BDS Boycott

Boycott – BDS – maximalist Arab rejectionism and failures of logic

BDS BoycottThe Maximalist Arab position

The original Arab position was that there should be no Jewish self-rule, and Jewish refugees should not be accepted into Palestine. A boycott of Jewish businesses began in the early 1920’s. By 1930 Arabs had committed massacres against ancient Jewish communities. Much of the Arab effort of the 1930’s was spent violently protesting the arrival of Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi Germany. By 1939, they had forced the British to shut the gates. The two-state solution was born as a response to Arab violence.

From 1948, Arab State violence was also based on no acceptance of Israel behind any borders. This stance most famously displayed in the Khartoum Resolution of 1967 and the ‘three no’s’ – no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and no negotiations with it. This position existed even when EVERY INCH of the West Bank and Gaza was under Arab control.

This unaccommodating position was rejected by everyone who sought a just and peaceful resolution to the conflict. It rejects Israel’s right to exist. It sees Jews as European invaders, and will use any methods to oppose peaceful co-existence.

The BDS Movement

As the 1990’s peace process began, the maximalist position continued to surface. Groups like Hamas sought to derail the process with campaigns designed to slaughter as many civilians as possible. The end of the Oslo peace process was another example of deliberate violence to derail negotiations. However, open calls for the destruction of Israel still fell on deaf ears in western politics. To counter this weakness, maximalist Arabs coded their message in humanitarian doublespeak, and in 2005 they wrapped it all up in a package called BDS.

Even anti-Israel activists such as Norman Finkelstein have publicly criticised the idea that BDS was ever a ‘call from within’ Palestinian civil society – calling it a ‘myth’. There is video footage of Ilan Pappe, publicly stating deception was involved. A search of boycott initiatives from 2001 to 2004, show that the problems of an externally driven boycott, were an evolving theme. Global anti-Israel strategists realised that to sell the idea of destroying Israel to the west, they needed to mimic the South African call against Apartheid. BDS was devised as a strategy to make extremist Arab demands suit the western palate.

The BDS goals

BDS pushes soundbites that suggest the movement takes no position on whether Israel would exist in a post BDS universe:

‘The BDS movement as such does not adopt any specific formula and steers away from the one-state-versus-two-states debate’. – Omar Barghouti – BDS founder

This vagueness is employed to navigate the branding minefield that openly calling for Israel’s destruction would cross.

BDS has three stated goals:

  • An end to the occupation. = That Israel unilaterally and unconditionally completely withdraws to the borders of May 1967, removes all the Jews currently living in that land, and dismantles the wall that has been protecting Israelis from suicide bombers.
  • That everyone inside Israel is treated equally. = That Israel removes the Jewish character of the state from existence. For example the Israeli flag is seen as racist because it contains Jewish symbols (note that the existence of the crosses of St George, St Andrew and St Patrick in the UK flag would also be considered racist and thus turn the UK into an ‘Apartheid state’). The official stamp of Israel contains the Star of David – also seen as a racist law. These symbols of Jewish identification, are the ‘racist’ elements that BDS demands be dismantled.
  • The ‘right of return’. – That Israel stops accommodating Jewish immigration (it defines this as a racist law) – and in turn is forced to permit millions of Palestinians to move to Israel (rather than to a Palestinian state as would occur in the two-state solution).

Conclusion: This is clearly the same maximalist Arab position as has existed since 1948. A public call for the destruction of Israel.

One strategy amongst many

If you read position statements of the central BDS figures, you soon realise BDS is not ‘the’ strategy of Palestinian resistance, it is ‘a’ strategy of the resistance. Stabbing civilians in their home is another. Hamas rockets yet another. Supporting this umbrella of resistance are also Islamic radical terror groups such as Hezbollah, and nations such as Iran.  If you oppose peace talks, if you oppose the ruling Palestinian Authority making any concessions, if you believe Israel needs to be forced to surrender to maximalist demands – then you are pro-BDS.

Marketing BDS as non-violent resistance is therefore a deceptive description. BDS is a non-violent arm under the umbrella of ‘all resistance’.  It is not part of a ‘peace camp’, nor does it suggest anywhere it seeks peace. Search the ‘about BDS‘ page for the word ‘peace’ – you will receive zero results.

BDS stands in solidarity with violent resistance. As violence erupted again in late 2015, BDS asked for support. Violence strengthens groups like Hamas and weakens those that seek negotiations and peace.

BDS boycott solidarity resistance

Conclusion: Clearly, BDS aligns with the violence. Perhaps the best way to describe it would be to suggest BDS is the diplomatic corp of a violent army. As the terrorists use violence, BDS is on the global stage, building diplomatic support. Like all extremist cults then, it seeks hardship, it needs suffering, *it wants violence* – because these are the primary methods of recruitment. A true peace movement would be anathema to BDS – just as Oslo was anathema to Hamas.

The hard-core

When the maximalist Arab demands are placed inside the ‘humanitarian’ packaging, it is given airtime on media outlets such as the BBC or the Guardian, as if BDS is a legitimate humanitarian movement. Even then, some media outlets still have problems openly promoting a movement that apparently calls for the end of Israel. Ambiguity rules, with many journalists understanding there is something uncomfortable about BDS, whilst not having enough understanding to counter the ‘it’s no different from boycotting South Africa’ statement.

Therefore the voice given the widest platform is one that sidesteps elements of BDS, and suggests some parts of the boycott are more legitimate than others. It comes across as far more accommodating and professional and doesn’t openly attach final status demands to the statement.

Soft sell

As an example, Andrew Smith from ‘Campaign Against Arms Trade’ (CAAT) wrote a piece in 2014 about the UK ‘ending its arms trade with Israel’. The article appeared in the Guardian. No mention of any other element of the boycott, nor of BDS, appears in the article. In a 2015 letter, also in the Guardian, over ‘100 artists announce a cultural boycott of Israel’ – there is a call for support, and again, there is no reference to the ultimate aims of the boycott, nor of the wider BDS movement.

Perhaps the most outstanding example is the academic boycott. This article (yes, again it is in the Guardian) runs with a headline that suggests the boycott initiative is over the 1967 lands:

boycott israel guardian

Nowhere in the article does it align this academic boycott initiative with the wider aims of the BDS movement. An academic who has issues with Israel’s settlement policy is therefore enticed to add his name to the petition. That signature is then counted towards those who support BDS. When voices are raised in opposition, many academics does not fully understand the objection. They signed because of opposition to some Israeli policies, and see criticism of the boycott from that perspective.  This in turn reinforces the idea Zionists oppose all criticism of Israel. For BDS it is a win-win.

All of those organisations behind each of these initiatives (CAAT, War on Want, Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Artists 4 Palestine and activist academics such as Jonathan Rosenhead), fully support the entire BDS platform, yet when it comes to pulling in signatures, they use methods that fail to mention each initiative is part of the wider movement that seeks the destruction of Israel.

Pick ‘n’ mix

Most people supporting a ‘partial boycott’ would in theory oppose a call to destroy Israel. Lorde recently cancelled her upcoming concert in response to the cultural boycott – I would wager she does not support the bloody destruction of the only liberal democracy in the Middle East.

The idea of a partial boycott argument is built as if BDS is a political pick’n’mix, through which individual activists can choose which elements of the boycott to support. BDS is designed to play on this naivety:

BDS is all about context sensitivity. This means that supporters of BDS in any particular context decide what to boycott or divest from, how to pursue their local goals, how to build alliances, and how to campaign–with sensitivity to their own political, cultural and organizational contexts. Partners may decide to boycott only companies implicated in Israel’s occupation, and that is perfectly fine if done tactically, not out of a principled rejection of a full boycott when the circumstances allow it. This is the strength of BDS; it is not a centralized, dogmatic or command-driven movement.

Relate this back to the adverts we saw earlier calling for cultural, academic or arms trade boycotts. None of the initiatives explicitly stood aside from the wider BDS context – so there was no ‘principled rejection’ – and yet each only sold itself as if it were dealing with specific elements of Israeli policy. ‘Tactically’ chosen – it is a con.

Most people on the left – certainly newer elements of the Labour Party, the unions, Church groups, and professional organisations, are played by this type of game. Very few of those voting for the boycott would want to see it bring about a deteriorating political environment. They are driven by the idea that pressuring Israel will lead to negotiations and peace. Some push the absurdity of it being a boycott ‘in support of Israel’, as if boycotting Israel saves Israel from itself. This absurdity was labelled a ‘Zionist’ boycott. Some left wing Zionists, promote the boycott of settlements under this umbrella.

Logical dependency

The argument over whether to boycott Israel is dependent on several key elements:

  • Firstly, there is one of guilt. To want to boycott Israel, we have to assume that Israel is the guilty party.
  • Secondly there is one of ability. All of this is dependent on the idea that Israel has it within its power to further the cause of peace and chooses not to do so.
  • Thirdly there is one of integrity. BDS has to seek to achieve what those participating in the boycott believe it is seeking.
  • Finally, there is one of achievement. BDS has to be able to work.

Yet we have already uncovered major problems with the integrity of the movement.

The peace potential

More worryingly, the entire conflict has been perpetuated by the Arab maximalist position. Even if you see injustice in some of Israel’s actions, or would like the Palestinians to have their own state, that underlying feature of the conflict remains a truism. In other words, no agreement has ever been signed because Arab leaders have not had all their wishes met. Those wishes include the end of Israel’s existence. Those wishes are all reinforced in the position of BDS.

There are those who suggest that this is not true – that the Arabs do want peace. That is a straw-man position. The argument is not that many Arabs would not prefer peace, it only maintains that they cannot deliver it. It remains true that even if some are willing to negotiate on land swaps, even if some are willing to recognise Israel’s rights to exist, even if some would accept a settlement over refugees – there is enough violent dissent, and too little political cohesion. Any perceived negotiating weakness is preyed on by other groups seeking additional power. Look at the rise of Hamas during the Oslo process and Second Intifada. The result creates pressure towards a more conservative and less accommodating negotiating position.

In other words, if BDS supports the maximalist Arab position, and the Arab Maximalist position is responsible for perpetuating the conflict, then a central function of BDS is to oppose negotiated settlement.

The hostages and the hostage takers

This situation is made even more complicated because BDS, and the maximalist Arab position, deliberately unite separate communities (the Palestinian Arabs, the Israeli Arabs and the refugees) as a way of creating a problem that cannot be unraveled. The Palestinian refugees were created in 1949 as hostages, pawns, to be used against Israel. For many years the Arab world perpetuated and nurtured that hatred. In Lebanon, they still live under an Apartheid regime, and are denied their basic rights. Today these people are used to tie the hands of more moderate Arab leaders. No Arab leader can tell these refugees their wishes will not be included in any peace deal.

In reality they are not a unified group at all and have no voice. Their numbers are greatly exaggerated. Extremists speak in their name and anyone who crosses their position is betraying the cause. These political hostages have in turn become hostage takers themselves.

This from a Guardian article by Ghada Karmi:

‘The right of return is an individual right, and no one except the refugees themselves can negotiate it away. In any case, the current Palestinian negotiators, unelected and unrepresentative of the refugees, cannot legally speak for them. If they do, and this passes muster, it will only compound the gross injustice committed in 1948, and perpetuate the conflict for decades to come.’

Everyone is a hostage of someone else, and nobody can break the circle. He who dares would not live to see out the year. This means Palestinians who seek peace – cannot deliver it – and the three central BDS aims cannot be separated.  It is a position deliberately designed to make *all attempts* at negotiating fail.

The fallacy of the ‘just’ boycott

All this exposes the central flaws of BDS, and they are intentional flaws.

Firstly, that there is no clear end goal. Each of its aims are subject to the interpretation of those that align with it.  Naively, people who want Israel to change policy direction join hands with those who seek Israel’s destruction.

So, whilst it may make a claim it ‘seeks justice’ – it becomes an unsupportable claim.  This from Barbara Beck of the Pew Charitable Trusts on the subject of boycotts:

‘A successful campaign, no matter how we define it, has to begin with clear, realistic, measurable goals,’ 

When we place this against the Blueprint of BDS, the problems become highlighted: the BDS campaign is deliberately vague – it’s aims are clearly not realistic – and the goals are not measurable. All of the things that any definition of ‘justice’ would demand as basic necessities.

A final piece of evidence

For those who believe in pick’n’mix BDS, see how Omar Barghouti responds to and rejects ‘partial boycott’ initiatives:

‘The problem with this new attempt, although it is certainly more intelligent, is that it still ignores the huge elephant in the room. Ending the 1967 occupation, even if it included East Jerusalem, at best addresses most of the rights of only 38% of the Palestinian people — those living in the OPT. What of the UN-stipulated rights of the remaining 62% of the Palestinian people (12% are citizens of current Israel and 50% are in exile, who are entitled to their right of return)?’

Machinery of war and the failure in logic

Thus, there is a dangerous flaw in the logic of those supporting the boycott. This failure in logic borders on catastrophic negligence. If successful boycott’s must have measurable goals – how and when does the BDS boycott end? Because this is the real question that can never be answered.

Does it end when Israel unilaterally and unconditionally completely withdraws to the borders of May 1967? Dismantles the wall? Takes everything Jewish from its identity? Stops allowing Jews to immigrate? Permits millions of Arabs to stake claims to its lands? Who decides?

If you have been following the argument properly – then the answer is clear. The BDS movement aligns with the maximalist Arab position and is part of a movement that will *NEVER* allow *ANY* negotiated progress – it cannot – because peace talks are anathema to it. These groups will never alleviate the pressure by permitting a solution to any element of the conflict.

In other words, the central forces behind BDS will not permit an environment that rewards withdrawal – even if one could be created. Gaza is evidence of this, Oslo is evidence of this. Negotiations with Israel are used to ‘grab’ power, and turn it into an additional piece of the machinery in the war against Israel. .

Gaza is a perfect example of how Israeli withdrawal was used to further the maximalist position. Those supporting a partial boycott are setting everyone up for an increase in violence.

Humanitarianism upside down

In other words, BDS strengthens the hands of those who do not seek to negotiate, and in return they will ensure violence is a constant presence. For as long as the Arabs maintain the violence, the Israelis have little choice but to conduct conflict management. Thus ensuring that the Israeli military presence continues. How then, can we assume Israel is guilty?

Worse still – the stronger BDS becomes, the harsher Israel’s response must be. If, as has been shown, BDS is a movement that aligns with the position of the extremist groups and seeks Israel’s eventual destruction, then at no point can Israel show weakness to it. BDS demotivates peaceful initiatives on both sides.

So if you align with any part of the boycott movement only until Israel withdraws, and Israel cannot withdraw because the Arabs will maintain violence until all the aims of BDS are met – then you are adhering to the entire BDS movement – in full – regardless of your own political arguments. You align with and strengthen the call for the destruction of the state of Israel. In return BDS will never permit an environment where your partial boycott can be completed.

Churches, unions, academics, professional organisations, student groups, even some Zionist parties – all support separate sections of a movement that logically will need to increase violence, will hinder any peace moves, and will not rest until Israel has been destroyed. If you seek an end to Israeli control of 1967 lands – by adhering to a strategy of boycott, you are ensuring this can never come about. You have climbed aboard a train that will not allow you to arrive at your station – and one designed and destined only to bring further bloodshed.

The final logical flaw

The only question really for a humanitarian that has been duped into supporting BDS is this: Can it work? Having already decided Israel is guilty, and having already been duped by BDS propaganda, all that remains is one of achievement. People will suffer so it is not a zero-sum game. There has to be a positive conclusion.

Yet Jews, non-Jewish Zionists, and Israel see BDS as antisemitic. We see antisemitism spreading everywhere that BDS does. BDS activists may argue that it is not antisemitism at all, but the only relevant issue here is how it is perceived by the target.  If BDS is perceived as antisemitic, EVEN IF IT IS NOT, then at what point is it logical to suggest the Jews will EVER surrender to antisemitism? When they think there are more antisemites? When the antisemitic world looks bigger and meaner to them?

The inevitable result is that Israel will build bigger walls and no other response is logical.

Which is why BDS is not only doomed to fail, it is destined to make everything a lot worse for everyone involved. Yet if you can see BDS for what it is, a movement of extremism designed to support the maximalist Arab stance, then this is exactly what it is designed to do. Demotivate peace initiatives, radicalise opinion, increase hatred of Jews, and perpetuate a conflict.

Who would want to support that?


Help support my research

I fight antisemitism and the revisionist narrative that demonises Israel. I was recently named as one of the J100 (‘top 100 people positively influencing Jewish life’) by The Algemeiner. My work is fully independent, and your support makes much of what I do possible. This research does make a difference.

Please if you can, consider making a donation. Either a single amount or if you can a small monthly contribution.  Research such as this is intensive. We need to be there to expose the lies. Every contributions is greatly appreciated.

Keep up to date, subscribe to the blog by using the link on the page. Follow the FB page for this blog: and follow me on Twitter.


187 thoughts on “Boycott – BDS – maximalist Arab rejectionism and failures of logic

  1. David if I were you I would not venture into the realm of logical fallacy. You seem to be saying that the arguments are fallacious because the premises are false. False premises don’t make an argument fallacious. If the conclusion follows from the premises the argument is valid.

    For example this is a fallacious argument………

    The conclusion does not follow from the premises be they true or be they false.

    1. oops this is a fallacious argument

      In other words, if BDS supports the maximalist Arab position, and the Arab Maximalist position is responsible for perpetuating the conflict, then the central function of BDS is to oppose negotiated settlement.

      1. actually isn’t – but I edited from the word ‘the’ to ‘a’. It doesn’t matter how many times I read before posting, there are always small bits I am not completely happy with. Especially in a piece this size.

      2. David ventures precariously into the world of logic again……

        This girl sets out to deface Israeli goods in a supermarket

        She starts in what he calls the ” kosher aisle ” !!!!!??????

        Everyone knows that kosher is about Jews

        Therefore this proves BDS is not about Israel but about Jews.

          1. Yes, she was, David.

            Had you focused more on the packet you would have noted the word ‘Israeli’.

            Watch it again, you’ll see.

            1. Is your attitude across the board, or like others are you selective – is a deliberate attack on a Halal butcher Islamophobic?

              1. You didn’t say whether you’d taken a closer look at the video, David.

                If the Halal butcher is flirting with the attacker’s wife, very probably not.

                You must look at more than one option, especially if you are to continue writing blogs in your crusade(no pun intended)

                1. I only asked you a question, because I seek to explore your stance. There were no points to be won by answering the question. I hadn’t assumed anything. How about an attack on Halal butchers by animal rights activists? What questions would you ask if you saw a vandalised Halal shop with the words ‘barbaric’ written all across the windows?

                  1. “I only asked you a question, because I seek to explore your stance.”?

                    Wasn’t a very useful question then to my mind, Ian.

              2. David you tried that ” argument” on Gabriel W and JoeM. It didn’t work there and it doesn’t work here.

                Which attack on a Halal butcher ? The question is not answerable on the information we have. All we know is it was an attack on an Halal butcher. It might have been Islamophobia. It might have been an attack by rabid animal rights activists for whom ” animal rights” trumps any consideration of religious tolerance. It might have been personal, part of some kind of feud. It might have been entirely random. It might have been any number of other things. You must try harder. You could start by acknowledging that not everyone but you is stupid.

                1. it is working out fine actually, because of the clear analogy between the two situations. I am as always building my arguments through testing them – and there is nothing wrong with that. I will continue to test it. Perhaps it will develop, perhaps it will not. Most of my positions have been reached through rigorous argument. At no point do I believe everyone but me is stupid – that’s a really weak position that has nothing to do with me. I respect the intelligence of others and use them to formulate my own positions. If someone could show me I am wrong, I’d be a wicked anti-Zionist. As it stands, I believe there is far more truth and moral strength in the Zionist position – I am always willing to sit down and have a chat and give you the opportunity to sway me.

                  1. “I am as always building my arguments through testing them – and there is nothing wrong with that. I will continue to test it. Perhaps it will develop, perhaps it will not. ”

                    I suggest that you take lessons in logic, David. You’ll be better prepared for the arguments that you invite.

                    1. I respond again, in every anti-Israel demonstration so far analysed, at least 40-50% of those involved, have shared white supremacist material online. Somewhere over 20% have shared material ‘revising’ the Holocaust. You keep coming here to insist antisemitism isn’t really a factor in anti-Israel activity. It isn’t my logical process that needs checking.

                  2. As it stands, I believe there is far more truth and moral strength in the Zionist position

                    That is fair enough David. I wouldn’t attempt to move you on that. But understand that that it has the same status as my assertion that Israel is a crappy racist kleptomaniacal basket case. That is, the status of a perspective, a point of view.

                    1. Of course Stephen, in this new world it is suggested that all ‘opinions are equal’, and all perspectives or point of views, are equally valid. I am uncomfortable with this. I choose to believe that the side which brings historical evidence, the one that highlights actions rather than words to support its case, and the one that at least attempts to adhere to basic reasoning, is a superior side to take.

                      Why do you think, if the anti-Israel perspective is the right one, that those supporting it have to lie so often?

                      When the other side, stop distorting evidence, manipulating photographs, rewriting history, and giving so much room to people who really do not like Jews, I might give their ‘perspective’ more credit. Until then, each to his own.

                    2. yes, that is a good example of the deflection, and use of empty propaganda, that ‘the other side’ relies on. A few loose words from an activist, put forward as a literal position and held up as if they are somehow equal to a book, like the Suarez fiction. So I hold up a book, that contains multiple deliberate distortions, outright lies and historical fiction, and to deflect it all – your response is ‘look what Jonathan said’. Just about sums it up – thank you.

                    3. You have used that term ‘basket case’ again Stephen.
                      You have yet to explain in clear and unambiguous terms what you mean by that and how it pertains to Israel.
                      You have proved above that you are capable of rational argument; so please give a rational answer.
                      And before I forget; Happy New Year

                    4. and there we go we the ‘everything is equal’ nonsense again. Someone who deliberately distorts quotes, inverts the meaning of events and works on a strategy of omission is a liar. The person who seeks to oppose this revision, is not his equal. That they disagree with each other doesn’t create two equally valid opinions.

            2. Oh and another crumb Richard. At least Corbyn has got the perfect excuse for not visiting Israel. He’s banned. What an hilarious situation if he did get to be PM


            1. my logic is fine Stephen – you just can’t see the truth even when it slaps you in the face. On both cheeks – just on the off chance you misunderstood one of them.

            2. His logic is fine, Stephen. He has stated it as fact.

              You just can’t see David’s version of the truth….. or follow his ‘logic’.

              1. so I produce a report which highlights several examples of people destroying ‘Israeli goods’ in the supermarket and also those same people spreading white supremacist material online, and also those same people denying the Holocaust. And you have trouble following my logic and think it is my fault?

    2. I think there are enough logical fallacies involved to make it worthwhile including an image with the phrase.

  2. Another excellent article, David. I believe that well-meaning do-gooders in the West, often liberal Church congregations (I belong to one), get involved in BDS because they see the intensity felt by their Muslim neighbours on this issue. They allow themselves to believe that Israel is uniquely evil- why else would Muslims get so angry?- and then enjoy that warm glow of standing up to Islamophobia! And of course the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 always portray the Israelis as brutal soldiers and Palestinians as victims.

    1. Ray, the BBC, the Methodists etc care nothing for ‘Palestinians’. It’s pure Jew-hatred.

      1. I’m going to tell you something now that you seem to be completely ignorant of, and write this down, …. Israel is NOT 100% JEWISH. MOST JEWS PREFER NOT TO LIVE THERE.

        Therefore anti-Israel is NOT equivalent to anti-semitic.

        1. That issue isn’t raised at all in the article. The only argument about antisemitism that is raised is the perception that BDS is antisemitic. If Israelis think BDS is antisemitic, at what point will they succumb to its pressure?

          1. David that was a reply to George re. his ‘Jew-hatred’ in the context of BBC, Methodists etc. championing pro-Palestinian actions.

            1. much of the anti-Israel support coming from the church is Jew-hatred. Either in the religious sense (replacement ideology) or classic Christian Jew hate. Are you now suggesting Christianity hasn’t had and doesn’t have a problem with Jews? Do you know how many still think Jews killed their god?

              1. “much of the anti-Israel support coming from the church is Jew-hatred. “??!? Hold that thought, David. …. but please don’t present it as factual.

                Any true Christian would condemn no-one who helped Jesus complete his earthly mission. Remember that Judas was vitally important in the success of that venture and was a necessary catalyst.

                1. That doesn’t address the statement at all. If we seek to discuss theological arguments, then the entirety of the Jesus mission was one of design – and it is difficult to as you say, even criticise the actions of Judas. But I am not a religious man, and the early Christian church was a Jewish one, Christianity evolved within a very real geopolitical context and ‘selling’ Christianity to Rome required a scapegoat. Pilate’s proverbial act of washing his hands was enough to set Christianity on a very antisemitic path. Given the long history of accusations of deicide and the brutal and well recorded Christian persecution of Jews I don’t see there is much room for an argument here. When we add replacement ideology into the mix – well, it just becomes the icing on a very nasty cake.

                  1. As ridiculous I suppose as the modern idea of a true Jew automatically belonging in Palestine having mingled and interbred with others in Eastern Europe for 130 generations. Given that after only 6 generations you have only approx. 1.56% of your GGGG-Grandmother’s DNA can any of those doing Aliya claim the region as their ‘homeland’?

        2. Nearly half the worlds Jews live in Israel, or have extremely strong ties to the country.
          Close to half the population of Israel are decendants of the Jews that were expelled from the Arab/Muslim lands and were welcomed into Israel and fully integrated into Israeli society (with many large and small problems along the way)
          Those Jews who were Ethnically Cleansed from the Arab/Muslim lands were Ethnically Cleansed because they were Jews; solely because they were Jews because many were not Zionists at that time.
          The Arabs that fled what was the Palestine Mandate fled during a civil war and then a war waged by Arab armies against the nascent Jewish State.
          The Jews in Judea & Samaria, which after annexation the Jordanians called the Wast Bank, were Ethnically Cleansed and the area became ‘JUDENFREI’ or Jew free until 1967. That is what is called real Ethnic Cleansing.
          Over 160 000 Arabs remained in the Jewish State after the War of Independance (waiting eagerly for your response here)

          1. I make no excuses for the ethic cleansing of either Jews nor Arabs.

            I notice that you tell me that Jews were ‘ethically cleansed’ while Arabs ‘fled’.

            Over 160,000 Arabs stayed(or were allowed to) while approx 750,000 chose to leave their homes, their livelihoods and their villages(where surprisingly new towns have been built and the names of the villages erased) according to yourself. I hear you.

  3. The fascination I have for the BDS movement is it’s aim to compare Israel to apartheid South Africa. If there was ever a time in the efforts of the pro-Palestine movement to prove their point is when they resort to tactics as dirty as BDS. I have sat in a room where Omar Barghouti, a very uninspiring but otherwise pleasant person, stressed that he was NOT anti-Semitic. I am beyond understanding where anti-Israel and anti-Semitic part ways, but what I am sure of is that if Mr. Barghoouti is not going to alienate himself from the left-wing Jews who saupport Palestine, he must therefore stress that he is not anti-Semitic..

    BDS worked in apartheid SA because that was a genuinely racist government. Israel is completely the opposite and will never gain the support envisaged by Barghoutiu because of Israel’s plura;ism. Here is the irony. Barghouti was born in Qatar. Shouldn’t he be sorting out the issues of slave labour and misogyny in Qatar first. I guess it is that he does not have the guts to take Qatar on.

    1. BDS did not work in South Africa

      South Africa collapsed under the weight of its multiple inconsistancies

      1) a large land area, sparsely populated, thus difficult to defend
      2) 45 million blacks ruled over by 5 million whites – an impossible situation to maintain
      3) the growing economic power of blacks and their power to withold their labour making it impossible to sustain the economy
      4) the inability of whites to both sustain the economy and security due to lack of numbers
      5) whatever was required for military purposes was easily purchased abroad drespite sanctions, and the process of purchase was both simple and quick and no more expensive than if sanctions had not existed

      South Africa as an apartheid state was destined to collapse, and the BDS movement was nothing more than an irritating pin prick in the process

  4. This is awful I am afraid to say. A rolling series of iffy unsubstantiated premises, conclusions that don’t even follow from the iffy premises, that then become iffy premises themselves of further conclusions that don’t even follow from the iffy premises that then become…………

    If David were offering this as a piece of rhetoric, and I have nothing against rhetoric, that would be one thing, but the thrust being about the illogical……

    I say this as one who is not a fan of BDS as it is presently oriented

    1. I didn’t expect you to applaud it Stephen. I think the argument is sound, and provides more than enough evidence to be supportable. There is no difference at all between the maximalist position of the Arab armies of the 1950’s and BDS, nor would BDS hesitate to support the violent actions of those armies. It is vague, it makes outrageous demands and its aims are not measurable. It plays of ignorance, advertises itself as something it is not, and does visibly consider negotiated settlement as a betrayal. Those that engage with it thinking partial boycotts are not tied into the central aims are fooling themselves and have been conned by a strategy that is clearly designed to deliberately con them. It demotivates both sides from negotiations.And of course, if the Jews truly believe that BDS is antisemitic, how on earth can anyone possibly suggest increasing the pressure will work? Not sure what part you disagree with.

      1. He doesn’t know himself. He’s trying to pick holes in your essay and finds himself unable to make the semblance of a rebuttal . You have the intellectual better of him and thus his next comment is likely to be some inane Ad hom . Utterly pathetic

          1. Mikey following our recent exchange and the quasi-civility that may have emerged I have a question in two parts. I speak for nobody here but you can be assured that I will receive your response with courtesy and if I am to remark it will be sensible and reasonable; (1) Do you support BDS? (2) If so what do you hope for as the endgame of it’s endeavours?

            1. (1) Do you support BDS? Yes.

              (2) If so what do you hope for as the endgame of it’s endeavours? The removal of the illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied territories.

                  1. Okay – first I need to reference the quote mentioned in my blog from BDS:

                    “‘BDS is all about context sensitivity. This means that supporters of BDS in any particular context decide what to boycott or divest from, how to pursue their local goals, how to build alliances, and how to campaign–with sensitivity to their own political, cultural and organizational contexts. Partners may decide to boycott only companies implicated in Israel’s occupation, and that is perfectly fine if done tactically, not out of a principled rejection of a full boycott when the circumstances allow it.”

                    Now, you have made a statement that suggests you support BDS in support of “The removal of the illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied territories”

                    So the first premise has to be you are not being deliberately ambiguous. By the use of the terms ‘illegal settlements’ and ‘occupied territories’, almost everyone who seeks a peaceful settlement would assume you are referring to lands captured since 1967. You may have tactically chosen words that are deceptive. That would be a BDS position.

                    Because your position, if honest, directly contradicts BDS. As it is difficult to understand why current circumstances would not allow for you to be open about your goals. For the statement is clear – there are three parts to BDS and you cannot reject any of them. You may choose to tactically only support one, but you are not allowed to reject the principles of the others. Which means, as you state you explicitly support BDS, you are announcing also that your choice of a partial boycott is a tactical one, and in secret you support BDS also because you seek Israel to remove its Jewish character AND for it to stop accommodating Jewish immigration AND for it to be forced to take all the Arab refugees. If you do not seek these things, then you do not support BDS, or you believe BDS is something it is not. Whatever the truth is you can decide for yourself. I just want to thank you for proving a central point of the post.

                    1. Mike’s view of BDS(from their website) is …
                      BOYCOTTS involve withdrawing support for Israel and Israeli and international companies that are involved in the violation of Palestinian human rights, as well as complicit Israeli sporting, cultural and academic institutions.
                      DIVESTMENT campaigns urge banks, local councils, churches, pension funds and universities to withdraw investments from all Israeli companies and from international companies involved in violating Palestinian rights.
                      SANCTIONS campaigns pressure governments to fulfil their legal obligation to hold Israel to account including by ending military trade, free-trade agreements and expelling Israel from international forums such as the UN and FIFA.

                      Now you may have your own understanding of it.
                      I support that which I have shown, David.

                    2. So you also have a reliance on meaningless jargon. Can you respond to the OFFICIAL BDS position on settlement boycotts & thank you for continuing to prove my point.

                    3. I didn’t read jargon, David, and I quoted from their website. Official enough for me.

                      p.s. the post to which I am replying didn’t give me the ability to respond to it directly on your blog. Blog error?

                    4. Mike are you being dishonest and are you really this silly? What you quoted is simply a breakdown of the meaning behind the initials BDS. It has nothing to do with the GOALS of the movement. You explicitly stated you support BDS but at the same time apparently restricted your support only to the 1967 lands. This is a direct contradiction of the position of the movement. It is this naivety and foolishness that BDS preys on. I restate their OFFICIAL POSITION:

                      “‘BDS is all about context sensitivity. This means that supporters of BDS in any particular context decide what to boycott or divest from, how to pursue their local goals, how to build alliances, and how to campaign–with sensitivity to their own political, cultural and organizational contexts. Partners may decide to boycott only companies implicated in Israel’s occupation, and that is perfectly fine if done tactically, not out of a principled rejection of a full boycott when the circumstances allow it.”

                      BDS refers to your own public position as ‘Zionist Friendly’ – you can read about it here: going on to suggest ‘BDS rejects and cannot coexist’ with such partial boycotts.

                      Perhaps this will make it clearer – also from the BDS website:

                      BDS is not about saving Israel as an apartheid state, giving up some occupied lands that are densely populated by Palestinians to make Israel a more pure apartheid, and to prolong the life of this apartheid for several more years.”

                      So it really is a simple question. Do you support the official position of BDS or not. If you do, why are you pretending your issue is only about post 1967 arguments?

                    5. Quite the aggressive arrogant aren’t you, David. Is that your ‘Israeli’ side coming out?

                      Do YOU support Israel’s agenda of expanding its borders?

                  2. You are brow beating with a whole stream of have you quit beating your wife style questions. Mike along with everyone else should be given the space to outline their own position. The hang up about what you call the official position is yours David. BDS is a loose alliance of folks that feel some sort of of boycott and sanctions vis a vis Israel is desirable. Please desist from your bully boy tactics it doesn’t become you. There are no official positions except positions of those that have self appointed as officials

                    You are displaying a very Harveyesque trait of being a prisoner of your own cramped categories

                    1. Well, Stephen, David is attempting to bully but is powerful only within his own imagination.

                      I fear him not …. I’ve been married for more than fifty years!!!

                    2. Oh Stephen, your idea that this ‘is BDS’, that it therefore has no position, and to suggest Mike’s definition is therefore as relevant as let’s say, Omar Barghouti’s, has zero merit. The whole point of BDS is that it is an (artificial) call from within and the founders, and main players are all Palestinian. Mike ‘hears their call’ – so to speak, he can follow it, or he can choose not to.

                      BDS is being used by Mike as a strategy rather than a movement. He is hiding behind his use of the strategy, to seek his own political goals. Like a man standing on the side of a lynch mob, giving it additional power, because he also seeks to do some harm the man in the house at the bottom of the hill. But if, as you suggest, it is just a ‘loose alliance’, then does Mike get to decide at the bottom of the hill what happens to the man? Of course he doesn’t. What makes this even worse, is those at the front have made their statements clear. This is what we want – we want to kill the man – if you do not want all of this – they do not identify with us. Mike saying ‘ but I only want to break his arm’ – is a nonsense position.

                      Lots of people like BDS because at the moment it hasn’t actually done anything. It is just a mob at the top of the hill screaming ‘justice’. And for those who think the guy at the bottom needs to be taken down a peg or two, it’s an attractive option. But it is still what it is, and to pretend it isn’t, or that somehow I am ‘bullying’ Mike (it is really weak nonsense to suggest he is not given a voice because I respond to him) or to pretend it is my lack of vision, rather than his own understanding that is flawed, is pure poppycock. I have sat in the training sessions of the Central Committee – I think their position has more weight than Mike’s does. You argue it does not. That BDS is just a group of guys from the local pub. A group that doesn’t align politically with real world positions in the conflict. Sorry, but that is just silly. BDS in this conflict is not just a strategy – it is a movement.

                    3. Partners may decide to boycott only companies implicated in Israel’s occupation, and that is perfectly fine if done tactically, not out of a principled rejection of a full boycott when the circumstances allow it.

                      The implication here is that otherwise it is not perfectly fine which turns it into a a simple false statement. It is fine for people to express any attitude on the subject they wish.

                      BDS may be a movement but it is a loosely coordinated one. And if it has self appointed leaders they have no authority. They may as well try to herd cats.

                      And if anyone tried to tell me it is fine to have this attitude provided you also have that attitude the response would be a very short one.

    2. I agree with your point Stephen.
      In fact there are several unsubstantiated premises in the article. The biggest one, the gist of the article, seems to be that it sets as a premise taken for granted – a “truism” – that Arab maximalism is the cause of the conflict.
      The argument: if the Arab Maximalist position is responsible for perpetuating the conflict, and if BDS supports the maximalist Arab position, and, then the central function of BDS is to oppose negotiated solution.
      But what about the “IF” at the beginning of the statement? In fact, is Arab maximalism actually the root of the conflict? What if one thinks that Zionism instead is the cause of the conflict?

      Another false premise appears to be: BDS makes an ‘assumption of ability’: the stance of BDS is dependent on the idea that Israel has it within its power to further the cause of peace and chooses not to do so.
      But is it really so? I think I am a supporter of BDS. But I don’t believe Israel has the capability – political, structural, institutional – to solve the conflict. And neither I think Palestinians do. In fact, the structural inability of the parties, and the belief that they will never come to an agreement, is what makes me conclude for BDS as the only possible approach : Israel will never chose to end the occupation, what perpetuates the oppression has external causes and only external forces can, well, force the parties to change their behaviour.

      1. Gabriel, of course the maximalist Arab position is the cause of the conflict. You may believe they were right, as BDS does, but the position created the conflict. You suggest Zionism may have been instead – suggesting the trigger was Zionism and without Zionism there is no maximalist position. That position can be used to argue that a murderer isn’t guilty but rather his victim is, because had he not been born, the murderer would not have murdered him. Suggesting the maximalist Arab position created the conflict is a truism. Had there been a different level of opposition, or a different style of opposition, it is highly unlikely there would have been partition. I have no idea what would the end result would look like today (perhaps a truly bloody different type of conflict), but what we see today – is a result of the Arab position. You can still believe the Arabs were right to oppose it all – as those who support BDS should – but it doesn’t negate the point.

        As for the second point – the post is directed towards adherents of a partial boycott. These people have to believe that Israel is capable of providing peace but chooses not to. You are right, that such an understanding does not have to exist within those that support full BDS – they see the entire enterprise as rotten from the core- but if you believe – as Mike seems to – that there can be peace within a two state situation, then you are most definitely taking up a position that Israel is capable of providing the peace- but chooses not to. It is illogical to suggest otherwise.

        1. The problem is with your belief that an ‘Arab maximalist”‘ position is the cause of the conflict, almost as if to you this was some self-evident truth. I may simply repeat Stephan Bellamy’s note, the fact that you open a phrase with “Of course” does not make it become true. It might be a self-evident theory *to you*, but to me your base assumption is as self-evident as the flat earth conspiracy.
          This is not the only thing that doesn’t work in your reasoning in my opinion, there is another couple of unacceptable points, such as your approach to the question and rights of refugees.
          But going back to the ‘Arab-maximalism-cause-of-the conflict’ theory, I just point out that a genetic problem of Zionism is its original demogrphic goal: it aims at a demographic state and control of land by an ethnic-religious group, a goal which is intrinsically impossible to reach without the dispossession and ethnic cleasning of the other group; and this is coupled with another original sin of Zionism that is of being politically a movement boosted and fostered within and under the umbrella of Europen colonialism, and ideologically, it was an ideology conceived by Europeans as an ethnic-nationalism on the model of some Eastern european nationalisms, that is a volkist movement. This is a concept of nation that is not considered acceptable in today’s Western Europe.
          No people in the world would accept a colonization by people with such a project in their own home. No indigenous population would have ever accepted Zionism in any place in the world.
          On a history timeline, facts and data show that massive violence against Arabs preceeded any significant action carried on by any Arab group against Zionists . In particular, the very first incident with Zionists only occurred as a fallout due to tensions following the extremely brutal repression carried on by the French – supported by the British – against the Arab revolt of Syria. A context in which Lord Balfour was visiting the area as an enthusiast ally of both Zionists and French authorities. When the French army systematically bombed Arab civilians as a method to quench the rebelllion, the British law scholars determined that the Geneva convention did not apply to Arabs, and that they had no right to humanitarian treatment and they could be massacred whenever necessary.
          This only follows by a few years the Balfour declaration which was – correctly – understood by Arabs as a slap in their face of the same kind of Trump’s declaration on Jerusalem – and Lord Balfour himself cleared all doubts about the racist nature of his declaration in the explanation he gave of it in 1919, where he said that the meaning of his declaration ws that the superiority of the Jewish and European tradition is a value more important than the wishes and “prejudices” of the local population, and in “his view” it was “right” to trump them.

          The biggest original sin of Zionism, however, will remain the first one: the fact that ethnic cleansing is a program inbuild within it, since the reality on the ground is that – also because of the religious definition of the concept of “Jewsish”, and because of the demographic goal and the demographic reality – it is impossible to build a “Jewish” nation without uprooting, cleansing or eliminating another people.

            1. It certainly was Mikey and an exemplary use of the Three-Scroller in a social media context.

              It has definitely made me think; If we sinful Zios have been so busy doing our ethnic cleansing how come my Arab dentist and his wife get automatic membership of the Country Club and I have to go on the waiting list?

                1. Didn’t see that question on the Application Form Mikey. Perhaps Gabriel meant that we’ve only be ethnically cleansing those that cannot afford the extortionate membership fees.

                  Maybe the Board of Deputies in the UK should run a guerrilla ad campaign in bus shelters with the slogan “Zionists; ruining ethnic cleansing since 1948”

                  1. “Didn’t see that question on the Application Form Mikey.”

                    Perhaps there’s rules .…. and then there’s nods and winks in Israel.

              1. Another question should be: for each Arab Palestinian who is given free member to a country club in 2018, how many others have been denied citizenship, return or entrance in the country, or were called “infiltrators, over the last 70 years? While at the same time the same country was granting citizenship on a religious basis to people who never had even one documented ancestor in the same country?

                1. Hang on. Just because I mention the preferential treatment given to my Arab dentist and his missus at the Country club you’ve lost interest in talking about ethnic cleansing?

                    1. You were talking about ethnic cleansing initially but I think we can agree that you are now talking about border control and immigration policy from 1948 to date. These are domestic issues normally decided by Israeli MKs elected by Israeli voters. Are you an Israeli voter?

              2. When I talk about ethnic cleansing, I talk exactly about enthinc cleansing. What does ethnic cleansing mean? It means a discriminatory policy that implies the use of means of force against a certain racial/ethnic group in order to prevent such population, entirely or partly, from living in a certain territory.

                One doesn’t need to cleanse the group entirely in order to perpetrate ethnic cleansing. Even if you send away, say, just 50% of that pupulation, it’s still ethnic clenasing.
                Just like genocied does not mean that they try to eliminate the population *entirely*: a policy meant to eliminate let’s say only 10% or 20% of a population, is still a genocide.

                The policy that you call “border” control is ethnic cleansing, since if “border control” is applied to refugees, or anyway a population who are indigenous from that territory or have a right to be in the territory, it is an ethnic cleansing against that group.

          1. Hello Gabriel

            You mention the “genetic problem of Zionism” being “ethnic cleansing” but really, I am not sure that I know what you are referring to. On another thread, Ian pointed a poster to the Israeli national anthem so I looked at the text… Being a free nation is mentioned but “uprooting, cleansing or eliminating another people” is not. The exclusivity of the right of one group to live in a territory seems to come from the Palestinian side, who have much to say about whether Jews can/will live in a future Palestinian state. If we look at past performance, it was the Hebron was Judenrein between 1948 and 1967. As pointed out here and elsewhere, the Arab population both within Israel and the Palestinian population generally, continues to grow.

            Your lack of proof should have been enough to caution a sensible poster from responding further, but one point (and there are many) that sticks out in the above is with regards to the cause of Arab ill will. In your chronology, Arab violence against the Jews commenced following the actions of the French, as well as because of a position adopted by the British. If I read you right. I am pretty sure that there is a better analogy but casting our imaginations back to the conduct of the early 20th century…

            A school prefect [France] uses corporal punishment against a child [Syrian Arabs] (rightly or wrongly). That child subsequently bullies a smaller and weaker child [Mandate Jews] because another prefect has told the two children that they will have to share the sandbox. In what world is any of the violence exacted by the Arabs on the Jews justified?

            Please note that this does not diminish the validity of the argument about sandbox rights. But to suggest that the actions of the prefect (the French bombing in Syria) which -in your chronology- sparked the violence, in causal terms, is terribly remote. At best.

            To some extent, once could understand it if the bullying child exacted revenge upon the prefect. As you will recall the mandate Jews fought the British (rightly and wrongly) for British attitudes, actions and policies against the Jews almost as intensely as they fought the Arabs. The Arabs violence was aimed exclusively at the Jews. Not quite sure where to place the meetings between prominent Palestinian figures who sought to align themselves with the Nazis in the second world war. Were they seeking an alliance against the British, or the Jews? Even if it was both, it doesn’t reflect well on their position. Nor on yours.

            It seems to me that you offer a level of sympathy and understanding towards the Arab position that you do not extend to the Jews of then or Israel of today. Of course, only the Zionists, bear “original sin” (no less). Some would make a judgement on this position, I only make the observation.

            It seems a bit redundant to ask, but based on the totality of your post, please could you state in a word whether you think that the State of Israel has a right to exist. Yes or no?

            Thanks in advance

            1. A question.

              If Israel decl ared part of the West Bank ‘State Land’ and moved any Arabs from that land, would that be ethnic cleansing. Just curious.

              1. You haven’t offered a lot of detail for your example so it’s hard to make a determination added to which, I am not an international lawyer. I can let you have the UN page on ethnic cleansing:


                You will note that there is no clear legal definition which makes it an even harder call.

                Using the terms ‘ethnic cleansing’ and ‘eliminating another people’ together has, to me, a more sinister feel than the example that you have provided. Does that help?

            2. Does the State of Israel have a right to exist?

              By stating this, I’m not saying that Israel shouldn’t exist. Neither that a world where Israel doesn’t exist it is better than one where it exists. Nor that I don’t want it to exist.
              I’m saying that it doesn’t have a *right* to exist.

              It might well exist and I might be happy with its existence. But it doesn’t have a *right* to.

              The reason why it doesn’t have a “right to exist” – whatever you mean by it – is that states, like all human insitutions, don’t have any such “right”. Only human beings have a right to exist. States or istitutional entities don’t have a “right to exist.”
              No state has a “right to exist”.

              States are institutions that are supposed to exist only insofar as they serve an interest of their citizens and population, otherwise they are suppressed and/or reformed or replaced by other institutions. In fact states are not living beings, they don’t “di” and are not “destroyed”, they evolve and they may change their institutional nature, their shape, their features, name, traditions and so on.

              Many states have ceased to exist even over recen history – starting from the biggest one, the Soviet Union – states are dissolved and changed all the time. They merge, they secede, they change into federations, they give up sovereignity and create unions, they change their national ideology, regime, name or national ethos. Iran was Persia, Myanmar was Burma, Congo was Zaire, Democratic Deuthsch Republick doesn’t exist enymore…

              Is Israel sacred? No. Why should it be?
              If anyone thinks that the state of Israel as it is now should be dismantled, well, that is just a legitimate political aim, just as much as it would be for any other state. As was legitimate to wish to dismantle East Germany or as it is legitimate for Catalunia to pursue the tearing apart of Spain. I’m not saying that it is a good idea, I’m just saying it’s just a legitimate idea, just like any other political position.

              I won’t go through the details of your other anaolgies in this post. I’ll just say that – while my disagreement from the Zionist narrative is quite more deep and sees history differently through the whole time line, not just limited to the sparkle of the French colonialism, and I point out that ethnic cleansing is indeed a goal inbuilt in Zionism from the very firs concieving of it – I reject the analogy on the specific point: Zionists were not seen by Arabs as an “innocent kid” as something separate and opposed to the French and British oppressors. Indeed Zionism and European colonialism were perceived by Arabs as two parts of a same system, like two pieces of a same machine.

              As for the purported will of “ethnic cleansing” on the part of Palestinians, and those false claims that PA pursues a “judenrein” territory, I’ll just paste anarticle about what Palestinian authorities actually declared (Hanan Ashrawi): “Yes to Jews, no to settlers in our state”


              1. Gabriel

                My question was clumsily put, so thanks for your clarification. In the light of this my question should have been , is it your position that the State of Israel should be dismantled. Yes or no?

                With regards to the ethnic cleansing of Jews, I merely pointed out past Arab performance (1949-1967) although it is noted that this was the Jordanian as opposed to the future position of a Palestinian state. Once again, I would point out to you the reliance and faith that you place on Hanan Ashrawi/Palestinian position. This is strange when the actual position is at odds with this. The Palestinian Tabo permits the acquisition of land in PA areas by holders of Palestinian ID holders only. This of course excludes non-Palestinian Israelis or Jews from acquiring or owning land.

                This is again contrasted with the lack of faith that you have in Israel, whom allow the purchase and ownership of land by all.

                In contrast, you seem to take the Arab/Palestinian position at face value. The Arabs/Palestinians are absolved from any responsibility, even when the evidence (both historical and current) points to the contrary.

                There does not seem to be any balance at all in your position.

                You accuse Zionism of a biblical style “original sin” of ethnic cleansing yet have offered no proof. Whilst I am not suggesting that the Jews/Israel were completely blameless in the battle for the establishing the State of Israel, but I cannot see the inherent (my word) genetic /original sin ingrained in the tenets of Zionism. A genetic problem/original sin would be something which is at the absolute core essence of Zionism. The original genetic material of Zionism would be contained in the Jewish religion, which forms the basis of the yearning to return to Zion. If so, please can you what is the source of this position? Or are you seeking to separate Zionism from Judaism? If so, what is the evidence of the genetic/original sin of the first Ayilot of the late nineteenth century? Where is the original sin? Where is the genetic problem?

                All of this said, if you answer to the first question is yes, perhaps this discussion is a waste of time.

                Sincerely hoping not.

                1. In my view, a difference between Judaism and Zionism can be seen as equivalent to the difference between Islam and Islamism.
                  Islam is a religion – or an “identity” – whereas Islamism is an ideology, a political use of Islam.
                  Zionism is not Judaism, while it can be seen as an interpretation of Judaism, it is a political interpretation of Judaism, like Islamism is a political interpretation of Islam. Those who belive those interpretation would think theirs is “the” (right) interpretation of Islam or Judaism.
                  However, from an objective point of view, Judaism is a religion, while Islamism and Zionism are political ideologies and as such they can be well object of ideologic opposition fight.

                  I did not use exactly the term “original sin”, however the exact religious term “original sin” referred to Israel was used by Joseph Algazy on Haaretz, then picked by Doninique Vidal (Le péché originel) on Le Monde.

                  About the “essence” of Zionism I found interesting this article of today by Jonathan Ofir:

          2. I found the use of the words/phrase ‘Original Sin’ quite telling.
            You are introducing the religous terminology to denigrate Israel by implying that it is religously abhorent in terms of the ‘original sin’ in the story of ‘Adam and Eve’
            Very clever use of words, but thoroughly disingenuous.
            The Israeli/Arab conflict is a ‘temporal affair’ with religous overtones.

  5. In other words, if BDS supports the maximalist Arab position, and the Arab Maximalist position is responsible for perpetuating the conflict, then a central function of BDS is to oppose negotiated settlement.

    Lets just have a closer look at this since David seems anxious to prove that ” a central function of BDS is to oppose negotiated settlement”

    Leaving aside the iffy premises for the moment the conclusion is junk vis a vis those premises.

    Negotiators typically adopt maximilist positions not least the Israelis.

    Jerusalem is the capital of Israel

    Israel will never give up the Jordan Valley.

    You can’t get any more maximilist than that. David tells us that the whole of Jerusalem is rightfully Israeli. He doesn’t tell us the source or basis of these rights with any degree of lucidity. No matter. Because David goes on to tell us that this position does not amount to an abrogation of the idea of final status negotiations, Israel in its magnanimity and famous generosity might decide to give a bit of it away. In the same way the uk might one day decide to give Portsmouth away. This is a good analogy since both are equally likely.

    So maximilist Palestinian positions amount to opposition to negotiated settlement but maximilist Israeli positions don’t.

    1. Mikey and I have a new understanding as part of a 2018 rapprochement whereby we converse respectfully and honestly so let’s try the same with you Bellers. If we accept that the maximilist Israeli position DOES amount to opposition to a negotiated settlement can we also accept that the maximilist Arab position does as well?

      1. Don’t much care Ian. I merely am pointing out that David has not demonstrated that a BDS advocate has adopted a position in opposition to negotiation. Personally I think negotiating with Israelis in the present power imbalance is a waste of time and is for the birds. But that is just what I think. Wouldn’t claim to be able to prove it.

      2. Please, Ian, though you have written a seemingly out-of-character post hinting at a change of tone from yourself I don’t feel that you can speak on my behalf to Stephen.


        1. If you re-read my post Mikey you will see that the only point that I made was that we were conversing respectfully and honestly. It is unreasonable of you to conclude from this that I was speaking for you. How could I ? We are strangers to each other. I am not to be deterred from my resolution to be civil and fair minded.

    2. Boy are you wide of the mark. BDS don’t negotiate with anyone. They refuse to recognise Israel, and consider even listening to an Israel as legitimising the illegitimate. You are comparing apples and duvet covers. It isn’t about a ‘position’ over final status, it is a movement that sees final status negotiations as a threat. Read what Karmi wrote (quoted in the article) – it is a position clearly set out to delegitimise negotiated settlement. The three no’s. Whether you are in Nasser’s army, setting out to conquer ‘the whole of Palestine by force’, or part of the BDS central committee planning how much damage can be done to the state diplomatically – the aims are the same. You would view anyone willing to settle for less as a traitor. The role of BDS is not to create a better negotiating position – and those who engage it as such have been taken for a ride.

      1. The PA recognised Israel, and its right to exist, waaaaaay back in ’93. Much good has it done them. Now Israel has moved the goalposts to avoid peace by insisting the the PA now recognise it as ‘The Jewish State’.

        1. You make many points that I can see making sense to you when viewed through your lens Mikey. However I am an Israeli and have a very different view as you know and the truth is that we simply don’t trust the Arabs and will never again cede an inch of our land to them in the vain hope of a worthwhile outcome. We simply don’t believe that will ever happen and we value the lives of our citizens far too much to take the gamble again. I know that you find this position repellent but I am not going to apologise for it nor try to change your mind. That’s just how it is and you and I will certainly live and die with the status quo. Our state will endure and thrive because we have laid strong foundations and our endeavours will continue despite the efforts of our opponents. When I lived outside my country I often wondered why we did so little to rebutt the mendacity of groups like BDS and others. It is only having returned here that I have realised that we just have much bigger fish to fry.

  6. That’s just dishonesty Bellers. You introduced the dichotomy and then when I follow it up you say ‘ I don’t much care’. Do you mean you didn’t care about your own point or you don’t care about responding to a clarification question?

    I appreciate that this is not one of your newer tactics as I’ve flagged up the ingenious ‘not arsed’ shut-down to others that have attempted to ask you honest questions but I thought that you were trying to make a proper point, an element of which I actually agreed with. I was mistaken.

    1. I don’t think it follows from someone ( whoever they are) having a maximilist position that they are opposed to negotiation . In fact it quite clearly doesn’t.

      1. OK It is possible that someone can have a MP and be opposed to negotiations. Both attitudes can be the case together, But one doesn’t follow from the other. David seems to be relying on some BDSers having a MP establishing that BDS is opposed to negotiations.

        It doesn’t work. He needs to establish that a weighted basket of BDSers express an opposition to negotiations. If he can do that fine. It won’t trouble me. I am not a fan of negotiations myself.

        1. In the matter of negotiations as they apply to Israel we agree again. Unhappily, like many of the comments in these threads there is very little evidence of honesty.

  7. Just had to share this

    28 Dec 2017

    To be fair, Israel is itself a steaming pile of sewage which needs to be properly disposed of.


    Bullshit diplomacy: Israel bought the UN vote of tiny Nauru by giving it a sewage treatment plant.

  8. Is it only BDS against Israel that you support?

    Or do you support BDS against the probabaly 140 plus countries that dispense far more egregarious human rights violations against their own or other populations under their control?

    Do you support BDS agaist the dozens of countries that have invaded and occupied and/or annexed other countries and territories? Examples of this include Morrocco (Western Sahara), Russia (Crimea/Ukraine, Chechnya, the Caucasus), China (Tibet, South China Sea) etc. (this is not an exhaustive list by any means).

    A popular way to deflect attention from accusations against double standards is to claim that you agree that many countries should also be BDS’d. The proof that your commitment to BDS against other countries is just empty rhetoric would be your total lack of proof of any effort and endeavour employed by yourself and others in pursuit of BDS against those countries.

    That is why the obsessive focus of BDS against Israel by the anti-Israel brigade is bigoted and displays an extreme double standard that in some cases slips into anti-Jewish bias and hatred.

    This is not accusing everyone who critisizes Israel of being anti-Jewish Antisemitic bigots. I am making the accusation that many who critisize Israel do so because they hate Jews and that this is an excellent way to disguise their hate. Unfortuneately those genuinely critisizing Israel are tarred by the same charges of Antismitism as those real haters.

    1. “Do you support BDS agaist the dozens of countries that have invaded and occupied and/or annexed other countries and territories? Examples of this include Morrocco (Western Sahara), Russia (Crimea/Ukraine, Chechnya, the Caucasus), China (Tibet, South China Sea) etc. (this is not an exhaustive list by any means).”

      Does Richard condemn the above countries for their actions?

      Isn’t Russia suffering International criticisms and sanctions for its Crimea activities? Yet Israel is appeased at every turn.

    2. No, I avoid products from many countries because of their record.

      Now, Richard, do YOU criticise those countries that occupy and annex as Israel does?

    3. The first country I became active against was France in 1995, because of its nuclear tests.
      Then the biggest demonstration I ever remember in my town was in protest against the USA and the Italian government for the Kosovo war. I campaigned against the 2001 war in Afghanistan and I actively campaigned and boycotted the USA at the time of the Iraqi invasion (2002).

      However, the real problem with your argument is that there is nothing such as a “double standard” to point out, because there is no “standard” in the first place: those “boycots” are not moral actions, they are political actions. Activism is something political, not “moral”. It doesn’t exist in an abstract space of moral values. It is an action within the political space, that is the space of relations between subjects, it is relational, and it depends entirely on political relations. The parents scold the child not just because the child behaves badly, but primarily because it is *their* own child, the child’s behaviour affects them not others, they won’t scold just unknown kids who behave badly: it’s a political action, not a moral action.

      The basic concept of BDS seems also to be misunderstood. The boycot is never really “against a country”, even though it has this content, it is not direct: the BDS is actually always meant to influence politics, mostly primarily internal politics of one’s own country, and the purpose of BDS is to have some function. One may choose that kind of strategy on those instances when one mey think it’s politically appropriate, that is, that it works. That it can change things by influencing domestic politics.

      Many countries are not an object of BDS campaigns but Apartheid South Africa was. And, curious enough, there was indeed a peculiar link between Apartheid South Africa and Israel, since Israel was the only country in the world who openly legitimized apartheid and recognized the bantustans.

  9. The PLO and all the various Palestinian factions have not altered or deleted the fact that they still call for the eradication of Israel in any borders.
    Saying they have recognized Israel is pure meaningless rhetoric to confuse the western ‘useless idiots’ (using Stalins eloquent, but derogatory description of supporters, who blind themselves from the truth in the pursuit of absolute solidarity with the cause)

  10. Having to reference jewdas is truly scraping the bottom of the proverbial barrel.
    Their outlook is as twisted and distorted as that of JVP in the US. The JVP name is an oxymoron

    1. Yes . Bringing out the big guns . Naughty Jewish kids who go home Friday night for family kiddush and mums best chicken soup .

      1. Why wouldn’t they Harv ? They are Jews. I am no expert but I would think that was the kind of thing Jewish kids do. Mostly they just want the Israel thing off their backs so they can have fun being Jewish. And the parties……… I went to the one in Whitechapel featuring Daniel Kahn. Brilliant. Harv when was the last time you had fun ? I can almost write your response for you. It was the time Bruce Levy slipped on a banana skinnand broke his ankle right ?

  11. Answer the question.

    Don’t obfuscate; don’t try to confuse the issue with small talk.

    Don’t deflect from the question by bringing in the wholly inappropriate issue of my beliefs, when the question is related entirely with your beliefs vis-a-vis Israel and BDS.

    The treatment of Russia by the world is but a mere drip in the ocean compared to the treatment meted out to Israel.

    Israel has its own special sessions at the UN dedicated to slandering the Jewish state annually (a situation suffered only by Israel; by Israel alone amongst all the 190 something members and hangers on at the UN).

    The UN Human Rights Council dedicates more time to Israel than the rest of the world combined.

    The Palestinian ‘refugees’ have their own dedicated UN agency, UNWRA, and are the only refugees in the world that receive ‘hereditary refugee status’.

    The western ‘lefty liberal neo-fascist coalition’ has OCD (obsessive control disorder) with Israel/Jews that is unhealthy, bordering on a serious phobia.

    Do read this entirely, and then attempt to answer the original question.

  12. Didn’t realise you were being witty due to general postings.
    But glad to see an element of humour in the bleak landscape that confronts us.
    Keep it up ? as we all need to smile ?

  13. “Didn’t see that question on the Application Form Mikey.”

    Perhaps there’s rules …. and then there’s nods and winks in Israel.

    1. Evidently Mikey, and keeping a focus on Gabriel’s point above about our ethnic cleansing it has made me wonder again.

      Perhaps there is a secret system of nods and winks that the Arabs have developed to dupe us; One nod, one wink means ‘I’ve got an S500 Merc outside and am good for the Platinum membership’, two winks means ‘You get mates’ rates on your kids braces’ and three winks and a nod means ‘don’t ethnically cleanse me or your next root canal will be done without anesthetic’

        1. So, with their private dental practices, country club memberships, flash German motors an now hooky conservatory extensions when do these guys find the time to be ethnically cleansed?

          1. Doesn’t take long to be ethnically cleansed. Jewish milita on thre e sides of the village and attack it. Only one way out, Ian.

            Then create some myth that their leaders cajoled them into leaving for a holiday by a broadcast.

          2. Let me offer a summary of where we are here, to the best of my understanding.

            There is this flash country club somewhere between the river and the sea. Ian wants to be let in but despite being able to afford the exhorbitant subscriptions he is ignominiously told to get in line and that they will get back to him sometime.

            On the other hand his dentist, being an Arab , is invited to walk straight in.

            What a wonderful example of Israeli positive discrimination. The dentist guy or his kin don’t even have to serve in the IOF and risk getting their arses kicked by teenage girls.

            Thinking this story is apocryphal, a politeism for wholly made up bullshit.

  14. Not many Jewish militiamen at the Country Club Mikey Only pool attendants and the kids club staff schmoozing my dentist in ways I can only dream of. I’m going to apply for UNWRA aid to buy my way in. I’m being discriminated against!!

      1. You’ve made that remark 11 time’s now in various threads Mikey and I haven’t understood it on any of them. What do you mean?

        1. The script ..
          Gaza was Israeli land given away to others.
          Any Jew(or convert to Judaism) has a right to live anywhere in Palestine because Jews populated the region for a while millenia ago.
          Anyone who criticises Israel’s actions are ‘islamofascists’
          Jews are indigenous to the region.
          Jews invented the computer, the mobile phone and everythjng else that Israeli critics need in their lives ….
          Blah blah blah ….

  15. Oh I see. What has any of that got to do with my Arab dentist and his successful evasion of Gabriel’s ethnic cleansing.

    1. Ethnic cleansing is a policy meant to pressure people of a ceretain ethnic group for their transfer or displacement from a territory and/or not allowing displaced people of a certain ethnic group to come back to their place of origin, or prevent people of a certain ethnic group from settling on a territory because of their ethnic group – and to implement such policy by means of force.

      I think the concept is not very difficult to understand.

    1. You’ve lost me with your script Mikey. Whose script? I’m guessing it must have been made up by an opponent. No Israeli would call the Jewish State Palestine.

      1. The Ziomists’ script, Ian.

        But Israelis would contend that Palestine should be all theirs i.e. Israel.

        1. Mikey, I am not to be deterred from my commitment to civility and reasonableness so you’ll have to accept that I mean no ill – will towards you here. I’m just not sure what you’re saying. Your ‘script’ just looks like a list of responses you’ve received when you’ve made your own assertions to opponents and received an inconvenient reply. You also seem to have added vocab of your own. For example what is an ‘Islamofascist’? I have never heard that word. I have heard ‘ZioNazi’ but only from people on your side of the argument. Are they similar? I think you’re also aware that the invention of the computer as we understand it now is credited to Charles Babbage who was British and the mobile phone to Martin Cooper who was American. I don’t think either of them were Jewish so why are they in your script? I’m afraid you’ve lost me with your point here and the extent to which it relates to Gabriel’s remarks about ethnic cleansing. Although you will note above that he has dropped that and is now keener to talk about our immigration policy.

          1. For example what is an ‘Islamofascist’?

            Exactly, it’s a term much on UKMediawatch by pro-Israeli posters. You must have an old copy.

  16. Not really Mikey. I’m not an activist like you and many of the others here that use all of this vocab. I just read and admire David’s work. You are making too many assumptions but I suppose it must be part of your job spec. So what does the word mean?

  17. No, sorry Mikey, I didn’t understand that at all. Are you saying that I am a fascist for criticizing Israel ?Are you saying that you’are too? I’m not following this at all. As I mentioned I am not an activist just a normal reader. Got to be honest though; not too keen on being accused of fascism but again I am unmoved from my wish to remain civil and polite.

    1. I think you understand. Perhaps you should re-read my posts. If necessary have a friend explain them to you.

      I trust that that your “wish to remain civil and polite.” is a resolution and not a mask, Ian.

  18. You have just called me a fascist Mikey with no provocation whatsoever and despite this I have maintained a level of civility and respect when responding to your posts despite them being a little confusing and notwithstanding your own rudeness. Your aim may be to goad me into unreasonable behaviour but I will not deviate from my resolve. If you are unable to accept my bona fides then this is no longer my issue.

    1. “You have just called me a fascist Mikey”??!?

      I take it that English is not your first language.

      1. Evidently not Mikey but in the spirit of honesty and decency I will make allowances. It is always difficult to second guess the nuance of text when written by strangers and there is always the tendency to give the worst interpretation especially when there may be existing antipathy between the parties. From your previous remarks, if truthful, you appear to be a person in his seventh decade. You assert that you are not a troll, nonetheless I imagine that your opinions and prejudices were fixed irrevocably years ago and are highly unlikely to change at this point in your life. Naturally this renders any attempt to engage sensibly with you as a redundant exercise. In any event I think we both understand that, like Bellers engagement is not your role here. You’re not from Congleton, Cheshire by any chance?

          1. Persian Mikey. Kicked out with the Shah. I’m a refugee and so are my kids. Thank heavens for the UNHCR eh?

  19. Blimey David the brave activists on the opposite benches are cross with you today. Have you won another award or something?. Even the Bedouin brickie has shunned his usual tactics and is resorting to full on rudeness. As a real warrior once said “They don’t like it up ’em Captain Mainwaring”

      1. Aaah, I see. Over 40K views with seemingly majority approval. With that sort of reach and response I can see why they’re panicking. Great work as ever David.

        1. “With that sort of reach and response” I sincerley hope that there were no programmers among the respondents.

      2. David, video was fine. Your attention was being drawn to the dishonest/flawed text. I wonder if Ian thinks that your logic is 100%.

          1. Ah, ‘logically’ that would be your choice from False/True/EvenMoreTrue, Ian. Yeah, right.

  20. You’ve twittered an example of your logic, David. That you now still apply that same logic is testament to your ability in that area.

  21. It’s taken me a while to get gist of all this activism but after 12 months or so I reckon I’ve got it sussed. David posts a side to an argument which is detailed, supported by references and honestly presented. Opponents with their own non-specific axes to grind appear and call him names, pretend to be aghast at non-issues, deflect to areas where they think an easy wound can be inflicted, chuck out some personal grudges and then sneak back into the shadows with a smirk and a “Ha! that told him. Win for me!” Dead easy this game. I wish you many more years of successful reporting David and hope that these are the most brutal opponents you will ever face.

    1. pretty much, although as I have mentioned, I do learn sometimes from some of the exchanges. The trick I think is not to get dragged into pointless exchanges. As I am constantly looking to explore analogies, I do need to run them in, or build on them, and I tend to give them a trial run before they are truly developed. Sometimes, before they are fully formulated, I am not yet certain if they will work or not. The Halal butcher one is a good example – and it seems to have legs. There are many similarities between the two situations (a spate of attacks on Halal butchers by animal rights activists that were openly described as Islamophobic, and support for BDS, which by the same people is not seen as antisemitic).

      As for Mike and co…a month ago it was the ‘peer review’ issue, now it is my logic. All I can say is that they sure seem to spend a lot of time hanging around what to them, seems to be a worthless, badly researched, illogical and weakly argued blog. Makes you wonder why….

      1. “Makes you wonder why?”… because your blog doesn’t gel with ‘The Truth Matters’?

      2. As I mentioned David, may this be the extent of the savagery that ever rails against you. I reckon you’ll cope.

  22. Aaaah Mikey, you old booby. All that was missing from that post was the additional “Hehehe. That told him”.

  23. Stop being a fluff ball Stephen, and answer the question.
    You have proven that you were only pretending to be stupid, so your continuing failure to describe why you call Israel a ‘basket case’ can only mean that you have no explanation and that the comment is purely a meaningless and asinine aside to pass the time

  24. Study history. That is the whole of history.
    Things are in constant motion.
    Some groups prosper while others don’t.
    The Palestinians thought they could beat the Jews by a particular strategy, and they have been complaining that that strategy had failed ever since.
    Problem is the western lefty liberal neo-fascist coalition has conned them into believing that if they follow the same strategy over and over again they may win

    1. Neo-fascist you say?

      Neo-fascism : Neo-fascism is a post–World War II ideology that includes significant elements of fascism. Neo-fascism usually includes ultranationalism, populism, anti-immigration policies or, where relevant, nativism, anti …

      Ultranationalism? Anti-immigration (except Jewish)? Nativism? ….. Isn’t Israel a striking example of these?

  25. Oi, David, who do you think you’re kidding with that lovely Israeli Palestinian handshake graphic? You’re just a shill for Israel’s far right racist government

    1. Wow!!! Vicious critique David. Is there anything worse in life than being called names by an anonymous stranger on social media? You must have kept yourself up laughing..

  26. Stephen; who told you that Corbyn was banned from Israel?
    Perchance it was the notorious ‘tooth fairy’ or some other such mythological creature.

  27. Dick Mullet; did Berlusconi ever claim to be Israelt? Or are you venturing into the world of context free, vacuous statements?

  28. Gabriel; Etfnic Cleansing was most definately the policy followed by Arab/Muslim states in the MENA region to dispose of virtually their entire Jewish populations for the mere fact that they werte Jewish over the period from 1948 to the mid 1970s’. Almost the entire Jewish population of the MENA region that had existed for circa 3000 years was destroyed in less than 40 years. That is real Ethnic Cleansing.

    And the Jews of Judea & Samaria (known as the West Bank since Jordans annexation in 1951) and East Jerusalem were 100% Ethnically Cleansed by the British officered Jordanian Legion in 1948. Now that was Ethnical Cleansing in its pure and unadultrerated form

  29. Gabriel; using mondoweiss as a reference point for unbiased, factual information on Israel/Zionism is akin to using the 1930s’ German ‘Der Sturmer’ for factual, unbiased information on Jews

  30. “That is real Ethnic Cleansing.”?

    … and with absolutely nowhere to go.

    Hang on a minute … perhaps they could have moved to the newly created state of Israel.

    …. but where would they be housed?

    Hang on a minute …. perhaps they could move into houses where the Arabs had been driven out ….

  31. But they were not settled in Arab houses which were mostly left abandoned.
    They were mostly settled in ‘ma’aborot’ in the south, in the Negev , in the Galilee, and the north.
    These camps were mainly tent towns established by the state to house these Jewish refugees.
    The Jewish refugees arrived with very little and the fledgling state of Israel was in a perilous financial state as well.

    But the Jews settled and absorbed their refugee kin from wherever in the world they came.
    The Arabs kept their refugees in a state of limbo, to be used as a propoganda weapon against the Jews of Israel.
    The difference is striking.

    The western ‘lefty liberal neo-fascist’ coalition were taken in hook ,line and sinker. Stalin is purported to have called these westererners his ‘usefol idiots’

  32. Because you disagree with the term ‘lefty liberal neo-fascist’ coalition does not mean it is wrong.
    Your meaningless one liner reply offers no explanation as to why you call it an oxymoron, and why you call it a buzzword.

    The description of the anti-Israel forces as the ‘lefty liberal neo-fascist’ coalition is in my opinion perfectly apt. The liberal left display intolerance and bigotry towards Israel in exactly the same manner as neo-fascists. A litany of half-truths, conspiracy theories, trhe acceptance without verification of every malign charge against Israel, and the demonstrable double standards and demonisation against only Israel are all manifeastations of the extreme bigotry directed towards Israel.

    If you would like to offer an intelligent explanatory riposte to the above, it would be most appreciated. But please keep it factual,or if its opiniated, please highlight that fact

    1. It’s my opinion that liberal and fascist have opposite connotations.

      It’s my opinion that pro-Israelis use terms such as fascist, islamofacisct etc. as dressing to infer that Israeli actions are anything but.

  33. liberal and fascist should be polar opposites.
    In the context I have used, I perceive them as being ‘two sides of the same coin’.
    Liberals treat Israel in the same way as fascists treat Jews. The language and the way it is used,is interchangeable between Zionist/Israel and Jew.
    Liberals treat Israel as a pariah that is capable of only evil, while ignoring and whitewashing the actions of the Palestinians so that it appears they can do no evil.
    No person/state/organisation is capable of only good or only evil.
    Israel has contributed to the general health and educational attainment of the Palestinians ( they have the longest life span of any Arab populace, and before 1967 there were no Universities etc, whereas today under Israeli rule there are many)
    Human rights (HR) are abused and misused by the Palestinian Authority and Hamas on their respective populations,wheras all citizens of Israel have their HR mostly upheld ,irrespective of race, creed and/or religion.
    Not all liberals feel the same about Israel, but in my experience the intolerance and extreme bigotry they direct towards Israel is why I liken them to fascists

    1. Old Bellers likes to respond to posts like this with his little homily “…… like when apartheid supporters used to say we have the happiest blacks on the continent” It’s his little scene-lander that he hopes will move the thread away from choppy waters onto safer ground where he can make everyone think we’re like those meanies from Rhodesia. Happy to have saved you the bother Bellers.

Comments are closed.