Education Dept. : BDS activity against Israel will be defined as anti-Semitism

[Coyote]

Do you think the Settlers, given their propensity to stone Palestinians, and their attitudes toward that region (God gave it to them, expel Arabs, preferential rights for Jews) - would be willing to accept Arabs in their conclaves?

1. Oh come on! Did you want to play THAT justification game? 'Cause the Jews got this one in SPADES. Stones? Religious replacement theology and waqf beliefs? Expulsions? Preferential rights for Muslims? I'll see all that and raise you martyrs and kites and suicide bombers.

2. Yes. Of course Jews will accept Arabs. There is a 100 years of proof of it by the undeniable actual acceptance of Arabs in Israel.

1 and 2. I think it's valid to look at if we are going to talk about toleration. Your argument here is really one of degree. We agree that there is a problem with Palestinians accepting Jews. We should also look at whether the settlers - a powerful subset of Israel's demographics - would accept Arabs. Have they? How many Arabs live in their communities? Look at their attitudes expressed in the PEW poll and, more disturbing - you have close to half of all Israeli Jews supporting expulsion of Arabs.

 

[Coyote]

Ok...how many NEW Arab villages have been created and legalized in the same area as the Jewish ones?

Don't have time to count them. But did you want to start calling them "settlements" too? Shouldn't they be? Why shouldn't places where Arabs live ALSO be called settlements?

Coyote may not understand what the Oslo Accord was about, and what areas A and B are. They are free of Jews.

Not only that, if any Jew happens to enter those areas by mistake, as it has happened, their lives are at risk.

Area C is under Israeli control. There are many Arabs living there and the EU illegally attempting to take as much of that land for the Arabs as possible.

I do not see the EU helping the Jews create illegal buildings in areas A and B. Does anyone?

How is the EU illegally doing anything?

 

[Coyote]

There are many Arabs living there and the EU illegally attempting to take as much of that land for the Arabs as possible.

Exactly. Its fine if Arabs build (create facts on the ground) in order to incorporate the disputed territory into their future state. Its even encouraged. But somehow ugly if the Jewish people do the same. Double standard.

How many new Arab villages have been built and from whence came those Arabs...or were they already there?

 

[Coyote]

I do not see the EU helping the Jews create illegal buildings in areas A and B. Does anyone?

Area C is the disputed territory. If the objective rule is "no one is permitted to build there until the dispute is resolved", the EU appears to have a double standard in helping Arabs build there while screaming that Jews must not be permitted to build there.

No one should be building there until it's resolved, right? Israel has been for decades. When did the EU start?

 

[Shusha]

Do you think the Settlers, given their propensity to stone Palestinians, and their attitudes toward that region (God gave it to them, expel Arabs, preferential rights for Jews) - would be willing to accept Arabs in their conclaves?

1. Oh come on! Did you want to play THAT justification game? 'Cause the Jews got this one in SPADES. Stones? Religious replacement theology and waqf beliefs? Expulsions? Preferential rights for Muslims? I'll see all that and raise you martyrs and kites and suicide bombers.

2. Yes. Of course Jews will accept Arabs. There is a 100 years of proof of it by the undeniable actual acceptance of Arabs in Israel.

1 and 2. I think it's valid to look at if we are going to talk about toleration. Your argument here is really one of degree. We agree that there is a problem with Palestinians accepting Jews. We should also look at whether the settlers - a powerful subset of Israel's demographics - would accept Arabs. Have they? How many Arabs live in their communities? Look at their attitudes expressed in the PEW poll and, more disturbing - you have close to half of all Israeli Jews supporting expulsion of Arabs.

My argument is not one of degree. It is one of blatant, largely permitted, discrimination. And it is one of safety.

Jews don't want to live with Arabs because they fear for their lives (justifiably). Arabs don't want to live with Jews because they think Jews should be restricted from basic human rights like self-determination.

 

[Coyote]

On the second - I disagree. The issue is that it unilaterally removes that area from negotiations on a future state of Palestine, much as Jerusalem was unilaterally removed from the table.

Yes. But again -- you keep skipping the WHY. The WHY is ALWAYS because of anti-Jewish discrimination. Why must Israel keep East Jerusalem? Why must Israel keep the specific areas with large Jewish populations? What is the REASON behind it?

...here is another why - WHY has Israel been systematically and deliberately changing the demographics of those areas to favor Jews and disenfranchise Arabs?

I think there is a too-quick labeling of this as anti-Jewish discrimmination.

 

[Shusha]

There are many Arabs living there and the EU illegally attempting to take as much of that land for the Arabs as possible.

Exactly. Its fine if Arabs build (create facts on the ground) in order to incorporate the disputed territory into their future state. Its even encouraged. But somehow ugly if the Jewish people do the same. Double standard.

How many new Arab villages have been built and from whence came those Arabs...or were they already there?

I honestly don't want to take the time to count them. Dozens?

 

[Sixties Fan]

There are many Arabs living there and the EU illegally attempting to take as much of that land for the Arabs as possible.

Exactly. Its fine if Arabs build (create facts on the ground) in order to incorporate the disputed territory into their future state. Its even encouraged. But somehow ugly if the Jewish people do the same. Double standard.

How many new Arab villages have been built and from whence came those Arabs...or were they already there?

I honestly don't want to take the time to count them. Dozens?

Are we talking now of Areas A and B, or Area C, or Area C and "East" Jerusalem?

 

[Shusha]

On the second - I disagree. The issue is that it unilaterally removes that area from negotiations on a future state of Palestine, much as Jerusalem was unilaterally removed from the table.

Yes. But again -- you keep skipping the WHY. The WHY is ALWAYS because of anti-Jewish discrimination. Why must Israel keep East Jerusalem? Why must Israel keep the specific areas with large Jewish populations? What is the REASON behind it?

...here is another why - WHY has Israel been systematically and deliberately changing the demographics of those areas to favor Jews and disenfranchise Arabs?

I think there is a too-quick labeling of this as anti-Jewish discrimmination.

Go ahead. Give a shot at the WHY.

 

[Shusha]

There are many Arabs living there and the EU illegally attempting to take as much of that land for the Arabs as possible.

Exactly. Its fine if Arabs build (create facts on the ground) in order to incorporate the disputed territory into their future state. Its even encouraged. But somehow ugly if the Jewish people do the same. Double standard.

How many new Arab villages have been built and from whence came those Arabs...or were they already there?

I honestly don't want to take the time to count them. Dozens?

Are we talking now of Areas A and B, or Area C, or Area C and "East" Jerusalem?

Area C (which includes 'East' Jerusalem), is the only area which is relevant, wouldn't you agree?

 

[Shusha]

Actually, I take that back. We should include Israel as well, since BDS calls for Arab return to Israel "proper".

 

[Coyote]

Do you think the Settlers, given their propensity to stone Palestinians, and their attitudes toward that region (God gave it to them, expel Arabs, preferential rights for Jews) - would be willing to accept Arabs in their conclaves?

1. Oh come on! Did you want to play THAT justification game? 'Cause the Jews got this one in SPADES. Stones? Religious replacement theology and waqf beliefs? Expulsions? Preferential rights for Muslims? I'll see all that and raise you martyrs and kites and suicide bombers.

2. Yes. Of course Jews will accept Arabs. There is a 100 years of proof of it by the undeniable actual acceptance of Arabs in Israel.

1 and 2. I think it's valid to look at if we are going to talk about toleration. Your argument here is really one of degree. We agree that there is a problem with Palestinians accepting Jews. We should also look at whether the settlers - a powerful subset of Israel's demographics - would accept Arabs. Have they? How many Arabs live in their communities? Look at their attitudes expressed in the PEW poll and, more disturbing - you have close to half of all Israeli Jews supporting expulsion of Arabs.

My argument is not one of degree. It is one of blatant, largely permitted, discrimination. And it is one of safety.

Jews don't want to live with Arabs because they fear for their lives (justifiably). Arabs don't want to live with Jews because they think Jews should be restricted from basic human rights like self-determination.

I would disagree with the second - I suspect they too would fear for their lives. Israeli settler violence - Wikipedia

 

[Coyote]

Actually, I take that back. We should include Israel as well, since BDS calls for Arab return to Israel "proper".

That would confuse things since few think that Israel proper is in dispute.

 

[Sixties Fan]

[ What BDS is all about. Please tell me that it is only about Israel, and that Russians, Turks, British, go through the same thing for occupying another people's land. Although, of course, is not "occupying" any other people's land]


The “three D” test is a definition of antisemitism crafted by Natan Sharansky, the former head of the Jewish Agency. In 2004, Sharansky outlined what he called “new antisemitism”.

Demonization, he wrote, is when Israel’s actions are blown out of all sensible proportion and comparisons are made, for example, between Israelis and Nazis, and between Palestinian refugee camps and Auschwitz. Double standard is when criticism of Israel is applied selectively and the Jewish state is singled out, for example, by the United Nations. Delegitimization, Sharansky wrote, is when Israel’s fundamental right to exist is denied.

The BDS campaign does not call for the boycott and divestment from Israel because it wants peace. It calls for a one-state solution, one which BDS supporters envisage will one day end the Zionist enterprise that led 70 years ago to the establishment of the world’s only Jewish state.

(full article online)

New antisemitism

 

[Coyote]

On the second - I disagree. The issue is that it unilaterally removes that area from negotiations on a future state of Palestine, much as Jerusalem was unilaterally removed from the table.

Yes. But again -- you keep skipping the WHY. The WHY is ALWAYS because of anti-Jewish discrimination. Why must Israel keep East Jerusalem? Why must Israel keep the specific areas with large Jewish populations? What is the REASON behind it?

...here is another why - WHY has Israel been systematically and deliberately changing the demographics of those areas to favor Jews and disenfranchise Arabs?

I think there is a too-quick labeling of this as anti-Jewish discrimmination.

Go ahead. Give a shot at the WHY.

Facts on the ground. It makes it that much easier to gain all of Jerusalum. Isn't that discriminatory? Jewish settlement activities in Jerusalum are government funded or supported in many cases. Are Arab expansions?

 

[Sixties Fan]

Do you think the Settlers, given their propensity to stone Palestinians, and their attitudes toward that region (God gave it to them, expel Arabs, preferential rights for Jews) - would be willing to accept Arabs in their conclaves?

1. Oh come on! Did you want to play THAT justification game? 'Cause the Jews got this one in SPADES. Stones? Religious replacement theology and waqf beliefs? Expulsions? Preferential rights for Muslims? I'll see all that and raise you martyrs and kites and suicide bombers.

2. Yes. Of course Jews will accept Arabs. There is a 100 years of proof of it by the undeniable actual acceptance of Arabs in Israel.

1 and 2. I think it's valid to look at if we are going to talk about toleration. Your argument here is really one of degree. We agree that there is a problem with Palestinians accepting Jews. We should also look at whether the settlers - a powerful subset of Israel's demographics - would accept Arabs. Have they? How many Arabs live in their communities? Look at their attitudes expressed in the PEW poll and, more disturbing - you have close to half of all Israeli Jews supporting expulsion of Arabs.

My argument is not one of degree. It is one of blatant, largely permitted, discrimination. And it is one of safety.

Jews don't want to live with Arabs because they fear for their lives (justifiably). Arabs don't want to live with Jews because they think Jews should be restricted from basic human rights like self-determination.

I would disagree with the second - I suspect they too would fear for their lives. Israeli settler violence - Wikipedia

You do not see some of the Jewish extremist violence on Arabs as a response to the too many turn downs for a final Peace treaty and continuous violence of Arabs on Jews?

 

[Shusha]

I would disagree with the second - I suspect they too would fear for their lives.

Oh come on. There are a million Arab Israelis. They don't fear for their lives.

 

[Sixties Fan]

On the second - I disagree. The issue is that it unilaterally removes that area from negotiations on a future state of Palestine, much as Jerusalem was unilaterally removed from the table.

Yes. But again -- you keep skipping the WHY. The WHY is ALWAYS because of anti-Jewish discrimination. Why must Israel keep East Jerusalem? Why must Israel keep the specific areas with large Jewish populations? What is the REASON behind it?

...here is another why - WHY has Israel been systematically and deliberately changing the demographics of those areas to favor Jews and disenfranchise Arabs?

I think there is a too-quick labeling of this as anti-Jewish discrimmination.

Go ahead. Give a shot at the WHY.

Facts on the ground. It makes it that much easier to gain all of Jerusalum. Isn't that discriminatory? Jewish settlement activities in Jerusalum are government funded or supported in many cases. Are Arab expansions?

East Jerusalem is not in Dispute. Not really. It is annexed and considered by those who do not want to see Israel destroyed as being in the right hands. It is annexed, some Israel haters accept it or not. It shall never be divided again.

And the Muslims do not want Only "East" Jerusalem, which is what Jordan made sure to take over and expel all its Jewish inhabitants from in 1948. They want ALL of Jerusalem, as they know that it would harm the soul and spirit of the Jews and they might stop fighting back, as it happened when Rome closed Jerusalem to the Jews nearly 2000 years ago.

Israel funds for Jews and Arabs in Jerusalem.

One problem is the Arab education which incites against accepting anything Israel does for them. Example: The light train passing Arab neighborhoods. Some Arabs have chosen to attack and destroy those trains, rather then use them for their benefit.

 

[Shusha]

Actually, I take that back. We should include Israel as well, since BDS calls for Arab return to Israel "proper".

That would confuse things since few think that Israel proper is in dispute.

BDS does. Gaza does (March of Return ring a bell?)

If Jews should not be permitted to move to Arab Palestine, then Arabs should not be permitted to move to Israel.

 

[Coyote]

[ What BDS is all about. Please tell me that it is only about Israel, and that Russians, Turks, British, go through the same thing for occupying another people's land. Although, of course, is not "occupying" any other people's land]


The “three D” test is a definition of antisemitism crafted by Natan Sharansky, the former head of the Jewish Agency. In 2004, Sharansky outlined what he called “new antisemitism”.

Demonization, he wrote, is when Israel’s actions are blown out of all sensible proportion and comparisons are made, for example, between Israelis and Nazis, and between Palestinian refugee camps and Auschwitz. Double standard is when criticism of Israel is applied selectively and the Jewish state is singled out, for example, by the United Nations. Delegitimization, Sharansky wrote, is when Israel’s fundamental right to exist is denied.

The BDS campaign does not call for the boycott and divestment from Israel because it wants peace. It calls for a one-state solution, one which BDS supporters envisage will one day end the Zionist enterprise that led 70 years ago to the establishment of the world’s only Jewish state.

(full article online)

New antisemitism

I'm going to disagree a bit here, not because I particularly agree with BDS (it's frequent comparison's to apartheid are questionable, as is an insistence on right to return) - BUT, I went to their main webpage to see what they had to say about themselves. They don't call for a one state solution or any solution nor do they call for an end to Israel proper.

FAQs

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.