Why boycotting Israel matters

Article intro:

«An academic boycott of Israeli universities isn't an attack on freedom of speech. The evidence tells us these institutions are key battlegrounds for breaches of international law towards the Palestinians, ...»

Comment: Of course, it's not just Israeli academics, it's *all* in the I/J/Z-plex, their supporters and apologists, plus regimes across the planet; all those who *could* stop, or bring power towards stopping the breaches of international law, in this case mass-murdering to steal land/property, who earn our opprobrium. Crimes must be stopped, the perpetrators punished, and the hapless, innocent victims awarded full restitution plus acceptable reparations. Else civilisation is lost.


Steve Mount :

18 Dec 2012 5:53:28pm
Sectarian turmoil, and with it, the ethnic divide. To paraphrase the Israelis, 'We will defend our homeland against all invaders', and the Palestinians, 'We will not rest until the usurpers are gone'.

To think that such base behaviour and attitudes still exist in our current time is astounding.

After centuries, and even millennia, when will such hot-heads learn the art of compromise and accomodation?

  • aletheia :

    18 Dec 2012 10:59:01pm
    Pperhaps when the improperly dispossessing, alien interlopers revest the stolen land/property, pay fully acceptable reparations and sincerely apologise?
    • The Real Al :

      19 Dec 2012 8:22:21am

      Your suggestions for compromise have already been tried – and failed.

      A generous compensation offer was made in the last round of Camp David talks a decade or so ago, and rejected by the Palestinians.

      Israel withdrew from part of the Palestinian claimed land (Gaza) only to be rewarded with an escalation of violence and rocket fire.
      • jag :

        19 Dec 2012 8:59:53am
        " A generous compensation offer was made in the last round of Camp David talks a decade or so ago, and rejected by the Palestinians."

        No, that's not true. Arafat did not reject any "offer". The talks were to resume at Taba but Israeli PM Barak walked away from the process after calling an election.
      • DG :

        19 Dec 2012 11:21:07am
        That supposedly 'generous' offer included at most a token concession on the right of return for Palestinian refugees, falling far short of what the Palestinians are entitled to under international law.
      • Orly :

        19 Dec 2012 3:19:05pm
        If the palestinians are entitled to anything, let them demand it from the international court.

        If they cannot, then they are entitled to whatever Israel chooses to give them.
    • Help101 :

      19 Dec 2012 11:17:11am
      What planet are these alien interlopers from?

      Planet Hebrew? or Planet Semite?

      Where are the semites from again?

      Who are the semites exactly? (this one I will help you with, Semites are members of a group of Semitic-speaking peoples of the Near East and northern Africa, including the Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Hebrews, and Phoenicians).
Comment: Some quibbling was ...cut... from snip#1. Normally following an home-invasion/burglary, SWAT teams are sent in to arrest the perpetrators; no 'compromising' would ever be suggested. The Zs have only one territorial intent, namely to continue a) expanding by more stealing, and if not possible, b) holding onto already stolen land/property. Note the aggressive and/or belittling tone of the pro-Z trolls. The 'alien interlopers' are the Z-immigrants, partly illegal ('33-'48 Aliyah Bet). Jews in pre-UNGA181 Palestine went from 2-4% end 19C to ~30% in '39/'40 (figures hard to find (but see **ZI**); why that?)

Note: Semite  n. member of the peoples said to be descended from Shem (Gen. 10), including esp. the Jews and Arabs. [Greek Sem Shem][POD] Wiki documents 10s of 1000s of Jews from Russia and Eastern Europe (Ashkenazim), is there any proof that these people were/are "semites?" Whatever but see "5. Ben-Gurion(1936-39):" below.

Note: alien  -adj. 1 (often foll. by to) unfamiliar; unacceptable or repugnant. 2 foreign. 3 of beings from other worlds. ... [POD] Since "foreign" comes before "other worlds," immigrants are by definition aliens, and since their presence was a) *not* desired by the native ELO/Os and b) partly illegal (Aliyah Bet), the description "alien invaders" is correct. Help101 is at best pettifogging, at worst (my assumption) both deliberately misleading and outright wrong. Proof is double: a) his Semitic-speaking groups do not include the actual alien invaders, and b) those invaders claim descent (i.e. genetic) from Jews who left Ur-Palestine. Assertions must be provable; absence of DNA-tests, say, suggest no provable genetic link. Even if there were some such link, it is inadmissible to alienate land/property except through free&fair, *voluntary* exchange.


Privatise Aunty :

18 Dec 2012 6:35:23pm
The writer appears to have a pathological hatred of Israel, I could be wrong but this seems to be the only thing he writes about.

As a casual observer I find it strange that Israel, a democracy with the rule of law is constantly vilified, our ABC gives a constant voice to this.

Never a peep out of these types re the thousands slaughtered in Syria, the alarming abuses of fundamental human rights in Egypt and the rest of the Arab world, in Iran, Africa, China and the list goes on.

I recently saw a bunch of rent a crowd no hopers attempting to boycott a chocolate shop with apparent Israeli connections for crying out loud.

The hypocrisy and double standards are too obvious, this in my opinion is anti israeli propaganda.

  • Orly :

    18 Dec 2012 7:28:14pm
    Nothing so complicated.

    The palestinians are fighting a war. The BDS supporters are trying to assist the militants to win that war, but they can't publicly admit it.

    This article an example of their propaganda. Endless excuses and justification, while motive remains unspoken.
    • Dove :

      19 Dec 2012 9:46:51am
      Good to see your even handed support of free speech, Orly, as usual.
    • Max Gross :

      19 Dec 2012 10:13:13am
      Your "militants" are fighting for their very existence in the face of Israel's relentless assaults on Palestinian land, Palestinian lives and any hope for a Palestinian state.
      • maus :

        19 Dec 2012 12:13:29pm
        Well if they are fighting for there very existence and are tired of Israels relentless assaults then may i suggest they stop firing rockets at Israel and sign one of the many peace accords they have been offered.
      • PeterM :

        19 Dec 2012 12:44:49pm
        Are you deliberately mis-informed or a simpleton?

  • ...cut...
  • aletheia :

    19 Dec 2012 12:13:19am
    Privatise Aunty: "Israel, a democracy ... constantly vilified, ... re the thousands slaughtered in Syria, the alarming abuses of fundamental human rights in Egypt ..."

    Hmmm; how many fallacies?

    Z is less evil than Y; red herring when the subject is Z.

    Z is less evil than Y; any choice between evils is by definition still evil.

    Z is less evil than Y, therefore choose Z = false dichotomy, when there are many Xs *far* less evil than both Y and Z.

    A vital prerequisite of democracy is full and fair info-flow; when valid criticism is not answered by rational argument but stigmatised as anti-something OR worse, some reasonable discussion is outright forbidden by law, THEN the vital prerequisite fails, as does the democracy. BTW, a privatised aunty would not help much if at all - see the very privatised theAus, say.
    • The Real Al :

      19 Dec 2012 8:09:11am

      “any choice between evils is by definition still evil”

      It seems that in your opinion, it is ok to use the full force of the law to pursue a jaywalker or a shoplifter, while allowing murderers and child rapists to go free. Both are wrong and evil, there is no difference according to you.

      Israel is not perfect and has many issues that need to be addressed. But the constant vilification of Israel while ignoring the extreme human rights abusers out there really shows the true colours of those making the claims. They are only interested in denigrating Israel, not in any justice or promotion of human rights.
      • jag :

        19 Dec 2012 11:30:48am
        "Israel" is the only colonial project in the 21st century. It is unique.
      • atomou :

        19 Dec 2012 11:53:29am
        Not what aletheia said, Real Al!
        If you are going to argue that a jaywalker is not as bad as a child rapist, then you are not discussing the evil of the jaywalker but, instead excusing him, thus, being evil in the process.

        Israel is certainly not perfect but it clams to be and it claims to be the messiah of the human universe and acts ruthlessly to that end. That's why it gets constant criticism. It is, by and large, constructive criticism and it is time its leaders -the electoral system is a disgrace in itself and the very antithesis of democracy- woke up to the reality that their way does not lead to peace for anyone!
      • Budovski :

        19 Dec 2012 12:23:54pm
        "constant vilification of Israel while ignoring the extreme human rights abusers"

        Who exactly is doing this? Can you please put a name up, an organisation or publication?

        I have serious doubts about the validity of your argument, at least attempt to support it with evidence.
Comment: The fact that they argue against facts, often deploying fallacies, speaks for itself. Of course, to maintain their fictions, they cannot admit to the basic home-invasion/burglary analogy, but more telling, not only can't admit it, they don't even try to argue it.


Orly :

18 Dec 2012 4:32:46pm
The BDS supporters do not condemn or sanction palestinians for launching unguided rockets at Israeli cities.

They do not take action against China for it's treatment of Tibet. They do not take action against Syria or Iran for how they treat their own people. They do not sanction African nations.

No. They single out Israel for separate treatment. And for that reason, BDS is clearly racist if not anti-semitic.

Yet for some reason, people like the author insist on claiming that BDS isn't based on racist motives. Given that most anti-semites who support BDS would disagree, it is hard to take his claims seriously.

And given that the goal of BDS is to assist palestinian militants to defeat Israel, why not call BDS for what it is: Material support for islamic terrorism.

Hamas will attack Israeli civilians with rockets, while BDS will attack Israeli civilians using sanctions and picket-lines. What a partnership Hamas and BDS make. Partners in terrorism.

So why do the BDS apologists insist on keeping the relationship a secret? Are they ashamed? Do they fear that the western world will not approve?
  • somon :

    18 Dec 2012 6:41:29pm
    I am pretty sure USyd has no partnerships with Palestinian Universities. Even assuming that they agree that some action should be taken in the cases you mention, not doing everything is not an argument for doing nothing.

    But, oh, you're just running the ad homenin anti semite argument again. My accusers are racist so I must be in the right. Oh, they are terrorists too so anything I do is ok. pfft.
    • Marcus :

      18 Dec 2012 8:46:31pm
      Palestinian universities? They don't believe in higher learning.
      • somon :

        19 Dec 2012 10:48:26am
        Yes, of course the real reason there are no Palestinian Universities is because they are not interested in learning, only killing. Not bigoted at all.
      • Eric the Echidna :

        19 Dec 2012 12:20:16pm
        Somon, you and Marcus should try googling "Palestinian universities".
      • somon :

        19 Dec 2012 2:10:34pm
        Indeed, sometimes rhetoric takes over to make a point.
      • Marcus :

        19 Dec 2012 2:35:55pm
        I stand corrected.

  • ...cut...
  • aletheia :

    19 Dec 2012 1:51:00am
    Orly: "why not call BDS for what it is: Material support for islamic terrorism."

    1. Herzl: "Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly ..."

    2. Balfour: "For in Palestine we do not propose to even go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country ..."

    3. Jabotinsky: "No native population would stomach the intrusion ... Unremitting force ... to Arab objections to Zionist control of the territory."

    4. Immigration by Jews into Palestine (1934-48), partly illegal (Aliyah Bet) = alien invasion.

    5. Ben-Gurion(1936-39): “We ... are the attackers and the Arabs are those defending ... [they] own the land ...”

    6. The King David Hotel bombing was an attack carried out on July 22, 1946 by the militant right-wing Zionist underground organization the Irgun ...

    7. Plan Dalet/Deir Yassin (1948) = ethnic-cleansing using genocidal attacks - plus all the other similar, down through the 64+ years.

    8. "On September 17, 1948, Cohen ... fired inside the car with a MP40 machine gun, killing Bernadotte and his aide, Andre Serot."


    9 + a few squillions. The latest incursions by the IDF into Gaza; 2008/9 = ~1300 dead Palestinians, 2012 = Between 158 and 177 Palestinians died in the operation.

    Terrorism? What terrorism?
    • Orly :

      19 Dec 2012 12:28:43pm
      You forgot the following points.

      10. Israeli independence.

      11. Borders not final, subject to change.

      12. All your points = irrelevent. Western world does not care.
    • Miowarra :

      19 Dec 2012 1:50:12pm
      Too many excisions from the quotes to be trustworthy.

      Post the original references instead so we can read the WHOLE document and make up our own minds.
  • Reco :

    19 Dec 2012 2:05:51pm

    Many Jews support the BDS movement.

    Hajo Meyer is famous for it.

    Are they "self-hating Jews"?
Comment: Again, some material was omitted (...cut...) from snip#3. Aletheia's "9 points" show the skeleton of the 'Case Against the Jews;' this will be filled out in **CAtJ**.

Then, there is this eternal allegation: That Palestinians are terrorists, and Arab/Muslims are continually attacking Israel, as if all that were somehow criminal. But here, we need some perspective; i.e. who is the actual attacker, and who the defender? A: Supplied by Ben-Gurion; hardly anyone with more credibility on this topic, and please notice *when* he said it = pre-WW2.

Yes, there is war, in and around pre-UNGA181 Palestine, but vis-à-vis Israel, it is war instigated and carried forwards by the invading alien Zionists, their heirs and successors, following Jabotinsky's "Iron Wall" strategy = perpetual war (at least until the ELO/Os surrender their homelands - or are 100% genocided). As such, the wars are *not* of Arab/Muslim origin, but directly due to the initial aggravation, *not* civil but "supreme international crimes," all thanks, but "No, thanks!" to the Zionists.

Next is Orly; 19 Dec 2012 12:28:43pm. Note the non-contesting of the "9 points" (see "Silence is acquiescence"[*]), then the non-sequiturs/red-herrings, the admission of the territorial expansionism and final arrogance: "...irrelevent [sic]. Western world does not care." In any sane world, capital crimes must be stopped - yet the Z-crimes are not only not stopped, but they're allowed to continue, and even worsen. This is *proof* of rogue-regimes; the prime perpetrator = IL, the main accessory = the US (dog wagged by Z-tail plus UK as poodle), subsidiary accessories like D (supplying armaments, like nuke-capable subs, say) - and the rest of the do-nothings, *all* criminal, only argument is to what degree.

No comments:

Post a Comment