[noemon]

Umm? Those deal with the administrative functioning of the ILA and with a possible privatization of some of its land, not with the issue of Arab property rights.

Where in all this is it stated that a conclusion has been reached, even the last paragraph is open-ended. In the same article it is stated that in 2005, a decision was reached but in 2007 Adalah had to file another petition to overturn other laws that in concert discriminated against Arabs. You claim that the Katzir case in 2000 settled the matter, yet in 2005 the matter was not settled despite action being taken and then again in 2007 the issue remain unresolved despite the action taken in 2000(Court) and in 2005(Mazuz), the action taken in 2007 close with a paragraph that does not provide any final conclusion.

In September 2007, the High Court heard a further Adalah petition seeking cancellation of an ILA policy as well as Article 27 of the Regulations of the Obligations of Tenders, which in concert prevent Arab citizens from participating in bids for JNF-controlled land.[52] The High Court of Justice agreed to delay a ruling by at least four months, and a temporary settlement was reached (following the compromise proposed in 2005 by Menachem Mazuz) wherein, although the JNF would be prevented from discriminating on grounds of ethnicity, nevertheless every time land is sold to a non-Jew, the ILA would compensate it with an equivalent amount of land, thus ensuring the total amount of land owned by Jewish Israelis remains the same.[4]

An alternative proposal submitted by Amnon Rubinstein, a former minister, recommended that a distinction be made between JNF lands and state lands, such that all JNF lands directly acquired via donations from abroad specifically for the benefit of Jews (some 900,000 dunams (900 km2)) will pass to the direct control of the JNF; while properties purchased by the JNF from the state in the 1950s and formerly belonging to Palestinian refugees (the so-called "lands of missing persons" or "absentee" lands, amounting to 2,000,000 dunams (2,000 km2)) would revert to state control.[53] Rubinstein's intention was "to avoid passing racist legislation [such as the Ariel Bill] that would limit the use of these lands to the Jews". Others denied however that the Ariel Bill was racist.[54] The Rubinstein proposal was not taken up.

In late 2007 a deal was proposed to swap land between the state and the JNF, thus rendering redundant the Ariel Bill, deemed by some to be racist, while allowing the JNF to continue leasing its lands only to Jews. After the initial land swap, urban JNF land sold in future to non-Jews would include an automatic swap mechanism: the fund would transfer the land to the ILA, and in exchange would receive the purchase price plus a similar-sized plot in the Negev.[55]

What about you prove that there is a major movement in the West to force Arab states to compensate Jewish property title deed owners similar to BDS?

I don't need to prove a negative here. Such movement doesn't exist because the Western public generally doesn't care - it cares even less about this than about BDS (itself a marginal movement all in all).

When you accuse people that have done all these things I mentioned for the Jews, raise memorials, pass legislation, help them, support them materially, psychologically and so on, you then need to prove your accusation wat0n, I am the one who does not need to prove your negative, you post some non-sense and we are supposed to consider your non-sense valid if not proven wrong? LOL. No dear the non-sense are wrong until they are proven correct. You make a claim that westerners are biased against Jews and are more supportive of Palestinians victims than they are to Jewish.

You claim that westerners have consciously ignored injustices brought to their attention by Jews or Israel. Prove it or stop badmouthing and accusing people that have done and still do so much for you.

[wat0n]

Where in all this is it stated that a conclusion has been reached, even the last paragraph is open-ended. In the same article it is stated that in 2005, a decision was reached but in 2007 Adalah had to file another petition to overturn other laws that in concert discriminated against Arabs. You claim that the Katzir case in 2000 settled the matter, yet in 2005 the matter was not settled despite action being taken and then again in 2007 the issue remain unresolved despite the action taken in 2000(Court) and in 2005(Mazuz), the action taken in 2007 close with a paragraph that does not provide any final conclusion.

Umm, it does? JNF land was swapped with land owned by the ILA to allow the state to fulfill the Katzir ruling, and at the same time respect the JNF charter, which is why the Court decided the lawsuit was moot with it.

Ultimately, it lead to non-Jewish citizens to be able to lease the land they want to, without their non-Jewishness being a factor in the decision.

When you accuse people that have done all these things I mentioned for the Jews, raise memorials, pass legislation, help them, support them materially, psychologically and so on, you then need to prove your accusation wat0n, I am the one who does not need to prove your negative, you post some non-sense and we are supposed to consider your non-sense valid if not proven wrong? LOL. No dear the non-sense are wrong until they are proven correct. You make a claim that westerners are biased against Jews and are more supportive of Palestinians victims than they are to Jewish.

You claim that westerners have consciously ignored injustices brought to their attention by Jews or Israel. Prove it or stop badmouthing and accusing people that have done and still do so much for you.

So, in short, you cannot prove something as simple as the existence of a movement akin to BDS that demands that the Arab states restitute or compensate those Jewish property title deed owners for the land they lost, hence the complete non-sequitur.

It's not surprising since such movement doesn't exist.

[noemon]

Umm, it does? JNF land was swapped with land owned by the ILA to allow the state to fulfill the Katzir ruling, and at the same time respect the JNF charter, which is why the Court decided the lawsuit was moot with it.
Ultimately, it lead to non-Jewish citizens to be able to lease the land they want to, without their non-Jewishness being a factor in the decision.

In 2007 the article does not state anywhere that it has conclusively settled the matter. It follows with an alternative proposal was made, then another proposal and then...does not say which of these proposals eventually became reality.

So, in short, you cannot prove something as simple as the existence of a movement akin to BDS that demands that the Arab states restitute or compensate those Jewish property title deed owners for the land they lost, hence the complete non-sequitur. It's not surprising since such movement doesn't exist.

Since it does not exist, then why would any westerner support something that does not exist?

The BDS is a Palestinian civic organisation movement, if Israel does not have such a movement, then how do you expect the westerners to support something that does not exist? And then blame them for it too?

You ok there mate?

[wat0n]

In 2007 the article does not state anywhere that it has conclusively settled the matter. It follows with an alternative proposal was made, then another proposal and then...does not say which of these proposals eventually became reality.

The one that stopped the lawsuit by Adalah because it was rendered moot did - namely, the scheme in which land was swapped between the ILA and the JNF.

Since it does not exist, then why would any westerner support something that does not exist?

The BDS is a Palestinian civic organisation movement, if Israel does not have such a movement, then how do you expect the westerners to support something that does not exist? And then blame them for it too?

You ok there mate?

It doesn't exist simply because no activist groups in the West has bothered to listen to the Israeli pleas on the matter, and internalize them.

It should be mentioned, in any event, that the organizations and individuals who lead the BDS movement have and had ties to friendly Western organizations. It's not a coincidence that those organizations happen to be the ones who peddle BDS in the West, with its exclusionary focus on Palestinian rights. And indeed, it is also not a coincidence that BDS doesn't get much traction beyond that circle - those people are not really representative of the West anyway.

[noemon]

The one that stopped the lawsuit by Adalah because it was rendered moot did - namely, the scheme in which land was swapped between the ILA and the JNF.

I'm not making any sense of what you're trying to say.

It doesn't exist simply because no activist groups in the West has bothered to listen to the Israeli pleas on the matter, and internalize them.

If it doesn't exist in Israel like it exists in Palestine then why would it exist in the west?
You 're not making any sense, are you saying that the west is supposed to start campaigning and create organisations for the Jews that the Jews themselves have not even bothered creating?

It should be mentioned, in any event, that the organizations and individuals who lead the BDS movement have and had ties to friendly Western organizations. It's not a coincidence that those organizations happen to be the ones who peddle BDS in the West, with its exclusionary focus on Palestinian rights. And indeed, it is also not a coincidence that BDS doesn't get much traction beyond that circle - those people are not really representative of the West anyway.

Several universities and civic bodies in Europe and the US have endorsed the BDS and the Palestinians do not enjoy anything near AIPAC and the other Israeli lobbies and think-tanks. Your claims of supposed bias and exceptionalism are non-sense. Calling western civic bodies and universities biased because they have compassion to support justice for victims of occupation is quite unbecoming even for you.

[wat0n]

I'm not making any sense of what you're trying to say.

The lawsuit was rendered moot by the reform.

If it doesn't exist in Israel like it exists in Palestine then why would it exist in the west?
You 're not making any sense, are you saying that the west is supposed to start campaigning and create organisations for the Jews that the Jews themselves have not even bothered doing?

As I said, the Israeli government itself raised the issue as early as 1948. There are also some Jewish organizations who have campaigned for it, e.g. JIMENA.

Of course, neither have gained any traction among the likes of BDS.

Several universities and civic bodies in Europe and the US have endorsed the BDS and the Palestinians do not enjoy anything near AIPAC and the other Israeli lobbies and think-tanks. Your claims of supposed bias and exceptionalism are non-sense.

No, several leftist student and academic unions did. University Presidents have not, and neither have the universities themselves. Of course, these are not representative of the broader population and as such their stance is pretty marginal, which is why their effort, along with that by certain pro-Palestinian lobbyists and think-tanks, has been rather ineffective.

I've never heard them demanding a boycott against Arab states for not solving Jewish property claims, so yes they are being exceptionalist.

[noemon]

The lawsuit was rendered moot by the reform.

It is not stated somewhere that this issue has been concluded.

As I said, the Israeli government itself raised the issue as early as 1948. There are also some Jewish organizations who have campaigned for it, e.g. JIMENA. I've never heard them demanding a boycott against Arab states for not solving Jewish property claims, so yes they are being exceptionalist.

Jimena Mission Statement:

JIMENA aims to achieve universal recognition for the heritage and history of the 850,000 indigenous Jewish refugees from the Middle East and North Africa. Our programs aim to ensure that the accurate history of Mizrahi and Sephardic Jews is incorporated into mainstream Jewish and Middle Eastern narratives in order to create balance in attitudes, narratives, and discourse about Middle Eastern refugees and the modern Jewish experience.

This organisation is not seeking compensation for anybody nor is it asking for boycotts based on such claims, if there is no Jewish organisation committed to the task, why are you blaming the westerners for not committing to a task than no Jewish organisation bothers to commit itself?

If the Jimena is not seeking what you pretend it is, then why would anyone in the west do it?

I ask again, are you ok there?

No, several leftist student and academic unions did. University Presidents have not, and neither have the universities themselves. Of course, these are not representative of the broader population and as such their stance is pretty marginal, which is why their effort, along with that by certain pro-Palestinian lobbyists and think-tanks, has been rather ineffective.

The BDS thread contains numerous academic bodies and civic bodies that have endorsed the BDS, calling all these people biased for showing compassion to victims of occupation is not cool at all.

[wat0n]

It is not stated somewhere that this issue has been concluded.

More denial of the source too.

Jimena Mission Statement:

This organisation is not seeking compensation for anybody nor is it asking for boycotts based on such claims, if there is no Jewish organisation committed to the task, why are you blaming the westerners for not committing to a task than no Jewish organisation bothers to commit itself?

If the Jimena is not seeking what you pretend it is, then why would anyone in the west do it?

I ask again, are you ok there?

Recognition of the plight of the Jews who were expelled from Arab states quite obviously includes an arrangement that compensates them for their losses or restitute their property. You know, it is part of justice and the logical implication of recognizing their plight.

The BDS thread contains numerous academic bodies and civic bodies that have endorsed the BDS, calling all these people biased for showing compassion to victims of occupation is not cool at all.

Too bad it is true, truth ain't cool indeed. Another truth is that those bodies only represent themselves.

I am still waiting for you to show their endorsement of compensation or restitution of the property Arab states took from their Jewish population, and a call for a boycott if they refuse.

[noemon]

More denial of the source too.

Seize the accusations, if you have something, quote it as I have done.

Recognition of the plight of the Jews who were expelled from Arab states quite obviously includes an arrangement that compensates them for their losses or restitute their property. You know, it is part of justice and the logical implication of recognizing their plight.

Your non-sense are quite shameless:

JIMENA aims to achieve universal recognition for the heritage and history of the 850,000 indigenous Jewish refugees from the Middle East and North Africa. Our programs aim to ensure that the accurate history of Mizrahi and Sephardic Jews is incorporated into mainstream Jewish and Middle Eastern narratives in order to create balance in attitudes, narratives, and discourse about Middle Eastern refugees and the modern Jewish experience.

This organisation does not seek compensation nor boycotts. If the Jews do not seek that why would the westerners do that on their behalf?

Too bad it is true, truth ain't cool indeed. Another truth is that those bodies only represent themselves.

Shameless zionist accusations against Universities, and western civic bodies for showing compassion to victims are not cool at all and ridicule you, but you are free to carry on ridiculing yourself further.

[wat0n]

Seize the accusations, if you have something, quote it as I have done.

You did so yourself, it is simply a matter of what you quoted.

Your non-sense are quite shameless:

This organisation does not seek compensation nor boycotts. If the Jews do not seek that why would the westerners do that on their behalf?

As soon as there is recognition that their property was taken the issue of compensation or restitution arises, for quite obvious reasons.

Shameless zionist accusations against Universities, and western civic bodies for showing compassion to victims are not cool at all and ridicule you, but you are free to carry on ridiculing yourself further.

Bullshit, they are not universities. Indeed, falsely claiming that universities institutionally boycott Israel is what is actually shameful if anything.

I am still waiting for the activism of BDS supporting movements for compensating or restoring property of Jews who were dispossessed by Arab states. You said that Arab regimes compensate people for taking their property, yet they in fact don't and no Western BDS supporters call for boycotting them. It is cute that they care so much about property rights but only of their favored population.

[noemon]

You did so yourself, it is simply a matter of what you quoted.

I am not going to run around in circles with you for much longer, if you have something to quote you should do it as I already did.

As soon as there is recognition that their property was taken the issue of compensation or restitution arises, for quite obvious reasons. I am still waiting for the activism of BDS supporting movements for compensating or restoring property of Jews who were dispossessed by Arab states. You said that Arab regimes compensate people for taking their property, yet they in fact don't and no Western BDS supporters call for boycotting them. It is cute that they care so much about property rights but only of their favored population.

I am still waiting for a Jewish organisation that is devoted to such a cause instead of begging westerners to take up a cause that Jews have not taken themselves. That is quite audacious. Jimena does not seek compensations and boycotts, and does not state it anywhere, nothing logically follows unless explicitly stated, especially when you are talking about such issues.

Bullshit, they are not universities. Indeed, falsely claiming that universities institutionally boycott Israel is what is actually shameful if anything.

You need to get yourself together before you make any more and you also need to get your facts straight:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycotts_ ... c_boycotts

[wat0n]

I am not going to run around in circles with you for much longer, if you have something to quote you should do it as I already did.

If you don't want to run in circles then what about you take the sources seriously and stop your silly denial for once?

I am still waiting for a Jewish organisation that is devoted to such a cause instead of begging westerners to take up a cause that Jews have not taken themselves. That is quite audacious.

...Denial like this, for instance.

You need to get yourself together before you make any more and you also need to get your facts straight:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycotts_ ... c_boycotts

In each and every instance mentioned there, the boycott is supported by academic unions and not by universities. Not even the Johannesburg University - which in any event is not even in a Western country - said it supported the boycott.

I'm still waiting for you to show how BDS supporters advocate for a boycott of Arab states who refuse to compensate people for taking their property, or to restitute their property instead. Why don't you just admit they don't already? This is truly pathetic.

[noemon]

If you don't want to run in circles then what about you take the sources seriously and stop your silly denial for once?

Why do you not quote the text that concludes this subject? Instead of refusing to do so?

In each and every instance mentioned there, the boycott is supported by academic unions and not by universities. Not even the Johannesburg University - which in any event is not even in a Western country - said it supported the boycott.

In 2006, two of Britain's lecturers' unions, the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education and the Association of University Teachers, voted to support an academic boycott against Israel.[63] The AUT ban was overturned by members at an Emergency General Meeting a few weeks later, while the NATFHE boycott expired when a merger with AUT to form the University and College Union came into effect.[64] In May 2007, the UCU congress passed Motion 30, which called on the members to circulate information and consider a boycott request by Palestinian trade unions.

In 2009, Spanish organizers of an international solar power design competition excluded a team from the Israeli Ariel University Center. The stated reason was that the Ariel university is located in the West Bank, a Spanish official was quoted saying, "Spain acted in line with European Union policy of opposing Israel's occupation of Palestinian land."[65]

On that year, the Norwegian University of Science and Technology rejected the academic boycott of Israel, stating that being able to cooperate with Israeli academics, and hearing their views on the conflict, is critical for studying of the causes of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians and how it can be resolved.[66]

In 2007, nearly 300 university presidents across the United States signed a join statement denouncing the boycott movement. Following Operation Cast Lead in 2010, a group of 15 American university professors launched a campaign calling for an academic and cultural boycott of Israel. In 2010 the US Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (USACBI) announced it had collected 500 endorsements from US academics for an academic and cultural boycott of Israel. The endorsements were seen as a sign of changing US attitudes toward Israel in the wake of an Israeli raid on a humanitarian aid flotilla in the Mediterranean.[67][68]

In 2011 the University of Johannesburg decided to suspend ties with Israeli Ben-Gurion University, citing the University's support for the Israeli military. The decision was seen to affect projects in biotechnology and water purification.[69] However, two days later, Ihron Rensburg, vice chancellor and principal of the university issued a statement saying that "UJ is not part of an academic boycott of Israel...It has never been UJ's intention to sever all ties with BGU, although it may have been the intention of some UJ staff members."[70]

University of Pennsylvania President Amy Gutmann said in January 2012 that the university "has clearly stated on numerous occasions that it does not support sanctions or boycotts against Israel". She said that the school was not a sponsor of a BDS conference taking place on campus in February 2012.[71]

In 2013 the Teachers Union of Ireland passed a motion calling for an academic boycott of Israel. Jim Roche, who presented the motion, said "I am very pleased that this motion was passed with such support by TUI members (...) there is no question that Israel is implementing apartheid policies against the Palestinians." [72]

In May 2013, in what was seen as a major development,[73] Stephen Hawking joined the academic boycott of Israel by reversing his decision to participate in the Jerusalem-based Israeli Presidential Conference hosted by Israeli president Shimon Peres. Hawking approved a published statement from the British Committee for the Universities of Palestine that described his decision as independent, "based upon his knowledge of Palestine, and on the unanimous advice of his own academic contacts there".[74] Reactions to Hawking's boycott were mixed, some praised his boycott as a "peaceful protest" while others condemned his decision and accused him of anti-semitism.[75][76]

On 4 December 2013, the American Studies Association (ASA) endorsed a boycott of Israeli academic institutions in a resolution that stated "there is no effective or substantive academic freedom for Palestinian students and scholars under conditions of Israeli occupation, and Israeli institutions of higher learning are a party to Israeli state policies that violate human rights and negatively impact the working conditions of Palestinian scholars and students."[77] The election attracted the largest number of voters in the association history with 66.05% for, 30.5% against and 3.43% abstaining.[78] Over 92 universities rejected the boycott and some of them withdrew their membership in the ASA in protest of the boycott decision.[79]

In October 2014, 500 Middle East studies scholars and librarians issued a call for an academic boycott of Israel. According to the signatories, "world governments and mainstream media do not hold Israel accountable for its violations of international law. We, however, as a community of scholars engaged with the Middle East, have a moral responsibility to do so." [80]

In October 2014, 500 anthropologists endorsed an academic boycott of Israeli institutions seen as complicit in violations of Palestinians' rights. The signatories of the statement said, "as a community of scholars who study problems of power, oppression, and cultural hegemony, we have a moral responsibility to speak out and demand accountability from Israel and our own governments." [81]

In January 2016, 168 Italian academics and researchers published a call to boycott Israeli academic institutions. Israel's Institute of Technology, Technion, was singled out as a boycott target. "The Institute carries out research in a wide range of technologies and weapons used to oppress and attack Palestinians", said the call.[82]

There is of course a lot more:

Britain's National Union of Journalists called for a boycott on 14 April 2007. By a vote of 66 to 54, the annual delegate's meeting of Britain's largest trade union for journalists called for "a boycott of Israeli goods similar to those boycotts in the struggles against apartheid South Africa led by trade unions, and [for] the [Trades Union Congress] to demand sanctions be imposed on Israel by the British government".[9]
On 9 July 2005, 171 Palestinian non-governmental organizations put out a call for an international economic campaign against Israel, which has come to be referred to as Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) after the resolution's call "... for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against Israel Until it Complies with International Law and Universal Principles of Human Rights."[10] The three stated goals of the campaign are:
1. An end to Israel's "occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall";
2. Israeli recognition of the "fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality"; and,3. Israeli respect, protection, and promotion of "the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194".[10]
The Church of England synod has voted for disinvestment from Israel.[11]
In May 2006, the Ontario section of the Canadian Union of Public Employees approved a resolution to "support the international campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel until that state recognizes the Palestinian right to self-determination" and to protest the Israeli West Bank barrier.[12][13][14]
In December 2005, the Sør-Trøndelag regional council of Norway passed a motion calling for a comprehensive boycott of Israeli goods. The council acted as a result of the widespread "Boycott Israel" campaign in June 2005.[15]
The Congress of South African Trade Unions published a letter expressing their support for the CUPE boycott of Israel.[16]
The Toronto assembly of the United Church of Canada (UCC) supports CUPE's boycott. In 2003, the Toronto assembly voted to boycott goods produced by Jewish settlements in the occupied territories.[17] In August 2012 the General Council of the United Church of Canada approved a recommendation to boycott products in Israeli settlements located within occupied Palestinian territory.[18][19]
At its biennial delegate conference held in May 2008, IMPACT (the Irish Municipal, Public and Civil Trade Union), Ireland's largest public sector and services trade union, passed two resolutions criticising Israeli suppression of the Palestinians and endorsing a boycott of Israeli goods and services. The motions also supported divestment from those corporations engaged in or profiting from the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.[20]
In November 2008 the United Kingdom initiated measures to label products produced in Israeli settlements:
The Foreign Office has confirmed that Britain's initiative against Israeli exports originating in the West Bank is merely the opening shot in a wider campaign it is waging against the settlements. [...] The FO [foreign office] reiterated its view that "the settlements are illegal.... Practical steps ... include ensuring that goods from the settlements do not enter the UK without paying the proper duties and ensuring that goods are properly labelled."[21]

Sources near the talks say the United Kingdom is accusing some Israeli companies of fraud: Their labeling indicates that they manufacture in Israel, but their plants are in the territories.[22]

Based on experience, there are concerns in Israel that the discussion on exports from the territories will affect all Israeli exports to Europe. Roughly that happened four years ago, after Israel rejected European demands to specifically label products produced outside the pre-1967 war borders.[22]

Tzipi Livni protested: It appears to be the fruits of long efforts by a strong pro-Palestinian lobby that now spur the British into action. Nevertheless, the British insist that at British consumers want to know the source of the products that they purchase. [...] But the biggest fear in Israel is that the issue will spill beyond manufacturers in the territories, affecting all local exporters and all exports to the EU – as was the case the last time that the issue boiled to the surface.[22]

In February 2009 the Belgian government decided to stop exporting weapons to Israel that would bolster its military capabilities. Minister Patricia Ceysens said the decision followed a cabinet discussion concerning Israel's actions in Gaza. Belgian Foreign Minister Karel De Gucht added that "given the current circumstances, weapons cannot be shipped from Belgium to Israel".[23]

Protest by Code Pink against AHAVA in Los Angeles, California in July 2009.
In Britain, Ahava's cosmetic products sparked controversy because they are manufactured in the Israeli settlement of Mitzpe Shalem, located on the Dead Sea in the West Bank. The store chain Selfridges withdrew Ahava's products (among others) in December 2001 after a boycott campaign launched by pro-Palestinian groups,[24] but reinstated them a few weeks later.[citation needed] Critics argue that the products are labelled as having "Israeli origin" when, according to the European Union, goods originating in the West Bank or Gaza cannot be labelled as having Israeli origin because, "according to international public law, including the relevant UN Security Council Resolutions, these territories cannot be considered to be part of the State of Israel", and are not included in the EU-Israel Association Agreement.[25] The boycott of Ahava has also been endorsed by Code Pink, which argues that Ahava's use of Palestinian natural resources from the Dead Sea is, according to the Fourth Geneva Convention, a "patently illegal use by an occupying power of stolen resources for its own profit". Ahava's store in a fashionable street of London's West End closed in September 2011 after constant protests by pro-Palestinian activists. Owners of the surrounding stores complained to the landlord that the repeated protests were affecting their business. A pro-Israeli group also held fortnightly counter-demonstrations.[26]
The Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU) launched a boycott of Israeli goods in February 2009 as a response to the Gaza War, arguing that "a sustained international effort was needed to secure a durable settlement".[27]
In September 2009, Britain's Trade Union Congress (TUC) endorsed an initiative to boycott products originating from the Israeli-occupied territories, stating "[to] increase the pressure for an end to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian Territories and removal of the separation wall and illegal settlements, we will support a boycott (...) of those goods and agricultural products that originate in illegal settlements – through developing an effective, targeted consumer-led boycott campaign working closely with Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) – and campaign for disinvestment by companies associated with the occupation as well as engaged in building the separation wall." The Fire Brigade Union (FBU) as well as Britain's largest trade union, Unite, and the largest public sector union, Unison, called for a complete boycott of all Israeli products.[28] In October 2009, the University of Sussex Students' Union became the first in Britain to vote for a boycott of Israeli goods. Norman Finkelstein praised the move as "a victory, not for Palestinians but for truth and justice".[29]
In February 2009, dock workers in South Africa refused to unload an Israeli ship "as part of a refusal to support oppression and exploitation". The Congress of South African Trade Unions, COSATU, compared Israel to "dictatorial and oppressive" states such as Zimbabwe and Swaziland. COSATU also drew parallels to events in 1963, when dock workers across the globe began to boycott vessels from South Africa to protest its apartheid regime. The Western Australian members of the Maritime Union of Australia supported the move and called for a boycott of all Israeli vessels.[30]
In November 2009, the Palestinian Authority began encouraging a boycott of supermarket chains in the West Bank that carried products from Israeli settlements. According to Palestinian authorities, consumers were not aware that some of the products on sale at these outlets were produced in Israeli settlements, and it was felt that boycotting settlement products would improve demand for Palestinian produce. The authorities invoked existing legislation under which trading in goods originating in the settlements was illegal in the Palestinian territories.[31] The Palestinian boycott of settlement goods was widened in 2010, and it was reported that some businesses in the settlement of Maale Adumim had closed as a consequence.[32] In August 2010 the mayor of the settlement Ariel said that the Palestinian boycott of settlement goods "was causing great damage to factories in the area".[33]
As a response to an Israeli raid of a ship to the Gaza Strip, Swedish port workers decided to refuse processing Israeli ships for a period of one week in June 2010.[34] Similar boycotts in response to the Israeli raid were launched by port workers in Norway[35] and California.[36]
In June 2010, the British Methodist Church decided to begin boycotting products originating in Israeli settlements, becoming the first major Christian denomination in Britain to officially adopt such a policy. The boycott, which was seen as placing the Methodists on a collision course with Britain's Jewish minority, encourages also lay Methodists to follow the church's lead and boycott any products made on Jewish settlements on the West Bank.[37]
In July 2010, the Olympia food co-op in the State of Washington in the United States decided to stop selling products from Israel in its two grocery stores. A board member of the co-op said concerning the boycott that "any product that is made (...) to improve the conditions of the Palestinians will be exempted."[38]
The World Council of Churches called for a boycott in 2010 of products originating in Israeli settlements.[39]
In February 2012, Vancouverite Shani Bar-Oz's soap products store was being boycotted for carrying Israeli products, and "venomous protests" were staged outside her store, which included the shouting of anti-semitic slogans. However, according to the shop owner this resulted in "a huge wave of support and generated new business ... with new orders pouring in as result of the story".[40]
In March 2012, the Park Slope Food Co-op rejected a motion to boycott Israel, after months of heated debate. The final vote was 1,005-653. 1,600 members attended the meeting—larger than most meetings of the food co-op.[41]
In April 2012, the United Kingdom's Co-Operative Group said in a statement that it had decided to stop buying products from companies known to source from the settlements. The decision affects contracts valued at £350,000. The retailer had stopped selling goods originating from the settlements themselves in 2009. According to the group, it was still doing business with Israeli companies that are not connected with the settlements.[42][43]
In June 2013, major British trade union GMB decided to ban its members from visiting Israel and the Palestinian territories on delegations organized by the Trade Union Friends of Israel (TUFI). A spokesman for GMB said the union didn't want to be associated with an organization fighting a boycott of trade with illegal settlements in occupied territories.[44]
In July 2013, the European Union enacted a decision forbidding EU member states from cooperating with or transferring funds or giving scholarships and research grants to bodies in the West Bank, eastern Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights.[45][46]
In July 2013, two of the largest supermarket chains in the Netherlands removed from their shelves all products manufactured in Israeli settlements. A third chain, which had already de-stocked settlement goods, sought confirmation that goods it sold as "Made in Israel" didn't originate in the settlements. Dutch retailers were considering whether settlement goods should be labeled as such, or banned altogether.[47]
Throughout 2013 Israeli settlements in the Jordan Valley lost 14% of their income because supermarkets in the UK and Scandinavia were shunning their products.[48]
On 6 March 2014, student Students at the National University of Ireland Galway (NUI Galway) endorsed a resolution to support actively the BDS movement.[49]
Disinvestments[edit]

Caterpillar D9 armored bulldozer used by the Israel Defense Forces, often used demolishing Palestinian houses and properties.
Caterpillar Inc. was removed from three "socially responsible" stock indices by the American investment firm MSCI
14 Belgian municipalities left the Franco-Belgian bank Dexia, which was financing Israeli settlements through its Israeli subsidiary.[50]
A Norwegian government pension fund sold its shares in Elbit Systems due to its role in building the West Bank barrier.[51]
The Norwegian government announced in August 2010 that based on advice from the Norwegian Council on Ethics, it had excluded two Israeli companies from a government pension fund. According to the government, the firms Africa Israel Investments and Danya Cebus were involved in developing settlements in occupied Palestinian territory, which is prohibited under the Fourth Geneva Convention.[52] However, in 2013, after a review of Africa-Israel's activities, the Norwegian government announced that they could now re-invest in Africa-Israel and Danya Cebus as they were no longer involved in the construction of settlements.[53] The ban was re-instated in 2014 after Norway's Council of Ethics received information Danya Cebus was in fact involved with the settlements.[54]
German rail company Deutsche Bahn decided in 2011 to withdraw from a project to build a rail link between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, following pressure from German lawmakers. The decision was taken because the rail link cuts through the West Bank.[55]
Caterpillar Inc. was removed from three "socially responsible" stock indices by the American investment firm MSCI. MSCI cited Israel's use of Caterpillar bulldozers in the Palestinian territories as a key reason for its decision. MSCI also cited employee safety concerns, environmental issues and a plant closing in Canada.[56]
In July 2004, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) (PCUSA) voted to initiate a process of selective divestment in businesses that it believes bear particular responsibility for the suffering of Palestinians, such as Caterpillar Inc.[57] In 2012 the church decided to reject divestment.[58] In 2014 the Presbyterians decided, by a vote of 310 to 303, to divest from Caterpillar, Hewlett-Packard and Motorola Solutions, which the church said supply Israel with equipment used in the occupation of Palestinian territory.[59]
In December 2012 the New Zealand superannuation fund, which invests money on behalf of the New Zealand Government, excluded two companies for involvement in Israeli settlements and one company for involvement in the West Bank Barrier. A spokesperson cited UN findings of illegality concerning both the Barrier and settlements as central to the decision to exclude the companies.[60]
In January 2014 the Dutch pension fund PGGM dumped its holdings in five Israeli banks allegedly involved in financing illegal settlements.[54]
In January 2014 Danish Danske Bank said Israeli Bank Hapoalim was acting against the rules of international humanitarian law by engaging in settlement construction, and that consequently Danske could not invest in it. Danske had already decided to pull its investments from Africa Israel Investments and Danya Cebus, for the same reason.[61]
In 2015, fizzy drink dispenser maker Sodastream ceased using its factory in the occupied West Bank following pressure by campaigners. Sodastream said the closure was not affected by the boycott campaign, but boycott campaigners described the move as a clear win for their movement.[62]

Calling all these people Palestinian shills for showing compassion to victims is pathetic indeed.

I'm still waiting for you to show how BDS supporters advocate for a boycott of Arab states who refuse to compensate people for taking their property, or to restitute their property instead. Why don't you just admit they don't already? This is truly pathetic.

Your shameless apologetics have become quite ridiculous, why would anyone in the west support a cause that no single Jewish organisation supports?

Are you well in your head? And how does that imply that I said that BDS supporters support something that not a single Jewish organisation does?

[wat0n]

Not only what you quoted is exactly what I was saying (institutions like the ASA are not universities) but you still have not proven that BDS movement supporters or similar people have launched a BDS-type movement against Arab states for refusing restitution/compensation for those Jews they dispossessed, which supports my claim that they are most certainly not impartial and show favoritism towards their favorite population.

Wake me up when you do show such movement exists

[noemon]

Not only have you not shown how all these institutions are biased paid shills of Palestine as you claimed, but you have not even shown a single Jewish organisation being devoted to a cause that you are accusing the westerners for not taking up. Yet you have this audacity.

Now other users can see for themselves so there is no need for further interpretation of who you accused of allegedly having ties to Palestinian groups.

[wat0n]

I don't think I claimed they are paid shills against Israel, they are biased simply due to their ideology

I think I did a good job of showing that there are organizations that deal with the plight of those Jews who were dispossessed by Arab states. Of course, BDS supporters can't even recognize this took place, let alone demand compensation or restitution of the property under a threat of a boycott.

[noemon]

What ideology is that which encompasses all these groups of people? That makes them biased against Israel? Why is it so hard for you to accept that some people simply have compassion for victims of a 60 year old occupation?

Do you not ever feel compassion about anybody?

You did not show any Jewish organisation that seeks compensation, and as such demanding from westerners to support a cause that not even Jewish organisations support is quite ridiculous.

[wat0n]

I would not say that a single ideology fits them all, but they are for the most part Western leftists who oppose American foreign policy and, by extension, some of its core allies like Israel. Often they are left-liberals and socialists of some kind.

As for compassion, it is odd that such "compassion" seems to be rather selective on the identity of the victims. At least my compassion is blind to it and thus sincere, and it doesn't lead me to demand boycotting states whose policies I don't like.

At last, I don't know what 60 year old occupation you are talking about. The only occupation I know of began 49 years ago.

[noemon]

So now you pretend to know that all these academics, unions, civic bodies are either leftists or simply protesting US foreign policy by showing compassion to victims of occupation of a 50 year old occupation then.

As for compassion, it is odd that such "compassion" seems to be rather selective on the identity of the victims. At least my compassion is blind to it and thus sincere, and it doesn't lead me to demand boycotting states whose policies I don't like.

After all the compassion the Jews have received and are still receiving with memorials, vigils, legislations, moral and material support, pretending that Jews lack compassion in the west is not just ridiculous but quite ungrateful. Demanding that people exclusively extend their compassion only to Jews and accuse them if they consider Palestinian victims is beyond ridiculous.

[wat0n]

Oh noemon, so now you need to launch ad-hominem attacks because the hypocrisy of BDS supporters is shown in plain sight since you cannot prove they have launched any campaign to support recognition of the plight of the Jews who were dispossessed by Arab states - even though it is certainly an issue in the Arab-Israeli conflict - and the corresponding property restitution or compensation that naturally goes with the recognition of the crime.

I take it that you won't show that Arab states that refuse to provide compensation or property restitution people they have dispossessed get boycotted by Western activists for this, no matter how many times I ask you for it - simply because they don't.

As such, I see no point in continuing our chat.