Boycott Israel

[surada]

The Canaanites

The Canaanites become one of the most intriguing examples of the neighboring group as “other” in the Bible, and because the narrator of the book of Genesis repeatedly calls the land Israel’s ancestors occupy “Canaan,” we begin with them. It is not too much of a stretch to say that the Canaanites...

oxford.universitypressscholarship.com

 

[Coyote]

Folks, this thread has really wandered over years, lets get back to the topic please, boycotting Israel.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

The subject?


Oh, yes.


Only worthless antisemites support a boycott of Israel.

 

[Sixties Fan]

he modern boycott of Israel and its people has evolved over time. It arguably began in the mid-20th century, when Arab elites enacted discriminatory and exclusionary policies against 900,000 Jews indigenous to the Middle East and North Africa, culminating in their mass dispossession and forced migration. The boycott then developed into an Arab intergovernmental effort to target the young country to which most of these Jews fled—the state of Israel—through political, cultural, and economic isolation aimed at uprooting them and their European Jewish brethren from the area.

This second incarnation began to wane as some Arab states reached mutually beneficial accommodations with Israel, over the period between the signing of the Camp David accords in 1979 and peace between Israel and Jordan in 1994. But other elements in the region—both governmental and non-governmental—arose to supplant it: The third iteration of the boycott was a ban on all forms of civil engagement with Israelis, even and especially in countries where a peace between governments was flourishing.

This boycott, too, has since begun to fade, as a rising tide of Arab youth seek to engage their Israeli neighbors. But now a fourth iteration of the boycott has emerged, this time driven largely by foreigners. The Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement brings together Islamist, far-left, and hardline Palestinian elites—primarily in Europe and the Americas—in a campaign to drive a cultural and economic wedge between Israelis and their global partners.

The history of boycotts against Israel is marked by several consistent patterns. First, boycotts have not only failed to defeat Israel and its people; they have actually spurred innovation, invigorating Israeli economy and society. At the same time, boycotts have harmed Arab societies and economies, and the techniques used in these boycotts have spread to other conflicts within Arab societies, hardening sectarian attitudes and increasing intra-communal divisions, thereby contributed to the disintegration of fractured nation-states including Yemen, Iraq, Libya, and Syria. Furthermore, the boycotts have effectively isolated Palestinians within the West Bank and Gaza from the region: While hardline “resistance” factions have enjoyed support from numerous external powers, the Palestinians working to build institutions for a future state could hardly find Arab partners. Nor could they work hand in hand with Israelis in engaging the region—a role which would have empowered them economically.

To rebuild and revitalize the region, we must break with this tragic history: We must overcome the boycott, for the benefit of all, moving from a mindset of segregation to a policy of integration. The following study traces the impact of all four phases of the boycott on Israelis and on Arabs. It then outlines a project to transition to a “post-boycott region,” in which the benefits of partnership overcome the folly of exclusion.


(full article online)

How the BDS Movement Harms Arab Interests - The American Interest

Successive boycotts of Israel and its people have done incalculable harm to Arab countries. It’s time to move forward to a post-boycott region.

www.the-american-interest.com

 

[Sixties Fan]

On social media, Emiratis, Bahrainis and Israelis are reaching out to one another in celebration of the historic Abraham Accord, which has normalized informal relations between Israel and the two countries. State leaders, cultural figures, and private citizens are already extending invitations to visit each other and discussing possible ways to collaborate. The overwhelming majority of countries in the world have welcomed this breakthrough, which offers optimistic hope for peace and prosperity in the region.

Predictably, the Boycott, Divest, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which aims to isolate Israel economically, culturally, and geopolitically, is singing a different tune.

The movement’s core principle of “anti-normalization” works to restrict any interaction between Israelis and Arabs, and considers any form of cooperation treasonous. “Strongly condemning” the Abraham Accord, the BDS movement is now calling for a full boycott of UAE sponsored activities, festivals, and projects.

The official BDS movement website defines normalization as “the participation in any project, initiative or activity, in Palestine or internationally, that aims (implicitly or explicitly) to bring together Palestinians (and/or Arabs) and Israelis (people or institutions) without placing as its goal resistance to and exposure of the Israeli occupation.”

The BDS charter explicitly rejects “co-existence” between Arabs and Israeli Jews and instead preaches “co-resistance,” an ideology that even excludes “cooperating with the leftist Zionists who take part in demonstrations or call themselves peace activists.” “Dialogue,” “healing,” and “reconciliation” are all considered forms of normalization, and thus censured by the BDS movement.

Consequently, Arabs and Israelis who choose to enjoy a cup of coffee together, or attend a sporting event or a concert, are fair game to be targeted and publicly shamed by BDS proponents. They harass, bully, intimidate, silence, and violently threaten ordinary citizens and public figures who dare interact with Israeli Jews.

Sadly, the greatest victims of anti-normalization are Palestinians themselves, who are prevented from exercising free speech, artistic freedom, and earning a livelihood.

(full article online)

BDS Anti-Normalization Bent on Silencing Arab Voices

By Ari Ingel & Karys R. Oschin On social media, Emiratis, Bahrainis and Israelis are reaching out to one another in celebration of the historic Abraham Accord, which has normalized informal relations between Israel and the two countries. State

www.creativecommunityforpeace.com

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Mindful]

While Hasan’s was interviewing someone who went on to say something that would have raised his blood pressure significantly, Jebreal tweeted something that was meant to demonize Israel; it instead showed Israel to be a beacon of democracy, while at the same time showed those who hate Israel to be morally bankrupt.

Now this post involves both Hasan and Jebreal’s “own goals.”
Hasan has expressed his disappointment over the two Arab Israeli parties snubbing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s speech to the Knesset, which included MK Ofer Cassif, about whom Jebreal had tweeted to make her misguided point:

Where Israel-Haters Collide: Max Blumenthal vs Mehdi Hasan

Israel-hater Max Blumenthal attacks fellow Israel-hater Mehdi Hasan, for being on team Ukraine instead of team Russia

www.israellycool.com

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

A Canadian Jewish group is calling on McGill University to defund a student government body after it endorsed a boycott of Israel over the objections of its own judicial board.

The “Palestinian Solidarity Policy” motion, placed on a winter referendum ballot by the Students’ Society at McGill University (SSMU), was passed with 71% of participating students voting in favor. It accused Israel of imposing “settler-colonial apartheid” against Palestinians and backed a boycott of “all corporations and institutions complicit” in that alleged practice.

B’nai Brith noted that voting on the measure had proceeded against the counsel of SSMU’s own Judicial Board. The board has twice ruled that joining the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign, which opposes Israel’s continued existence as a Jewish state, would violate not only SSMU’s constitution but also the university’s policy on equity and inclusion.

“SSMU’s behavior over the past week has not only been antisemitic, but contrary to the rule of law,” B’nai Brith Canada CEO Michael Mostyn commented. “We call on McGill University to immediately cease funding SSMU until it rescinds this bogus referendum result.”

That demand followed a precedent-setting decisionearlier this month, when the University of Toronto withheld thousands of dollars in student fees from the school’s graduate student union over its efforts to boycott the Jewish state.

(full article online)

McGill University Faces Call to Defund Student Society Over ‘Extreme’ Israel Boycott Measure - Algemeiner.com

A Canadian Jewish group called on McGill University to defund a student government body after it endorsed a boycott of Israel over the objections of its own judicial board. The "Palestinian Solidarity Policy" motion, placed on a winter referendum ballot by the Students' Society at McGill...

www.algemeiner.com

 

[P F Tinmore]

A Canadian Jewish group is calling on McGill University to defund a student government body after it endorsed a boycott of Israel over the objections of its own judicial board.

The “Palestinian Solidarity Policy” motion, placed on a winter referendum ballot by the Students’ Society at McGill University (SSMU), was passed with 71% of participating students voting in favor. It accused Israel of imposing “settler-colonial apartheid” against Palestinians and backed a boycott of “all corporations and institutions complicit” in that alleged practice.

B’nai Brith noted that voting on the measure had proceeded against the counsel of SSMU’s own Judicial Board. The board has twice ruled that joining the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign, which opposes Israel’s continued existence as a Jewish state, would violate not only SSMU’s constitution but also the university’s policy on equity and inclusion.

“SSMU’s behavior over the past week has not only been antisemitic, but contrary to the rule of law,” B’nai Brith Canada CEO Michael Mostyn commented. “We call on McGill University to immediately cease funding SSMU until it rescinds this bogus referendum result.”

That demand followed a precedent-setting decisionearlier this month, when the University of Toronto withheld thousands of dollars in student fees from the school’s graduate student union over its efforts to boycott the Jewish state.

(full article online)

McGill University Faces Call to Defund Student Society Over ‘Extreme’ Israel Boycott Measure - Algemeiner.com

A Canadian Jewish group called on McGill University to defund a student government body after it endorsed a boycott of Israel over the objections of its own judicial board. The "Palestinian Solidarity Policy" motion, placed on a winter referendum ballot by the Students' Society at McGill...

www.algemeiner.com

Play the antisemite card and weaponize the money.

 

[Sixties Fan]

When Singh later observed that “the Israeli occupation of Palestine continues for years”, he apparently takes this statement as an indisputable fact that requires no supporting evidence.

There is a reason Singh provides only rhetoric, not facts when accusing Israel of occupying Palestinian land: because it is empty rhetoric utterly devoid of supporting evidence.

The Jewish people’s history in the land of Israel stretches back three thousand years, and this tiny strip of land—smaller than Vancouver Island—has been the indigenous homeland for Jews ever since then. It is the land where the Jewish prophets walked, where Hebrew has been read, studied, and spoken for millennia, where two Jewish temples stood, and where observant Jews face when they pray, no matter where in the world they are today.

Israel’s legal basis for land ownership is well established in international law. The San Remo Declaration in 1920, which was the foundation for Israel’s legal land claims, came nearly half a century before Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) leader Yasser Arafat claimed that the Palestinians were a defined people who owned the land.

Clearly, the State of Israel is not occupying Palestinian land. If Singh is perhaps referring to Judea and Samaria—commonly referred to as the “West Bank” in media coverage—then he is still wrong. Judea and Samaria were occupied by the sovereign Kingdom of Jordan and were lost to Israel in 1967 when, under the leadership of King Hussein, Jordan attacked Israel. Today, Jordan does not claim the land as its own anymore, and international law simply does not allow the Palestinians—who do not represent a sovereign state that has ever been in existence—to claim the land as their own.

Perhaps even more remarkable than his claims about Israel’s alleged land theft is Singh’s statement that “BDS has received mostly hostile press.” It is unclear on what basis Singh argues that BDS—or the Boycott Divestment Sanctions movement against Israel—has been all but rejected or ignored by the news media. In fact, BDS is regularly covered by the news media thanks to anti-Israel detractors who propel its cause, including a recent CTV News Montreal story about a Russian pianist whose performance was canceled by the Montreal Symphony Orchestra in protest of the war in Ukraine.

(full article online)

HRC Rebuts Columnist's Using Boycott of Russian Goods as Opportunity to Attack Israel In Vancouver's Georgia Straight Newspaper

In a recent March 5 opinion column in the Georgia Straight newspaper, columnist Gurpreet Singh took the British Columbia government’s pulling of Russian alcohol from provincial shelves as an opportunity to parrot BDS talking points against Israel. Lamenting that Israeli wines and liquors are...

honestreporting.ca

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israel’s legal basis for land ownership is well established in international law.

Where does San Remo say that?

 

[Hollie]

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Boycot Israel
SUBTOPIC: Acquisition
⁜→ P F Tinmore, Sixties Fan, et al,

PREFACE: There should be a penalty for every contaminated question.

BLUF: The San Remo Convention (SRC), concluded by the Allied Supreme Council (ASC) could not possibly make reference to the State of Israel, because Israel would not even be declared for another quarter-century into the future.

The British (Mandatory) vision for the future of the Middle East was shaped largely by the Balfour Declaration (Nov 1917), the SRC (Arp 1920), and the impact of The Great War (WWI). The general concept fueling the project for the National Home for the Jewish People (JNH) was largely due to the radical shifts in public and international policy.

Where does San Remo say that?

(COMMENT)

Mandates terms were given in with reference to Palestine (ie the territory of). In fact, the territory of Palestine was only limited by the terms made the Mandatory responsible for putting into effect the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

Let us be clear. The San Remo Convention only spoke to the establishment of a JNH and nothing about the establishment of an Arab National Home (except as it may pertain to the Hashemite Kingdom).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Boycot Israel
SUBTOPIC: Acquisition
⁜→ P F Tinmore, Sixties Fan, et al,

PREFACE: There should be a penalty for every contaminated question.

BLUF: The San Remo Convention (SRC), concluded by the Allied Supreme Council (ASC) could not possibly make reference to the State of Israel, because Israel would not even be declared for another quarter-century into the future.

The British (Mandatory) vision for the future of the Middle East was shaped largely by the Balfour Declaration (Nov 1917), the SRC (Arp 1920), and the impact of The Great War (WWI). The general concept fueling the project for the National Home for the Jewish People (JNH) was largely due to the radical shifts in public and international policy.


(COMMENT)

Mandates terms were given in with reference to Palestine (ie the territory of). In fact, the territory of Palestine was only limited by the terms made the Mandatory responsible for putting into effect the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

Let us be clear. The San Remo Convention only spoke to the establishment of a JNH and nothing about the establishment of an Arab National Home (except as it may pertain to the Hashemite Kingdom).

Most Respectfully,
R

Of course that ducks my question.

Sixties Fan said:


Israel’s legal basis for land ownership is well established in international law.

Where does San Remo say that?

 

[Sixties Fan]

A closer look at those seven surveys suggests that even the seven students who had heard of BDS were not fans. Four of the seven noted that they would like to visit Israel. Six of the seven stated that they vehemently opposed academic boycotts. I only met one student on the Berkeley campus that day who both knew what “BDS” was and who supported academic boycotts. And that student noted that they did not expect such boycotts to work.

Twice in Berkeley’s history have anti-Israeli students tried to persuade the campus to pass BDS resolutions. Both attempts failed. This situation is mirrored on other campuses across the US. Despite the efforts of several student groups over the years, not one student referendum on BDS has passed and no university has boycotted Israel or its academic institutions. The question is no longer why BDS has failed so badly. The question is: Why are we still treating BDS as an issue, when students at America’s most progressive university don’t even have a clue what it is?

(full article online)

The Blogs: BDS? Never heard of it.

If the Mideast Studies Association adopts the anti-Israel resolution, it will be the only academic group to do so – and then, most likely, it will quietly back down

blogs.timesofisrael.com

 

[P F Tinmore]

A closer look at those seven surveys suggests that even the seven students who had heard of BDS were not fans. Four of the seven noted that they would like to visit Israel. Six of the seven stated that they vehemently opposed academic boycotts. I only met one student on the Berkeley campus that day who both knew what “BDS” was and who supported academic boycotts. And that student noted that they did not expect such boycotts to work.

Twice in Berkeley’s history have anti-Israeli students tried to persuade the campus to pass BDS resolutions. Both attempts failed. This situation is mirrored on other campuses across the US. Despite the efforts of several student groups over the years, not one student referendum on BDS has passed and no university has boycotted Israel or its academic institutions. The question is no longer why BDS has failed so badly. The question is: Why are we still treating BDS as an issue, when students at America’s most progressive university don’t even have a clue what it is?

(full article online)

The Blogs: BDS? Never heard of it.

If the Mideast Studies Association adopts the anti-Israel resolution, it will be the only academic group to do so – and then, most likely, it will quietly back down

blogs.timesofisrael.com

The question is no longer why BDS has failed so badly. The question is: Why are we still treating BDS as an issue,

Good question. If BDS is not working, why are Israel and its supporters wringing their hands and spending hundreds of millions of dollars to stop it?

 

[Hollie]

Like the wicked witch of the west melting into the ground.

 

[Hollie]

What's an Islamic terrorist to do when he can't use kuffar technology to promote hate and violence?

Facebook Blocks Hamas News Website and Palestinians Rejoice at Social Media Outage - The Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center

On October 12, 2021, Facebook announced that it had blocked the Hamas-affiliated Shehab News Agency Facebook page. It was the second time in recent months. It had blocked the page in July 2021 on the grounds that Shehab had repeatedly violated the rules of the Facebook community regarding hate...

www.terrorism-info.org.il

• On October 12, 2021, Facebook announced that it had blocked the Hamas-affiliated Shehab News Agency Facebook page. It was the second time in recent months. It had blocked the page in July 2021 on the grounds that Shehab had repeatedly violated the rules of the Facebook community regarding hate speech and the promotion of violence.

 

[P F Tinmore]