Opinion Let's debate BDS*******

VivaRevolution

Banned
Banned
Joined
Feb 2, 2016
Messages
34,002
Reaction score
0
Wiki source describing BDS.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions

I support the right of people who support Palestine, to exercise their basic human right to speech by boycotting.

I am wondering if someone can explain to me what someone who supports a 1 or 2 state solution, to end Palestinean suffering is expected to do.

You aren't supposed to pick up arms.

You aren't supposed to boycott, or protest.

It appears to me that those that want to silence BDS, want to skip past the right of people to engage in non-violent political action, and skip to the part about how they disagree with the purpose of said non-violent political action.

The whole attack on BDS seems to me to be a giant ad hominem attack.

That the issue isn't anyone's right to non-violent political action, but that the purpose of that action is illegitimate in their view, which means their basic human right to speech is void.

Discuss......
 
Such a complicated issue.
I have a friend who is 1st generation Palestinian in the states. Fortunately for her her father was able to acquire the means to get out of there. She has told me a lot of crazy stories passed down from her father, like how they would play along side the tanks that were constantly patrolling the streets.
It's a sad state of affairs for sure, we can only hope it gets resolved peacefully.
 
GOP: Ilhan Omar Is Un-American Because She Supports the First Amendment



The Republican Party has spent the past several days accusing four Democratic congresswoman of “hating America” and rejecting its values. In that time, the GOP has produced approximately no evidence to substantiate its charges. No footage of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez burning a flag has been uncovered; no photo of Ayanna Pressley training with Maoist guerrillas in the Berkshires has been published.

But this week, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib did introduce a congressional resolution affirming that all Americans have a constitutional right to participate in boycotts. And this, apparently, qualifies as evidence of their dearth of patriotism and hostility to American values.

A pillar of the Republican indictment of Omar and Tlaib is that they are insufficiently deferential to the Israeli government on questions of Palestinian rights. And, since vehement opposition to the occupation of the West Bank is equivalent to anti-Semitism, and anti-Semitism is un-American, the congresswomen’s views on the Israel-Palestine conflict render them anti-American.

Therefore, many conservatives expressed incredulity when Omar and Tlaib — both of whom support the boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement against Israel — decided to introduce a resolution defending the legitimacy of boycotts this week, as though such a move did not confirm the worst things that had been said about them.



GOP members of Congress roundly condemned the resolution (which some Democrats also oppose). National Republican Senatorial Committee senior adviser Matt Whitlock claimed that the resolution likened Israel to Nazi Germany.



But the resolution does nothing of the kind. In fact, the words “Israel” and “Palestine” appear nowhere in its text. The resolution does not invoke the precedent of Americans boycotting Nazi Germany to support an argument for boycotting Israel today; it does so to support the argument that boycotts are a vital form of political expression, and therefore, “all Americans have the right to participate in boycotts in pursuit of civil and human rights at home and abroad, as protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.”

This resolution exists because opponents of BDS have introduced legislation to Congress that would make it a felony to support a boycott of the Israeli government, one punishable by up to 20 years in prison. Meanwhile, 27 states have passed anti-BDS laws that impose sanctions on individuals or commercial enterprises that participate in boycotting Israel.

https://www.google.com/amp/nymag.co...solution-free-speech-israel-gop-boycotts.html
 
People who boycott are stupid but not as stupid as this law.
 
I have yet to see how criticism of Israeli war crimes is

A. Anti semitic or hateful towards Jews
B. Is at all supporting Palestine

Hacks like Ben Shapiro are sooooo annoying, just as annoying as a lot of the shit Omar, AOC, etc do. Fuck the religious leaders on both sides of the conflict who ensure these abuses on both side of the occupation continue. These leaders are ALWAYS the ones blocking a two state solution with their Dome on the Rock horseshit, among other bronze age foolishness.
 
Shapiro supports sending Americas kids off to war. He should not be taken seriously.
 
Limiting freedom in order to support Israel has always been a conservative position.
 
The first commandment of American politics.


“Thou shalt not criticize Israel.”



You don’t have to like it, but those are the rules.
 
I have yet to see how criticism of Israeli war crimes is

A. Anti semitic or hateful towards Jews
B. Is at all supporting Palestine

Hacks like Ben Shapiro are sooooo annoying, just as annoying as a lot of the shit Omar, AOC, etc do. Fuck the religious leaders on both sides of the conflict who ensure these abuses on both side of the occupation continue. These leaders are ALWAYS the ones blocking a two state solution with their Dome on the Rock horseshit, among other bronze age foolishness.
I don't even see why supporting Palestine is something Americans shouldn't be allowed to do.

Trying to stop people from boycotting is ridiculous. Mandating who someone needs to buy shit from is about as absurd as the mandatory speech litigation that Jordan Peterson became famous over.
 
I don't even see why supporting Palestine is something Americans shouldn't be allowed to do.

Trying to stop people from boycotting is ridiculous. Mandating who someone needs to buy shit from is about as absurd as the mandatory speech litigation that Jordan Peterson became famous over.

But if you talk about how 27 states passed laws against speech, and how the Israeli lobby is responsible for this, you are an anti-semite.
 
I don't even see why supporting Palestine is something Americans shouldn't be allowed to do.

Trying to stop people from boycotting is ridiculous. Mandating who someone needs to buy shit from is about as absurd as the mandatory speech litigation that Jordan Peterson became famous over.

I refuse to support any religiously led state, but I don't support or have disdain for either Israel or Palestine more than the other. They can both fuck themselves into the sand, but I wish they wouldn't take the region and everyone else with them.

But if you talk about how 27 states passed laws against speech, and how the Israeli lobby is responsible for this, you are an anti-semite.

People talk about fascism, yet nobody cared for those pieces of legislation telling you that you can't speak ill of another nation's practices. Kind of undercuts the talk of Ilhan Omar's comparison between the Nazis and current Israeli leadership in my eyes, when you factor in their practices in regards to the Palestinians on top.
 
I refuse to support any religiously led state, but I don't support or have disdain for either Israel or Palestine more than the other. They can both fuck themselves into the sand, but I wish they wouldn't take the region and everyone else with them.



People talk about fascism, yet nobody cared for those pieces of legislation telling you that you can't speak ill of another nation's practices. Kind of undercuts the talk of Ilhan Omar's comparison between the Nazis and current Israeli leadership in my eyes, when you factor in their practices in regards to the Palestinians on top.

I wish it undercut someone like Maher saying that talking about the Israeli lobby is anti-semitism, because it means the Jews control the money.

Definition of a ad hominem.
 
The first commandment of American politics.


“Thou shalt not criticize Israel.”



You don’t have to like it, but those are the rules.

Yes, and for that the Israeli lobby pays them well

There is a name for that - it's called corruption
 
I am to lazy to go through this.

Basically there are three demands by global BDS.

1) End occupation
2) Treat Palestinian-Israelis as equals
3) Right of return for Palestinians into Israel.

1) Is a fair demand as part of a peace agreement.
2) Good goal but there is inequality in every nation
3) Not realistic and really is one of the big barriers to reach a peace agreement. Jewish Israelis are never going to accept giving up their national project and choose to be a minority in the Middle East. The best the Palestinians can hope for is for Palestinians to have the right to move to the Palestinian state and be compensated and get an apology.

The belief that Palestinians will be able to return to their villages or homes that no longer exist is not going to happen. They have to sacrifice this demand. It just as big if not bigger obstacle as Israelis accepting that they will have to give up East Jerusalem so Palestinians can use it as their capital. That is the big sacrifices/compromise both sides have to do that haven't been able to do to this point.






 
Last edited:
Chomsky wrote this article on global bds
https://www.thenation.com/article/israel-palestine-and-bds/

The opening call of the BDS movement, by a group of Palestinian intellectuals in 2005, demanded that Israel fully comply with international law by “(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; and (3) Respecting, protecting, and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194.”

The pursuit of (1) in the above list makes good sense: it has a clear objective and is readily understood by its target audience in the West, which is why the many initiatives guided by (1) have been quite successful—not only in “punishing” Israel, but also in stimulating other forms of opposition to the occupation and US support for it.

However, this is not the case for (3). While there is near-universal international support for (1), there is virtually no meaningful support for (3) beyond the BDS movement itself. Nor is (3) dictated by international law. Insistence on (3) is a virtual guarantee of failure.

Failed initiatives harm the victims doubly—by shifting attention from their plight to irrelevant issues (anti-Semitism at Harvard, academic freedom, etc.), and by wasting current opportunities to do something meaningful.
 
Chomsky wrote this article on global bds
https://www.thenation.com/article/israel-palestine-and-bds/

The opening call of the BDS movement, by a group of Palestinian intellectuals in 2005, demanded that Israel fully comply with international law by “(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; and (3) Respecting, protecting, and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194.”

The pursuit of (1) in the above list makes good sense: it has a clear objective and is readily understood by its target audience in the West, which is why the many initiatives guided by (1) have been quite successful—not only in “punishing” Israel, but also in stimulating other forms of opposition to the occupation and US support for it.

However, this is not the case for (3). While there is near-universal international support for (1), there is virtually no meaningful support for (3) beyond the BDS movement itself. Nor is (3) dictated by international law. Insistence on (3) is a virtual guarantee of failure.

Failed initiatives harm the victims doubly—by shifting attention from their plight to irrelevant issues (anti-Semitism at Harvard, academic freedom, etc.), and by wasting current opportunities to do something meaningful.

That's all well and good, but that seems to be a discussion of whether a person should support BDS, not their right to speech.
 
Back
Top