Boycott Israel

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
36,837
Reaction score
3,830
Points
1,130


In litigation challenging a Texas law blocking state agencies from hiring companies boycotting Israel, the Fifth Circuit ordered dismissal of the case Monday but declined to decide if the law is constitutional.

Bahia Amawi, a Palestinian U.S. citizen, had worked for the Pflugerville Independent School District for nearly a decade as a speech therapist for kindergarteners when the school district offered to renew her contract for the 2018-2019 school year.

She refused due to a new clause in the contract requiring her to certify that she does not boycott Israel nor would she do so while working for the school district.

Texas joined 25 other states with similar legislation when lawmakers passed House Bill 89 and Republican Governor Greg Abbott signed it in 2017
The challenge was thrown out because Texas changed the law to not apply to them any more.
And the other 24 states?

links?
 

Sixties Fan

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2017
Messages
19,307
Reaction score
1,559
Points
390
(Hebrew University is on Mount Scopus, which was considered part of Israel since 1948, showing that the BDS movement is not at all about “occupation” and all about destroying Israel. )

As Asher Fredman documents in his recently released book on BDS, this was predictable – BDS concentrates on institutions that waver and that take them seriously and it gives up on those that ignore it. Their demands are never ending on the unfortunate companies, universities and groups that try to accommodate them, and even the groups that capitulate completely to BDS demands are then told they must pay “reparations” for their “crimes.”

The University of Manchester thought they can make BDS go away. Instead, they have ensured that the harassment will increase “year after year after year.”

(full article online)

 

Sixties Fan

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2017
Messages
19,307
Reaction score
1,559
Points
390
One of the dirtiest words in both Arab and BDS media is “normalization” – anything that treats Israel and Israeli Jews as anything but disgusting entities.

In 2011, +972 Magazine once published a BDS group’s explanation of what is so horrible about normalization, and some of it sounds like parody:

A key principle that underlines the term normalization is that it is entirely based on political, rather than racial, considerations and is therefore in perfect harmony with the BDS movement’s rejection of all forms of racism and racial discrimination. Countering normalization is a means to resist oppression, its mechanisms and structures. As such, it is categorically unrelated to or conditioned upon the identity of the oppressor.
Oh really? Because later on in that same document Israeli Arabs are described as victims of coercion:

Palestinian citizens of Israel ….may be confronted with two forms of normalization. The first, which we may call coercive everyday relations, are those relations that a colonized people, and those living under apartheid, are forced to take part in if they are to survive, conduct their everyday lives and make a living within the established oppressive structures. For the Palestinian citizens of Israel, as taxpayers,such coercive everyday relations include daily employment in Israeli places of work and the use of public services and institutions such as schools, universities and hospitals.
Can you believe it? Israeli Arabs are being coerced into working and using public services – exactly like their oppressors!

Equality is the new apartheid.

But if the BDSers consider Israeli Arabs to be victims of coercion, then who are the oppressors? Why, they are Israeli non-Arabs, pretty much all of who happen to be Jews!

What more proof do you need that the BDS movement is antisemitic?

When Arabs use the term, they are no less antisemitic. An example this weeks comes from Palestinian newspaper Al Quds News, which is upset over Dubai’s publicly acknowledging a synagogue in the Emirates.

(full article online)

 

Sixties Fan

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2017
Messages
19,307
Reaction score
1,559
Points
390
Porochista Khakpour gets it exactly right. I disagree strongly with her political opinions but she doesn’t cross the line into bigotry – and that is exactly what nearly all anti-Israel groups and tweeters do. Their reactions to a woman of color not toeing their line shows how their position is based on smug moral superiority, not facts, and their self-perception of being moral paragons is threatened by a non-white woman exposing their hate, eagerness to stereotype and antisemitism.

So they turn on her.

(full article online)

 

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
59,129
Reaction score
2,522
Points
1,815
One of the dirtiest words in both Arab and BDS media is “normalization” – anything that treats Israel and Israeli Jews as anything but disgusting entities.

In 2011, +972 Magazine once published a BDS group’s explanation of what is so horrible about normalization, and some of it sounds like parody:

A key principle that underlines the term normalization is that it is entirely based on political, rather than racial, considerations and is therefore in perfect harmony with the BDS movement’s rejection of all forms of racism and racial discrimination. Countering normalization is a means to resist oppression, its mechanisms and structures. As such, it is categorically unrelated to or conditioned upon the identity of the oppressor.
Oh really? Because later on in that same document Israeli Arabs are described as victims of coercion:

Palestinian citizens of Israel ….may be confronted with two forms of normalization. The first, which we may call coercive everyday relations, are those relations that a colonized people, and those living under apartheid, are forced to take part in if they are to survive, conduct their everyday lives and make a living within the established oppressive structures. For the Palestinian citizens of Israel, as taxpayers,such coercive everyday relations include daily employment in Israeli places of work and the use of public services and institutions such as schools, universities and hospitals.
Can you believe it? Israeli Arabs are being coerced into working and using public services – exactly like their oppressors!

Equality is the new apartheid.

But if the BDSers consider Israeli Arabs to be victims of coercion, then who are the oppressors? Why, they are Israeli non-Arabs, pretty much all of who happen to be Jews!

What more proof do you need that the BDS movement is antisemitic?

When Arabs use the term, they are no less antisemitic. An example this weeks comes from Palestinian newspaper Al Quds News, which is upset over Dubai’s publicly acknowledging a synagogue in the Emirates.

(full article online)

 

Picaro

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
18,872
Reaction score
3,965
Points
290
Location
Texas
I already boycott a lot of Jewish foods, except for Jewish rye bread, which I like a lot. Does that count? I hate bagels.
 

Picaro

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
18,872
Reaction score
3,965
Points
290
Location
Texas
The Israel Boycott, Anti-Judaism, and the Giant Shrug

January 7, 2014 by Jackson Doughart



...

Ive long tried to understand the contemporary Lefts obsession with the Israeli-Palestinian dispute and its tunnel-visioned view of the matter, which categorizes all Israeli actions as evil and all Arab ones as an admirable fight against oppression. One should aim to find an explanation that does not rest on a fundamental hostility toward Jews; after all, the unfounded and premature attribution of bigotry to ones political opponents is normally the sign of a weak argument.

The best such explanation that I can come up with rests on the radical Lefts predilection for anti-Americanism, which resembles far more a political position than a form of bigotry. The problem, in their eyes, is not Israel per se but the fact that it is an ally of the Great Satan. There is some empirical support for this: even figures such as Noam Chomsky were not hostile to Israel in its early existence. The country was, as one recalls, founded primarily on the principles of democratic socialism and owed to Jewish Leftists for its establishment. Chomsky even lived in Israel on a kibbutz for a time. It was only when Israel aligned itself with the United States that it became complicit, in their view, with American imperialism, and hence dismissible on principle. The Lefts anti-Israelism could thus be chalked up to the decayed ideology of anti-colonialism, which has for decades been focuses squarely on American foreign policy.

...

The problem with the ASAs boycott is not its means, but rather its ends. On this point there is no room for an even-handed middle ground. Those who depart from the anti-Israel world view must voice their dissent now; if they dont, the boycotts will keep rolling in.

The Israel Boycott, Anti-Judaism, and the Giant Shrug | FrontPage Magazine
Here is a nice short essay on why; it 's all about fashion, mainly, for people still influenced by old Soviet Cold War propaganda, like aging professors at universities and Noam Chomsky cultists. It begins in Europe, of course, and spread to the U.S. from there.


The Postwar, Pre-1967 Roots

Anti-Semitism was never exclusive to the Right; Communism, for its part, often vilified Jews as capitalists. Communism in East Germany, as elsewhere, denied the right to practice the Jewish religion and sought to eradicate religion in general, including Judaism. East Germany's anti-Semitic policies first became evident in January 1953 when the Stasi - the state security service - confiscated documents of the Jewish communities, searched the homes of Jewish leaders, and spoke of a "Zionist conspiracy." After the Six Day War, East Germany officially adopted an anti-Zionist stance. However, no serious data on East German anti-Semitism is available before the reunification in 1989.


Although West German left-wing anti-Semitism also increased steadily after the Six Day War, before then the West German Left supported Israel generally, and specifically the Wiedergutmachung (Reparations Agreement of 1953) and the establishment of diplomatic relations in 1965. This friendliness was, however, based on an idealization of Israel, kibbutzim, and pioneering and was not on genuinely firm ground.4 Opposition to the conservative government of Chancellor Konrad Adenauer also played a role in this left-wing philo-Semitism.


During the 1960s, the West German Left divided into a more "conservative" wing and a New Left trend. Whereas Chancellor Willy Brandt was said to be a true and unwavering friend of Israel,5 many young leftists took radical positions and opposed Brandt's "establishment" Social Democratic Party. In 1966 they founded the Nonparliamentary Opposition (APO), a popular movement that sought to "renew" German politics from the outside. Many of its members and supporters later showed sympathy for the RAF, a leftist terrorist movement that had ties to the PLO and whose cadres trained in terrorist camps in Lebanon.


Student Radicalization

During the Six Day War, the New Left definitively transformed its hitherto moderate pro-Arab positions into full support for Arab states and the Palestinians, and its fragile pro-Israeli attitudes dissolved into anti-Semitic slogans thinly disguised as "anti-imperialist" criticism of a "fascist state."

After 1967, however, not only the radicals but large parts of the German Left turned their backs on Israel. This went hand in hand with protests against the Vietnam War, against the conservative mainstream in Adenauer's Germany and afterward the "Great Coalition" that was headed from 1966 by Chancellor Kurt Georg Kiesinger, a former member of the Nazi Party.6 The New Left also idealized Communist China and Ho Chi Minh, despite their involvement in mass murder against their own people.7


Well-known intellectuals who were more moderate leftists tried to dissuade the New Left from its extreme positions. Ernst Bloch, Jean Amery, Herbert Marcuse, Iring Fetscher, and Jean-Paul Sartre argued with the radicals and discouraged blind solidarity with the PLO, as opposed to legitimate criticism of Israeli policies. They warned that notions of Israel's annihilation were intolerable and linked to National Socialist ideology. However, they were not heeded by the radicals.8


... and more at the link. Basically it's because they're dope addled morons. The Soviets got all mad and butt hurt when LBJ took over from France as the major ally of Israel, and Israel accepted LBJ over the Soviet wooing, for obvious reasons; nobody willingly became a Soviet client state, so all the dopers and commies in western universities and media became anti-Israel overnight, as per Pravda's orders.
 
Last edited:

RoccoR

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
10,095
Reaction score
2,622
Points
290
Location
Reynoldsburg, OH
RE: Boycott Israel
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: While delivered very passionately - it still is supporting a pragmatic defect. The delivery begins with
(public disorder and an unsafe environment) what they are trying to end with (the elimination of public disorder and the unsafe environment). Claiming that the response to violence (under Article 43 of the Hague Regulation) is somehow not normal. That judicial punishment (under Article 68 GCIV • offenses which are solely intended to harm the Occupying Power) is somehow improper because it does not fit the political agenda of the many factions which call themselves "Palestinians" (Jihadist, Fedayeen Activist, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric Fighters) described as peaceful people, even though the violence (they complain about) is a consequence of their initiated criminal acts which are often intentional offenses which have caused the death of one or more people.

One of the dirtiest words in both Arab and BDS media is “normalization” – anything that treats Israel and Israeli Jews as anything but disgusting entities.

In 2011, +972 Magazine once published a BDS group’s explanation of what is so horrible about normalization, and some of it sounds like parody:
(COMMENT)

There is no justification for the Arab Palestinian to engage in criminal activity that is directed against Israel
(or any state for that matter) and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of the Israelis (or any other people).

“Nothing can justify terrorism — ever,” Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon declared
at the opening of a high-level meeting of the Security Council today, that the
council's body’s deep concern over the terrorist threat and its determination
to combat it by all means in all its forms and manifestations, in line with the
United Nations Charter and international law.

Nor is there any justification for any oration​
(like we see here) that would incite
discrimination and hostility or appeal to the emotion of the audience to the level of violence.

It is because the many national security interests do not want to appear draconian, that people such as depicted in the video, are allowed to continue the platform for the delivery of such inflammatory speech. An "argument from passion," as we see here is still misrepresenting the legality of violence in these matters, and is still a fallacy on so many levels.
SIGIL PAIR.png
Most Respectfully,
R
 

Picaro

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
18,872
Reaction score
3,965
Points
290
Location
Texas
Ah well, after looking up what 'BDS' is, I feel compelled to buy something made in Israel. Let's go shopping.


 

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
59,129
Reaction score
2,522
Points
1,815
RE: Boycott Israel
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: While delivered very passionately - it still is supporting a pragmatic defect. The delivery begins with
(public disorder and an unsafe environment) what they are trying to end with (the elimination of public disorder and the unsafe environment). Claiming that the response to violence (under Article 43 of the Hague Regulation) is somehow not normal. That judicial punishment (under Article 68 GCIV • offenses which are solely intended to harm the Occupying Power) is somehow improper because it does not fit the political agenda of the many factions which call themselves "Palestinians" (Jihadist, Fedayeen Activist, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric Fighters) described as peaceful people, even though the violence (they complain about) is a consequence of their initiated criminal acts which are often intentional offenses which have caused the death of one or more people.

One of the dirtiest words in both Arab and BDS media is “normalization” – anything that treats Israel and Israeli Jews as anything but disgusting entities.

In 2011, +972 Magazine once published a BDS group’s explanation of what is so horrible about normalization, and some of it sounds like parody:
(COMMENT)

There is no justification for the Arab Palestinian to engage in criminal activity that is directed against Israel
(or any state for that matter) and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of the Israelis (or any other people).

“Nothing can justify terrorism — ever,” Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon declared

at the opening of a high-level meeting of the Security Council today, that the

council's body’s deep concern over the terrorist threat and its determination

to combat it by all means in all its forms and manifestations, in line with the

United Nations Charter and international law.



Nor is there any justification for any oration


(like we see here) that would incite
discrimination and hostility or appeal to the emotion of the audience to the level of violence.


It is because the many national security interests do not want to appear draconian, that people such as depicted in the video, are allowed to continue the platform for the delivery of such inflammatory speech. An "argument from passion," as we see here is still misrepresenting the legality of violence in these matters, and is still a fallacy on so many levels.
SIGIL PAIR.png
Most Respectfully,
R
Are you still pimping Israel's terrorist canard?
 

Picaro

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
18,872
Reaction score
3,965
Points
290
Location
Texas
RE: Boycott Israel
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: While delivered very passionately - it still is supporting a pragmatic defect. The delivery begins with
(public disorder and an unsafe environment) what they are trying to end with (the elimination of public disorder and the unsafe environment). Claiming that the response to violence (under Article 43 of the Hague Regulation) is somehow not normal. That judicial punishment (under Article 68 GCIV • offenses which are solely intended to harm the Occupying Power) is somehow improper because it does not fit the political agenda of the many factions which call themselves "Palestinians" (Jihadist, Fedayeen Activist, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric Fighters) described as peaceful people, even though the violence (they complain about) is a consequence of their initiated criminal acts which are often intentional offenses which have caused the death of one or more people.

One of the dirtiest words in both Arab and BDS media is “normalization” – anything that treats Israel and Israeli Jews as anything but disgusting entities.

In 2011, +972 Magazine once published a BDS group’s explanation of what is so horrible about normalization, and some of it sounds like parody:
(COMMENT)

There is no justification for the Arab Palestinian to engage in criminal activity that is directed against Israel
(or any state for that matter) and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of the Israelis (or any other people).

“Nothing can justify terrorism — ever,” Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon declared

at the opening of a high-level meeting of the Security Council today, that the

council's body’s deep concern over the terrorist threat and its determination

to combat it by all means in all its forms and manifestations, in line with the

United Nations Charter and international law.



Nor is there any justification for any oration


(like we see here) that would incite
discrimination and hostility or appeal to the emotion of the audience to the level of violence.


It is because the many national security interests do not want to appear draconian, that people such as depicted in the video, are allowed to continue the platform for the delivery of such inflammatory speech. An "argument from passion," as we see here is still misrepresenting the legality of violence in these matters, and is still a fallacy on so many levels.
SIGIL PAIR.png
Most Respectfully,
R
Are you still pimping Israel's terrorist canard?
Have you ever considered discussing issues in your own words instead of just incessantly parroting sloganeering propaganda terminology? That way you might even fool some youngster who isn't widely read into taking you seriously.
 
Last edited:

Mindful

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2014
Messages
38,436
Reaction score
11,052
Points
1,470
Location
Here, there, and everywhere.
RE: Boycott Israel
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: While delivered very passionately - it still is supporting a pragmatic defect. The delivery begins with
(public disorder and an unsafe environment) what they are trying to end with (the elimination of public disorder and the unsafe environment). Claiming that the response to violence (under Article 43 of the Hague Regulation) is somehow not normal. That judicial punishment (under Article 68 GCIV • offenses which are solely intended to harm the Occupying Power) is somehow improper because it does not fit the political agenda of the many factions which call themselves "Palestinians" (Jihadist, Fedayeen Activist, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric Fighters) described as peaceful people, even though the violence (they complain about) is a consequence of their initiated criminal acts which are often intentional offenses which have caused the death of one or more people.

One of the dirtiest words in both Arab and BDS media is “normalization” – anything that treats Israel and Israeli Jews as anything but disgusting entities.

In 2011, +972 Magazine once published a BDS group’s explanation of what is so horrible about normalization, and some of it sounds like parody:
(COMMENT)

There is no justification for the Arab Palestinian to engage in criminal activity that is directed against Israel
(or any state for that matter) and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of the Israelis (or any other people).

“Nothing can justify terrorism — ever,” Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon declared

at the opening of a high-level meeting of the Security Council today, that the

council's body’s deep concern over the terrorist threat and its determination

to combat it by all means in all its forms and manifestations, in line with the

United Nations Charter and international law.



Nor is there any justification for any oration


(like we see here) that would incite
discrimination and hostility or appeal to the emotion of the audience to the level of violence.


It is because the many national security interests do not want to appear draconian, that people such as depicted in the video, are allowed to continue the platform for the delivery of such inflammatory speech. An "argument from passion," as we see here is still misrepresenting the legality of violence in these matters, and is still a fallacy on so many levels.
SIGIL PAIR.png
Most Respectfully,
R
Are you still pimping Israel's terrorist canard?
That’s an inflammatory statement. Based on a libellous and delusional premise.
 

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
59,129
Reaction score
2,522
Points
1,815
RE: Boycott Israel
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: While delivered very passionately - it still is supporting a pragmatic defect. The delivery begins with
(public disorder and an unsafe environment) what they are trying to end with (the elimination of public disorder and the unsafe environment). Claiming that the response to violence (under Article 43 of the Hague Regulation) is somehow not normal. That judicial punishment (under Article 68 GCIV • offenses which are solely intended to harm the Occupying Power) is somehow improper because it does not fit the political agenda of the many factions which call themselves "Palestinians" (Jihadist, Fedayeen Activist, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric Fighters) described as peaceful people, even though the violence (they complain about) is a consequence of their initiated criminal acts which are often intentional offenses which have caused the death of one or more people.

One of the dirtiest words in both Arab and BDS media is “normalization” – anything that treats Israel and Israeli Jews as anything but disgusting entities.

In 2011, +972 Magazine once published a BDS group’s explanation of what is so horrible about normalization, and some of it sounds like parody:
(COMMENT)

There is no justification for the Arab Palestinian to engage in criminal activity that is directed against Israel
(or any state for that matter) and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of the Israelis (or any other people).

“Nothing can justify terrorism — ever,” Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon declared

at the opening of a high-level meeting of the Security Council today, that the

council's body’s deep concern over the terrorist threat and its determination

to combat it by all means in all its forms and manifestations, in line with the

United Nations Charter and international law.



Nor is there any justification for any oration


(like we see here) that would incite
discrimination and hostility or appeal to the emotion of the audience to the level of violence.


It is because the many national security interests do not want to appear draconian, that people such as depicted in the video, are allowed to continue the platform for the delivery of such inflammatory speech. An "argument from passion," as we see here is still misrepresenting the legality of violence in these matters, and is still a fallacy on so many levels.
SIGIL PAIR.png
Most Respectfully,
R
Are you still pimping Israel's terrorist canard?
That’s an inflammatory statement. Based on a libellous and delusional premise.
Pfffft! Phony war on terror.

Terrorist = Anyone we don't like.
 

Sixties Fan

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2017
Messages
19,307
Reaction score
1,559
Points
390
This week was the 94th conference for the liaison officers of the regional offices of the Arab boycott of Israelthat started before Israel was reborn.

The Arab League boycott of Israel has been in place since 1945, when the brand new organization said, “Products of Palestinian Jews are to be considered undesirable in Arab countries. They should be prohibited and refused as long as their production in Palestine might lead to the realization of Zionist political aims.”
Even though most Arab countries have stopped enforcing the boycott – the only exceptions now being Syria and Lebanon – the Central Boycott Office remains.
On Wednesday, that office held a videoconference with members of the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, which includes Iran.
The conference also expressed its appreciation for the progress and impact of the BDS movement “in confronting the occupation, settler colonialism and Israeli apartheid, in order to achieve freedom and justice in Palestine and enable the Palestinian people to exercise their right to self-determination and establish their independent state with Jerusalem as its capital.”

(full article )

 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top