Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forum
An immoral boycott
As the Middle East devours itself, leaving behind the worst human devastation since World War II, an international movement seeks to delegitimize Israel, the region's only intact society.
Israel alone in the Mideast has an independent judiciary, a free press and religious freedom. Yet the anti-Israel boycott, divestment and sanctions movement, or BDS, has singled out the Jewish state as the world's most pressing problem in the early 21st century.
BDS is at once immoral and a threat to peace. Immoral, because it perpetuates the lie that Israel is solely or even primarily to blame for the absence of a Palestinian state — rather than the repeated rejection by Palestinian leaders of peace plans presented over the decades. Immoral, too, because it ignores the anti-Israel and anti-Jewish hate education on which generations of Palestinians have been raised, an education that denies any place for a Jewish state in any borders.
Like a majority of Israelis, I recognize that the ongoing occupation of the Palestinian people is a long-term threat to my country's well-being. But that same majority of moderate Israelis is deeply wary of the ultimate goal of the Palestinian leadership — both the nationalist Fatah party and the Islamist militant group Hamas. As the Palestinian media broadcast on a daily basis, the goal isn't two states living in peace but a single Arab-majority state in which Jews would be at best a tolerated minority.
http://triblive.com/opinion/featuredcommentary/10718076-74/israel-state-bds
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)I really don't see how boycotting Apartheid can be immoral. Nor do I understand why anyone should be prevented from living in their ancestral homeland.
BTW, I buy Israeli stuff every now and then, but I avoid anything produced in the illegal settlements.
BDS.
6chars
(3,967 posts)you're welcome
Violet_Crumble
(36,140 posts)You don't like that? Tough....
shira
(30,109 posts)Last edited Wed Jul 6, 2016, 09:18 AM - Edit history (1)
To prove it, there is no definition of Apartheid that brands Israel to the exclusion of any other liberal western democracy on the planet.
Provide a definition and if you can't, tough. I'll help you out - you won't be able to do so.
Fun Facts
About 77% of Arab Israelis believe Israel is better than most other countries.
http://www.herzliyaconference.org/Eng/_Uploads/1388Pat_e.pdf
75% of Israeli Arabs support Jewish, democratic constitution
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/poll-75-of-israeli-arabs-support-jewish-democratic-constitution-1.219373
Up to 80% of Palestinians admire Israeli government more than any other on the planet
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/02/international/middleeast/02LETT.html?pagewanted=1
These are not typical responses from people who believe such a country is Apartheid, or even similar to Apartheid.
QED.
Violet_Crumble
(36,140 posts)I'm not sure why yr going on about Israel when what I pointed out was that the system in the West Bank is what's similar to apartheid. So, now that you know that the West Bank isn't Israel, do you want to go back into the DU archives and read the many, many post from myself and others that explain in great detail why there are similarities between the West Bank and apartheid South Africa, and maybe come back and talk about the West Bank and not Israel?
shira
(30,109 posts)They're liars. We shouldn't disagree there.
As to the W.Bank, that's not apartheid either - but BDS claims that. So BDS lies on that one too, correct?
Violet_Crumble
(36,140 posts)...then they're not lying.
I dunno. When it comes to apartheid, who should I listen to? Anonymous folk on the internet who defend just about everything Israel does and have no knowledge or experience of apartheid, or Desmond Tutu, who experienced apartheid first hand. Tough call. Let me think on it for all of 0.001 seconds and get back to you...
shira
(30,109 posts)They're not saying Israel is similar to apartheid. They claim it is apartheid.
You mention Tutu, but why not bring up Nelson Mandela? He never claimed Israel was apartheid or similar to it.
As for Tutu, he claims Israel is apartheid - not just the territories...
read more: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.599422
Now that's a lie, correct?
Violet_Crumble
(36,140 posts)Sorry but I'm just not into obsessing over them like some do. I know from experience it's wise to fact check ur claims of what others think and say, but in this case even if they did it just means I disagree with them and don't feel the need to scream at them.
Okay that last bit makes no sense at all. Can you explain what your thought process is coz I'm not following.
shira
(30,109 posts)He didn't just say the W.Bank situation is similar to apartheid. He went much farther than that.
The problem isn't disagreement, it's outright dishonesty and lies. It's publicly castigating Israel and its Zionist supporters (nearly all Jews) for non-existent crimes. That's bigotry.
Violet_Crumble
(36,140 posts)That's the bit that made no sense...
Seriously? So you disagree with me that the system in the West Bank is similar to apartheid. But according to you that's not disagreement, that's me lying? And not only lying, but being anti-semitic? For real???
shira
(30,109 posts)OTOH, Tutu lied about Israel being apartheid within its borders, nevermind what he said about the W.Bank. I'll go with Mandela over Tutu. I don't see why anyone would trust Tutu on this one.
That's not what I wrote at all.
BDS claims, like Tutu, that Israel is apartheid within its borders. That's not mere disagreement, that's a lie. In fact, it's bigotry.
Violet_Crumble
(36,140 posts)Also, I'm pretty sure Desmond Tutu hasn't said that the system in Israel itself is apartheid. I've never seen him say that. He's always talked about the treatment of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories...
I don't get it, sorry. If I say the system in the West Bank is similar to apartheid, you don't see that as a lie, but mere disagreement?
shira
(30,109 posts)And again you're wrong about Tutu, as he definitely stated Israel itself is apartheid.
read more: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.599422
Violet_Crumble
(36,140 posts)I'd not read that before, so I've learnt something tonight....
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)It's not, never was and never will be apartheid. You don't like THAT or that the vast majority of Americans completely disagree with you, tough. Two can play at that stupid game.
Violet_Crumble
(36,140 posts)I don't know why you'd think I'd give a shit what you think the vast majority of Americans think. Israel imposes different systems of law in the West Bank for Palestinians and for Israelis. Palestinians are subject to Israeli military law, Israel lays claim to the West Bank, yet Palestinians are not allowed to vote. So it's very similar to South African Apartheid. Unlike the vast majority of Americans, who probably wouldn't have a clue what Apartheid was, Desmond Tutu lived through it and has pointed out the similarities...
Tutu, the Nobel Peace laureate, criticized Israeli policies toward the Palestinians in the territories as "humiliating."
Desmond Tutu, the noted civil rights leader who became the first black archbishop of Cape Town, compared Israel's treatment of the Palestinians to the apartheid regime that discriminated against blacks in his native South Africa.
Tutu, the Nobel Peace laureate, told News24, a South African media entity, criticized Israeli policies toward the Palestinians in the territories as "humiliating."
"I have witnessed the systemic humiliation of Palestinian men, women and children by members of the Israeli security forces," he said in a statement.
"Their humiliation is familiar to all black South Africans who were corralled and harassed and insulted and assaulted by the security forces of the apartheid government."
http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Desmond-Tutu-Israel-guilty-of-apartheid-in-treatment-of-Palestinians-344874
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)ignore WHY they don't have their own state in the West Bank. You're just another who ignores they could have had their own state in 1947 and went to war instead. Nothing but hatred and terrorism has followed - NOTHING. And you want to reward that. Thankfully, the US will always have Israeli's back. I'll take Elie Weisel over Tutu any day.
Violet_Crumble
(36,140 posts)I'm already aware that you blame the Palestinian people for everything and see Israel as a blameless victim being forced to carry out a brutal occupation against its will. I pointed out that the system in the West Bank is similar to apartheid South Africa and you took offense at that.
Not sure what eli wiesels experience of South African apartheid was but I'm kind of strongly suspecting it wouldn't be the same experience as Desmond tutus and other black South Africans who were victims of apartheid.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)somebody's mouth usually work for you? I have NEVER claimed Israel is blameless - NEVER. But they aren't to blame for the Palestinians giving up their state in 1947, they're not to blame for walking away from peace treaties that didn't give them 100% of what they want. The problems of the Palestinians are the fault of their "leaders" - first arafat and now abbas and hamas - all either thoroughly corrupt or terrorists themselves. And you want to reward their repulsive behavior and put the entire blame on Israel (I've never seen you - not once - blame the Palestinains for their own problems).
The situation in the West Bank is of their own making and rewarding terrorists is a fools errand and bibi may be an asshole but he's no fool. Why should Israel believe, for even one second, that withdrawing from the West Bank would result in anything different than withdrawing from gaza did? They got nothing but violence and terrorism in return but you continue to ignore that. Your attitude is part of the problem and the reason the Palestinians continue to suffer. And until they lay down their arms, they will get nothing which happens to be what they deserve in return for terrorism and violence. The status quo is MUCH worse for the Palestinians than for the Israeli's.
Violet_Crumble
(36,140 posts)I dunno. If you don't want to give that impression then maybe make an attempt to be a bit more balanced? Starting with not putting a 'but' after claiming you don't hold Israel blameless and then continue to post about there not being any blame on Israel.
If you've never seen me place blame on Palestinian leadership then you clearly haven't read what I post. And just in this thread I made it clear there's blame on both sides and the one sided simplistic and inaccurate version you gave doesn't do that. Am I doing it wrong? Should I be screaming and cranking up the outrage and broad brushing the Palestinian population with a bunch of negative stereotypes to get that point across? It's just that in the interests of fairness I'd have to do the same for Israel and Israelis and that would be, well, a bit bigoted.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)that I think bibi is an asshole, that he's not helpful and perhaps even hurtful to the prospect of peace by his bellicosity to satisfy you? The problem, as I see it, is that you think this is a complex issue. It's not. Not at all.
shira
(30,109 posts)Violet_Crumble
(36,140 posts)He's got far more credibility than you when it comes to recognising apartheid.....
shira
(30,109 posts)read more: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.599422
Doesn't get more clear than that.
That's an outright lie.
Violet_Crumble
(36,140 posts)That's inside Israels borders, and that's the only part of Israel where I could see that comparison being made. But I would disagree with him on Israel itself, as all citizens of Israel live under the same set of laws and I don't consider East Jerusalem to be part of Israel.
Okay, I'm getting thumb fatigue typing on this phone, and going and watching some Dr Who is just far more tempting than arglebargling away here. When I return and there's no more Dr Who reruns for me to get through, let's have a long back and forth on how you disagree with me about how the system in the West Bank is similar to apartheid. I haven't had a long back and forth with you in what seems forever and my post count misses those days!
shira
(30,109 posts)Last edited Wed Jul 6, 2016, 09:51 AM - Edit history (7)
You know very well it's been proven beyond any reasonable doubt that BDS is a hate movement, so why support it? BDS claims Israel is apartheid - not only the territories - but Israel proper. So BDS lies and incites. Why support it?
In fact, you admitted recently Israel doesn't match the definition of apartheid, and yet you continue to accuse Israel of apartheid. Why?
=================================
As to apartheid, see post #4 above. I'll repeat those fun facts for you here just in case:
About 77% of Arab Israelis believe Israel is better than most other countries.
http://www.herzliyaconference.org/Eng/_Uploads/1388Pat_e.pdf
75% of Israeli Arabs support Jewish, democratic constitution
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/poll-75-of-israeli-arabs-support-jewish-democratic-constitution-1.219373
Up to 80% of Palestinians admire Israeli government more than any other on the planet
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/02/international/middleeast/02LETT.html?pagewanted=1
These are not typical responses from people who believe such a country is Apartheid, or even similar to Apartheid. That's because it's not Apartheid; the charge is baseless & it's incitement to hate each and every time it's used.
Again, BDS - not what you think BDS should be but what BDS is all about - it is BDS that maintains the lie that Israel is apartheid. Mondoweiss does this in many articles. Why do they do that and why do you support that? Lying and supporting lies that cause harm to people is racist.
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)It doesn't really help to show how much Israeli Arabs love Israel, when it's about other people who live under Israeli occupation. And it doesn't help to show that the occupied people want freedom and rights like Israelis have either.
The Apartheid analogy stems from the fact that Palestinians living in the occupied territories live under military jurisdiction with no civil rights whatsoever, and Israelis living in the occupied territories have civil rights and access to all resources there, which has led to a disparity in living standards: Palestinian GDP per capita in the West Bank is $1924 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_State_of_Palestine) which is considerably less than the Israeli GDP per capita of $35,833. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Israel). Without any form of discrimination against Palestinians in the occupied territories, there should be equal access to economic opportunities which should mean economic parity.
I've said that I didn't know of a good definition of Apartheid in general, but that doesn't mean that I think that Israel doesn't fit the definition - that a different argument. Apartheid is a system of discrimination, and the political system in South Africa was an example of such a system. A definition of Apartheid is difficult to formulate, as it would be almost impossible to include all possible forms of discrimination that an Apartheid system could use.
The Israel apartheid analogy is based on scholarly analysis and facts while the objections to the analogy are more based on opinion. At least that's my own opinion...
Israel and the apartheid analogy
Source: Wikipedia
The analogy has been used by some scholars, United Nations investigators, and human rights groups critical of Israeli policy. Critics of Israeli policy say that "a system of control" in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, including the ID system, Israeli settlements, separate roads for Israeli and Palestinian citizens around many of these settlements, military checkpoints, marriage law, the West Bank barrier, use of Palestinians as cheaper labour, Palestinian West Bank exclaves, inequities in infrastructure, legal rights, and access to land and resources between Palestinians and Israeli residents in the Israeli-occupied territories, resembles some aspects of the South African apartheid regime, and that elements of Israel's occupation constitute forms of colonialism and of apartheid, contrary to international law. Some commentators extend the analogy to include treatment of Arab citizens of Israel, describing their citizenship status as second-class.
Opponents of the analogy claim that the comparison is factually, morally, and historically inaccurate and intended to delegitimize Israel. Opponents state that the West Bank and Gaza are not part of sovereign Israel. They argue that though the internal free movement of Palestinians is heavily regulated by the Israeli government, the territories are governed by the elected Palestinian Authority and Hamas leaders, so they cannot be compared to the internal policies of apartheid South Africa.
With regard to the situation within Israel itself, critics of the analogy argue that Israel cannot be called an apartheid state because unlike South Africa which enshrined its racial segregation policies in law, Israeli law is the same for Jewish citizens and other Israeli citizens, with no explicit distinction between race, creed or sex. However, others believe that even if Israeli law does not make explicit distinction between categories of citizens, in effect it privileges Jewish citizens and discriminates against non-Jewish, and particularly Arab, citizens of the state, by creating benefits for IDF service, which is not mandatory for Arabs (but is optional).
Read more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy
shira
(30,109 posts)You make up your own definition of apartheid in order to implicate Israel & castigate its Zionist supporters. You can advocate for Palestinians' rights in the W.Bank w/o resorting to the false charge of Apartheid, so why not do that?
But it's not just apartheid that you re-define for your own purposes. You do the same with the definition of anti-semitism. You create your own version of BDS to distance yourself from the actual BDS hate movement. You choose to believe Hamas when it suits you.
And then you wonder why your views aren't catching on with Hillary, Bernie, Obama....
Those who lie to further their agendas only prove to others how morally bankrupt their agendas are.
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)Your definition of Apartheid seems to range from all other countries but not Israel, to no other countries (including Apartheid South Africa) and not Israel. The reason why I don't care that much about a definition of Apartheid is that it's extremely difficult to make a definition of a political system. Look up fascism, for example - any definitions are vague and more like examples rather than proper definitions.
When it comes to anti-Semitism, I strongly reject the idea that Israel and Zionism equals the Jews. You can bring up as many definitions of the "new" anti-Semitism you want. I'll still maintain that anti-Semitism is directed against Jews, and that criticism of Israel and Zionism is not anti-Semitism.
And then finally BDS: You seem to use an imaginary form of BDS that doesn't exist. If there were any actual attempts to boycott Israeli companies just because they were Israeli and not operating in the illegal settlements or supporting the occupation, I would be against that particular form of BDS. But there's no such BDS happening - all forms of actual acts of BDS are directed at the occupation and the settlements. All forms of legislation against BDS are directed against criticism of the settlements, not primarily Israel. The list of companies that do BDS only include companies divesting from the settlements or the occupation. The evidence shows clearly that all forms of BDS only target the occupation and the settlements, and all activities against BDS are aimed at protecting the illegal settlements and the occupation from criticism.
If you disagree, why don't you show me examples of BDS targeting Israeli companies that are not connected to the settlements and the occupation, or show me examples of attempts to counter BDS that don't include the settlements as "Israel"?
shira
(30,109 posts)It's not my definition of apartheid. If Israel's actions do not fit the definition of apartheid, then it's not apartheid. Simple as that. You cannot justify your positions without commonly defined terminology. If you make crap up, you cannot expect others to follow.
There's a commonly held working definition of antisemitism that every liberal western nation has adopted. You reject it because you think you personally know better. You can't expect others to go with your own personal definitions.
So you've never heard of the academic boycott of all Israeli professors, whether left or rightwing? Or boycotting Mattisyahu? Which you supported BTW. Mondoweiss supports both the academic boycott & that against Mattisyahu. These examples point to pure antisemitism.
You can find attempts to counter BDS with Obama and Bernie Sanders. Neither is for the occupation or settlements but they're against BDS and admit the movement is antisemitic.
We've been over this before, so why are you pretending otherwise?
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)But it doesn't matter, nor do your other assertions matter either. I'm more interested in the Apartheid analogy and why you don't think the conditions in the occupied territories would warrant such an analogy. I've tried asking the same thing before, but never got further than this.
Sigh.
shira
(30,109 posts)...Ali Abunimah, and the Mondoweiss sewer supported boycotting an individual Jew. Why keep pretending they're not all racists?
As the Apartheid Analogy, here's a definition:
The crime of Apartheid is defined by the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court as inhumane acts of a character similar to other crimes against humanity "committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime."
Before I go any further, do you agree with this definition or do you prefer another?
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)discriminated against by Israel?
I think that the core of the Apartheid argument stems from the perceived discrimination against Palestinians, and if I had a clearer understanding of your position on that issue I will have a much easier time to understand your objections to the Apartheid analogy.
If we can't agree on what it is, how can we ever agree on what it should be called? I have no interest in splitting hairs about the definition of Apartheid - that's pointless.
shira
(30,109 posts)Meaning, that since there is discrimination in every single country on the planet - including Israel - then all countries are apartheid.
Right?
shira
(30,109 posts)US Politics Philip Weiss on July 7, 2016 56 Comments
http://mondoweiss.net/2016/07/jewish-entitlement-populism/
Oops?
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)which is about Jewish attitudes, not a conflation between Jews and Israel/Zionism.
Do you think it's ok to conflate Jews with Israel/Zionism? I personally think it's completely wrong at all times, but you seem to adhere to the definition of the new anti-Semitism which does exactly that...
BTW, do you have any comments on the OP as in whether the people living in the occupied territories are systematically discriminated against or not?
aranthus
(3,386 posts)Be honest. You support BDS because you oppose the existence of a Jewish state. Even though that isn't the definition of apartheid.
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)If the Jewish State was Jewish in the same sense as the German State is German and the Norwegian state is Norwegian, I would have no objections at all. I think all Israelis should have the same rights regardless whether they are Jewish or not, which is in essence post-Zionism.
However, your argument is a bit of a red herring, as BDS is almost exclusively about the settlements and the occupation, and not the treatment of non-Jewish citizens in Israel. The settlements and the occupation has resulted in a political system of discrimination against Palestinians that is similar to what South Africa once had, hence the Apartheid analogy.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)They do.
Violet_Crumble
(36,140 posts)Isn't there a bit of a discrepancy between Israeli Arabs and Israeli Jews when it comes to recovering property lost in the 1948 war?
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)ignoring the fact they could have had their own state in 1947. But chose violence and war instead. Like they've chosen nothing but violence and war since then. And you want to reward them. Fuck that.
Violet_Crumble
(36,140 posts)With the same amazingly one sided and incorrect take on what was a complex issue. There's no simple 'my side is pure and good! The other side are evil and hate peace and suck!' Neither Israel or Palestine come out of it smelling of roses.
But I thought my post was in response to a post about equality in Israel which is why I responded with something about equality in Israel. If you want to yell at me, maybe do it about what's being discussed?
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)There AREN'T two sides when it comes to refusing their own state in 1947. They went to war and LOST (and again in 1956, 1967 and 1972) and you want to give them continual do-overs. Nothing complex about that at all.
Yell? On a comment board? How does that work? As far as equal treatment - when they lay down their arms and sit down to talk peace, they'll get equal treatment - until then, they can thank their terrorist leaders for the treatment they get.
Violet_Crumble
(36,140 posts)Because it's a bit on the simplistic, inaccurate and totally one-sided side of things.
Yr talking about the UN Partition Plan where they divvied up Palestine? That wasn't an offer of a state, that was a decision made to divide up Palestine. The Jewish Agency agreed with parts of it and not with other parts, and as far as I know Palestinians weren't asked, and it was Arab leaders who refused it. If someone were to come along and partition Australia, I'd be pretty pissed off about the whole thing and opposed to it. Partition plans back then tended to lead to lots of upheaval and bloodshed...
See, yr doing that thing where you talk about the Palestinian people as though they're a bunch of terrorists. 'When they lay down their arms..until then they can thank their terrorist leaders...' If anyone spoke that way about Israelis, they'd be rightly called out on their bigotry and the same should apply when it comes to the Palestinian people.
btw, just a reminder, but the discussion in this part of the thread was about equal rights for Israeli Arabs. It's just that yr sentence 's far as equal treatment - when they lay down their arms and sit down to talk peace, they'll get equal treatment - until then, they can thank their terrorist leaders for the treatment they get.' makes it look like yr talking about Palestinians and not Israeli Arabs...
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I don't know much about the laws to which you are referring.
I was just making the point that there is equality under the law for all Israeli citizens according to the Declaration of Independence.
Violet_Crumble
(36,140 posts)I'd go and find a link to some stuff but I'm on my phone and I can't copy and paste URLs either my phone or myself suck. I'll get on my laptop tomorrow night if you'd like some links, but my recollection is that while Israeli Jews are entitled to reclaim property, Israeli Arabs are defined as 'present absentees' or something like that and aren't allowed to reclaim property in Jerusalem.
I think that when it comes to formal declarations of equality and reality on the ground, Israel may be similar to here where equalitys there on paper but there's areas where things aren't so equal.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)YOUR problem is that you want to not only forget the terrorism but to reward it. Never gonna happen.
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)Arab Israeli citizens have what would defined in other countries as a partial citizenship, with no access to equal rights. For example 93% of Israeli lands are off-limits to Arab Israelis, and earmarked for Jews only:
Israel's Two-Tiered Citizenship Law Bars Non-Jews From 93 Percent of Its Lands
Source: Washington Report on Middle-east affairs, Jan 1990
http://www.wrmea.org/1990-january/israel-s-two-tiered-citizenship-law-bars-non-jews-from-93-percent-of-its-lands.html
Off the Map: Land and Housing Rights Violations in Israel’s Unrecognized Bedouin Villages, IV. Discrimination in Land Allocation and Access
Source: Human Rights Watch, 2008
https://www.hrw.org/reports/2008/iopt0308/4.htm#_Toc193705071
Types of land in Israel
Source: Buy Property in israel
http://www.buypropertyinisrael.com/article/types-of-land-in-israel
State land
Source: Bimkom
http://bimkom.org/eng/state-land/
Israel Lands - Privatization or National Ownership?
Source: Jewish Virtual library
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Society_&_Culture/land.html
Israeli land and property laws
Source: Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_land_and_property_laws
Arguing that Arab Israelis have equal rights is futile.
aranthus
(3,386 posts)First of all, if you think that BDS is almost exclusively about the settlements, then you are simply ignorant about BDS. You can start learning about it here. https://bdsmovement.net/call
That is the website of the Palestinian civil society movement that started BDS. These are the people who have the right to say what BDS is about. It's their movement, not yours. Next google Omar Barghouti and read what he has to say about BDS. Hint. It is first and foremost about enforcing right of return (i.e., ending the Jewish state by flooding it with hostile Arabs).
The Occupation equals apartheid argument is BS for the same reason that arguing that the occupation of Germany was apartheid would have been BS.
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)Secondly, I don't know of any instance where the self-appointed BDS movement has actually caused any forms of actual BDS of Israel to happen. If all the attempts to stop BDS was about Israel, why are they only targeting companies divesting from the settlements?
To illustrate my point, here's a list of companies targeted by recent Illinois legislation (http://www.illinois.gov/sites/iipb/Pages/ProhibitedInvestmentList.aspx), with a description of their transgressions. Please note that none of the companies on the list has actually divested from Israel:
Source: http://forward.com/news/338058/did-illinois-bungle-first-in-nation-anti-bds-blacklist/
I don't get it.
aranthus
(3,386 posts)BDS was created by an organization. That was the website I gave you. Since the Palestinians created BDS (that organization in particular), they have the right to speak authoritatively about it. They get to define it. Give them the respect to understand that you are joining their movement, and they are the ones who's opinion counts.
Your chart is inconclusive at best, since at least some of those companies seem to be divesting from Israel proper. More to the point, the entire BDS movement is about more than the settlements or the Occupation. It isn't even about directly pressuring Israel. It's about radicalizing people in the West against Israel; recruiting them into the war against Israel's existence on the pretense of opposing the Occupation.
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)the "real" BDS. If BDS was what you claim, then legislation against BDS should (logically, at least) target what you claim is the "real" BDS and not something else. The list of BDS'ers only include companies that have divested from the illegal settlements or the occupation - check them out if you don't believe me. The legislation as I understand it, supports my argument; BDS is a tool, BDS is all about the settlements, the self appointed "leaders" of BDS have nothing to do with actual acts of BDS, and all attempts to counter BDS are only about protecting the illegal settlements.
Your conjecture that people who are concerned with Israel's treatment of Palestinians are actually recruited in a war against Irael's existence doesn't follow from the available evidence. It's more likely that Israel's treatment of Palestinians is the actual problem and that criticism of Israel will end if Israel ends treating Palestinians like they do.
shira
(30,109 posts)It is currently led today by Barghouti and Ali Abunimah. To deny this is absurd. It's their movement and all participants in BDS know this for a fact.
They're very clear about being for 1-state, full right of return, no more Jewish state.
Both Barghouti and Abunimah support Hamas (same Hamas calling for genocide of Jews).
That's BDS.
Own it.
shira
(30,109 posts)....for latest Black Lives Matter:
http://mondoweiss.net/2016/07/modern-lynchings-international/
Since American police receive some anti-terror training in Israel, then the thinking goes that Jews are to blame for Castille and Sterling. Apparently anyone killed by Karate or Tae Kwon Do can blame the Japanese and Koreans if they hate Asians enough.
It's not that the boycott is immoral, BDS is arguably the ugliest most toxic rightwing western Jew hating movement today.
Response to Fozzledick (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Violet_Crumble
(36,140 posts)Not sure why this thread was resurrected, but I'm one of the very few in this thread still here at DU, and let me tell you, there's nothing the slightest bit immoral about trying to damage the economy of a belligerent country invading and occupying another people, whether it's Israel and Palestine, or Russia and Ukraine.
Anyway, that 2016 article in the OP did not age well at all. If I did a drinking party where we had a shot every time the 'author' used the word 'immoral', we'd all be totally wasted...
Israeli
(4,290 posts)It happens now and then ......probably the ghost of Shira or of King David 
Violet_Crumble
(36,140 posts)Great to see a friendly face in this empty wasteland of what used to be an I/P forum full of Americans arguing why it's totally fine for an much more powerful occupying country to label the entire occupied population as terrorists and defend human rights abuses against them. Guess most of them have moved on to being outraged about Russia labelling Ukraine as terrorists and pushing their version of Hasbara to justify atrocities against innocent civilians....
Hope all is well and you've managed to avoid the Rona 