Had this been going on at a church or mosque I guarantee it would have ended long ago and not have been allowed to get so out of hand.

Anyway, thank you for the wonderful news from Sacramento!