Boycott Israel

[Shusha]

A BDS Campaign Tackles the Sports Industry in Portland — and Wins

lol Wins what? How stupid do you have to be to imagine this helps the so called Palestinians in any way? The only possible way to improve the lives of the Palestinians is to make peace with Israel.

make peace with Israel.

What does that mean?

It means fully recognizing Israel's right to self-determination, alongside Arab Palestine's right to self-determination. It means creating a boundary or two to delineate land which is for the one and that which is for the other. It means deciding how access to the holy places for both peoples is going to work. It means deciding on, and limiting, on both sides the "right of return" so each peoples can maintain the character of their self-determination.

It means creating a boundary or two to delineate land which is for the one and that which is for the other.

There is no legal requirement to divide Palestine.

There is no legal prohibition on dividing Israel/Palestine, and the principles of self-determination suggest it is the customary legal solution when self-determination and territorial integrity collide.

 

[P F Tinmore]

A BDS Campaign Tackles the Sports Industry in Portland — and Wins

lol Wins what? How stupid do you have to be to imagine this helps the so called Palestinians in any way? The only possible way to improve the lives of the Palestinians is to make peace with Israel.

make peace with Israel.

What does that mean?

It means fully recognizing Israel's right to self-determination, alongside Arab Palestine's right to self-determination. It means creating a boundary or two to delineate land which is for the one and that which is for the other. It means deciding how access to the holy places for both peoples is going to work. It means deciding on, and limiting, on both sides the "right of return" so each peoples can maintain the character of their self-determination.

It means creating a boundary or two to delineate land which is for the one and that which is for the other.

There is no legal requirement to divide Palestine.

There is no legal prohibition on dividing Israel/Palestine, and the principles of self-determination suggest it is the customary legal solution when self-determination and territorial integrity collide.

There is. It is called territorial integrity.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Of course you are stating a false dichotomy; you asking proposing there are only two choices, two states or incorporate the Arabs into Israel, but there is at least one more choice, continue with the status quo. In other words, we already have the final outcome. It may not be as pretty as you would like, but since no other outcome is possible, it is the final outcome.

No, I am not insisting there are only two choices. I suggested one choice and ASKED you what you thought the final outcome will be. (Also see all the pinned threads up top and my contributions. All sorts of ideas there.)

I am open to all sorts of choices here, including some sort of "status quo". Personally, I think the status quo is sustainable for a bit longer, but not indefinitely. Events, driven by people, are likely to overtake the status quo. Its easy to see the ways in which it is already.

Gaza, pushing for re-entry into Israel, rather than "end the blockade". That is a shift.
Israel pushing for further Jewish settlement and annexations. That is a shift.
US encouraging recognition of Israel and settlements. That is a shift.
Israelis demanding a stronger response to Gaza's rockets and violence. Shift.
Iran. Shift.

Lots of things are changing, but none of them would seem to impact the status quo because there is no other viable solution. The only real change in the status quo since 1967 is that Israel has given the Arabs in the territories a measure of autonomy.

The status quo is not a viable solution. Its a balance point in the tension of the conflict.

If we wanted to create a viable solution based on something similar to the status quo, we might go with an Emirates or City-States solution, with limited self-autonomy for the Arabs. Or it might look like the agreements between Canada and some of the semi-autonomous First Nations.

Not rejecting any of these ideas by any means. But not quite the same things as that "status quo".

AND, you know someone is going to scream, "Bantustans!" and while they are wrong about that -- we need to have a very, very solid articulation of why they are not.

You are confusing viable with desirable. The status quo may not be pretty, but it is clearly quite viable since it has survived since 1967 despite all the opposition from the Arabs, the Europeans and even the Obama administration. It is the only viable solution because all others would require the Palestinians to abandon their culture of Jew hatred and support a unified government that had abandoned it and clearly that is not going to happen.

 

[Hollie]

lol Wins what? How stupid do you have to be to imagine this helps the so called Palestinians in any way? The only possible way to improve the lives of the Palestinians is to make peace with Israel.

make peace with Israel.

What does that mean?

It means fully recognizing Israel's right to self-determination, alongside Arab Palestine's right to self-determination. It means creating a boundary or two to delineate land which is for the one and that which is for the other. It means deciding how access to the holy places for both peoples is going to work. It means deciding on, and limiting, on both sides the "right of return" so each peoples can maintain the character of their self-determination.

It means creating a boundary or two to delineate land which is for the one and that which is for the other.

There is no legal requirement to divide Palestine.

There is no legal prohibition on dividing Israel/Palestine, and the principles of self-determination suggest it is the customary legal solution when self-determination and territorial integrity collide.

There is. It is called territorial integrity.

Nonsense. It doesn’t apply.

 

[Shusha]

There is no legal prohibition on dividing Israel/Palestine, and the principles of self-determination suggest it is the customary legal solution when self-determination and territorial integrity collide.

There is. It is called territorial integrity.

You are just flat out wrong on this, as on many things. When the concepts of territorial integrity and self-determination are in conflict, customarily, self-determination takes precedence.

There is absolutely no prohibition in law against territories being divided, or borders changing, or territory being transferred from one State to another. Its all legally viable.

 

[Shusha]

Of course you are stating a false dichotomy; you asking proposing there are only two choices, two states or incorporate the Arabs into Israel, but there is at least one more choice, continue with the status quo. In other words, we already have the final outcome. It may not be as pretty as you would like, but since no other outcome is possible, it is the final outcome.

No, I am not insisting there are only two choices. I suggested one choice and ASKED you what you thought the final outcome will be. (Also see all the pinned threads up top and my contributions. All sorts of ideas there.)

I am open to all sorts of choices here, including some sort of "status quo". Personally, I think the status quo is sustainable for a bit longer, but not indefinitely. Events, driven by people, are likely to overtake the status quo. Its easy to see the ways in which it is already.

Gaza, pushing for re-entry into Israel, rather than "end the blockade". That is a shift.
Israel pushing for further Jewish settlement and annexations. That is a shift.
US encouraging recognition of Israel and settlements. That is a shift.
Israelis demanding a stronger response to Gaza's rockets and violence. Shift.
Iran. Shift.

Lots of things are changing, but none of them would seem to impact the status quo because there is no other viable solution. The only real change in the status quo since 1967 is that Israel has given the Arabs in the territories a measure of autonomy.

The status quo is not a viable solution. Its a balance point in the tension of the conflict.

If we wanted to create a viable solution based on something similar to the status quo, we might go with an Emirates or City-States solution, with limited self-autonomy for the Arabs. Or it might look like the agreements between Canada and some of the semi-autonomous First Nations.

Not rejecting any of these ideas by any means. But not quite the same things as that "status quo".

AND, you know someone is going to scream, "Bantustans!" and while they are wrong about that -- we need to have a very, very solid articulation of why they are not.

You are confusing viable with desirable. The status quo may not be pretty, but it is clearly quite viable since it has survived since 1967 despite all the opposition from the Arabs, the Europeans and even the Obama administration. It is the only viable solution because all others would require the Palestinians to abandon their culture of Jew hatred and support a unified government that had abandoned it and clearly that is not going to happen.

You are confusing viable with stable. Its not stable.

And while I may agree with you that the options are limited due to Arab Palestinians obstinate unwillingness to let go of the violence and hate, its still not a solution, but a holding pattern.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Of course you are stating a false dichotomy; you asking proposing there are only two choices, two states or incorporate the Arabs into Israel, but there is at least one more choice, continue with the status quo. In other words, we already have the final outcome. It may not be as pretty as you would like, but since no other outcome is possible, it is the final outcome.

No, I am not insisting there are only two choices. I suggested one choice and ASKED you what you thought the final outcome will be. (Also see all the pinned threads up top and my contributions. All sorts of ideas there.)

I am open to all sorts of choices here, including some sort of "status quo". Personally, I think the status quo is sustainable for a bit longer, but not indefinitely. Events, driven by people, are likely to overtake the status quo. Its easy to see the ways in which it is already.

Gaza, pushing for re-entry into Israel, rather than "end the blockade". That is a shift.
Israel pushing for further Jewish settlement and annexations. That is a shift.
US encouraging recognition of Israel and settlements. That is a shift.
Israelis demanding a stronger response to Gaza's rockets and violence. Shift.
Iran. Shift.

Lots of things are changing, but none of them would seem to impact the status quo because there is no other viable solution. The only real change in the status quo since 1967 is that Israel has given the Arabs in the territories a measure of autonomy.

The status quo is not a viable solution. Its a balance point in the tension of the conflict.

If we wanted to create a viable solution based on something similar to the status quo, we might go with an Emirates or City-States solution, with limited self-autonomy for the Arabs. Or it might look like the agreements between Canada and some of the semi-autonomous First Nations.

Not rejecting any of these ideas by any means. But not quite the same things as that "status quo".

AND, you know someone is going to scream, "Bantustans!" and while they are wrong about that -- we need to have a very, very solid articulation of why they are not.

You are confusing viable with desirable. The status quo may not be pretty, but it is clearly quite viable since it has survived since 1967 despite all the opposition from the Arabs, the Europeans and even the Obama administration. It is the only viable solution because all others would require the Palestinians to abandon their culture of Jew hatred and support a unified government that had abandoned it and clearly that is not going to happen.

You are confusing viable with stable. Its not stable.

And while I may agree with you that the options are limited due to Arab Palestinians obstinate unwillingness to let go of the violence and hate, its still not a solution, but a holding pattern.

It is very stable. For all the noise some people make over the status quo there is nothing else to do. If you want to think of it as a holding pattern, fine, but it is a holding pattern that will have to stay in place until the Palestinians are willing and able to give up their Jew hatred and form a unified government that is also able to abandon it, and we are at least generations away from such profound changes in their culture and political development.

So for the foreseeable future, the status quo is the only viable solution.

 

[Shusha]

No, I am not insisting there are only two choices. I suggested one choice and ASKED you what you thought the final outcome will be. (Also see all the pinned threads up top and my contributions. All sorts of ideas there.)

I am open to all sorts of choices here, including some sort of "status quo". Personally, I think the status quo is sustainable for a bit longer, but not indefinitely. Events, driven by people, are likely to overtake the status quo. Its easy to see the ways in which it is already.

Gaza, pushing for re-entry into Israel, rather than "end the blockade". That is a shift.
Israel pushing for further Jewish settlement and annexations. That is a shift.
US encouraging recognition of Israel and settlements. That is a shift.
Israelis demanding a stronger response to Gaza's rockets and violence. Shift.
Iran. Shift.

Lots of things are changing, but none of them would seem to impact the status quo because there is no other viable solution. The only real change in the status quo since 1967 is that Israel has given the Arabs in the territories a measure of autonomy.

The status quo is not a viable solution. Its a balance point in the tension of the conflict.

If we wanted to create a viable solution based on something similar to the status quo, we might go with an Emirates or City-States solution, with limited self-autonomy for the Arabs. Or it might look like the agreements between Canada and some of the semi-autonomous First Nations.

Not rejecting any of these ideas by any means. But not quite the same things as that "status quo".

AND, you know someone is going to scream, "Bantustans!" and while they are wrong about that -- we need to have a very, very solid articulation of why they are not.

You are confusing viable with desirable. The status quo may not be pretty, but it is clearly quite viable since it has survived since 1967 despite all the opposition from the Arabs, the Europeans and even the Obama administration. It is the only viable solution because all others would require the Palestinians to abandon their culture of Jew hatred and support a unified government that had abandoned it and clearly that is not going to happen.

You are confusing viable with stable. Its not stable.

And while I may agree with you that the options are limited due to Arab Palestinians obstinate unwillingness to let go of the violence and hate, its still not a solution, but a holding pattern.

It is very stable. For all the noise some people make over the status quo there is nothing else to do. If you want to think of it as a holding pattern, fine, but it is a holding pattern that will have to stay in place until the Palestinians are willing and able to give up their Jew hatred and form a unified government that is also able to abandon it, and we are at least generations away from such profound changes in their culture and political development.

So for the foreseeable future, the status quo is the only viable solution.

Out of curiosity, do you see as part of that status quo ensuring that Israel does not annex land and limits Jewish development in Area C?

 

[Sixties Fan]

UK Reaches Out to Israel For Health and Medical Technology Innovations

 

[toomuchtime_]

Lots of things are changing, but none of them would seem to impact the status quo because there is no other viable solution. The only real change in the status quo since 1967 is that Israel has given the Arabs in the territories a measure of autonomy.

The status quo is not a viable solution. Its a balance point in the tension of the conflict.

If we wanted to create a viable solution based on something similar to the status quo, we might go with an Emirates or City-States solution, with limited self-autonomy for the Arabs. Or it might look like the agreements between Canada and some of the semi-autonomous First Nations.

Not rejecting any of these ideas by any means. But not quite the same things as that "status quo".

AND, you know someone is going to scream, "Bantustans!" and while they are wrong about that -- we need to have a very, very solid articulation of why they are not.

You are confusing viable with desirable. The status quo may not be pretty, but it is clearly quite viable since it has survived since 1967 despite all the opposition from the Arabs, the Europeans and even the Obama administration. It is the only viable solution because all others would require the Palestinians to abandon their culture of Jew hatred and support a unified government that had abandoned it and clearly that is not going to happen.

You are confusing viable with stable. Its not stable.

And while I may agree with you that the options are limited due to Arab Palestinians obstinate unwillingness to let go of the violence and hate, its still not a solution, but a holding pattern.

It is very stable. For all the noise some people make over the status quo there is nothing else to do. If you want to think of it as a holding pattern, fine, but it is a holding pattern that will have to stay in place until the Palestinians are willing and able to give up their Jew hatred and form a unified government that is also able to abandon it, and we are at least generations away from such profound changes in their culture and political development.

So for the foreseeable future, the status quo is the only viable solution.

Out of curiosity, do you see as part of that status quo ensuring that Israel does not annex land and limits Jewish development in Area C?

No, since there will be no Palestinian state for the foreseeable future, there is no need to limit the development of area C. The happy ending for the Palestinians will not be a Palestinian state along the 1949 ceasefire lines but the opportunity peace and prosperity in an autonomous region under Israeli security control in areas A and B.

 

[Shusha]

The status quo is not a viable solution. Its a balance point in the tension of the conflict.

If we wanted to create a viable solution based on something similar to the status quo, we might go with an Emirates or City-States solution, with limited self-autonomy for the Arabs. Or it might look like the agreements between Canada and some of the semi-autonomous First Nations.

Not rejecting any of these ideas by any means. But not quite the same things as that "status quo".

AND, you know someone is going to scream, "Bantustans!" and while they are wrong about that -- we need to have a very, very solid articulation of why they are not.

You are confusing viable with desirable. The status quo may not be pretty, but it is clearly quite viable since it has survived since 1967 despite all the opposition from the Arabs, the Europeans and even the Obama administration. It is the only viable solution because all others would require the Palestinians to abandon their culture of Jew hatred and support a unified government that had abandoned it and clearly that is not going to happen.

You are confusing viable with stable. Its not stable.

And while I may agree with you that the options are limited due to Arab Palestinians obstinate unwillingness to let go of the violence and hate, its still not a solution, but a holding pattern.

It is very stable. For all the noise some people make over the status quo there is nothing else to do. If you want to think of it as a holding pattern, fine, but it is a holding pattern that will have to stay in place until the Palestinians are willing and able to give up their Jew hatred and form a unified government that is also able to abandon it, and we are at least generations away from such profound changes in their culture and political development.

So for the foreseeable future, the status quo is the only viable solution.

Out of curiosity, do you see as part of that status quo ensuring that Israel does not annex land and limits Jewish development in Area C?

No, since there will be no Palestinian state for the foreseeable future, there is no need to limit the development of area C. The happy ending for the Palestinians will not be a Palestinian state along the 1949 ceasefire lines but the opportunity peace and prosperity in an autonomous region under Israeli security control in areas A and B.

That sounds suspiciously like shifting the status quo, though. Sounds like its okay for Israel to shift the status quo, but Arabs can't.

And that bantustan thing....?

 

[Synthaholic]

The pro-Israel lobby is on the decline; let’s help it on its way

*snip*

The first came from Jonathan Schanzer, of the Foundation for Defence of Democracies: “Anti-Semitism as a smear is not what it used to be,” he was caught admitting. The lobby constantly defames Palestinians and their supporters as motivated by racism against Jews, so it’s actually refreshing to see one of the lobby admit – albeit in private – that they cynically abuse the issue as a “smear” campaign.

Secondly, and most ominously for the lobby, a former lobbyist for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, AIPAC, said that, “The foundation that AIPAC sat on is rotting.” This was a recognition by Eric Gallagher of the historical trends at play right now.

The influence of AIPAC and other pro-Israel lobby groups is on the wane because Israel itself is becoming more of a partisan party political issue, rather than the bi-partisan consensus issue that it far too often was for politicians in the past. In other words, you are far more likely to support Israel if you are a Trump voter or a Boris Johnson voter, than if you are a Bernie Sanders or a Jeremy Corbyn voter.

A typical anti semitic rant. The Democratic Party has lost touch with its roots and core values and you want to blame the Jews for it.

Why are you bringing Jews into it?

lol Dumb as a Democrat.

So you have no intelligent response? I’m not surprised.

An intelligent response to nonsense?

You mean your nonsense of equating Israeli government policy with ‘tha Jooz’?

 

[toomuchtime_]

You are confusing viable with desirable. The status quo may not be pretty, but it is clearly quite viable since it has survived since 1967 despite all the opposition from the Arabs, the Europeans and even the Obama administration. It is the only viable solution because all others would require the Palestinians to abandon their culture of Jew hatred and support a unified government that had abandoned it and clearly that is not going to happen.

You are confusing viable with stable. Its not stable.

And while I may agree with you that the options are limited due to Arab Palestinians obstinate unwillingness to let go of the violence and hate, its still not a solution, but a holding pattern.

It is very stable. For all the noise some people make over the status quo there is nothing else to do. If you want to think of it as a holding pattern, fine, but it is a holding pattern that will have to stay in place until the Palestinians are willing and able to give up their Jew hatred and form a unified government that is also able to abandon it, and we are at least generations away from such profound changes in their culture and political development.

So for the foreseeable future, the status quo is the only viable solution.

Out of curiosity, do you see as part of that status quo ensuring that Israel does not annex land and limits Jewish development in Area C?

No, since there will be no Palestinian state for the foreseeable future, there is no need to limit the development of area C. The happy ending for the Palestinians will not be a Palestinian state along the 1949 ceasefire lines but the opportunity peace and prosperity in an autonomous region under Israeli security control in areas A and B.

That sounds suspiciously like shifting the status quo, though. Sounds like its okay for Israel to shift the status quo, but Arabs can't.

And that bantustan thing....?

Not at all. The development of area C has been going on since 1967. It has been slowed down in the past because of relations with the US, but now there is no need to slow it down any longer. There is no shift in the status quo. Against all reason, you want to pretend that a peaceful two state solution is still possible and that Israel should not develop area C so that it can be on the negotiating table, but that is crazy. "The bantustan thing" you like to talk about so much is only meaningful to dull witted anti semites.

 

[Shusha]

You are confusing viable with stable. Its not stable.

And while I may agree with you that the options are limited due to Arab Palestinians obstinate unwillingness to let go of the violence and hate, its still not a solution, but a holding pattern.

It is very stable. For all the noise some people make over the status quo there is nothing else to do. If you want to think of it as a holding pattern, fine, but it is a holding pattern that will have to stay in place until the Palestinians are willing and able to give up their Jew hatred and form a unified government that is also able to abandon it, and we are at least generations away from such profound changes in their culture and political development.

So for the foreseeable future, the status quo is the only viable solution.

Out of curiosity, do you see as part of that status quo ensuring that Israel does not annex land and limits Jewish development in Area C?

No, since there will be no Palestinian state for the foreseeable future, there is no need to limit the development of area C. The happy ending for the Palestinians will not be a Palestinian state along the 1949 ceasefire lines but the opportunity peace and prosperity in an autonomous region under Israeli security control in areas A and B.

That sounds suspiciously like shifting the status quo, though. Sounds like its okay for Israel to shift the status quo, but Arabs can't.

And that bantustan thing....?

Not at all. The development of area C has been going on since 1967. It has been slowed down in the past because of relations with the US, but now there is no need to slow it down any longer. There is no shift in the status quo. Against all reason, you want to pretend that a peaceful two state solution is still possible and that Israel should not develop area C so that it can be on the negotiating table, but that is crazy. "The bantustan thing" you like to talk about so much is only meaningful to dull witted anti semites.

On the contrary, I am not pretending that Israel should not develop Area C, but am questioning why you think increased development of Area C is somehow maintaining the status quo. The term "status quo" literally means "the current situation". Development is changing the status quo. (And I'm not necessarily saying I have a problem with that -- I'm just calling you out on "we are keeping things the same" while simultaneously introducing a million new people to a territory as maintaining the current situation.)

I made no comments whatsoever that "Israel should not develop Area C so that it can be on the negotiating table". You continue to accuse me of things based on your unfounded assumptions of my position, with no evidence or recognition of my actual position. This is a type of manipulation called "typecasting" where you accuse someone of some trait or held belief which is not actually held by that person.

I, in fact, don't believe that a peaceful two state solution is possible in the next two to three generations. (As anyone should be if they have seen what Arab Palestinians are teaching their children). We agree on that. I still hold it as an ideal though. And I would be morally deficient if I didn't. The alternatives are very difficult. If push comes to shove (and I hope it won't, but if it does), though, I'm going to go with SHOVE.

The problem I have with your claim, so far, about maintaining the status quo is that you seem to think that the status quo is Israel can and should enforce whatever she wants, whenever she wants, as much as she wants.


Also, see my previous posts, I recognized "bantustans" was a ridiculous accusation, but acknowledged we must be able to articulate WHY. Its important. You got anything?

 

[P F Tinmore]

ACCRIP votes to recommend divestment
Corporation will review divestment recommendation before deciding action

The Advisory Committee on Corporate Responsibility in Investment Practices voted to recommend that the University divest from “companies identified as facilitating human rights abuses in Palestine” Monday afternoon.

 

[Hollie]

After a year of failures, many campus anti-Israel groups remain silent | The College Fix

A year after successive failures at universities and colleges across the country, many campus anti-Israel movements are refusing to comment about their plans for the current school year.

In May, The College Fix reported on several student-led movements at major universities that failed in their efforts of boycotting, divesting from and sanctioning the country of Israel. These “BDS” initiatives, as they’re popularly called, are aimed at pressuring colleges into cutting academic and financial ties with Israel due to purported human rights abuses by that country.

 

[admonit]

It is very stable. For all the noise some people make over the status quo there is nothing else to do. If you want to think of it as a holding pattern, fine, but it is a holding pattern that will have to stay in place until the Palestinians are willing and able to give up their Jew hatred and form a unified government that is also able to abandon it, and we are at least generations away from such profound changes in their culture and political development.

So for the foreseeable future, the status quo is the only viable solution.

Out of curiosity, do you see as part of that status quo ensuring that Israel does not annex land and limits Jewish development in Area C?

No, since there will be no Palestinian state for the foreseeable future, there is no need to limit the development of area C. The happy ending for the Palestinians will not be a Palestinian state along the 1949 ceasefire lines but the opportunity peace and prosperity in an autonomous region under Israeli security control in areas A and B.

That sounds suspiciously like shifting the status quo, though. Sounds like its okay for Israel to shift the status quo, but Arabs can't.

And that bantustan thing....?

Not at all. The development of area C has been going on since 1967. It has been slowed down in the past because of relations with the US, but now there is no need to slow it down any longer. There is no shift in the status quo. Against all reason, you want to pretend that a peaceful two state solution is still possible and that Israel should not develop area C so that it can be on the negotiating table, but that is crazy. "The bantustan thing" you like to talk about so much is only meaningful to dull witted anti semites.

I made no comments whatsoever that "Israel should not develop Area C so that it can be on the negotiating table". You continue to accuse me of things based on your unfounded assumptions of my position, with no evidence or recognition of my actual position.

So, probably it's a good opportunity to clarify your position?

 

[Sixties Fan]

But those who stood against Psagot’s actions are some of the many in Israel who have decided, year after year, to allow or overlook Europe’s discrimination against Israelis, funding of anti-Israel initiatives and active work toward the delegitimization and destruction of the State of Israel. Psagot, on the other hand, is proud to have fought the E.U.’s discriminatory laws in court, no matter the outcome. Psagot will continue this fight as the case is remanded back to the French courts, and will continue to lead the fight against Europe’s misuse of consumer protection laws to harass, intimidate and discriminate against Israel and Jews around the world.

Importantly, from a legal perspective Israel is no worse off after the ECJ’s Nov. 12 ruling. The court did not change the law, but rather confirmed the enforcement guidelines of the European Commission, which have been on the books for years. While Psagot argued that the court’s interpretation and application of these labeling requirements, which had been promoted by the European Commission, was wrong, the court did not make a new law.

From an enforcement perspective, too, Israel is no worse off. Many commentators suggested that enforcement authorities in European states did not enforce the law prior to Nov. 12. This is false. European countries in some of the most important entry points in the E.U. (France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany) had all begun enforcement of the labeling directives.

In fact, this action was initiated by Psagot precisely because France had begun enforcing these labeling requirements. According to the ECJ, the law has not changed and always required those labels. In theory, the E.U. could have launched infringement proceedings against non-conforming states, though such an action would have been rather exceptional and it is doubtful according to European experts that the European Commission would have sued a member state over this issue.

In fact, slowly but surely, European nations are already coming out stating that they will not be implementing the labeling requirements.

(full article online)

Boutique Israeli winery challenging Europe’s labeling regime

 

[toomuchtime_]

It is very stable. For all the noise some people make over the status quo there is nothing else to do. If you want to think of it as a holding pattern, fine, but it is a holding pattern that will have to stay in place until the Palestinians are willing and able to give up their Jew hatred and form a unified government that is also able to abandon it, and we are at least generations away from such profound changes in their culture and political development.

So for the foreseeable future, the status quo is the only viable solution.

Out of curiosity, do you see as part of that status quo ensuring that Israel does not annex land and limits Jewish development in Area C?

No, since there will be no Palestinian state for the foreseeable future, there is no need to limit the development of area C. The happy ending for the Palestinians will not be a Palestinian state along the 1949 ceasefire lines but the opportunity peace and prosperity in an autonomous region under Israeli security control in areas A and B.

That sounds suspiciously like shifting the status quo, though. Sounds like its okay for Israel to shift the status quo, but Arabs can't.

And that bantustan thing....?

Not at all. The development of area C has been going on since 1967. It has been slowed down in the past because of relations with the US, but now there is no need to slow it down any longer. There is no shift in the status quo. Against all reason, you want to pretend that a peaceful two state solution is still possible and that Israel should not develop area C so that it can be on the negotiating table, but that is crazy. "The bantustan thing" you like to talk about so much is only meaningful to dull witted anti semites.

On the contrary, I am not pretending that Israel should not develop Area C, but am questioning why you think increased development of Area C is somehow maintaining the status quo. The term "status quo" literally means "the current situation". Development is changing the status quo. (And I'm not necessarily saying I have a problem with that -- I'm just calling you out on "we are keeping things the same" while simultaneously introducing a million new people to a territory as maintaining the current situation.)

I made no comments whatsoever that "Israel should not develop Area C so that it can be on the negotiating table". You continue to accuse me of things based on your unfounded assumptions of my position, with no evidence or recognition of my actual position. This is a type of manipulation called "typecasting" where you accuse someone of some trait or held belief which is not actually held by that person.

I, in fact, don't believe that a peaceful two state solution is possible in the next two to three generations. (As anyone should be if they have seen what Arab Palestinians are teaching their children). We agree on that. I still hold it as an ideal though. And I would be morally deficient if I didn't. The alternatives are very difficult. If push comes to shove (and I hope it won't, but if it does), though, I'm going to go with SHOVE.

The problem I have with your claim, so far, about maintaining the status quo is that you seem to think that the status quo is Israel can and should enforce whatever she wants, whenever she wants, as much as she wants.


Also, see my previous posts, I recognized "bantustans" was a ridiculous accusation, but acknowledged we must be able to articulate WHY. Its important. You got anything?

Why so defensive? Feeling guilty about something?

The development of area C has been going on since 1967 and the rate of development has depended somewhat on relations with the US, so sometimes it goes faster and sometimes it goes slower, but except for a few years during Oslo when some people thought a negotiated peace settlement with the Palestinians was possible, the development of area C has been a constant Israeli policy. In terms of relations with the Palestinians, it is part of the status quo and has been for over 50 years.

Since this seems to be a difficult concept for you, I will repeat it, in terms of relations with the Palestinians, the development of area C has been a constant Israeli policy, so it is part of the status quo.

While it is true that you have said the accusation that Israeli development in Judea and Samaria is not like the bantustans in apartheid South Africa, in a discussion of develop of area C you bring it up, why if not to compare Israel to apartheid South Africa?

 

[Sixties Fan]

[ Ah, those Jordanians ......who speak for "all" Jordanians........]

Former Jordanian Information Minister Samih al-Maaytah stormed off the set of Al Arabiya after he saw an Israeli analyst was slated to be on the air at the same time to talk about Jordanian-Israeli relations.

Maaytah said that he refused to appear on air with an Israeli guest.

The Israeli ad to be interviewed first and only after his segment was over would Maaytah go on the air.

When he entered the studio at about 10:30 am, he was surprised that thethe Israeli guest was there. When he was asked his first question he said that he does not participate in interviews with an Israeli party, he is a Jordanian citizen who has a political position similar to the political position of the entire Jordanian people. He pulled out the microphone, removed the headset, put it on the table and left the studio.

What a wonderful peace.


Former Jordanian minister storms off TV set when he sees an Israeli is there ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News