during apartheid.

Israel is an apartheid state and divestment is a non-violent way for opponents of it to attack it.

...wasn't so ridiculously anti-Jewish.

As it is, the KKK''s very own David Duke has praised the hateful tract and PCUSA's efforts.

But i did miss you though, even though we rarely agree.

Israel could end the occupation, BDS does not have the power some seem to think.
Those boycotting brings attention to the barbaric occupation that is not possible to defend.

But Bibi won't end the occupation, he and his buddies proved that with Kerry.

Almost 50 years now.

On edit: What does the red font represent?

They also don't mention they support Israel retaining most of the West Bank.

BDS advocates are for the destruction of Israel, so Israel is very unlikely to go along with the BDS agenda.

Note, they offered no substance on what methods should be used to end the occupation..none.

They are critical of BDS, but this group is not behind that..so why isn't JStreet supporting it?

Israel cannot be pressured to leave the entire W.Bank unilaterally. At most, they'll withdraw from some of it due to the risk of it becoming like Gaza. Israel's citizens aren't suicidal as they know that Iran and Hamas will make their moves once the IDF leaves.

Why not let the people of Israel decide what's best? Let democracy rule. It's obvious Israel's citizens aren't in favor of unilateral withdrawal, at least not to the extent BDS wants it.

Ending the occupation shouldn't be the goal, however.

The goal should be ending the conflict, agreed? BDS isn't about ending the conflict.

from BDS. JStreet offered NO solutions to end the occupation in their critical opinion
response. Their support of Israel to keep most of the West Bank is disgusting.

Israel's must leave all of the WB, it is not their land to keep, period.

BDS has not gained further support as I have said numerous time here, because they
will not proclaim their distinctions. Yet that is not what this group is supporting and
JStreet's words ring hollow.

If there is not a viable state for the Palestinians, there will not be peace...that is the key.

The solution is the same as it always was, negotiated settlement per UNSCR 242, 338 and 1515.

All the BDS, Demonization and Deligitimization aimed at Israel can't make those SC res's go away.

The advisory ruling of 2004 makes a great deal clear of their rights...including East Jerusalem.

Don't fool yourself that there won't be more groups like this one, who make the distinction
between BDS and what they are doing won't catch on.

Each time one does so, it brings more attention to the American public and weakens
Israel's false narrative on the continued occupation that is getting close to 50 years.

Nothing to celebrate there.

state for the Palestinians. It is in their best security interests and would begin to
end their poor reputation on the world stage.

BDS would still call for full right-of-return and 1-state.

How would this benefit anyone?

as seen here

as there is only one occupier any withdrawal would be unilateral, unless of course you believe the Palestinians should withdraw from what is referred to as the West Bank, but withdraw to where-Jordan?

....along with Syria, Iran, Lebanon, etc. once Israel withdraws?

for there to be a Palestinian state?
However as for the Palestinians yes there would be an end to conflict-that is given Israel doesn't fulfill its prophecy/promise to turn the West Bank into another Gaza

I mean, seriously? With no right-of-return?

Yes or No?

Those foreign entities wouldn't allow Hamas and Islamic Jihad to make peace with Israel.

a fine example of negotiating skills

so now Hamas is under the control of who again-Syria? Iran? Lebanon? no in fact the support from the first 2 has pretty well withered and Lebanon supported Hamas?

...once Israel withdraws from the West Bank?

Seriously?

let me know okay but please do keep going on here

Hamas and Islamic Jihad would agree to an end of conflict with Israel once Israel withdraws, in your view?

Hamas and IJ will continue to exist regardless of the means by which Israel withdraws from the West Bank-so your question is mere rhetoric in any event , however Hamas and IJ will have little choice but to end the conflict as long as there is a viable Palestinian state and Israel completely withdraws and does not use some context to place the West Bank under a permanent siege similar to Gaza that said the border between Palestine and Jordan should be controlled by the PA

You say it as though there's no question it would happen, but why would they call an end to the conflict and suddenly start getting along with Israel?

so exactly what are you suggesting here?

So why should Israel think unilateral withdrawal would benefit them?

in your opinion

What you're calling for will only make the conflict worse. No one will benefit from Iran & Hamas taking over the WB, shooting rockets from there, starting another war....

at least in your opinion

That includes Hamas.

his desire for peace then apparently nothing is good enough

Israel could, tomorrow, begin to settle this..they have no intention of doing it.

Ask Kerry.

...once Israel withdraws to the '67 lines. Where do u see in any of their rhetoric or actions that once Israel withdraws, the conflict is over? They wouldn't be Hamas and Islamic Jihad anymore if they weren't trying to kill the hated Jews.

In fact, the Gaza withdrawal of 2005 proves you wrong. At a time when Israel was withdrawing from Gaza and parts of the W.Bank (with significantly more withdrawal from the W.Bank being considered) Hamas and IJ decided to take the conflict to a higher level, increasing rocket attacks. They could've laid low and waited for Israel to withdraw from more of the W.Bank, but they couldn't stop themselves from being who they are.

You seem to believe that once Israel withdraws, then the conflict ends. No one in Israel, except for maybe a handful of twisted radicals who'd be hard pressed to fill a small room, believes that nonsense. This is one reason your positions are considered extreme and delusional.

which is constructed to enable Israel to keep land that does not belong to them.

That is your only objective here, it is pretty obvious.


At least this time you left out the Iran meme...Bibi recently made an idiot out of himself
on NPR about it.

You have Bibi talking points, all excuses to avoid a peace deal.

It is delusional to equate winning a deal that will leave the Palestinians without
a viable state and even imagine for a second that will bring peaceful coexistence.

There's no one credible within the USA or Israel calling for Israel to completely withdraw to the '67 lines and then expecting to see the conflict end, with Hamas and Islamic Jihad going away peacefully.

No one.

Total delusion.

is not legally entitled to Palestinian land.

and Israel is legally entitled to occupy all hostile territory until after the aggressor surrenders on their terms, which may include redefining borders and maintaining a continued occupation to keep the peace as was done in Germany and Japan.

The international bodies, UN, UNHRC, UNSC, human rights groups: AI, HRW,
B'tselem..and others recognize that what you aspire to does not exist in
reality except for the most deluded of opinions.

Nothing you have stated bears legal support.

The catastrophe in Gaza that resulted from Israel's unilateral withdrawal clearly illustrates why the continued occupation of the West Bank is necessary and any further withdrawal without a serious peace agreement would be pointlessly self-destructive.

You can deny all you want but the truth is obvious to anyone who doesn't choose to ignore it.

‘A Dubai on the Mediterranean’

Last April President Bush said that Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza would allow the establishment of ‘a democratic state in the Gaza’ and open the door for democracy in the Middle East. The columnist Thomas Friedman was more explicit, arguing that ‘the issue for Palestinians is no longer about how they resist the Israeli occupation in Gaza, but whether they build a decent mini-state there – a Dubai on the Mediterranean. Because if they do, it will fundamentally reshape the Israeli debate about whether the Palestinians can be handed most of the West Bank.’

Embedded in these statements is the assumption that Palestinians will be free to build their own democracy, that Israel will eventually cede the West Bank (or at least consider the possibility), that Israel’s ‘withdrawal’ will strengthen the Palestinian position in negotiations over the West Bank, that the occupation will end or become increasingly irrelevant, that the gross asymmetries between the two sides will be redressed. Hence, the Gaza Disengagement Plan – if implemented ‘properly’ – provides a real (perhaps the only) opportunity for resolving the conflict and creating a Palestinian state. It follows that Palestinians will be responsible for the success or failure of the Plan: if they fail to build a ‘democratic’ or ‘decent mini-state’ in Gaza, the fault will be theirs alone.

Today, there are more than 1.4 million Palestinians living in the Strip: by 2010 the figure will be close to two million. Gaza has the highest birth-rate in the region – 5.5 to 6.0 children per woman – and the population grows by 3 to 5 per cent annually. Eighty per cent of the population is under 50; 50 per cent is 15 years old or younger; and access to healthcare and education is rapidly declining. The half of the territory in which the population is concentrated has one of the highest densities in the world. In the Jabalya refugee camp alone, there are 74,000 people per square kilometre, compared with 25,000 in Manhattan.

According to the World Bank, Palestinians are currently experiencing the worst economic depression in modern history, caused primarily by the long-standing Israeli restrictions that have dramatically reduced Gaza’s levels of trade and virtually cut off its labour force from their jobs inside Israel. This has resulted in unprecedented levels of unemployment of 35 to 40 per cent. Some 65 to 75 per cent of Gazans are impoverished (compared to 30 per cent in 2000); many are hungry.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v27/n21/sara-roy/a-dubai-on-the-mediterranean

They're just as accurate here as they were on Iraq!

Now you've really gone off the deep end.

GW Bush nor Friedman..she is pointing out their idiocy and why Gaza has failed,
which turns your previous claims about Gaza upside down.

If you wish to not read a response and the entire OP then say so..if you continue
to deceive, that is your choice, but a poor one.

The plain truth is that Israel withdrew from Gaza and Hamas choose to turn it into the hellhole it is today.

Your desperate attempts at denial just get more and more absurd.

OP for Bush nor Friedman..you can't admit it..pathetic. Enjoy your delusions.

You have refuted nothing Roy has documented, which she has worked on for years but
I should rely on your opinion and ignore her extensive work:


Sara Roy
Associate of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies
Email: sroy@fas.harvard.edu
Phone: 1-617-496-9591
Office Location: 17 Sumner Road, Room 205
Biography:
Sara Roy (Ed.D. Harvard University) is a senior research scholar at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies specializing in the Palestinian economy, Palestinian Islamism and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Dr. Roy is also co-chair of the Middle East Seminar, jointly sponsored by the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs and the Center for Middle Eastern Studies, and co-chair of the Middle East Forum at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies.

Dr. Roy began her research in the Gaza Strip and West Bank in 1985 with a focus on the economic, social and political development of the Gaza Strip and on U.S. foreign assistance to the region. Since then she has written extensively on the Palestinian economy, particularly in Gaza, and on Gaza’s de-development, a concept she originated.

Dr. Roy is the author of The Gaza Strip: The Political Economy of De-development (Institute for Palestine Studies, 1995, 2001, third edition forthcoming); The Gaza Strip Survey (The West Bank Data Base Project, 1986); Failing Peace: Gaza and the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict (Pluto Press, 2007); and editor, The Economics of Middle East Peace: A Reassessment, Research in Middle East Economics, Volume 3 (Middle East Economic Association and JAI Press, 1999). Her most recent book, Hamas and Civil Society in Gaza: Engaging the Islamist Social Sector (Princeton University Press, 2011), was a winner of a 2012 British-Kuwait Friendship Society Prize in Middle Eastern Studies. It was also chosen one of Choice's Outstanding Academic Titles and one of the Top 25 Academic Books for 2012. The research for this book was funded by a grant from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. Dr. Roy also has authored over 100 publications dealing with Palestinian issues and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and has lectured widely in the United States, Europe, and Australia among other international venues.

http://cmes.hmdc.harvard.edu/people/research-associates

but I can understand why you're afraid to address them directly.

Roy is an excellent well established scholar on the subject of Gaza. You on the other hand,
brought Israeli policy talking points.

as they were recently banned from participating in the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, in large part because of their alleged support of BDS, now here we see a ripe opportunity for J-Street to disprove such allegations

Read more: http://www.jta.org/2014/04/30/news-opinion/politics/presidents-conference-rejects-j-street-membership-bid#ixzz35Ul7iwhg

more about J-Street on DU

http://www.democraticunderground.com/113462989

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=60927