[Heinie]

^BDS has gathered unstoppable momentum. Only by shunning them might the Israelis get the message that they have created a pariah racist state.

[JohnRawls]

This is not something that i haven't heard before. The person in the video adds moralistic arguments to the situation which i greatly dislike. I will put my opinion about this so you can take it with a grain of salt if you disagree with me ( Noemon, Skinsterina etc) because i already lost faith with anybody being fully unbiased on the conflict. Simply put every state is expansionist or neutral per se, there is no state that wants to decrease its size or surrender to its enemies.

First of all: Creation of Israel( Circa 1947 ). The land was promised to the jewish people by Balfour in 1917 and confirmed by the UN resolution 1947. The resolution itself was not perfect and ignored the opinions and beliefs of the Palestinians. Having said that, it was not the jews that made the decision but the UN and UK before that so you can't really blame the jews for taking the land. (Unless you want to argue that UN is a zionsit conspiracy of some sort which it is not). Violence insued after the resolution was made like it does in any conflict of this sort. This lead to mass migration of Jewish Settlers from Arab territories and Arab migration from Israeli territories. You can't blame the jews for being more organised or more prepared for this. ( They didn't make the decision by the Uk or the UN). This is the foundation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at its core. Both have the claim to the land: One by birth and one by law (International law included in this)


Second of all: We skip to 1967 and the war. This is something that i can not understand. How can you blame Israel for this war? Israel did not remove the peace keepers which prevented this war from happening all together. You can not say that Egypt had no foul intentions concerning israel when they publicly stated that Israel should not exist at all. Even the person in the video states that Egypt needed 2 years more to fully prepare for war. This is what Egypt was planning. You don't simply remove the peace keepers from the place and not try to start a war. Same thing can be said about Egypt blockading Israel and also moving a large chunk of its forces closer to Israel. This is clear sighs of preparation to wage war on Israel. Israel made a decapitating strike before Egypt could fully amass its far larger force and won. I can not really say that Israel was the aggressor here. This is beyond me and is very illogical. This can be related to the modern Georgie-Russia conflict where Georgians removed the peace keepers for a reason and then started shooting at those that didn't want to leave. How can you even think that this was started by Israel is beyond me? What Israel did after was immoral though, occupation of west bank, gaza ,golan heights and synai was defiantly illegal.

Third: We skip even further to 1973/Yom Kippur. This is something that was supposed to happen in 1968-1969 but was delayed to 1973 by the decapitating strike. Israel lost this war hands down. Some people would argue that it was a stalemate but Israel had to concede land.( Resignation of the Israeli PM indicated that they were not prepared and anger of the people of Israel was not some irregular event) This is something that the person in video fully ignores because it is really hard to twist this conflict in a positive narrative to support the Palestenian cause. But palestenians can't be really blamed for this conflict also because Egypt started it. Again, Egypt was the aggressor here. (You can argue that Egypt was taking back Synai that righly belong to them but i have different opinion on the subject). I would say that if the land gains in 1967 were not made then the 1973 could have been the end of Israel because the fighting wouldn't take place in Synai but instead in Gaza or Jerusalim. Also the lands that were captured in 1967 were strategic land that served specific strategic purposes in the war of 1973.(Synai as a buffer between Egypt and Israel, Golan Heights as a Bombardment position that allows shelling up to Jerusalim and Gaza/West bank that can be used as force concentration points. Nobody cares about that nowadays, it is old history. I just can't blame the generals for thinking like generals on this subject)

Summary and modern times: After 1967 and 1973 the situation stabilised a bit which allowed Israelis to continue/fully start the settlement building project. It continued till the 1990 where real negotiations begun on the subject. The situation now turned from Israel Vs its neibhorus to Israel vs Palesteine. Both sides tried to reach an agreement using the 1947 UN resolution but it was unacceptable for both. (Because Israel illegaly outgrew the 1947 borders after the wars which it lost and won while Palestinians could also not accept that expansion). So they failed and this is where we stand. After that , there was no real progress in the negotiations. ( If you can call Israelis concessions to start the negotiations a progress )

To summarise a bit: Israel still faces similar issues that it faced for its whole existance. There are real threats to the security of israel that logically can't be denied. In the modern world egypt was changed to other actors like Turkey or Iran etc. Israel still continues its illegal expansion because there is no agreement or resolution on the subject. Both sides believe that they have claim on the land and rightfully so.


P.S: This is a summary of the general situation. I actually lost my 1st attempt at this that was twice as long as this one(It took too long to write it and it logged me out). I can't really write a full opinion on the subject because it will take at least 10 pages of A4 and nobody is going to read that. Heck you can even write a PHD on this with 60 pages just being the introduction to the conflict.

[Heinie]

Forgive me but your very long post never once mentioned the topic of this thread which is the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanction (BDS) of Israel in order to bring about the end of the occupation of the Palestinian Territories (Palestine).

This is not something that i haven't heard before. The person in the video adds moralistic arguments to the situation which i greatly dislike.

Then forget it; if we are to avoid any morality in debating what the Israelis do there is not much else to discuss except international law.

I will put my opinion about this so you can take it with a grain of salt if you disagree with me ( Noemon, Skinsterina etc) because i already lost faith with anybody being fully unbiased on the conflict. Simply put every state is expansionist or neutral per se, there is no state that wants to decrease its size or surrender to its enemies.

So, every state is either expansionist or not expansionist. Please, where does that get us?

First of all: Creation of Israel( Circa 1947 ). The land was promised to the jewish people by Balfour in 1917 and confirmed by the UN resolution 1947.

The British had no right to promise a homeland to the European Jews and neither did the United Nations for that matter. Also, there is a distinction between having a homeland and establishing a state exclusively for a minority group of immigrants. The English gerrymandered Ireland to ensure a homeland for Protestants but this in no way should have meant what it became, a statelet in North Ireland where Catholics did not have equal civil rights in what was their homeland too. The English did the very same thing in the sub-Continent of India, creating the sectarian Muslim state of West and East Pakistan and look at the problem they caused there.

Second of all: We skip to 1967 and the war. This is something that i can not understand. How can you blame Israel for this war? Israel did not remove the peace keepers which prevented this war from happening all together. You can not say that Egypt had no foul intentions concerning israel when they publicly stated that Israel should not exist at all. ...

Preemptive war is illegal in international law.

Summary and modern times: After 1967 and 1973 the situation stabilised a bit which allowed Israelis to continue/fully start the settlement building project. ...

I do not share you notion of stability. Israel was not and is not allowed to build settlements on conquered land according to international law.

To summarise a bit: Israel still faces similar issues that it faced for its whole existance. There are real threats to the security of israel that logically can't be denied. In the modern world egypt was changed to other actors like Turkey or Iran etc. Israel still continues its illegal expansion because there is no agreement or resolution on the subject. Both sides believe that they have claim on the land and rightfully so.

Israel has no right in international law to the Palestinian Territories (Palestine).

Seeing that Israel is a rogue scofflaw state in a constant mindset of belligerency with its neighbors and continuing to illegally occupy and blockade Palestine, short of armed resistance, BDS appears to be something people in the rest of the world can do by way of peaceful action in in the absence of resolve from their politicians, to convey to the Israelis that they have no moral or legal justification for their conduct.

[redcarpet]

neither did the United Nations for that matter

That's garbage the UN creates states. It has a number of occasions. From Israel to East Timor.

your very long post never once mentioned the topic of this thread which is the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanction (BDS) of Israel in order to bring about the end of the occupation of the Palestinian Territories (Palestine).

It's been 11 years since it was established (2005) and there's no sign of the Israelis pulling out. Netanyahu has only a small majority in the Knesset & logically won't risk being toppled for a unilateral withdrawal.

So there's nothing to talk about BDS, except to dismiss it. What next? You want to talk about a successful clean coal project? Come on. That's grandstanding

[noemon]

The person in the video adds moralistic arguments to the situation which i greatly dislike. I will put my opinion about this so you can take it with a grain of salt if you disagree with me ( Noemon, Skinsterina etc) because i already lost faith with anybody being fully unbiased on the conflict.

If you dislike moralistic arguments then why are you trying to argue petty-moralistic arguments to explain the home-stealing that carries on to this day?

Israel still faces similar issues that it faced for its whole existance. There are real threats to the security of israel that logically can't be denied.

a) 6 months of free ethnic-cleansing in 1947 is not a moralistic argument, it is a matter of fact.
b) 1967 preemptive war according to the classified documents is not a moralistic argument but one which you ignore to construe petty-morality within a moralistic argument that you created in the first place.
c) Israel like all the countries in the world has enemies, why does that mean that it is allowed to occupy and expand on foreign territory, so whoever has enemies is entitled by right to expand in order to have chips to play? This is what is non-sense John. And this kind of logic will make you Russian-occupied in no-time, because quite easily one can argue the same for Russia and the Baltics, it has enemies, severe threats to its security, NATO is expanding so it might as well re-take all former Soviet territories to ensure its security. According to you this should even be done pre-emptively and it would still be ok:

This is beyond me and is very illogical. This can be related to the modern Georgie-Russia conflict where Georgians removed the peace keepers for a reason and then started shooting at those that didn't want to leave. How can you even think that this was started by Israel is beyond me?

The Egyptians did not shoot at anybody. If countries pre-emptively attacked all the countries making exercises within their borders, Greece and Turkey would be at war every month. What you 're saying here is actually beyond comprehension.

This is something that the person in video fully ignores because it is really hard to twist this conflict in a positive narrative to support the Palestenian cause. But palestenians can't be really blamed for this conflict also because Egypt started it.

So why should anyone spin this in a negative(non-positive) way against those who can't really be blamed, just so we can justify the crimes perpetuated against them? And nobody tried to spin this in a positive way anyway.

The fact of the matter is that, all these things have happened now, the question then becomes how do truly unbiased people move forward, do they sit here making up excuses for ethnic-cleansing, do they stay silent or do they support this peaceful movement? One thing is certain John, they certainly do not sit here making up excuses for criminal behavior, especially when they do not have a bone with any side either way.

[redcarpet]

or do they support this peaceful movement?

Just because it's peaceful doesn't make it right. Plus it only targets Israel. What about expanding BDS's demands to the Arab states, or those that persist in supporting terror groups like Hamas? What about BDS against Iran? I don't see how their support for Hamas makes Israel more likely to end the occupation.

BDS only demands one side stop fighting. That just leaves open the opportunity for the other to lunge, which they did in the 1990s.

[noemon]

Israel targets the human rights of Palestinians with force, Palestinians through BDS resist with peace. Fighting for ones human rights is right and even more so when it's done peacefully.

[redcarpet]

But what are the terms for peace? Are the equitable and fair? Or slanted in favour mostly for one side?

BDS takes no official position on the existence of Israel as a sovereign state and correspondingly advocates the full implementation of the Right of Return for millions of Pal.s to move to Israel.

The population of Pal. refugees from 1948 is like barely 50,000 now. BDS wants the door open to millions, which outnumbers Israel's Jewish minority and lead to a Hamas-legislative victory, and so a Islamist theocracy.

The official terms of peace BDS offers are one-sided, only favours one side and just means the end of the State of Israel in like barely a month or so after implementation.

It is beyond surreal any Israeli PM would sign such a proposal, he'd be toppled. And if not, be the last Israeli PM.

Only people like Heinie literally believes any Israeli PM would actually do that.

[noemon]

Respecting the human rights of people is a fundamental principle, meeting one's obligation before international law is a supposedly fundamental law in Israel. States are said to be destroyed when they do not respect their own laws and those of the international community which in turn makes them into pariah states.

Indiscriminate and arbitrary arrests, house demolitions, military occupation and constant humiliation is what is one sided, unequitable and unfair, resisting that & trying to fight for your own human rights is the only objectively fair thing a human being can be said to do in ones own lifetime. Fighting for your right to live a life in freedom & security without boots terrorizing you constantly, stealing your house and making you watch it torn-down is not unfair but quite the contrary.

Insisting on calling the Palestinians 'Pal's', like racist Brits call the Pakistanis 'Pakistanis' adds that extra bigoted tone just in case anyone was wondering.

[redcarpet]

Just shortening the word. Just I could shorten 'Australian' to 'Aust.'. Or 'government' to 'govt.'.

Fighting for your right to live a life in freedom & security without boots terrorizing you constantly, stealing your house and making you watch it torn-down is not unfair but quite the contrary

Most don't suffer those things, only a minority do. Remember most Pal.s have moved to Jordan post 1967-today. That's 75% of the population of Pal.s in total. The Israeli military can't do those things that you talk to them, they'd have to enter Jordan. Only those that are still living in the OPT.

And rights are not total. They have exceptions. And when under occupation the democratic defect is increased. You're rights are dented. The use of the difference is legal within the restrictions of the 4th Geneva Convention. Unless you can demonstrate that both the Pal.s civilians in question were innocent (a false alarm) AND the Israeli forces involved weren't at least being incompetent, no war crime is committed.

Remember Occupying Power states get a surplus powers increase, as it were. Let's say 120% compared to a state not engaged in military occupation. It is legal for them to use their military & intelligence services within the restrictions specified in the 4th Geneva Convention. Unless you can demonstrate in this or that instance the CO or subbordinates broke the law, there's nothing to talk about.

Yes, if the IDF searches a house at 3.AM in Hebron it's disruptive. But it's not illegal. Unless there was zero intelligence, or an arrest happened on trumped-up charges, or a what have you. No offence you seem to be simply whining. Human rights are there, but they're not absolute. And the dent increases for those living under occupation.

I'm not a lawyer but I know that.

house demolitions

House demolitions are legal if done for military purposes. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, no war crime has been committed

Indiscriminate and arbitrary arrests

You'd have to demonstrate that. That's what defense lawyers are for. Even those in administrative detention get to see their lawyers. If a mistake is revealed are are released be it with/without apology and or compensation (i.e. lost wages, etc)

constant humiliation

It is not a human right not to be 'humiliated'. That's rubbish. You're whipping up things that might play well to a rabble in a street but would be thrown out in a courtroom.

[noemon]

The person who is arguing that peacefully fighting against occupation is morally wrong and unfair to the occupier, is whining that trampling on people's human rights under occupation is a moralistic argument and that despite all the UN resolutions that such behavior is criminally illegal, this person insists that it actually is legal even though he is not making a legalistic argument when whining about the unfairness of the occupied to resist with peaceful means.

[KlassWar]

The population of Pal. refugees from 1948 is like barely 50,000 now. BDS wants the door open to millions, which outnumbers Israel's Jewish minority and lead to a Hamas-legislative victory, and so a Islamist theocracy.

Oh come on. Arabs/Muslims aren't a hivemind or a homogeneous voting bloc, for fuck's sake. Even in places where there's an islamist majority, leftists, liberals and secular nationalists are typically >40% of the electorate.

I'm pretty sure in an one state solution secular Arabs and Jews would quickly find some common ground on their shared interest of not living under a brutal theocracy. Islamists and jewish clerical-fascists hate each other and want different theocracies. Secular Arabs and secular Jews could outvote the rest.

[redcarpet]

So you imagine that an election would take place? There wouldn't be a pre-election coup. Say by Hamas, or Fatah to head them off?

That's another big hunch.

Again, why make hunches to base a solution to the conflict? Conservatives are right when they demand politics must be based on tradition, certainty and tested ideas that withstand the test of time. Going beyond that is endangering society.

[wat0n]

Israel targets the human rights of Palestinians with force, Palestinians through BDS resist with peace. Fighting for ones human rights is right and even more so when it's done peacefully.

And some Palestinians also target the human rights of Israelis with force, what's your point?

[noemon]

The point is obvious:

Just because it's peaceful doesn't make it right. Plus it only targets Israel.

Israel targets the human rights of Palestinians with force, Palestinians through BDS resist with peace. Fighting for ones human rights is right and even more so when it's done peacefully.

If 'you re going to cry that the Palestinian Civic Human Rights Organisation is peacefully but unrightfully singling out and targeting poor Israel for trampling on their human rights...then...

[skinster]

This is too much.

[wat0n]

Firstly, the BDS is not an exclusively Palestinian movement. Why would non-Palestinians single Israel out?

Secondly, as I said it is not true that Palestinians fight Israel with peace. There are many who fight it with force and do their best to violate the human rights of Israelis - why ignore this, I wonder?

[skinster]

So there's nothing to talk about BDS, except to dismiss it.

You are entirely welcome to dismiss BDS because the movement isn't about catering to the opinions of zionists and their hasbara-talking points. But apparently you can't even dismiss it yourself, because you're prancing around in here complaining about BDS.

Most don't suffer those things, only a minority do. Remember most Pal.s have moved to Jordan post 1967-today. That's 75% of the population of Pal.s in total. The Israeli military can't do those things that you talk to them, they'd have to enter Jordan. Only those that are still living in the OPT.

Millions of Palestinians live and are imprisoned in the occupied territories, that's a lot of Palestinians who are suffering.

Most Palestinians did not flee to Jordan, unless you can prove that with anything besides hasbara. I'm not sure why you made-up that 75% figure considering more than a million less Palestinians fled to Jordan, compared to those suffering in the Occupied Territories.

Suggesting there isn't that many Palestinians in Israel-Palestine when their numbers exceed Jews in the same place is kind of weird. And the numbers of Palestinians to Jews are only set to increase.

Yes, if the IDF searches a house at 3.AM in Hebron it's disruptive. But it's not illegal. Unless there was zero intelligence, or an arrest happened on trumped-up charges, or a what have you. No offence you seem to be simply whining. Human rights are there, but they're not absolute. And the dent increases for those living under occupation.

The Israeli Occupation Forces are in Hebron illegally according to International Law so shouldn't even be there, never mind commit raids at night, kidnapping, beating and terrorizing Palestinians and their children. If armed soldiers with masks on come into your home at night screaming orders and traumatizing everyone who lives there, I'm guessing in reality, you would consider that more than merely disruptive.

I'm not a lawyer but I know that.

No you're not and no you don't.

Firstly, the BDS is not an exclusively Palestinian movement. Why would non-Palestinians single Israel out?

It's called 'solidarity'. What should Palestinians and the people who support them do instead, utterly submit to Israeli crimes?

Secondly, as I said it is not true that Palestinians fight Israel with peace. There are many who fight it with force and do their best to violate the human rights of Israelis - why ignore this, I wonder?

Yes, there is some violent resistance towards the violent occupation of Palestinians. That shouldn't surprise anyone. I, in the same context, would try to resist or fight my oppressor in any way I could and so would you.

[wat0n]

It's called 'solidarity'. What should Palestinians and the people who support them do instead, utterly submit to Israeli crimes?

What about acknowledge that while Israel is far from great, it isn't the worst country in the world? Neither Palestinians nor Israelis are expected to see the conflict they are currently fighting in an objective, detached way (even though they should, and even though it is most certainly possible to do that even in their situation even if it's not easy) but there is no reason for people who are not experiencing it not to do that.

That's no better than those who peddle the "Islam=Terrorism" meme

Yes, there is some violent resistance towards the violent occupation of Palestinians. That shouldn't surprise anyone. I, in the same context, would try to resist or fight my oppressor in any way I could and so would you.

No, I would not.

I would not break into a house and stab a complete family in their sleep, for example. I think most Palestinians would not do it either.

If you really would - and I'm giving you the chance to rethink this -, that's your proble, just don't expect people to play along.

[skinster]

What about acknowledge that while Israel is far from great, it isn't the worst country in the world?

Neither Palestinians nor Israelis are expected to see the conflict they are currently fighting in an objective, detached way but there is no reason for people who are not experiencing it to do.

1. The concept of objectivity is bullshit.
2. People have interests and sometimes those interests are to support their friends who are living under oppression. You do this by supporting zionism and zionists.

No, I would not.

Most people who experience violence will try to resist it in any way they can. Some won't resist violently, which is why you don't see all Palestinians resisting violently and instead many resisting non-violently with their endorsement of BDS.

"giving you a chance to rethink this" -