They don't even try to hide their goal of ending the Jewish state.

That's pretty much what you are getting at even though you are not saying it.

That being said, I have no problems with those Palestinians who were alive in 48 being allowed to return and receive reparations.

I can think of no way that full RoR can actually work.

Jews anywhere in the world, regardless of how distant their ties to ancient Israel are, have more rights to become an Israeli citizen than the Palestinians, or their families, wrongfully evicted from their lands in the late 1940s?

Did I mention that your viewpoint is hypocritical?

This is one of the topics that brings out the worst in people - one has to ignore the churlish comments if you want to participate in the discussion.

They were not wrongfully evicted. They were on the losing side of a war. Big difference. Israel, as a sovereign country has the right to set their own citizenship laws. Do you deny their right to do so?

I'm glad that I can see your insights into the Israeli ethnic cleansing of an indigenous population.

The Palestinians are not unique.

What is your solution? What does RoR mean to you?

I'll tell you what.

I'm just going to let DUers read your horrible excuses for ethnic cleansing.

Not even the UN is demanding full RoR

Jews anywhere in the world, regardless of how distant their ties to ancient Israel are, have more rights to become an Israeli citizen than the Palestinians, or their families, wrongfully evicted from their lands in the late 1940s.

What it means to me is that the Israelis have treated the Palestinians as the Romans treated the Israelites of old.

What it means to me is that there are some in this group who are apparently...willfully blind to that.

What it means to me that until this wrong has been remedied that Israel has and is practicing ethnic cleansing.

What it means to me that a ROR for the original Palestinians will not happen since it would mean a fairly diminishing group of aging Palestinians leaving their families to return to Israel...which Israel knows they won't do.

What it means to me is that they hawkish Regan democrats that pass themselves off as liberals for Netanyahu really could care less about Israeli atrocities as long as greater Israel grows.

What it means to me is that Israel has sucked the USA into this ongoing trap when the USA should have told Israel that it would never fund a state built on ethnic cleansing, occupation, colonization and now apartheid.

What it means to me is that until Israel addresses its ugly past it will only sink deeper into its own hubris: jeopardizing its future.


ROR is a start.

What actually happens on the ground?

Israel has fucked up on not only on ROR, but also on occupation, colonization and apartheid.

Big fuck ups.


Israel needs to give back what it has illegally acquired from a fleeing population.

Last edited Mon Aug 18, 2014, 06:17 AM - Edit history (1)

Nothing more than a way to demonstrate your moral superiority. Doesn't help the Palestinians one whit but does wonders for your ego.

So are you saying that Israel are to withdraw to the 48 borders? Really? Not even the UN says that.

And if you feel all "beat up" then perhaps you're feeling a little guilty about something.

At first, I put up with all the things I see on here that are just...ridiculous,
because peace and love, build bridges, or at very least, know your enemy.

I've given up. I want to be able to see reports in this group without
the ridiculousness, so I've started blocking people who are just
off the wall hypocritical, ridiculous, and unreasonable.

Guess they can't see the forest for all the hate.

Does RoR mean return to the 48 borders? Afraid to say what you really think?

Israel is still evicting the Palestinians from their lands. Fucking callous.

And the best some dan do is whine about 1948 borders?

How would you implement it? So it only applies to the people that were there in 48? What land would you allow Israel to keep? Or are they to become Israeli citizens?

They and their descendants.

It is oh so wondrous that the hasbaristas continually ignore the Palestinians right to return home from exile / ethnic cleansing but welcome anybody that is Jewish as a citizen: the height of hypocrisy.

the heirs of ethnic cleansing citizenship. Seing how Israel is still stealing Palestinian land I would probably have to doubt that the racist colonist government would do anything except aquire more land it does not have the right to take...displace more of the population of the hated Palestinians.

Here is a snippet of the mindset of hatred.

"it's a recognition that Israel values one group (their own), over another..."

You just want Israel to go away. Got it

You really don't "got it" hack.

Simple question.

The biggest problem is that Israel and its supporters, for lack of a better definition, are against giving back any land that they have absconded with.

Israel is the solution to this complicated question. Israel must be the one that realizes stolen land is stolen and has to be returned.

What is simple to the point of naivete, though, is the intellect that demands I have a detailed plan of action when the logical plan was not to steal land, or to continue to so so, that did not belong to Israel in the first place. Instead of realizing that it it the responsibility of Israel not to take land as war booty the wrong-headed query devolves to how I am going to solve a problem that could easily be solved if Israel started doing the right thing.

As is usual, Israel makes the mess, and when that is pointed out demands are made that I or other critics have to solve it.

That reminds me quite a lot of the Republicans (aka Wall Street) breaking the US economy then demanding that the Democrats or President Obama have to fix it...have to come up with a solution to their fuck-up.

Israel can't give back that land. Several generations of Israelis have lived there for over 60 years. They are going nowhere. So some other solution has to be found.

Sure they can. It wasn't Israel's to "give" in the first place now was it?



Doubling down on surly are we?

No Israeli government nor the public will support it. There is support for removing the West Bank settlements but you are demanding they give up land in Israel proper. It will never happen.

Why would they support giving up land that they have stolen from others?

It doesn't paint the average Israeli in a good light.

And judging the Israeli public harshly because they don't embrace it like you do. Here is a clue - unlike you, the existence of Israel is important to them.

You live in some alternative reality.

One day perhaps you'll explain how your charge that anyone who supports Israel must support their leaders and therefore must support murder. But you'll fight the logical conclusion of that. That because YOU support Gazans, you must support their leaders so therefore support rockets raining down on Israel, suicide bombers, killing of gays and terrorism.

Leaders come and go, but this policy remains.

To support Israel, in its present form, is to support this policy.

Deal with it.

always be terrorists. And you support them. See how that works

when you say that Israel's future is in jeopardy. Israel cannot fend off the Arabs around them, who have greater numbers, forever. It might only take a few years, but it is just a matter of time before Israel is toast.

100 rockets were launched today against Israel, and yet the media presents more about the airstrikes of Israel as "violation of ceasefire" when it keeps turning up that Hamas are doing it? Hamas needs to be disarmed and under control before it goes out of hand.

I don't know much, but I can tell you this, if you want a bit more unbiased reporting, I'd go to www.honestreporting.com.

BDS supporters, all that tortorious hatred for the Jews, getting involved in a cult-like environment such as BDS which actually harms Palestine, not help them? A little research on BDS helps shed more light about. Let the Israeli ship through at Oakland so they can unload the goods that both sides made, and admit that the BDS movement is completely a hate group against Israel and Jewish people in general. Evidence supports that fact, even Chomsky does not support the concept of BDS as it harms Palestine.

I have relatives in Israel, so I have vested interest in this topic.

snip*Activities
Film production

Honest Reporting, in addition to media watch activities, produced a documentary discussing the Arab-Israeli conflict in association with The Clarion Fund (which is headed by Ephraim Shore's twin brother Raphael Shore).[5] This film was entitled Relentless: The Struggle for Peace in the Middle East. The same team produced a film titled Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West. Honest Reporting's subsequent videos include What Really Happened?, which deals with the al-Durrah affair.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HonestReporting

Are you capable of a civil discussion? Not everyone that disagrees with you has to become an enemy.

Deal with it instead of playing the victim.

Instead you decided to complain.

Really?

International law disagrees with you
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=77668

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

YOUR COMMENTS

Telling a fellow DU member you disagree with to "Seek medical help"
Is not on.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Wed Aug 20, 2014, 11:07 PM, and voted 4-3 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I'm sorry but seek medical help is OTT
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I have to agree, telling people to seek medical help is not something that should be done on DU

Thank you.

to set their own citizenship laws when they will not allow Palestinians to immigrate?

That doesnt mean Israel couldnt have stopped trying to steal every foot of land after the 1967 war.


go hawks.

Including Gaza.

Had the Arabs not chosen war, then there would have been no refugees to begin with, and Israel would have be created still. The truth is that most of the refugees not only were not evicted, they didn't come from areas within Partition Plan Israel. They came from areas that the Arabs would have had for their state if they had chosen peace and coexistence. But those areas are part of Israel now, the Israelis have no obligation to abandon them, and they have on obligation to take back any of the refugees.

There is no, 'those areas are part of Israel now'. You cannot take the land and expel the people in our day and age and still get considered a democracy. So by your reasoning, if Egypt got stronger than Israel and demanded a partition of Israel in their favor, Israel decided to fight a war with them about it and Egypt won, that land would just b part of Egypt now. And for Israel to demand their land back and go home, would be trying to end the State of Egypt.

Your hypothetical doesn't parallel history, so it's completely irrelevant. However, if Egypt were to have attacked Israel (which it has several times), and Israel in the process of defending itself had taken Egyptian land (which it did several times), then Israel would have the right to keep it. Instead it gave back Egyptian land for a peace agreement (which it wouldn't have gotten if it hadn't taken the land in the first place). Additionally, the land that Israel took wasn't "Palestinian." It could have been had the Palestinians not started a war to drive out the Jews, but they never actually had sovereignty over the land in question so it wasn't "theirs." And once they rejected not only the Partition Resolution, but any compromise, they set the game, the stakes, and the means. They chose an all or nothing war; they have to live with the results.

You cannot 'take' land!! Period!! That's why you get deligitimized. It is arrogant to think that you are the exception to the rules.

Cannot take land by conquest.

if you take your enemies land, even in a defensive war, you are still required to give it back afterward. Israel has not given back all the land it took, but only about 90% of it when it gave back Sinai.

1956 - Israel invades egypt. is forced to retreat by a rare show of diplomatic unity between the Us and USSR

1967 - israel attacks Egypt, occupies Sinai.

1967 - 1973 - Egypt and israel trade fire in Egypt during hte "war of attrition."

1973 - Israel and Syria launch counter-offenses to liberate their territories - sinai and GOlan - From Israeli occupation. The US intervenes, turning the tide against Egypt and Syria.

1979 - Israel - egypt peace treaty signed.

No, belligerants have a right to occupy territory seized in the course of the fighting. occupation is very different from "keeping" and is understood to be a temporary situation, to be reversed with peace between ht ebelligerants.



It wouldn't have needed a peace treaty if it hadn't invaded Egypt twice and tried to annex Egyptian territory, either.



Well no, they weren't sovereign because htey were under occupation by the british. Occupation means you're not sovereign. Of course this means that the Jews were not sovereign either. And they were the oens who started the war by conducting ethnic cleansing. With military arms funneled to them by the british.

When the british withdrew, the Israelis declared independence, but the Palestinians could not because at that point broad swaths of the remaining Palestinian territory outside of Israel's declared borders was under Israeli military occupation.

so you've really got a circular argument here, where it's okay to kill and steal from the Palestinians because "they're not sovereign," but it is in fact the killing and stealing that prevents them from being sovereign.

Do note that "sovereign territory" is a term that refers to extent of government control, while "legal territory" means something wholly else entirely, the territory that legally belongs to a state, nation, or non-state entity.



well, point of fact the Zionist delegation rejected it as well - because they had the firepower to seize what they wanted, and the tacit approval of the British to do so. so they did. it was only when the time came to declare borders that htye sudenly realized, "oh, we need some lines!"

As for the Palestinians, can you imagine ANY nation or people on earth ceding 60% of its territory to ten years of immigrants, with nothing gained for doing so? because that was the essence of the partition plan - it was just assumed what White Makes Right - and reading your post, that still seems to be the assumption.

Scootalo is correct when he says Egypt never attacked Israel. In 1973, Egypt did launch a surprise attack on Yom Kipur, but since Israel had taken Egyptian territory in the prior war, Egypt’s attack can only be characterized as a defensive maneuver to protect the territory it had previously lost.

Oh, that 1973 war. How I love to read about it. It is the only war that the Arabs indisputably won. It was great, great victory.

1948: Egypt launches unprovoked attack on Israel, joining the war started by the Palestinians to drive out the Jews.

pre-1956: The Egyptians fund, train, arm, and control guerilla groups that launch attacks on Israel from Egypt.

1967: Egypt commits act of war against Israel by blockading the Israeli port of Eilat, and violates the truce agreement that ended the 1956 war by moving large forces into Sinai.

1973: Egypt launches surprise attack on Israel to force return of the Sinai without Egypt having to enter into a peace agreement with Israel.

1982: After failing to force return of the Sinai without a peace agreement, Egypt finally agrees to peace in exchange for return of the Sinai.

[font color=blue]Scoot>Of course this means that the Jews were not sovereign either. And they were the oens who started the war by conducting ethnic cleansing. With military arms funneled to them by the british.

When the british withdrew, the Israelis declared independence, but the Palestinians could not because at that point broad swaths of the remaining Palestinian territory outside of Israel's declared borders was under Israeli military occupation.[/font]

Other than the fact that the Jews were not yet sovereign (though they were a state in all but name), none of what you have posted here is true. No, the Jews did not start the war by committing ethnic cleansing. The Arabs (Palestinians) started the war by launching guerilla and then military attacks on the Jews. And no, the British did not funnel arms to the Jews. They barred the Jews from obtaining arms. And no, the Palestinians were not prevented from independence because of Jewish military activity. Most of the territory slated for the Arab state remained under Arab control. The Palestinians were prevented from achieving statehood by 1) not particularly wanting it, and 2) by the occupation of most of their allotted territory by Jordan and Egypt.

[font color=blue]Scoot>well, point of fact the Zionist delegation rejected it (the Partition Resolution) as well[/font]

That is not true. What's your source for that statement?

No, Egypt, as part of the Arab league, moves to halt a civil war and ongoing ethnic cleasning on Egypt's borders. You might as well claim NATO launched an unprovoked attack on Serbia.


The nations are at war, a war begun by Israel's ethnic cleansing of Arabs on egypt's border.



No, Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping. As the straits are in egyptian territorial waters, this is Egypt's right to do. That Irael post facto took this as cause for war does not actually make it a legitimate cause for war.



Which was not an attack on Israel, but rather an effort to reclaim Egyotian territory.



1979 is when the treaty was signed. it went into full effect in 1982



No, the british very much funneled arms. They violated a 1947 UN arms embargo to the territory to do so, in fact.



At the time of the end of the British mandate, israel was in occupation of most of the land that is between Israel's borders and the 1949 armistice line. Palestine could not declare independence with that land occupied. The resultant occupation from Jordan and Egypt just underscored what they already could not so.

Not worth my time.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you're right... That Israel's independence was necessarily predicated on the expulsion of 720,000 Palestinians.

Would that then mean that Israel should be expected to extend the right of return to not merely those refugees but also all of their descendants, bearing in mind that such an action would effectively end the state's existence?

Setting aside the fact that you're proposing the imposition of a right that has never before been extended to any group, requiring a redefinition of the term "refugee" (already granted exclusively to this specific population); is it acceptable to demand that any state enact a policy that would mean the destruction of that state?

Last edited Tue Aug 19, 2014, 01:33 PM - Edit history (2)

Really, shak?

Israel extends that guarantee to pretty much anybody that can show they are Jewish: regardless of how long ago their ancestors lived in the area.

The hypocrisy in your statement is horribly blatant.

The Israeli right of return granted to Jewish people has nothing in common with the proposed palestinian RoR. The first was created as a bulwark against global anti-semitism, a natural extrapolation of an ethnic nation which considers the welfare of its diaspora population to be a matter of national self-interest. The proposed Palestinian RoR seeks to repatriate (palestinian) victims of the ethnic cleansing which occurred during the war of independence. The latter being seen as a right derived from refugees' previous occupancy on land now claimed by Israel. The two are entirely different.

Setting aside that discussion, (I don't expect you to agree with my assessment anyway), I'd still like you to answer my question.

Regardless of any perceived legitimacy or hypocrisy on your part, is it ever reasonable to make a demand of ANY state when the implementation of that demand could conceivably result in that state's destruction?

And if so, is it realistic to expect any state to accede to such a demand?

Bullshit it is. What you have just concocted is an excuse to value one group above another.

Somehow IMHO you would have been reasonably comfortable with that point of view in either old South Afrika or the old Southern USA.

What a continual joke these excuses are for the benefit of land theft, colonization and apartheid.

No, it's a recognition that Israel values one group (their own), over another, (the group they have been at war with. Such is the case with all ethnic nations, and is a common feature of conflicts split down ethnic lines. Using words like "concocted" and "excuse" says to me that you are unwilling or unable to objectively look at the historical circumstances under which this conflict originated.

I notice you're avoiding my question. It's a fair consideration though. Are you simply here to mindlessly repeat anti-Israeli platitudes or are you willing to actually address the issues raised by the policies you supposedly endorse?

You couldn't have argued for the old bigotry of hatred any better with that line.

I'll let you set a spell and compose yourself. Your mask just came completely undone.

It seems like you really don't want to answer that question, do you? I can't say I blame you, considering how invested you are in BDS here.

Calling me a bigot doesn't really affect the relevance of that question much, does it?

again for the record.

"it's a recognition that Israel values one group (their own), over another..."

"it's a recognition that Afrikanns values one group (their own), over another..."

"it's a recognition that Southerners values one group (their own), over another..."

"it's a recognition that bigots values one group (their own), over another..."




Water is still wet, shak.

Very interesting. How hard you try to argue that I'm a bigot seems to be directly related to how hard you're trying to avoid the actual topic.

Your insistence on proving my bigotry seems far more important to you than mounting a reasonable defense of your own political views. Why is that?

No, you did that all yourself. You can take the credit for your actions.

justify what he admits to be his bigotry? All bigotry is bad. Yet all he can say is that proving he is a bigot does not win the argument.

Let a bigot talk long enough and you will eventually see their mask slip.

There's a big difference between ignoring a baseless accusation versus agreeing with it. I didn't respond to a blatant attempt at derailing the thread because I really wanted to see if he'd be able to respond to the actual issue I raised. (You'll notice that he never did btw... Just repeatedly posted over and over that I'm a bigot.)

I'll just assume at thousands point that you're either unwilling or unable to consider the question I asked.

I always enjoy it when you guys suddenly abandon the thread in favor of straight up trolling.

again for the record.

"it's a recognition that Israel values one group (their own), over another..."

"it's a recognition that Afrikanns values one group (their own), over another..."

"it's a recognition that Southerners values one group (their own), over another..."

"it's a recognition that bigots values one group (their own), over another..."



Thanks for the present.

But thus far it doesn't seem that you understood what I was talking about. As evidenced by your poor attempt at parallel reasoning. Either that or you deliberately misrepresented my statement. Either seem possible.

Neither "southerner" nor "africaans" are nations. In fact they're not even ethnic groups. Better examples would be Japanese, Polish, Greek, German, Korean, Italian, Kurdish, Armenian, Druze and so on. Feel free to try again.

The bigoted question is

"Regardless of any perceived legitimacy or hypocrisy on your part, is it ever reasonable to make a demand of ANY state when the implementation of that demand could conceivably result in that state's destruction?

And if so, is it realistic to expect any state to accede to such a demand?"

The answer is Yes. If a country did ethnic cleansing, it should undo it even at great expense. And anyway, if Israel was worried the Arabs would outvote the Jews, it can always carve out a smaller sized country that excluded the Arab areas. If you take out the Galilee, Yafo, and East Jerusalem, there won't be many Arabs left. The Palestinians would agree in a second, if they were allowed to have a state in the Areas under the original UN Partition plan.

A new report issued by the Simon Wiesanthal Center has labelled the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) movement against Israel “a thinly-veiled, anti-Israel and anti-Semitic ‘poison pill,’ whose goal is the demonization, delegitimization, and ultimate demise of the Jewish State.”

The report, which was compiled by Dr. Harold Brackman, takes a comprehensive look at the origins of the movement dating back to 2001. Among its many conclusions is that BDS “is a movement that does not help better the life of a single Palestinian and which is oblivious to major human rights disasters erupting throughout the Middle East and beyond.”

As a determining factor of BDS’s illegitimacy, the report uses Natan Sharansky’s ‘three Ds test’ for when criticism crosses the line into anti-Semitism:


http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/03/19/simon-wiesenthal-center-report-bds-a-thinly-veiled-anti-israel-and-anti-semitic-poison-pill/

A final word on Greta Berlin and the Free Gaza controversy
Submitted by Ali Abunimah on Thu, 10/18/2012 - 18:02
On 6 October I published a post casting doubt on Free Gaza movement co-founder Greta Berlin’s explanation of how she came to tweet a link to a video of an anti-Jewish diatribe by notorious anti-Semite and conspiracy theorist Eustace Mullins, from the @freegazaorg Twitter account.

Like others, I had at first accepted Berlin’s explanations that it had all been a mistake, just one single tweet posted in the wrong place, that was supposed to have been part of an anti-racist discussion in a private Facebook group.

But as the versions of the story began to vary, my doubts grew. Once I saw the content of the “Our Land” Facebook group that Berlin administers, I was certain we were dealing with a well-established pattern of exchanging, tolerating and indulging truly racist material that has no connection to Palestine solidarity work.


http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/final-word-greta-berlin-and-free-gaza-controversy

http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Chomsky-says-BDS-tactics-wont-work-may-be-harmful-to-Palestinians-361417

http://mondoweiss.net/2012/02/norman-finkelstein-slams-the-bds-movement-calling-it-a-cult.html



&feature=player_embedded


http://honestreporting.com/finkelstein-on-bds-a-cult-of-dishonesty/

Simon Wiesenthal Center + Greta Berlin + Chomsky + Norman Finkelstein ....

Not an Israeli amongst them King_David .

Here let me help you balance that out :

http://tv.social.org.il/en/a-new-anthem

The Israel's National Anthem was sung at the end of a demonstration in Tira (07/12/2014) attended by Jews and Arabs in protest against the war in Gaza (Operation Protective Edge). Words of the anthem were replaced with words that celebrated human rights and equality for all inhabitants of the region. Words by Yonatan Shapira, a refuser and peace activist

Thanks for your contribution and links.

Israelis within Israel can't really boycott Israel it comes from outside.

.....well the Boycott Law put an end to that King_David .....we at Gush Shalom promoted the boycott of settlement produce as an example .

Dont tell me you have never heard of the Boycott Law ????

Here , once again , let me educate you : ........

http://tv.social.org.il/en/war-of-all-against-left

Earlier this week, the Ministerial Legislative Committee continued preparation of the NGO law, toward the second and third readings in parliament. The significance of the law is: imposition of a high tax of 45% on NGOs calling for a boycott of Israel, or calling to prosecute IDF soldiers, or denying state symbols.
The NGO law has joined about 30 new anti-democratic laws which have been passed by the Knesset in recent years, or are currently in the process of legislation with government support. The government has never been so determined to curb its opponents in so many aspects of civic life, with the explicit goal of limiting the livelihoods of its opponents, and running amok by exploiting its power.

The bad news is it won't be fast enough to prevent more Israeli killing of civilian Palestinians.

I have made it a point to buy Israeli goods whenever possible.
Thanks BDS movement for giving me a list to buy from

European Commission directives effective September 1 lead Israel to halt sale of certain settlement-made products.

AFP Published: 08.18.14, 00:38 / Israel News

Israel will end its export of poultry and dairy produce to the European Union from Jewish settlements considered illegal by the international community, Israeli and European officials said on Sunday.

The restrictions stem from directives issued by the European Commission in February and affect chicken and milk products from settlements in east Jerusalem, the Golan Heights and the West Bank.

"In keeping with previous decisions, the EU no longer recognized the authority of the veterinary inspections services of Israel to approve the export of poultry and (dairy products), the origin of which are in settlements," a European official told AFP.

The official said that during discussions over implementation of the directives, the "Israelis were asked to put in place a system of distinguishing between the origins of dairy products and poultry."

"If that is put in place that won't affect poultry and dairy products exported from Israel," the official said, noting the new directives would be effective from September 1.

An Israeli official involved in the affair told AFP that the agriculture ministry had recently issued directives to poultry and dairy manufacturers to "prepare for the EU decision and separate manufacturing lines, to enable the continued export to the Europe" without including products from settlements.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4559706,00.html

Summary : Not only did Israel lose its deterrence edge against Hamas, it also severely exposed its frayed ties with the US and the international community and faces a more comprehensive European boycott of settlement products.

Extracts : ....

One other, equally important topic is the European boycott. When Obama started his second term, I reported here the modus operandi that was planned for the diplomatic process. As it turns out, the Americans and Europeans entertained the possibility that the diplomatic process between Israel and the Palestinians would derail. That assessment came true. The plan was then to take measures — led by the Europeans — to harm Israel, including implementing economic boycotts in certain areas.

The current European boycott on dairy products originating from farms or dairies beyond the Green Line (including the Golan Heights) is such a premeditated and calculated move. At this stage, the United States cannot boycott Israel. Such an act would be tantamount to declaring war and bluntly abolishing the strategic ties between the two countries. This is why Obama is doing what he did during the crisis in Libya — leading from behind.

Al-Monitor learned, some 18 months ago, that the European boycott was devised together with the United States. In this affair, the Europeans play the role of the “bad guys,” realizing the fantasy of the Obama administration. They were the ones chosen to hurt Israel. For his part, Obama will say that he is powerless to help. This is how the noose around Israel’s neck will be tightened, to the point of seriously damaging its economy.

At the moment, the boycott applies only to dairy and livestock products. The next stage will apparently apply to fruits and vegetables, the poultry industry and possibly even the wine industry. Although the damage to the Israeli economy is not significant at this point, the precedent, however, is very significant. For the first time, the Europeans are not talking about “labeling” products from the settlements. In fact, they’ve stopped mincing words. In a broad and sweeping move, they are simply stopping the import of products manufactured beyond the Green Line even if they contain only one ingredient that originates from there.

The European boycott is already here. And unlike the impression Israel is trying to make, this is not an anti-Semitic move, but purely a political one. It was planned by Israel’s greatest friends — the United States and Europe — in order to apply pressure on Netanyahu government’s settlement policy.

Given this state of affairs, it seems to me that dealing with anti-Semitism would actually be preferable. At least in that case, Israel has something to say to counter baseless hatred. Yet when it comes to boycotting the settlements, Israel has a lot less to say.

Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/08/protective-edge-gaza-hamas-idf-kerry-1.html#ixzz3B16Y33wt

Shatha YaishMajeda El Batsha| Agence France Presse

RAMALLAH, Palestine/HAIFA, Israel: In Gaza, Israelis and Palestinians are battling it out with rockets and airstrikes. But in Israel and the West Bank, the two sides have found a new weapon: boycotting.

Local products are flying off the shelves in the occupied West Bank while Israeli goods are being left untouched. And in Israel, Arab shops are deserted – even on shabbat, the Jewish day of rest, when Arab Israeli businesses have always made their biggest takings.

“These days I have changed my habits. Because of the Israeli war against Gaza, we stopped buying any Israeli products,” said Salah Mussa, a Ramallah resident.

“Now we are only buying Palestinian products. This is not only my decision, it’s a family decision.”

Overseas, a Palestinian-led boycott campaign has seen growing success in recent years.

Known as the BDS movement – boycott, divestment and sanctions – it aims to put political and economic pressure on Israel over its occupation of the Palestinian territories in a bid to repeat the success of the campaign which ended apartheid in South Africa.

Read more: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2014/Aug-20/267795-boycott-battle-in-israel-west-bank-shops.ashx#ixzz3AtA17BTs
(The Daily Star :: Lebanon News :: http://www.dailystar.com.lb)

that an economic boycott will get the stolen land back? I think the only effective means to get land back is terrorism, and this is why the majority of Palestinians supports attacks on civilians, including rockets upon cities. It is a lot like the US did in Hiroshima, except the US managed to kill 50,000, while the Palestinians have only killed 3.

justify terrorism to meet a political goal. It is not possible to justify using excessive force
due to the fact that one may possess the military technology to advance and defeat
your opponent. It is not possible to justify using political cover from the most powerful
country on earth to level an historic defeat upon defenseless people and to use military
might that does not discriminate civilians from combatants.

If this conflict ends with the Palestinians left without a viable state, there will be
no justification for it...not possible. Those who contributed/supported such an end will
have blood on their hands in perpetuity as well as any ensuing brutal resistance that
may likely come from such a "peace" deal.

Civil disobedience, en masse, in conjunction with the courts may be the Palestinians
last hope.

It is unclear to me from what I've read from various corners of the BDS movement. What steps would have to be taken from the movement to call off the boycott? For instance, if Israel was to lift the Gaza siege and end all incursions into that territory, presumably, the BDS movement would still continue because of the situation in the West Bank (and may in fact be emboldened to push even harder). So would it take the removal of all settlements and withdrawal to the Green Line, including the ceding of East Jerusalem to a Palestinian state that would comprise all of the West Bank and Gaza? If that happened, would the boycott be called off or would it continue in light of the inequality within Israel itself in its treatment of Jewish and non-Jewish citizens? From the paragraphs excerpted above, clearly not.