Illinois passes historic anti-BDS bill, as Congress mulls similar moves

[shira]

The Illinois House just joined the state’s senate in unanimously passing a bill that would prevent the state’s pension fund from investing in companies that boycott Israel. Gov. Bruce Rauner has pledged to sign the historic “anti-BDS” bill.

The significance of the bill cannot be underestimated. European countries have in recent years been whispering dark threats in corporate ears about the “legal and economic risks” of doing business with Israeli companies. The vagueness of these warnings is a testament to their legal groundlessness. But such scare tactics could not help but affect, at the margin, corporate decision-making. Now, the EU will – if it is honest – have to warn businesses of the legal and economic risks of consciously refusing to do business with such Israeli companies.

More generally, the Illinois bill is part of a broad political revulsion over the long-simmering BDS movement (“Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions” – the strategy of economic warfare and delegitimization against Israel). While BDS has gotten most of its successes with low-hanging fruit like British academic unions and pop singers, the anti-boycott efforts are getting an enthusiastic reception in real governments, on the state and federal level. And that is because the message of the BDS movement – Israel as a uniquely villainous state – is fundamentally rejected by the vast majority of Americans.

Indeed, a wave of anti-BDS legislation is sweeping the U.S. The most high-profile so far are the bipartisan amendments to congressional bills for Trade Promotion Authority. They establish the “discourage[ing]” of boycotts as one of the U.S.’s many goals in trade negotiations with European countries.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/18/illinois-passes-historic-anti-bds-bill-as-congress-mulls-similar-moves/

[Scootaloo]

1. Unsurprising to see a Republican jumping for a bad idea

Also unsurprising that you're jumping for it too.

[shira]

3. It is what it is. More people are becoming aware of what BDS is really all about. n/t

[Scootaloo]

6. Which is funny, since you have no clue what it's about.

Not that this stops you from projecting your own fuzzy nonsense about it.

[shira]

9. It's about one state, no more Israel. Prove that I'm wrong. n/t

[Scootaloo]

22. The movement has three goals:

1: Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands occupied in June 1967 and dismantling the Wall;

2: Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality;

3: and Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN

See more at: http://www.bdsmovement.net/bdsintro#sthash.YuK8g6mB.dpuf

Nowhere is it "about" Israel's status as a state.

[shira]

24. Sure. And here's BDS's #1 spokesman saying it very clearly...

As Omar Barghouti, a leader of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel, once put it: “If the refugees were to return, you would not have a two-state solution, you’d have a Palestine next to a Palestine.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/01/opinion/global/zero-dark-zero.html?_r=0

Here's Barghouti saying that, starting at 4:53....

[King_David]

14. Actually these bills are Bipartisan.

From the OP :

Indeed, a wave of anti-BDS legislation is sweeping the U.S. The most high-profile so far are the bipartisan amendments to congressional bills

[NaturalHigh]

57. FWIW I'm jumping for it too!

[guillaumeb]

2. A very misleading article. Typical for the anti-BDS apologists for Israel.

The BDS movement is not about "the... delegitimization against Israel". I assume that this statement is meant to imply that the BDS movement is attacking the legitimacy of the State of Israel. That, of course, is untrue. What the BDS movement wants to do is to pressure Israel economically to withdraw from the stolen land, treat the Palestinians as human beings with rights, and stop ignoring International Law.

And the pressure is economic, unlike the tactics employed by the State of Israel against the Palestinians. Israel is losing the fight in the court of international opinion, and BDS pressure is effective, which is why certain political creatures must do the work of Israel in the US. Too bad these American politicians cannot be as attentive to the needs of their actual constituents.

[shira]

4. BDS wants Israel gone. Here's Norm Finkelstein...

I’ve earned my right to speak my mind, and I’m not going to tolerate what I think is silliness, childishness, and a lot of leftist posturing.

I mean we have to be honest, and I loathe the disingenuous. They don’t want Israel. They think they are being very clever; they call it their three-tier. We want the end of the occupation, the right of return, and we want equal rights for Arabs in Israel. And they think they are very clever because they know the result of implementing all three is what, what is the result?

You know and I know what the result is. There’s no Israel!

. . .

It’s not an accidental and unwitting omission that BDS does not mention Israel. You know that and I know that. It’s not like they’re “oh we forgot to mention it.” They won’t mention it because they know it will split the movement. ‘Cause there’s a large segment of the movement that wants to eliminate Israel.

. . .

Are you going to reach a broad public which is going to hear the Israeli side ‘they want to destroy us?’ No you’re not. And frankly you know what you shouldn’t. You shouldn’t reach a broad public because you’re dishonest. And I wouldn’t trust those people if I had to live in this state. I wouldn’t. It’s dishonesty.

[Little Tich]

8. How can equal for rights for Palestinians mean that there will be no Israel?

Finkelstein is very wrong, IMHO.

[shira]

10. The equal rights rhetoric is bullshit. Palestinians have no equal rights anywhere....

...outside of Israel in the mideast and BDS couldn't give a crap about that. Full stop.

After a full right-of-return, Israel would become part of a majority Arab nation that would be run by tyrants no better than the leadership across the mideast.

If you don't believe me, then find me some leaders within the Palestinian movement who advocate for the rights of women, gays, minorities, etc. And then show me how much support they have compared to Hamas, Fatah, etc. Show me where BDS is attempting to change Palestinian civil society into a place that would ensure equal rights for everyone.

Can't do it, right?

Bingo.

[Little Tich]

13. I would like to propose the Joint List as an example.

The Joint list has a very progressive platform in a country led by what can only be desribed as the enemies of democratic Israel. The joint list fights for equal rights for everyone in Israel.

Here's a snippet from their platform:

Source: The communist party of Israel website

"3. The Joint List will fight against all manifestations of racism and fascism, and for the democratic rights of all citizens. The list will fight to annul the Defence (Emergency) Regulations and all legislation which violates rights and restricts liberties, and for the writing and implementation of a democratic constitution for Israel based on the values of equality, justice, and human rights, as well as basic social rights and democratic liberties."

Read more: http://maki.org.il/en/?p=3827

[shira]

17. Okay, let's go with the Joint List. After > 5 million Palestinians come into Israel...

....what percentage of those do you believe will agree to such a platform? According to this recent poll, maybe 10%....

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/uploads/Documents/other/PalestinianPollingReport_June2014.pdf

Look at the bottom of the first page.

That means roughly 90% want a state based on sharia law, similar to Israel's totalitarian regimes in neighboring states.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

65. "Palestinians have no equal rights anywhere.... ...outside of Israel."

Awe shucks. sis anybody read that.

Here it is again...

"Palestinians have no equal rights anywhere...outside of Israel." The West Bank is not Israel meaning that they would have no equal rights under apartheid, and as for Palestinians they aren't recognized within Israel as Palestinians. They're called Israeli Arabs...which is like calling the French in Ireland just Europeans.

So, you're right, Shira, with your usual slip up.

Palestinians have no equal rights anywhere...outside of Israel.

[shira]

68. In Israel they have equal rights. In the territories, they're not Israeli citizens.

Non-citizens do not have the same rights citizens have in any country on the planet.

[guillaumeb]

25. Thank you for the link. At the 2 minute mark, Finklestein states that he supports the BDS movement.

But Finkelstein does not cite his source for the statement that: "It’s not an accidental and unwitting omission that BDS does not mention Israel. You know that and I know that. It’s not like they’re “oh we forgot to mention it.” They won’t mention it because they know it will split the movement. ‘Cause there’s a large segment of the movement that wants to eliminate Israel".

Given the unsourced and non-specific nature of the comment, one must suppose that it represents the Professor's personal opinion. And he is entitled to a personal opinion, as long as he states that it is an opinion.

But remember that Finkelstein says that he supports the BDS movement, again, at the 2 minute point.

[shira]

28. Finkelstein supports the tactic, but loathes how disingenuous the movement is...

Last edited Sat May 30, 2015, 07:30 AM - Edit history (3)

...in trying to conceal its goal from the public (destruction of Israel).

Chomsky is the same way. See this video of Chomsky:

#t=598


Chomsky and Finkelstein support the 1st goal of BDS, ending the occupation, but they know that support of the other 2 destructive goals will do nothing to help the Palestinian people. BDS should be more focused, targeting on ending the occupation/settlements. That's it. And that's what they support.

But Finkelstein does not cite his source for the statement that: "It’s not an accidental and unwitting omission that BDS does not mention Israel. You know that and I know that. It’s not like they’re “oh we forgot to mention it.” They won’t mention it because they know it will split the movement. ‘Cause there’s a large segment of the movement that wants to eliminate Israel".

Given the unsourced and non-specific nature of the comment, one must suppose that it represents the Professor's personal opinion. And he is entitled to a personal opinion, as long as he states that it is an opinion.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. That there's no evidence that most supporters of BDS want to eliminate Israel? Because if that's what you're saying, then either these supporters of BDS are ignorant and have no clue what they're supporting or they're disingenuous and think they're being clever - but they're not fooling anyone.

[guillaumeb]

40. You state that you are unsure of what I am trying to say.

I take exception to Finkelstein assuming that his opinion is reality. He states that "a large segment of the (BDS) movement wants to eliminate Israel". He is making a statement of opinion, but is disguising it as a fact.

If he defined the vague "a large segment" with a specific number and credited the source for the number that would be a point. But he does not, leading to my point that he is confusing hos opinion with reality. He talks of the BDS movement as if it were a monolith, rather than a collection of individuals.

[shira]

42. The leaders of the movement make it clear BDS wants Israel eliminated....

Omar Barghouti and Ali Abunimah are far and away 2 of the most well known, vocal BDS leaders and they say this repeatedly.

Why the denial?

===================

Do you support 2 states for 2 people? A Palestinian state for the Palestinian people next to a Jewish state for the Jewish people?

[guillaumeb]

43. Yes. I do support two states

But the problem is defining those two states, both territorially and mutual relations.

[Scootaloo]

5. Of course BDS isn't "de-legitimatizing Israel." Israel did that to itself seventy years ago.

It's no more legitimate than Rhodesia was.

[shira]

11. The Nazi comparisons, Apartheid libel, etc. Of course they're trying to delegitimize Israel...

They don't want it around, so they're trying to make their case that Israel has no right to exist.

BDS' leaders like Omar Barghouti and Ali Abunimah make this very clear.

[Scootaloo]

20. No, Israel has already delegitimatized itself

And you know it; that's why pointing out its lack of legitimacy drives you up the wall.

[shira]

23. BDS constantly compares Israel to a Nazi state. That's demonizing rhetoric....

...designed to delegitimize Israel and its right to exist.

You've acknowledged that it's wrong to compare Israel to the Nazis. Are you walking that one back?

[Scootaloo]

66. I said it's wrong to EQUATE them. Comparisons are conditionally valid.

Depending on what is being compared.

Israel and Nazi Germany, for example, are both racist, militarist, expansionist states that sought to empower the state's favored racial group by disempowering and purging the non-favored groups.

But to say that the Nakba is "just like" the Holocaust, or that Israel's government is "no different from" the reich's government, is simply factually wrong and hyperbolic.

See the difference? No, probably not i suppose, but it's there.

The reality is that every state in existence can have valid comparisons drawn to every other state that exists or has ever existed, in some way. Some draw more comparisons than other. But with rare (and usually intentional) exceptions, none are identical.

Personally I feel the difference in scale between the ethnocides makes Israel more similar to Rhodesia or German Namibia than to the Third Reich. The mentality behind the whole endeavor is more like manifest destiny-era US and Canada than Nazi Germany as well - Israel, the US and Canada sought to purge their native populations and destroy their cultures in the interest of economic gain, while the Germans were out for pure ideology. But the Third Reich is a well-known example of similar portions if histroy, and makes an easy example for people who might not fill their heads with as much history.

[shira]

67. BDS leaders equate Israel to Nazis constantly. n/t

[yeoman6987]

51. Israel does not have to listen to international law

Who leads international law? America doesn't obey international law either. We may be in a treaty but no one body of the World rules the entire Earth.

[guillaumeb]

58. The US, and Israel, talk about International Law when it is convenient,

and ignore it when the Law opposes what the two countries wish to do.

International Law is based on treaties and conventions. It is also based on the principles first laid out at the Nuremberg Trials. Would you prefer to live in a country or world with no laws?

[yeoman6987]

59. No I understand what you are saying

But I don't like the phrasing of the article. We follow only the international treaties we signed. But there is no governing World body.

[guillaumeb]

60. There is the United Nations, and the International Court of Justice,

but we both know that rogue countries generally ignore the International Court and the UN.

[yeoman6987]

64. True.

That was sadly true.

[shira]

74. Both institutions are run by a majority of non-democratic states...

States that can always out-vote the world's democracies on any issue. About 45% of UN countries are fully free democracies.

And you wonder why western democracies do not feel bound to comply with the rulings of tyrants and dictators?

[guillaumeb]

77. Both institutions are run by the US, if they can be said to be run at all.

And the US abides by or ignores both as it wishes. It is called "realpolitick", or power politics, or the way things are for the largest military power in the world.

[Little Tich]

7. The goal of the anti-BDS legislation is the one-state solution.

For me, this is nothing but support for Israel as apartheid state.

[shira]

12. Ridiculous. n/t

[leftynyc]

16. Bullshit

And such bullshit doesn't even deserve a more substantive reply.

[Scootaloo]

21. Well, you'd have to have substance before you can give a substantive reply anyway

[Little Tich]

26. The goal of the legislation is to go after those who differentiate between the illegal settlements

and lawful Israel.

When there's no difference between the settlements and Israel, it will be a moral imperative to boycott Israel, at least until the people living in Gaza and the West Bank are given Israeli citizenship.

So yeah, this legislation supports the one-state solution.

[shira]

27. In the reality based world, the settlements are NOT illegal...

From 2011:

U.S. vetoes U.N. resolution declaring Israeli settlements illegal
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/02/18/un.israel.settlements/

They weren't illegal prior to 2011 nor after.

Maybe the UN will have better luck next time they attempt to declare settlements illegal. But maybe not...

=============

Being against BDS doesn't mean being against 2 states. Obama just stated the other day in an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg that the antizionist BDS movement is antisemitic, and there's no question Obama is for 2 states, not 1.

The Pope just said the same thing too, agreeing with Obama.

Bad times for BDS. What a shame...

[Little Tich]

29. The Geneva convention is pretty clear on the issue:

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.

Source: ICRC website

ARTICLE 49

(snip)
"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

Read more: https://www.icrc.org/ihl/WebART/380-600056


And then there's a Wikipedia article on the issue:

International law and Israeli settlements

Source: Wikipedia

The international community considers the establishment of Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories illegal under international law, however Israel maintains that they are consistent with international law[6] because it does not agree that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the territories occupied in the 1967 Six-Day War. The United Nations Security Council, the United Nations General Assembly, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the International Court of Justice and the High Contracting Parties to the Convention have all affirmed that the Fourth Geneva Convention does apply.

Numerous UN resolutions have stated that the building and existence of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are a violation of international law, including UN Security Council resolutions in 1979 and 1980. UN Security Council Resolution 446 refers to the Fourth Geneva Convention as the applicable international legal instrument, and calls upon Israel to desist from transferring its own population into the territories or changing their demographic makeup. The reconvened Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions has declared the settlements illegal as has the primary judicial organ of the UN, the International Court of Justice and the International Committee of the Red Cross.

Read more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law_and_Israeli_settlements

[shira]

30. Geneva clearly refers to forced deportations during WW2...

....like mass ethnic cleansing and shipping people off to concentration camps - against their will.

The situation WRT settlements is nothing like that.

==========

So once again, there's nothing clear in International Law that demonstrates settlements are illegal.

[Little Tich]

33. I've actually heard about the myth that population transfers have to be forced before.

The term transfer is commonly used in the context of voluntary transfer, Here's a site about Italy transferring its population into occupied territory:

Italian Libya: 'colonization by demographics'
Source: Axis History Forum (I have no idea what the site is about)

(snip 1st post, 6th par)
Balbo came to be the proponent of colonization by demographics, the transfer of Italian settlers to North Africa intended to permanently alter the demographic make-up of Libya.
(end snip)

Read more: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=116389

A Google search on the subject reveals more sites and books using the word transfer when it's voluntary. Do you have anything to back up your claim? After all, wouldn't it be completely pointless to outlaw involuntary colonization, but allow voluntary colonization of occupied territory, don't you think?

[shira]

35. The difference b/w Italy/Libya and Israel/Jerusalem is that Jerusalem...

....is disputed territory which is part of the historic and ancestral homeland of the Jews who have indigenous rights there. The Italians have zero claim to Libyan territory. Not so for the Jews WRT Jerusalem.

You'd have a better argument if Israel decided to transfer its citizens into some country like Cyprus. That would be a better parallel to Italy/Libya.

Painting indigenous people as colonizers is very wrong. Jews living in Jerusalem are not colonizers by any sane definition.

===============

Besides, Geneva clearly refers to forced deportations. There's no language there demonstrating otherwise.

[Little Tich]

37. It seems as if you claim that the Geneva convention doesn't apply to (the?) territories

occupied by Israel in 1967.

If you do, please provide a more substantial argument.

[shira]

38. Right, it doesn't. There's no language within Geneva hinting at that.

You brought up Geneva. The burden of proof is on you, not me.

It's obvious from the context that transfer & deportation was in reference to mass ethnic cleansing and sending families off to death camps elsewhere, which is a far cry from the situation in Jerusalem. It's absurd comparing the 2 different situations.

[azurnoir]

31. here's some excerpts from that interview BDS is in fact never mentioned

What I also think is that there has been a very concerted effort on the part of some political forces to equate being pro-Israel, and hence being supportive of the Jewish people, with a rubber stamp on a particular set of policies coming out of the Israeli government. So if you are questioning settlement policy, that indicates you’re anti-Israeli, or that indicates you’re anti-Jewish. If you express compassion or empathy towards Palestinian youth, who are dealing with checkpoints or restrictions on their ability to travel, then you are suspect in terms of your support of Israel. If you are willing to get into public disagreements with the Israeli government, then the notion is that you are being anti-Israel, and by extension, anti-Jewish. I completely reject that.

But you should be able to say to Israel, we disagree with you on this particular policy. We disagree with you on settlements. We think that checkpoints are a genuine problem. We disagree with you on a Jewish-nationalist law that would potentially undermine the rights of Arab citizens. And to me, that is entirely consistent with being supportive of the State of Israel and the Jewish people. Now for someone in Israel, including the prime minister, to disagree with those policy positions—that’s OK too. And we can have a debate, and we can have an argument. But you can’t equate people of good will who are concerned about those issues with somebody who is hostile towards Israel. And you know, I actually believe that most American Jews, most Jews around the world, and most Jews in Israel recognize as much. And that’s part of the reason why I do still have broad-based support among American Jews. It’s not because they dislike Israel, it’s not because they aren’t worried about Iran having a nuclear weapon or what Hezbollah is doing in Lebanon. It’s because I think they recognize, having looked at my history and having seen the actions of my administration, that I’ve got Israel’s back, but there are values that I share with them that may be at stake if we’re not able to find a better path forward than what feels like a potential dead-end right now.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/05/obama-interview-iran-isis-israel/393782/#Israel

[shira]

34. Obama was obviously targeting BDS'ers with this comment....

Obama: You know, I think a good baseline is: Do you think that Israel has a right to exist as a homeland for the Jewish people, and are you aware of the particular circumstances of Jewish history that might prompt that need and desire? And if your answer is no, if your notion is somehow that that history doesn’t matter, then that’s a problem, in my mind. If, on the other hand, you acknowledge the justness of the Jewish homeland, you acknowledge the active presence of anti-Semitism—that it’s not just something in the past, but it is current—if you acknowledge that there are people and nations that, if convenient, would do the Jewish people harm because of a warped ideology. If you acknowledge those things, then you should be able to align yourself with Israel where its security is at stake, you should be able to align yourself with Israel when it comes to making sure that it is not held to a double standard in international fora, you should align yourself with Israel when it comes to making sure that it is not isolated.

Given this statement, Obama would clearly reject antizionism as well as the antizionist BDS movement.

[azurnoir]

39. oh I see you think that's what he meant

keep in mind here he's selling the Iran deal, in fact that's what most of the interview was about

[shira]

41. Obama clearly believes anti-zionists are antisemites. n/t

[azurnoir]

45. again your own interpretation, lot's of extrapolation and words that were not there

[shira]

70. LOL @ the denial. There's no other way to understand Obama's statement...

In discussing the resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe, he was quite clear in his condemnation of what has become a common trope—that anti-Zionism, the belief that the Jews should not have a state of their own in at least part of their ancestral homeland, is unrelated to anti-Jewish hostility. He gave me his own parameters for judging whether a person is simply critical of certain Israeli policies or harboring more prejudicial feelings.

“Do you think that Israel has a right to exist as a homeland for the Jewish people, and are you aware of the particular circumstances of Jewish history that might prompt that need and desire?” he said, in defining the questions that he believes should be asked. “And if your answer is no, if your notion is somehow that that history doesn’t matter, then that’s a problem, in my mind. If, on the other hand, you acknowledge the justness of the Jewish homeland, you acknowledge the active presence of anti-Semitism—that it’s not just something in the past, but it is current—if you acknowledge that there are people and nations that, if convenient, would do the Jewish people harm because of a warped ideology. If you acknowledge those things, then you should be able to align yourself with Israel where its security is at stake, you should be able to align yourself with Israel when it comes to making sure that it is not held to a double standard in international fora, you should align yourself with Israel when it comes to making sure that it is not isolated.”

[azurnoir]

71. so you give us someone else telling us what Obama meant along with hand picked sentences

as opposed to whole quotes. Nope doesn't wash well but thanks the comment, it'll be easier to find what Obama actually said without it being interpreted for us, I'd have to have looked around a bit for this thread

[shira]

72. BDS is an anti-Zionist movement against the existence of the Jewish state....

Obama doesn't have to mention BDS by name, but it's clear he believes folks who are opposed to the Jewish state's existence are morally blind and antisemitic.

There's no wiggle room there.

[azurnoir]

73. 2+2 does not equal 5

[shira]

75. Denial isn't just a river in Egypt... n/t

[King_David]

44. What are you saying?

That Obama doesn't mean what he says ?

?

[azurnoir]

46. I think he means what he says, it is what others extrapolate from that I disagree with

as I said the interview concerned Iran and ME and it is from that angle I view his statements

[King_David]

47. There is no angle , Obama doesn't have to take an"angle"

“That’s not a true measure of friendship,” Obama told about 1,200 people, including members of Congress, gathered at Congregation Adas Israel. “The people of Israel must always know America has its back.”

Why would Obama need an "angle" ?

[azurnoir]

48. I did not say Obama had an angle, I said I viewed from the angle of the rest of the interview's

content and subject matter into which Israel was interwoven as opposed to the rather IMO monocular interpretation that Obama was speaking of largely Western ProPalestinian groups and movements which strangely are never directly mentioned

[King_David]

49. Actually I think he was clear

There was no hidden messages or "angles" or codes.

Obama is a man of integrity and says what he means and doesn't doublespeak ever.

[azurnoir]

50. do you believe he was speaking of BDS?

[King_David]

52. I do believe that there is no chance Obama would support BDS ever

Especially with the BDS movement being so mired in antisemitism.

Leaving severed Pigs heads in kosher supermarkets, endorsements from the most vile repugnant right wing antisemites like David Duke, some of their leaders , like Greta Berlin,posting repugnant antisemitic messages on Facebook......the list is endless.


There is not one Democrat rep or candidate that would support this.

[azurnoir]

53. I asked if you believe he was referring to BDS in the interview with Goldberg?

Not if he supported it, now about the pigs head left in a kosher super market, here is your thread from last fall on that incident

South African BDS Activists Target Woolworths Kosher Food Section With Severed Pigs Head

http://www.democraticunderground.com/113485033

you wouldn't be accidentally confusing or conflating BDS with the tragic killings by ISIS in the Hyper Cacher Kosher super market in Paris last winter?

[King_David]

54. Did you read my post

We do not know if that terrorist was ISIS or not, he referred to himself as a 'soldier of Palestine' in an interview with a television station.

[azurnoir]

55. According to UnitedwithIsrael Amedy Coulibaly was indeed ISIS linked

Four Jewish men – Yohan Cohen, 22; Yoav Hattab, 21; Phillipe Braham, 45, and Francois-Michel Saada, 55 – were shot dead at the supermarket by ISIS-linked terrorist Amedy Coulibaly on January 9, two days after Muslim brothers Cherif and Said Kouachi murdered 12 people in an attack at the headquarters of the satirical Charlie Hebdo magazine.

http://unitedwithisrael.org/months-after-devastating-paris-attack-hyper-cacher-market-reopens/

are you attempting to link BDS and Palestinians with ISIS ?

[King_David]

62. Are you trying to change the subject of every brilliant post of mine by asking if "I'm trying to

Link ...." ?

[azurnoir]

63. yet you still haven't answered my original question-Do you believe Obama was referring to BDS

in his interview with Goldberg?

[Israeli]

32. Little Tich......

The ' Peace Process ' train (or the ' Two State Solution ' ) left the station long ago .

Never mind " this legislation supports the one-state solution. " ........reality is this :

Meet Israel’s new government

The ministers comprising Israel’s 34th government are the most right wing ever, almost entirely oppose the two-state solution, and have a rich history of legislative attacks on human rights organizations and democratic institutions.

[Little Tich]

36. I remember the happy years when Olmert was PM.

At the time, I thought he was a crook, but now when I look back, I realize that he didn't have a pathological hate for the Palestinians, and that he actually didn't actively try to destroy any attempts at Palestinian state building. Palestine was for a short time hovering at the threshold for having the basic institutions required for a functioning state. Then Netanyahu happened, and all hopes of a Palestinian state were dashed.

While I personally think the two-state solution is unfeasible, there are others that don't. As long as the EU still pushes the two-state solution, the idea could still have some merit.

Unfortunately, the current Israeli government is the one-state dream team, and if anyone can kill the two-state idea, it's them.

[azurnoir]

15. The Volokh Conspiracy again Rightist/Libertarian blogs seem sort of popular here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=102897

[shira]

18. Deflection. The report is accurate. If you think it's BS, make your case. n/t

[azurnoir]

19. Pointing out a Rightist/Libertarian source isn't deflection

there's nothing to deflect from in the OP

[NaturalHigh]

56. Good. Anti-BDS = Anti-Israel.

I'm glad to see this.

[guillaumeb]

61. Interesting that as the BDS movement gains strength and legitimacy,

the apologists for Israel turn to compliant legislators to pass laws to allow Israeli apartheid and gross violations of human rights to be defended against the same tactics that brought down the South African apartheid regime.

And make no mistake, the BDS movement IS gaining in strength and gaining allies. These legislative maneuvers are minor setbacks, but every day there is more recognition of how Israel mistreats the Palestinian people.

What next, a law introduced to forbid positive coverage of Palestinians? I am certain that legislators in a state and national level can be purchased to introduce such a measure.

[shira]

69. Legislators are acting b/c BDS has lead to a huge spike in Jew hatred worldwide....

Whether it's their intent or not, BDS's demonizing & hateful anti-Israel advocacy is inciting people to attack Jews worldwide.

But even if you wish to ignore that, BDS's main goal is the destruction of a UN recognized country. Any movement advocating the destruction of a country deserves to be ostracized, with legislative maneuvers designed to contain such an extreme movement.

[guillaumeb]

76. Anti-Semites do not need the BDS movement to justify their hatred.

And your nuanced statement" Whether it's their intent or not, BDS's demonizing & hateful anti-Israel advocacy is inciting people to attack Jews worldwide." clearly recognizes this fact.

But your opinion of what you allege to be the goal of the BDS movement is your own interpretation.

[shira]

78. But antisemites can be incited to act on their beliefs, like in Nazi Germany...

It only took one man (Hitler) to start the Nazi movement.

But your opinion of what you allege to be the goal of the BDS movement is your own interpretation.

Show me one BDS leader, someone popular within the movement, who supports a secure Jewish state of Israel next to a future Palestine.

Do you support the existence of the Jewish state of Israel?

[guillaumeb]

79. Hilter was the head of the movement, the public face and inspiration.

But the movement was born in a country with massive social and economic unrest.

As to your first question, Omar Barghouti has publicly supported a two state solution.
Omar Barghouti makes this point in his book BDS: The Global Struggle for Palestinian Rights:
"While individual BDS activists and advocates may support diverse political solutions, the BDS movement as such does not adopt any specific formula and steers away from the one-state-versus-two-states debate, focusing instead on universal rights and international law, which constitute the solid foundation of the Palestinian consensus around the campaign. Incidentally, most networks, unions, and political parties in the BNC still advocate a two-state solution outside the realm of the BDS movement (pages 51-52)"
http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/why-do-zionists-falsely-claim-bds-movement-opposes-two-state-solution


As to your closing question, given that the State of Israel was formed for the explicit purpose of being a Jewish state, can that state truly be a democratic state for any but Jews?

Another way of asking the question would be to ask if any state founded in the Zionist philosophy can be a democratic state for any non-Jews?

Can Zionism, or any philosophy that posits a state exclusively for people of a certain religion, or ethnicity, or color, ever describe itself as democratic? Would such a state not be the very definition of an apartheid-type state?