Israel

[hpslugga 4043]

3 hours ago, Fozzz said:

This asshole.

 

 

Nothing about this is a surprise

[bad_teammate 13132]

19 hours ago, hpslugga said:

I wholeheartedly endorse tiers #1 and #2, but #3 is a non-starter. If that were to be implemented, there'd be around 6 million Arabs admitted into Israel, and thus we've overnight completely changed the demographic character of the country from being a strong Jewish majority to being an Arab majority. That's a non-starter.

There's A LOT going on here...

The idea that the Arabs who were ethnically cleansed from Israel would, along with their descendants, simply flock back into Israel is irrational. For the last 50+ years, the vast majority of these people have been building lives in other places. What would they even be coming back to? Are they going to abandon their lives here to flock, en masse, into an uncertain situation in Israel?

Also, and this should be obvious, your characterization of Right of Return is essentially identical to Trump's characterization of these migrant caravans. There's very little daylight between your vast overstatement of the number of people who would likely return to Israel and the dog whistles about their nefariousness.

But leaving aside the vile racism that hampers ~*~*~ BOTH SIDES ~*~*~ of this conversation, the practicality of Right of Return is really not that big of a deal.

Obviously current (non-settlement) Israelis are not going to be kicked out of their homes, and I haven't heard a single BDS advocate call for this. The practical reality of Right of Return should give Palestinian refugees a choice between land in currently-unoccupied villages/homes/etc... and compensation for what was taken from them during the ethnic cleansing. Does anyone really believe that Muslim society isn't OK with the idea of being compensated for crimes done against them? Hello?

You set up a strict-yet-transparent process for processing all of the RoR claims, negotiate them out, and move on. You tell the Palestinians, "You have the right to return. So here are the options: We've got some still-unoccupied villages, we've got this land over here in the Negev desert if you want it, or here's a BIG 'OLE check. If you take the village option or land option you agree to be a citizen of Israel and follow the non-theocratic (neither Jewish nor Muslim) law of a liberal democracy. If you take the check you can take it and go wherever. Sign here, as'salam alaykum."

So no, you wouldn't have 6 million Arabs flooding into Israel, not even close.

But that absolutely cannot work if Israel is solely conceived of as a theocratic ethnostate. Hell, you could even set quotas for how many Arabs are allowed to come in per year if you think Israel has to be majority-Jewish. However, the conception of Israel as a theocratic ethnostate is the intractable problem because theocratic ethnostates cannot be liberal democracies. They will always be, by necessity, apartheid prison states.

Right of Return is a moral and practical necessity. How it plays out is up for negotiation, but ignoring it is a non-starter.

[Asithappens 974]

28 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

Nothing about this is a surprise

So, Israel is illegally occupying the Golan Heights after the Arabs illegally started a war against Israel to wipe them off the face of the earth?

Iirc, the Arabs used the heights to lob down shells on the Israelis. 

 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

35 minutes ago, Asithappens said:

So, Israel is illegally occupying the Golan Heights after the Arabs illegally started a war against Israel to wipe them off the face of the earth?

Iirc, the Arabs used the heights to lob down shells on the Israelis. 

 

Shhhhh, sleeping dogs should be left alone.....

[NowThis 931]

37 minutes ago, Asithappens said:

So, Israel is illegally occupying the Golan Heights after the Arabs illegally started a war against Israel to wipe them off the face of the earth?

Iirc, the Arabs used the heights to lob down shells on the Israelis. 

 

how is any war illegal?

[WhatTheBuck 28705]

When the people who stole your land tell you it's illegal to try to take it back, you're probably not going to listen. 

[Fozzz 152]

37 minutes ago, Asithappens said:

So, Israel is illegally occupying the Golan Heights after the Arabs illegally started a war against Israel to wipe them off the face of the earth?

Iirc, the Arabs used the heights to lob down shells on the Israelis. 

 

This is Israeli propaganda.  Nasser was not about to start a war with Israel, and American and Israeli leadership were both well aware at the time that Israel would easily win a war against an Arab coalition.  Israel initiated the war in 1967 in order to do what they attempted and failed to do 11 years earlier.  

[hpslugga 4043]

56 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

There's A LOT going on here...

The idea that the Arabs who were ethnically cleansed from Israel would, along with their descendants, simply flock back into Israel is irrational. For the last 50+ years, the vast majority of these people have been building lives in other places. What would they even be coming back to? Are they going to abandon their lives here to flock, en masse, into an uncertain situation in Israel?

Also, and this should be obvious, your characterization of Right of Return is essentially identical to Trump's characterization of these migrant caravans. There's very little daylight between your vast overstatement of the number of people who would likely return to Israel and the dog whistles about their nefariousness.

I don't say that it would be likely, I say that BDS as part of its platform advocates it. That's their goal. Of course it wouldn't be a reality, but that's not the point. The point is that's what they want, and I cannot get on board with it. But see, that's not even the larger point. The point is that they cannot win a broader appeal in the international community with that as a part of its platform, which is why it's regarded as a cult even by serious scholars like Finkelstein.

Quote

Obviously current (non-settlement) Israelis are not going to be kicked out of their homes, and I haven't heard a single BDS advocate call for this.

Again, it doesn't matter if they're literally calling for it. The full implementation of their three tiers invariably leads to that. And if people want to espouse that as a goal, then fine...just say so. But don't pretend that you're "based in international law" if you're agnostic about one of the two states that are legally involved in this whole mess. That's like saying, as Finkelstein put it, "'I have the right to go through the green light, but I'm agnostic about the red.' No, you have the right to go through the green because you have the obligation to stop at the red."

Quote

The practical reality of Right of Return should give Palestinian refugees a choice between land in currently-unoccupied villages/homes/etc... and compensation for what was taken from them during the ethnic cleansing. Does anyone really believe that Muslim society isn't OK with the idea of being compensated for crimes done against them? Hello?

Yes, the "just settlement" concept. That's what I endorse, as does the bulk of the entire planet that supports the two-state settlement.

Quote

So no, you wouldn't have 6 million Arabs flooding into Israel, not even close.

With a just settlement? No
With a full implementation, as BDS calls for? Yes, you actually would. 

Quote

But that absolutely cannot work if Israel is solely conceived of as a theocratic ethnostate. Hell, you could even set quotas for how many Arabs are allowed to come in per year if you think Israel has to be majority-Jewish. However, the conception of Israel as a theocratic ethnostate is the intractable problem because theocratic ethnostates cannot be liberal democracies. They will always be, by necessity, apartheid prison states.

Look, I'm against the existence of states in general. I do not support the idea of Israel being a Jewish state any more than I'd support the idea of Palestine being an Islamic state. I don't support them being ANY state, nor do I support that for anyone else. But the abolition of states is a concept that's far off in the remote future, and you cannot win a public to that idea for the immediate future. The two-state settlement is a rotten concept, but it's the very least rotten of all realistic options. There's an international legal basis to create it, and there's a broad international consensus to support it. There is no consensus, however, to support what BDS supports, and that's where they lose in the court of public opinion.

Quote

Right of Return is a moral and practical necessity. How it plays out is up for negotiation, but ignoring it is a non-starter.

I do not say to ignore it.

Look, I've been writing about this for over 10 years and I've made my position on it perfectly clear. What I support is the UN position, which is the full implementation of 242, which is:

"1. Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent [1967] conflict;

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

2. Affirms further the necessity

(a)For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;

(b)For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

(c)For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;"

That's what I support, and that also happens to be the law. 

Edited March 12, 2019 by hpslugga

[Johnny Sack 8397]

21 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

This is Israeli propaganda.  Nasser was not about to start a war with Israel, and American and Israeli leadership were both well aware at the time that Israel would easily win a war against an Arab coalition.  Israel initiated the war in 1967 in order to do what they attempted and failed to do 11 years earlier.  

Israel attacked Egypt first in 1967.  But Syria attacked Israel first.  As to the fight with Syria and the Golan Heights, Syria was the aggressor.

[NowThis 931]

 

[bad_teammate 13132]

18 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

With a just settlement? No
With a full implementation, as BDS calls for? Yes, you actually would. 

What do you mean by "full implementation" and where can I find BDS calling for this "full implementation"? I am genuinely curious because that seems to be the only difference between us on this issue. 

I'm sure there is a wide variety of opinion within the BDS movement, just as there is in any pro-Israel movement. To characterize the entire movement as against a two-state solution is dishonest.

[Fozzz 152]

5 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Israel attacked Egypt first in 1967.  But Syria attacked Israel first.  As to the fight with Syria and the Golan Heights, Syria was the aggressor.

 

More baldfaced lies.  The shelling from the Golan Heights was in retaliation for Israel seizing Arab land along the DMZ.  

Quote

It is an article of faith among Israelis that the Golan Heights were seized in the 1967 Middle East war to stop Syria from shelling the Israeli settlements down below. The future of the Golan Heights is central to the search for peace in the Middle East, and much of the case against giving the Golan Heights back to Syria rests on the fear of reviving that threat.

But like many another of Israel's founding legends, this one has come under question lately, and from a most surprising quarter: Moshe Dayan, the celebrated commander who, as Defense Minister in 1967, gave the order to conquer the Golan.

General Dayan died in 1981. But in conversations with a young reporter five years earlier, he said he regretted not having stuck to his initial opposition to storming the Golan Heights. There really was no pressing reason to do so, he said, because many of the firefights with the Syrians were deliberately provoked by Israel, and the kibbutz residents who pressed the Government to take the Golan Heights did so less for security than for the farmland.

https://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/11/world/general-s-words-shed-a-new-light-on-the-golan.html

[NowThis 931]

BDS has no official leadership or platform. It's a loosely tied network of many groups across cities and nations.  The platform can be set by 20 or 30 members in a midsized Alabama city or by well known leaders in London.  To me, the main goals are to end the occupation and allow freedom of movement. The right of return has never been a big point for them, although it's part of the overall Palestininan movement, the point is largely symbolic at this point. 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

1 minute ago, Fozzz said:

 

More baldfaced lies.  The shelling from the Golan Heights was in retaliation for Israel seizing Arab land along the DMZ.  

https://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/11/world/general-s-words-shed-a-new-light-on-the-golan.html

Even taken something published 21 years later (and 15 years after his death) as true, Syria did more than shell Israel before Israel pushed them out of the Golan Heights.  12 Syrian jets invaded Israeli airspace and attacked Israel.

Your own article also states Historians debate whether his alleged statements had any validity.

 

[Smax 3800]

Who cares who started it, Israel won. They've acquired land to grow their country just like every other first world nation has

[NowThis 931]

6 minutes ago, Smax said:

Who cares who started it, Israel won. They've acquired land to grow their country just like every other first world nation has

or most nations, not just 'first world'.  Your statement implies that rich can dominate the poors as a natural event and fully justifiable due to superiority. 

[hpslugga 4043]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

What do you mean by "full implementation" and where can I find BDS calling for this "full implementation"? I am genuinely curious because that seems to be the only difference between us on this issue. 

I'm sure there is a wide variety of opinion within the BDS movement, just as there is in any pro-Israel movement. To characterize the entire movement as against a two-state solution is dishonest.

I'd refer you to, among others, Omar Barghouti's screeds, namely the one that he offered back in 2003 that stated: "Good riddance! The two-state solution for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is finally dead. But someone has to issue an official death certificate before the rotting corpse is given a proper burial and we can all move on and explore the more just, moral and therefore enduring alternative for peaceful coexistence between Jews and Arabs in Mandate Palestine: the one-state solution."

And mind you, he's one of the BDS' co-founders and he made this statement even before founding the so-called movement. Furthermore, if you go to their website, still prominently posted there is their de facto founding document, which states:

"1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall
2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and
3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194."

Notice, there isn't a mention of 242. It only talks about 194. But 194 was adopted in 1948, and in article 11, it clearly states:

"Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible; Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation, and to maintain close relations with the Director of the United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees and, through him, with the appropriate organs and agencies of the United Nations."

Now, you're probably going to harp on the clause that immediately follows the bolded portion. Again, that's not the point. The point is that you open the door to it in the eyes of the Israelis, which is all that matters when it comes to negotiations. What has to be presented to them is the same thing that's been presented every year at the United Nations' General Assembly meetings when it votes on the Peaceful Settlement of the Palestine Question, which is a "just settlement." Just settlement means that they will not be given the full right of return, but the ones who won't be allowed to return will receive a negotiated settlement...as in even if their homes were not destroyed. 194 was a tenable concept in 1948. It now no longer is, and there's no point in invoking it and only it the way BDS does. Hell, it wasn't even tenable in 1967, which is why Caradon and Goldberg included that in the text of 242. That version of the settlement is what's recognized as the international consensus and not this tactic of throwing the kitchen sink at them.

The only way we're ever going to achieve that kind of monumental settlement is if there's broad public support for it. And to repeat, BDS does not have that kind of support precisely for the reasons I just said. They issued those 3 tiers, Israeli propaganda counters that they're calling for the destruction of Israel, and BDS' only response that I've ever seen is that they take no position on Israel. You might want to watch Frank Barat's 31-minute interview with Finkelstein that bore directly on this topic, because what happened there is a microcosm of the discourse that happens between BDS and everyone else: Finkelstein raised the issue, and Barat couldn't for the life of him answer him competently.

3 minutes ago, Smax said:

Who cares who started it

Just people who respect international humanitarian law.

3 minutes ago, NowThis said:

Your statement implies that rich can dominate the poors as a natural event and fully justifiable due to superiority. 

Not only that but it also reeks of internet tough guy bluster.

[Fozzz 152]

11 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Even taken something published 21 years later (and 15 years after his death) as true, Syria did more than shell Israel before Israel pushed them out of the Golan Heights.  12 Syrian jets invaded Israeli airspace and attacked Israel.

Your own article also states Historians debate whether his alleged statements had any validity.

 

The dog fight that ensued on April 7 was in response to Israel sending bulldozers out to plow in the DMZ that day in order to provoke the Syrians.  The IDF chief of staff referred to the border incidents as a gold mine that would allow Israel to potentially escalate the conflict.  

[Smax 3800]

1 minute ago, hpslugga said:

 

Just people who respect international humanitarian law.

 

 

So whats that going to accomplish unless you're advocating giving conquered land back and if so are you ready to give Texas back Mexico, the majority of the US back to the Indians?

[hpslugga 4043]

Just now, Smax said:

 

So whats that going to accomplish unless you're advocating giving conquered land back and if so are you ready to give Texas back Mexico, the majority of the US back to the Indians?

There was no UN Charter that prohibited the US from stealing about a third of Mexico in the middle of the 19th century the way there was that prohibited Israel from stealing the West Bank, the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip, and the Sinai Peninsula in 1967. Even you know that.

[Smax 3800]

my point is, its bad precedent and is going to open up a can worms

[hpslugga 4043]

2 minutes ago, Smax said:

my point is, its bad precedent and is going to open up a can worms

Except there’s precisely zero reason to believe that. If you don’t give me a reason to believe you, I have no reason to believe you.

[David Dennison 18652]

15 minutes ago, Smax said:

my point is, its bad precedent and is going to open up a can worms

It's also bad precedent to occupy territory and oppress the people who live there.

[bad_teammate 13132]

4 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

Notice, there isn't a mention of 242. It only talks about 194.

Which is the inverse of how Finklestein talks, of course, as he constantly stresses the primacy of 242 and makes 194 subject to his own interpretive framework for 242. We can go back and forth on individual voices, but picking out single voices in order to cherry-pick what we want to characterize the "other side" with is both endless and pointless.

Quote

The point is that you open the door to it in the eyes of the Israelis, which is all that matters when it comes to negotiations. What has to be presented to them is the same thing that's been presented every year at the United Nations' General Assembly meetings when it votes on the Peaceful Settlement of the Palestine Question, which is a "just settlement." Just settlement means that they will not be given the full right of return, but the ones who won't be allowed to return will receive a negotiated settlement...as in even if their homes were not destroyed. 194 was a tenable concept in 1948. It now no longer is, and there's no point in invoking it and only it the way BDS does. Hell, it wasn't even tenable in 1967, which is why Caradon and Goldberg included that in the text of 242. That version of the settlement is what's recognized as the international consensus and not this tactic of throwing the kitchen sink at them.

We must follow international law... except when it's not "tenable"?

Is 242 "tenable"? Because I just saw the Israeli PM say that Israel was for Jews only and I see that Israel is occupying Palestinian land and running them like open-air prisons.

Either we follow international law or we don't, right?

Quote

The only way we're ever going to achieve that kind of monumental settlement is if there's broad public support for it.

... at the moment.

Things change. The Western powers' love and adoration of Jewish people and the concept of a Jewish state is a historical anomaly. Would you seriously assert that it is impossible that the West will not, at some point in the not-so-distant future, simply throw its hands up at the intransigence of the far-right in Israel and say, "Fuck it, we've tried. We're not wasting our time or money on these people who can't negotiate and exist in good faith" and leave Israel to the proverbial wolves?

Hello? Did history disappear?

[Smax 3800]

society has proven time again if given an inch they'll want a mile, this especially true today, look every sj cause over the past decade. The first concession is never enough.

 

Doesn't matter as nothing is going to come from this, Israel isn't giving anything back, the UN is impotent and cant enforce squat, the US may slap Israel on the wrist while laughing about this behind closed doors

 

 

[NowThis 931]

3 minutes ago, Smax said:

society has proven time again if given an inch they'll want a mile, this especially true today, look every sj cause over the past decade. The first concession is never enough.

 

Doesn't matter as nothing is going to come from this, Israel isn't giving anything back, the UN is impotent and cant enforce squat, the US may slap Israel on the wrist while laughing about this behind closed doors

 

 

well then, if permanent military dictatorship is inevitable, then attacking Israelis is a natural and justifiable consequence.  This is acceptable through the idea of violence against colonialism and occupation. 

[bad_teammate 13132]

Yes, Israel is an American client state that serves the American interest of having a destabilizing force in the Middle East that brutalizes people that America hates. That is an accurate reflection of modern reality.

However, the other reality is that nothing in America's economic life actually depends on partnership with Israel. If America enters either an economic depression or some kind of international crisis, the funding and unwavering support for Israel's flaunting of international law becomes a very fiscally and politically expensive luxury. Then, when America abandons its client states to pursue its own interests, the Arab world eats Israel alive.

OR

We could use this historically anomalous moment of pro-Israel support to build a strong two-state solution and spend a few decades of peace normalizing and harmonizing relations between a majority-Jewish Israel and a majority-Muslim Palestine, creating an ACTUAL model for ACTUAL pluralistic, liberal democracy in the region.

[David Dennison 18652]

5 minutes ago, Smax said:

society has proven time again if given an inch they'll want a mile, this especially true today, look every sj cause over the past decade. The first concession is never enough.

Doesn't matter as nothing is going to come from this, Israel isn't giving anything back, the UN is impotent and cant enforce squat, the US may slap Israel on the wrist while laughing about this behind closed doors

That's about as cynical as you can get.

I guess it's endless war for the human race. Oh well.

[Smax 3800]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

the Arab world eats Israel alive.

 

 

Last time they tried that it didnt end too well for them, Israel could wipe out the entire ME and there is nothing any arab country could do to stop them

[David Dennison 18652]

1 minute ago, Smax said:

Last time they tried that it didnt end too well for them, Israel could wipe out the entire ME and there is nothing any arab country could do to stop them

Uncle Sam: you're welcome.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

22 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

It's also bad precedent to occupy territory and oppress the people who live there.

It's also bad precedent to say in your charters/official doctrine that pushing Israel into the Med is a goal to be achieved.

[bad_teammate 13132]

Just now, Onboard 2.0 said:

It's also bad precedent to say in your charters/official doctrine that pushing Israel into the Med is a goal to be achieved.

Yes

[David Dennison 18652]

Just now, Onboard 2.0 said:

It's also bad precedent to say in your charters/official doctrine that pushing Israel into the Med is a goal to be achieved.

It's also bad precedent to start your Jewish state with acts of terrorism, but here we are.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

It's also bad precedent to start your Jewish state with acts of terrorism, but here we are.

I'd agree.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

14 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Uncle Sam: you're welcome.

They whipped their asses in 1948 without our help.  And it was 5 on 1.

[David Dennison 18652]

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

They whipped their asses in 1948 without our help.  And it was 5 on 1.

Uh huh. Sure.

[Asithappens 974]

2 hours ago, NowThis said:

how is any war illegal?

The same way that occupying land taken from a defensive posture is?

There should be no "occupation" designation. 

[NowThis 931]

2 minutes ago, Asithappens said:

The same way that occupying land taken from a defensive posture is?

There should be no "occupation" designation. 

the aggressor cannot claim defense.  After all, the Jews came to them, usurping their majority society, forming terror gangs, did some ethnic cleansing and here we are. The entire premise that the Arabs were wrong to attack in 1948 should be seriously questioned. 

[bad_teammate 13132]

The US didn't help Israel in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War? lol wut

[David Dennison 18652]

Just now, NowThis said:

the aggressor cannot claim defense.  After all, the Jews came to them, usurping their majority society, forming terror gangs, did some ethnic cleansing and here we are. The entire premise that the Arabs were wrong to attack in 1948 should be seriously questioned. 

It is the height of irony when the Israelis condemn terrorism as a political tactic.

[Asithappens 974]

2 minutes ago, NowThis said:

the aggressor cannot claim defense.  After all, the Jews came to them, usurping their majority society, forming terror gangs, did some ethnic cleansing and here we are. The entire premise that the Arabs were wrong to attack in 1948 should be seriously questioned. 

I'm talking about  the 1967 war when Israel took the heights.

I agree that the Arabs cannot claim defense in this situation. They started the war. They lost.

[NowThis 931]

1 minute ago, Asithappens said:

I'm talking about  the 1967 war when Israel took the heights.

I agree that the Arabs cannot claim defense in this situation. They started the war. They lost.

Golan Heights and the WB were under 2 different nations at the time, no reason for Israel to attack the WB for the sake of the Golan.  Yes, the Arabs can always claim defense, after all the Jews came to them as explained earlier. 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

The US didn't help Israel in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War? lol wut

How did the US help Israel in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war?

[David Dennison 18652]

2 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

How did the US help Israel in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war?

I bet the OSS/CIA knows.

[bad_teammate 13132]

52 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

How did the US help Israel in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war?

Bombers and pilots for both bombing missions and smuggling operations, to start with.

[hpslugga 4043]

21 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Which is the inverse of how Finklestein talks, of course, as he constantly stresses the primacy of 242 and makes 194 subject to his own interpretive framework for 242.

That’s not his interpretation; that’s what the law states. That provision of 194 was rendered obsolete by 242 the moment that it insisted “a just settlement of the refugee problem.”

When you cite 194 and not 242, that’s like citing the 18th amendment to justify a new Prohibition. Well yeah you could do that...except you’re gonna have a hard time explaining the 21st amendment. 194 provided a framework to settling the refugee issue, but 242 is absolutely clear: it only requires a “just settlement.” There’s absolutely nothing that I’ve said that even remotely suggests to follow the law “only if it’s tenable.” You know better than that.

And I would agree with what you said earlier. As it pertains to the just settlement, we are both on the same page. What I’m telling you is that BDS as a movement does not take to that position. You might, but they do not. I seriously would like for you to answer these two questions:

1. What is BDS’ position on the state of Israel?

2. Where is the evidence to support the answer to question 1?

Quote

We can go back and forth on individual voices, but picking out single voices in order to cherry-pick what we want to characterize the "other side" with is both endless and pointless.

The point is that I’ve got a lot of cherries to pick. Finkelstein is just an example. He’s the best one as he’s the foremost American scholar on the conflict, but he’s just an example. And by the way, I do not consider BDS to be “on the other side” of where I stand on the issue. Like I said, I support BDS as a set of tactics. What I reject is parts of their implied end game.

Quote

Is 242 "tenable"? Because I just saw the Israeli PM say that Israel was for Jews only and I see that Israel is occupying Palestinian land and running them like open-air prisons.

It’s tenable when they don’t have a powerful state giving it a level of aid that is unprecedented by anything in international affairs. It’s easy for Bibi, who is a psychotic and loathsome creature even within their society, to say those things, but he knows full well that he has to change face if the US backs away from him. I’m pretty sure you know that too.

Quote

Either we follow international law or we don't, right?

That’s the issue I take with BDS. They’re selective with the law. For example, that second tier thing with the equal rights for Arabs living in Israel? There’s nothing in international law that says anything about them. And again, I happen to agree with that tier. The thing is it has nothing to do with the law. So they claim that they’re rooted in international law, but:

Tier 1: Rooted in international law

Tier 2: Not rooted in international law

Tier 3: Rooted in obsolete provisions of international law that were since replaced by succeeding international laws.

So if my math is correct, they are 33.33% rooted in existing international law. That’s the reason why they’re not taken seriously. And speaking of them not really being rooted in international law, why are so many of them in favor of a one-state settlement when there is nothing in international law that supports such a thing?

Quote

Would you seriously assert that it is impossible that the West will not, at some point in the not-so-distant future, simply throw its hands up at the intransigence of the far-right in Israel and say, "Fuck it, we've tried. We're not wasting our time or money on these people who can't negotiate and exist in good faith" and leave Israel to the proverbial wolves?

Impossible down the line? No, I wouldn’t. In fact I’d prefer that we’d remove ourselves from this entirely. Like I said, I oppose states in general, so I’m doubly opposed to states receiving ideological, diplomatic, and military aid from other states to such an extent that allows them to maintain a 52-year occupation.

But that’s a separate issue. What we were talking about is BDS. I’ve made the charge that, at the very least, they’re insincere and duplicitous in their claims about being rooted in international law. 

EDIT: And just to be clear, I don't want anything that I just said to be true. I wish that all of it was wrong and will be happy to recant all of it. I want BDS to be a successful movement and I want them to reach a much broader public than they've reached. But the thing is that they haven't because there are serious defects that they need to address, and I'm not going to sit here and pretend that they've addressed them just because a handful of people who are so eager to believe in all of this stuff say so. What I objectively see in the movement is a complete inability to counter US/Israeli propaganda. If they can't even do that, I'd be wasting my time pretending that they can.

 

Edited March 13, 2019 by hpslugga

[NowThis 931]

trying to understand Finkelstein's opposition to BDS https://newrepublic.com/article/122257/unpopular-man-norman-finkelstein-comes-out-against-bds-movement

He feels the position is inconsistent with international law’s recognition of Israel’s existence. In an interview with a French pro-Palestinian activist, Finkelstein declared his opposition to BDS—and did so in the same inflammatory language he had been using for decades to describe Israel and its supporters. “I loathe the disingenuousness—they don’t want Israel [to exist],” he said. “It’s a cult.” He had spent his time in a self-deceptive Maoist cult, he said; he wouldn’t do it again. He accused BDS activists of “inflating the numbers” of Palestinian refugees and “want[ing] to create terror in the hearts of every Israeli” rather than resolve the conflict. “I’m not going to tolerate what I think is silliness, childishness, and a lot of left-wing posturing,” he said.

 

 

=========

did he previously believe that pro-Palestinian people want Israel to exist? No Pal wants Israel to exist, accept the existence though,  however the goal of eliminating Israel is a fantasy which no serious person follows. Finklestein and Naom Chomsky (also against BDS) are both confused on this issue seems to me. 

 

====

even Daniel Pipes, one of the biggest zionist fascist assholes of all time, doesn't understand Finkelstein's position :

 

“I don’t understand—he consorts with Hamas, he’s hostile to Israel in every possible way, and yet he comes up short on this one,” says Daniel Pipes, president of the Middle East Forum, a conservative think tank.

 

Edited March 13, 2019 by NowThis

[NowThis 931]

this is supposedly the BDS 'official' website https://bdsmovement.net/faqs#collapse16233

and their goals... they don't officially want a 1 state or 2 state solution

What does BDS aim to achieve? Does it call for a one state or a two state solution?

The BDS movement aims to pressure Israel to respect international law by:

1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall
International law recognises the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, Gaza and the Syrian Golan Heights as occupied by Israel.

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

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

These are three basic rights without which the Palestinian people cannot exercise its inalienable right to self-determination.

The BDS movement does not advocate for a particular solution to the conflict and does not call for either a “one state solution” or a “two state solution”. Instead, BDS focuses on the realization of basic rights and the implementation of international law.

Edited March 13, 2019 by NowThis

[Chrispy 132]

23 hours ago, Smax said:

Who cares who started it, Israel won. They've acquired land to grow their country just like every other first world nation has

Yep, to the victor go the spoils. Thems the rules. 

[NowThis 931]

the right wing dummies have the school playground argument:

The Israelis kicked their asses!

9/11 mutha fucka!